Callaway Family Association - Callaway / Kellaway English Research

Back to English Research

Kell-Chat
An Ongoing International Conversation
between Callaway and Kellaway family researchers
discussing family origin, history and genealogy research in England
2002
(this file is VERY large and can be slow to load)

Primary Participants -
Warwick Kellaway (Hamilton, New Zealand)
Bruce Callaway (Sydney, New South Wales)
Bill Callaway (British Columbia)
Sherrill Williams (Unicoi, Tennessee)
Pat Schnurr (Maitland, Florida)
Cary Moore (Birmingham, Alabama)
Bill Piper (Kent, U.K.)

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Apr 28, 2002
Subject: The Conqueror and His Companions

Good Morning [Sunday here] Friends,

I have just been on my Sunday morning "web cruise" and cruised into something very interesting, I think?! Actually I was checking up on the Giffard family, just looking for a clue. Well, I bumped into a webpage containing scanned copies from The Conqueror and His Companions, by J. R. Planche, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874.

This work gives biographies of those who came and fought with William the "C" during his invasion of England. Chapter XI has "Those Unidentified" listed alphabetically. I scanned down this chapter, and here is what popped up:

Cailly, "Sire de," 1. 13, 649 [don't know what the # means....SUW] Cailly is in the arrondissement of Rouen, and there can be no doubt that one or more of the family may have been in the expedition. Osbern de Cailly was apparently the holder of the fief in 1066, as his son Roger made a donation to St. Ouen in 1080. A William de Cailgi also appears in Domesday. Although by alliances with the Giffards and the Tateshalls they became of importance in England, the companion of the Conqueror has afforded no materials for a memoir.

By the death of Thomas de Cailly, Baron of Buckenham (10th Edw. II.), without issue, the property passed, through his sister and heir Margaret, to the family of Clifton.

If you wish to view this for yourself, try the following address:

http://www.patpnyc.com/conq/uindent.shtml

That should take you to Chapter XI - or to an index which is arranged in "boxes" - this one being in the far right column at the bottom of the column. If you wish to print the item, but not the entire thing, try printing page 4. The entire chapter is 12 printed pages for me with 8 1/2 X 11 paper. You may need to adjust for English paper sizes.

Our "contemplation" for the week?

Sherrill

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Apr 28, 2002
Subject: Names, toponyms

Hi all,

I found an interesting item from the "Dutch" topic on the old Prodigy Bulletin Boards (now extinct, and much missed), dated Jan. 1997. A question had been asked about the reason for the use of "Van" preceding Dutch names. The response:

"A professor in the Netherlands once gave the following explanation: Prior to the 19th century, toponyms (location names) in Europe indicated a family of some distinction, with differing rules for their use in various countries.

In the Netherlands - "van" usually indicated position, wealth, property, etc. and could be used at the discretion of the family if they felt it was warranted.

In France - "de" ] toponyms were legally restricted to

In Germany - "von" ] land barons who tended, by definition,

In Italy - "di" ] to be persons of nobility."

What does this say for the "Caillouet's" of England?

Also, found in my 2001 notes an interesting item: from "Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries," Vol. 13 (1913) entitled "Award of the Manor of Charminster, A.D. 1577---" This involved a dispute between William Harbyn and the Prebend of Charmyster in Dorset. One of the members of the jury was Nicholas Kelwaye. There were 15 seals attached to this document, but 4 were broken off. One of the remaining belonged to Nicholas Kelwaye which displayed "a rose or cinquefoil." [There is that "rose" again. Does it signify anything?]

Finally, from my 2001 notes (and I showed this to Warwick at the 'Pitcher & Piano' in Richmond, but a "lot" was going on there!] is what I believe to be a significant item. From Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edw. VI, Vol. I (one), pp. 285-288: [this is dated 18 Aug 1548 and regards Augmentations paid by John Whytehorne & John Bayley of Charde, Soms - and covers a number of grants, one being]: "And whereas Thomas, formerly abbot, and the convent of Bukland, Devon, by indenture dated 30 Aug. 9 Hen VII [1494], granted to Henry Slade of Columpton, Devon, the reversion of three mills in Columpton with the multure of the tenants there, and the space of 8 feet on either side of the mill race then in the tenure of John Kelway and Elizabeth his wife (for the term of the life of said Elizabeth), for 80 years from the conclusion of the tenure of the said Elizabeth, at 66s. 8d. rent, payable quarterly; which said Elizabeth died at Colompton 24 June 3 Henry VII [1512]; and whereas the said abbot and convent by another indenture granted to the said Slade lands in Blackewyll within Colompton parish, for a term of years as yet [not]* expired, at 41s. rent payable quarterly; and whereas the said Slade, by will, gave to Nicholas Kyrkeham and others his estate and terms in these premises with the intention that they should find a priest to celebrate in the New Guild at Colompton and whereas William Peers, by will, gave the wardens and parishioners of Assheprynton his estate and term of years in a messuage and lands (18 ac.) there now in tenure of John Forde for the maintenance of an anniversary in the church there:

Grant to the said Whytehorne & Bayley of the said mills and other premises.

To hold from Easter last until the end of the said several terms of years, without account or other rent.

These letters without fine or fee.

By p.s. [II. 889. Hampton Court, 9 Aug. Much mutilated.]

*Supplied from the Privy Seal, omitted in the Patent Roll.

Well, Sherill thinks that John of Cullompton was married first to Elizabeth [Who?] and she died in 1512, after which he married (2) Joan Tregarthyn. We know, from the Inq. p.m.'s of Joan Tregarthan's father and grandfather, that she was very young when she married John Kelway. She gave John a bunch of children, but, unfortunately, no surviving "male heir." But, the daughters married well.

The question is, did John Kelway of Cullompton have children by Elizabeth?

Surely he did. Who are they? A lot to ponder on here!

I am so glad Warwick has a new computer. Now he can "go googling" all over the place, and waste numerous hours - but it is amazing what one can turn up that way. When I get back from Key West I will tell you the results of my search on the name spelled "Callway/Calway." The family at Wellington preferred that spelling for a long period of time. I turned up some living Callways, but found the "Calway Pub" in Madrid to be of interest. Keep that place in mind, you "pub crawlers," when you go to the Continent.

Also find it interesting that Warwick is now looking toward the IOW for his connections. And I can feel Bruce's "glee" what with Warwick now having to deal with the "C" and "K" name spelling issues. All in fun, but give us a run-down on your possible connections there, Warwick. Maybe we have something hidden away to help you out.

Blue pears! Can't wait to see that COA.

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: May 27, 2002
Subject: ORIGIN OF CAILLOUET

As promised (?threatened), I attach my extract of some twenty odd years ago, Dauzat's interpretation of the origin of Caillouet. (You sure started something Cary!)

Firstly I suggest that you print it before attempting to read it, as MS Word did not like the gaps and abbreviations inherent in the insertion of my translations and footnotes. It therefore contains lots of squiggly lines on the screen which disappear on printing. Secondly I would like you to note that nowhere does he give the alternative derivation as a pebbly place. At the time this quite perplexed me, as it ran counter to all the other authorities. It prompted me to write my "Theory of the Cheese" (which still appears on my website) and from which I still do not resile! Phillipe de Caillouet (Chaillawai etc) did in my opinion originate from Aquitaine. The points very validly put by Warwick suggests that more than one family of our ancestors originated from France in the mid to late 12th century, which is all very logical. Eleanor of Aquitaine was a very influential person who would have nothing to do with the local tradespersons and imported her own from her vast estates. All of the French nobles followed suit. You can bet your bottom dollar that they did not eat cheddar or stilton for their ploughman's lunch! (nor pebbles).

Having influence at Court, it seems logical that our Family were instrumental in ensuring that some other rels made the trip. If there were other similar surnames (with different derivations) already extant, it is also logical that the original spellings would be subsumed and corrupted as the locals (the few that were literate) would rapidly anglicise the French spelling.

Maybe we should leave this one to cook, and go back to our armorial studies whilst YB check my syntax and translation?

Kindest wishes
Bruce

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: May 27, 2002
Subject: Dictionary, Caillouet

With regard to the Dictionary, one of the points we still have to resolve family wise, if we ever can, is whether we are seeking one man, or several, who came from France. It appears there was at least one, Roger, in England long before Philip. Possibly his father or grandfather, but possibly not a relation.

Philip also may have had brothers, who could have remained in France. Some of the knights in those days seem to have been quite mobile, even if only on what we would call draught horses. One of them could have gone to the Bordeaux area at any time under the Plantagenet banner. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, had been powerful in France well before the arrival of his son Henry in England in 1154, and would undoubtedly have gathered a considerable number of fighting men around him. So there could be a connection down south.

I suspect also that there were later arrivals in England from Caillouet, after Philip. The names Bill Piper uncovered in France - Radulphus and Alexander - had matches in Dorset and Durham in the early 1200s. Not terribly common names, so perhaps they were the same people or, as it seems the eldest son then commonly got the father's name, closely related. With the traffic at that time between Norman England and Normandy, more cousins, or relatives of some sort, could have arrived, perhaps because life was not too sweet at home, or merely because they were younger sons looking for a new life. They might only have moved from one property to another they had across the Channel. Sadly we do not yet have enough information from France.

Regards
Warwick

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: May 28, 2002
Subject: Patronymics, etc

Yes Sherrill, and bald headed men probably really do eat pears in Normandy. They have special pear dishes there, despite Mr Bush. Actually he otherwise spoke very well - I got him on BBC News just after midnight last night.

It is great that you have some more news from France. I do not know the other gentlemen referred to, but were Simon and Osbert from Gloucester, in France (Bourdeaux?) in 1265?

Simon, I am fairly certain, was the son of Adam de Caylewe/Kaylli/Caley of Side and Mabel Giffard.

He was at Side, Gloucestershire, between 1255 and 1285. There has been no specific reference I can find at present to Osbert, but there were a number of Osbert Giffards, and two of them were at the murder trial of Elias's daughter Matilda about 1220-1. There is little doubt about the family relationships with the Giffards at that time, and we could reasonably assume that Osbert was Simon's brother. Henry has also not appeared before, but would seem to be a relative.

The period 1200-1300 must have been a growing prosperous time for the family - culminating in the Giffard inheritance of 1327. The first references to the pears occured during the mid 13th century, and the family references we have were in a number of different parts of England. Now it seems three of them were trading, and perhaps(?) to some extent living, in France? We knew family members were trading in the late 1300s, now it appears much earlier.

I somehow sense that there were some noteworthy men came out of Caillouet between the time of Duke William, through Henry Plantagenet, and the Crusades of Richard the Lionheart, to poor old King John. It was a period of 150 years - a long time. They clearly went to England, and very likely to south west France.

As regards the arms, maybe the pears did come in somewhere at that time.

The saltire reference I see is similar to the St Andrews Cross. Not that there is any connection with Scotland, but the grosing irons are very similar.

Good night all.
Warwick

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 2, 2002
Subject: COA

I am attaching a COA I found on a web COA vendor site. Have ya'll seen this thing before? What? No pears! No glazier's nippers!

Comments?

Bruce comments: Sure have. I believe that this is what sent Bill Piper into 'mild fits of rage' after paying large sums for spurious data. Hope you had your money returned Bill. However, the three full faced leopards with the chevron figure somewhere?

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 3, 2002
Subject: COA, etc

Hello David

Welcome. You are now in the firing line for the C/K missiles. They come from all directions.

I was pleased to see your information on Kellaways and St Giles. I was only able to make a very brief visit there in 1990, and obtain a little information from the manor owner Mrs Daphne Hoskins. Sadly did not manage to see the interior of either manor or church. The manor, I think, probably dates from around 1600, presumably by the Longs, as we had left about 1400,but is worth a visit, if you have not done so. I had been meaning to contact the lady again.

In the full version of the Chronicles, I included a schedule of the rectors and patrons of the church from 1304. If you can access the list, you will note the interesting variety of spellings for the patrons, and for the place. I knew it had been rebuilt in the 1800s, but not the reasons. Have also wondered about the manor - was it a little low lying - was that one reason why they left - was it in the present location?

The interesting point now is that the neighbouring church at Tytherton Lucas was built about the same time as St Giles (and looks fascinating). Presumably the original St Giles was much the same. I wonder what the connection was at that time, and see the name of Adam Lucas, with Elias, some 70 years before.

Originally the area of Tytherton was owned by the Giffards, and there were two "knights fees". The man we nearly all started research with, Philip de Chaillewai, was recorded as having property in Wiltshire in 1165. We think it was probably at Kellaways, although there is no real reference to the family being there until Elias appeared, 60 years later. (Bruce - Henry III 1216-1272)

The de Caillouet family seems to have had more importance in those times than the Lucas, but there may have been some blood relationship. There were several Eliases through to the 1300s, and several Adams. The family had much interest at Brimpsfield and Side in Gloucestershire in the 1200s, then "transferring" to Calewe Weston in Dorset.

Oh dear, oh dear, those pretty coats of arms. I wonder the source of this one?

The leopards faces, and the chevron, great, but the layout, and those circles!!

My suspicion is that there is a good basis for these shields, but someone then lets their imagination run away.

Best wishes
Warwick.

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 3, 2002
Subject: COA

Yes, the "leopard faces" and chevron (are those "roundels"?) means something, but what? There was a "legend" with the COA, and it goes ahead and describes the "pears & nippers" arms. I took that upstairs, but will bring it back and type it for you.

I goofed off this morning, and wasted a lot of time - but, did a "Google" on the name CAILLY. Amazing what came up. I'll report later. But, if you wish to try that, check out the 2nd or 3rd selection which is presented to you - the Normandy Web page. Rather interesting. I asked for the translation - HA HA.

You "Frenchies" may want to look at the French version first.

And I just came downstairs to order a CD-Interactive Atlas of Great Britain, from Canada - via the web.

Later,
Sherrill

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 4, 2002
Subject: CAILLY

Good morning (lunch time here, now),

A report on my recent "Google" web cruise on the subject CAILLY. I found several lineages beginning with

I Adam de Cailly - md. Emma de Tateshal

II Hugh de Cailly - md Agnes Hempstede

III William de Cailly - md Catherine

IV William de Cailly - md Alice Bews (d/o John de Braiose)

V Agnes de Cailly - born bef. 1502; md Sir John Harsick.

VI Roger Harsick

[www.tedpack.org]

Another lineage:

I Adam de Cailly - md bef. 1289, Mabel

II A. Osbert de Cailly - born 1289; md bef. 1303, Emma de Tatteshall.

B. Thomas de Cailly - born 1291; (d?) 1316 [Lord Cailly]

C. Hugh de Cailly (of Oby) - born 1303; his son:

III William de Cailly - born 1319

IV William de Cailly (Sir) - b 1344

V Agnes de Cailly - born 1370 in Oby, Norfolk, Eng.; md John de Harsick; had son, Roger.

[Note: some claim that George Walker Bush, Pres. of US, descends from Agnes &

John de Harsick.]

From the Register of the Guild of One-Name Studies, 1997-2002 - Mr. Michael F. Cayley, [email:cayley@one-name.org]

Name interest: Cayley, Cailly, de Cailly, de Kailly, de Cailli.

Another twist (from "ye Hastings Bulletin Boarde,")

Submitted by Phillip Seely (pseely@esslink.com)

Viscount de Cailly - Phillip Seely is looking for more info on one of his ancestors - the Viscount de Cailly - who came from Normandy with William the Conqueror in 1066. The Viscount was said to have been some sort of emissary just previous to the invasion, and his name appears in "A Genealogical Table of the Antient Family of Sealy" by Sir Isaac Heard of the Herald's Office........

Le Viconte de Cailly, or Cely of the ducchy of Normandy, sent from thence ambassador from Duke Wm. to Edward ye Confessor of England circa 1060.

Le Sire de Cailly, or Cely son of Viscount de Cailly, went to Eng'd with ye Conq. 1066 & was at ye memorable battle of Hastings where K. Harold was slain.

..............................................................

As we know, Cailly is in Rouen. Recall what J. R. Planche, Somerset Herald had to say in his book, The Conqueror and His Companions (1874) in Chapt. XI, "Those Unidentified."

Cailly, "Sire de,"

Cailly is in the arrondissement of Rouen, and there can be no doubt that one or more of the family may have been in the expedition. Osbern de Cailly was apparently the holder of the fief in 1066, as his son Roger made a donation to St. Quen in 1080. A William de Cailgi also appears in Domesday. Although by alliances with the Giffards and the Tateshalls they became of importance in England, the companion of the Conqueror has afforded no materials for a memoir.

By the death of Thomas de Cailly, Baron of Buckingham (10th Edw. II), without issue, the property passed, through his sister and heir Margaret, to the family of Clifton. -----[the Clifton family of Clifton Maybank, Dorset?]

The inquisition post mortem of John Gifford of Brymmesfeld - held at Gloucester, 12 July [1299], 27 Edw. 1st, before the King's escheator - shows, among many other things, "There are 28 free tenants [at Brymmesfeld], of whom Adam de Cayly holds 1 pasture to him and his heirs, and pays at the term of St. Michael 1 lb. of pepper for all service, which is worth 12d.

[Note: One Gifford lineage shows that John Gifford I, Baron (born at Broughton Giffard, Wilts c1232; d. 28 May 1299, Boynton, Wilts, married in 1257, Maud de Clifford (d/o Walter de Clifford III (Lord) & his wife, Margaret Ferch Llewellyn (whose other spouse was William Longespee).]

We, of course, know that Brimsfield (Glouc.) is one of the properties of John Giffard to which John Callaway was declared heir through his descent from Elias Giffard, by way of the marriage of Berta Giffard (b. c1185) of Brimsfield, Glouc. to Elias de Caylewe. Is there a Cailly COA?

Bruce is stirring his "curds." The "pebble-heads" have pulled out all their hair (none of us is bald, that I have seen!). Come on - Phillip de Chailewai of Gloucester, 1165 - speak to us!

Hang in there, David, it can get worse.

Sherrill

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 5, 2002
Subject: Cailley

Good morning Sherrill

It is morning here.

Wow! Without more deep thinking, my reaction is that somewhere, sometime (maybe in the mid 1100s), the Caillys and Caillouets must have got mixed.

Both villages are close in France, and there could have been a family relationship there, before they came over. Otherwise, it might only have needed a casual remark, or an association of some sort, for the names to be confused in those largely illiterate times.

The period of turmoil in England before the arrival of Henry Plantagenet in 1154 may have some place in the story. It is interesting that Philip's widow could marry into the royal house - meaning he must have had some status - we do not know what - but it would seem to be either from his own family, or because he was related to the Caillys.

Anyone researching the Caillys would of course see the continuity of their name, and not notice ours. We have discovered the two. My feeling now is that they were related way back in France.

Keep going Sherrill - it's fun.

Warwick

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 5, 2002
Subject: Gyffard/Giffard Inquisitions

Looking further at the Gyffard/Giffard Inquisitions post mortem, I find the following of interest:

Inquisition taken at Gloucester On Wednesday in the feast of Ash Wednesday, I Edward 3rd [1327] -

John Gyffard de Brummesfeld was seised in his demesne as of fee on the day he died of the castle and manor of Brymmesfeld; also of the manors of Rokhampton, Syde, Beggeworthe, and the moiety of the manor of Wynterbourne and the wood of Cayllye in Walles in co. Gloucester and held the castle and manors of Brymmesfeld and Rokhampton, together with other lands and tenements in co.

Wilts of the King in chief by barony, viz by 3 knight's fees. [In another Inq.p.m. this is called the wood of Caillye in Walles].

This further says "There is at Brymmesfeld one castle, delapidated and fallen down, with a court outside the ditch of said castle, and one dovecot."

So, our castle was useless by 1327.

Inquisition taken at Tettebury on Thursday in the feast of St. Gregory the Pope, I Edward 3rd [1327] -

Margaret, who was wife of John Giffard of Brimesfeld, and John, her son, acquired the said manor of SIDE to them and the heirs of the said John of a certain Adam Kaylly, to hold to the said Margaret and John and the heirs of the said John, forever.

Margaret, who was the wife of John Giffard, and John her son acquired the manor of Wallesto them and the heirs of the said John forever of a certain Adam Kaylly, of whom John de Kaylli held the said manor for the term of his life, by reason of which acquisition the said John attorned to the said Margaret and John her son for his fealty. In the 11th year of the lord King Edward, father of the now King, the said Margaret and John recovered the said 200 acres of wood as belonging to the said manor of Walles before the Justices of the Bench by a writ 'de vasto' against the said John de Kailli, holding the said manor for the term of his life by the judgment of the said court. After the said recovery the said Margaret granted to the said John that he might hold the said manor solely for his whole life, but she made no other estate to him thereof, nor did she remiseherestate thereof to him, nor change her estate thereof in any way. The said wood after the death of the said John, who held it for his whole life, was seized into the hand of the lord King Edward, father of the now King, as forfeited to him by reason of the plaint of Thomas, late Earl of Lancaster, in the 15th year of his reighn, and it is still in the hand of the now King, for that reason and for no other.

The whole of Walles is held of the Bishop of Worcester by the service of half a knight's fee, and is worth per annum, clear, half a mark, according to the true value thereof.

[Chan. Inq.p.m., 1 Edward 3rd, 2nd Nos., No. 23]

This is the same Inq.p.m. in which "John de Kayllewey" is declared "the kinsman and next heir of the said John, son of John Giffard of Brymmesfeld" - and gives the Kayllewey lineage from Elias & Berta.

So, now we see the Giffards acquiring this land from the de Caillys.

Interesting. This is the first mention I have seen of John de Kailli. And the "K" spelling of the name shows us the pronunciation of the "C" version of the name. The man who wrote about the "Cely" or "Sealey" may have missed the boat.

Sherrill

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jun 6, 2002
Subject: Robert Kellaway glaziers nippers

Looking further at the Gyffard/Giffard Inquisitions post mortem, I find the following of interest:

Most interesting, but I feel obliged to keep one step ahead of Sherrill rather than two blocks behind! Why has Guillaume de Gifford got 10 roundels in his coat of arms, cf. Byssett (or de Romsey) in Sir John's (vide my website, the CFA and YB Piper's). Try

http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/France/Reims_Ducs.htm#36

You will immediately say 'what's Gabrielde Saint-Marie (+1629) got to do with it?' Good question. No answer!

More importantly, and changing the subject, I have just turned out a very mouldy shoe box which must be more that 25 years old. My notes state:-

"Towards the end of the rule of Henry V111 there was considerable concern within the kingdom with respect to the production of glass. It was being required in large quantities for churches homes and Manors, it was of poor quality and under the threat from the importation of Venetian workers who obviously had higher skills in its production. By the time of Elizabeth 1 it is recorded that there were no more than fifteen glass manufactories in the whole of England. In 1589 it was proposed by a new patent issued by the Privy Council to reduce this number to two.

Thomas Mefflyn was granted a Royal licence to "practice the art feat and mistery of melting and making all manner of glasses with sea and other pit coal". Since the use of wood had been prohibited prior to this for the manufacture of glass, both because of the denudation of the southern forests and the "offense of the smell" now drifting from the Surrey Chiddingfer Glass into the more populace London.

The idea of production of high quality glass from coal was attractive to many people. Mafflynn died before his patent could be put to the test. His assign to the patent was Robert Kellaway"!!!

Re-invigorated (is there such a word?) I now refer you to my two attachments Inquisition taken at Gloucester On Wednesday in the feast of Ash Wednesday, I Edward 3rd [1327]

-I am not ignoring you Sherrill, but the mention of ash provoked the

'brainstorm' concerning the manufacture of glass and how the C/K's aquired the glaziers nippers!

Bruce

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 6, 2002
Subject: Robert Kellaway glaziers nippers

Hey, Bruce - brilliant! Which "Robert"???? That should answer our question.

The family was into glass work, no doubt. Why have you been hiding this? Keep digging in those boxes.

I will check out Guillaume de Gifford and his 10 roundels, also. This is certainly of some curiosity.

Sherrill

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 7, 2002
Subject: Glass and nippers (sans pears)

Bruce

Fascinating. It is amazing just what pops out of those shoeboxes. Now we know for certain that the family was involved with glassmaking, and well into the 1600s - who at that time I wonder.

Not sure about that Robert. Our famous aged one was dead in 1581, so in 1589 it must have been one of a couple of namesakes, who so far we have not placed.

Sorry.

Haven't been able to check the websites yet, but the C/K s intermarried with the Mansells?

I was intrigued by the Brimpsfield notes, Sherrill. So the castle was a ruin in 1327. The manor may have lasted a little longer? Maybe that was why the family lost interest.

Don't know about that John de Kailli - suspect he was a member of the Brimpsfield crew rather than the Dorset/Wiltshire family.

The "wood of Cayllye in Walles" - does that mean Wales, or is it a reference to a specific place, or even a walled location? Gloucester is very close to the Welsh Marches, so it sounds very much as though they did indeed have property there at one time. There are some intriguing places around Gloucester called Callows Hill and Callows Grave. The hill might be bald, but the grave?

More shoeboxes please.

Warwick

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jun 7, 2002
Subject: Robert Kellaway glaziers nippers

A whole day Googling and all I come up with is that John of Utynam (Flemish born) was granted by Henry V1 the first Patent for the making of glass in England in 1449 (with a 20 year monopoly provided he taught the English how to make glass)

This was apparently the first Patent ever issued in the World. John went on to supply glass for the Eton College Chapel. What we are missing, and this brought me to a halt all those years ago, is documentation of the business interests of the C/K's subsequent to this. This is a huge silence (these days described as 'commercial in confidence'). If, and I referred to history, you as a family were potentially onto a big earner which enriched the Family for some 300 years, it was a big family secret. It did not prevent the family from exhibiting a 'secret sign' (unknown to illiterates and the plebes) in the form of glaziers nippers.

The C/K's were into glassmaking (indisputable). There is a huge gap which needs to be filled. The Robert Kellaway who was ultimately assigned the patent along with Mansel, Zouch (Ashby-de-la..) Thelwall and Percival after James 1 revoked all patents, was clearly not the well documented Robert of the Inns of Court.

But he was not Smith or Jones. Do you see my problem? (and we haven't really started on the bleeding pears yet!

Haven't been able to check the websites yet, but the C/K s intermarried with the Mansells?

No. The Mansells intermarried with the Bassetts(Bisetts) who appear in Sir John's COA) Bruce

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jun 7, 2002
Subject: Glass and Nippers (sans Pears)

As a diversion from studying the art of heraldry (which threatened to place me in a monastery for R&R my re-juvenation (that word again) upon finding my mouldy shoe box has lead me into re-visiting the incontrovertible fact that the common device to the K/C's related to glass.

Sir Robert Mansell, ultimately vice-admiral and treasurer of the Royal Navy who, in ca 1617 acquired the sole rights of making glass in England, stemmed from an ancient and wealthy Welsh family who held a monopoly on the production of steel and whose family for centuries held huge properties in Wales. He incidentally was a prominent member of the "Virginia Company of London" patented by James 1 to colonise the Americas, but let me not digress!

In our search of Parish records for names relative to ours, we have ignored politics (until Warwick's intercession) and business dealings (except co-incidentally). For a flavour of the latter and Sir Robert's influence after he gained the monopoly can I refer you to http://www.interalpha.net/customer/cbrain/greenwh.htm

A lengthy article (which as YB Piper suggests with his download of the presently published COAs requires a cup of coffee) can be found. Again showing the influence of Mansell. http://www.interalpha.net/customer/cbrain/calne.htm

If you are following me, the K/C's, Mansells (and the Basetts(Bissets) were not only intermarried, but must have been privy to the wealth inherent in the production of glass (an aside for future researchers; why was the lining of glass furnaces called Basset stone?). Sherrill asks, 'which Robert Kellaway was the assign of Thomas Mafflyn(Mefflynn)?'. I must leave it up to our encyclopaedic Warwick to decide this, but my guess is the lawyer from London who had his finger on the pulse of the dissolution of the monasteries and distributed huge amounts of property and wealth to his cousins as a consequence.

But The K/C's held the glaziers nippers in their arms well before the emergence of Mansell (and indeed the Worshipful Company). My current theory is that the K/C's were well into the production of glass as a sideline before Henry V111 when wood was becoming scarce. Why would Sir John of Rockbourne have tried for many years to become the Sheriff of Hampshire and the New Forest if wood was not an issue? Control of forests and therefore wood equalled money!

"Those who do not learn from history shall perish by it". Making a fast buck is not a modern phenomenon. I believe that our ancestors not only had to survive politics, but were very successful businessmen. Maybe this is why we survived.

Long live the Glaziers' nippers!

Bruce

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 8, 2002
Subject: Manor of Side

Sherrill

Back to Side. I had noted that Simon Caley/Caleway had sold the manor of Side to his kinsman Sir John Giffard in 1284, as a bride price. However a Robert de Kailly/Kailleway, presumably his son, was still living there in 1303. Adam of Kellaways was elsewhere said to have granted the manor to the Giffards about 1315.

So things match.
Warwick

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 6, 2002
Subject: Cayley, etc.

Mr. Cayley,

I noticed your name interest on the Register of One-Name Studies, and thought perhaps you could enlighten me regarding the origin of your surname. I live in the US and am genealogist of The Callaway Family Association, Inc. We have a growing international membershipe, and for the past five years our research team has spent a month (each year) in England exploring our surname.

The name has standardized to Callaway & Kellaway with slight variations, but it evolved over the centuries from a large variety of spellings. We can, with reasonable certainty, trace our family back to one Philip de Chailewai whose name is found on the Pipe Rolls of Gloucestershire, 1165. We have thought his origins might be in the village of Caillouet in the Eure District of Normandy.

We also have a proven relation to the Giffard family. An inquisition post mortem for John Giffard (1327) shows that his heir "of the whole blood" was John Kayllewey, son of John Kayllewey and great grandson of Elias de Kayllewey who married Berta Giffard. This involved several properties, including the manor of Brymmesfeld (Brimsfield) which did actually come into the possession of John Kayllewey/Cayleway.

In exploring the origins of Brymmesfield, we discovered that it originated, at least partly, from "the wood of Cayllye/Caillye in Walles, co. Gloucester."

It came to the Giffards from Adam de Cayly (Kaylli) (who was a "free tenant" in Brymmesfeld) via his father, John de Cayley (Kaylli), who had held it for life.

The manor of Syde (Side) followed the same line of descent, from de Cayley to Giffard to John C/Kayleway.

The town of Cailly is in Rouen, but is only a few kilometers from Caillouet in the Eure district. The patronymic experts appear quite "cloudy" on the issue of the surnames.

I have explored the few lineages of the Cayley family available on the internet, acknowledging that they are often unreliable. Several mention Adam de C/Kayley, but none mention John de C/Kayley.

Realizing that we do not know how these early Normans pronounced their surnames, and that it all depended on what the scribe or clerk "heard," could it be possible that the Cayleys and the Callaways (and var. spellings) shared the same root?

I would be most interested in your comments.

Sherrill U. Williams (Mrs. Sherman Williams)

Dear Sherrill

I am sorry it has taken me a few days to reply to your message: I have been away from home. You have made me pretty excited as I think I may be on the point of discovering the existence of a branch of my family of which I was unaware!

I am reasonably confident that the de Kayllewey/Cayleway family are the same as the de Cailly/Kailly family. The Cailly/Kailly centre of interests was in East Anglia and Yorkshire in the 1300's, though they had land elsewhere too. Burke's Peerage has some outline information under "Cayley", and I have filled this out substantially. I have visited Cailly near Rouen, where the family came from. The Cailly family were quite closely connected with the Giffards, and the Elias de Kayllewey who married Berta Giffard is probably the same as Elias de Cailly who, with his brothers, gave some lands in Norfolk to the monks of Lewes (tradition has it that this was for them to look after them while the brothers went on crusade, and that the greedy monks never returned the lands). A Mabel Giffard married Adam de Cailly who flourished in the first half of the 13th century.

You have no doubt discovered references in the Close Rolls and the Inquisitions post Mortem to the Cailly/Cailwe/Kayllewey/Kaylly etc etc (there are a number of variant spellings) who was heir to the Giffards. Over a period of several months I went through all the published Calendars of State records for Cailly etc references, transcribing them to my computer.

I have loads of data on the Cailly/Cayley family, and continue to amass more. You, I gather, will have a lot on the Callaway branch, of which I know nothing after the 1300s. I would be delighted to exchange data with you but we probably need to come to some understanding about the basis on which we do this, so that we both feel we are treating each other fairly.

I had not heard of the Callaway Family Association, and would welcome information about it. I have been toying with the idea of founding a Cayley family history society - but you may have in effect beaten me to it! If it seems appropriate, and you have a journal of some kind, I would be delighted to contribute material to it - but that is for you to consider later, I guess.

What do you think is the best way of proceeding? I live near Hampton Court, on the SW edge of London, and am readily accessible by train from central London (and can get easily to central London). I am not sure what time of year your research team comes to London, but should we try to meet up when the team is next over? And in the meantime, might we move towards starting to share data?

I hope to hear from you soon. Please, though, note that work and other commitments mean I do not always check my email every day.

Many thanks for emailing me - and I really look forward to hearing from you further.

Michael Cayley

(Address provided)

From Sherrill:

Can someone tell me why the name ZOUCH is ringing my bell? I have dealt with it lately. Am I going to have to look at 400 pieces of paper to find it?

Sherrill

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jun 9, 2002
Subject: Zouch

I was mentally pronouncing the name Z-OWSH until I googled it and was overwhelmed by the famous town in the north of England, Ashby-de-la-Z-ootch which figured in a popular song of my youth. I am aware that this is both non-contributary and to-day's bit of useless information, but I am afraid that it is all that I have to offer. If I were closer, I could offer to shuffle the paper! Most interesting communication from Michael Cayley.

Bruce

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 9, 2002
Subject: Cayley

Our new friend, Michael Cayley, is interested in sharing his Cailly/Kailly records with us. As he stated in a previous note, he wonders if his Elyas de Cailly/Kailly is the same person as our Elyas C/K, great grandfather of John C/K of Brimesfield. I hope no one objects. I see it as an opportunity to resolve this name issue. I know that only in the last two years have I given the C/Kailly name any attention - such as copying references. Michael has worked on the name in Yorkshire and other northern locations that we have generally ignored, except for Durham, of course. Since The Conqueror's friends were all over the place, we should probably be paying attention to all locations during the earliest Norman years.

I had suggested to Michael that he visit the CFA website, and Bill Piper's page, particularly. He did, and his comment was "Impressive." He actually seems interested in becoming a member of CFA - and asked this question: "Is there a UK member who handles subscriptions so that payments can be made in pounds?" I will tell him that a committee is working on a credit card method.

He is obviously serious. I think he is convinced that the Cayleys and C/Ks have the same root. Well, let us see if he can convince us! He did say, that due to work demands, it will be after June 12 before he can submit anything. I am sending him our email addresses so that we can all get the news at the same time - well, some a day later! This is the email address he prefers to use:

On the "glassworks" subject. I have just looked at our Dorset tax lists and notice that in 1594 Robert Kellaway, gent, of Blandford Division, Tarrent Hinton tithing was taxed for "Goods." Is glass "goods?" Could this be our man? Who is he?

Sherrill

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 11, 2002
Subject: Cayley

Sherrill

Well done. You have struck a good one. Michael looks to have a lot of valuable information. I had been quite mystified about those names - especially that Roger about 1120. Certainly there could be something now under the C/Kailli label quite a long way back.

We await with baited breath. I wonder, do Caleys still make chocolates?

It looks as though you have the right Robert also. Not sure the "goods" there would be necessarily be glass, but he certainly would have had other merchandise. He would have been from a good family to be called "gent", so which one? Probably born about 1550?

Blandford is another question. The families in Dorset were all around Blandford, but at a distance. They had contacts there over the years, but I never found anything concrete.

I wonder about Sir John's son Giles in south west Dorset, but it may be more likely the Whitparish family,as they were the direct Sherborne heirs, and more likely to keep a hand on the glass. The only Robert I found anywhere round there was born about 1595 unfortunately.

Those tax lists, or shoeboxes, I am sure will find something.

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 11, 2002
Subject: Giles C/K

Bruce,

You are right about Giles - he laid fairly low. He doesn't seem to have played in the family fights, probably because he was not "first son" - so was down the ladder. However, he apparently did quite well for himself (no doubt with the help of "cousin Robert"). Here are a few items we have on Giles:

1542. Giles K, Gent. of Bemyster, Hd, Bowoode Tything appointed commr. (Dorset Musters) [Letters & Papers, Foreign & Domestic, Hen VIII]

1545. Letter written to Barnarde Smith of Totneys, Mr. Troblefeld & Mr. Giles Kelway "to restore unto John de Arestqueta of Saynt Sebastian in Spayne to restore a certain ship named Saint John with the goods taken, etc [Acts of the Privy Council, 1542-47] - So, he had a bit of the "pirate" in him.

1545. The Navy. Giles Calaway was Capt of "George of Ditsam," Aug 10 (40 tons, 32 men) [State Papers, Hen VIII]

1545. Giles Kayleway of Stoke Abbot & Bowode, Dorset, taxed for "land" [Dorset Lay Subsidy]

1546/7. Conveyance by Thomas Pomerey of Berry Pomery, Knt. to Giles Keylway, esq. , Berry Pomery, Devon.

1548/9. Grant to Giles Kaylway of Strowde, par. of Netherbury, Dorset & Wm. Leonard of Taunton, Somerset, merchant - Chantry of Bemystre [Dorset Chantries]

1548/9. Henry Kaylwaye of Hommington, Wilts, esq. sold to John Preston of "Ilmystre," Towker, the interest Giles Kalewaye had in 2 chantry-houses with orchards & gardens, situate in the Churchyard of Ilmyster. Preston was to pay H. Kaylewaye, G. Kaylewaye & W. Leonard in installments ["Ilminster Grammar School" from Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries] - I am not sure who this "Henry" Kaylewaye is, or why he is selling Giles' interest.

1549. To Giles Keyleway of Stroud, Dorset, esq. & Wm. Leonard of Taunton, Mercht. - The Rectory of Sheldon & Sainthill, late of Dunkeswell Abbey [Devon Monastic Lands]

1549. "In 1549, Giles Keylway of Dorset & William Leonard of Taunton combined to acquire nine Somerset properties worth over 416 pds., together with Crown lands in Devon, Dorset, Essex & Middlesex worth more than 1260 pds. (Grant #16). 95% of their grant lay in the south-west [Intro. to Calendar of Somerset Chantry Grants, 1548-1603," Somerset Record Office, Vol. 77.]

1549. "part of possessions of St. Andrew's Chantry - 19 Feb 1549, for Giles Kelway of Stroud. Conditions of Sale: Crown discharges purchaser of all encumbrances except leases, covenants and rents. Tenure in Socage; purchaser to have issues from Michaelmas last; purchaser to be bound for the woods. Signed by Richard Sackville, Walter Mildmay & Robert Keylway [Somerset Chantry Grants]

1549/50. Giles Keilwey of Strode [Strowde - in Netherbury, Dorset] & William Chaplyn of Taunton, mercht. - the free chapel of Kingston (Kynggeston) [in Corfe Castle]. Dorset. Bond.

1550. Giles Keyleway released his interest in the Rectory of Sheldon, etc. to Wm. Leonard of Taunton.

I don't think we have found the "burial" of Giles in the Dorset parish register, yet. [for the "to do" list]. However, I believe we have some of his descendants in Charlton Musgrove par, Somerset where one Giles Kellwye was churchwarden from 1574 thru 1597. This Giles had children christened at Charlton Musgrove named: Jemes, Giles, William, Joan?, Niclas, Giles (again) & Margaret [the first child named Giles was "christened" and "buried" in 1574].

Also, a John K. had a son, chr. at Charlton Musgrove in 1574.

This Giles C/K family appears to have moved a bit later to Baltonsborough, Somerset.

There should be an Inquisition post mortem for Giles, s/o Sir John of Rockborne. I will have to check our indices to see if we have a reference for one. We are working on these documents and also, Chancery cases at the PRO.

Work there can be very slow! I see no reference to Giles in the Court of Request documents we have copied. Giles seems to have stepped away from the family brawl over the Rockbourne & other family property in Hampshire.

Apparently, with the help of "cousin" Robert, Giles was able to make it on his own.

Just so that you know that we have not forgot about Giles.

Sherrill

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 12, 2002
Subject: Giles C/K

Sherrill

That is great. We should have realised that you had something there somewhere. The Somerset Giles C/K family do look to be his descendants, from your information. And there does not appear to be any Robert. I do think the Roberts were in the "other" family (not the knights), although "the" Robert clearly associated closely with the knights.

While there was a Henry from the "other" family in Wiltshire, I am fairly sure that the Henry and George you mention regarding the Ilminster sale are Giles younger brothers. Do not know why there was a sale - possibly just a redistribution of the chantry loot (from the dissolution) - but have always suspected George may have settled in Ilminster.

Bruce, I think Giles was the eldest son of the second family of Sir John, but he undoubtedly was wealthy in his own right.

Your notes on Terintone (Tytherton) are ok. They refer to the Domeday Book reference when the property belonged to an Osbern Giffard. Elias appeared there later - actually about about 140 years later! Philip's property in Wiltshire however was almost certainly Kellaways, the name that "attached" after the family arrived. There was a reference somewhere that the family lived there for seven generations - which could roughly tally between 1165 and 1400. We could not be sure that Philip actually lived there, and Elias may have been the first family occupier.

Regards
Warwick

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jun 12, 2002
Subject: Giles C/K

That is great. We should have realised that you had something there somewhere. I too am most impressed. Agatha Christie move over! For one so wealthy and with rels who had friends at court, he sure did keep his head down and away from his warring rels. Smart guy considering the politics of the time, but not helpful to researchers. He obviously wont escape Sherrill however who has given us some incredible leads.

The Somerset Giles C/K family do look to be his descendants, from your information. .

Bruce, I think Giles was the eldest son of the second family of Sir John, but he undoubtedly was wealthy in his own right. I had the eldest son of Sir John as William (whose sons were Francis, Ambrose and Edward) but you had long since corrected this. Giles was the eldest son by the second marriage (sorry) I have his brother John, the Coppersmith of Brading I.O.W. who married Elizabeth Knight as my ancestor. I will forward later (a rather poor photocopy) of the the Cowdray engraving of the sinking of the "Mary Rose" witnessed by Henry V111 which ?shows Giles' Galliasse 'The George of Ditsam'.

Just for the record, and appropos nothing, I have a SBR (shoe box remnant); "the Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense 111 in the U.K. Rolls Series, is commonly referred to as Kellawe's Register. This is a collection of documents relative to the Palatinate before and during the episcopate of Richard de Kellawe, Bishop of Durham 1310-1316"

Bruce

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 12, 2002
Subject: Giles C/K

Bruce,

You are right about Giles - he laid fairly low. He doesn't seem to have played in the family fights, probably Acts of the Privy Council, 1542-47] - So, he had a bit of the "pirate" in him.

1545. The Navy. Giles Calaway was Capt of "George of Ditsam," Aug 10 (40 tons, 32 men) [State Papers, Hen VIII]

Giles seems to have stepped away from the family brawl over the Rockbourne & other family property in Hampshire. Apparently, with the help of "cousin" Robert, Giles was able to make it on his own.

Just so that you know that we have not forgot about Giles.

Sherrill

It occurs to me, that apart from wills , photographs of the still extant Rockbourne Manor and some odd Coats of Arms, we have nothing pictorial of the medieval C/K's which is why (at the time) I was excited by Giles and the Cowdrey Engraving. No portraits of any C/K's of that time exist to my knowledge, and unless one was surreptitiously inserted into 'our' Sherbourne missal we have SWA (Sweet Fanny Adams, which is a polite version of the Australian colloquialsim!).

Giles receives a mention in a meeting of the Privy Council at Windsor on the 2nd of November 1545 as having captured a Spanish barque of San Sebastien - "taken in the west". This obviously is Sherrill's reference of the letter written to Barnarde Smith of Totneys? "to restore unto John de Arestiqueta of Saynt Sebastian in Spayne a certain ship names Saint John with goods taken" (Acts of the Privy Council, 1542-47).

Whether the ship or the goods were ultimately restored we may never know, but knowing the C/K's, I seriously doubt it!

Of no doubt however is that the "George of Ditsam" with Giles in charge was present at Portsmouth in August 1545 having come from Rye to confront the French Fleet which was at that time standing off the Isle of Wight preparatory to an intended invasion of England. As you would be all aware, the mighty "Mary Rose" went 'belly-up' (Much to the dismay of Henry), The Frogs landed 30,000 troops on the Isle of Wight creating much damage. Giles' brother Henry who was Captain of 147 men 'out of Hampshire' (Henry V111 L&P -muster by Sir Edward Bellyngham) was overwhelmed, but it ultimately proved to be the last ever invasion of England!

I attach a rather poor photocopy of the famous Cowdrey engraving. The original I believe is in the British museum (hint, hint YB). If you understand that a Galliasse is a large armed galley with three masts and 15 oars on each side of 40 tons and 32 men you should have little difficulty picking out his ship. I doubt that you will see Giles himself!

Cheers,

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 15, 2002
Subject: Giles C/K

> Bruce

> Actually the George of Ditsam may not have been too large if there were only > 32 men, unless the oarsmen didn't count - the Spanish I think did use > prisoners or slaves. With one to an oar otherwise, that would only equate > to about 6 or 7 oars each side, plus seamen, archers etc.

Tongue-in-cheek, Giles probably intermittently rowed, commanded, steered and was prepared to shoot the odd arrow. Maybe the origin of the old saying 'all hands to the pumps'.

> There is a picture of a Galleass in my original Chronicles.

I have it. Dear old Cowdrey (?Cowdroy) acurately engraved the 15 oars on the port side. Maybe it was a device to frighten the French "All hands port etc.".

Despite my levity, I have wondered over the years why the C/K's did not have portraits which have survived. After all, many lesser persons are enshrined for posterity. This and the secrecy concerning their participation in glass manufacture, their attendance at court, their obvious wealth and survival during turbulent times, must denote a survival instinct where someone concealed or destroyed 'the evidence'. We may never know. Difficult but not impossible with Sherrill et al on the job! After all they are only now digging up remnants of the Roman occupation of Rockborne and sorting out sites for glass manufactories in the 17th century.

I wonder did he return it? Slowly I suspect. This I believe is a clue based on human nature.

At this time it was very difficult to retain what one had aquired. They were very difficult times, dominated by royalty and lawyers and tax collectors.

Probably not so different from to-day! Where we have the advantage however, is that all of these persons felt , as they do to-day, that they had to write something! Bruce >

> Warwick

From: Michael Cayley
Sent: Jun 15, 2002
Subject: Callaway and Cailly

I guess Sherrill has told you all about our joint interest in whether there is a link between the Callaway and Cailly families (I am a Cailly descendant). If there is, I have a load of Cailly information I can share with you. The Cailly and Giffard families had close links, so I believe there is a strong presumption that the we have common ancestry in medieval times.

I will go through over the next few weeks the documentary evidence I have stored on my computer. Meanwhile here are some entries from State records about the Giffard inheritance. You may have them all already, in which case, apologies.

I apologise too for the length of this email but I prefer in these days of virus worries not to send attachments unless I have to.

Would it be sensible to exchange the names of the families we know of into which members of the Callaway and Cailly families married between 1150 and 1330? That might give us some more clues.

Best wishes
Michael Cayley

CLOSE ROLLS 14 MAY 1330

To Henry le Scrop and his fellows, justices to hold pleas before the king. Whereas it was lately found by certain inquisitions concerning the lands that belonged to John Giffard of Brymmesfeld, tenant in chief of the late king, which were taken into his hands by reason of John’s death, that John son of Fulk Lestraunge and Eleanor his wife, sister of the said John Giffard, and James son of Nicholas de Audele, the issue of Katherine de Audele, the other sister of John Giffard, were the nearest heirs of John Giffard, and it was also found by other inquisitions taken by the king’s order that Roger Bavent, Thomas de Grymested, and Richard Dansy were the heirs of John Giffard by divers other degrees of consanguinity, and the king, by reason of the difficulties and contradictions (varietates) arising in the said matter, sent the aforesaid inquisitions before him, and subsequently, while the matter was pending undecided before him, upon its being found by other inquisitions taken at the prosecution of John de Cailwe, asserting that he was the next heir of the said John Giffard and is of full age, and upon John de Cailwe beseeching the king to cause the lands to be delivered to him as next heir, the king sent the inquisitions before him sub pede sigilli, ordering the said justices to examine the inquisitions, and to cause to be done for John de Cailwe what should seem fit to them; and the king is now given to understand on behalf of John de Cailwe that although it was found by a jury taken before the justices that John de Cailwe is the next heir of John Giffard, the justices defer proceeding to render judgement in the matter, wherefore he has besought the king to provide a remedy: the king therefore orders the justices, if it be so, to proceed to render judgement in this matter with all speed, and, when judgement have been rendered, to send the record and process of the same with all things touching it, and all the inquisitions aforesaid before the king in chancery, so that he may cause to be done for John de Cailwe in the premises what he shall see fit.

CLOSE ROLLS 22 MAY 1330

22 May 1330, Woodstock. Enrolment of release by John de Caylewe of co. Wilts to Sir John Mautravers of his right in all the castles, manors, lands, and hundreds, with knights’ fees and advowsons of priories and churches, that formerly belonged to Sir John Giffard of Brymeself, to wit the castles and manors of Brymesfeld, King’s Stanlegh, Rokhampton, in co. Gloucester, Schernton, Stapelford, and Codeford, co. Wilts, the castle and manors of Carokenny and Eskenny in Wales.

Memorandum, that John came into chancery at Eynesham, on the said day, and acknowledged the preceding deed.

Enrolment of grant by the said John to the aforesaid Sir John Mautravers of the manors of Boyton, Eleston, and Broughton, with all other lands, knights’ fees, and advowsons of churches in co. Wilts, and of the manors of Stonhous, Stokegyffard, and Syd, with all other lands, knights’ fees and advowsons of churches in co. Gloucester.

He also grants to him the reversion of all the aforesaid manors and lands that lady Margaret, late the wife of John Gyffard, holds in dower or otherwise for term of her life of John de Caylewe’s inheritance.

Memorandum, that John de Caylewe came into chancery at Eynesham, on the aforesaid day, and acknowledged the aforesaid deed.

INQUISITION POST MORTEM

Wilts. Inq 15 January 1 Edward III

John de Caylewe is kinsman and next heir of John son of John Giffard of Brumesfeld, who died last, of the whole blood…. John Giffard of Brumesfeld, who died last without heir to himself, was the son and heir of the said John son of Elias Giffard begotten of Margaret de Nevyle, his second wife. Further, the said Elias had a sister by the same father and a mother named Berta, the great-grandmother of the said John de Caillewe, who was espoused to Elias Caillewe, who of her begat Elias Caillewe, who begat John Caillewe, who begat the present John Caillewe. The said John Giffard has no other heir of the whole blood except the said John Caillewe, who is of the age of 40 years and more.

Gloucester. Inq 20 January 1 Edw III.

Syde. The manor was acquired by John son of John Giffard of Brymmesfeld from Adam de Cayly….

{follows a similar description of John de Kayllewey’s right of inheritance]

Another inquisition in 2 Edward III because of the difficulty of the business.

From: Cary L Moore
Sent: Jun 16, 2002
Subject: Callaway and Cailly

Dear Michael,

Thank you for that, and welcome to the "World of Callaways/Kelwayes, etc."! For the sake of efficiency, we've begun to call it C/K's in our frequent e-mailings. We do not mind long messages or documents, either, for we're accustomed to that. I'm Cary Lawson Moore, one of the 3 Amer. ladies who have come to England for a month, each of the past 5 years, to research our C/K ancestors. Our earliest immigrant ancestors [those who are known to have stayed] were Peter Callaway in Maryland by 1647 and Joseph Callaway in Virginia by 1687.

I'll stop about here, so as not to make this too long, but I must add that we thoroughly enjoy what we do, and we love England! I'm sure that you and our "crew" [which is now International] can be of great mutual help to each other.

Best regards,
Cary Moore

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 16, 2002
Subject: Cayleys and other people

Hello Michael

I have been watching the mail lately, rather than joining in – mainly because of some work pressure.

However, I shall join the fray. Welcome to the club. I am also down in the antipodes, not toooo far from Bruce

- Hamilton New Zealand. (about 2000 km actually, over water).

Anyway pleased to meet you. I am the culprit for the Caillouet Kellaway Chronicles, which you may have accessed, in precis form, on Bill Piper's website. [http://members.lycos.co.uk/dreycott/chronicl.htm] It was put together mainly from LDS films that I have scanned here, but more recently with information from Brian Kelway Willoughby in Cheltenham UK. It was he who really started the Cailli chase for me. He has located one of "our" cousey from about 1120.

If you have not seen anything of the Chronicles yet, I am forwarding a copy by file. Sorry, but it is the quickest way, and I can assure you I have had my fill of viri this year. Hopefully my checking system is now fine.

Best wishes
Warwick Kellaway

From: Pat Schnurr
Sent: Jun 16, 2002
Subject: Callaway and Cailly

Hi to all -- I am reading everything and hope to get back on track shortly.

But keep it coming -- and welcome Michael.

Sherrill -- didn't Peter come in as Calley? I know he did.

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 15, 2002
Subject: Peter Calley, Peter Kellwy

Yes, Pat - Peter came into Virginia as a "Calley" and went into Maryland as a "Kellwy." How's that for covering the bases?

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 19, 2002
Subject: John - the heir of Giffard?

Good Morning, All -

Do we know the identity of John C/K, the heir of John Giffard, to the properties Brimsfield, Syde, etc.? Is he one of the John le/de Calewe's of Stalbridge, Dorset (from the Coker Muniments records - Hellyer family).

The "heirship" records show that the "heir" descended from:

I Elias - md. Berta Giffard

II Elias

III John

IV John (the heir), age about 40 in 1327, thus born c1287.

We know from the historys (Wiltshire) that in 1226 the Kelwayes "had been owners of Titherington Keylways for 3 generations. In 1226, Elias C/K was in possession - and he had sons, William and John.

We are also told that in 1243 Elias de Kaylewey & Godfrey Scudamore held two fees of Elias de Giffard (father of John) in [the place called] Kellaway's, Chippenham Hd, Wilts [Testa de Neville (Book of Fees), Pt. II, 1242-95]. We all know this place as "Titherington Kellaways."

My question ---- does John le/de Calewe of Stalbridge, Dorset imply by his name, "John of Calewe," that he is from what we know as "Titherington Kellaways." ????? It seems a good idea that we all get on the same page as to what we think!

For the benefit of Michael Cayley, I am going to re-state some of the items from the Coker Muniments, Hellyer family papers, Somerset Record Office, Taunton.

1276. (Dec 6) Lease by John le Calewe of Dunesweston to Christina, wife of Vincent de Lidelynch, of a tenement which Ralph le Calewe sometime held in Dunesweston (Stalbridge, Dorset).

1290. (Nov 1). Conveyance by Roger de Stapelbrigge, guardian of John, younger son of John le Calewe, to John le Calewe and Cecily his wife, of the tenement of the said John (son of John le Calewe) in North Weston (Stalbridge) which the later recovered by writ of novel disseisin from John his father before the Justices at Dorchester.

1297. (Feb 2). Grant by John le Calewe, eldest son of John le Calewe and Cecily his wife, to John le Calewe, his brother, of the land Geoffrey de Bassewlle had in Dunesweston in manor of Stapelbrigge.

1297. (Feb 2). Quitclaim from John le Calewe first born elder son of John le Calewe of Dunesweston and of Edith his wife, to John le Calewe, the younger first born sonof the same John le Calewe and Cecily his wife, his brother - all the lands, etc. in Dunesweston in Stapelbridge Manor which Alice de Ralegh has in dower.

1302. (Dec. 6) Grant by John le Calewe to William Wymel - a messuage, etc. which Crystina Vyncent sometime held, with 10 acres of land in Weston (in Stalbridge).

1308. Will of John le Calewe

- to be buried in the churchyard of the Church of the Blessed Mary at Stabelbryge.

- executors: wife Cecily and sons, John & Robert

Proven before the Lord Archdeacon of Dorset.

1312. (July 20) Grant by Roger de Stapelbrigge to John le Calewe, his nephew, of half a virgate of land & 4 acres of meadow in Gummersheye and Stapelbrigge, which Nicholas Chartney released to John de Stapelbrigge, his brother.

1316. (July 20) Quitclaim from John de Wyveleshull to John de Calewe of Weston, of 3 acres of land in La More in the Manor of Stapelbrigge on La Hyethe.

1323. (May 6) Grant by Roger de Stapelbrygge to John de Caleweweston, of his land, meadow etc. in Hargrave in parish of Stapelbrygge.

1323. (Nov 6) Quitclaim by Roger de Stapelbrygge to John de Caleweweston, of half a virgate of land which the latter holds at Gommersheye (in Stalbridge).

1335. (Feb 3) Quitclaim by Robert de Stapelbrigg to John de Calewestone, his nephew, of the crofts called Clerkescroft, Brydgore & La Park in Nywenam in Stapelbrigge [Note: Is this "Robert de Stapelbrigg" the same man as "Robert le Calewe" of the 1308 will of John le Calewe?]

1348. (Monday before Christmas) - John de Caleweweston is dead. "Inventory of the goods of John de Caleweweston."

It is necessary to point out that some of the above family took the surname

WESTON.

Do we have any thoughts on "John C/K, the heir of John Giffard?"

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 20, 2002
Subject: John le Calewe

Good morning Sherrill

You have popped out a little more information for me - I had not spotted that "in 1226 there had been three generations at Titherington" - that confirms that the family were living there from the time of 1165.

I still have no real reason for the le/de mixture, but am fairly certain that John le Calewe, probably the one who died in 1308, was the same man who, as Johannes de Cayllewey, founded St Giles at "Kellaways" in 1304. The question there for me is, was he living in Dorset or Wiltshire?

We may never know, but probably it does not matter too much. As far as Stalbridge is concerned, we do have information that Radolfus/Ralph C/K was living at Dunes Weston, near Stalbridge about 1250, probably earlier. He may also be the same man referred to in France about the same time, but whether that is so or not, he was presumably related to John and his family.

It seems to me that, either Ralph was a younger member of the family, or perhaps left no male descendants (was dower Alice de Ralegh his daughter/granddaughter?), and John, or an earlier Elias, chose to live at Dunes Weston (Kellaways location suggests a little dampness - Maud Heaths Causeway?). In the early 1300s, it was presumably the principal family seat, particularly as John was buried there rather than in Wiltshire or elsewhere. When the later John died in 1336, he was referred to as being "late of Brimpsfield", which may be a reference to the dispute over the Giffard inheritance. Whether he actually lived there, or moved to improve his case, we do not know. William de C/K became patron of St Giles in 1336, but it is not clear just where he was living.

(I also note, from your 1297 quitclaim, that the older John had two sons called John - oh woe is us!)

The answer to your question therefore, I think, is that John le/de Calewe was of the Titherington/Kellaways family, but living in Dunes Weston.

I think also that Robert de Stapelbrigge/Stalbridge is Robert le Calewe. He was a C/K, but lived at Stalbridge. Just as others there later became Westons, about the time the senior family may have returned to Wiltshire.

Stapelbrigge Manor was at Dunes Weston.

(Note the similarity with Stafford Barton Manor at Dolton, Devon)

One point I must raise is that, if there were only two Eliases and two Johns, as referred to in the IPM, the elder Elias would have been born about 1200. However as Elias's daughter Matilda was on the murder charge about 1220-1, Elias must therefore be older or, I think, there was another one, born about 1170, marrying Bertha about 1200.

Incidentally, the reason why Brimpsfield Castle was in poor condition, may have been that it was built of timber, which most early castles were - some were rebuilt in stone.

How's that?
Best wishes
Warwick

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: June 20, 2002
Subject: Giffards, Brimfield

You two never cease to amaze me. "That" is very good. Without attempting to confuse the issue, Brimpsfield (which was variously spelt 'Brimsfield', Brimfield' and 'Brimesfield') belonged originally to Osbern Giffard (1042-1096) who was then known as Lord Brimsfield and the name Elias was at times spelled 'Helias' but I figure that you would know that!

Whilst it would appear that an enormous number of different families trace their roots to the Giffards and to Brimsfield (Try typing the word 'Brimsfield' in Google search!) I have, in an attempt to keep up with the current line of research stumbled across three interesting hyperlinks which may (or may not) help.

Elias De Caylewe and his spouse Berta Giffard and their descendants can be found by scrolling down on a page headed "GENEALOGY DATA - CANTILUPE, Walter" on http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/9609/dat160.htm

Similar interesting references can be found on http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1094/royged/dat20.htm and http://www.mathematical.com/giffardelias.html

Just trying to help, but on reflection maybe I should take myself back to my more familiar Tudor times and my stumbling attempts to interpret COA's (I do wish that Brian Willougby would come on line and provide me with a few more of the latter to practice on!) Best wishes,

Bruce (Sydney,Australia)

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 20, 2002
Subject: John, Elias and Brimpsfield

>Yes Bruce>

> Great that you found those sites. Someone else has got Elias C/K. I note also the approx birth date for Bertha of 1185 - so my guess for Elias at approx 1170 may not be too far out

.I think that it is spot on Brimpsfield is the modern spelling. It is about 10km from where Brian lives.

Oh! how I miss his input.

He has said there is nothing left to see of the castle, which is not suprising considering the 14th century report.

I will attempt to attach the Giffard COA's which has three lions passant.

Whilst said lions appear associated in various poses with the C/K's later on, I do not consider this of relevance as the Giffords (later the Cliffords) definately originated from France before our Phillipe

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 20, 2002
Subject: Dunes (and all the) Westons:

This is from "Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries, Vol. 3, p. 81f -Item #88.

CALE OR CAWLE WESTON; DUNE'S WESTON; AND STALBRIDGE WESTON, IN THE PARISH OF STALBRIDGE, DORSET. - The following information, derived mainly from unpublished family documents, supplements the account given in the revised edition of Hutchins' Dorset of the above-mentioned places.

There still remain, undoubtedly, several points worth clearing up in connection with the various ancient manors and tenures in the parish of Stalbridge.

1. CALE, CAWLE or CALLEW WESTON.

Radulphus le Calewe held land in Dune's Weston (which we shall see was probably the same as Cale Weston) in the reign of Henry III, and his descendants did so after him.

In the Sherborne Cartulary, tempore Ed. I (original in the British Museum) Caul Weston is stated to be held in capite of the Abbot of Sherborne.

In a deed of October 20th, 4th Henry IV, the Manor of Cale Weston was stated to be in the possession of Hugh Weston and Amicia his wife. (I have the original, and it is mentioned in Hutchins).

At the Inquisitio post mortem of John Weston, Oct. 16, 17th Edward IV, it was stated that he held the manor of Cale Weston in fee of John Carant of Tomer, paying 8d. a year (Original Inq. p.m. in Record Office).

By a Rental of the Manor of Cawle Weston in 18th Henry VII (Hugh Weston, lord of the manor) it appears that the manor and lands were held both of the Abbey of Sherborne and of the Lord of Tomer, paying 6s.8d. a year to the former and a pair of white gloves, as chiefage (cleirgh) or chief rent, to the latter.

At a Court of the Manor of Callew Weston, held by Master John Meere, Abbot of Sherborne, in the 7th and 8th of Henry VIII, Hugh Weston was described as freehold tenant (liber tenes) of Cale Weston, holding of Sherborne Abbey.

But, at the Inquisitio post mortem (original in Record Office) of the said Hugh Weston on June 2nd, 16th Henry VIII, it was stated that he held the manor of Calew Weston of William Carant, Esq., as of his manor of Tomer, paying one pair of gloves or 1d.

And at the Inquisitio post mortem of Sir William Weston, Knt., on Sept. 27, 1595, it was stated that he held the manor of Callew Weston in free socage of Duke Brooke, Esq., of Templecombe, deceased, as of the manor of Weston (i.e. Stalbridge Weston). This Duke Brooke had acquired the rights of the dissolved Abbey of Sherborne over Stalbridge Weston, as is above shown.

The fact appears to be that while the Westons held the manor as freehold tenants of Sherborne Abbey, there was a chief rent payable to the overlords, viz., the family of Carent of Tomer. The manor of Henstridge, of which Tomer originally formed part, had been in the hands of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster and other powerful grantees, and it is probable that it carried with it an overlordship or fee of Callew Weston; hence the chief rent.

There is no doubt that Cale or Callew Weston was an independent manor.

Besides the deeds quoted above, it is mentioned as a manor in two grants of the manor in trust, dated 8th Henry VI, and 6th Henry VIII, in a Court Roll of 9th and 12 Henry VII, and in a Rental of Hugh Weston (date torn off).

However, in 1607 Mr. Duke Brook, then lord of the manor of Stalbridge Weston, set up a claim that Calew Weston was a manor dependent on his manor of Stalbridge Weston and that it was subject to a yearly rent of 10s. Mr. Weston denied the claim, and maintained that this payment of 10s. was made for an ancient office called the Pittensarye (i.e. Pittanceri or almsgiver) of the Abbey of Sherborne, and not in any sense as a chief rent. And from an old receipt of October 23rd, 4th and 5th of Philip and Mary, still extant, it is shown that Hugh Weston then paid 10s. at the Feast of St. Michael to Richard Duke, Esq., "to a certain office called the Pittensarye in the late Monasterie of Sherborne which Richard Duke purchased," which confirms Mr. Weston's contention.

I also find in the Rental of 18th Henry VII, that the payment of 10s. to the Pittensarye was for lands in the manor of Newnham, in Stalbridge, which quite disassociates it from Calew Weston.

These documents were brought before the Commissioners appointed to settle the dispute in 1607, amongst whom were Ralph Horsey, and Randulph Baron, but the result of their deliberations has not been handed down.

Again in 1611-12 we find an entry in a Court Roll of the manor of Stalbridge Weston, of Thomas Weston, Esq., as Liber Tenes (freehold tenant) for the capital messuage of Cawle Weston, but he made default in his attendance, so he probably declined to admit the tenancy.

Callew Weston remained in the Weston family until the year 1746, when it was sold (with Rimple's) to Mr. Peter Walter, not Mr. Edward Walter, as stated by Hutchins.

2. DUNE'S WESTON.

This name only occurs in deeds of Henry III & Edward I. The following evidence shows that it was probably an early name for Callew Weston.

On a deed of 25th Edward I, in which John le Calew granted all his lands in

Dune's Weston with "woods commons and ways" to his brother, are two endorsements. The first, dated the 8th Henry VIII, records an agreement between the Abbot of Sherborne and Hugh Weston that they would equally share the woods an dpasture upon the "hold way" (i.e. old way) and other ways adjoining to Calew Weston. A similar agreement is recorded in the Court Roll of 7th and 8th Henry VII before quoted, in which the way is called 'Eldeway' (i.e. old way ).

The second endorsement, in a 17th century hand, recapitulates the agreement, speakinf of 'the old waye' In the dispute of 1607 these documents were quoted, and it was mentioned that "the plott of common ground called the old waye was.........almost adjoyninge to Mr. Weston's backside," i.e. at the back of his house. In the next sentence "Mr. Weston's mansion house and demesnes of Calew Weston" are mentioned.

The outline of the foundations of this house can still be seen in the shape of the letter E in a corner of the great park at Stalbridge.

This 'old way,' therefore, manifestly lay in Callew Weston, and, as by the endorsement on the back of the grant of Edward I, it is pretty clear that it was in Dune's Weston, forming part of the 'ways and commons' there mentioned, the inference is very strong that Dune's Weston and Callew Weston were the same place, the latter name prevailing afterthe Le Calewes had settled there for some time.

This identification of names may help, so far as it goes, to confirm the view given in the revised edition of Hutchins that the Le Calewes and the Westons of Callew Weston were the same family.

3. STALBRIDGE WESTON.

This manor was quite distinct from that of Calew Weston. Untill the Dissolution it was held by Sherborne Abbey. At the Dissolution Henry VIII disposed of it to Watson and Twynnyhoo, who resold it to Richard Duke of London, from whom it descended to Duke Brook and Charles Brook of Templecombe. However, in 1573-4 we find Gregory Sprinte and Christian his wife holda Court of the Manor. Christian Sprinte was the daughter and co-heiress of Richard Duke, Esq.

In 1594 the Manor was held by Duke Brooke

In 1606 Christian Sprinte, Charles Brooke, Sir Wm. Freke and others held a Court of the Manor.

In 1607 the Manor was held by Duke Brooke.

In 1610 Robert, Earl of Salisbury, held a Court.

In 1611 the Earl granted the Manor to George Thornhill, Esq.

[NOTE: I did not copy the next page because it seemed irrelevant - therefore failed to get the name of the submitter of this item. Something for the "to do" list on the next trip.]

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: June 23, 2002
Subject: COA

Bruce,

Strange this subject would arise just when I was going to ask you a question on the subject. I am preparing to mail some of the Athelhampton pictures to Bill Piper for the COA webpage, and looking at them closely I was surprised to see something that I had not noticed before. Get out the Athelhampton pictures

I gave you in N.O. and follow along with me.

I have done this and I must confess that I have been very remiss in filing them away. They are excellent pics which must be included when YB finishes marking his exam papers!

I remembered that most of the windows displayed C/K arms quartered with the Martin arms ("the birds"), but one set of windows shows a different quartering.

I took a perspective shot of a bank of windows - the one with the soaring stone wall, and windows plain in the bottom section, but colored top ones. Find those, and the close up showing two panels. The panel on the left displays our C/K "pears & nippers" - But what is it quartered with???

I attach four pics below, just to ensure that we are on the same wavelength.

Look then at the arms to the right of the C/K one. There is the same "mystery" arms, quartered with what I believe is the Wadham arms - a chevron between 3 "things." I first thought the "things" were "leopard's faces" but now, upon inspection with a magnifying glass, believe they are "roses." [See the Wadham arms at Branscombe]. It appears that Margaret Martin of Athelhampton married one of the Wadhams, I forget which Wadham. [The Wadham COA resembles the one at Dolton, except that the colors are reversed.] I also took a fairly good shot of all four windows in that bank of windows. I see that the "mystery" COA is quartered with a number of different COAs. Whose is this "mystery" COA?

In pic 4 I have enlarged what I believe to be the 'mystery' arms. Am I on the right track? In my Atlehampton 3, these particular arms seem to dominate a different window. As with the one in question, they are not quartered, but impaled. That is two coats side by side indicating that only two families are involved (Sorry!)

The 'mystery' arms constitute at first look two 'bars' (fr.fasce en devise;lat.fasciola) hence in English Heraldry FESS.) The upper one has a "bite' out of it, thus looking more like a flag or banner in the wind. I have already acknowledged that I am color blind but both Fess appear red to me! I am on the case

In view of the current discussion with "Mickey Mouse" it occurs to me that perhaps now is the time for an article for the Journal on the COA issues. Could you begin to write something up on that subject for the 2003 Journal? I think that might be of interest, especially in showing how the COA descended in the family. We could use some pictures. Americans generally are pretty ignorant on this subject because, after all, these arms bearing English became our enemies during that period of history! HA! HA!

They weren't exactly the flavour of the month with the Aussies at this time!

I am going to enjoy the discussion on the de Cailly issue, with Michael Cayley ……somehow, deep down, I have a feeling this may be very enlightening.

I still cannot believe that Caillouet can be pronounced KY-YOU-ETTE!

Check out those Athelhampton windows.

Sherrill

From: Pat Schnurr
Sent: Jun 24, 2002
Subject: COA

> Well I blew these up to 8 1/2 x 11 and they are good and clear. Will take a little studying. I was wrong in saying that the "mystery" arms contained a Fess. There can be only one fess which goes through the fesspoint i.e. the middle of the shield. They are bars or barres gules. Assuming that the field is silver one has "d'argent a deux barres de goules" which if is wasn't for the 'bite' out of the 'bar in chief' equates to the arms of Sir William Maudyt (or Mauduit)...but don't hold me to that.

Sherrill -- do you remember that in Vol. 2 of the CFA > Journals Sidney King has a two-page spread featuring the "so-called Callaway > COA" He also goes into the Kelloway - Hants, Kelloway - Roborough - Devon, > Kellaway - Stowford - Devon, Kellawaye - Sherborne - Dorset, and Kelway - > Stowford - Berwick - Somerset. (?) COA.

> He mentions that he had found 8 grants of arms to families with "K" and 7 of the 8 had pears -- red, black, gold and sable.

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 25, 2002
Subject: COA and Athelhampton

I was intrigued by the Athelhampton windows, so checked out my own records. Among all the other photographic masterpieces, I must have missed the windows altogether. Mine were of the obvious arms, with the pears and irons matched by the Martin birds and rondels. However, in my little book on Athelhampton, I see we are looking at the oriel window of the Great Hall. It evidently depicts the marriage alliances of the Martin family - de Loundres, de Pydele, de Clevedon, Faringdon, Cheverell, Daubeny, KELWAY, and Wadham. Does that help? Don't know why there are no little birds however.

Looking further into my picture gallery, I did notice one curious thing. While we most definitely did not visit all the village churches in Dorset and Devon, I did discover a coincidence. A number, with different exteriors, had similar plastered waggon roofed chancels and naves (barrel vaults with what appear to be evenly spaced timber ribs). These were at Dolton, Lillington, Stalbridge, Rockborne and Portesham. The last was a family location of the 19th century, and may throw the older thoughts off line, but strange? Another book on Dorset Churches, has only three of some twenty four with similar ceilings.

Oh well, probably only coincidence. Guess it could have been a Georgian modernisation.

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jun 28, 2002
Subject: COA

Bruce

I went in to have a quick check of Burkes Armory, but sorry got sidetracked and missed the Martins altogether. Will have to try again. Did check out the Cayleys of Wydale and Brompton in Yorks, and Norfolk. They had arg and sa on a bend gu three mullets of the first, so no real clues there. The Cayles were the same as Cayley. (OK Michael?)

Interestingly however, the Kelly of Kelly arms quarterings were in one and four, a chevron between three billets gu, and two and three, a chevron between three talbots. They were I think related to the Talbots. Mullets and Talbots are fish? Kelle was the same as Kelly, but Kelley (I think from Devon) had ar on a chevron between three leopards faces sa, as many annulets of the first. (Sound familiar?) Caylowe was almost the same as Kelley, with ar on a chevron sa between three leopards heads of the second, as many annulets of the first.

Kelley = Caylowe?

Caylway of Hampshire was the usual irons and pears.

In another Burke volume, he states there was evidence the Kellys of Kelly may "look back beyond the Conquest, to the ancient Britons". He gives Nicholas de Kelly (the de suggesting Norman rather than "ancient Briton") as living in the time of Henry II (similar to our Philip), he was the father of William, then Warren, Sir William (temp Henry III), Richard (living in 1220), Sir John (temp Edward I), and John (temp Edward II). Apart from Warren, these names and dates are very very familiar. We had a Nicholas born perhaps c1130, William c1200, Richard (in Durham) c1260, John c1260, and John c1285. We do not know what relationship there really was, if any, and our current e vidence from the 1100s is very sketchy, but putting dates to the also sketchy information on the Kellys, we could have Nicholas c1120, (William c1145, Warren c1170), William c1195, Richard c1220, John c1250, and John c1280. Nicholas, William, and the two Johns, really match quite well and, if as was common, eldest sons then were named after the father, the connection does look realistic. Was that Sir John possibly the man who wrote the 1308 will?

Food for thought?

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jun 28, 2002
Subject: COA etc

Hi everyone, I've been reading and printing everything, but have been concentrating on dealing with my clean-up project - my "stacks & piles." Made much progress, but another file drawer must be emptied to make way for more C/K.

We are prolific! One comment I wish to make. The name "Callow" has bothered me for a long time. Brian Kelway Willoughby expressed the same thing to me in Richmond. I suspect that it may be a separate surname. However, could some of the scribes/clerks have adopted shorthand? In SW England the Callows seem to most times show up in counties with known C/K residents. I notice in parish registers the early records begin with a version of C/K, and as times goes on many Callows appear. I have not analyzed this to see if a "cross-over" of the name is evident. Need to do that. Sherborne has a large number of Callows, seeming to appear as the C/K name begins to fade away. Just a thought. We are taking a weekend off - going on a short trip, ending up at our daughter's home in Charlotte, NC. We will be back home on Monday. Stay the course.

Sherrill

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jul 1, 2002
Subject: The Callows

Sherrill

I hope you had a good weekend.

The Callows have worried me. When I began this epic, I discounted them, because there was no similarity, certainly not phonetically. I did get a jolt when I learned that some authorities considered that le Calewe meant "the bald" (from the OE). I was having some phonetic problems with the Cayleway and Kalwe relationship at the time. It was compounded when the Durham family, which began as Kellawe (presumably pronounced "way", as it was further south), could later be Kellowe, and began dropping the e. The pronunciation must have changed, as the village near Durham (presumably the family village) today is spelt Kelloe.

Kellaways Wiltshire could also be called Calloes between 1819 and 1883.

There are Callow placenames all over the place. These may be relative to a person, but in many cases would go back to Saxon times, and that may be the key.

If these places were there when our Norman barbarians arrived, it would not be too surprising to have a rather lengthy "foreign" name corrupted to a diminutive form, particularly if one of them was a little thin on top. The same thing could have gone on over the centuries, until literacy improved. As there could be a Cayleway and a Kalwe at the same monastery in 1434, they must have come from different areas. The family by then of course had been established in a number of widely separated locations, where there would have been dialectic differences.

The diminutive forms are softer and easier to use. We now apparently have Cayleys and Kelleys in the c/klan, I think we may have to accept some, at least, of the Callows. I already have suspicions that the two French villages of Caillouet and Cailly have some sort of connection. Was Cailly possibly another diminutive form, sur Eure.

Best wishes
Warwick

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jul 6, 2002
Subject: 1066 and all that

Bruce

I actually went to a meeting of the local genealogical society on Thursday night, and came home with a CD called 1066 & The Norman Conquest by Wendelwulf Productions. It will take a long time to check all that is in it, but among descriptions of the Battle of Hastings (it was a very "lucky" arrow that struck Harold, or we would not be here - the Normans I now read were very close to being wiped out), England before and after 1066, what changes the invasion brought, other stories, poems, and even videos (no doubt filmed at the time).

There is a very long article on those who accompanied the Conqueror. It appears there was no accurate list, as might be expected, but some thirteen versions of who might have been there. The numbers of The Companions of the Conqueror vary between 245 and 645 (Battle Abbey), most are around 450. The name Cailly is included at Battle Abbey, and five or six of the versions also include Cailly, or something like it. These include a Seignor de Caillie (Robert Wace), Guillaume de Cailly (Leopold de Lisle from the Roll at the Church of Dive), Caily (Scriven), Le Sire de Cailly (Guillaume le Tailleur), Claruays (? perhaps not - Andre Duchesne), and a Karrowe (? from Raphael Holinshead). Anyway it appears to be accepted that someone from Cailly was present, as the following comment is made, under Cailly "Sire de":

"Cailly is in the arrondissement of Rouen, and there can be no doubt that one or more of the family may have been in the expedition. Osbern de Cailly was apparently the holder of the fief in 1066, as his son Roger made a donation to St Ouen in 1080. A William de Cailgi also appears in Domesday. Although by alliances with the Giffards and Tateshalls they became of importance in England, the Companion of the Conqueror has afforded no materials for a memoire. By the death of Thomas de Cailly, Baron of Buckenham (10 Edward II - 1317), without issue, the property passed through his sister Margaret, to the family of Clifton."

Michael is probably aware of all this, but we again have the reference to the Giffard connection. While it may only be coincidence, the earliest reference we previously had was Roger de Kaillewi/de Cailli involved with a land grant to Gloucester Cathedral in the reign of Henry I. Henry reigned from 1100-1135, so 1080 to 1100, or even say 1110, is only 20-30 years. That could be the same Roger, or possibly his son. We know the Normans held property in both England and France, and even though it was said the barbarian invaders were the unpropertied younger sons, some of the closest companions were clearly not, and even if they were could later have inherited from an elder brother without heirs.

My suggestion therefore is that it seems likely that Guillaume (William) de Cailly, the Seignor/Sire de Cailly did accompany William in 1066, and was still alive in 1086 for the census. Not sure just where Osbern (a seemingly popular name in those times) fits, or whether the fiefdom was in England or France, presumably the latter, but Osbern's son Roger, possibly William's nephew, alive between say 1080 and 1110, therefore possibly born about 1050-60, probably crossed to England at some time after the conquest.

There is something more to think about.

Good luck
Warwick

ps I still think Cailly and Caillouet were too close not to have some family connection.

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jul 6, 2002
Subject: Cailly & other matters

Hi, All,

Yes, "the girls" are meeting July 19 thru 29 to attempt, once again, to organize our collection of C/K data, and to make sense of it. We have a suite that features a large banquet table where we can spread everything out and cut down on shuffling papers. We will be in touch with all of you during this episode, so keep the information and speculation flowing.

Like Bruce, I am astounded that we find no reference to our C/K's involved in the glass business. It is obvious that those "nippers" are there for a reason. Someday we will find it - in a most "non-obvious" place. That is English research. The good things are found while not looking for them. And then, there is the origin of those "multi-colored" pears. What could be the significance of those?

Back to the "stacks and piles."

Sherrill

From: Pat Schnurr
Sent: Jul 6, 2002
Subject: 1066 and all that

Well now -- after reading this I focused on one word - Clifton. Takes me to Clifton Maybanke -- and our elusive Joseph who before losing his head in Monmouth rebellion said he was from Clifton Maybanke. We have the will of Martin Callaway. Sherrill you will remember that last year while checking the Bradford Abbas, Dorset Parish records I found "Joseph, son of Martin and Ursula Kelwey, bapt. 26 April 1647." We had thought he was the Monmouth man -- however we did not connect the father - Martin Kelwey. Where does he come in?

Pat

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jul 7, 2002
Subject: 1066, arms and Clifton

Hi all

Bruce I understand your feeling about the Kellys, but the evidence is starting to grow. Sharing leopards faces and coming from Devon are intriguing aspects, although they may not mean any close blood relationship. It could have been a marriage, or even some plagiarism. If it is a consolation, I suspect that they would be more related to the K/Cailli branches anyway.

It seems to me that the Caillouet and Cailly families, if ever really separate, were confused in written text until the early-mid 1300s, but by the end of that century were distinct families. There would need to be specific research on the Kelly name, in all its origins, to determine just what was going on, but that should really be the concern of the Kellys. My main comment would be that, some may be but, they are not all Irish. The fact that Kellys and Callows appear later, where there had been C/Ks recorded, may unfortunately mean poor diction coupled with scribe interpretation.

Our genealogical speaker the other night stressed the fact that while someone may have a particular surname, it does not neccessarily mean a descent from some noble personage, more likely that they came from the village or manor of that name. I recall the Longe family of Kellaways Wiltshire - they lived there from about 1526 somewhere, but later used the de Kellaways name, after the family had gone. The reverse of course applied where the C/Ks of Stafford Barton, and of Dunes Weston, assumed the local names.

Much the same could apply to Clifton. The Clifton family probably lived, or had some association at Clifton Maybanke, and people from there could assume the name Clifton. As regards Joseph, the noted Martin C/K lived at Lillington from around 1500-1575. He had no descendants, but it is very likely that relatives could have continued the name. Possibly one in Clifton Maybanke.

I have thought about our speaker's comment with regard to ourselves, and note that while this "location" aspect would apply in France, it is would be more limited in England, as Kellaways was never much more than a manor, and our people were scattered around the kingdom quite early, assuming other names, and generally confusing us.Few other people would have originated from there and, until the Parish Records began, few would have had the importance to be recorded in the documents we have. Although there were undoubtedly lesser families, I still think virtually all would have some relationship, barring those awful aliases of course.

Regards
Warwick

From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jul 6, 2002
Subject: Kellaway - Kelly

Yes, I agree with this, especially in the case of the Kelly gentleman I mentioned some time ago, who had concluded just that had happened to his family.

It seemed that his Kellys were preceeded by Kellaways. I am sure this was Dorset - will have to find that reference. I am suspecting the same thing in regard to some Callows.

Sherrill

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jul 7, 2002
Subject: Kellaway - Kelly

Yes Sherrill, I suspect that sort of thing did occur in Dorset.

I had learned quite early that, unlike other counties, the Kellaway spelling almost totally dominated Dorset - even my ggggrandfather had his name changed from Calloway on arrival there from the east end of the IOW. Members of one family seemed to move to where another lived - eg from Piddlehinton to the Abbotsbury area, and from the IOW to Portesham, possibly also Bexington. Some of the early Parish Records had different spellings, commonly Kelway, but by the 1800s these had mostly changed. I do not know any particular reason, apart from the dominance of the closely related Sherborne/Lillington/Stalbridge/Piddlehinton families, which extended over into Whitparish in Wiltshire, and eventually smothered the ancient manor location, as Kellaways.

I must admit that I did see, but did not check the Kellys - and recall there were a number right through - I wondered how so many Irish came to Dorset!

Clearly they didn't, but the earlier pronunciation difference must have been too much for the name to revert back. Evidence now suggests a possible Devon source for some of them.

There are Selways in Dorset also, and I wondered about them. Could Kelway become Celway become Selway?

I think these families must have been more remote from the principal families, and came to recognise themselves as different.

For another bit of fun - my new CD includes the comment that the Conqueror's principal Companion Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville, had a bald head!

(but that was probably before the Giffards associated with our barbarians)

Warwick

From: Michael Cayley
Sent: Jul 7, 2002
Subject: 1066 and all that

Dear C/Kers

The Cailly who is said to have been at the Battle of Hastings is Guillaume de Cailly, who came from the village of Cailly near Rouen and from whom I trace my descent. Whether he was actually at the battle is less certain: the rolls of those who fought were not accurate - they were compiled a long time after 1066, and Norman families with any remote possibility that an ancestor fought at Hastings ensured that their family name appeared in one or other version of the rolls. There is family tradition that he came over after the battle of Hastings - but helped pacify Pembrokeshire, the South part of which became a Norman enclave in Wales. He left some of his Norman lands to a son called Osbern, from whom descended a family "de Preaux" (named after a village) which eventually married into the Bourbons who became kings of France. So a load of French monarchs were descended from Guillaume.

Michael

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: July 07, 2002
Subject: Kellaway - Kelly

Yes Sherrill, I supect that sort of thing did occur in Dorset.

Now here is another thing on which we must ultimately focus. How did a K end up in my territory at St. Helens. For centuries, the K's dominated the west of the Isle. Whilst admittedly you can stand on Black Gang Chine and sight the other, western side of the Isle, some 10 miles distant, there was obviously at the time we are discussing, a tribal division over this (to us) short distance. I doubt that things were different across the Channel in France. Referring to our earlier discussions on heraldry, we appear to be 'babes in the wood'. Warwick's initial attempt to relate the recorded names with the historical events of the day will ultimately prove to be most productive. The K's and the C'sat this time (late 1500's) were the remnants of the earlier wealthy and armigerous families who probably, in an effort to either preserve or increase their wealth and influence, used the well known route of the Isle to transport (?smuggle) imports and exports. Sophie and her dubious Dad are a classic example of this particular end of the line.

Members of one family seemed to move to where another lived - eg from Piddlehinton to the Abbotsbury area, and from the IOW to Portesham, possibly also Bexington. Some of the early Parish Records had different spellings, commonly Kelway, but by the 1800s these had mostly changed. I do not know any particular reason, apart from the dominance of the closely related Sherborne/Lillington/Stalbridge/Piddlehinton families, which extended over into Whitparish in Wiltshire, and eventually smothered the ancient manor location, as Kellaways.

For a bit of fun - my new CD includes the comment that the Conqueror's principal Companion Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville, had a bald head!

Warwick

From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jul 8, 2002
Subject: COA and the IOW

Michael

Thank you for the information on Guillaume (William) de Cailly. I understand everyone attempting to get on the bandwagon. It is a pity dear old W/C did not produce his Domesday Book in 1066.

Do you have any references to Roger, or any of the other kin in the 1100s?

We only have this one, before our Philip arrives on the scene.

Bruce

I do not have a problem with St Helens. Until more evidence appears of later arrivals, I am going to assume that 14 year old Thomas may be my key also. We know he did come from Dewlish in Dorset, think he probably went to perhaps more renowned or wealthy relatives on the IOW, but very probably retained full contact with his family, who I think must have been heavily into business in Dorset (Sherrill uncovered a lot of Nicholases etc with goods, rather than property, around that vicinity). From 1590 to 1700 means three or four generations, and I think the family kept up the business contacts (smuggling perhaps included as a sideline) over this time. Family members from Piddlehinton, near Dewlish, then the home of the senior Dorset family, went to south Dorset in the early 1700s. Included may be an interesting Thomas and William who appeared at, and near Bexington on the coast, which is the area my William Thomas C/K of St Helens went to later in the 1700s.

Coming from Dewlish, young Thomas would almost certainly have left as a K but, as with my relly in reverse, became a C on the IOW. I do not really have any idea why the two ends of the island had different spellings. The earliest records suggest the family settled about midpoint, so my only thought is that when Parish Records began, the western scribe knew of the K spelling, the eastern scribe the C, and successors simply carried on. I don't think a K arrived at one end, a C at the other.

In your chronology, for the 1400s we do have the family leaving Wiltshire for Devon and Dorset, and marrying wealth, before burning down the Abbey.

Don't worry about the bald head (Giffard le calo?), but I did mention earlier that the most common Martin arms were a very simple/common, ar two bars gu, which I think is two red horizontal bars on a silver background?

Best wishes
Warwick

From: Michael Cayley
Sent: Jul 8, 2002
Subject: 1066 and the IOW etc

Dear Warwick

I have quite a lot of references to de Cailly's in the 12th and 13th centuries. I intend to make these available to you and the others on this discussion list, but it will take a little time to get them into a sensible format. So expect information in stages.

Best wishes
Michael

From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jul 8, 2002
Subject: 1066 and the IOW etc

From: Warwick Kellaway

> Bruce

> I do not have a problem with St Helens. Until more evidence appears of later arrivals, I am going to assume that 14 year old Thomas may be my key also. Agreed earliest records suggest the family settled about midpoint, so my only thought is that when Parish Records began, the western scribe knew of the K spelling, the eastern scribe the C, and successors simply carried on. I don't think a K arrived at one end, a C at the other.A very reasonable assumption

> In your chronology, for the 1400s we do have the family leaving Wiltshire for Devon and Dorset, and marrying wealth, before burning down the Abbey. Ah Ha! The Abbey and the Missal. Our lads would certainly want to keep their respective heads down after this bit of chicanery.

> Don't worry about the bald head (Giffard le calo?), but I did mention earlier that the most common Martin arms were a very simple/common, ar two bars gu, which I think is two red horizontal bars on a silver background?

That is confirmed. Everyone stop looking. Bruce

Best wishes
Warwick

Back to English Research