
Kell-Chat
An
Ongoing International Conversation
between Callaway and Kellaway and Kelway family researchers
discussing family origin, history and genealogy research in England
2007
(this file is VERY large and can be slow to load)
Primary Participants -
| Warwick Kellaway | Hamilton, New Zealand | jwk at slingshot.co.nz |
| Bruce Callaway | Sydney, New South Wales | bruce at callaway.com.au |
| Bill Callaway | British Columbia | callawaybill at shaw.ca |
| Sherrill Williams | Unicoi, Tennessee | sherrilluwilliams at embarqmail.com |
| Pat Schnurr | Maitland, Florida | schnurr200 at aol.com |
| Cary Moore | Birmingham, Alabama | c.moore2 at juno.com |
| Bill Piper | Kent, U.K. | bill at dreycott.screaming.net |
| Brian Willoughby | Gloucestershire, U.K. | bhk.willoughby at btopenworld.com |
| Pat Scott | Swindon, Wiltshire, England | kellaway at kellread.plus.com |
| David Kelway | Royston, Hwerts, U.K. | chanticleer at breathemail.net |
| Lesley Haigh | UK | les.haigh at btinternet.com |
| Norma Kellaway | Australia | normakell at iprimus.com.au |
| Don Kellaway | Canada | quinte at kos.net |
| Sylvia Warham | UK | sylvia at pattilandfarm.com |
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jan 2, 2007
Subject: Tying up the loose ends
To those who may have missed my previous well wishes, Happy New Year. Sylvia is up an running and wrote:
So why
was Mr. KEILWAY so important that he could disenfranchise the custos
and clergymen of the Temple? Does this refer to Robert of the Wards and
Liveries? - I am sure you can all tell me. I am uncertain of his dates:
Attached is Prof Baker's draft of his entry in the DNB which he kindly let me have in 2003. Baker was Professor of Law at Cambridge at the time (and may well still be). It summarises a little of his career, but we have much more. The act 32 Henry V111 (1541) applied only to the custodians of the Temple Church, rather than "The Master of the Temple" who 'anciently' was the boss of all the Knights Templar. Seems in the issuance of pensions etc. correcting this, Robert of the Wards and Liveries, after the death of Henry V111 in 1547, 'persuaded' Edward V1 to grant him in perpetuity the Master's lodgings!
I have reason to believe that the attached pic taken last year are the 'lodgings' in question!

Will
come back to the other issues raised by Sylvia a little later
Bruce
Keilwey, Robert (1496/7-1581), lawyer, came of a family long settled in Dorset and Hampshire, where his kinsman Sir William Keilwey (d. 1569) was seated at Rockbourne. In a moot book which he possessed as a student he described himself as ‘Kydwelle alias Kelwey alias Kelowey alias Kelway alias Robertus Kylwey de Nova Sarum in comitatu Wilts. armiger’ (Harvard Law School MS 183, final leaf), suggesting that he may have regarded the family surname as being a corruption of Kidwelly. The inscription also confirms the supposition that he was the son of Robert Keilwey, sometime mayor of Salisbury, Wiltshire, who served as member of parliament for that city in 1523. The lawyer was appointed to the commission of the peace for Wiltshire in 1543, and was still ‘of Salisbury’ in 1547. Nothing is known of him before 1534, when he appears as a member of the Inner Temple. He became a bencher in 1542, pointing to a probable date of admission in the second half of the 1520s. He must therefore have spent an unusually long period in an inn of chancery, or have pursued some other occupation before turning to the law. In 1545 he became member of parliament for Bristol, and recorder of the same city, serving again in 1547 and (as member for Steyning) in 1559. He was an adviser to Edward Seymour, earl of Hertford and later duke of Somerset, who obtained for him the important appointment of surveyor-general of the Court of Wards in 1546 and intervened in 1548 to secure his discharge from reading in the Inner Temple. He retained his office as surveyor of the wards until his death, though he became embroiled in a heated dispute with the previous holder, John Hynde*, who twice tried to thwart Keilwey’s tenure by having him made a serjeant at law against his will. A serjeant’s writ was indeed issued to Keilwey in July 1552, whereupon he gave up his recordership of Bristol, but his excuses were accepted and he never did take the coif. During the reign of Edward VI, Keilwey and Sir Walter Mildmay were charged with the task of saving the grammar schools which were being threatened by the dispersal of chantry funds, and many of the schools were refounded in the king’s name. It is a testament to Keilwey’s ability and moderation that he retained his office under four sovereigns, through various changes in religion, and despite the fall of his patron Somerset in 1549. He remained active in the public administration until old age.
Keilwey’s public duties must have curtailed his private practice at the bar, though he was evidently still able to report cases in the time of Edward VI. Sir Simonds D’Ewes (1602-50) possessed a manuscript of ‘Keilweies reportes Edward. 6. penned by himselfe’, but these are no longer to be found. Keilwey’s name is, however, well known in the legal profession by reason of its association with a volume of earlier law reports printed in 1602 and usually cited as ‘Keilwey’. The title was ‘reports of certain cases selected from the books of Robert Keilwey’ (Relationes quorundam casuum selectorum ex libris Roberti Keilwey), and no claim was made that Keilwey was the author, as indeed he could not have been. The reports cover the period from 1496 to 1522 and were in fact written by John Caryll* (d. 1523), serjeant at law. Keilwey was a close friend of the reporter’s son John, a fellow Inner Templar, and borrowed Serjeant Caryll’s autograph manuscript from him some time before 1538, when he cited it in court. Keilwey’s manuscript passed to his relative John Croke* (d. 1620), who shared his chambers in Fig Tree Court, and it was Croke who saw it through the press in 1602, leaving out terms which he thought were adequately covered by the printed year books, and interpolating some eyre reports from Edward III’s reign (including the only known reports from the 1309 eyre of Guernsey) and eight quo warranto cases from the reign of Edward I. The work was reprinted in 1633 and 1688, and a new edition of Caryll’s reports was published by the Selden Society in 1999-2000.
Keilwey married Cecily, daughter of
Edward Bulstrode of Hedgerley and Upton, Berkshire, and they had one daughter,
Anne, who married Sir John Harrington of Exton, Rutland. He became a justice of
the peace for Berkshire in 1549, and it may have been through his marriage
around this time that he acquired property at Shellingford in that county, where
he probably lived until he obtained a lease of Coombe abbey, Warwickshire, in
1556. Besides these residences he also had a house in Fleet Street and another
at Stepney. Keilwey died on 21 February 1581, aged 84, and was buried at Exton,
where there is a handsome monument bearing his effigy in a long gown and an
inscription praising him as a distinguished esquire of the long gown (‘insignis
dum vixit inter togatas armiger’).
J. H. BAKER
References:
Hist. Parl. 1509-58, ii. 458-9.
Hist. Parl. 1558-1603, ii. 389-90.
L. W. Abbott, Law Reporting in England 1485-1585 (1973).
J. H. Baker ed., The Reports of John Caryll, 115 Selden Soc. (1999), intro.
Calendar of Inner Temple Records, i.
Calendar of Patent Rolls. Edward VI, i. 154 (of Salisbury, 1547).
J. H. Baker, Serjeants at Law (1984), p. 170.
H. E. Bell, The Court of Wards and Liveries (1953), pp. 20-1.
A. G. Watson, The Library of Sir Simonds D’Ewes (1966), p. 284.
Harvard Law School MS 183 (moot book).
will, PCC 9 Darcy
MI, Exton.
NB - this is considerably longer than my estimate, but Old DNB was woefully inadequate and now that I have reworked it I do not see an easy way of shortening it.From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Jan 2, 2007
Subject: Tying up the loose ends
Happy New Year Everyone!
We have just about emerged from the waves of visitors. Just a few quiet days
before Saturday when the real 'Last of the Last' visitors will arrive on
Saturday. I hope you will all have found time to look at Sherrill's last email
because I think she really does make some important points about names being
translated from French and Latin into Middle English - then back to latin again!
Thank you for remind us about that just as we are about to launch into a new
year of (hopefully) fruitful research. I think one of my New Year's resolutions
will certainly be: 'to be open minded about the spellings of the names' - and to
clean my computer screen, which I have not done yet!
After Christmas Sherrill wrote:
> > However, yesterday I had found a reference in those aggravating
> > "Oxford Journals" to Osbert de Cailli, dean of Lewes. This item was
> > from The English Historical Review, Vol. LXIX, No. CCLXXI, pp.
> > 287-302:
> > "Osbert, dean of Lewes....de Cailli et dominos monarchos de Lewes
> > scilicet quod Robertus de Calli pro terre de Etuna et Walpol quam a
> > predictis dominis suis accepit........."
This reference to Lewes is extremely interesting. Incidentally, the Priory was dedicated to St Pancras, which is interesting in itself, because we have all come across several other references to St.Pancras. I did not know it when Sherrill first sent the reference, but have since discovered that the De Cailli's owned a Norfolk property called Walpole, and one can only guess that Etuna was also a Norfolk property. The Latin tells us that the Priory were
'persuaded to accept' both theproperties. We do not know the reason why,
because the quote is incomplete, but it could well have been in exchange for the appointment of Osbert to the position of Dean.
> > I then did a search on "Lewes Priory" and learned that it had been
> > established by William Warrenne and his wife, Gundreda (purported to
> > be a daughter of William I "the Conqueror"]. . . . .
> > So, now we have Osbert de Cailli, dean of Lewes, which was founded
> > by a half-brother of the Beaumont ancestors. And, I can go back to
> > bed!
> > Sherrill
Frightening isn't it, how all these people were so closely related!
Before we get into a new discussion there are one or two 'loose ends' I would like to tie off from last year. You may remember that during the year we had quite a lengthy discussion about the Knights Templar. Well, just before we stopped for the holidays I came across the following references which underline for all of us the importance of the KnightsTemplar to the c/k family until well into the 16th century:
1.From: http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/hkt/hkt16.htm
By sections 9 and 10 of the act 32 Hen. VIII., dissolving the order of the Hospital of St. John, it is provided that William Ermsted, clerk, the custos or guardian of the Temple Church, who is there styled "Master of the Temple,"
and Walter Limseie and John Winter, chaplains, should receive and enjoy, during their lives, all such mansion-houses, stipends, and wages, and all other profits of money, in as large or ample a manner as they then lawfully had the same, the said Master and chaplains of the Temple doing their duties and services there, as they had previously been accustomed to do, and letters patent confirming them in their offices and pensions were to be made out and passed under the great seal. This appellation of "Master of the Temple,"
which antiently denoted the superior of the proud and powerful order of Knights Templars in England, the counsellor of kings and princes, and the leader of armies, was incorrectly applied to the mere custos or guardian of the Temple Church. The act makes no provision for the successors of the custos and chaplains, and Edward the Sixth consequently, after the decease of William Ermsted, conveyed the lodgings, previously appropriated to the officiating ministers, to a Mr. KEILWAY and his heirs, after which the custos and clergymen had no longer of right any lodgings at all in the Temple.
So why was Mr. KEILWAY so important that he could disenfranchise the custos and clergymen of the Temple?
2. Did we have any records about Sir William of Rockbourne being a Templar?
From:http://thegrouchyscotsman.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/518:
'Hugh Paulet of Hinton St. George, Somerset, born by 1510, first son of Sir Amias Paulet of Hinton St. George by his second wife Lora, dau. of WILLIAM KEILWAY of Rockbourne, Hants. Educ. MIDDLE TEMPLE. Married first, c. 1530, Phillippa, dau. of Sir Lewis Pollard of Kings Nympton, Devon, by whom he had three sons and two dau.;'
I am aware that this probably refers to his education as a Lawyer, but given the first quote we have to wonder if the c/k's not only had the Templars 'all tied up', but also the law at this time. Were they the political law makers?
3. Does this refer to Robert of the Wards and Liveries? - I am sure you can all tell me. I am uncertain of his dates:
'# The Arms of Sir Robert Bell impaling Harington (the Harington Arms are depicted with the cadency mark 'a label') 21,; probably, Sir John Harington, first Baron Harington of Exton (1539/40
–1613) who married Anne (c.1554–1620), the daughter and heir of ROBERT KEILWAY of the MIDDLE TEMPLE'Ah well. I will leave it to all of you to decide how to interpret these quotes. They certainly puzzled me!
Kindest regards
Sylvia
It may be too early in 2007 to be off and running on the early history of the C/Ks, with both Sherrill and Sylvia still emptying out guests to make room for more, meantime still scrubbing pots and pans from the double whammy of Thanksgiving/Hogmanay/Christmas, Warwick still Batching and catching up on archived messages and yours truly hosting his youngest son Peter ten days out from the U.K. on wedding duties for his former Best Man. However, to start us off Sylvia has thrown us some queries from Sherrill's pre-Christmas mail to which I at least have replied.
From: Warwick
Kellaway
Sent: Jan 10, 2007
Subject: DORSET FAMILY IN THE 1300s
Hello All,
I have gone back through some old notes, and discovered there is often more there than appreciated.
We have been covering the C/K family pretty well from the 1400s, but struggle further back. These Lay Subsidy Records now match much of the other information we have been accumulating. Other Counties should offer the same, if you can find them.
Lesley has found the 1500/1600 tax records for Devon and Cornwall. They must hide information.
We do need to get into Wiltshire, as some of the attached items suggest.
Anyway, see what you think of these comments.
Another completely different angle. I got another set of maps last week, which for a change included Ireland. We know that C, G and K could be interchanged over there, such that Galway just might also have been Kelway? And that many of us seem to have some almost matching Irish DNA.
Not a terribly good map - Michelin - but I looked up "family" placenames. Not a lot, but here were three Callows - three - in different counties. But only one Calow on the mainland.
Have fun,
Warwick
THE DORSET FAMILY IN THE 1300S
We tend to think of the Dorset family in terms of later family locations.
In the 1300s however, they were in quite different parts of Dorset.
At the time of the prominent John le Calewe, of Gloucestshire, Wiltshire, Devon and Dorset, the 1327 and 1332 Lay Subsidy Rolls offer the following:
1327 1332
John *Petersham Farm/ Holt 6d John *Holt 8d
Weston 2/- *Gussage All Saints 3/4
Stalbridge Weston 2/1 Stalbridge Weston 2/1
Thomas Marnhull 6d Thomas Marnhull )
Iwerne Minster) 1/6
Stalbridge Weston 3/8
William *Sixpenny Handley 1/-
Alicia *Sixpenny Handley 1/-
Walter *Wimborne Albatis 2/6
Roger *Pentridge 2/- Roger *Wimborne St Giles 2/8
Robert Halstock 1/-
Adam *Chettle 2/-
Peter *Colehill 8d
Eustace *Shapwick 1/4
(Those with a * were properties in the vicinity of Gussage All Saints.)
It appears from this information that John le Calewe, as could be anticipated, had property at Stalbridge Weston and “Weston” in 1327. Weston might have been the old manor of Dunes Weston, maybe Calewe Weston. He also had a small farm at Holt, to the south east.
Five years later, there was no mention of a Weston, but there was a valuable new property at Gussage All Saints.
Why Gussage All Saints?
Thomas, perhaps his son(?), began with a small property at Marnhull, but five years later had a more valuable property at Stalbridge Weston than John. The most valuable of any.
Apart from Robert, who had a smallish property in the west at Halstock, all the other 8 recorded lived in the east, and vicinity of Gussage All Saints.
William and Alicia are interesting, as they seem to match the William with wife Alice later seen at Cayleways Wiltshire, where William was Patron of St Giles, after John, from 1336 to 1376.
Both were at Sixpenny Handley in 1327, but not there in 1332?
Walter had a valuable property at Wimborne Albatis in 1327, but was not there in 1332. Roger had a good property at Pentridge in 1327, but had moved to Wimborne St Giles in 1332. Were they father and son? Roger was referred to with Edmund in 1347, regarding a property at Malmesbury Wiltshire for a Margaret Cayleway - possibly their mother.
Walter le Calewe was the Magistrate at Blandford Forum in 1288, so could be expected to have had property. He also held land in Chippenham Hundred Wiltshire, and Legbe Episcopal Somerset in 1327 – clearly another man of note.
Walter Calewai and Elyas de Kaillewai were involved in a Tytherton land transfer in 1303 – a possible precursor to the building of the Church the next year.
Curiously Wimborne St Giles is over 10km from Wimborne.
There were a lot of St Giles Churches, but they seemed to have a special relationship for the C/K family. (St Giles at Cayleways manor in 1304, St Giles in the Wood in Devon. Edmund built another at Chenstone in 1400, and there had been another much earlier in Durham.)
(Actually Wimborne St Giles was called only St Giles on the 1811 Ordnance Map, as was St Giles in the Wood. There was an Upper Wimborne nearby however.)
The dominant family occupation of this region, to the north of Wimborne Minster and Blandford Forum, but not elsewhere, must have meaning. Did one of the Johns marry a lady from there? Did the property at Gussage All Saints perhaps contain another manorhouse?
There were spasmodic references to the area in the 1700s, but nothing since.
STOFORD 3
We have discovered several Stofords in the West Country. One Stoford is about 2 km from Sutton Bingham in Dorset/Somerset – or was it the site of the original Sutton Bingham? There is a Stoford/Stafford Barton near Dolton in Devon (and perhaps another Stowford).
There is yet another Stoford about a 1 km from Stapleford, 10 km from Salisbury, in Wiltshire.
(Salisbury is where we later had the two Robert Keilway Mayors, and an earlier William Webbe, alias Kellowe.)
Edmund de Cayleway, perhaps the uncle (there had been another referred to in 1330 and 1347) of the later Edmund, or the same man, may have been living at Stapleford in 1364, 12 years before going to Cayleways Wiltshire.
John le Calewe was of course at one stage the inheritor of the Estates of John Giffard, subsequent to his execution.
In 1327 at the Devizes IPM Giffard had held the moiety of Stapleford Manor. This was repeated at another IPM in 1355, where he was said to have the moiety of the Church there, and also held Orcheston.
Whether there was any family connection, or inheritance, here is not noted, but another reference at an IPM for John de Harnham in 1331 was held at Compton Chaumberlyn. Held before 12 men, they included Robert le Taillor, John le Smith, Robert de Stoford and a Michael le Webbe.
Two were obvious tradesmen originally, one perhaps a “Salisbury” Webbe, and Robert de Stoford.
I had earlier assumed that Robert was a Devon man, but Wiltshire Stoford is only a few km away. He appears again in 1333.
In the 1327 IPM, John Giffard also held ½ knights fee worth £10, in Tuderyngton Calowey. Had the Giffards perhaps held this back to the 1100s?
John Mautravers, the later inheritor, was also referred to, as was John de Caylowe.
So who was the Robert de Stoford mentioned above? Did he only live at Stoford - had the family just “acquired/inherited” the property through John Giffard - is it possible he was the Robert living away at Halstock in 1327, but not there in 1332?
Robert was still a popular name in the Salisbury area 150 years later. Was this their relationship?
The other interesting association here is that the Compton Chaumberleyn referred to above may be the source of the 1445 Thomas Calawey, alias Chamberleyn, who was pardoned over the death of Michael Rowperyn. Thomas was apparently a tax collector in Wiltshire in 1442.
He could also have been the 1327/1332 Thomas above, in the Lay Subsidies.
So it seems there may be another source for aliases – an option for the earlier “de”.
We have to wonder, whether the geographical name Stowford became so associated with the family that they took it with them to new locations. It seems the case in Dorset, and the evidence suggests the same in Wiltshire.
Did they perhaps rename the existing manor, or the village that served it, after arrival?
However, by studying these early records, we can trace the occupation of the family a little further back, and understand the meaning of such places as Marnhull, Gussage All Saints, Stapleford.
JWK Jan 2007
From: Lesley Haigh
Sent: Jan 10, 2007
Subject: Dorset Family in the 1300s
Hi Warwick,
Thank you very much for these records and comments. I'm sure they will help link the families eventually.
I wondered if anyone has the Lay Subsidy records for Kellaways in Devon and Cornwall 1300s? Can't find them on-line.
I guess you all know
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ where a search on Kellawe produces records of Richard de Kellawe Lord Palatine and Bishop of Durham1311-1316 also mentions of William de Kellawe and refs to Templars. French site but books can be read on-line in English and Latin.
Lesley
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Jan 11, 2007
Subject: Is this the London Family?
Hello Warwick and Les,
Thank you for all the records and information. I am sure we shall all find it very useful. In response to Les' query about the 1300 Devon Lay Subsidy I seem to remember that it is owned by the Devon and Cornwall record Society and can only be seen at DRO or the West Country Studies Library. At the latter you have to pay to become a temporary member and then they let you into the 'private' room where the records are kept. However, as Warwick pointed out, I think Sherrill may have a copy because she produces them from time to time. (I think they may be on Kellchat). I do know that they are not available on CD as the later ones are.
Thank you Warwick for your comments on the Temple and the Templars. I take
your point about not mixing up 'The Temple' and 'The Templars', but I think the point I was really trying to make is that we know the c/k's had strong connections with the Templars, and the Templars were themselves a sort of 'King's club for the very wealthy'. It is therefore interesting that after the dissolution of the Templars, when the Temple became Crown Property, the king chose to hand it over to Robert - a man who had strong connections with the Templars, and was more than likely one himself. Perhaps too, this discussion of the Templars is a good poit to tell you about some things I saw just before Christmas, and which Sherrill alluded to in her las email.
This is a copy ( with one or two additions!) of the mail I sent to Sherrill after everyone else had gone off to enjoy their Christmas celebrations:
Hello Sherrill,
Hope all is well with you. I know this is a busy time coming up to Christmas, but I have just had one of those amazing journeys. Tonight I was playing around with different c/k spellings when I arrived at the Seally family web site.
From http://www.irving-fam.com/seely.htm It states:
' Seely History
The Ancient Family of Sealy
As written by the late Sir Isaac Heard of the Herald's Office. ( SW:I know you are not too keen on heralds - but modern day ones have to be fairly accurate or they would lose their jobs!)
A1 Le Viconte de CAILLY, or CELY, of the duchy of Normandy.
(SW:Especially for Bruce and Bill Piper: do remember that the latinn pronunciation of C-E-L-Y is K-AY-L-I) Sent from thence ambassador from Duke William to Edward ye Confessor of England circa 1060.
A2 Le Sire de CAILLY, or CELY, son of ye Viscount de CAILLY, went to England with ye Conqueror 1066 and was at ye memorable battle of Hastings where King Harold was slain.'
This reference is not new. I found this much of it on Bill Piper's website - but if the Seally family truly are the Cailly family,and we know that the De Cailli were involed with the Giffards - then the rest of the quote, which does not appear on Bill's web site, is very important:
'A3 Sir William de CELY, or SAILLY, descended from Le Sire de CAILLY, elder brother of Gilbert de SAILLY Grand Master of the Templars who perished at sea in his passage from Dieppe to England 1169 - 15th Henry 2nd.
(SW:William and Gilbert are brothers in the Norfolk line. The Templar bit looks familiar, but note that the c/k's were not just any ordinary Templars - William was the Grand Master!)
A4 Edward or Edmund SAILLY, SELY, or SALLE descended from ye Sir William , being ye 8th in lineal descent from Le Sire de CAILLY, lived in ye time of King Edward 3rd. He married Joan sister and rich coheir of William Swanson, Esq. and relicit of John Newdigate of Harifred in ye county of Middlesex, Esq. whose issue succeeded to her large estates. She lived to a great age not being dead Anno 1432.'
Are these possibly the Middlesex c/k's? I googled for Seally and found this (Lengthy but well worth reading):
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/cely/cely2.htmlTHE CELY PAPERS
(The Cely Papers - Part I)
SELECTIONS FROM THE
CORRESPONDENCE AND MEMORANDA OF THE CELY FAMILY MERCHANTS OF THE STAPLE A.D. 1475-1488 EDITED FOR THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY by HENRY ELLIOT MALDEN, M.A.
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 Paternoster Row, London
New York and Bombay
1900
Table of Contents
* Part I: Introduction with Footnotes & Appendix I & II
* Part II: Letters 1 through 50
* Part III: Letters 51 through 91
* Part IV: Letters 92 through 124
* Part V: Letters 125 through 150
It is a fascinating collection of letters between Richard, John and 'Old William' Cely. They owned Sutton, a manor of the Hospitallers in Prittlewell, Essex. The letters refer frequently to 'My Lord' who was Sir John Weston (familiar name?). There are references to trips to Gloucester and Newcastle, and it turns out that Sir John Weston was Prior of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England, 1477-1489. (The one in Gloucester that Nicholas Chailwaie left money for.) He is continually referred to in these letters. The text says:'The Priors of St. John held a reputed manor in Alveley parish, called More Hall, later part of KELLITON or Kennington.
(SW: so did Kennington Town in London get its name from the c/k's) The Order of St. John held land in the neighbourhood at Rainham and Southall, and the Church of Thurrock Grays.' (could these be the London c/k's?) The text continues:'Sir John Weston must have resided often on his Essex manor, and as a near neighbour of the Celys was a great man in their eyes. He was of the same family as Richard Weston, of Henry the Eighth's reign; but the Sutton referred to in these letters is not the later family place of Sutton, in Surrey, but is Sutton Temple, in Essex, as possession of the Hospitallers.
I am seriously beginning to wonder if these Cely letters are really c/k letters, and if they are it will be a very valuable source of information - but one cannot leap to conclusions. Would you have a look at the references and tell me what you think?
Kindest regards,
Sylvia
From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jan 12, 2007
Subject: Is this the London Family?
Hello Sylvia
You are giving us a lot more to think about.
As regards the Templars, my understanding is that they were a fine, very moral, order initially, but towards the end of the 1200s had become corrupt. Possibly very corrupt, possibly it was more that they were too wealthy for some important Lords and Rulers. Maybe both, but they were brutally "destroyed", particularly in France. About 1311 I think?
Anyway since then, and more particularly today, a mysticism has built up, with the suggestion of them being a rather heavy , perhaps dark, secret society - shades of the da Vinci Code fiction.
Whether there is anything to that, I doubt we would ever find out.
Whether certain families did carry on the "organisation" also. I tend to think that it is all the substance of mythology and legend, which seems so popular today, where there is always claimed something sinister behind any happening - Princess Di for example.
Robert Keilway, over 200 years later, was granted a position of considerable power and authority in the realm, but probably through his own abilities and connections. He certainly had control over the re-distribution of Church Properties - subsequent to the Dissolution of the Chantries at least.
I feel it is a subject that could be researched indefinitely, and still not reach a conclusion, but still worth recording the evidence as it appears.
The Seelley Faily is clearly very strong, and looks very professional.
I don't know why, but I do though feel a little nervous about how they matched the early Cailly with Sailly, then Seeley. But presumably there was supportive evidence for the shared names.
The use of the "ye", with no other olde English, also looks strange for a knight(?) from the Heralds Office.
It is again a question of phonetics, and local dialects. Did the Cely/Cailli pronunciation change so much? I have no doubt that, as we have already discovered, strange changes occurred. Kellawe (pronounced -way) to Kellaw to Kellow, even Kelloe, in Durham. And there could be another case here - though having the first consonant change from a K to S pronumciation, seems less likely. (It could have happened with the Selloway family in the south, although I think that may have been much later.)
At the same time though, we can be fairly certain that quite different families have had their family names merged with unrelated families.
There can be two or more families with the same name, having derived in different parts, or through different occupations - there must have been a lot of Smiths about the countryside. There were apparently two Weston families - one in the north, and our Dorset version. This is evidenced by differing COA, and DNA.
I suspect there may have been two or more C/Kailli/Cailleway families, coming from the same part of Normandy, at different times. From Cailli sur Eure, and Caillouet. They may have been related, maybe not, but probably knew of each other, and did not worry when their names were shared, in the written form (which they may never have read anyway).
We have the DNA of Michael Cayley. His DNA does not match any of the rest of us in the CFA Programme (the connection could only have been some 800 or more years ago, and DNA markers can mutate), but if you take a mean/average of our first 25 markers, he is as close to that mean as any of us - actually more so than most. (Only 16 of our people, out of 70, have an equal or closer match to the "mean".) Others disagree with my theorising, but I suggest there probably was a match back there.
We need to look more closely at the Seelley family - their COA maybe, but certainly their DNA, if available.
I couldn't access either immediately.
The Cely papers - I note Cely dropped out of the Irving Family Genealogy page at the end of the 1300s - took a little decyphering, but what worried me was whoever transcribed them did not seem to know correct dates. Anno lxxv is only 75, anno lxxvj 76.
Interesting that they apparently survived, but what did they have to do with the short, and denigrated reign of Richard III?
The Celys did though seem to be Merchants of the Staple, just a little before the time of our John.
Regards
Warwick
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Jan 13, 2007
Subject: Is this the London Family?
Hello Warwick,
Before the Norman conquest I think you will find that the English spoke
Celtic,forms of which are still found in Wales and Cornwall today.
Yes Sherrill, you are right about the property, and thank you for reminding me. I did look at the property that the Cely family owned. Following my discovery of the Cely letters I started looking at the Sealey family to see if there were any links to the c/k's and came across this:
From
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Cabin/1066/122Chaffcombe.html:Sealey family
A hamlet at Lidmarsh is first recorded as Libbemersa in 1180 and Forde abbey received grants of rent and small amounts of land there in the 13th century.
The overlordship of these was claimed by the earl of Gloucester in 1315 but was awarded to the heirs of JOHN LE SOR in the following year. It is doubtful whether there was a single dominant estate there in the 13th century, but a part of the hamlet may have formed an element of the ½ fee at Cudworth and Knowle St. Giles held in 1303 and 1316 by MATTHEW DE ESSE and HUMPHREY DE KAIL, and in 1346 by DE KAIL alone. At his death in 1348 WILLIAM KAIL held a messuage and 30 a. of land in Lidmarsh under ROBERT FITZPAYNE which passed to his son JOHN (d. 1384). JOHN also held 20 a. of pasture in Aveneleseigh, later AVISHAYS. In 1385 John's widow received in dower 20 a. of land at Okenehede and 10 a. at Lidmarsh in respect of these lands, then stated to be parcel of Cudworth manor. THOMAS KAIL (d. 1394), son of JOHN, was succeeded in turn by his sister IDONY (d. 1401), wife of JOHN POULETT, and her sons John and Thomas. Both sons died in 1413 and the lands, then totalling 100 a. in Aveneleseygh and 20, a. in Lidmarsh, reverted to a feoffee, John Kaynes (d. 1420). The latter's daughter Joan (d. 1462), wife successively of Sir John Speke and Hugh Champernowne, (d. 1482) was succeeded by her grandson, John son of John Speke. William Speke, described as of Avishays in 1506, was followed by his son Thomas and grandson John Speke. By 1530 the estate was held as a freehold under Chaffcombe manor.
John le Sor we have come across before - and I am Sherrillwill be able to put more flesh on that than I can! I think this Thomas and William could have been the Bapton, Dorset c/ks cousins of the Somerset Payne's, but I was very surprised to see the Poulett involvement, because they were Rockborn related weren't they? Perhaps with your huge background knowledge all of you will be able to understand it better than I can, but it does look as if the Sealey/Cely/ Cailli family also spelled their name Kail. Let me know what you think.
Kindest regards
Sylvia
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 13, 2007
Subject: Is this the London Family?
Good going, Sylvia. The Le Sors are important and we should investigate them further. There are several references to them involving C/Ks. I have been on the Kail(e)/Kayle bandwagon for a long time. Fortunately I recognized the possibilities while still researching in England and copied several items regarding them. I am certain that the wife of one of the Pauletts was a Kaile.
I am assigning some homework: please go to the following link about the Bartlett family. This covers much of our "wonderings" about origins of Norman families, and could easily apply to our C/K origins, not saying that we have Bartlett origins, but explaining how we may have become who we are.
www.bartlett.to/ then click on Bartletts of PendomerRead all of it, beginning with the AMENDMENT. Warwick will be especially interested in the TUDOR section because there is much about our familiar Dorset areas.
I copied this off because I concentrate best with my feet up, rather than hunched over and squinting at a 'dusty' monitor screen. Besides, you can make notes on copies! There is reference to KELLAWAYS once owning Bardolfston (sp.?), but I think this is reference to one of Robert's (W & L)acquisitions. I have not finished reading this. Mr. Peter Bartlett, the author of this treatise, is a resident of NSW, AU. His insight is interesting, and he seems to have done his homework.
Later,
Sherrill
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Jan 14, 2007
Subject: Kellaway/Stafford Taxes
Hello Warwick,
Thank you so much for your document on the Gussage families etc. I think I may have something more to add to that. When the first part of 'The Enigma of Moistown' was published. A lady from Zeal Monachorum in Devon wrote to me telling me that much of Broadwoodkelly was owned by the Sturt family of Moore Critchel in Dorset. Even though I followed it up, at the time I could find nothing, and it did not make much sense. However, she did mention Moore Critchel in connection with the Sturt family and BWK, so my ears pricked up when I saw it in your document. I googled around but the onlty reference I came to was:
Kellaway family history, March 2005, Warwick Kellaway, http://www.callawayfamily.org/document/Dorset.htm!!!!!!!!
The dates you refer to are in the 1800's but Henry Sturt was at Moore Critchel
in the 1600's. If it is true that the Sturt family owned BWK property in
the 1600's ( There is not much property in BWK - even now it consists of less than 200 people)- the chances are that it was c/k property prior to being Sturt property in the 1500's ( We know that John of Cullompton owned much of it and we have not yet discovered how much the ck/Staffords owned). All of this suggests to me that there was a Sturt /ck marriage in the late 1500's.
The Sturt family passed on the title of 'Lord Allington' if that is of any assistance.
Kindest regards
Sylvia
From: Lesley Haigh
Sent: Jan 6, 2007
Subject: Early tax records
1524 1543 1545 Cornwall Subsidies
1524/5
Henry Kylway ) Levabe (Mabe) G5 bracketed together
John Harry )
John Calway Peryn Burght (Penryn) G2
William Kelwa Melyan (Mullion) L2
John Kelowe Helston W1
William Kelowe Helston G2
Walter Chaylowe Fowy Burgh (Fowey) G1
Thomas Chalowe Fowy Burgh G2
Philip Callowe Seynt Blasy G2
John Callowe Seynt Blasy jun G1
John Caloes Ewa (St Ewe) G4
William Calway Seynt Columb le Overa G1
Thomas Kyllyowe Burgo de Bodmyn G4
John Calwaye Seynt Kua (Kew) W1
William Kelyowe Seynte Tetha (Teath) L8
John Calwaye Seynt Nyott L10
Robert Kellyowe de est Seynt Nyott G3
Robert Kelyow de west Seynt Nyott G10
Robert Kelyowe Warlegan G10
John Kelyowe Lansalays L20
John Palle ) Lanteglos juxta Fowy
Robert Ude ) cum burg de Polruan G10 All bracketed together
Joan Kelyowe )
Thomas Kellyowe Seynt Clere G10
William Collow Tyndagel G10
Thomas Collow Tyndagell G4
Richard Collow Tyndagell G8
1543/4
William Kelway Uny Lalant G2
Philip Kelwaye Seynt Mylyan (Mullion) G2
William Kelwaye Seynt Mylyan L2
Thomas Chelowe Fowey G5
Philip Kalway Blasye G2
John Calway Blasye G6
John Kelow Luxulyan G1
John Kyllyow Lanhedryk G7
Roger Kyllyow Lanhedryk G4
Thomas Killyow Burg de Bodmin G4
William Kyllyowe Tetha G9
John Calwaye Seynt Nyot G13 Collector John Calway
Kelliow Town recorded here
William Kelyow Seynt Clere G2
John Kelowe Seynt Clere G2 Killiow place name
Thomas Cullowe Seynt German G4
John Cullowe Seynt German G1
John Cullowe Burgus de Downeheved G2 Launceston
William Culloo Tyntagell G19
Henry Cullowe Tyntagell G5
Thomas Cullowe Tyntagell G2
Richard Culloo Tyntagell G1
John Calway Mynstre G1
Subsidy Grants 1545
Jane Kellyow Illogan G9
Benevolance 1545
John Calwaye Nyott 8s 8d
John Kelyow Lansalowsse 30s
William Collow Tyntagel 12s 8d
No Stafford/Stowford recorded in Cornwall
1641 Protestation Returns
Cury
Austin Kelway signed
John Kelway signed
Mullion
Peter Kelway +
Sithney
Thomas Kelway signed
Gulval
John Kelwaye signed
Uny Lelant
Robert Kellway +
John Kelwaye signed
William Kelway signed
William Kelwaye signed Constable
St Hilary
Richard Celloway +
St Columb Major
Thomas Calwaye
Thomas Calwaye jun
William Calwaye
Gilbert Calwaye
Henry Calwaye
Anthony Calwaye
Peter Calwaye
St Merryn
Henry Cellow
St Blazey
John Killiowe signed
Luxulyan
Tho Kellow +
Bennett Kellow +
St Clement
Walter Callaway +
Boconnoc
John Kelloe
Treneglos
Tho Stafford signed
Lansallos
John Callaway signed
John Killyowe signed
Rainald Kyllyowe signed
Frances Kyllyowe signed
John Kallaway signed
Thomas Kyllyowe signed
Oliver Kyllyowe signed |
Charles Kyllyowe signed | together
Richard Kylliow signed |
Blisland
Thomas Kellow signed
St Kew
Will Callaway +
John Callaway +
Rich Callaway +
St Teath
John Kellow +
Forrabury
John Callaway +
Minster
Degory Callaway +
Tintagel
William Cullow +
Henry Cullow +
Nicholas Cullow +
Clemence Callaway +
Landrake
William Killiowe signed
William Killiowe signed
St Germans
Ezechell Celloe signed
St Ive
Rignald Kellowe
Launcells
Richard Callway
Cornwall 1660-1664
Poll Tax 1660 £ s d
John Kellway Turn Treraboe (St Keverne) 1
Ambrose Kelway Grade 1
William Callaway & wife Mylor 1
Grace Kelway Mullion 1
Edward Kelway & Wife Mullion 1
Richard Killiowe Esq Sth Petherwin 10 0 0
Jane Kellowe St Ewe 1
Jane Kelliow St Blazey 1
John Kelliow gent St Blazey 1
Francis Kellowe Lanlivery 1
William Killiow Luxulyon 1
Jowell Kelliow St Mewan 1
Subscribers Free Present 1661
Robert Kellow St Germans 10
Tho Calloway St Kew 10
Hearth Tax 1664 ex = examined bm = by mistake. Not mentioned – in earlier returns Exempt because of poverty or exempt. Ret = returned (when asked earlier)
William Kellway Saltash 3 ret one too many bm
Richard Kelliow Esq Sth Petherwin 10 ex
Joseph Clynicke now Math Cellow St Germans 5 & hath but 4 to be found
Robert Keelow St Germans 4 ex
Ezekiell Kellowe St Germans 1 ex
Ezekiel Kelliow St Germans 2 not mentioned
Rich Callaway jun Stratton 2 not rated poor
Nich Kellowe St Teath 1 not chargeable
John Kellowe St Teath 1 not chargeable
Thomas Callaway St Kew 3
Jane Callaway St Kew 1 not chargeable
Mrs Jane Kelly(o)w St Blazey 6 ex
Robert Callway Tregowny 1ret 1 short
Bennet Kelliviow Luxulyan 2 ex
Charles Calliway St Michael Penkevil 2 ex
William Kellaway Lelant 2 ex
John Kellway now Robert Kellway Lelant 1 ex v. poor not rated
Wm & John Kelway or occupants Lelant 2 not mentioned
Richard Kelliow Esq Lansallos 5 two fallen down
Henry Killiow Lansallos 1 ex v. poor not rated
William Kellowe St Neot 1 ex
William Callaway Mylor 3 ret one too many bm
Edward Kellway Mullion 1 ex
Grace Kellway Mullion 1 not mentioned
Edmund Callaway St Agnes 1 not mentioned
Christian Callaway St Columb Maj 1 ex
Gilbert Calloway St Columb Town 1 not rated poor
No Stafford/Stowford in all Cornwall
Early Kellaway Taxes G=goods L=land W=wages
Devon 1524/5 Subsidy Rolls
John Callowe Honyton 1524/5 G20
William Callowe “ 1524/5 W1
John Callow Hemyock 1524/5 G6
John Callow “ W1
John Kaylway Collumpton 1524/5 L66 2/3
Mr Kaylway “ W 1 1/3
John Callowe Crediton 1524/5 G4
John Kyllo Caryer Pynehow 1524/5 G3
John Kyllo Miller “ G5
Hugh Calaway Brodwodekelly 1524/5 G2
John Kylway Yngwardlegh 1524/5 G6
Thomas Kelowse Highampton 1524/5 G1
Wilmot Kyllowe wid Totnes 1524/5 G2
John Callowe Kenton 1524/5 G3
Stephen Callowe “ 1524 W1
Stephen Callow Exminster 1525 W1
Anticipation 1526-7
John Keyleway Collumpton pd 1526 L66
1543-1545 Subsidy Rolls
William Callowe Honiton 1545 3
Michael Gallowe “ 3
Simon Kayleway Colompton 1543/5 15
John Keylway Inwardleigh 1545 4
Roger Callway Farway(nr Honiton) 1545 12
John Callwaye “ 2
William Callwaye “ 1
Joan Callwaye “ 2
John Callowe Hemyock 1544 13 1/3
John Callowe Crediton 1544 15
Richard Calowe Kenton 1544 1
John Calow “ 7
1581 Subsidy
Name Parish Tax
Clement Callowe Hemyoke G3
John Callowe Crediton L1
Simon Kelway Colompton G12
1642
John Kellaway Northlew Black Torrington Hundred 3s 0d
1660 Poll Tax
Sarah Kellaway South Tawton Servants Poll
Ann Kellway Cheriton Bishop Poll
1522/3 Loan
Richard Stowford Wodebury 1522 G5
1524/5
Richard Stowford Wodebury 1524/5 G5
Robt Stoford(Staward) Herpeford 1524/5 W1
Robert Stowford Braunscombe 1524/5 W1
William Stoford Ottery St Mary 1524/5 G20
George Stafford Brod Clyst 1524/5 W1
Philip Stowford Dolton 1524/5 L30
Stephen Stoford Abbots Bickington 1524/5 G3
John Stawford Lifton 1524/5 W1
Thomas Stowford Tavistock 1524/5 G20
Anticipation 1526/7
Henry Stafford Woodbury Anti 60 (Earl of Wiltshire) not marked as paid
Thomas Stowford Tavistock Anti G40 Nothing marked as paid
1543-5 Subsidy
William Stowfford Colaton Ralegh 1544 1
Joan Stovord Newton St Cerici 1544 4
George Stovord Ottery St Mary 1545 20
Robert Stawford Dolton 1544 40
Leonard Stowford Wetheruge 1546 20
Hugh Stofford Newton St Petrock 1544 4
John Stofford Bokelond Brewer 1544 2
Richard Stofford Bokelond Brewer 1544 16
Stephen Stoford Bugynten (Abbotts Bickington) 1545 4
1581
George Stoford gent Bideforde G3
Walter Stowford Parkham G8
John Stowford Bucklande Bruer G8
Walter Stofford Collyton Raleghe L2
George Stofford gent Ottery Blessed Marye L6
Joan Stofforde wid Ufcollumbe L4
William Stofforde Hemioke G3
1642
Robert Stafford Esq Northlew 20s 4d
1660
Thomsin Stafford wid Powderham £15
G = Goods L = Land. Number appears to be a tax group P = Poll SP = Servant Poll AP = Apprentice Poll
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Thomas Keylway of Preston Plucknett - 1672 Visitation of Somerset &
City of Bristol
I wish to remind everyone that "Robert of Rockborne" on the cited pedigree is actually "Robert of Lillington." In his will, Walter Berrington referred to his "brother, Robert C/K of Lillington."
I did an extensive search on "Berrington" (looking particularly for Walter) and found almost nothing linking the Berrington's to Somerset. I found one reference: C 3/284/63 (NA) 1596-1616 Phelps v. Berrington, Somerset
The Berringtons lived primarily in Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester and Shropshire. Researchers have a Germanic origin (i.e. Switzerland) for the Berrington family.
Further, I now believe it is this Thomas (md. Jane Hodges) who was involved with Lord Zouche, Maunsell, etc. in the glassmaking business. I found a peculiar reference in the Lyte "Commonplace Book" which refers to 'glaziers' and petitons on the subject. I will share this as soon as I can sort through my volumes of notes to find it.
I remember now that I thought, and still do, that this family of the cited pedigree are descendants of Henry, son of John of Bapton (and nephew and heir of Martin C/K -1575 will), son of the elder "Robert of Lillingon" who married Joan Marshall. This also brought in that crowd of C/Ks down in Wiltshire, around Malmsbury, etc. which caused us to put our heads in the sand for a while.
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Iddesleigh
Sherrill
wrote:
Bruce, it
seems that everyone was related to everyone, if not by blood, then by marriage.
We are dealing with a virtual 'rabbit warren' here, and I fear it will get worse
as we proceed. I think we will be mapping the entire population of medieval
England!
Sherrill
I could not agree more Sherrill, and we may need a ferret to lead us out of the burrows, and into a more meaningful direction. There is a somewhat offensive Australian vernacular relating to intimate relationships and who 'pays the rent' which I will not repeat here, but there were certainly many shenanigans amongst the folk of Sylvia's area of Devon at this time akin to the Martins and the McCoys in the hills of West Virginia a few centuries later! Admittedly based on property and wealth which still drives the Merry-go-Round! We know from the following that all the players were there:
The Visitations of the County of Devon
KELLOWAY OF STOWFORD
MALLETT OF IDSLEIGH
POMEROY OF BERRY POMEROY
PRIDEAUX OF ADESTON AND THEUBOROUGH
PRIDEAUX OF SOLDON AND NETHERTON
PRIDEAUX OF ASHBURTON AND NUTWELL
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Iddesleigh
> Warwick, we have a Giles in Somerset, with descendants (one
of them named Giles). I don't know who he is, but posibly a descendant of Giles
of Rockborne and Dorset. Giles benefited handsomely at the dissolution, no doubt
assisted by Robert (W & L).
> Sherrill
>
> --- Warwick Kellaway
wrote:
Another piece of the jigsaw Sherrill.
That Prideau name rings another bell somewhere, but we now have a little more on
Giles. He clearly lived in Dorset, and seems to have been a property man. He
undoubtedly used his connection with Robert W&L to expand his possessions. I
already had him at Stroude, Kingston Russell,Chilfrome, and Bridport, particularly
Bridport. But it seems Stroude came from the widow Stroude/Strode.
As you say possibly not his first wife. If an olderwoman, perhaps not too
many descendants - although didn't we findanother Giles near Stroude?
Warwick
SHERRILL WILLIAMS wrote:
Bruce, you may be interested in the following
item:
Chancery Case at NA: C 1/1136/32-24 (1544-1551) Giles Keylwey, gentleman &
Joan his wife, formerly Joan Prydeux and late the wife of Thomas Poxwell of
Strode, esquire v. Joan, late the wife of Richard Strode: manor of Strode (in
Netherbury) and messuages and land in the parishes (sic) of Netherbury,
Hawkchurch (now in Devon), Horyde (i.e. Horridge in Thorncombe?), settled on the
said Thomas by Thomas Poxwell of Marnhull, esquire, his father. Dorset.
So, there is one wife for Giles; probably his 2nd wife. And this partly
explains his presence in Dorset.
Sherrill
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Warwick,
If you step back and take a look at the situation, you will see our problem. The Whitesleigh property dispute in Devon shows us that John of Cullompton and Sir John of Rockborne were closely related. Do we see the Sherborne family represented there?
We really cannot say which Dorset property was held by 1469 William. What piece of land was his father, John, holding? We have absolutely no record describing the property of John and his son, 1469 William. There was apparently no disputes over their land, thus no court cases, etc. It would be helpful if we had a Inq.p.m. for 1469 William, and/or his father, John. So far, we have not turned one up for either.
We do know that somehow property at Stalbridge belonged to the family. Generations later we have a gentleman referred to as William "of Stalbridge." The East Coker Muniments show us a bit about that, but not enough to clearly understand it. Martin "of Lillington" refers to a "William of Stalbridge" in his
1575 will. So, we have to assume that Stalbridge was a key to this puzzle.
I think we must go back and study those Dorset Lay Subsidies of 1327 and 1332. That is closer to the East Coker records. Of course, the next records we have are the tax lists from 1524/5 - some 200 years later. That could be 7 or 8 generations, a huge gap.
Then there is the matter of the COA. We have three references to that relating to the Dorset family:(1) the banner displayed at Sherborne Abbey. We have no clue as to when or where in the church that banner was originally displayed. It indicates it belonged to a "third son," but third son of ?who?; (2) the windows of the manor house at Lillington; and (3) many generations later, in the 1700's, the Piddlehinton family of John and Mrs. Elizabeth claimed a right to it. Their daughter, Mary, married Nathaniel Gundry - and on the tomb of Gundry his arms is quartered with the C/K arms.
Regarding the COA at Sherborne Abbey, we could 'guess' that John, the father of 1469 William, was a third son of someone. His relationship with the earlier almshouse (Dodill's) at Sherborne links him to Dorset early, but this is all 'guessing.'
One other thing about the COA. In all the Visitation Pedigrees of this Dorset family, no reference to a College of Arms MSS is given. There is such a reference in at least one of the Sir John "of Rockborne" pedigrees. I believe it refers to a Harleian MSS. So, that is where we are on that subject.
At this point, I don't think we can say whether this family in Dorset is the "senior family" or the "junior family" because we don't know who the family is.
In regards to the Thomas C/K who married Joan Bingham, he appears to be a son of Edmund of Wiltshire. He is apparently the head of the Rockborne family since his marriage to Joan Bingham brings to that family the Bassett/Bisset/Romsey/Bingham properties. We do see this Rockbourne family squabbling over the land in Devon, also. But, we cannot positively identify the Dorset family involved in the disputes over Devon land, can we?
I invite criticism on this interpretation of the situation, but with "documentation," please.
Sherrill
--- Warwick Kellaway wrote:
> Sherrill
> I am intrigued by your new theories, and "other evidence" regarding those 1400 boys, and some of their girls. And you have been doing well finding new information. I see you are abandoning the Barrett connection with the Rockbourne knights. Quite a radical change of attack. Certainly the Pedigrees could indicate that they were distinct, as an option to them descending from the second, Stantner, family. In fact if they were ignored altogether, the descents from William and Joan Barrett through Thomas to Robert, John, Henry etc, would all flow very well. Including holding Bapton. It could also supply a few more "spare" names, that we could place in other areas.
>It would presumably sidetrack William of Sherborne and his Will, and take (not sir) William, the husband of Joan Barrett and father of Thomas, back to the Thomas who married Joan Bingham, and the senior family. It would continue the alternating generations of Thomases. There really never was any problem with their descent, but where do the Rockbourne boys fit, to get any property at all? Again if the Rockbourners were considered a knightly family in their own right by the time of the Pedigrees, why was no specific pedigree given.
> There might have been one second pedigree - that was the case with the Devon family. The only answer seems to be that they were a younger branch, whose members gained some of the "family" property, and were separately knighted. If they were the elder family, the Pedigrees would surely not have taken the family of Thomas as the senior.
>(I recently heard that there was a difference between the European and English noble families regarding titles. In Europe a title was always passed to the eldest son - never created outside a "noble" family. In England titles could also be given for valued service or deeds, by men of lesser status. Think this may have begun under Henry V, if not earlier.)
>The 1469 Will can supply some critical names, particularly William's father John, presumably the brother of the elder Thomas, his (only?) son William, and his two favoured grandsons John, presumably the elder, and William. Plus granddaughters Agnes and Alice. They still match the Rockbourners.
>Putting all this down, I now sense that you may be looking at separating Joan Barrett from "Sir" William, but still keeping him, and the Rockbourners, with the Will. That would retain "Sir" William's father as William, his grandfather as John. His son John as the future "Sir" John. But it is "restricted" by the 1469 date. It would presumably confirm G/granddad John as the younger brother of Thomas of Sutton Bingham.
> (Although woops it may cause a problem with the Bingham property inheritance.)
>None of this however would seem to support Thomas of Bapton as a third son in either family. To be accepted as the "pedigreed head" of the family , he would surely have to be the eldest son of the eldest son etc. Property though could possibly, rarely, be different - it could go to another family member. (Thank you. I note the confirmation that Bapton was sold by the last Robert - the London legal man I presume.)
> Going back to the Will, you seem to think that grandson William was older than John. But by referring to John first, surely that indicated he was the elder son? Unfortunately so far whatever we seem to bring forth as a new theory over the family format in the 1400s, there is always something that seems to cause a problem.)
> I don't think particular counties have too much relevance. They could all have property in a number of counties, and I have the impression that they might move about "at will". The Barretts were apparently more in Wiltshire. The Binghams mainly in Dorset. The C/Ks seemed to be everywhere, although by then it seemed mainly in Dorset and Devon, touching on Wiltshire and Somerset. (Including Giles in Somerset it seems.) We do now seem to have had the Dorset family around Gussage and Blandford in the early 1300s, and Dewlish etc in the early 1500s, in Dorset. We may yet tie those individuals in.
> We must remember, when getting involved with the Binghams and Barretts, that their property was "acquired" late. The earlier, older, Dorset properties, around Stalbridge, and the Gussages, apparently went to the family of Thomas of Bapton. He and his branch therefore inherited the principal properties in that area, if not in Devon.
> Robert W&L remains a mystery, although we may be slowly picking up his pieces, if family members were around Salisbury so early. His Will reference to Rockbourne Francis as cousin, and Stalbridge/Dorset Thomas as nephew, might seem to give a clue, perhaps suggesting slightly closer relationship to the Dorset branch, but my latest thoughts, from evidence around Salisbury, are that the connection may have been much earlier, around 13-1400. And the addresses more courtesy than fact (otherwise he surely would have been mentioned somewhere in the Pedigrees).
> Plenty to munch upon. (And at this stage I am staying clear of Iddesleigh. Good work though)
> Warwick
> SHERRILL WILLIAMS wrote:
> > Warwick,
> > I have been using "other evidence" to restructure these C/K pedigrees. There is a lot of other evidence out there. If Sir William 1st Knight is the one who married Joan Barret, then all the Dorset property, as well as Bapton, would have descended in the Rockborne family line. It did not. The only ones from the Rockborne family involved in Dorset land, later, were Robert (W & L) and Giles. And that was because of the dissolution. If Sir William 1st Kt of Rockborne was the same William who married Joan Barret, Bapton would have ended up in the hands of Sir John, Sir Williams 2 Kt and their descendants. It did not. The Rockborne clan only had dealings with the property that descended to them, Romsey/Bingham land, from the marriage of Thomas C/K and Joan Bingham. Bapton is another story. It was clearly Barret land.
> > Bapton was in Whiteparish, but does that refer to the parish of Whiteparish, or the Hundred of Whiteparish? That could make a difference as to its actual location. Hundreds were civil districts, said to cover
From: Sylvia
Warham
Sent: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Hello Everybody,
I have been keeping quiet in this discussion, because, having listened to all the theories put forward I was not sure about the Rockbournes. However, I have to say - some of Sherrill's arguments are very convincing.
On Friday 26 January 2007 14:55, SHERRILL WILLIAMS wrote:
>The Whitesleigh property dispute in Devon shows us that John of Cullompton and Sir John of Rockborne were closely related. Do we see the Sherborne family represented there?
Yes, very true. There is definitely no Dorset involvement at Whitsleigh. In fact I have a record that shows Rockbourne William was living in Cooksley,Devon at the time - and I will root it out if that would be helpful.
> There was apparently no disputes over their land, thus no court cases, etc. It would be helpful if we had a Inq.p.m. for 1469 William, and/or his father, John. So far, we have not turned one up for either.
Yes this is very true too. When I looked at the Dorset family, the 'property trail' was very thin because it passed smoothly from father to son.
> In all the Visitation Pedigrees of this Dorset family, no reference to a College of Arms MSS is given. There is such a reference in at least one of the Sir John "of Rockborne" pedigrees. I believe it refers to a Harleian MSS.
Yes, I think this is a really important point. Much of the evidence about the Dorset family cannot be verified and that is a big problem. However, there are reliable sources for the Rockbourne pedigree.
> At this point, I don't think we can say whether this family in Dorset is the "senior family" or the "junior family" because we don't know who the family is.
This is a point I have made many times. There is no senior family - unless we go back to Gloucester. The family developed into several different branches, sometimes adopting a different spelling of the name - but they are all the same family.
> In regards to the Thomas C/K who married Joan Bingham, he appears to be a son of Edmund of Wiltshire. He is apparently the head of the Rockborne family since his marriage to Joan Bingham brings to that family the Bassett/Bisset/Romsey/Bingham properties. We do see this Rockbourne family squabbling over the land in Devon, also. But, we cannot positively identify the Dorset family involved in the disputes over Devon land, can we?
Yes this is very true - and as I pointed out earlier William was actually living in Devon during some of these disputes. There is not a single reference to Dorset, or that he owned very much Dorset property. If he had been of Dorset extraction he would have owned at least the Ledred property - but he didn't.
> I invite criticism on this interpretation of the situation, but with "documentation," please.
Am I allowed a few hours to find my Cooksley documentation, please Sherrill!!!
Seriously, considering all of the arguments, I think I really have to come down on the side of the Rockbourne family being related to the Dorset family, but not the same. That is what all of the property evidence indicates.
Kindest regards,
Sylvia
From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Sylvia, Sherrill, et al,
I have just finished watching the second part of the "Antiques Roadshow" from
Durham and Bishop Auckland, where the present Bishop lives today, 11miles from
Durham. I note that Bishop Richard's manor at Bishop Middleham, where he died
in 1316, is a little closer, and the Village of Kelloe, is perhaps 5 miles from
Durham.
Another fertile area for exploration. (O how that placename changed!)
It is good though that we can look at these southern families around Dorset from
different angles, and I do appreciate the astute comments put forward.
We can obtain a more rounded understanding. I know that I for one have been so
involved in trying to resolve the matter, that I need to look outside the
square.
It does now seem there may have been a greater separation between the two,
"Dorset" and "Rockbourne" families. Although as I pointed out there were
associations - the most obvious being through Robert W&L, with a "cousin" in one
camp, a "nephew" in the other.
But what that separation is is certainly not yet clear.
I suggest the main difference with regard to pedigree status is that the
"Dorset" family were long "established" in Dorset, and thereabouts. Whereas the
"Rockbourne" family (if not actually closely related), really only became "recognised"
with the knighting of Sir William in 1501. Hence he was the one with the MSS.
Perhaps the "Dorset" people had no reason to enter into disputes (although
Bapton was apparently a good one), but the "Rockbourne" boys carried on to the
bitter end of Rockbourne.
I don't think the family actually had too much property before the Bingham
marriage. The "Dorset" branch, possibly never, whereas the "Rockbourne" branch
got their hands on Bingham estates, and others in Devon, and perhaps joined the
"nouveau riche" of the time. Thereby beginning the squabbles.
We may not have too many specific references to the "Dorset" family, and a sad
lack of disputes to assist us, but they were there in the mid 1200s at least -
at Dunes Weston. Dunes Weston - Calewe Weston - Stalbridge Weston - Stalbridge,
are names, if not of exactly of the same place or manor in Dorset, certainly
very close to each other. Stalbridge Weston being today 1/2 mile from
Stalbridge. Both locations were referred to the 1327/1332 Lay Subsidy Taxes.
John, and possibly family members from around Gussage All Saints in east Dorset,
were Patrons at Kayleways manor in Wiltshire. John, or his father John, almost
certainly founded St Giles Church there in 1304 (as Richard de Kellawe was then
coming to "power", it suggests a family link with Durham).
We have John le Calewe of Calewe Weston clearly descended from the union of
Elias de Cayleway and Bertha Giffard, somewhere about 1190. One link including
Brimpsfield in Gloucestershire. (He seems to have nearly got the massive
Giffard estates, but didn't.) Elias, or possibly his son Elias, had lived at
Kayleways around 1227. The manor there was almost certainly that referred to in
the Gloucester Pipe Rolls of 1165. We have the recorded succeeding Patrons of St
Giles Church after John - William and Edmund.
The one really important piece of legal property information covers the dispute
between Edmund, his son Thomas, and Margaret de Courtenay in 1391. This led to
Edmund and his wife Joan moving to Chenstone manor at Chawleigh in Devon,
apparently a property in C/K hands since very early times. (There was one other
family Patron of Kayleways - John from 1405- 1429. He is considered to be
another son of Edmund, and brother of Thomas.)
The Heralds appeared to have no doubt that the "Dorset" family descended from
the union of "a" William with Joane Barrett, and their eldest son Thomas.
Apart from a number of recordings of William(s) in the mid 1400s, the
"pedigreed" references for the "Rockbourne" branch do not commence before Sir
William, (knighted in 1501), and most of those refer to the marriages of his
progeny into other families. I was always intrigued that the Pedigrees gave so
much of the Devon pedigree, so little in Dorset, but I think they were perhaps
even more defined and settled. Whether called senior or not, there seems little
doubt that the "older" "Dorset" family was the one of the two respected by the
Heralds. (This could have some relevance to them being "older")
The problem area is that between 1400 and 1470. We do have the Will of William
of Sherborne in 1469 however, and the names therein apparently match those of
"Sir" William, and the "Rockbourne" family.
Perhaps if we leave the "Rockbourners" with William of Sherborne, and take the
"Dorset" boys out, we get an answer. But that takes the "Dorset" family through
Joane Barrett, and directly to Edmund and Thomas, by eldest sons. I have no
problem with that, but it does not explain how the "Rockbourners" got their
hands on the Bingham property. Actually if the "Dorset" branch inherited Bapton
- Barrett property - and the connection seems emphasised by the Pedigrees fairly
heavy referral to the marriage of William and Joan, it is difficult to produce a
scenario where the "Rockbourners" could get Rockbourne and other Devon
properties. Maybe we have to leave them together, as I put in the last scenario.
I realise the ownership of Sutton Bingham became rather confused, after Thomas 1
died, and have always been confused myself with Stoford and Barwick, homes of
later "Dorset" family members, being so close. But you are working hard in
there, and if it is possible to sort out the various Williams, Johns and
Thomases, I am sure you will.
We can probably get quite a number of names anyway from the various County Lay
Subsidies in the 1300s, and that must help place people, although I suspect
there is not much detail provided.
I see that reference to the third son in the Sherborne COA. My suggestion would
be that it would be unusual for a third son to become wealthy enough to provide
the arms, unless he had been successful in business, such as a well known
"merchant of the staple".
The Dorset and Rockbourne families were clearly related, and closely, but how
closely?
Warwick
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 27, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Warwick,
There is no significance in the fact that propeties belonging to the various
branches of the C/Ks could be, geographically speaking, close together. That all
goes back to the way "the Conqueror" distributed land to his favorite
supporters. He did not give each one a hugh piece of ground in one particular
place. He gave them smaller manors scattered all over England, as the Domesday
Book shows. Sutton Bingham and Rockborne were Romsey properties. I recently sent
out a deed whereby Joan Bingham inherited Sutton Bingham from her mother, Mary
Bingham (who md. (1) Thomas Bingham; (2) John Peny). Mary d/o Walter Romsey
inherited Sutton Bingham from her father. Joan Bingham had two sisters,
Elizabeth Bingham and Alianora (Eleanor?) who married a Horsey. Apparently the
two sisters died without heirs, and Joan Bingham (now married to Thomas Cayleway)
inherited the entire manor of Sutton Bingham, which then descended in the
Cayleway family until a later generation of descendants sold it out of the
family.
Rockborne was also a Romsey property, but it descended in a slightly different manner. It descended to Joan Bingham's cousin, Joan (who had married Thomas Payne). When Joan Payne died without heirs, Joan Bingham Cayleway was detemined her heir. Realize that Rockborne came to Joan Bingham Cayleway (now Mrs. Roger Wyke) years after she inherited Sutton Bingham.
Even though Joan Bingham was, at the time she inherited Rockborne, married to Roger Wyke, her direct heirs were from her marriage to Thomas Cayleway. Thus, Rockborne descended in the Cayleway lineage.
You were also wondering about Robert (W & L) being cousin to the Rockbornes and having a nephew from the other side (meaning, I think, the Gawens). We have determined that Robert I (father of Robert W & L) was a brother of Sir John of Rockborne. The Gawen pedigree shows that a Gawen married Alice, the daughter of "Robert Cayleway of Sarum" (or Salisburie). So, Alice C/K Gawen was a sister of Robert (W & L), and it was her son, Robert's nephew, to whom he made a bequest.
Robert I was married to Alice Gover, wid. of John Byfleet. By her marriage to John Byflett, Alice had a daughter who married a South. This marriage is shown on the Byfleet pedigree. So the other nephews who received a bequest from Robert (W & L), the South boys, were sons of his half-sister.
We now lay Rockborne aside, and return to the Dorset
family problem. I will start a new note on that.
Sherrill
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 27, 2007
Subject: Lillington
The Dorset Family:
The Dorset C/K family is shown to us on various visitation pedigrees, and other pedigrees contrived by historians attempting to make sense of this family.
These pedigrees are convoluted and conflicting. Dates are seldom given, so we are left to swim around a group of descendants named William and Thomas with no way to clearly determine their relationships. Most of the pedigrees include a Peter, related in various ways, but no dates for him. Perhaps the following chancery case that shows his 'time range' will assist us in placing him properly.
C 1/970/19 (dated 1523-1544)
Peter Caylway and Alice his wife, late the wife of Robert Bysshop and executrix of John Bysshop her son v. John Horsey, Knight.....money entrusted to defendant with stock, for part price of a messuage and land in Mappowder and peformance of the said Robert's will, and price of the premises since sold by defendant. Dorset
This confirms the time frame of Peter of the pedigree charts, and tells us that he is the one taxed for 'wages' on 1524/25 tax lists of Clifton Maybank (where the Horseys reigned). Also, that he is the Pet.
Caylwaye on the 1539 muster roll of Mappowder tithing.
By 1542 he is listed on the muster roll, as Pet.
Keyleway, of Milton Abbas. We also know that he was married during these dates to a widow who had a son, John Bysshop. But we don't know when and where he died.
Laying that aside, we need to explore John, the father of William (1469 will). John does not appear on the pedigrees, nor does 1469 William, if I remember correctly. Let's see if we can identify John.
1410. Feoffees appointed for William Dodill's Almshouse, Sherborne, Dorset: includes, John Kaylle, John Keylewey
1419. John Kaylewey, a parishioner of All Hallows, one of 22 signers of a covenant to collect money for the poor of the parish ["Medieval Sherborne"]
1424/25. Inq. P. M. for Dorset: Inq. of John Chidyok.
He held, among other properties, land in Shirborne Woburn & Thorneforde - and rents from tenants in Shirborn, including John Kaylewey & w. Agnes, who held
1 toft in right of Agnes [Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries, Vol. 13 (1913), p. 193.]
1425. John Kayleway, a juror, at inquisition held at Sherborne, Dorset, re: land of John Bonevile, esq.
1436. John Keyleway, a parishioner at Sherborne, who gave evidence at Bishop Neville's inquiry (regarding the parishioners dispute with the monks).
1441. John Kayleway at Sherborne, mentioned as a witness (not sure of the reference to this, but probably from "Med. Sherborne" and possibly referring to the "new" Almshouse deeds).
1446/47. At Westminister between John Kayleway, William Kayleway & Andrew Edward, querents, and John Davy & Joan, deforciants - for 6 messuages, 30 acres of land, 8 acres of meadow & 20 acres of pasture in Yevell, Oldesok, Kyngeston, Astyngton & Modeford Terry [Feet of Fines, Somerset]. [This may be part of the property "around Yeovil" bequeathed by 1469 William to his grandson, John.]
1454. Between John Kayelway, William Kaylewaye & others querents and Walter Style & wife Phillipa (d/o Walter Grene), deforciants - of 1 messuage in Shirborne [Dorset Feet of Fines, 1327-1485].
Now, we must ask the question, do all these references refer to John, the father of 1469 William, or did John have another, younger son, also named John?
If we consider that John, the father, was born c1380's, it is not beyond reason that he would still be alive in 1454, aged in his 70's. Since these later records are dealing with property (land), it is safe to consider that all these references refer to John, the father of 1469 William. Some of these may suggest the property 'around Yeovil' that 1469 William bequeathed to his grandson, John. Much here to think about.
One other comment. Thomas, the heir to Bapton, Wilts, and father of Robert of Lillington, would not be the "oldest son" of William and Joan Barret. He, being the heir of William Cammell, was not born until c1477, eight or nine years after William 1469 made his will, mentioning his grandsons, William and John who were the first and second heirs. Thomas was 3rd son, at best, so it is curious why he inherited the Barret property at Bapton. Something else was in play regarding that. In fact, the entire thing about William Cammell's co-heir is inconsistent. Hopefully we can figure it all out.
William Cammell's sister was Anna/Joanna who married
(1) Henry Barret and (2) Henry Pomeroy (no children by Pomeroy). Anna/Joanna's heir by Henry Barret was Joan Barett who married William C/K. William Cammell's IPM should have stated that Thomas C/K (Cammell's co-heir), was a " 'grandson' of his other sister."
That is, if everything we think we know is correct.
But, then we must ask, why is the Barret property descending to the 3rd son of William C/K and Joan Barret when there are older sons, William and John.
Did William and John died without heirs. I don't think so. It would work if we consider that sons William and John were products of a previous, first, marriage of William - and that Thomas was the 1st son by his 2nd marriage to Joan Barret. In that scenario, the C/K land would descend through William and/or John, but the Barret land would descend through Thomas to Robert of Lillington, his sons, John and Martin, and John's son Henry, etc.
Another option regarding this is that Joan Barret was not married to William, the son of 1469 William, but instead was married to William, the grandson of
1469 William. This may be the better option, since there would appear to be a long gap between William and John, sons of William the son of 1469 William, and Thomas born c1477. That option would give us this
lineage:
I John C/K
II William C/K - md. (1) Eleanor; (2) Joan, the widow
Ledred.
III William C/K - md. [unknown] (son)
IV William C/K - md. Joan Barret (grandson)
V Thomas C/K - b. c1477
V Robert C/K - md. Joan Marshall
That is somewhat speculative, but it is based on the prescribed descent of land. It would allow us to consider all the other C/Ks all over Dorset, on apparently C/K land. And it could explain why the descendants, in attempting to explain their ancestry to the Heralds, were totally confused...as are we.
Think about it.
Sherrill
Please Warwick do not think for a moment that we are ganging up against you. I understand and follow your extensive and meticulous research in the County of Dorset, and I believe that there is no doubt that they were begat from the same loins of the common ancestor that begat all the tribes. But it is a question of when.
From: Warwick
Kellaway
Sent: Jan 28, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Sherrill,
You are quite right regarding location proximities. Certainly with respect to
the legal holder of a manor or estate.
We have even found two distinct families in the same location. With time
however, intermarriage and such, such property determinations did become
complicated.
What happened was that a principal manor might have villages about it, some of
which grew into towns. Lesser family members would also live in adjacent
villages and locations. I think we might be seeing that with the Dorset Lay
Subsidy locations around Gussage All Saints. To some extent also perhaps around
Dolton in Devon.
I think the lack of shadows around Chawleigh and Cheldon suggests the family
might have held the property quite early, but did not remain there long after
1411.
I am impressed how you managed to sort out the complicated Romsey-Bingham
properties.
Even though Thomas was living at Sutton Bingham around 1410, and until he died,
it is strange that the properties did not legally reach the C/K family until
after 1470. Perhaps the time factor has a bearing on the "Rockbourne" branch
acquisitions.
We never though resolved Robert W&L as a member of the Rockbourne family, and
his father a brother to Sir John.
His father was probably about the same age as the future Sir John, and the
Pedigrees did not specify any of John's siblings. But he only referred to
Francis as his "cousin" - a common term of familiarity then (Shakespearean "cous").
On the other hand he referred to Thomas, son of William Calwey esq, as his
"nephew". A much more defined title, and not a Gawen.
Thomas could be William of Stalbridge's son.
The only other possibilities I see on the table at present are the Thomas
referred to in the 1492 Will of of William Kelway of Marnhull, who may not
actually have been his son, and whose "father" was long dead by 1581. Or a son
of William Webb alias Kellowe, Mayor of Salisbury in 1496, who was also
presumably long dead.
This is where I suspect we have another quiet C/K family living around
Salisbury, from perhaps the 1300s. We also have to the Wiltshire Stoford
nearby.)
Warwick
From: Warwick
Kellaway
Sent: Jan 28, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Sherrill,
While not presented as a tree, the Dorset C/Ks are really fairly well outlined
in the Pedigrees, and are coming to match other information as it surfaces (I
did have a missing generation at one stage, and that caused a problem - now
resolved since Joane Barrett moved on to a later William than our man with the
Will).
The Pedigrees of Wiltshire, Somerset and Cornwall are very clear with the family
descent from a William of Sherborne and his two wives, particularly Joane
Barrett. Devonshire also covers William briefly, with Joane Barrett, who seems
to have particular significance.
The County Pedigrees continue from their son Thomas through to the late 1500s,
when they became current families. The differences are really only in the
quantity of detail provided. To my knowledge there was no suggestion of
collusion between the Heralds, and any suggestion of misinformation meant
rejection for that family. There were lists of those rejected.
It is unfortunate that there is no information further back than the mid 1400s,
but other families have less.
Few of any early Pedigrees actually offer dates - the lengthy Devon tree, I
think had none early on. Dates appeared more in the 15-1600s, which was when
they were current, the people alive.
The two major problems are firstly with the Rockbourne line.
If we assume they were members of William and Joane's family, we have to accept
what is provided, warts and all.
They seem to be only included in the Pedigrees as a younger, perhaps "new"
family, and are not actually "spelled out" until Sir John's family appears -
subsequent to Sir William's knighthood.
If they were not in William and Joane Barrett's family, I don't know where they
go.
Secondly with William of Sherborne's 1469 Will.
I am not sure yet what the moving of "Sir" William on to a grandson of William
of Sherborne might do, but it would move all generations on one, and presumably
make "Sir" John's birth around 1490. While the knights previously seemed to
live relatively long lives, now they become relatively short. Sir William being
knighted at about 35, dying at about 42. His son possibly inheriting his
property before he was "of age". Unlikely.
Again, perhaps we have been out with the ages of William of Sherborne's
grandchildren. Were they some years older than we thought when he died?
And who actually married Joane Barrett?
If we take the present possible ages, it would have been "Sir" William's father
about 1460. The dates seem reasonably OK.
If we re-adjust the ages, it could be "Sir" William about 1475. The latter does
look interesting, and could even bring Thomas in with the birthdate of 1477.
There are a few "spare" grandchildren, John, Agnes and Alice, born around 1450,
and it could also explain the lack of mention of Thomas in William of
Sherborne's 1469 Will.
If "Sir" John doesn't arrive until about 1480, he would probably still be OK.
Being about 27 in 1507.
I will study that scenario more.
The Pedigrees were not confused - we confuse ourselves. As we get more
information, and hopefully some dates, it gratefully adds to the resource bank,
but doesn't always relate to what we had thought was resolved before.
We have too many Williams, Johns and Thomases, and have trouble differentiating.
The only Peter mentioned in the Pedigrees was in the family of William and the
Stantner lady, "possibly" therefore perhaps the brother of "Sir" William.
I think you have found the Muster Roll Peter, but he is not likely to be "Sir"
William's brother - his son maybe. There was also the other Peter near there -
200 years earlier. Unfortunately there is no indication yet of a succession
through the generations.
The Johns are perhaps our biggest problem. There are of course a number of
other references, going back to C/Kayleways in Wiltshire, hovering around
Cheldon in Devon, and including some IPMs in Dorset (1467) - apart from the
possibility of Thomas and Joan having a son John.
The real difficulty is fitting William's Will to our other records.
I still have no idea how Thomas became a third son. There is no suggestion of
it anywhere that I know of. Certainly not in those "infamous" Pedigrees.
We should not though reconstruct our theories without strong evidence.
I suggested before that the History with a 1477 date could have mixed the two
Thomases. (The Pedigrees had another Thomas in the Stantner family.)
Now perhaps, if the families were later than previously thought, that could
explain the lack of reference in William of Sherborne's 1469 Will.
As regards Cullompton John, I was making a point. But I have no doubt that he,
and Sir William, and Sir John, did have commercial interests in Dorset. And
Sherborne Abbey was too dominant religiously, as well as in the family, not to
have been in the picture. A John was there at the fire of 1436.
Generally though I cannot see how the descent of the Dorset family of Thomas,
from the earliest Gloucestershire period, including the key Dorset family
reference of John le Calewe, and his Stalbridge properties, in apparent direct
line through the Wiltshire manor, and through William's marriage to Joane
Barrett, can be overlooked.
I realise there was something strange about how the Rockbourne boys acquired
their property, but they never got any Barrett land to my knowledge, nor any of
what could have been the older C/K Dorset land, from the 1300s and earlier.
I feel that somewhere we are missing some important aspect about them. A
marriage to a cousin or something.
On the positive side, Bruce where did you get that article on Carmelite Walter?
Although in the north, I am not sure, but he could match the Magistrate at
Blandford Forum in Dorset in 1288. There was another Walter in that area in
1327. All that is not too far from Salisbury, and two Magistrates named Walter
30 years apart? Perhaps father and son?
We do definitely have to get into those 1300 records.
It is pouring with rain here now. Probably also at the bach, where the kids are
for Anniversary Weekend. It happened to them the last time they went over.
Warwick
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Jan 28, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Hello Sherrill and every one,
I know that I am way behind with the question Sherrill raised about whether the
stained glass at Lillington was Lytes or Stantner, but as I had no other
theories of any moment to offer, I decided to keep quiet and 'read around' a
little. I still cannot make much of a contribution to that debate! However, I
came across this reference in the Common Place book of Thomas Lyte:
'Roger Wykes, by grant of Nicholas Bach, dated 7th Henry IV, 1406, appears to have acquired Bindon, perhaps in marriage with the devisee's daughter; he resided there afterward, and abandoned his paternal for his maternal arms, and bore the coat of Burnell of Cocktree, arg,., three barnacles, sab., differenced with a chevron, erm. ..'
Ok, we know that Roger Wykes had been married to Joan (Bingham) c/k some time after 1422 and she had a son John by Thomas c/k - so the next bit is
interesting:
'By his marriage, as a widower, with Jane Bisset, he obtained a life interest in Radbours, County Dorset. He was buried in Trent St. Andrew's, near Sherborne. By his first wife(SW: Joan Bingham c/k of progenitor of the Rockbourne line) he left a son, John, who married into the house of Camill of Shapwick, and had issue, John, whose wife, Elizabeth Lyte, of Lytes-Cary, County Somerset, brought him two sons, John and Richard.
This seems like something we have all read before, until you compare it with this reference on the CAMMELS and Perley Manor:
From:
http://www.stmarkswestparley.org/library/libparleyhist.htmlThe family of the Clares were lords paramount here, for, 8 Edw. II we find G.
de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertforde, held in Perleigh one fee and one carucate, which Gilberet de Essefield, of Elyffeld, held of him, as did his descendants the Earls of March, 22 Ric. II. And 3 Hen. VI 20 Edw. III.
Gilbert Elyffeld held here one-fourth of a knight's fee, which John de Elyfeld formerly held. 14 Ric. II Philip Fitzpain, John Plecy, and John Streeche, held this manor of the heir of the Earl of March; also the manor of MILBORNE ST ANDREW. 3 Hen. IV. John Plecy (of SHAPWICK) held it of the Earl of March, as did John Plecy 4 Hen V. Hence it came to the CAMMELS of SHAPWICK. 20 Hen. VII William Cammel held this manor and advowson of the King, as of his dutchy of York, and the manorKENTLESWORTH, and lands in MARNHULL; Catharine late wife of Thomas Alwyn, his sister and heir. . .
But MILBORNE ST ANDREW, KENTLESWORTH and MARNHULL are Dorset c/k family
properties! So this marriage of John c/k (son of Thomas and Joan of
Rockbourne) and Elizabeth Lyte is the point at which the Rockbourne property
and the 'Dorset property' came together. It is important link between the
Rockbourne family and the Dorset family. This reference tells us that they
had a son called John and a son Richard. John (of Sherborne - 'cos he passed Marnhull and Milborn on to William) stayed in Dorset and founded the Dorset line - 'cos that is where Milborn St Andrew, Kentlesworth and Marnhull went - down the Dorset line - which is what we had all surmised - but it is nice to
find the evidence! My guess is that John c/k and Elizabeth Lyte lived at
Lillington (which, according to the Lay Subsidy was c/k property from much earlier than the 1400's) and this accounts for the armorial glass.
Hope all this makes sense :¬)
Kindest regards,
Sylvia
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 28, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Warwick, please don't drag those Webbs into the Dorset family. They actually do belong to the Rockborne family, someway yet to be determined.
I think it is very clear, from one of the many court cases involving the squabbling over Rockborne, that Robert I was a brother of Sir John. It was a case in which Dame Anne, wife of Sir William 2 Kt (son of Sir
John) was being challenged on her jointure in Rockborne. Testimony was given that Sir John had granted her jointure near the time of her marriage to Sir William, and that Robert C/K had agreed and witnessed it. Since Robert (W & L) bequeathed much of his property to his "cousins," the descendants of Sir John, who else would this Robert be? He is certainly not "Robert of Lillington." Robert I was an important man in his own right, being mayor of Salisbury and MP from there. He fits perfectly in this family. I have closed the file on the Roberts of Salisbury; they tie into the Rockborne family. Even Robert (W & L) in his 'moot book' at Harvard identified himself with Salisbury.
Warwick,
Several years ago when we first discussed this delimna of which William married Joan Barret, I had thought she married the William, grandson of William 1469. But, I abandoned that idea because everyone else thought is was son, William. I have since studied the dates of these allied families, and noting when her mother died, I am back to believing Joan Barret married grandson, William. Grandson, William's sister, Agnes, married Thomas Pomeroy. We have dates to work with there. Granddaughter, Alice, does not appear, that we can identify, in any records so far discovered.
It had bothered me that we could find no records of a Thomas to fit as the heir to Bapton. He had to be the son of Joan Barret to inherit that Bapton property. We were looking too early for him. He is, indeed, the heir of William Cammell. And that Thomas apparently died rather early. Robert "of Lillington"
(married Joan Marshall) is his eldest son. We don't know if there were other sons. So, moving Joan Barret's marriage to grandson William makes it all fit perfectly as to dates. Besides, it leaves "son William" to sire a lot of those we find later all over Dorset, because they do not all come from William and Joan Barret, and the Stanter lady.
I do have visitation pedigrees that do not agree on who was the son of whom. I am not suggesting that anyone was attempting to deceive the heralds. I just think the family, in the later visitations, were very uncertain. They obviously had no family records to consult and were trying to remember what they had heard...with confused results. I think the College of Arms has conceded that they have no mss. records on this family. And, besides that, ask Brian, even when they have reoords, mistakes have been made in publishing.
We do not assume that the Rockborne family is part of the William and Joan Barret family. Bruce agrees.
The connection of the two families is further back - we don't know exactly where or when they connect. We are looking for that connection now. But, the Rockborne family's heritage has been clearly laid out in the Devon records. They are traceable for eons in Devon.
Sherrill
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 28, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Bruce, that was interesting. See how you like the attached. I found our Hawisi with land in Wareham [Dorset] and giving tenements in it to the priory at Bruton, Somerset! How is that for getting around. I would really like to know where Hawisi is buried.
Sherrill
Cartulary of the Augustinian Priory of Bruton
In the Introduction to this translation (page xx), it is noted that tenements at Wareham and Wilton were given by Hawise countess of Gloucester, and Gilbert Morris.
No. 290: Hawise, countess of Gloucester, gives to the cannons a tenement in Waram.
Confirmation by Hawise, countess of Gloucester, for the safety of the soul of her lord William, Earl of Gloucester, and the souls of herself, her children, parents and friends, to the canons of Bruton, of the gift of a burgage in Warham, which was of Robert of Rouen, which Gilbert Morin gave to them before her; with all libeties, &c., and especially acquittance in all things to be sold and bought in Warham necessary for the use of that house.
Hiis testibus: - Roger Waspail, Matheo Nebd, M[agistro] Hernisio.
No. 291: Letters patent of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, to his bailifffs of Warham, ordering them not to vex the canons of Bruton with regard to selling and buying in Warham, according to the confirmation of the countess Hawise, his grandmother, which he has inspected.
No. 325: Confirmation by Henry, duke of Normandy and Aquaitaine, and count of Anjou, for his soul and the souls of his father and mother and all his ancestors and friends, to the monks of Troarn, of the alms which they had in England in the time of King Henry [I] his grandfather (as in 324).
Testibus: - Willelmo cancellario, Reginaldo, comite Cornubie, Willelmo comite Gloustrie, Roberto comite Leycestrie, Rogero comite Herfordie, Patricio comite Wiltshire, Humfrido de Boun dapifero, Ricardo de Humex conestabulario, Elya Gifford.
[Note on #324 – refers to a grant and confirmation of King Henry II, concerning the manor of Horsley and Rungeton, made to the monks of Troarn (by his great grandfather; king William I gave them, etc…..]
No. 370: Account of the escheator for Horsley and Rong[ton] in the time of vacancy.
In the account of Walter* de Gloucester, the king’s escheator on this side Trent, for the 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th years of king Edward, son of king Henry.
Nine pounds thirteen pence of the issues of the manors of Horseley, county Gloucester, and Rington, county Sussex, which the said escheator , by virtue of his office, took into the hand of the king by reason of vacancy of the priory of Bruton by the death of J[ohn de Gundham] the late prior, from 3rd July in the 26th year, on which day he died, until 26th August next following before the king rendered the said manors to brother Richard de la Grave.
*indexed as “William de Gloucester.”
p. 243. Notes on the Bruton Cartulary:
No. 255. The Knights Templars had a house at Combe, which is now called Termplecombe.
No. 290. William, Earl of Gloucester, died in 1183. His relict, the Countess Hawise, died in 1197.
The Cartulary of the Cluniac Priory of Montacute
Somerset
No. 8. Charter of King Henry the second, concerning the granting and confirmation of the gifts of King Henry the first, of his uncle, and of William, count of Mortain, of manors, churches, hundreds, fairs and other liberties.
Henry King of England, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, sheriffs, &c. in France, England and Normandy, granting and confirming to the church of St. Peter and St. Paul of Montacute and the Cluniac monks there, all the grants which his grandfather King Henry, and William, count of Mortain and his men, and other English and Norman barons have made or shall hereafter make to the said church. Namely, the church of St. Peter and St. Paul of Montacute, the castle and its chapel; the borough and market with toll; the manor; mill and hundred of Bissopestone; the thirteen days fair of Hamedone and Tintenelle; the manor, church and hundred of Tinteelle; the manor of Crich with Hamm and Etheneberg and Nyghehid and the church and hundred; the manor of Chinnuc; and the church and hundred of Hanesberg; also the manor, church and mill of Cloueswrde; the manor, church and mill of Modiford; the land of Athebare with the grove and the land of Humbre; Thorn and the lands of Melebiri, Widecumbe, Forde, Denewoldesham and Theystone; also the manor, church and hundred of Legh and Friseham in Devenesire; Colum and ten shillings of the land of Cullinton; the land of Ghillingeham which is called Hamme; the land of Bruges near Waymue with its men and their children; twenty shillings of land in Geriche, Hunecroft and Loverlai, and Boresfeu(d) and the church of All Saints Gersiche, twenty shillings of the land of Cari and one virgate of land in Stocke and land in Estoket; the lands of Warneforde, Melecum, la Welle, Prestone, Sanforde, Cokre and Corf; the mille below Cadebire with the land adjoining; the mill at Erlestoke with land adjoining; five shillings yearly rent from the mill of Estinton; the houses of Waram free of all secular service; the church of Odecumbe and Brimeton; a moiety of the church of Acforde of Robert Eskylling; the churches of Melebire and Wermewell; and in Cornwall St. Carroc, the churches Alternon, St. Neot’s, St.Karentoc; the church of Lerchi, and Pennarde; all the tithes of the demesne of Acforde of Alvred de Lincoln; two parts of the tithes of the demesne of the other Acforde; the tithes of Chynnuc; a moiety of the tithes of Ciselberg; the tithes of the demesne of Clafforde, or Nortone by Tantone, Merschetone, Bichehulle, Candell, Cridelincote, Thorp, Cernel, Thelre, the other Cernel and two parts of the tithes of Dirwinestone, of Pondintone and two parts of the tithes of the demesne of Cilterne Faghet, and all the tithes of the demesne of Hececumbe.
Witnesses: - T[heobald] archbishop of Canterbury; H[enry] bishop of Winchester; Philip, bishop of Bayeux; Arn[ulf] bishop of Lesieux; Richard, bishopo of London; Joceline, bishop of Sarum; Robert, bishop of Bath; Gilbert, bishop of Hereford; William, earl of Gloucester; Richard, earl of Leicester; Warin son of Gerold, chamberlain, Mannesser Biset, steward; William, son of Hamo; Jocelin le Baillalio. At Westminster.
No. 9. Charter of the said King Henry concerning the confirmation of the grants which his grandfather the said Henry and William count of Mortain, and other barons made to us. [then recites the above named properties, and additionally]:
Bretelleus de Sancto Claro gave one hide in Biscopeston; Richard son of Drego half a hide and Thorne, after his death; Robert and William his knights, half a hide; and the same Richard and Osbert his chaplain the church of Gerlintone. Alvred the butler gave Melebiri, Widecumbe, the lands called Forde and Denewoldesham, Legh and Friseham, the church of Lerki, and Pennard, two parts of the tithes of Chiselberge, of Clatforde and of Nortone, and half a hide which was Sibert’s.
Ranulf the chancellor gave Thorne and the tithes of Merscetone, Candel, Trop, the three Cernels, Tolre, Hoch, and Cridelincote. William de Lestra gave the land of Aaresfelt, and two parts of the tithes of Dirwinestone and of Puthintone, and the tithe of Bichchelle and Lodre. Jordan de Barnevilla [gave] La Gare at Stoke; Robert de Bella Campo, Nighehyde; William son of Rogo, Colum and ten shillings of the land of Calintone; Nicholas Arbalista, twenty shillings of the land of Kari; Humphrey Judas, one virgate of land in Stoke; Osbert de Foxcote, the tithes of Hatsecumbe; Robert de la Haye, the land of Dideling; Henry de Port, the land of Wanneforde; Geoffrey the count’s chaplain, the church of Brimetone; Gerard and Baltric, the church of Melebiri; Robert son of Scilling, a moiety of the church of Acforde; Alvred de Lincolne and Robert his son, the land of Gyllingeham and the land of Bruge; Ralph Luvel, the land of Etheberg; Matilda Peverel, the land of Sanford, Robert, count of Mellent, the houses at Warham; Robert Hundret, a house and land in London; Hugh Maltravers, the land at Prestone. The church and monks of Montacute are to hold all the aforesaid possessions just as William, count of Mortain held them in the time of my grandfather King Henry, as his charters testify.
Witnesses: - [same as in No. 8, above]
No. 10. Charter of the said King Henry, concerning the confirmation of grants which his said grandfather Henry, and William, count of Mortain, and other barons made to us. [and lists the properties set forth in No. 8 and No. 9].
Witnesses: - G[ilbert] bishop of London; R[eginald] bishop of Bath; B[artholomew], bishop of Exeter; W[illiam] earl of Gloucester, Hugh de Creissi; Rand[olph] de Glan[villa]; Master Hugh de Gaherst. At Windsores.
No. 29. Ratification, grant and confirmation, of the aforesaid Edward [grandson of Henry II] concerning all the grants and confirmations of his own progenitors and others, etc. –
Witnesses: - R[obert], bishop of Bath and Wells, William de Valencis, our uncle; Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hereford; John de Warren, earl of Surrey; Roger de Bygod, earl of Norfolk, and marshall of England; Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster; Oto de Grandison; Robert, son of John; Guncelin de Badlesmere; Thomas de Weyland; Peter de Chaumpvent; and others.
Westminister, twenty-seventh June, in the thirtieth year of the reign. [1302]
No. 32. Charter of the gift of Hugh Mautravers concerning land near Prestone.
Hugh Mautravers grants to the church and brethren of Montacute his land near Prestone which Alwi Croinge holds by Suthbroke, free from all services except the royal service.
Witnesses: - Herbert, the chaplain; Osbert the chaplain; Godfrey the chaplain; Eustace de Bello Campo; William son of Alwred; Robert Faget; William the porter.
No. 33. Charter of John Maltravers concerning the remission and quit-claim of land at Prestetune, with grant and confirmation of the same.
John Maltravers of Gunle, quit-claim to the church and monks of Montacute, all righ, claim and service he holds in the land of Prestone which is called Bysuthebroke, which Hugh Maltravers gave to the said church.
Witnesses: - Sir William Everard; Sir Thomas Trevet; Robert de Sancto Claro; Richard Landrense; Master Peter de la Lade; Master Salomon de Gunle; William de la Lade; Ralph de Tantone; Hamund de Enebaud; Gregory de Gunle; Stephen de Criche; William de Hewenebare; William de Britevile. Dated in the year 1262.
No. 35. Charter of Richard de Say concenring the gift of a messuage [and] curtilage in Gevele with four acres and a half of land.
Richard de Say grants to the prior and monks of Montacute one messuage with a curtilage in Gevele, which Robert Gurlene held in the corner of two roads leading one to the east, and the other to the north, below the grantor’s court; also four acres and a half of land, one and a half namely, in the tilled land which is called La Meline towards the west, next to the land of William English [Anglicus]; also one acre and a half beyond the land which is called la Coppedhulle, in his demesne nearer to the north, also one acre and a half beyond Suthedereseteling near the land of Robert la Bere. To be held freely, nothing being reserved, except prayers for and keeping the anniversary of the lady Lucy, the grantor’s mother, on the day of her death, and also that they shall make him and his wife, his parents, his predecessors and successors partakers in their prayers, for which his brother, Sir Gilbert, hd previously given them three ambers of corn to be received yearly from his granary, the charter of which, effected by his said brother Gilbert, the aforesaid monks have returned to Richard de Say, on receipt of his present charter.
Witnesses: - Sirs Robert de Mandeville, Roger de Gouiz, Jordan Oliver, Ralph de Kaldeway, thomas de Reigne, knights; Robert de Dellingtone, then steward of Montacute; Henry de Herbert; Richard de Tintehulle, clerk; Lukle de Tintehulle, then servant. “And many other freemen being present at this agreement, I have granted also that the persons dwelling in the aforesaid lands may have their cattle in the fallow-land as my own men do, and may have free entrance and exit through all cultivated lands wherever my own free men and villeins have.”
No. 101. Charter of William Denys [Dacus] concerning the gift and grant of the aforesaid Sistramtone.
William Denys grants to the sacristy for the work of the church of Montacute all his land of Sistrqamtone which he holds of Eva daughter of Henry de Sowy, as her charter testifies.
Witnesses: - Sir John Denys [Dacus]; Sir Gilbert Denys [Dacus]; Sir Roger de Gouiz; Ralph de Kalewey; Thomas de Cirencester; William Fromund; Alexander Draper; Master Geoffrey Denys [Dacus], Jordan the chaplain.
Note: No. 100 is the charter of Eva, daughter of Henry de Sowy – land in Sistramtone.
No. 133. Charter of King Henry to the earl of Gloucester that he may allow the men of Warham to have his liberty.
Henry, King of England, &c. to the earl of Gloucester and his bailiffs of Warham. I direct you that you may allow the monks of Montacute and their men of Warham to have their liberties which they had in the time of the King Henry my grandfather. And unless you have done this let the sheriff of Dorset do it.
Witness, the archdeacon of Poitiers. At Bichenoure.
No. 165. R[obert], earl of Gloucester, son of the King, for his own welfare, and that of the Countess Mabel, his wife, confirmed to Saint Triac and the monks of Montacute serving God at Malpas, all the gifts which Robert de Haia gave them, namely the town of Malpas, with the church and the lands which they have in the marsh of Mendelgif of the gift of Ranulf the King’s physician, who was afterwards one of the monks. He grants to the, moreover, thirty-six shillings yearly on Saint Michael’s day from his castle of Newport (Novas bargo) to be received out of the tithes of the rents of Gunlion. He wishes them to hold all the aforesaid in frank almoin, and to have their free court just as he does in all pleas. And should it be needful he directs that they have the assurance of his bailiffs for holding their court. He grants also that their men shall be free from all exaction and service, and quit of custom and toll in all his fairs and markets.
Witnesses: - The countess Mabel, Robert Noreis (Norense), William de Berkerole. The sixth of the Kalends of August, A. D., 1132. At Kaerdyf. [Cardiff?]
No. 166. Charter of aforesaid Robert concerning the confirmation of the land of Malpas with the church and 230 acres of land in the moors of Gunlion.
Robert earl of Gloucester, son of the King, to all his men, French, English, and Welsh. For the welfare of his own soul, and that of Mabel his wife &c., he confirms to the church of St. Peter of Montacute, all the land of Malpas and the church of the same place, and two hundred and thirty acres of land in the moor of Gunlion, just as Robert de Hain had given all these before. To be held in frank almoin by the monks serving there with all liberties which the same Robert had. Moreover, he grants to them the whole tithe of his rents from Gunlion, except the tithe of pleas and those tithes which are held by the church of Baselet.
Witnesses: - The countess Mabel; William the steward; Richard the constabler; Robert Sor; Warin, the clerk. At Craneberne.
No. 192. The charter of King Henry, son of the Conqueror, concerning one hundred makrs annually given to the church of Cluny with a charter of King Stephen following.
Henry, King of England, grants to the Cluniac church of St. Peter one hundred marks of yearly rent, sixty marks from the rents of his city of London, to be paid during his life from his own treasury; but after his decease his serjeants of the before named cities shall bring them one hundred marks with his other rents to his Exchequer and there deliver them to the representative of Saint Peter. Pope Innocent also has confirmed this at the request of the King.
Witnesses: - W[illiam], archbishop of Canterbury; L[Thurston], archbishop of York; R[oger], bishop of Salisbury; H[enry], bishop of Winchester; A[lexander], bishop of Lincoln; W.[Gilbert] of London; G[eoffrey], the chancellor; R[obert] Sig[elle]; Robert, earl of Gloucester; and B[rian], son of the earl; Hugh Big[et], the Steward; and Milo de Cloc[estre], and P[ayn] son of John. At Northamtone.
From: Warwick
Kellaway
Sent: Jan 29, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Sherrill,
I must admit the pairing of the Pedigrees and William of Sherborne's Will
dominated my early thinking on the 1400s family. Now we have accumulated so
much additional information the situation is changing.
I concede that "Sir" William would most likely have been born around 1450, and
could match the grandson of William of Sherborne.
Again, if the Rockbourne branch are not included with the descent from William
and Joane Barrett, there is a definite change. And it could explain why the
Pedigrees are so limited with the references to them.
If the Rockbourne boys are taken out of the Pedigree descent, there is a large
gap left for them in the mid 1400s, but it does simplify the situation for
Thomas and his line. As you say, it also gives us several others, offspring of
the Stantner lady - William, Peter, and another Thomas - to cover the families
that seemed to "appear" in Dorset in the early 1500s.
The Pedigrees are actually pretty clear on the family of Thomas, and his sons
Robert of Lillington (not W&L), and William of Stalbridge. The first Pedigrees
I think were dated 1535, and both sons were probably still alive. Thomas was
said to have been contesting Bapton around 1500, but could have died relatively
young.
However William and his family, including his sons Thomas the elder and Thomas
the younger, are definitely in the Pedigrees.
The next worry though is that Will.
Is the William who married Joane Barrett actually in the Will? The grandson?
If we assume he was, there is no problem with Thomas being the eldest son of
William, provided he was born after 1469.
But if the Rockbourne family are also in the Will, it would bring them back to
Joane Barrett, the Pedigrees, and the status of a junior family.
With three Williams in the Will, Joane's William surely is there.
If "Sir" William is not in the Will, it would remove the junior family image,
but the sequence from "father" John, to William of Sherborne, to William, to
John and William, Agnes and Alice, seems too obvious to ignore. The only
problem being perhaps that grandson John must have died for William to become
Sir William, and inherit the Rockbourne and Devon property.
Alternatively it could be William and Thomas's family who are not in the Will,
which perhaps, in those terms, seems more likely. But if so where did they come
from to be recognised by the Pedigrees, and apparently hold the old Dorset
property.
Maybe both are actually in the Will, but we just don't yet have the answers to
our puzzles.
I don't think we can yet be definite about any of that, pending hopefully some
positive new information.
There has to remain an open book on whatever relationship there was between the
two family branches.
You stress the Devon association with the Rockbourne family. Maybe there was
something there. We have heard the Wiltshire/Dorset and Devon families
intermarried. No evidence, but it does make some sense. Could a daughter from
the senior Devon line - no sons - have married a Wiltshire/Dorset son?
I don't think though that there is any suggestion of it in the Devon Pedigrees.
The Bingham marriage is very important (I have to say that - having apparently
some shared DNA). The Thomas who married Joan probably came from Wiltshire, the
son of Edmund. Was his mother Joan from Devon - maybe Muxbeare, not Stafford
Barton? Edmund and Joan went from Wiltshire to Chawleigh - in Devon. To my
knowledge they never went near Dorset, even if their sons did.
I think we still need an open book on Robert W&L too. I recall it was only
ratbag Francis and his mother, Dame Ann, of the numerous Rockbourners who got
any money from his will (and godson Edward Button), whereas we do have that
"nephew", who looks very much like the son of William of Stalbridge. Dame Ann
had previously got the most important legal man in the country, Robert, to
support her property case. They must have known each other, but he would not
have to be a close relative.
It is not a matter of trying to tie Robert, and the Webbs, to the Dorset line,
he was probably not close to either line, especially as his grandfather could
have been William Webb. There could be more to come from Salisbury in the
1300/1400s.
We now have Bruce and Sherrill trying to out do each other. Those Cartularies
offer more insight into what was happening around 1200.
Amazing translation work!
I find it frustrating though to not get dates. Only a couple there, and some
seem out of sequence (No.29 appears to be 1302, but No.165 is 1132.)
However, our Ralph de Kaldeway/Kaleway appears, with a "Sir" attached, and
taking precedence over some "knights". (Not sure quite what that meant then).
Jordan Oliver was a very well known man around the time also, with several
important positions.
I recall in the past I tried to work out a "year", and concluded possibly
somewhere around 1250, when he was apparently living at Dunes Weston in Dorset.
A Ralph de Caylloay was in Berkshire in 1241. So how did they get Dunes Weston?
Did we ever work out where Givele and Sistramstone were - Gloucestershire?
Good point about the barn Bruce. There is a huge amount of information there
now, and it keeps changing!
I have tried to modify that 1400 Dorset lot (which did include Rockbourne), but
have now given up for the duration. The changes in theory, name and date, are
too continuous. Will probably have to have another go again soon though.
I have got another "Kellaway" Tree from a Dorset "Farewell/Farwell" researcher.
It is the fascinating Upwey family, and based on Lieut. Christopher Kellaway,
with links to Tasmania etc, but I cannot match it with my information. I fear
it has some flaws. But that 25 page treatise of mine has also been under steady
review.
I still reckon that if we could just get some of those elusive Dorset DNAs, and
Wiltshire, we would move a long way towards resolving some of the 1400 conundra.
And yes Sylvia, property records, and maps, with the legal feet of fines, lay
subsidies, muster rolls etc, the Latin (but maybe not 19 pages of French). It
is all making up a great kaleidoscopic crossword.
Pleased that eye is coming right, Bruce.
Anyway what do we get tomorrow?
Warwick
PS My guess for Hawisa would be Gloucester Cathedral.
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 29, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Warwick,
If you will step back and look at the Dorset pedigrees, without attempting to
include the Rockborne clan in them, I think the picture will be more clear for
you. Let's forget the Rockborne clan for a while, and try to figure out the
Sherbornes.
Since the Bapton property was key to some of this lineage, we needed to figure out a date span for Joan Barret. When I did that, she came up as a better match for "grandson" William, than for "son Wiliam."
Joan Barret had the Cammells in her ancestry. Thus, when we find the Thomas, "co-heir" of William Cammell, he fits as the oldest son of Joan Barret and "grandson" William C/K. Thomas, b c1477, could not be the first grandson of William 1469, because he was not even born when the will was written.
We can work the angle through Agnes, the "granddaughter" who married Thomas Pomeroy. We can get a date range for Agnes from those records. We definitely know that she is a "granddaughter" of 1469 William. But Agnes does not fit as a "daughter" of Joan Barret. Joan Barret's eldest son, Thomas, fits as a nephew of Agnes C/K Pomeroy.
When we first began working on this problem, several years ago, my 'sticking point' was not finding a Thomas to fit into our earlier scenario. That is a Thomas who would be also ghe grandson of 1469 William.
There were just NO records of such a Thomas who would fit in there.
But, working with a later generation on the Bapton situation, the Thomas of the Bapton dispute fits as a son of 'grandson' William.
Let us re-look the "Freeholders of Whiteparish" as published in Hoars' "History of Wiltshire." We do not have his reference for these records, and they maddeningly skip in a date range that we really need, but they are helpful nonetheless.
[Hund. of Frustfield] Whiteparish
Freeholders 8 Henry VII (1492/93)
William Cayleway, John Estcourt, John Uffenham, John Gerberd, John Kirkebye, John Cosyn, ______ Lye (wonder if that is Lyte?), Nicholas Smythe, Thomas Sampson.
Freeholders 13 Henry VII (1497/98)
John Estcourt, William Keyleway, John Kirkeby, John Gerbert, William Swayne, William Cauntewell
Freeholders 22 Henry VII (1506/07)
Anthony Stilman, William Keyleway, Thomas Estcourt, the heirs of John Gerberd, John Bacon, heirs of John Uffynham, ____ Elys, John and Walter Kirkeby, William Swayne
Freeholders 10 Henry VIII (1518/19)
Anthony Styllman, William Selwyne, William Keilway, Thoms Eascourt, John Uffynham, William Burde, John Wallis
Freeholders 2 Elizabeth (1559/60)
Nicholas Carew, Edmund Estcourt, heirs of Estman and Cantwell, John Keilway, heirs of Johnson, Richard Styleman
NOTE: In this 30 year gap between 10 Hen VIII and 2 Elizabeth, a lot has happened. Robert of "Lillington is dead; his father, Thomas has died earlier; and now Robert's son, John "of Bapton" has the property.
Freeholders 3 Elizabeth (1560/61)
John Kelloway, John Sampson, John Bell, Nicholas Bacon, Anthony Stileman, Thomas Wicks, the heirs of Thomas Johnson, heirs of Cantewell, Giles Escourt, heirs of Codford
Freeholders 11 Elizabeth (1568/69)
John Sampson, John Bell, John Strugnell, Henry Kelloway, Anthony Stileman arm., Thomas Southe arm., Giles Estcourt, Nicholas Norice.
Freeholders 18 Elizabeth (1575/76)
Nicholas Bacon, Esq. for Blackerswell, John Sampson for Harestock, John Bell for Hoptons
Freeholders in 1622
No Kellaway or Estcourt
Freeholders in 1657
No Kellaway or Estcourt
This tells us that Bapton was probably located in the parish of Whiteparish, the Hundred of Frustfield.
Even with the gaps in the records, we can plot the C/K connection. The freeholder William Cayleway in 1492/3 is more likely to be "granddon William" and he continues to be freeholder through 1518/19. Then, in the gap, Thomas should become the freeholder and he dies, followed by his son Robert (heir and admr. of Thomas) who also dies c1558, at which time his son, John "of Bapton" becomes the freeholder. And we know the rest of the story about Bapton So, if Sir William of Rockborne is the same as "grandson William" why does not the progression of the property of Bapton come down in the Rockborne line?
Sir William of Rockborne died c1508 and this William "of Bapton" is still going in 1518/19.
During the 1400's and later the Rockborne family is very active in Devon. We have as yet not been able to identify the Sherborne family as being active in Devon during that time.
Sherrill
From: Warwick
Kellaway
Sent: Jan 29, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Thanks Sherrill,
I thought there might be something "new" out this morning.
Quite right, it is difficult to get the mind around not having the Rockbourne
people descended from Joane Barret, in the Pedigrees.
I have now worked through having grandson William born around 1450, marrying
Joane about 1475-7, and Thomas being born in 1477.
Have looked briefly at the Agneses. There is still a granddaughter in the 1469
Will, who could have been the lady who married Thomas Pomeray.
It seems that the Cornish Pedigees err here, attaching her to William and
Joane's son John. Both Thomas and Robert may have had daughters named Agnes,
but later. (The introduction of a John here could have something to do with the
three Johns and 1467 IPM, and the specific, perhaps erroneous reference to John
at Cheriton Fitzpaine. The date of 20 Sep 1478 for "his" settlement on Agnes
does however seem very precise - hence my suspicion of William taking a foster
father roll. If there is anything there, the date of 1478 might suggest a
birthdate for her of around 1460 -5 Not sure whose family that suggests
however.)
The "news" from Whiteparish.
A good series, with several interesting points. Is there actually any mention
of Bapton? The two locations today are some distance apart.
(If they are different places, it does raise something more.)
We have William Cayleway through to William Keilway (Robert W&L's spelling) in
1518/9. Sir William had died 10 years before, so it was not him.
Evidently therefore Joane's husband William was still alive at that time (he
would presumably have been around 70). We need to look again at some of the
later recordings of William around there.
As you say a big 30 year gap, presumably hiding possibly Thomas, probably
Robert.
Warwick
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Jan 29, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Date: 18 Aug 2003 - 2:39pm
Studying the
inq.PM for Ellis of Bapton Nov.14 1506
to-gether with Sherrill's notes on the Pomeroys dated 15 July 2001 (Thank
goodness for Kellchat) it became clear that Henry Barrett's wife
Joan/Joanne/Anna was a Camell of Fittleford Dorset.Their daughter was
JANE(Joanna) Barrett who became the first wife of William K/C of
Sherbourne.
After Henry Barrett's death Joan married Henry de
la Pomeroy but did not bear him any children. Henry however secondly married an
Alice Raleigh of Fardell, Devon and their second son Thomas
Pomery (of Berry
Pomeroy) married Agnes K/C who inherited Cheriton Fitzpaine from her dad John
who died in 1478. (see attached) This Thomas died in 1493. They had one son
Richard who married Eleanor Coker of Maypowder.
Agnes K/C's dad John was the son of William K/C of
Sherbourne, and you will see by the attached that she had an auntie Agnes/Alice
the daughter of William of Sherborne. Now all this is 'set in concrete' and I
will have to have some fairly persuasive arguments to shift me. There are at
least two more Agnes/Alices in the family which I will sort,
one of which was the daughter of Robert K/C of New Sarum, but being on
relatively good terms with my program (it hasn't shouted at me lately), I am
deferring the imput of any Roberts!
Bruce
From Sherrill
1546/7. Conveyance by Thomas Pomerey of Berry Pomery, Knt.(Assumed son of Richard) to Giles Keylway, esq. , Berry Pomery, Devon.
From Chris Pomeroy's website
The last Pomeroy owner of the manor and castle was Thomas Pomeroy who fell into debt. In 1548 after some complex transactions he sold the manor of Beri Pomeray (with the castle), Bridgetown Pomeray, Herberton and Hurberton for four thousand pounds to Edward Seymour, the first Duke of Somerset. In July 1549 Thomas and his brother, Hugh of Tregony, invested half that amount in buying former chantry lands the crown had confiscated during the forced dissolution of the monasteries. At the same time Thomas was a military leader in the Western Rebellion against Edward Seymour's changes in the liturgy. On the losing side, he narrowly escaped hanging, drawing and quartering at Tyburn after being marched to London. Edward Seymour himself lost power, was imprisoned and beheaded in 1552. Thomas Pomeroy remained in the Tower of London until his death in 1567 well into the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 30, 2007
Subject: Lillington
It looks good, Warwick. The only comment I can make is that Agnes who married Thomas Pomeroy was the aunt of Thomas (s/o William and Joan Barret). I worked on her dates last night.
This is what I now see:
I John
II William I (d 1469)
III William II
A. William III - md Joan Barret
1. Thomas - b c1477; md. Leweston?
a. Robert - md Joan Marshall
(1) John - md Jane Gawen
(a) Henry (much on his desc.)
(2) Martin - Dorothy Frampton (no chn)
B. John (land at Yeovil, etc.)
C. Agnes - md Thomas Pomeroy
D. Alice - no info; perhaps a spinster lady
We still have to work in "William of Stalbridge" and Peter, as well as Maurice (Morris). Maurice possibly left no issue, as there is no mention of him in records. However, a relative may be the Maurice who died at Monksilver, Somerset, later. This Maurice does not appear related to the Wellington, Som. family who were also all over that neck of the woods.
At least now I see hope of connecting some of this family
to those on the Dorset subsidy rolls of 1524/5.
Sherrill
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 30, 2007
Subject: Lillington
C 1/59/22 Court of Chancery (1386-1486)
Thomas Pomeroy & Agnes his wife v. William Cayleway the younger, father of the said Agnes, and executor of the late William Cayleway, the elder, her grandfather.
Bequest of the said William Cayleway the elder to the said Agnes.
NOTE: William "the elder" in his 1469 will made a bequest of 40 [pounds or lire] to his granddaughter, Agnes. William II 'the younger' was executor of his father's estate. William II had not paid Agnes, his daughter, her bequest, and she and husband, Thomas Pomeroy, were suing her father for it.
3799M-O/7/1/1 Title: Berry Pomeroy 1510
Premises: eight messuages, two mills and lands in Berry Pomeroy, Bridgetown Pomeroy, Smalebrook and Flete , which Oto Gilbert, Thomas Bowring and John Snape gave to Henry Pomeroy and Ann his wife and the lawful heirs of their bodies. If Henry and Ann die without issue, the premises to remain to Thomas Pomeroy, son of the said Henry, and Agnes Kayleway, daughter of Johanne, daughter of the said Ann, and the heirs of the body of Thomas Pomeroy, and after the deaths of Henry, Anne, Thomas and Agnes, remainder to Richard Pomeroy, son of Thomas Pomeroy.
That should take care of Agnes's identity.
Sherrill
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 30, 2007
Subject: Lillington
Everyone,
The problem about John being the father of Agnes developed from an "insert" in
the Pomeroy pedigree that indicated John as Agnes's father. A footnote at the
bottom of the pedigree gave reference to the Inq.
P.M. of Katherine Huddersfield. Katherine had married Sir St Clere Pomeroy, who was brother of Henry Pomeroy who married (2)Anne Cammell, widow of Henry Barret.
St. Clere Pomeroy was the actual heir in this family, but he died without heirs. Thus, his brother Henry became the heir. Katherine was the daughter of Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham. She first married Thomas Rogers, and by him had her only son and heir; she married (2) St Clere Pomeroy who died without issue; after his death she married William Huddersfield. Katherine died 12 January 1515 at Shillingford. It was the jury hearing Katherine's Inquisition who made the error, naming John C/K as father of Agnes. This sub-C/K lineage was inserted into the Pomeroy pedigree by the compilers of The Visitation of Dorset. Beside John C/Ks name, on this pedigree, is [footnote] 1, which at the bottom of the page says: "The descent thus noted is recited in an Inq. taken on the death of Katherine Huddersfield, who was widow of Sir Saintclere Pomeroy, 7 Hen. VIII, No.
14."
On our last trip (2003) we acquired a copy of Katherine Huddersfield's IPM (Latin, of course). It does give the information cited above, as determined by the jury. But, the jury got it wrong.
When Agnes C/K Pomeroy sued her father, William II, for her inheritance from her grandfather, William I (1469 will), the case states that William II was her father, and William I (1469) was her grandfather. And that is what the 1469 will shows, also.
So, throw John out. It was an error. But, it does rather suggest that John C/K was around, somewhere, for the jury to know about him.
Sherrill
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Jan 31, 2007
Subject: Roger Wyke
Hello Everyone,
Following my last email, which was greeted with a wall of silence, I thought I
must have made some wildly stupid error, but I have been checking the details.
So I am going to have a second try to make you all listen to this very important
information on the Rockbourne/Dorset link!
Read this record carefully:
36. At Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Michael between Nicholas Radeford and William Lytelwyke querents; and Roger Wyke and Joan his wife deforciants; for the manor of Sutton Byngham and the advowson, and four messuages, one hundred acres of land and six acres of meadow in Sutton Byngham and Estcoker.
Roger and Joan acknowledged the right of Nicholas and quit claimed for themselves and the heirs of Joan; for this Nicholas granted the same to them to hold without impeachment of waste for their lives, and after their decease to remain to John son and heir of John Cayleway and JOAN his wife and their issue and if John and Joan die without issue then to remain to the aforesaid Joan the wife of Roger. [Somerset Fines. 26 Henry VI (1447-8).]
What does this tell us? It tells us that Joan Bingham C/K Wyke had a son, named John, by her first husband, Thomas C/K. And also, that this son John Cayleway and his wife, Joan, also had a son named John, who was to be the heir to Sutton Bingham when his father died. But who was Joan, John Cayleway's wife?
The Rev Wykes Fynch tells us:
This Roger Wykes, by grant of Nicholas Bach, dated 7th Henry IV, 1406, appears to have acquired Bindon, perhaps in marriage with the devisee's daughter; he resided there afterward, and abandoned his paternal for his maternal arms, and bore the coat of Burnell of Cocktree, arg,., three barnacles, sab., differenced with a chevron, erm. By his marriage, as a widower,with Jane Bisset, he obtained a life interest in Radbours, County Dorset. He was buried in Trent St. Andrew's, near Sherborne. By his first wife (SW: Joan Bingham)he left a son, John, who married into the house of Camill of Shapwick, and had issue John, whose wife, Elizabeth Lyte, of Lytes-Cary, County Somerset, brought him two sons, John and Richard.
What does this tell us? The wife of John Cayleway was a Cammel i.e. Joan Cammel. It tells us that Joan Bingham C/K Wyke died and Roger Wyke then married Jane Bisset. This is confirmed in a court case where Roger Wyke and second wife Jane challenged for the ownership of Sutton Bingham:
Richard Hatfeld, gent., Thomas Swete, and Jane his wife. v. Roger Wyke and Jane his wife.: Title to the manor of Rockbourn, and other lands, &c. late of Jane, late the wife of Thomas Payne.: Hants. . Chancery pleadings addressed to [George Neville] Bishop
Date range: 1460 - 1465.
Joan Bingham was dead before 1460 and Roger Wyke and Jane Bisset challenged for the ownership of the property. I do not know why He challenged Richard Hatfield and Thomas Swete, Sherrill can probably answer that, but we do know that Sutton Bingham ended up with William c/k - so Roger Wyke won the case.
The marriage of John Cayleway and Joan Cammel is probably the most IMPORTANT marriage in the Dorset/ Rockbourne history, because this is how the Cammel properties got into the Dorset line. BUT, John Cayleway was of Rockbourne descent - so this is the important Rockbourne /Dorset link.
What can we glean about John c/k and Joan Cammel? By 1460 John had acquired all the Cammel properties of Marnhull, Milborne etc from his marriage, but as Roger Wyke was still alive and contesting the ownership of Sutton Bingham, he had NOT yet acquired Sutton Bingham, which had been left to his son John.
John and Joan cammel's dates could easily make him John of Sherborne, and indeed, he would have needed to be John of Sherborne for the Cammel properties to go to William of Sherborne and his son William of Marnhull who we now think married Joan Barret.
The above references tell us that John and Joan Cammel had a son John who inherited Sutton Bingham. This John married Elizabeth Lyte and they had two sons, John and Richard. This would account for the armorial glass at Lillington. However, it would also mean that William of Sherborne had a brother John. Being the family name John was probably older than William, but looking at the family chart this would also have been the Dorset John
who did not have any property in Dorset and died early. That of course would make sense if he had inherited the massive Bingham properties and his younger brother William of Sherborne acquired the Cammel properties. Sadly we do not yet know if John and Joan Cammel had any other sons, but at these dates (late 1400's) we can safely say that this is where the Rockbourners came in. Where the Dorset and Rockbourne family had merged two generations earlier, it divided and went two separate ways again in this generation.
I could continue but this is probably enough for the moment. Commets are welcome. Please DO respond!
Kindest regards,
Sylvia
From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jan 31, 2007
Subject: Roger Wyke
Wow Sylvia,
Walls of silence are sometimes caused by the impact.
I was about to reply to Sherrill regarding her work of yesterday - the descent from William of Sherborne - through to the Lillington boys.
And compliment her on disclosing Moris/Maurice. But this is rather more important.
It is getting late here, and my little brain has had a heavy day, but it does just look as though you have got it.
Very complex, but with a few dates interpolated, and some other events as well - the 1467 IPM for John for one (it referred to a young son John), we might be putting it all together. I sense there is something here also to explain the Cammel arms on the "later" COA.
Will spend some time digesting.
Your descent did look to work Sherrill, certainly for the Lillington boys to descend from William of Sherborne, in terms of his will. Moris, the Stantner marriage, and Peter, could be inserted, William of Stalbridge later, to match the Pedigrees.
What we need now is to sort out that Rockbourne connection, as Sylvia has presented.
I have no doubt we will be hearing from you shortly.
Come in Brian. (I didn't thank you for your message on Preston Plucknet
either.)
Has anyone got the new Microsoft toy yet? I believe one of our Rugby players was the first in the World to get one. But don't think I will follow for a long while.
What I have causes me enough woe. (Apart from the bill.)
Warwick
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 31, 2007
Subject: Roger Wyke
Sylvia, my silence was because I suddenly found myself with another 'pile of paper' that I had to get organized so I can find it again.
When trying to figure out the Dorset family, I discovered, that to make the later generations on the visitation pedigrees work, it had to be that Joan Barret married "grandson" William, not "son" William.
So we have:
I John
II William (1469)
III William (no info) - is this the Marnhull guy?
IV William - md. Joan Barret
V Thomas - md. (1) Leweston; (2) Stanter
and so on
We have known about Joan Swete's challenge to Rockborne (and Bruce is jumping out of his chair!).
The Cammells are so involved in our C/K families in more ways than we had thought. And, did everyone know that William Cammell's other sister, Katherine, the widow of Thomas Alwyn, was first married to a Weston.
The Richard Weston we had found mentioned was her son.
And now, I have more startling information to give, which may tie into all of this. I will be back shortly when I have rounded that up.
Sherrill
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Jan 31, 2007
Subject: Westons = confusion
OK, everyone, here we go:
Patent Rolls, 1553-1554: Francis Keilway, late of Rockbourne and Roger Drury, Gent. of London - broke into the house of John Vaughn at Sutton, Surrey and stole valuables belonging to HENRY WESTON, esq; Margart Bradford, spinster, of Sutton helped them.
I have wondered at the reason for all the breaking, entering and stealing that went on. The parties were generally 'pardoned.' Could this be the rounding up of church valuables from the dissolution? I believe the crown confiscated all the church silver items and other valuables; obviously some were being hidden.
Now this:
Francis Keilway of "Rockbourne, Hants" (b. c1548; d.
1602, s/o William Keilway and Anne Hawley), married ANNE WESTON, d/o Francis Weston and Anne Pickering.
There is much, also, about the Weston/Cammell connection. I have to sort through all this and check the dates 'cause I see some possible conflicting data about these Westons' but the following is interesting:
"The Westons of Sutton [Sutton Place, Surrey]....were kinsmen of the Westons of Prested Hall, Essex, a family which, on acquiring the EARLDOM OF PORTLAND in 1632, would be provided with a pedigree reaching back to the reign of Henry I. [We should try to locate that pedigree!]. Edmund Weston had been appointed joint captain, keeper and Governor of of Guernsey, of Castle Comet and of the lesser Channel Islands, in 1485, while his younger brother, John, was prior of the 'Knights of St John' in England from 1476 to 1489."
This is from the Hellyer papers [East Coker Muniments] at Somerset RO:
DD\WHh/410 (1430)
By Richard Weston, son & heir of Hugh Weston, to Richard Arnold and Richard Whittok of Stapelbrugge of his manor of Caleweston with lands, etc., in Stapelbrugge, Nywenham, Hardegrove, etc. which he had from Amice, his mother, lately wife of John Gregory.
Dated F. of St Hillary (13 Jan) 8 Hen VI (1430).
So, perhaps Katherine Cammell was actually married to Hugh Weston?? - or to Hugh's son, Richard (above)?
There is much mis-information available on the Westons, and no one seems to be aware of our Westons at Stalbridge, Dorset. The information is correct, as it is documented, but is probably assigned to the wrong persons - repetition of names, as we have learned with the C/Ks. I would certainly like to see that Weston pedigree, going back to Henry I.
Bruce, don't have a seizure!
Sherrill
From: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Jan 31, 2007
Subject: Westons = confusion
Sherrill,
It will be interesting to get the Weston pedigree back to Henry I. I fear though
that we would be looking at the older, and quite distinct family.
I had checked through their family information, and from that, and discussion with them, also found they know nothing of our connection.
A noteworthy family, there are nearly 40 Weston COA recorded. One from the Sutton, Surrey family of Hayleric de Weston (temp Henry I), and a number of others, are quite different from ours. But some from Surrey, Dorset, and Devon, are of the chevron and the three leopards/lions faces/heads, that we are very familiar with.
Their DNA records also indicate a group, outside their main line, which is close to ours. Mine in fact.
So ratbag Francis married a Weston - sounds as though he was after her, or her family's, property. The poor lady must have died young - not too surprising perhaps. He also married Frances (Rogers), as her fourth of five(!) husbands - she must have polished him off.
(How did she dispose of four or five husbands - makes me think of the Medici ladies?)
You have yet another small gem there Sherrill, with regard to Calewe Weston manor - it was Weston property by 1430. I thought at first I read it was "in" Stalbridge, but we still do not know exactly where.
(Don't think I looked for Westons in the 1327/32 Lay Subsidies.) An interesting point is also that, if these properties in Stalbridge etc, were Weston, how did William of Stalbridge "reappear" there nearly 100 years later? Presumably there must have been several separate properties. So where really was Dunes Weston/ Calewe Weston? Maybe it was at Stalbridge Weston?
Warwick
Somewhere in this discussion of Sir William first knight (And I want you all to pay attention) St Saviour, Southwark (Which I believe is in London) was mentioned and I attach correspondence from Brian Willoughby relating to this.I may be drawing a long bow, but St Saviours Southwark featured in the C/K family for many years .
Bruce, come off it. We have just convinced Warwick that the Rockbornes do not descend from the Sherborne William who married Joan Barret. The Rockbornes have their own lineage over in Devon and Wiltshire from which the Thomas who married Joan Bingham comes. Let's please not get this mixed up again.
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:23 AM
> Sylvia,
> Sir John's children, and grandchildren had many battles over Rockborne,
fought out in court. One even tried to give it to Queen Elizabeth in order to
save it; but the Queen rejected it, suggesting it was a tactic to eventually
save it for the family. It eventually went to John Cooper, because of a debt,
and continued to Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper and Cooper heirs.
> I have no idea how the Chideok's became involved, but they seem to be
involved in everything including the Sherbornes. Since we are back on the
Rockborne subject, later today I will send some interesting information
regarding Sir John's sons, etc. - and we can all wonder why and what these
people were doing in these strange places.
> Sherrill
>
> --- Sylvia Warham wrote:
>
>> OK, well I am beginning to catch up with the rest of you!
>>
>> Sutton Bingham, Somerset was a Bingham property left by Roger Wyke and Joan
Bingham to the son of John and Joan c/k. However, Rockbourne, Hampshire in
the 1300's belonged to John Chideok and by complicated descent also came to Joan
Bingham. We (I) have not seen any records saying that she left it to John and
Joan, or their son John, but that must have been the case for Sir William to get
it. We know that it ended up in the hands of Francis, who I note from the
record below, intended to leave it to his son Thomas:
>>
>> John Bayly v Nicholas Hill, John Mathewe, Edmond Palmer, William Whitmarsh,
William Barbor and William Moulton. Claim by purchase and agreement to end
suits. The manor of Combe Bassett and lands in Combe, Wiltshire, formerly the
estate of Sir William Keilwaye. This bill also states a deed of release executed
by Francis Keilwaye esquire to Thomas Keilwaye, his son and heir apparent, of
certain parts of the manors of Rockbourne alias Rogborne, Rockstede alias
Rocksithe and Alwynes, and the third part of the manor of Gorley, Hampshire
Short title: Bayly v Hill etc.
Covering dates Between 1588 and 1603
>>
>> But am I right in thinking that the family fell upon hard times and he sold
to the Sydenhams? Do we know anything about how Sir William came across Combe
Basset or the manor of Gorley?
>> Kindest regards
>> Sylvia
Brian wrote
Meanwhile I tried picking up at least a finger or two of your Charles(s)
gauntlet, Sherrill. Looking for "Charles" in my 16th 17th C records, I think I
have located the sources and info at the end of your em - plus a few more small
scraps, below. The usual caveats apply of course - chiefly apologies if nothing
new.
Archaeologia Cantiana - Published by the Kent Archaeological Society Vol 74 1960
p205 Miscellaneous Notes.
Mary Lull married Charles Kellawaye on 22 November 1599 at St Saviour,
Southwark. After Charles died the widow Mary became the second wife of Anthony
Finch on 16 July 1607. Mary was buried in 1648 at Petworth, Sussex. Anthony
Finch had issue by both of his wives.
Visitation of Sussex 1633-4 Harleian Soc Vol 53 p32 1905
The Dawtrey pedigree has Elizabeth d of Charles Kelloway of Rockborne,
Southampton as second wife of Sir Henery Dawtrey of Moorhouse, Sussex. They
appear to have married in c1630 - at the time of the Visitation they had one
child, a son John Dawtrey.
Melksham Parish Registers
I had hopes, Sherrill, of impressing you with Charles Kellway, son of Thomas,
bp29/12/1631 - until I found that you had given me the info in your letter of
07/12/01 !
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: John
Kelloway, a Merchant of the Staple
I mentioned that I was intrigued by John of Cullompton's will in which he mentions a John C/K and his son George. I abbrogated my right to this John (son of Sir John of Rockbourne) and suggested a possible scenario for'George'. We have a huge gap somewhere along the line akin to our earlier problems with the Sherbourne/Rockbourne descent now finalised which requires resolution..
Those interested may take note of this paragraph in Sherrill's research quoted
below, and thereafter worry as I do who the heck was a 'John Kelloway', a
Merchant of the Staple contemporary with John of Cullompton who produced a
grandson Simon nominated as a cousin in the latters will! To bed with either a
headache, G&T, Pint of Bitter or all three!
Bruce
Kelway, Simon (d. c1624) of Cullompton - Totnes 1588
S. & h. of Simon Kelway, merchant of Cullompton, and Joan, a. of............ Prob. grandson of John Kelloway, merchant of the Staple of Calais. interest: Devon P.C.C. Wills.
1606. The last will of Catherine Lady “More” of Cullompton, dated 26th April 1606. Desires to be buried in the parish church, and leaves for the reparation thereof 10s., and to the poor 6s. 3d. To Robert Denys 10s.
Residue to my servants, “Mr. Thomas Tryslade and Mrs. Shepherd,” who are sole executors.
Proved June 1606.
Note: The personal effects of Testator were valued at L21. 6s. 1d., inclusive of two horses and a mare, which were valued at L5. She was the widow of Sir John Moore of Moorhays, and the daughter of Sir Thomas Pomeroy of Berry, by Jane, daughter of Sir Piers Edgcombe.
1588. [The Parliamentary Representation of Devon & Dorset, 1559-1661, by Roberts, John Charles, May 1958 (a thesis submitted for the Degree of Master of Arts in the University of London.] (Devon & Cornwall Record Society-Q; copy located in D & C RS collection, West Country Studies Library, Exeter, Devon).
Kelway, Simon (d. c1624) of Cullompton - Totnes 1588
S. & h. of Simon Kelway, merchant of Cullompton, and Joan, a. of............ Prob. grandson of John Kelloway, merchant of the Staple of Calais. (!) Other branches of the family lived in Dorset and Gloucestershire; and perhaps also in West Devon (Kelly) [Vivian 510-512]. The Kelways were related to the Grenvilles, Drakes, Wadhams and Courtenays. By his first mar. before 1580, the M.P. had a son Francis. Mar. 2ndly Edith widow of John Antony, at Exeter in 1598 [Devon Notes & Queries, x-321] and 3rdly Mary, da. of..........
Giles Kelway of Stroud, Gloucestershire [?Somerset.?......SUW], bought a Launceston rectory which was leased to Sir Gawen Carew whose friend Sir John More, in 1559, granted the parsonage of Cullompton to Simon Kelway the elder, who regranted it [Act Book of Bishop of Exeter 1555-1564 f 42 (at Dioc. Registry)]; in that year this Kelway and George Cockeram, of Cullompton, appear together on a Pardon Roll; two years later they were granted a pardon for carrying money out of the realm. When the elder Simon made his will in 1569 he described himself as a trader in overseas parts. He left bequests to the church, the poor and to servants. He had a sister, a married son William and left his widow and his son Simon to be executors.
By the will Simon Kelway was to give a bond in L300 to pay an annuity to his mother, and another in 1,000 marks to pay another to his brother William, and his children, if any. Joan Kelway, who was granted for life a manor-house at Kingsmill, was to “supporte, beare and fynde....competent meate, drinke, howse roome and lodging” there for her son Simon and any wife of his.
The M.P. inherited the rectory and parsonage of Cullompton and some trouble with it. Sir John More, an unquiet man, brought a Chancery case against George Cockeram and Joan Kelway about some timber that her husband had sold him [Eliz. Chanc. ii 246]; and she with her son, brought another Chancery action, about the Vicarage, against Laurence Tilliard. In 1584 the M.P. bought out Robert Freke and another London speculator who then held a part-share in the Rectory; two years later he sold it to William Every of Chard for L1,000. In 1573 Kelway and Cockeram had been noted as patrons of the living, and Kelway was still patron in 1601 [Oliver, Ecclesiastical Antiquities, i-115].
There are few signs of the M.P.’s activities locally, although he was assessed to provide two light horses for musters in Hayridge Hundred in 1583 [S.P. 12/162/36]. In 1598 he sent his son Francis to Oxford [Al. Ox. 1500-1714, p. 840]; and a few years later, when he and other Cullompton men sold a messuage for L80 one witness was Robert Cockram, perhaps a son of his old friend [E. S. Chalke, Kentisbere Hundred (1934), p. 24]. Three years later there is a mention of John, son of Simon Kelway, a son who does not appear in the M.P.’s will.
By 1623, when he came to make his will, the M. P. was living at Dawlish, where he asked to be buried; but he left L10 to the church at Cullompton. He made provision for a former servant, John Thomas, who was a surgeon, and now served William Every, the purchaser of the rectory: Every having a house on condition that he looked after his servant. The M. P. himself had a considerable interest in surgery and medicine, for he left half his instruments and drugs to John Thomas, and the remainder, together with his French books on these subjects, to his son Francis Kelway. His armour and pistols were to be divided between his friend Sir William Courtenay and his son Francis Courtenay.
1593. [Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries, Vol. 13 (1913), p. 217.
Simon Kellwaye, in 1593, wrote the earliest systemic essay on smallpox & refers to the abundant late experience, as well his own as others (Creighton, ‘History of Epidemics in England’).
1596/97. [Will of John Gregory of Uffcolme, Devon] - Simon Kellway of Collumpton to “keep” the son of John Gregory.
1601. Simon Keleway, gent. - Patron of Cullompton.
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: John
Kelloway, a Merchant of the Staple
Descendants of John of Cullompton
I am most grateful to y'all for your input to 'The Tree'. I am this time very carefully adding to the tree, because previously my programme ended up in a mess constantly 'shouting at me', something that has not happened this time. I have added young John Haydon and attach the descent from John of Cullompton according to his will. There appears no doubt that John Drake was appointed an exector to JOCs will and ultimately ended up a son-in-law. By the dates this latter must have occured posthumously to JOC's death. but that is not a problem.
I was prepared to once again enunciate that JOC was a son of Sir John of Rockbourne (1470-1547) by the latter's second marriage and family of whom Giles was the eldest. (I had long since given up on the idea that this John was an ancestor of mine who settled on the IOW). However, in his will JOC specifically refers to George Kaylway sonne and heire of the said John Kaylway and Jane.
Without intending to complicate matters George was one of the sons of Sir John of Rockbourne, brother to both Giles and John. Following the traditions of the time, sons adopted Uncles names. Hence George, son of John was uppermost in JOC's mind as he structured his will. Reason?
And we have blessed Simon. He is referred to as cousin in the will and I have no reason to doubt that he was. I will work on the descent from this Simon which I believe we have established.
We are working in a fairly tight time frame here and tumultuous events occuring. Bleeding Sir William and his troublesome son and grandson were all in trouble leading to the ultimate bankruptcy of Rockbourne and the Devon estates. JOC managed to preserve some of his fortune for his heirs a little longer. The males associated with 'cousin' Simon ended up in medical malpractice, but his actual daughters married well into the Maritime aristocracy.
Whilst I am no closer to working out JOCs antecedents, I believe that we are closing in.
I remain intrigued by the will of JOC in which he says: Also I will and bequeath that if Jane my wife make assurance of all her manors messuages lands tente. rents, etc and of all other her inheritances in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Southampton and Dors. to Sir Giles Strangewaies knight, John Rowe Serjeant at the Lawe, John Skewys and Simon Cayleway my feoffees or the the more part of them and to their heires to the use of the said Jane my wife during her life the remainder thereof to th’use of George Kaylway sonne and heire of the said John Kaylway and Jane and to the heires of the body of the said George lawfully begotten and for default of yssue of the bodye of the said George lawfully begotten to remain to the said Jane and to the heires of her bodie lawfully begotten in divers remainders
Sir John of Rockbourne's first wife was Anne Strangeways, and all the other players mentioned come up time and time again. Happy Days!
Bruce
Sent:
Monday, February 12, 2007 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: Correction
> Hello again,
>
> Well you have answered one of my questions Who was John Haydon? Yet another
relation by marriage. Husband of Joan Paulet daughter of Amias and Lora
(Kellaway) Thank you.
>
> Going back to Agnes. John of Collumpton had a daughter Agnes, she is listed
last of his daughters (youngest?) in his will. Also John Drake is one of John of
Collumpton's executors. So, being the son-in-law seems a good reason for that.
Why not?
>
> Simon-nephew? Why not cousin? In 1528 this Simon is contemporary with John of
Collumpton. He must be at least 21 years old. He could be a cousin by a much
younger brother or yes the son of a brother. John could well be much older as he
died soon after. But he does say Cousin it could be a bit removed but it's
rather different from nephew.
>
> If this Simon married Joan who was much younger (she outlived her son Simon he
made provision for her in his will) Then he could be Simon the Elder father of
Simon the younger (d.1624) of Collumpton and William. Well, just about or do we
need another generation there?
>
> Lesley
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sylvia Warham"
> To: "SHERRILL WILLIAMS"
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 4:00 PM
> Subject: Correction
>
>> Sorry everyone,
>> I didn't mean to confuse matters, but I have just checked Bruce's chart
again. It was not the daughter Elizabeth. Apparently they had an elder daughter
Joan (another Joan!) who married John Haydon - so I have found Bruce another
daughter to put on the chart!
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Feb 14, 2007
Subject: Ancestors of Edmund Keyleway
Hello Everyone,
I have at last finished my summary of Edmund and attach it to this email. You
will all be pleased to know that it is only just over 1 page rather than a 16
page marathon!
In haste,
Sylvia
Ancestors of Edmund Kayleway
One of the certain things we know about Edmund was that he was a Patron of Kellaways, Chippenham, Wiltshire. From the Lay Subsidies of Chippenham we find:
1338. (1138?) Hawisiam q. fuit ux Elyae fil. Rici. p. Elyam de Caillewey - tenta. in Tiiderington.
I think the date may be wrong on thus record, so it could refer to Elias2 or Elias3 on Bruce's tree. Owing to all the abbreviations I am not completely certain of the translation of this record, but I think it says that Tyderington was held by Hawisa wife of Elias, the son of Elias Cailleway. Notice that at this time it was not called 'Kellaways' but 'Tyderington'. This would explain how and when Kellaways came into the family. It was Hawise's marriage settlement.
Next we have:
1226. Grant of land at Tytherton Kellaways in full alms (Willilmas filius Elyae de Kaylleway, Chippenham,Wilts [History of Wiltshire]
In 1226 it was owned by William was the son of Elyae (Elias) de Kaylleway.
Interestingly, the Devon Lay subsidy also shows William , who was the brother of Thomas (who died early)also held Sutton and Muxbeare at this time:
1242/43. Willelmus Callewey tenet in Muckelebere et Sweteton [Testa de Nevill]
Next:
1281. John (Johannes) Kayleway of Chippenham, Wilts. served as juror [Verdictum of Chippenham Hd.]
For the rest of Edmund's ancestors we can look at the Patrons of Kellaways:
Patrons/Presenters at Kellaways, Wilts:
Date Parish Patron
1304 Cayllewey Johannes de Cayllewey
1312 " "
1336 St Giles, Calewey W. de Cayleway
1348 Cayllewey W. de Caillewey
1376 Kaylewey Edmund de Kaylewey
1380 Kaylewey Edmund de Kaylewey
1399 Tudryngton Cayleway Robert Stodeleigh
1405 Kayelways John de Kaylewaye
We also have:
1357. Edmund Caylewey & others of Dorset, Wilts &Glouc. - had tenement in property of John Mautravers de Lychet & Agnes his wife [Lychett Mautravers?]
This means that Edmund must have been born c.1320-30
From the records we now have a fairly well defined Wiltshire profile: Elias, Elias and Hawise, William 1226,John 1250-1308,John 1280-1306 and Edmund.
I wrote yesterday wondering where the Wiltshire line and the Devon line coincided. I will now compare the Muxbeare Pedigree with this Wiltshire line:
|
Kelloways Pedigree |
Muxbeare Pedigree |
|
Elias and Hawise |
Philip |
|
William 1226 |
William until 1248 |
|
John 1250-1308 |
John until 1284 |
|
John 1280-1306 |
Thomas 1328 |
|
? |
John 1332 (Lay Subsidy) |
|
Edmund 1330 |
Edmund 1330 |
The lists look remarkably similar. Without further evidence we could draw two conclusions:
Either:
a. The family owned Wiltshire and Devon at the time of William c.1220 and the differences in the records are due to lack of information.
Or:
b.The Wiltshire and Devon lines merged c.1332 with John, father of Edmund.
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Feb 15, 2007
Subject: Descendants of Phillip 1
I am trying to put one foot in front of the other, so when Warwick writes: Hugh was not recorded until 1189, but whether that was again a coming of age, or merely a "celebration" of the marriage of Hawisa's daughter to Prince John, again we do not know. We should make it clear that this was not Hadwisa/Avisa/Avicia, Phillip1 de Chailleway's daughter, but Isabel the Earl's daughter. It is interesting however, that from the following Avicia stayed with her Mother and step-Father and married very well. The reference to her brother Hugh in 1189 was to half a knights fee in Aylworth Gloucs (a stones throw from the present Willoughby residence) which is interesting. We know that Hawisa had been bought out of Aylworth by her new husband the Earl, again thanks to Brian. William, earl of Gloucester, to his steward and all his men, French, English and Welsh, greeting. Know that Hawisa, who was Philip de Caillewey's wife, and her heirs have quitclaimed in my court the whole land of Aylworth, which is of my fee and which William de la Mare claimed against them,
One would have to wonder if, according to the following Hugh through his sister's inheritance from her step-father, didn't share a bit more of the action, but I digress!
William Fitz Robert, 2nd Earl of Gloucester (died 1183) was the son and heir of Sir Robert de Caen, 1st Earl of Gloucester, and Mabel of Gloucester, daughter of Robert Fitzhamon. His father was an illegitimate son of King Henry I of England, thus William was a nephew of the Empress Maud and a cousin of King Stephen, the principal combatants of the English Anarchy period.
He was married Hawise de Beaumont of Leicester, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester and Amica de Gael and had children:
Since Earl William and Hawise's only son, Robert, predeceased his father, their three daughters became coheirs to the Gloucester inheritance.
Bruce C. CallawayFrom: Warwick Kellaway
Sent: Feb 15, 2007
Subject: Descendants of Phillip 1
Yes Bruce Isabel the Earl's daughter.
Your birthdates for Hawisa's second family would also confirm the date of her marriage to Earl William. Philip must therefore have died, or been killed, before Henry II (Plantagenet) came to the throne. Where was that then - France or England?
Must admit too that I wondered why Hawisa and then Hugh quitclaimed Ayleworth, and for what seems so little, even in those days.
Was there more to it, than we read?
Warwick
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Feb 15, 2007
Subject:
Descendants of Phillip 1
I see the problems Lesley and you are quite right. I note Warwick's answer and
when Sylvia chimes in with:-
I also have a record of Roger holding Frellardslond in BWK at 1276 and a Robert
holding it in 1278. They looked to me remarkably like the Stalbridge lot, and
when I checked the dates there were only 2 years difference - So now I am
beginning to wonder if these Devon records are the Stalbridge c/k's!
It becomes even more
important that I get this tree right. We are spending a considerable amount of
effort to make links from Phillip 1 to where we have reliable records. I am
noting all, but refuse to place it into anything definitive until I can get
reasonable agreement. The Stalbridge crew have always confounded not only me but
my program(me), so perhaps we might ease up on the illusive 1100s and early
1200s with their paucity of records and thus much speculation, and dot a few
"is" (I am becoming quite tired of this cliche, but have not found a substitute)
on Stalbridge.
I note that I have neglected to congratulate Sylvia on her Edmund Kayleway.doc and her marathon effort, William's Properties take 2. They are ensconced on my hard disc and capable (hopefully for ever more) of access from my GOOGLE Desktop Search. They have not as yet been sent to Donna for inclusion in the CFA cache which is accessible from GOOGLE Worldwide, as I had hoped to include them in some logical order. Maybe you should include Donna in your momentous sendings, and let the cards lie where they fall?
Late at night here and Dawn and I have just returned from a delightful Vietnamese smorgasbord with our Rotary Club (Wow! Vietnam and Smorgasbord. Now that is a tautology!) To borrow from my Dear friend Cary Moore, prior avid researcher for the CFA, now somewhat retired,
Moore later,
Bruce
From: Lesley Haigh
Sent: Feb 19, 2007
Subject: Descendants of Edmund
Descendants of Edmund Cayllewaye
Generation No. 1
1. EDMUND1 CAYLLEWAYE was born 1340 in Sherbourne, and died 1411. He married JOAN.
Child of EDMUND CAYLLEWAYE and JOAN is:
2. i. THOMAS2 CAYLLEWAYE, b. 1375, Sutton Bingham; d. 1420.
Generation No. 2
2. THOMAS2 CAYLLEWAYE
(EDMUND1) was born 1375 in Sutton Bingham, and died 1420. He married JOAN BINGHAM 1412.Children of THOMAS CAYLLEWAYE and JOAN BINGHAM are:
3. i. JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, b. 1412.
ii. JOAN CAYLLEWAYE, b. 1415.
iii. MARION CAYLLEWAYE, b. 1417.
iv. ALICIA CAYLLEWAYE, b. 1419.
Generation No. 3
3. JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE
(THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1412. He married JOAN.Children of JOHN CAYLLEWAYE and JOAN are:
i. JOHN4 CAYLLEWAYE, b. 1446.
4. ii. SIR WILLIAM KT, b. 1448; d. 1507.
Generation No. 4
4. SIR WILLIAM4 KT
(JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1448, and died 1507. He married UNKNOWN.Children of WILLIAM KT and UNKNOWN are:
5. i. SIR JOHN5 C/K, b. 1470, Rockbourne; d. 1547, Rockbourne.
6. ii. ROBERT OF NEW SARUM.
iii. JANE C/K, m. JOHN PAYNE.
iv. LORA C/K, m. AMIAS PAULET.
v. ALICE C/K, m. JOHN PAYNE.
Generation No. 5
5. SIR JOHN5 C/K (WILLIAM4 K
T, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1470 in Rockbourne, and died 1547 in Rockbourne. He married (1) ANNE STRANGEWAYS. He married (2) UNKNOWN.Children of JOHN C/K and ANNE STRANGEWAYS are:
7. i. SIR WILLIAM6 C/K, b. 1495; d. 1569.
ii. DOROTHY C/K, m. (1) JOHN BULLER; m. (2) WILLIAM "BLACK" WILL LYTE.
Children of JOHN C/K and UNKNOWN are:
iii. GILES6 C/K.
iv. JOHN C/K.
v. HENRY C/K.
vi. GEORGE C/K.
vii. ELIZABETH C/K.
6. ROBERT OF NEW5 SARUM (WILLIAM4 KT, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) He married ALICE GOVER BYFLEET.
Children of ROBERT SARUM and ALICE BYFLEET are:
8. i. ROBERT OF6 W&L, b. 1497; d. 1581, Middx.
9. ii. ALICE.
iii. ELIZABETH PAULET, b. 1486; m. JOHN SYDENHAM.
10. iv. SIR HUGH PAULET, b. 1500; d. 1572.
v. JOAN PAULET, m. JOHN HAYDON.
Generation No. 6
7. SIR WILLIAM6 C/K (JOHN5, WILLIAM4 K
T, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1495, and died 1569. He married ANN HALWAYS.Children of WILLIAM C/K and ANN HALWAYS are:
11. i. FRANCIS7 C/K, b. 1525; d. 1601.
ii. JOHN C/K, b. 1530.
iii. EDWARD C/K, b. 1530.
iv. AMBROSE C/K, b. 1535.
v. SYBIL C/K.
12. vi. ELIZABETH C/K.
vii. MARY C/K, m. (1) WILLIAM BURTON; m. (2) ALSTON WILTS.
8. ROBERT OF6 W&L (ROBERT OF NEW5 SARUM, WILLIAM4 KT, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1497, and died 1581 in Middx. He married CECILY UNTON 1549.
Child of ROBERT W&L and CECILY UNTON is:
i. ANN7 C/K, m. BARON JOHN HARRINGTON.
9. ALICE6 (ROBERT OF NEW5 SARUM, WILLIAM4 KT, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) She married WILLIAM GAWEN.
Child of ALICE and WILLIAM GAWEN is:
i. THOMASSILVERSALT7 GAWEN.
10. SIR HUGH6 PAULET (ROBERT OF NEW5 SARUM, WILLIAM4 KT, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1500, and died 1572. He married PHILLIPA POLLARD 1528.
Children of HUGH PAULET and PHILLIPA POLLARD are:
i. NICHOLAS7 PAULET.
ii. GEORGE PAULET.
iii. JANE PAULET.
iv. AMYAS PAULET.
Generation No. 7
11. FRANCIS7 C/K (WILLIAM6, JOHN5, WILLIAM4 K
T, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1525, and died 1601. He married FRANCES ROGERS.Children of FRANCIS C/K and FRANCES ROGERS are:
13. i. THOMAS8 C/K, b. 1550; d. 1606.
ii. ANN C/K, m. GEORGE LAWRENCE.
12. ELIZABETH7 C/K (WILLIAM6, JOHN5, WILLIAM4 KT, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) She married (1) WILLIAM SKILLING. She married (2) JOHN CROOKE.
Children of ELIZABETH C/K and JOHN CROOKE are:
i. PRUDENCE8 CROOKE.
ii. JOHN CROOKE.
Generation No. 8
13. THOMAS8 C/K (FRANCIS7, WILLIAM6, JOHN5, WILLIAM4 K
T, JOHN3 CAYLLEWAYE, THOMAS2, EDMUND1) was born 1550, and died 1606. He married ANN MOORE in Rockbourne.Children of THOMAS C/K and ANN MOORE are:
i. LOU9 C/K, b. 1576; d. 1631.
ii. ANN C/K, b. 1579; d. 1631.
From: Brian Willoughby
Sent: Feb 23, 2007
Subject: Recently Published Glos Sources (BGAS)
BGAS Gloucestershire Record Series:
Item Page
Vol 13 (2000) Bishop Benson’s Survey of the Diocese of Gloucester 1735-1750
No C/K items in Index
Vol 14 (2001) Cal’r of the Register of Glos City Apprentices 1595 - 1700
Numbered, English. Index of Persons 283-c
Arthur Calleowe, s of Wm, gent of Mitcheldean, Glos 1637 1/485 87-c
to Robert & Elizabeth Sturmy 7yrs glover
Vol 15 (2002) Calendar of the Registers of the Priory of Llanthony by
Gloucester 1457-1466, 1501-1525
Index one C, no
Ks
203-c
Humph. Calowe - Bailiff,
Westbury-on-Severn
xxix
Vol 16 (2003) Abstractsof Feet of Fines relating to Glo’shire 1199-1299
Itemised, English Transcripts. Index pp 215-c and 231-c
Adam de Cailly/wife Mabel/Osb/Ellis Giffard. Ox & Glos 1226 171 34-c
Mabel de Kaylly/John Giffard. Brimpsfield etc 1255 528 105-c
Simon de Cailly (Caylly) - acquit of service 1279 827 167-c
Vol 17 (2004) Catalogue of the Medieval Muniments at Berkeley Castle (Pt 1)
Vol 18 (2005) Catalogue of the Medieval Muniments at Berkeley Castle (Pt 2)
Itemised, English Summaries. Index 1006/7-c
de Cailly Marriage Settlement 1318 - Glos land Wotton etc
John de Caylly/Caylli, Maud daughter of John C 1318 361-c
William Caillewey, witness grant of Wilts manor 1343 541-c
Adam de Cailly, knight, John his brother - new fealty 1309 551-c
John de Cailly grant of land to Margaret & John Giffard 1309 551-c
Sir Osbert de Cally 1262c 597-c
Sir Osbert de Kayly & Simon de Kayly, witnesses 1277 598-c
Sir Osbert de Kaylli & Simon de Kaylli, witnesses 1277-1287 599-c
Richard Gallewey, witness grant of water-mill 1317 599-c
Richard Galewey, witness grant of water-mill 1317 599-c
Sir Osbert de Cayli & Simon de Cayli, witnesses land grant 1280 598-c
Vol 19 (2005) Notes on the Diocese of Gloucester by Chancellor Richard
Parsons c1700
No C/K items in Index
Vol 20 (2006) Abstractsof Feet of Fines relating to Glo’shire 1300-1359
Itemised, English. Index Cs (No Ks) 189
John de Cailly (Caillewe) - manors etc, inheritance etc 1330 97/8-c
William Cailly (Kaylewey) & wife Alice 1345 147-c
BHK
Willoughby
Cheltenham
23 February 2007
BGAS Gloucester Records Vol 20 #1 BGAS Gloucester Records Vol 20 #2 BGAS Gloucester Records Vol 20 #3
Carreg Cennen (Word document)
Okay. Okay. After Sylvia's marvellous academic lecture, and this from Sherrill, I am converted! I shall now apply myself to accepting the bleeding de Cailly's and variants 'into the family'. Come home, all is forgiven! Having done this, I realise how much I have been missing.
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Feb 26, 2007
Subject: Tollard Royal
Welcome aboard, Bruce. I knew that one day you would catch on. I think we will be going to Rouen and can leave 'dear Charlie' and his shrimp to pursue other options. Perhaps they will eventually merge into one.
Since Tollard Royal is in your subject line, I will take this opportunity to inform those who live in the 'outback' - Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. about the place - and why that Thomas may be important. This I found on British History On-line. I was hoping my 'brief note' came from the Victoria History of Wilts, but if so, that volume is not yet on line.
"Tollard Royal (St Peter), a parish in the union of Tisbury, partly in the hundred of Cranbourne, Shaston division of Dorset, but chiefly in the hundred of Chalk, Hindon & S. division of Wilts. It is 6 3/4 miles (S.E. by E.) from Shaftesbury."
Pushing on, trying to avoid emptying the dishwasher and re-loading it, I checked out the Dorset OPC site, (always on the lookout for 'George of Walworth') - and found a rather astonishing item.
In the parish registers of Steeple is this:
1596, Nov 7. Buried: Ursula, daughter of Thomas Kailway of Stavard, gentleman.
Where is 'Stavard'? Could not find it, but say that out loud. Is this not Thomas "the younger" who had a daugther Ursula - of Stoford, in Barwick, Somerset?
What is he doing way down there on the channel? Also buried there the same year is:
William Clavell, bur. Oct. 10 [a Thomas Clavell was married there in 1567 to Dorothy Jerard; Thomas Clavell was mentioned in Martin Kayleway's will, 1575], and, the same year, William Jerard, gentleman was buried Oct 16. There are many Peverells here, also. Not a good year down in Steeple.
But, what was Thomas doing down in Steeple? Quite possibly he was involved in some kind of business with the Clavells and Jerards. The burial of Ursula was the only listing in the parish registers for C/Ks; the registers begin in 1548.
Except, one hundred and fifty years later, 1742, James Kellaway was buried March 6 at Steeple.
Sherrill
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Feb 27, 2007
Subject: Recently Published Glos Sources (BGAS)
Hello Brian,
Just writing to thank you once again for those very interesting Gloucester records. I have started work on the claimants of the Mautravers inheritance case to try to understand what was happening at the time. Some of them I have managed to trace, but one or two defy examination!
Kindest regards,
Sylvia
The Mautravers Inheritance
Summary and conclusions.
For those of you who do not have time to read all of this, here is the summary and conclusions:
1.Summary of the claimants:
i.John Mautravers the younger: married Milicent de Berkeley, his sister Alice Mautravers married Elias or Helias or Elis IV Giffard of Brimpsfield
ii.Henry Sturmy, Henry, the son of Henry Sturmy and his wife Margaret:
of Figheldean, Co. Wilts., England., M. Margaret (Died c.1320), d. & co-heiress of Sir Hubert Hussey, Kt., of Figheldean, Co. Wilts. Henry Sturmy was sheriff and escheator of Hants. He owned much property in Wiltshire, but has no obvious link to the Giffards.
iii.James the son of Nicholas Audley:
Nicholas of Alditheley (Audley) (b before 1258, d 28.08.1299) m. Catherine Giffard (b 1272, a 1322, dau of John Giffard, 1st Lord of Brimsfield)
iv.John the son of Fulk Le Strange:
Fulk Le Strange - was born
about 1267, lived in Longnor, Shropshire, England and died on 23Jan 1324 . He
was the son of Robert Le Strange and Alianore de Blancminster.
Fulk married Eleanor Giffard about 1295 while living in Blackmore,
Herefordshire, England. Eleanor was born in 1275, lived in Brimsfield,
Gloucestershire.
v.Roger Bavent:
Roger de Bavent, 1st Lord Bavent was born on 22 March 1279/80 in Wiston, Sussex, England. Found no obvious connection to the Giffards.
vi.Richard Dauntsey:
Richard Dauntsey was born 1220 in Dauntsey, Wiltshire, England. He married Mabel Giffard on 1243 in Dauntsey, Wiltshire, England.
vii.Thomas de Benton and Margaret his wife:
Thomas De Benton and Margaret his wife also lived in Wiltshire. I have found no records of them, or obvious links to the Giffards.
viii.Robert De Condicote
Condicote is in Gloucestershire. I can find no records of of Robert De Condicote.
2.Conclusions:
All of the claimants have property in Wiltshire. Malmesbury Abbey is prominent for burials. Four of the claimants were great grandchildren or close relatives of the latter. Not all of the Giffard relatives claimed. Four of the eight claimants have obvious Giffard connections, the remaining four either have no records, or no obvious connections. Looking at the Giffard tree, by the time it came to the fourth generation the situation was amazingly complicated. It is surprising that John De Cailly was the owner of the inheritance prior to this case, as he was not the most obvious direct heir. However, the same could be said of the other claimants who have been identified.
Gilbert, son of Gilbert (see 'The Giffards of Brimpsfield' tree), probably had a greater claim to the inheritance than John De Cailly, but he did not make a claim in this case. (I wonder why?) It seems to me that there was no obvious single heir, and I cannot help wondering why the inheritance was not divided up amongst those who clearly had a claim to it? Why was John Mautravers named as the next male heir?
Given that John Muatravers was also created 1st Lord Mautravers in 1330, the same date as this court case, there does seem to be something of a coincidence. At this time he was clearly a favourite of the king, suggesting that there may have been some politics involved in the decision to name him as the heir of John Giffard. On paper he does not seem to have any more right to the inheritance than any of the other claimants.
1.Introduction
From the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society Gloucester Records Vol.20 shows the range of properties involved in the Mautravers inheritance:
This second record tells us that there was a court case and John de Cailly (Caillewe) as the Defendant, who actually owned all of the listed properties at the time, was challenged by John Mautravers the younger:
From the first record we learn that claims on the property were also made by:
Henry Sturmy, Henry, the son of Henry Sturmy and his wife Margaret, James the son of Nicholas Audley, John the son of Fulk Le Strange, Roger Bavent, Richard Dauntsey, Thomas de Benton and Margaret his wife, and Robert De Condicote. Who were all these people? Clearly John De Cailly lost the case, and the king decided that the property should go to John Mautravers the younger. However, these records are still important, because they show which properties were involved in the de Cailly /Mautravers inheritance and may help us to make links between the early members of the family.
2.Who were the Claimants?
i.John Mautravers the younger:
John Mautravers, 1st Lord Mautravers was born circa 1290. He married Milicent de Berkeley, daughter of Maurice de Berkeley, 2nd Lord Berkeley and Eva la Zouche, in 1313. He died on 16 February 1363/64. John Mautravers was created 1st Lord Mautravers on 25 January 1329/30. They had a child:
Sir John Mautravers b. 1330
In order to understand his claim to the Giffard inheritance we need to look at what had happened in the Giffard family:
Elias or Helias or Elis IV Giffard of Brimsfield (d 1248) m1. Isabel Musard and they had the following children:
Maud Giffard m. Godfrey Escudamor
Isabel Giffardm. Thomas de Tabler
Mabel Giffard m. Richard Dansy
Elias or Helias or Elis IV Giffard of Brimsfield m2. Alice Mautravers (sister of Sir John Mautravers of Lytchet Matravers) Their child was:
Sir John Giffard, 1st Lord of Brimsfield (b c1233, d 1299) m. (10.1270) Maud de Clifford (d before 10.1284, dau of Walter de Clifford, widow of William Longespeye)
According to 'The Giffards of Brimpsfield', Elias or Helias or Elis IV Giffard of Brimsfield then m3. Isolde??? We do not know if they had any children – which is perhaps a blessing!
These three marriages of Elias/Ellis Giffard IV explain why there were so many claims on the inheritance. However, the situation was complicated yet further because Berta Giffard, sister of Elias/Elis IV married Elias Caylewe, who had children:
Elias and Matilda. Elias had a son John, who, according to The Giffards of Brimpsfield' had another son John who claimed to be the next heir of John Giffard II.
This was an amazingly complicated situation for the great grandchildren and heirs of Berta Giffard and Elias Giffard to sort out.
Before leaving John Mautravers, some general family information which provides background to the Mautravers Inheritance:
· 1327: The Mautravers family implicated in the murder of King Edward II.
· 1330: John Mautravers condemmed as a traitor and his estates confiscated.
· 1345: Manor land held by the Mautravers family reinstated as a pardon is given.
· 1349: Edmund Mautravers pays the Black Prince a knights fee of 40/-
· 1410: Property passes to the Earl of Arundel's family through marriage.
· 1552: Sir Thomas Arundell committed to the Tower of London and beheaded. His lands were seized by the Crown.
John Mautravers owned property in Wiltshire
ii.Henry Sturmy, Henry, the son of Henry Sturmy and his wife Margaret:
Henry Sturmy of Elvetham, sheriff and escheator of Hants, and frequently a justice in eyre for the forests of Hants and Wilts/
(From http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/William_Of_Wykeham)
HENRY STURMY (son), of Figheldean, Co. Wilts., England., M. Margaret (Died c.1320), d. & co-heiress of Sir Hubert Hussey, Kt., of Figheldean, Co. Wilts.
Their children:
1.HENRY, of whom we presently.
2.John, He challenged his
brother Henry's right to the manor of Figheldean,
1321.
HENRY STURMY, of Figheldean, Co. Wilts., His right to the manor of Figheldean was challenged by his brother John, 1321, but the manor was returned to him, 1330. M Margery, d. of John de Lorty,Esq., of Axford, Co.Wilts. & his wife Maud de Lovel. Died c. 1338.
Henry Sturmy owned property in Wiltshire:(From Victoria History)
Tidcombe manor passed from Henry Hussey to his son Geoffrey, to whom the king confirmed it in 1198. It presumably descended like Figheldean manor to Geoffrey's son Geoffrey (d. c. 1218), whose estate passed to another Henry Hussey (d. 1260 × 1263). (fn. 84) Tidcombe manor passed from that Henry Hussey to his son Sir Hubert (d. by 1275), (fn. 85) whose heirs were his infant daughters Margaret (d. c. 1320), who married Henry Sturmy (d. c. 1305), Maud (d. c. 1285 unmarried), and Isabel, who married John Thorney. (fn. 86) From c. 1285 to the later 14th century moieties of the manor apparently descended separately. In the 1320s what was probably one of the moieties was apparently disputed between Margaret Sturmy's sons Henry Sturmy and John Sturmy, as a moiety of Figheldean manor was, (fn. 87) and in 1331 John held an estate in Tidcombe, presumably the moiety. (fn. 88) John's estate may have passed to Henry (d. c. 1338) and probably passed to that Henry's son Henry (d. 1381). (fn. 89) By 1289 Isabel Thorney's moiety had apparently been acquired by (Sir) John of Kingston, (fn. 90) who in 1322 forfeited his lands for contrariance. (fn. 91) By 1329 it had apparently been recovered by Sir John (d. 1332 × 1339), who settled it on himself and his wife Constance for life with reversion to his son Thomas: in 1329 Sir John's right to the estate was acknowledged by John and Isabel Thorney, and in 1339 it was disputed by Henry Sturmy and by Isabel's grandson John Thorney and her daughter-in-law Maud Thorney. (fn. 92) The estate passed to Thomas Kingston's son John, who in 1375 conveyed a moiety of Tidcombe manor to Henry Sturmy and the younger John Thorney. (fn. 93) In 1382 the whole manor belonged to Henry's nephew and heir (Sir) William Sturmy. (fn. 94)
From Sir William Sturmy's death in 1427 Tidcombe manor was held for life by his relict Joan (d. 1429). Sir William's heirs were his grandson (Sir) John Seymour and his daughter Agnes, the wife of John Holcombe. (fn. 95) Tidcombe manor may have been assigned to Agnes and in 1447, as part of the settlement of a dispute over the partition of Sir William's lands, it was assigned to her son William Ringbourne (fn. 96) (d. 1450). It was held for life by William's relict Elizabeth and passed in turn to his son Robert (fn. 97) (d. 1485), Robert's brother William (d. 1512), and that William's grandson Thomas Brown, (fn. 98) who held it until 1532 or later. (fn. 99) By 1540 the manor had been acquired, probably by purchase, by Edward Seymour, earl of Hertford (cr. duke of Somerset 1547). (fn. 1)
He also owned Rushcock manor in Worcester: (From Victoria History)
Before the Conquest RUSHOCK was held by Achil, but by the time of the Domesday Survey Hunulf was holding it of Urse D'Abitot. (fn. 9) The overlordship passed with the barony of Elmley Castle until 1512–13, when it is mentioned for the last time. (fn. 10)
Hunulf's successor in the manor was Robert de Rushock, who was holding it by the service of one knight's fee in 1166. (fn. 11) Early in the reign of King John Robert and his wife Alice were arrested for the murder of Walter de Portes. Robert's property was forfeited, but on payment of a fine he was allowed to take the habit of a monk, and retired to Worcester, where he died. His widow Alice, who had also apparently promised to assume the religious habit, tried unsuccessfully in 1220–1 to recover one third of the manor of Rushock in dower, stating that part of Robert's lands had been restored by King John to the daughter of Robert. (fn. 12) The whole manor had been granted after Robert de Rushock's forfeiture to William de Braose, but was seized with his other property by King John in 1208, (fn. 13) and granted by William de Beauchamp, the overlord, to Thomas Sturmy, to whom it was afterwards confirmed by Walter de Beauchamp. (fn. 14) In the mean time William de Braose died, and in 1215 his property was restored to his second son and heir, Giles Bishop of Hereford, on payment of a fine.
He owned Burbage Sturmy in Wiltshire:
An estate of 2½ hides, the later manor called BURBAGE STURMY or WESTCOURT, was held by Alvric the huntsman in 1066. Richard Sturmy held it in 1086, when William held it of him. (fn. 12) The manor was sometimes said to be held by the serjeanty of keeping Savernake forest, and later owners of it were hereditary wardens of the forest. Henry Sturmy held the manor c. 1130. (fn. 13) Henry Sturmy, possibly another, held the forest and perhaps the manor in 1156 and 1162. (fn. 14) The manor was held by Geoffrey Sturmy (d. 1198-9), who was deprived of it briefly c. 1197 for his opposition to Richard I, and passed to his son Henry (fn. 15) (d. c. 1226). From Henry Sturmy the manor, which from the earlier 13th century was held with Durley, descended in the direct line to Geoffrey (fn. 16) (d. c. 1254), Henry (fn. 17) (d. c. 1296), Henry (fn. 18) (d. c. 1305), Henry (fn. 19) (d. c. 1338), and Henry Sturmy (fn. 20) (d. 1381). The last Henry, who in 1359 was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Burbage, was succeeded by his nephew Sir William Sturmy (fn. 21) (d. 1427). From Sir William the manor descended to his grandson Sir John Seymour (fn. 22) (d. 1464). It descended to Sir John's grandson John Seymour (fn. 23) (d. 1491) and passed in the direct line to Sir John Seymour (fn. 24) (d. 1536) and Sir Edward Seymour (cr. Viscount Beauchamp 1536, earl of Hertford 1537, duke of Somerset 1547)
iii.James the son of Nicholas Audley:
Nicholas of Alditheley (Audley) (b before 1258, d 28.08.1299) m. Catherine Giffard (b 1272, a 1322, dau of John Giffard, 1st Lord of Brimsfield) & his first wife Maud de Clifford (1272-after 1322). She became a nun at Ledbury
Nicholas Audley, 1st Lord
Audley was born on 11 November 1289.1 He was the son of Nicholas of Aldithley
and Catherine Giffard. He married Joan Martin, daughter of William Martin, Lord
Martin and Eleanor fitz Piers, in 1312. He died in 1316.
Nicholas Audley, 1st Lord Audley was also known as Nicholas Aldithley. He was
created 1st Lord Audley on 8 January 1312/13.1 He lived in Heleigh,
Staffordshire, England.1
Family 1
Alice Audley
Family 2 by Joan Martin b. before 1296, d. from February 1320 to 1 August 1322
Child James Audley, 2nd Lord Audley+ b. 8 Jan 1312/13, d. 1 Apr 13861
JAMES Audley (Knesale, Nottinghamshire 8 Jan 1313-Heleigh 1 Apr 1386, bur Hulton Abbey). He succeeded his father in 1316 as Lord Audley. (before 13 Jun 1330)m. Joan Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer Earl of March & his wife Joan de Joinville (-[1337/51]). m secondly (before Dec 1351) Isabel, daughter of Roger Le Strange Lord Strange of Knokyn(-after 1366). Lord James & his first wife had --- children:
Related to the Giffards via Fulk Le Strange?
iv.John the son of Fulk Le Strange:
John Le Strange was born about 1253, lived in Ellesmere, Shropshire, England and died on 8 Aug 1309 in Walton, Warwick, England . He was the son of John Le Strange and Joan de Somery.
Fulk Le Strange - was born about 1267, lived in Longnor, Shropshire, England and
died on 23Jan 1324 . He was the son of Robert Le Strange and Alianore de
Blancminster.
Fulk married Eleanor Giffard about 1295 while living in Blackmore,
Herefordshire, England. Eleanor was born in 1275, lived in Brimsfield,
Gloucestershire, England. She was the daughter of John Giffard and Maud de
Clifford. She died before 23Jan 1323/1324
v.Roger Bavent:
Roger
de Bavent, 1st Lord Bavent was born on 22 March 1279/80 in Wiston, Sussex,
England. He was the son of Adam de Bavent and Alice d'Escudamore.1 He married
Joan. He died after 15 July 1335.
Roger de Bavent, 1st Lord Bavent was created 1st Lord Bavent [England by writ]
on 8 January 1312/13. Before 1327 he forfeited his possessions, as an adherent
of the Earl of Lancaster. On 17 February 1327 his possessions were restored to
him. He lived in Fifield-Scudamore, Wiltshire, England.1 He lived in Cocking,
Sussex, England. He later lived in Norton-Scudamore, Wiltshire, England.
Child: Roger de Bavent d. 23 Apr 1355
He was attainted 1322 but restored 1327 . His peerage became extinct on his death
The Coat of Arms: Sire Roger de BAVENT, de argent, od le chef endente de sable--Roll, temp. ED. II.
From VHO:
The lands and rights granted to the priory(Dartford, Kent) on the death of Roger Bavent consisted of the manors of Shipborne in Kent with rents and services in Mailing; the manors of Norton and Fifhide or Fyfield Bavant in Wiltshire, with certain members and appurtenances of the same in Billegh, Ernewell, Traw, Westwithyhull, Warminster, Bourton at Nash, Burton at More, Ditchampton, Foulestone, Wilton, Gerardston, Rollestone, Parva Durnford, Maddington and Purbeck, in Wiltshire and Dorset; the manors of Hatcham and Pitfold or Putford in Surrey; those of Brandeston arid Combs in Suffolk; the manor of Colwinston in Glamorgan, with lands and tenements in Moldeston, Herefordshire.
What was his connection to the Giffards?
vi.Richard Dauntsey:
Richard Dauntsey was born 1220 in Dauntsey, Wiltshire, England. He married Mabel Giffardon 1243 in Dauntsey, Wiltshire, England.
Mabel Giffard was born 1223 in Brimpsfield, Gloucestershire, England. She married Richard DauntseyY on 1243 in Dauntsey, Wiltshire, England.
Richard Dauntsey held land in Wiltshire.
From VCH:
An estate, lying partly in BRATTON and partly in DILTON, was in the 13th century held by the Dauntseys. (fn. 50) In c. 1250 parts of this were alienated by Richard Dauntsey to Richard of Dene, the chaplain of Dilton, Roceline of Bratton, Richard and John of Bratton, Geoffrey Scudamore, Alan FitzWarin, Walter Pavely, Richard Burnel, Philip Marmium, the Prior of Monkton Farleigh, the church of Westbury, and others. (fn. 51)
The descent of some of these small estates can be partially traced over a short period. Richard of Bratton held land in Bratton by 1241 (fn. 52) and pasture in Stoke by 1249. (fn. 53) Part of his property appears to have passed to coheirs, for in 1281 John le Lung, Maud his wife, William Sparkeling, Sarah his wife, and Margery, sister of Sarah, conveyed, a messuage and three virgates of land in Bratton to Geoffrey of Bratton. (fn. 54) In 1304 Geoffrey conveyed his holding in Bratton to Walter Pavely, retaining only a life interest in the property for himself. (fn. 55) This part of Bratton, together with the land there granted by Richard Dauntsey to Walter's grandfather(see above) presumably became merged in the capital manor of Westbury. (fn. 56)
The land conveyed to Alan FitzWarin by Richard Dauntsey passed to Nicholas FitzWarin, who forfeited it as a rebel in 1322. (fn. 57) It appears to have been restored to his heirs and in 1349 was granted by Margery, widow of Reynold FitzWarin, to her son Robert. (fn. 58) The estate conveyed to Geoffrey Scudamore remained in his family until 1342, when it was sold by Margery, wife of Sir Peter Scudamore, to William son of Nicholas FitzWarin. (fn. 59) Land in Bratton, which probably included these two holdings, was held by Sir William FitzWarin in 1361 when the reversion was granted to the Bonhommes of Edington. (fn. 60)
The conveyances of Richard Dauntsey to Philip Marmium and the church of Westbury probably went to enlarge the manors already held by them in Westbury. (fn. 61) His grant of land to the priory of Monkton Farleigh was presumably added to two virgates in Bratton which Ernulf de Mandeville had given to the priory. (fn. 62) The monks had also acquired an assart of 40 a. at Headinghill by grant of Henry II c. 1185-9. (fn. 63) It was possibly early in the 13th century that they granted their land in Bratton, amounting to ½ hide, to Roger Cook in fee, reserving a rent. (fn. 64) Nothing more is known of the descent of this property except that it must eventually have passed to the house of Bonhommes at Edington, and so was re-united with the manor of Bratton.
vii.Thomas de Benton and Margaret his wife:
Thomas De Benton also lived in Wiltshire.
From http://www.bayntun-history.com/ThomasBayntun1300.htm:
Thomas de Grimstead, Lord of Faulston by a deed dated 14 Edward II (1321) and when he died in 1328 without heir, his wife Joan, was given a third share of her husband's property. His sister, Margaret, was married at the time to Thomas Bayntun and she received Faulston as part of the remaining two thirds share in the division of the property and therefore Thomas Bayntun became Lord of Faulston by right of his wife. . . . .Records show that Thomas Bayntun – or Thomas de Benton as he was then known – was Lord of Faulston in 9 Edward III (1336) and 14 Edward III (1341).
What was his connection to the Giffards?
viii.Robert De Condicote
Condicote in in Gloucester. I can find no records of Robert De Condicote.
Study of the properties to follow.
SMW/02.08
From: Sherrill Williams
Sent: Feb 27, 2007
Subject: Recently Published Glos Sources (BGAS)
Sylvia, I have always had the feeling that this land transfer was a political deal. Can we assume that the king knew the Giffards well, and the heirs? The property was in the king's hand at the time of the transfer. It seems to me that the king determined that John Callowe was the one with whom he could make a deal. The king wanted Maltravers to receive the land, but he had to consider the heirs. Callowe happened to be the one he could deal with. Callowe received 1000 pds. from the king for the transfer. That seems to be a fair pot of money for the times; a pay off?
Sherrill
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Feb 28, 2007
Subject: Recently Published Glos Sources (BGAS)
LOSS BY JOHN DE CAYLEWE GIFFORD INHERITANCE
Giffard
assisted Lancaster at the futile three weeks’ siege of
Tickhill, a royal castle in southern Yorkshire, and he was present at the
successful conflict at Burton-on-Trent on 11 March, on which day the king
issued yet another order for his arrest. Five days later the confederate
barons were routed by the king at the battle of
Boroughbridge in Yorkshire, when Lancaster was taken prisoner, while Giffard
was also captured the following day. Lancaster was beheaded in his own
castle at Pontefract, and on 23 March three commissioners were appointed to
meet at the Tower of London and pronounce judgment
on Henry Tyes and John Giffard of Brimpsfield,
traitor, at Gloucester. At the end of April or the
beginning of May, Giffard was drawn on a hurdle
outside the town gates, hanged on a gallows, and his body cut in quarters,
as a traitor. He was aged 34.
His widow Aveline had livery, 28 May 1323, of the
manor and advowson of King’s Stanley,
of which she and her husband had been jointly
enfeoffed. She held it for life of the king in chief
by service of half a knight’s fee.
On 25 January 1327, Edward III came to the throne, and Parliament having
restored on 3 February the lands of the contrariants,
nine days later those lands of John Giffard which
had been granted away were resumed into the king’s hand. During the
following month, a series of inquisitions were held
in various counties, though nothing seems to have resulted therefrom, beyond
the grant to Aveline on 17 March of livery
of the castle and manor of
Brimpsfield, the manor of Rockhampton, one-third
that of Badgeworth, and half that
of Stapleford, which the king had assigned to her in dower. She died
27 April following.
The Justices were ordered by writ, 20 August, to view the various
inquisitions and to report on them. There is no record of
these proceedings, though the outcome seems to have been the ordering
of fresh inquisitions. These were held in Wilts. and
Glos., 15 and 20 January 1328, and John de Caylewe was found to be heir as
the only representative of John Giffard from Elias
Giffard III. He was great-grandson of Berta,
daughter of this Elias. Still more inquisitions were
held in the two counties, 20 March, and the matter was again referred, 4
April, to the Justices. However the king and his council decided, after due
consideration of the inquisitions, etc., that the
lands and tenements late of John Giffard
of Brimpsfield ought to remain to the king and his
heirs as his escheat according to the law and customs of
the realm, per defectum heredis ipsius Johannis. Wherefore by charter dated
22 March 1329, the king gave to John Mautravers, in fee, in consideration
of the good services he had rendered to the king’s
mother as steward of her household, and to the king,
and the dangers and expenses which he had incurred, all the castles, manors,
and so forth, late of the said John Giffard, if the
premises ought to belong to the king as an escheat for the said, or any
other reason, the said John Mautravers being answerable for any claims made
to the premises. It will be remembered that Mautravers’ good services
included the murder of Edward II.
Apparently John de Caylewe’s claim had been allowed merely in order that he
should give a title to Mautravers, and a series of
wholly factitious transactions disposed of his
claim. On 14 May 1330, the king ordered the justices dealing with de
Caylewe’s petition for livery of his inheritance to
proceed to render judgment without delay, that the king might do what he
thought fit. A week later de Caylewe did homage and had livery
of the lands late of John
Giffard of Brimpsfield as his kinsman and heir. The
same day and day after, de Caylewe, by two charters, granted and released
all the castles, manors, lands, hundreds, knight’s fees, and advowsons
formerly of John Giffard, knight, and the reversion
of those which Margaret late the wife
of John Giffard (the elder) held in dower or
otherwise for life of his inheritance, to John
Mautravers, knight. John de Caylewe died 10 September 1336, being then
verderer of the forests of
Chippenham and Pewsham, and Margaret died shortly before 13 December 1338.
From: Bruce Callaway
Sent: Feb 28, 2007
Subject: Recently Published Glos Sources (BGAS)
Great stuff Sylvia, and as previously mentioned I am attaching the mysterious records from the National Archives. It is remarkable how you have ferreted out the other more deserving inheritors of the Gifford squillions, but King Edward 111 and/or his advisors had figured that the simplest way to deal with this was to nominate our lad and the Gloucestershire Feet of Fines 1330 found by Brian is the end result.
I was originally off and running with the last of the Gloucs/Wilts Giffords the quite remarkable John allegedly born 1288 who was drawn, hung and quartered May 1322, despite the anomalously dated assertion in the accompanying that he had four daughters. Catherine born 1272! who married Sir Nicholas Audley, Alinore born 1275! who married Sir Fulk Lestraunge, Maud born 1277 married William de Joinville or Geneville and Margaret Countess of Lincoln.
I do not believe that we are finished with the Giffords as I believe some of their extensive holdings aquired by our lot were concealed in typical C/K entrepreneurial manner subsequently filtering down to Devon, but for my part they can temporarily move to the backburner. The exploits of John Gifford/Giffard in the accompanying, properly scripted could be the subject of a mini-series on TV. In its current format you may find it heavy going.
Bruce
Public Record Office
(now known as
National Archives of England)
Kew, Surrey
May 2003
A New History of Gloucestershire, Cirencester: Printed
by Samuel Rudder, 1799.
p. 143f. Donations to the Monastery of St.Peter at
Gloucester - “down to the year 1263.”
p. 144. Bockholt - In the year 1121, Helyas Giffard, and Ala his wife, their son
Elias, granted to the monks of Gloucester, by deed
which they laid upon the altar, their land in Bockholt, the woods and the plains
estimated at half an hide and half a yard land, free from all services to the
King, and discharged of all other customs, except
danegelt to the King. This was executed whilst William was abbot.
In the year 1096, Helyas Giffard gave to the Church of
St. Peter of Gloucester, a parcel of
woodground with three cottages; which grant was confirmed by King William the
Second in the time of abbat Serlo. [Serlo was abbat
during reign of William the Conqueror; 4th Dean
of Salisbury; made first abbat in 1117; died 1147.]
p. 144. Boytone [Bitton] - Helias Boy Giffard, for the soul’s health
of Berta his wife, and his ancestors, gave to the monks
of St. Peter of Gloucester,
the church of St. Mary Boyton, and the church
of St. George de Orcheston, with the chapel
of St. Andrew of Winterborn,
with the lands, tithes, meadows, pastures, ways, paths and whatsoever
appertaineth to the said churches, saving the tenure of
the church of Finetenay. This was given in the time
of abbat Hameline.
Walter Giffard, son of Helias, granted and confirmed to
the church Boyton to the monks of Gloucester, with all
its appurtenances, with half an hide of land in the
same vill, with a building for eight oxen, one beast, and 122 sheep; and all the
tithes of the whole vill, both of
the demeane lands and of the tenant lands, and
of all things of which good
Christians ought to pay tithes. This was in the time when Hameline was abbat.
Helias Giffard laid claim to the Church of Boytone.
Abbat Thomas Carbonell, for peace sake, granted him the church
of Ortheston, with the chapel of Winterborne
reserving the church of Barton. The lord Goseline,
bishop of Salisbury, granted and confirmed to the
convent of St. Peter of
Gloucester, the gift made by Helias Giffard and Walter his son. John bishop
of Salisbury confirmed and ordered, by virtue
of his episcopal authority, that the church
of Barton should pay 40s. a year to the monks
of Gloucester to keep hospitality.
p. 145. Cranham - Helias Giffard, son of Helias the
elder, and Ala his wife, when he became a monk, gave Cranham to St. Peter, and
to the monks of Gloucester, serving God, in the time
when Hameline was abbat.
p. 150. Seldene - Henry de Pomeroy gave Seldene to the church
of St. Peter of Gloucester, reserving to himself
two shillings as an acknowledgement. His heirs confirmed this grant, and
released two shillings.
p. 151. In the year 1167, when Hameline was abbat, Helias Giffard, the younger,
and Berta, his mother, gave to God and St. Peter, eight libratas
of land in Willingwyke, and the abbat restored to them
Cranham, which his father gave to them when he was made a monk. Helias their
son, confirmed the same. Berta, the wife of Helias
Giffard, gave to the church of St. Peter
of Gloucester, certain lands in Willingwyke, on which
he had built at his own charges. This was done when Hameline was abbat.
Note: There were additional references of interest on
pp. 146, 147, 148, 285, 309, 310, 396, 662, 663, but the book was so
“over-sized” it did not lend itself to the copier or scanner
Historical, Monumental and Genealogical Collections Relative to the County
Gloucester: Printed from the Original Papers of the
late Ralph Bigland, Esq., Garter Principal King of Arms
- London, MDCCLXXXVI.
p. 539. Eastington - Inscriptions in the Church:
In the Chancel: On a blue marble slab, the Effigy of a
woman in a Mantle bearing the following Arms: Quarterly, 1. Argent, a Bend
Sable, with a Bordure engrailed Azure, Knevet; 2. Argent a Bend Azure, and Chief
Gules, Cromwell; 3. Chequy Or and Gules, a Chief Ermine, Tatshall; 4. Chequy Or
and Gules, a Bend Ermine, De Cailli, or Clifton; 5. Paly of
six within a Bordure bezante; 6. Bendy of six a Canton.
Four corner Escocheons: 1. as before, 2. on a Lozenge, Quarterly, 1. Knevet; 2.
Cromwell; 3. Tatshal; 4. Cailli; 5. De Woodstock; 6. Paly of
six within a Bordure, bezante; 7. Bendy of six a
Canton; 8. Or, a Chevron Gules, Stafford; 9. Azure a bend cottifed [cottised],
between six Lioncels rampant, Or., De Bohan. The others effaced - Inscription
round the Verge: “Here lyeth Elizabeth Knevet/ Daughter of
Sir Will. Knevet, Knight, whiche Elizabeth deceased on first Day
of December in the year of
Lord God M.D. and CVIII on Whose Soule Jesu have Mercy. Amen.”
She was the daughter of Sir William Knevet, Knt.
of Buckenham Castle, in the County of
Norfolk, by Joan his second wife, Sister of Edward Duke
of Buckingham, commonly styled Lady Beaumont. [Blomefield’s
Norfolk, Vol. 1, p. 257.]
Calendar of the Records of the
Corporation of Gloucester, compiled by W. H. Stevenson,
Gloucester, 1893.
#742. [1296-7] - Release from Laetitia of Cors,
daughter and heires of Loretta the Callow (la Calue),
to John Prior of the Hospital of
St. Bartholomew, and the Brethren of the same
of an annual rent of 6d. that
her father and mother were wont to receive from the land of
the Hyde near Gloucester. Witnesses: Henry the Draper, and Hugh the Clerk;
Bailiffs: Philip the Spicer, Walter Seuarne; John the Draper.
#849. 1324-5, March 7. Surrender by Henry of
Heyhampstude [Hampstead], lorimer, to the Prior and Brethren
of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew
of a piece of land pertaining
to a tenement in Gloucester that they had demised to him for the term
of his life, lying in the great sout street against the
pillory. Witnesses: John of Cheddeworth, and Thomas
of Foxcote, Baillifs: Andrew of
Penedok; John of Northwych; Philip of
Calewe; Nicholas of Longeneye, draper; Elias
of Longeneye.
#919. 1344, March 28 - Release from Margery, daugher and heir
of William of Aleynesmor’, late burgess
of Gloucester, to William Ragonn, burgess
of Gloucester, of her right in
a messuage in Gloucester in Ayllesatestrete, anciently called ‘Juweryestret’,
lying between the tenement of the late Adam Gamage and
the tenement of the late John Jonkyn and Agnes his
wife. Witnesses: Henry Draper & Hugh of Chiew,
Bailiffs; John the Walsshe; William Crisp, ‘merchaunt’; Robert atte Caluwe;
Walter Stout.
#932. 1347, April 12 - Grant from Agnes, widow of John,
son of Philip of the Bothhalle,
to Richard Shot, burgess of Gloucester,
of 5s. of annual rent from her
messuage in the suburb of Gloucester without the
northgate between the lane called ‘Fetelone’ and the land of
Dom. Richard Hornare, chaplain, extending from the King’s highway to the land
called Monkeleyston. Witnesses: William of Kyngeshawe
and Robert the Walour, Baillifs; John Cluet; William Ragon; Robert Attecalewe;
William Bruyn; Edmund of Cheddeworth.
#972. 1360, October 2 - Demise from John the Callow (le Calwe), burgess
of Gloucester, to William Brownying, Prior
of the Sepulchre of St. Mary
near Gloucester, and the Brethren of the same,
of a shop in Gloucester in the street called “Southgatestrete,”
in which Nicholas the Parker dwells, and which the said John holds
of the said Prior and Brethren by the yearly service
of 12s. The conditions of the
demise are that the Prior and Brethren shall, within the space
of a year, repair the said shop, and shall retain it until they have
defrayed the costs of the rent of
the said shop, which is then to revert to the said John at the same rent as he
paid before. Witnesses: Thomas of Ledeb[ur]i & Thomas
of Stoke, Bailiffs of
Gloucester; Thomas of Monynton; Robert
of Aston; Richard Wantynge.
The Taxpayers of Medieval Gloucestershire (An Analysis
of the 1327 Lay Subsidy Roll with a New Edition
of its Text); Peter Franklin.
Gloucester (Villa Gloucestr.)
South Ward (Warda Australis)
Philip la Calewe 3s.
Cleeve Hundred (Hundredum De Clyve)
Gotherington (Goderynton)
Matthew le Calewe 21 3/4d.
“Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester
Archealogical Society,” Vol. XI:
A Domestic Outrage in Gloucestershire
About the Year 1220
By Sir Henry Barkly, K.C.B., G. C.M..B.
On the Close Roll of 6th Henry the third is an entry,
which, apparently, escaped the notice of Dugdale,
although it throws light on the genealogy of the
Baronial family of
Giffard, and supplies indeed the name of a lord
of Brimpsfield, whom he omitted from the pedigree.
It is the transcript [Vide Appendix A.] of a mandate
addressed on the 27th Decr., 1221, to the Sheriff of
Gloucestershire, directing him to deliver his prisoner, Matilda, relict
of Richard of Acton, to Elyas
Giffard and Osbert Giffard of Brimpsfield, who together
with William Earl Marischal, William Earl of Salisbury,
Osbert Giffard of Norfolk, Gilbert Giffard, and Elyas
de Cailloue, have bound themselves that she will, before Easter next, assume the
habit of a black nun, or that of
the Convent of Semperingham.
No hint is given of the offence she had committed, nor
of her relationship to her manucaptors, but on turning
to the Assize Roll for this county of nearly even
date*, a clue will be found to the solution of both
questions [*Vide “Pleas of the Crown for the county
of Gloucester in 5 Hen. III., edited by F. W. Maitland
- London, 1884.”] The learned Editor, who appends a Note expressing curiosity as
“to what happened in the end to the heroine of this
queer tale,” (p. 143) will, I am sure, be glad to have his attention invited to
this entry on the Close Roll. There are, as usual, slight discrepancies in the
names, but the identity of the two stories is
unquestionable.
Under the head of “Hundred of
Agmead,” [appendix B.] it is set forth in the Presentment of
the (Grand) Jury, that “Richard Butler, of Acton, was
wounded* in his own house, it is unknown by whom, although his wife Matilda
accused William Rous, formerly his servant. On being examined, she states that
she had gone to walk in the garden at night with her maid, whilst her husband
was having his feet washed by her daughter Amice; that she heard a noise, and on
going to the house door saw William and another man with swords drawn near her
husband; that they ran after her; but she escaped, and hid herself until they
went away; her maid, however, being caught and bound. [*He must have lingered
long, for it is shown in the proceedings that his wife was summoned in vain to
two county courts prior to his death.]
The jurors evidently disbelieved her story, denying that Richard ever had such a
servant, and alleging that she and her husband were perpetually at strife, and
that he sometimes beat her because he accused her of
light behaviour; that she often went off to the house of
her father Elyas de Colewey,* or to the house of
of Robert Wayfer, who had married her aunt; and
furthermore that the said Robert and William Wayfer** and John
of Fuestone, often came to the house of the said
Richard, bringing her back with them, and threatened the said Richard.
[*According to Dugdale (Baronage, p. 499), Elyas de Caillewe was a brother
of Elyas Giffard, who had assumed his mother’s surname.
The later is variously spelt, but was, I take it, the original
of the modern Cayley.] [**Would someone remind me where this Wayfer/Wayfir
name shows up in another document?....SUW.]
Wherefore the jurors of Agmead firmly believe that the
aforesaid William and John slew him by the counsel and wish of
Matilda herself and bribed by her thereto. The jurors of
Grumboldsash Hundred* concur in this opinion. [*Agmead Hundred was fined only
one mark for this murder “qua parvum,” p. 121. It probably could not furnish a
full Jury of Freeholders, and hence those Grumboldsash
were called in. Eventually it merged in that Hundred.]
Judgment is thereupon deferred till one month after Michaelmas (that is till the
King’s court sits at Westminister.).* Bail being meanwhile exacted for Amice,
the daughter of the said Matilda. The reason
of this last order is not very obvious. The girl can
hardly have been suspected of complicity in her
father’s murder, but she may possibly have given false evidence at her mother’s
dictation. [*Mr. Maitland shews in a note that the Judges of
Assize were directed to adjourn all difficult cases to Westminster, and observes
that this was “loquela ardua” because Matilda would not submit to trial (p.
144).]
What became of the perpetrators of
the outrage does not appear. Probably they were suffered to “abjure the realm,”
and sought perchance to expiate their crime by a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Matilda herself doubtless remained in the custody of
the sheriff, though perhaps not committed to Gloucester goal till judgment was
pronounced. In any case she is not likely to have been hardly dealt with, for
the sheriff, Ralph Musard, was connected by marriage with her uncle.* Seclusion
in a nunnery for the rest of her life was the severest
punishment inflicted on her. Perhaps the severest such a woman could receive.
[*According to the pedigree in Dugdale, Elyas Giffard had married Isabella
Musard.]
The bearing of this case on the early administration
of criminal justice I leave to be discussed by those
more competent. It is well worthy of record, if only
for the light it throws on the domestic life of the
period. Looking at the high standing of the Giffard
family, attested on this occasion by the fact that their co-sureties were: - the
Earl Marischal, whose father, just deceased, had been Guardian
of the Kingdom; and the Earl of Salisbury, the
famous Longsword, son of King Henry II. by Rosamond
Clifford; two of the chief nobles of
England; it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the manners
and customs of the English aristocracy at the time were
coarse and brutal; such in fact as would now be deemed disgraceful in the lowest
class of the community.
Appendix A. is (in Latin) Rotulus Litterarum Clausarum - anni sexti Henr’i
tercii-prima pars, memb. 16. [which I will not type here - but we have a xerox
copy.....SUW].
There is a reference to “Sempringham,” “a Gilbertine Priory in Lincolnshire,
founded by Gilbert de Gaunt in 1139 ‘as a new model of
religious life’ and doubtless stricter in rule than most nunneries.”
Appendix B. (in Latin) is Hundredum de Aggemede, No. 111 (which I will also not
type here, but refer to the xerox copy....SUW].
“Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester
Archaelogical Society,” Vol. 14 (for the year 1899-90).
pp. 32-34. [an article about the Le Brun family property]
12. From Adam Kaily and Thoms de Gardinis, for one knight’s fee in Side and
Gardino, of the fief of John
le Brun, 40s.
The Manor of Side, in Rapsgate Hundred, which had
belonged at Domesday to Ansfrid de Cormeilles, continued in the possession
of his descendant, Walter de Cormeilles, during the
reign of John (fn2). Upon the partition
of the Barony among Walter’s three daughters in 1218,
it must have gone to Richard le Brun (fn3) who [p. 33] had married the second,
and from him descended to his son the above-named John. The Kaily family--its
sub-tenants--were feoffees of the
Giffards in Wiltshire, (fn1) and had inter-married with them on several
occasions. Adam, though apparently only a cadet, had obtained the land
of one of the daughters
of Richard Giffard, and succeeded in her right, on the
death of Osbert her brother, to this sub-enfeoffment in
Side, as well as to an interest in lands in other counties (fn2).
The association of his name with that
of Thomas Gardinis in this Return, can mean no more than that the
combined holdings of the two made up the knight’s
service for which their overlord was answerable. There was certainly no
connection between the manors named, as shown by their appearing in Kirby’s
Quest under distinct headings, the half fee in Side being then held by (p. 34)
Simon de Caly (fn1), under Simon de Crome, and that in Duntisborne and in “Gardino,”
by Thomas de Gardinis, jointly with Henry de Lega--in both cases
of John le Brun, son of the
preceding John........etc.
Footnotes:
p. 32. fn2. Vide Trans. Bristol and Glouc. Arch. Society, Vol. XII, p. 253. This
effectually disposes of Sir Robert Atkyns’ assertion
that “Side came soon after the Conquest” to the Giffards
of Brimpsfield; although it will be seen from what
follows that a scion of that House was sub-enfeoffed
therein before the close of the 12th century,
presumably through marriage with a daughter of the
House of Cormeilles.
fn3. Not as Fosbroke suggests, to Hugh Giffard, the husband of
the eldest, neither of whose sons inherited an acre in
Side.
p. 33. fn1. Elyas de Kailleway appears in the Wilts Returns (Testa de Nevill,
pp. 142 and 157) as joint holder of four fees under
Elyas Giffard (IV), whose sister Berta he had married; two of
them are said to be in Kaillewent, which looks as if the name were
of territorial origin, though the “de” is often
omitted. Perhaps it was derived from “Caillou,” a flint, as it is occasionally
spelt so. The spelling in fact was so various,--even sometimes in the same
document, that no conclusion can be come to.
fn2. This information is derived principally from Bracton’s recently published
Note Book. In No. 1717, A. D. 1226, Oxon., Osbert Giffard calls Elyas Giffard
(IV) to warrant a fee which the latter’s grandfather Elyas (III) had given to
his nephew Richard Giffard (presumably the Justice Itinerant
of the reign of Hen. II.) which fee seems to
have been made over by Richard’s son Osbert, to Adam de Kaylli and his wife
Mabilia. In No. 671, A. D. 1231, Kent, Warin de Montcheney claims and obtains
the homage of Adam de Kaylli and Mabilia, as well as
that of Matilda Giffard, and of
Isabella de Freville, in respect to a fee in that county; the two former ladies
pleading that it had been granted to their father, Richard Giffard, and had come
to them on the decease of their brother Osbert. The
third, Isabella de Freville, is shown by a reference in Dugdale’s Baronage (Vol.
I, p. 501), to have been the widow of this Osbert (and
not, consequently, I may add, of the Osbert supposed by
him, who did not die until 1247 (Cal. Geneal., p. 28). We are thus enabled to
comprehend the entry on the Close Roll of 15th Hen.
III, quoted by Fosbroke, as to a suit brought by Ralph de Wylington and Olimpias
his wife, against the same defendants, with the addition of
the Prior of Lanthony, with regard to their tenancy
of three hides of land in
Side. This was the extent of the whole manor at
Domesday, and it may be inferred that Adam de Kaylii and his wife (called in the
Close Roll Matilda, probably a mistake for Mabilia) became seized
of it after the death of her
sister, and of her father’s widow, since we find that
in 1255 Matilda Kaylli passed a fine of half a knight’s
fee in Syde, and of the fourth of
a fee in Stoke Giffard and Brimpsfield, in favour of
one Adam de Crumbe, on condition of his paying her
100s. and undertaking the services required of her by
John Giffard and John le Brun (Pedes Finium, Glouc., 39th Henry III, No. 420).
There seems no means of deciding whether this Matilda
was the widow, or daughter, of Adam de Kaylli. The
tenancy of Side by Simon de Caley in 1285, would be
more easily accounted for on the former supposition, but it seems odd if she had
a son that she should have sold the superiority of the
lands.
p. 34. fn1. The way in which Side shortly after this date became the property
of the Giffards
of Brimpsfield is not altogether clear. In the General
Inquisitions as to their Heirs, taken in 1st Edw. III. (Cal. Inq. p.m., No. 84),
it is stated positively that the manor was purchased from Adam Cayley by John
Giffard, senior, and settled on his third wife, Margaret Nevill. This marriage
cannot have taken place later than 1286, as her son, the second John Giffard,
was born on Midsummer day in that year (Calend. Geneal., p. 28) but the
settlement may hve been post nuptial, and made at any time before her husband’s
death in 1299. The difficulty is that, as has been shown, Adam had then been
dead between thirty and forty years, and it can only, I think, be solved by
assuming that the jurors of 1326, after the lapse
of nearly as long a period, had forgotten that the
christian name of the vendor was in reality Simon. That
juries were by no means infallible is evident, for in one of
the two Inquisitions as to Side, in this very escheat, it is affirmed that the
manor was held of John de Crome, whilst in the other
John Giffard is said to have held it “in demesne as of
fee” on the day he died. In neither case is any allusion made to the
overlordship of John le Brun, which had evidently
ceased to be more than nominal. Perhaps the motive of
the latter declaration was, that Side, having been made over by Margaret Nevill
(who still survived) to her unfortunate son, had been confiscated after his
execution in 1322, and granted by the crown successively to Hugh le Despenser,
John Maltravers, and Thomas de Berkeley. The last named continued in 1346 to
hold it as half a fee, but, strange to say, his predecessor (c. 32nd Edw. I.) is
called Robert de Kailly, showing how loose and perfunctory was the record
of christian names in such documents.
p. 141. ”PYCHENECUMBE”
Abstracts of Original Documents in the Registers
of the Abbey of St. Peter,
Gloucester.
Communicated by The Rev. John Melland Hall, M. A.
[NOTE: Pitchcombe is in the parish of Standish, and
apparently the property of several families including
the le Brets (name spelled variously Bret, Bryt, Birt). The only reference
of interest is the name of
John de Caillewe in a list of witnesses to the series
of documents in regards to Pitchcombe, etc, covering
the years 1294 to 1329. Strangely, though, is a chart at the end
of this article implying that John de Caillewe was the
son of an unnamed sister of
Walter le Bret.
TABLE OF DESCENT.
Richard le Bret = Eva.................
“de Pynchecumbe” |
|
|
______________________________________________
| |
Walter le Bret = Nicholla, da. of Sir William |
| Maunsel, of Lypiatt Manor
.............................
| |
| John de Caillewe,
| “nephew of Walter
_________________________________ le Bret,” living 1329
| |
Thomas “de Holecombe” = Alice Juliana.
or “le Bret”
(dead in 1311, v. No. 368)
p. 328. SEVENHAMPTON
By The Rev. John Melland Hall, M. A.
Rector of Harescombe with Pitchcombe
[It is mentioned] in the Domesday Survey of 1086 that
Sevenhampton is a portion of lands appertaining to the
Church of Hereford, and in connection with Prestbury,
with which, as it was in a different Hundred, it would appear to have become in
some manner incorporated.
It is recorded ----
“In Cheltenham Hundred, the bishop of Hereford holds
Presteberie”.......etc.
“To his manor is adjoined a Ville Sevenhamtone outside this hundred (of
Cheltenham).
[This article goes on to give a detailed account of the
manor of Sevenhampton.. Some records, c1289+, are
of interest]:
The Household Roll of the same prelate (Richard
Swinfield), published by the Camden Society, contains many interesting
particulars. We have a picture of 13th century life
presented to us -- Christmas was to be kept at Prestbury. Robert Calewe, a
servant, had been sent from Bosbury, another of the
bishop’s manors, to superintend the burning of
charcoal, and a great brewing of ale. Calewe was
assisted by hired female brewers, and the malt, we learn, was a mixture
of wheat, barley and oats.........................etc.
“Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester
Archaelogical Society.” Vol. 65 ( for the year 1944), pp. 105- 28.
THE GIFFARDS OF
BRIMSFIELD
by J. N. Langston
One of the knights who accompanied William the
Conqueror to England was Walter Giffard, lord of
Longueville in Normandy, who provided 30 vessels and 100 men towards the
invading force. Although progenitor of a race from
which sprang some of the noblest families in England,
very little is known authoritatively about Walter’s own family. He is the first
known person bearing the name of ‘Giffard’ (from the
Old French gifard, meaning ‘bloated.’), though it is unlikely that he was the
original recipient of the soubriquet as others
similarly called were his contemporaries, and it therefore appears that the
Norman nickname of some ancestor had already come to be
a family name. Walter had been asked to act at the battle of
Hastings as William’s standard bearer whose duty it was to ride beside the duke,
bearing aloft his gonfanon or pennon, but he pleaded to be excused the honour as
he was too old and feeble, although he nevertheless felt bound to lead his own
men-at-arms into action. Among these were probably other members
of the Giffard family, including Osbern the founder
of the Brimpsfield branch of
the Giffards, for in an Assize Roll for 1221 Elias
Giffard claimed that his ancestor Osbert Giffard came to England at the
Conquest. As Osbern is not mentioned by any of the
chroniclers and his name occurs only in Domesday Book, there is no direct
evidence as to his paternity, but he was doubtless a younger son
of Walter, and would have been named after his
grandfather, Osbern de Bolbec, whose wife Avelina was a sister
of Gunnora, wife of Richard, Duke
of Normandy, and in this way he would have been a
cousin of William Fitz-Osbern and of
the Conqueror himself.
As a reward for his services, OSBERN GIFFARD obtained a grant
of the lands in Gloucestershire which had belonged to a Saxon thane
called Dunne or Duns, comprising three manors in Brimpsfield, Rockhampton near
Thornbury, and Stoke (Stoche in Domesday Book, Stoke Elye Giffardi in 1221,
Stokes Giffard in 1243, now Stoke Gifford). At the time of
the Survey of 1086, he was also holding a hide
of land in Oldbury on the Hill, though he had to
relinquish this as the county jury found that it had not belonged to Duns whose
land Osbern had. He had also acquired two manors in Sherrington, Wilts., and
eight other manors, while he held, under the Bishop of
Winchester, four hides of Itchington, as well as two
hides in Condicot, Glos. In 1086, the abbey of St.
Stephen at Fontenay in Normandy was holding of Osbern
two hides and a virgate in Middleton, probably by his gift, and this was
augmented soon after by a donation of land at
Brimpsfield upon which the monks established a cell or priory. The manor
of Brimpsfield, which was the most extensive
of the three manors in the county and included Cranham
at the date of the Survey, had been held by Osbern’s
predecessor under Earl Harold in the time of Edward the
Confessor. It was taxed at nine hides --about 2000 acres -- and was farmed with
15 ploughs, 3 of which were used for the lord’s land.
It yielded £12 to the king.
By 1096, ELIAS GIFFARD had succeeded his father Osbern, as in that year he gave
part of his wood at Buckholt with 3 bordars to St.
Peter’s abbey at Gloucester, and William II confirmed the gift. In 1121, Elias,
together with his wife Ala and his son Elias, granted to the monks, by deed
which they laid upon the altar, their land in Buckholt, the woods and the plains
estimated at half a hide and half a yardland, free from all services to the
king, and discharged of all other customs except
danegeld to the king.
This son, ELIAS GIFFARD II, in 1130 rendered account of
100 marks of silver for the relief of
his father’s lands. The ‘caput’ of the Honour was in
Wilts., of 9 fees, including Brimpsfield and
Rockhampton. The Pipe Roll has a mysterious entry: ‘the same Elias accounts for
£10 for the money of the Bishop of
Durham [Ralph Flamberd], which the daughter of Geoffrey
the Bishop’s brother paid him’. About three years earlier he had married Berta,
sister of Walter de Clifford and daughter
of Richard FitzPonce, and acquired with her
considerable possessions. In the time of abbot Hameline
(therefore between 1148 and 1162) he gave to St. Peter’s abbey, for the soul’s
health of Berta his wife and his ancestors, the church
of St. Mary, Boyton, and the church
of St. George, Orcheston, with the chapel of St.
Andrew, Winterburne, in Wilts., with the lands, tithes, meadows, pastures, ways,
paths, and whatsoever appertained to the said churches, saving the tenure
of the church of Finctenay.
Winterburne is now Elston. The former name was still retained in 1242 when Elias
Giffard IV held the manor, but in 1299 it was called Wynterborne Elistone (after
Elias), and in 1316 it became simply Eliston. Elias was present in the abbey
chapter house on 15 December, 1157, when the Archbishop of
York and the abbot settled a long-standing dispute between them concerning
Standish and other manors. He was also a benefactor of
the priory of Llanthony by Gloucester, dedicated in
1137. While his wife was still living, and with her consent, he gve Cranham to
St. Peter’s, and entered the abbey as a monk.
His son, ELIAS GIFFARD III, appears to have succeeded his father in 1162, and in
1166 he owed £100, the fine for his land. In 1167 he and his mother Berta
persuaded the abbot of Gloucester to restore Cranham to
them which his father had given them when he was made a monk, and in exchange
they gave to the abbey 8 libratae of land in
Ullingswick, Hfds. Berta also gave certain lands there on which her husband had
built at his own charge. About 1180 Elias made a grant to the lepers
of St. Sepulchre, near Gloucester, for the souls
of his father and mother and for the health
of his own soul, of one
horse-load of wood daily in winter, i.e from the feast
of All Hallows (1 November) to the feast
of the Holy Cross (3 May), and three cart-loads weekly
in summer from his wood of Brimpsfield. Among the
witnesses to this gift were his two brothers, Walter and Gilbert, both
of whom gave land in 1186 to St. Peter’s. Walter
granted and confirmed to the monks of Gloucester the
church of Boyton with all its appurtenances, with half
a hide of land in the same vill, and the tithes
of the whole vill, with a building for 8 oxen, 1 beast,
and 122 sheep; and all the tithes of the vill, both
of the demesne lands and of
the tenant lands, and of all things
of which good christians ought to pay tithe. But later on, Elias laid
claim to the church of Boyton,and Abbot Carbonell, for
the sake of peace, granted him the church
of Orcheston with the chapel of
Winterburne, reserving the church of Boyton. Walter
also entered into an agreement with Abbot Carbonell providing that two-thirds
of all the land in Ullingswick should remain to the
abbey, but that the other third, with the advowson of
the church and the mansion house, should belong to Walter.
Elias died before Michaelmas, 1190, when William de Mareschall owed 140 marks
for the custody of his lands. By his wife Maud,
daughter of Morice fitzRobert, fitzHardinge
of Berkeley, he had three sons, Elias, Osbert, and
Gilbert, and a daughter Berta, while another son may have been the Thomas who
accounted in 1195 for the king’s ransom and who must have died soon afterwards.
ELIAS GIFFARD IV was still a minor in the guardianship of
William Marshall in 1201-2, for while the Pipe Roll of
3 John shows him in arrear for the 3rd scutage of
Richard I and owing 20s. for the scutage of Wales and
18 marks for that of Scotland, a note added after the
last entry states that ‘William Marshall, who has the lands of
the said Elias in custody, has an acquittance by writ from Geoffrey fitzPeter’.
In the Testa de Nevill (of an earlier date than 1213)
the Gloucestershire return gives Elias Giffard as owing for Brimpsfield and
Rockhampton and all his other tenements, 9 knight’s fees, but this is merely a
formal mention as the larger portion was situated in Wilts., and the Pipe Roll
for that county for 1211-12 records the payment by Elias in respect
of the 9 fees.
It has been supposed that this Elias was son of Thomas
above-mentioned, and therefore grandson of Elias III,
but an Assize Roll records that in 1221 Elias IV claimed an Elias as his father.
In 1210, Elias was in Ireland with king John’s army, but a few years later he
and his brother Osbert took up arms with the barons against the king. Elias
being taken prisoner, the king seized Brimpsfield castle, and in 1216 sent writs
to the sheriffs of the counties of
Wilts., Gloucester, Somerset and Dorset, Oxford and Northampton, ordering them
to seize all lands belonging to Elias as they had been bestowed upon Bartholomew
Peche. In the same year, the two brothers were among the barons excommunicated
by the pope for taking part in the rebellion. After John’s death in October
of that year, both brothers gave allegiance to the
young king Henry III, just crowned at Gloucester, and on 11 March, 1217, the
sheriff of Gloucester was ordered to deliver to Elias
seisin of his lands as he had returned to his fidelity
to the king. In 1221 the abbot of Gloucester complained
that Elias had erected a gallows and was hanging his own men at Brimpsfield to
the detriment of the abbot. About 1230 Elias gave his
land of Grofuge in Brimpsfield to his kinsman Nicholas
of Caleway, who thereupon bestowed the land upon St.
Bartholomew’s Hospital at Gloucester.
On 27 December 1221 a mandate was sent to the sheriff of
Gloucester concerning Matilda widow of Richard
of Acton, a prisoner in his custody. William Earl
Marshall, William Earl of Salisbury, Osbert Giffard
of Norfolk, Elyas Giffard, Gilbert Giffard, Osbert
Giffard of Brimpsfield, and Elyas de Cailloe, having
bound themselves that Matilda would, before the following Easter, assume the
habit of a black nun or that of
the convent of Sempringham, the sheriff was ordered to
deliver his prisoner to the said Elyas Giffard and Osbert Giffard
of Brimpsfield. The sordid story of
Matilda’s married life -- the continual strife between her and her husband who
sometimes beat her because of her light behavaiour, and
her committal for trial on the charge of counselling
and bribing an unknown assailant who mortally wounded her husband -- is told by
Sir Henry Barkly in Trans. B.G.A.S., vol. xi, 331-5. The evidence shows that
Matilda was the wife of Richard Butler
of Acton and daughter of Elyas
de Colewey who (says a footnote) was stated in Dugdale’ Baronage to be a brother
of Elyas Giffard who had taken his mother’s surname.
Actually, Elias de Caylewe or Kayllweye was the husband of
Berta, the sister of Elias and Osbert Giffard. Further,
Sir Henry wrongly assumed that the mention of ‘Osbert
Giffard of Brimpsfield’ in the mandate implied that he
was lord of Brimpsfield, whereas Elias was undoubtedly
then the lord , so that his brother Osbert can only have been described as ‘of
Brimpsfield’ simply to distinguish him from the other Osbert ‘of
Norfolk.’
Osbert married Isabel, daughter and heiress of Sir Alan
de Bocland, and a son, Osbert or Osbern of Winterborne
Houghton, was born to them 10 June 1234. It should be pointed out that it was
another Osbert Giffard who married Isabel de Frivelle. In 1221 William
Pictavensis granted to Osbert, brother of Elias Giffard,
all his land of Syde, Glos., in fee for 60 marks and a
horse worth 6 marks. Six years later, Osbert Giffard of
Norfolk owed Osbert Giffard of Brimpsfield 60 marks for
a quitclaim of the manor of
Syde. In 1223 Osbert had a grant to sustain himself in the king’s service
of the land that Ralph of
Vernay had of the grant of
king John in the demesne of King’s Barton without
Gloucester. In 1227 Osbert sued Thomas de Berkeley to carry out an agreement by
which he promised to grant to Osbert his nephew the reversion
of the land of Forscote, expectant on the death
of Lucy, late the wife of
Robert de Berkeley, who held the same in dower. About the same year, Osbert
granted to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital all his land in the manor
of Brimpsfield, which consisted of
two virgates in Hulletmead, in order to sustain one of
the brothers as a chaplain to celebrate divine service for the souls
of William de Bruere (d. 1226) and of
Elias and Maud his parents, as well as for his own soul and that
of Isabel his wife. His brother Elias, as lord
of Brimpsfield, confirmed this gift for the health
of his own soul and the souls of
Isabel and Alice and Isoude his wives. In 1229 Eliaas gave to Osbert his brother
the manor and advowson of Winterborne to hold at farm,
the king confirming the grant on 11 May. He also gave Osbert on 4 October three
virgates of land in Gillingham in fee. In 1229 and 1231
Osbert Giffard of Brimpsfield accounted for the farm
of Pitchcombe, 60s. a year, as from 1228; and on 3
February 1230 the king gave Osbert 22s. (sic) of rent
and a carucate of land in Pitchcombe rendering therefor
5s. a year by the hand of the sheriff
of Gloucester. Osbert died shortly before 17 October 1237, and in 1239
Thomas de Berkeley claimed from Isabel Giffard the custody of
the lands and the heir of Osbert because the latter had
held of him by military service.
Elias Giffard died shortly before 2 May 1248 leaving a son and heir, John, by
his second wife Alice, sister of Sir John Mautravers
of Lychet-Matravers in Dorset, who had given the manor
of Ashton (Ashtone Giffard in 1354, now Ashton Giffard)
and the advowson of the church of
St. Peter at Codford in Wilts., to Elias in free marriage with Alice his sister,
to hold to them and the heirs of their bodies by the
service of a knight’s fee. It was found by inquisition
held after his death that Elias also held the manor of
Winterburne of the king in chief, ‘as the head
of his barony,’ and the manor of
Sherrington ‘pertaining to that barony.’
JOHN GIFFARD was aged 16, or 16 and more, when he succeeded his father in 1248.
The proof of age is defective though it states that he
was born on St. Wulstan’s day (19 January). During his minority, the queen had
the guardianship of his lands. He was the famous
soldier of the Baron’s war, and is constantly described
as a valiant and skilful soldier as well as a prudent and discreet man. He
apparently commenced his military career at the early age of
14, for it is said that he took part in Henry III’s expeditions into Wales in
1246 and the two following years. He was summoned for military service during
the 42 years from 18 July 1257, to 7 March 1299, the year of
his death. It is thought that he may have been attached to the household
of Simon de Montfort, earl of
Leicester. At all events, when, at the end of April
1263, the earl led the barons in revolt against the king with the object
of driving out the foreigners who filled most
of the offices in the country, Giffard joined the
movement and became a prominent leader. He helped to ravage the lands
of Roger Mortimer, and later (11 June) was one
of a band of knights who
attacked the bishop of Hereford (the Savoyard Peter
d’Aigueblanch), a royal partisan. Giffard, with his kinsman Roger Clifford,
Humphrey de Bohun the ‘Good Earl’ of Hereford, the
young Gilbert de Clare earl of Gloucester, and others,
seized the bishop at the altar, dragged him out of his
cathedral church, and imprisoned him with his Savoyard canons in the Clifford
castle of Eardisley. For this act, the archbishop
of Canterbury was ordered by papal mandate dated 20
February 1264, to excommunicate the offenders until they made amends.
Giffard is next found actively engaged in Gloucester, where the barons had
refused to recognize the king’s appointment of a French
knight, Maci de Besile, to be sheriff of
Gloucestershire and Constable of Gloucester castle, and
had chosen instead a county knight, William de Tracy, in opposition to him. When
Tracy attempted to exercise the duties of his office,
Besile left the castle at the head of a large body
of the king’s forces, went to the court where his rival
was sitting, forced his way up to the dais, and seizing Tracy by his hair,
dragged him through the muddy streets to the castle and threw him into prison.
Thereuppon, Roger Clifford and John Giffard laid siege to the castle. They
quickly burnt the outer gate and destroyed the wooden bridge leading to the
castle, but were unable to make further progress until another entrance was
opened to them by some prisoners in the castle who had been imprudently
released. This compelled Besile and his men to retire tot he high and strongest
tower, where they continued to put up a stout defence. Eventually the besiegers
forced the three iron gates and locks, and so took the castle after a siege
lasting four days. Even then Besile fought on and refused to surrender, but he
was finally secured and sent as a prisoner to Eardisley castle. Giffard, after
taking revenge upon a carpenter, who had shot one of
his squires, by forcing him to leap from the top of the
castle to a miserable death, proceeded to raid Besile’s manor
of Sherston in Wilts., and drove all the live stock found there to his
own castle of Brimpsfield.
The barons speedily gained supremacy in the west, and on 21 July 1263, the king
and Edward his son yielded to the forces arrayed against them and accepted the
barons’ terms. Most of the barons, including the earl
of Hereford, John Giffard and Roger Clifford, then
returned to the king’s allegiance. The last-named delivered up the town and
castle of Gloucester to the king, and was appointed by
the advice of the magnates of
the council, keeper of the castle of
St. Briavels and Warden of the Forest
of Dean during the king’s pleasure; and in the same month he was among
those who made a treaty with the king’s son, the agreement being dated at
Lambeth on the Saturday after the Assumption of the
Virgin (18 August). Exactly a month later, he received a pardon for all
trespasses committed by reason of non-observance
of the Provisions of Oxford,
while on Christmas Eve he was made joint keeper of the
counties of Gloucester, Worcester and Hereford. An
original document relating to the expenditure of
Kingswood abbey during the mid-summer term of 1263
records a payment of £10 to John Giffard and also one
of 5s. in expenses of the
abbot at Gloucester when he spoke with J. Giffard.
At the beginning of 1264 Montfort resumed hostilities
against the crown with the support of the earls
of Gloucester and Hereford, John Giffard, and others.
Giffard, who had retired to Brimpsfield, was speedily on the warpath and made
frequent sorties into Gloucester at the head of his
vassals, and had many skirmishes with the royal forces. When the Constable
ordered him to attend a Hundred court at Quedgeley, he answered the summons by
audaciously appearing with an armed band, and after killing some, dispersed the
remainder of the Constable’s men. His next exploit was
to take the town of Gloucester by means
of a very artful ruse. He and another county knight,
John de Balun, wearing long Welsh cloaks and riding upon two wool-packs,
approached the west gate, and the porters, taking them for ordinary wool
merchants, opened the gates and admitted them into the town. Once inside, they
leaped from the horses, threw aside their cloaks, and appeared in complete
armour before the astonished and frightened porters, who incontinently yielded
up the keys and fled. The two knights opened the gates and the barons’ army,
headed by Simon de Montfort and his son Henry, entered the town. They then began
a siege of the castle which was still held by the
king’s forces. Meanwhile, on Ash Wednesday (5 March) prince Edward reached the
outskirts of the town but found his progress checked by
the destruction of the bridge over the river Severn.
This he quickly repaired, and began an attack upon the town at the West gate.
Troops were dispatched from the castle to his assistance but he was unable to
make any advance. At length, the Prince turned aside into the meadows and,
seizing a ship belonging to the abbot of Tewkesbury
which was lying in the river, he was able to cross over and enter the castle
unbeknown to the besiegers, who only discovered the fact from seeing the
prince’s banner displayed on one of the castle towers.
Giffard, however, continued his attack on the castle on the town side in spite
of the garrison’s strong defence, and eventually he
broke in by the adjoining wall of the abbot’s orchard
which had been left undefended, and set fire to the castle. The position
of the inmates was now precarious. Their communication
with the county having been cut, and being aware of the
near approach of Robert Ferrars, earl
of Derby, with a large force to augment the besiegers, the beleaguered
garrison would soon have been compelled to surrender, but prince Edward daringly
left the castle and, visiting his enemies unarmed, had a private conference with
them. Later a truce was arrived at through the mediation of
the bishop of Worcester and the abbot
of Gloucester, and upon the prince granting upon oath their demands, the
barons withdrew and left the town in his possession. One of
the conditions imposed upon the prince was that he should do no injury to the
burgesses, but no sooner had the barons withdrawn than the prince broke his oath
and unscrupulously wreaked his vengeance on the unfortunate townsmen whom he
compelled to pay a fine of £1,000 while he hanged the
luckless porters who had allowed Giffard and de Balun to gain admittance. Robert
of Gloucester, a monk of St.
Peter’s abbey, who chronicled these events and wrote as a contemporary if not an
actual eye-witness, relates that one of these porters
was named ‘Hobekin of Lodelawe.’
Giffard’s defection caused the king, prince Edward and Hugh the Bigod to issue a
mandate on 28 March 1624, ordering him on his fealty and homage to deliver up
St. Briavels castle and the Forest of Dean to William
Wike, a canon of Llanthony priory by Gloucester, to
keep for the king’s use. The order was handed to the canon to take to Giffard
but the latter simply ignored it.
In April, while Governor of Kenilworth, Giffard
surprised and destroyed Warwick castle and took the earl and countess prisoners.
In the following month, he was at the battle of Lewes
where he was taken prisoner early in the day and imprisoned in the castle,
though he had already shown his prowess by capturing William la Zuche. He was
released at the end of the day, for the barons proved
victorious and the king and his son were taken prisoners leaving earl Simon the
real ruler of England for more than a year. When it
came to sharing the spoils, earl Gilbert and Giffard quarrelled with Montfort
concerning the ransom of Richard, king
of the Romans, and other captives taken in the battle.
Trouble also arose over a tournament arranged to be held at Dunstaple on 16
February 1265, by Montfort’s sons, when earl Gilbert intended to hold the lists
against them. Montfort intervened and forbade the encounter and ordered Gilbert
and Giffard to attend a council on the morrow of Ash
Wednesday (19 February). Taking offence at this assumption of
authority, the two deserted Montfort and joined the king’s party.
After Easter, Montfort (with his royal prisoners) advanced upon Gloucester and
entered the town without resistance. Earl Gilbert was then encamped in a forest
to the south of the town, and Giffard kindled a fire on
a hill called Erdland as a signal to the prince that friends were near. Towards
the middle of May, Montfort left Glocester to subdue
those barons of the Welsh marches, including Roger
Mortimer, still in arms against him. He took with him the king and prince, but
at Hereford on 28 May the prince eluded his captors by means
of a simple stratagem and a swift horse and escaped to Mortimer at
Wigmore castle where he was joined a few days later by the earl
of Gloucester. Montfort remained at Hereford until 13
June when he decided to adhere to his original plan after despatching a
detachment of 300 men-at-arms under Robert de Ros to
hold Gloucester, the main passage over the Severn and his means
of communication with London. The delay however had
enabled his enemies to band together, and after taking Bridgnorth and Worcester,
they proceeded on 13 and 14 June to Gloucester and laid siege to it. The town
quickly fell, and the castle, lacking sufficient provisions, was able to hold
out only for 15 days. Meanwhile the prince had already sent a strong detachment,
led by John Giffard, to hold the line of the Wye as a
covering force for the besiegers of Gloucester, and
Giffard occupied a strongly fortified position commanding Monmouth bridge.
Montfort had captured the castle of Monmouth, one
of de Clare’s chief strongholds, but reconnaissance
having convinced him that he could not evict Giffard with his small force, he
turned westward. The prince and de Clare, now holding all the bridges on the
lower Severn, advanced with their main body to join up with Giffard’s
detachment, but Montfort effected a crossing higher up the river on 2 August,
and two days later the opposing armies clashed at the battle
of Evesham when Montfort was killed with hundreds of
his supporters. Giffard, in consideration of his
services at the battle, was pardoned on 9 October 1265, for his adherence to
earl Simon at the earlier battle of Lewes and for all
later trespasses committed by him up to that date. Subsequently he received a
similar pardon for offences up to 10 March 1268.
On 9 February 1266, Giffard was again ordered to deliver up the castle
of St. Briavels and the Forest of
Dean, but this time to prince Edward. During his custody of
the Forest, Giffard had failed, apparently, to present any accounts, and it is
recorded that the damage done to the king’s woods there under Giffard and Thomas
de Clare was assessed at the enormous sum of £2,368 lls.
In the Forest Eyre of 1270 Giffard was held responsible
for the damage done in Abenhall bailiwick by Ralph of
Abenhall with his permission, and he was required to find the sum
of £1218, but he was subsequently forgiven the debt.
Up to this date, Giffard had apparently been too engrossed in military matters
to trouble about marriage, although he had been affianced at the age
of 4 years to Aubrey de Caunville (who was about the
same age), a daughter of Thomas de Caunville
of Arrow, co. Warwick, and a descendant
of Aubrey Marmion, Lady of
Arrow, wife of William de Caunville. The marriage,
which had been contracted at Arrow, never took place, and Aubrey, probably
through choice rather than disappointment, found solace in the religious life at
Polesworth where she was afterwards elected abbess about December 1276.
Giffard’s first matrimonial venture was made in 1271 at the age
of 39 in circumstances characteristic
of the man. No thought of conventional wooing
entered the mind of the seasoned warrior, nor would he
be troubled with the ordinary negotiations preceding marriage. He simply seized
the woman of his choice, carried her off willy-nilly,
and immured her in his stronghold. The victim was Maud Lungespee who had been a
widow for 15 years, her husband, Sir William Lungespee, a son
of the earl of Salisbury, having died at the end
of 1256. Maud was the daughter and heiress
of Sir William de Clifford of
Clifford, co. Hereford, by Margaret, daughter of
Llywelyn ab Icwerth, prince of North Wales, and widow
of John de Brewes. Maud complained to the king that
John Giffard had abducted her from her manor of Canford
in Dorset, and taken her against her will to his castle at Brimpsfield and there
detained her. In response to a summons Giffard appeared before the king, when he
professed himself ready to prove that he did not forcibly abduct Maud as she was
willing though coy, and he offered to pay a fine of 300
marks for the marriage already contracted, as he said, between them (though
without the royal consent) provided she made no further complaint against him.
The king influenced by the persuasive bribe, was not unwilling to condone the
outrage, though to save his face he ordered on 10 March that if Maud was not
content, the fine should be void and John must stand his trial at a month from
Easter. Apparently on second thoughts, Maud considered it wise to accept her
compromising position. She explained that she was too unwell to appear before
the king, and when he sent commissioners to inquire into the truth
of the matter and certify him of
the result, she evidently withdrew her complaint, for nothing more is heard
of the business, and the couple lived amicably together
until Maud’s death nearly 11 years later. There were four daughters
of this union, Catherine born 1272 who became the wife
of Sir Nicholas Daudeley or Dauditheley; Alinore born
1275 who married Sir Fulk Lestraunge (Lord Lestraunge); Maud born 1277 who in
June, 1299, married William de Joinville or Geneville; and Elizabeth who died
unmarried. The first three are named in 1299 as their mother’s heirs, together
with another daughter Margaret, countess of Lincoln, by
William Lungespee.
John Giffard was one of the commissioners empowered 24
April 1274, to make a truce at the ford of Montgomery
in a month from Easter between Llywelyn ab Gruffyd, prince of
Wales, and Humphrey de Bohun of Brecknock. Before the
battle of Lewes, prince Edward had captured the Bohun
castles of Huntington and Hay, and thence penetrated
into Brecknock which was taken from Humphrey. Later, the latter took up arms to
regain his possessions and commenced hostilities against Llywelyn. In 1272 the
king had announced his readiness to see that redress was given for any act
of violence on the part of
Humphrey, and two years later sent envoys to Llywelyn to arrange the truce
above-mentioned.
On 6 November 1281, Giffard had licence to hunt wolves, with his own hounds,
throughout the king’s forests in England. In the following year he took a
prominent part in the expedition against Llywelyn, and was appointed keeper
of the castle of Llandovery, 9
April 1282, and of the castle of
Builth, 14 October following. In November Llywelyn appeared in the highlands
of Builth with the object of
capturing the castle defended by Giffard and a body of
Shropshire levies. During a conflict on 11 December at Orewin bridge on the
Irfon near Builth, which resulted in a victory for the English forces led by
John Giffard and Edmund de Mortimer under the immediate command
of Roger Lestraunge, the last prince
of Wales of the native line was slain by a
lance.
In 1283 John Giffard, for the health of his soul and
that of his late wife Maud Lungespee who had died early
in the previous year, founded a cell at Oxford for young Benedictine monks from
Gloucester abbey, for which purpose he purchased from the prior
of the Hospital of St. John
of Jerusalem in England certain lands and tenements in
Stockwell street amid the water meadows in the northwest suburb
of the town which had at one time been a residence
of Gilbert de Clare, earl of
Gloucester. This was the earliest monastic house established in Oxford, and
abbot Reginald Hamme was introduced into it by the founder on the feast
of St. John the Evangelist (27 December), while 13
students from the abbey took up residence there under a prior chosen from
amongst the Gloucester brethren. Giffard endowed the house with the revenues
of the church of Chipping
Norton, each monk to have 15 marks a year. When, in 1298, the first student
attained the degree of Doctor of
Divinity, abbot Reginald was present at the inception with his monks, priors,
officers, clerks, esquires, and other men of rank to
the number of 100 horses. In a few years, the cell
developed into a Benedictine college, and after chapters of
the Order held in 1290 and 1291 had sanctioned an enlargement
of the scheme to which the founder had agreed, the house was thrown open
to all Benedictine students in the southern province, and soon all the famous
abbeys of the Order were represented there, including
Malmesbury, St. Albans, Westminster, Winchcombe, Canterbury, and Glastonbury.
Later, Malmesbury claimed special rights over the college by virtue
of a grant of the property
obtained by the abbot from John Giffard in his declining years. Until 1540 this
house was called Gloucester College or Gloucester Hall, and its site is now
occupied by Worcester College, though the original name is still preserved in a
nearby open space known as Gloucester Green.
John married for the second time in 1286, and again chose a widow who brought
with her considerable possessions--Margaret Neville, whose first husband Sir
John de Neville had died in May 1282, holding several manors in Essex. On 9 May
1285, the bishop of Hereford had sent a letter to the
pope praying for a dispensation for this marriage as Giffard and the lady
Margaret de Neville were related in the 3rd-4th degrees of
consanguinity. The papal mandate to the bishop to make inquiry and to grant a
dispensation if expedient was dated 14 March 1285, and the bishop found by
inquisition held at Bishops Frome on 10 July that there was no impediment to the
marriage. Giffard settled on his new bride the manor of
Side, which he had purchased from his kinsman Simon Cayley or Caleway, who was
returned in Kirby’s Quest, c. 1284, as holding half a fee in the vill
of Side of Simon de Crome.
There were two sons of this marriage, John the heir,
and Edmund.
On 6 February 1292, Giffard obtained letters patent empowering him to alienate
the advowson of Stoke Gifford church in mortmain to the
prior and convent of Little Malvern. John Giffard,
knight, was returned in Kirby’s Quest as holding one knight’s fee in Stoke
Gifford of the bishop of
Worcester who held in chief. He was also holding a half-fee in Rockhampton
of the king in chief and another half-fee in Horfield
of Thomas de Berkeley.
On 8 February 1290, the king granted Giffard for life the castle
of Dynevor, co. Carmarthen, as a refuge for himself and
his men; but 7 years later (29 July 1297) he was ordered to deliver this castle
to Walter de Pedeston. He was present at the assemblies held at Berwick-on-Tweed
during October and November 1292, to discuss the various claims to the Scottish
crown. As Captain of Podensac in Saxony, he surrendered
the town to the French in the early months of 1295. He
was summoned, 26 January 1297 to attend the king at Salisbury and to a Military
Council on 20 August following. In the same year, during the king’s absence in
Flanders, he was one of the council
of regency. He was summoned to Parliament from 24 June 1295, to 10 April
1299, by writs directed to Johanni Giffard or Gyffard, occasionally with the
addition of ‘de Brimmesfeld,’ whereby (says The
Complete Peerage) he is held to have become Lord Giffard, but he had evidently
been recognized as a Baron many years before 1295. In Kirby’s Quest, c1284, he
was given as holding Brimpsfield, which pertained to his barony
of the king in chief. Also in the Assize Roll for
Gloucestershire which concerns the Pleas of the Crown
at Bristol in 1287, he was charged with having withheld service in the hundred
for 6 years, but no fine was assessed and a marginal note of
‘Baro’ entered against his name in the Fine Roll explained the reason--he was a
Peer of the Realm.
Giffard died at his manor of Boyton, Wilts, 29 May
1299, in his 68th year, and was buried 11 June in the abbey church
of Malmesbury. He held the manors of
Brimpsfield, Rockhampton, Sherrington and Elston, and a capital messuage in
Orcheston St. George, of the king in chief, by barony,
by the service of 3 knight’s fees; the commote
of Iscennan, co. Carm., of the
king in chief, by homage and fealty; Badgeworth, 2 fees, of
the earl of Gloucester; the town of
Burford, 1 fee, of the same earl for life; and the
manors of Stonehouse, 1 fee, Stoke Gifford, 1 fee,
Ashton, half fee, and Broughton Gifford, of others than
the king. He also held the castle of Cortham, with
Culmington, Salop, 1 fee, the castle of Clifford, co.
Hereford, by military service, and the commotes of
Perfedd and Hirfryn with the castle of Llandovery, co.
Carm., by homage and fealty of the king in chief, the
castle of Bronllys, co. Brecknock, and lands there, 5
1/2 fees, of the earl of
Hereford, and the manor of Glasbury, partly in co.
Brecknock and partly in the land of Elfael (co.
Radnor), which was not held of anyone. His widow’s
dower was ordered to be assigned, 1 August 1299, and on 5 August she was
assigned the manors of Stonehouse, Stoke Gifford,
Elston, and Broughton Gifford.
JOHN, 2ND LORD GIFARD, was born (probably) 24 June 1287. At inquisitions held
between 5 and 14 July 1299, in different counties, his age was variously given
as 12, 13, 12 at St. Michael next (29 September), or 12 at St. John Baptist last
(24 June). There is a reference to him in 1306 when he and his brother Edmund
visited the dying abbot of
Gloucester, John Gamages. On 8 May 1308, though still under age, king Edward II
took his homage, and he had livery of his father’s
lands. He was summoned for military service 21 June following and during the
next 11 years (until 22 May 1319). On 3 March and 5 July 1309, he was made
keeper of the castle of
Dryslwyn, Co. Carm., and also of the town
of the same name on the ensuing 22 October. Both
appointments were during pleasure, and he was ordered, 22 February 1312, to
deliver the castle to Thomas le Blund. From 8 October 1311, to 15 May 1321, he
was summoned to Parliament by writs directed ‘Johanni Giffard de Brymmesfeld.’
He married Aveline, daughter of Sir Hugh de Courtenay
of Okehampton, Devon, by Alianore, daughter
of Sir Hugh le Despenser, sometime Justiciar
of England. The marriage took place before 6 November
1311, on which date, according to an inquistion at Gloucester in 1323, John and
Aveline were jointly enfeoffed of the manor and
advowson of King’s Stanley, Glos., by Amaury le
Despenser. Both were pardoned, 18 April 1315, for acquiring the property without
licence.
On 17 January 1313, Giffard was specially ordered, under pain
of forfeiture, to abstain from attending the tournament at New Market;
and on 16 August he was one of those enjoined to
abstain from tourneying, bourding, jousting, seeking adventures, or performing
any other feat of arms without the king’s licence. This
mandate, amongst others, was particularly directed against the Brackley
tournament to be held on 19 September. As the previous year had witnessed a
rising of barons under the earl of
Lancaster, the king doubtless feared that these tournaments might be a pretext
to cover musterings of armed men seeking to curb his
power.
At the battle of Bannockburn, 24 June 1314, when Robert
Bruce inflicted a crushing defeat on the English under Edward, John Giffard was
taken prisoner. In February 1316, he was sent to Wales to check the depredations
of Llwelyn ab Rhys in Morgannwg; and on 20 April he was
appointed, during pleasure, keeper of the castles,
manors, towns and lands in Glamorgan and Morgannwg lately belonging to Gilbert
de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who had been
killed at Bannockburn. He was ordered, 22 May 1317, to deliver them to the
keepers then appointed.
In 1316 he granted the privilege of free-pasturage in
Buckholt to the abbey at Gloucester. In the same year, he became a banneret,
presumably for distinguished conduct in the field of
battle, and was attached to the king’s household. On 30 December he was granted
200 marks a year, having agreed to remain with the king for life and serve him
in peace and war with 30 men-at-arms. This grant was revoked, 9 June 1318, by
reason of the Ordinances which the barons had drawn up
and forced Edward to accept.
In the spring of 1321, Giffard joined the disaffected
barons in the West who were preparing for hostilities in South Wales. The king
reached Gloucester on 26 March, and two days later, he summoned a number
of the barons, including Giffard, to a Council
of Magnates to be held in the city on 5 April, but they
ignored the command. Giffard was one of the barons who
ravaged the lands of the Despensers in May and June,
for which he received a pardon, 20 August, in accordance with the agreement made
in Parliament (this pardon was subsequently annulled in the Parliament
of York in May 1322).
In December the king decided to advance with his army into Wales to quell
another rising, and having issued an order on 7 December for Giffard’s arrest,
he made for Gloucester, where he intended to effect a crossing
of the Severn. He spent Christmas in Cirencester and on 26 December
ordered Giffard’s castle of Brimpsfield to be
demolished, which was accordingly done. On the next day and again on 4 January
1322, he issued writs for Giffard’s lands to be taken into the king’s hand. As
Edward proceeded towards Gloucester, Giffard waylaid and rifled some
of the royal carriages as they passed along the Ermin
Street. He had seized the town of Gloucester after
pillaging the surrounding country, and successfully held it against the king,
who was thus prevented from crossing the river. Edward thereupon marched up the
Severn valley to Worcester, but failing again to cross the Severn, he went on to
Bridgnorth. Gifford was there to oppose the royal forces and, burning the town
and destroying the bridge, he again forestalled the passage of
the Severn. This resulted in further orders being issued for his arrest on 15
and 23 January. Eventually the king crossed the Severn and returned to
Gloucester where he compelled Lord Berkeley to surrender the castle. He remained
in the town from 7 to 18 February, and there issued writs for the recall
of the Despensers. Giffard joined the earl
of Lancaster (as did most of
the Gloucestershire nobility and gentry) in the struggle against these
favourites of Edward, and another order was issued for
his arrest, 23 February.
Giffard assisted Lancaster at the futile three weeks’ siege of
Tickhill, a royal castle in southern Yorkshire, and he was present at the
successful conflict at Burton-on-Trent on 11 March, on which day the king issued
yet another order for his arrest. Five days later the confederate barons were
routed by the king at the battle of Boroughbridge in
Yorkshire, when Lancaster was taken prisoner, while Giffard was also captured
the following day. Lancaster was beheaded in his own castle at Pontefract, and
on 23 March three commissioners were appointed to meet at the Tower
of London and pronounce judgment on Henry Tyes and John
Giffard of Brimpsfield, traitor, at Gloucester. At the
end of April or the beginning of
May, Giffard was drawn on a hurdle outside the town gates, hanged on a gallows,
and his body cut in quarters, as a traitor. He was aged 34.
His widow Aveline had livery, 28 May 1323, of the manor
and advowson of King’s Stanley, of
which she and her husband had been jointly enfeoffed. She held it for life
of the king in chief by service of
half a knight’s fee.
On 25 January 1327, Edward III came to the throne, and Parliament having
restored on 3 February the lands of the contrariants,
nine days later those lands of John Giffard which had
been granted away were resumed into the king’s hand. During the following month,
a series of inquisitions were held in various counties,
though nothing seems to have resulted therefrom, beyond the grant to Aveline on
17 March of livery of the
castle and manor of Brimpsfield, the manor
of Rockhampton, one-third that of
Badgeworth, and half that of Stapleford, which the king
had assigned to her in dower. She died 27 April following.
The Justices were ordered by writ, 20 August, to view the various inquisitions
and to report on them. There is no record of these
proceedings, though the outcome seems to have been the ordering
of fresh inquisitions. These were held in Wilts. and
Glos., 15 and 20 January 1328, and John de Caylewe was found to be heir as the
only representative of John Giffard from Elias Giffard
III. He was great-grandson of Berta, daughter
of this Elias. Still more inquisitions were held in the
two counties, 20 March, and the matter was again referred, 4 April, to the
Justices. However the king and his council decided, after due consideration
of the inquisitions, etc., that the lands and tenements
late of John Giffard of
Brimpsfield ought to remain to the king and his heirs as his escheat according
to the law and customs of the realm, per defectum
heredis ipsius Johannis. Wherefore by charter dated 22 March 1329, the king gave
to John Mautravers, in fee, in consideration of the
good services he had rendered to the king’s mother as steward
of her household, and to the king, and the dangers and expenses which he
had incurred, all the castles, manors, and so forth, late of
the said John Giffard, if the premises ought to belong to the king as an escheat
for the said, or any other reason, the said John Mautravers being answerable for
any claims made to the premises. It will be remembered that Mautravers’ good
services included the murder of Edward II.
Apparently John de Caylewe’s claim had been allowed merely in order that he
should give a title to Mautravers, and a series of
wholly factitious transactions disposed of his claim.
On 14 May 1330, the king ordered the justices dealing with de Caylewe’s petition
for livery of his inheritance to proceed to render
judgment without delay, that the king might do what he thought fit. A week later
de Caylewe did homage and had livery of the lands late
of John Giffard of Brimpsfield
as his kinsman and heir. The same day and day after, de Caylewe, by two
charters, granted and released all the castles, manors, lands, hundreds,
knight’s fees, and advowsons formerly of John Giffard,
knight, and the reversion of those which Margaret late
the wife of John Giffard (the elder) held in dower or
otherwise for life of his inheritance, to John
Mautravers, knight. John de Caylewe died 10 September 1336, being then verderer
of the forests of Chippenham
and Pewsham, and Margaret died shortly before 13 December 1338.
On 8 January 1355, it was found by inquisition held in Wilts. that the next
heirs of John Giffard II were Joan, aged 30 and more,
and John, aged 23 and more, both descended from Gilbert Giffard, brother
of Elias IV the grandfather of
John Giffard II. If this finding is correct, it disposes of
de Caylewe’s earlier claim to be next heir to John Giffard. Moreover, the
descendants of Osbert Giffard, another brother
of the last Elias, were not extinct in 1331 though they
may have been in 1355
As regards the barony, John Giffard’s co-heirs were the representatives
of two of his four
half-sisters, viz. Catherine and Alianore, the other two having died childless.
These were James Daudeleye, born 7 January 1314, grand son of
Catherine, and John Lestraunge, born 25 January 1306, son of
Alianore. The barony however remained in abeyance; but these co-heirs inherited
the manor of Ashton, Wilts., as the right heirs
of Elias Giffard and Alice Mautravers, his second wife.
John had livery of a moiety on 6 October 1327, and
James had livery of the other moiety on 6 June 1335.
Chief Authorities
Complete Peerage of England; Dictionary
of National Biography; Metrical Chronicle
of Robert of Gloucester;
Trans. B. G.A.S, various vols.; Rudder, Historty of
Gloucester; Historia et cartularium monasterii sancti Petri Gloucestriae, edited
by W. H. Hart, 1863-7; Oxford Dict. of English
Place-Names; Planche, The Conqueror and his Companions.
From: Sylvia Warham
Sent: Feb 28, 2007
Subject: Recently Published Glos Sources (BGAS)
Hello Bruce and Sherrill,
In answer to Sherrill's question:
> Can we assume that the king knew the Giffards well, and the heirs?
I think we have to assume that the Giffards were well know to the King. They were created Barons and this is the highest rank under the king, usually reserved for the king's most trusted friends and allies. The fact that the Giffards were a feisty lot and fell out with the king is another story.
> The king wanted Maltravers to receive the land, but he had to consider the heirs. Callowe happened to be the one he could deal with. Callowe received 1000 pds. from the king for the transfer.
Yes, I think this is right, it was entirely political. Mautravers was clearly a favourite of the king in 1330 when all this happened. This was also the year that he was called to parliament for his lordship. he was clearly the man of the moment.
Thank you Bruce for the documents and records. I think they provide the information that I was missing. One of you wrote:
>'However the king and his council decided, after due consideration of the inquisitions, etc., that the lands and tenements late of John Giffard of Brimpsfield ought to remain to the king and his heirs as his escheat according to the law and customs of the realm.'
This tells us that even the King and his escheators had difficulty sorting out this complicated inheritance, so they did the simple and most obvious thing:
No obvious male heir - property escheats to the king. The next bit is more puzzling:
>'Apparently John de Caylewe’s claim had been allowed merely in order that he should give a title to Mautravers, and a series of wholly factitious transactions disposed of his clai