Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
Further validation of MAR's excellent research on the Holbrook family
posted 28 Aug 2005 is found in Copinger's "Manors of Suffolk" under
Rendlesham, vol. 4 p 321. This also extends the family back two more
generations.
"MANOR OF COLVILE'S
"This was the estate of Ulchetel under the protection of Edric of
Laxfield in King Edward the Confessor's day, and of Gislebert de
Colevilla under Robert Malet, the Domesday tenant in the time of
William the Conqueror.
"In 1204 we find Wiliam de Colvile recovering 40 acres of land here
against Robert de Colvile. In 1262 the manor was held by Ernald de
Colvile and Joan his wife, and was acquired with the advowson from them
or rather from Ernald de Colevile alone, by Richard, son of William de
Holbeck, in 1260 [Feet of Fines, 44 Hen. III. 91]. It was also held by
Richard de Holbroke, who died in 1290, when the manor vested in Sir
John de Holbroke, and in 1304 he presented to the living, which was at
that time and indeed until the time of Jas. I. appendant to this manor.
"The manor passed, as did the Manor of Broke Hall, in Nacton, in
Colneis Hundred [See Manor of Holbrook, in Samford Hundred, which I
don't have], from Sir John de Holbroke in 1306 to his widow Alicia, who
presented this year. She died in 1309, and we find the presentation in
1312 to the living made by his son, Sir John de Holbroke. He died in
1316, and in 1330 Margaret his widow claimed a moiety of the manor in
dower, and subject to her interest the manor passed to Sir Thomas de
Holbroke, son and heir of Sir John. He is mentioned on the Patent
Rolls in 1336 in connection with Rendlesham [Pat. Rolls, 9 Edw. III.
pt. ii. 13], and presented to the living in 1332. He levied a fine of
the manor in 1353 against John Caperon, parson of Tattingstone church,
and Henry White, of Tattingstone [Feet of Fines, 27 Edw. III. 10], and
died in 1360 [IPM, 34 Edw. III. 75], when the manor passed to his son
and heir, Sir John de Holbroke, who married Matilda, daughter of Sir
Robert Bourdrill (?) [sic], and died in 1375 [IPM 50 Edw. III. 32; will
1375, proved 6 Dec. 1375]. In the inquis. p.m. of this John Holbroke,
the manor is said to have been held as of Haughley Honor by the service
of 10s. to the Castle of Dover. The manor seems to have devolved upon
his two daughters and coheirs - Margery, married to John, son of Hugh
Fastolf, and Elizabeth, married to Robert Fitz-Ralph."
The article continues with the devolution of the manor through the
Fastolf family, but unfortunately I don't have the complete account.
Mardi
posted 28 Aug 2005 is found in Copinger's "Manors of Suffolk" under
Rendlesham, vol. 4 p 321. This also extends the family back two more
generations.
"MANOR OF COLVILE'S
"This was the estate of Ulchetel under the protection of Edric of
Laxfield in King Edward the Confessor's day, and of Gislebert de
Colevilla under Robert Malet, the Domesday tenant in the time of
William the Conqueror.
"In 1204 we find Wiliam de Colvile recovering 40 acres of land here
against Robert de Colvile. In 1262 the manor was held by Ernald de
Colvile and Joan his wife, and was acquired with the advowson from them
or rather from Ernald de Colevile alone, by Richard, son of William de
Holbeck, in 1260 [Feet of Fines, 44 Hen. III. 91]. It was also held by
Richard de Holbroke, who died in 1290, when the manor vested in Sir
John de Holbroke, and in 1304 he presented to the living, which was at
that time and indeed until the time of Jas. I. appendant to this manor.
"The manor passed, as did the Manor of Broke Hall, in Nacton, in
Colneis Hundred [See Manor of Holbrook, in Samford Hundred, which I
don't have], from Sir John de Holbroke in 1306 to his widow Alicia, who
presented this year. She died in 1309, and we find the presentation in
1312 to the living made by his son, Sir John de Holbroke. He died in
1316, and in 1330 Margaret his widow claimed a moiety of the manor in
dower, and subject to her interest the manor passed to Sir Thomas de
Holbroke, son and heir of Sir John. He is mentioned on the Patent
Rolls in 1336 in connection with Rendlesham [Pat. Rolls, 9 Edw. III.
pt. ii. 13], and presented to the living in 1332. He levied a fine of
the manor in 1353 against John Caperon, parson of Tattingstone church,
and Henry White, of Tattingstone [Feet of Fines, 27 Edw. III. 10], and
died in 1360 [IPM, 34 Edw. III. 75], when the manor passed to his son
and heir, Sir John de Holbroke, who married Matilda, daughter of Sir
Robert Bourdrill (?) [sic], and died in 1375 [IPM 50 Edw. III. 32; will
1375, proved 6 Dec. 1375]. In the inquis. p.m. of this John Holbroke,
the manor is said to have been held as of Haughley Honor by the service
of 10s. to the Castle of Dover. The manor seems to have devolved upon
his two daughters and coheirs - Margery, married to John, son of Hugh
Fastolf, and Elizabeth, married to Robert Fitz-Ralph."
The article continues with the devolution of the manor through the
Fastolf family, but unfortunately I don't have the complete account.
Mardi
-
Gjest
Re: Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
Many thanks for that useful addition, Mardi. I shall try to look at
the rest of the relevant entries from Copinger during the week; perhaps
'Knights of Edward I' would also give a useful reference or two.
There are also two Holbrook entries from 'Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls':
At p 143 in connection with a suit over the next presentation to the
church at Holton, Trinity term 6 Richard II (1382):
1. Richard de Holbrook, Knight
2. John de Holbrook, ff Edward I
3. Thomas de Holbrook
4. John de Holbrook
(The defendant was Sir John Bourchier - whom we would style 2nd Lord
Bourchier - whose sister Maud had married John Holbrook).
This pedigree appears to omit one generation of John Holbrook as per
Copinger.
At p 54 we find a rather more confusing and probably garbled stemma:
1. Antigonus de Mountchesny; issue:
2a. Matilda de Mountchesny
3. Wegnes de Chircheford
4. William de Pebenersh
5. Ralph, plaintiff
2b. Margaret de Mountchesny
2c. Agnes de Mountchesny
2d. Weynes (sic) de Mountchesny, married Richard de Brahame; issue:
3a. Roger
3b. John, enfeoffed by his brother Roger; issue:
4. Edmund
5. William
6. Richard de Holebrok, minor
In this case, dated Michaelmas term 30 Edward III [1346] "Ralph, son of
William de Pebnersh, sued Margaret, formerly wife of William le Roos of
Hamelak, and Thomas de Holebrok for the next presentation to the church
of Capeles."
MAR
the rest of the relevant entries from Copinger during the week; perhaps
'Knights of Edward I' would also give a useful reference or two.
There are also two Holbrook entries from 'Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls':
At p 143 in connection with a suit over the next presentation to the
church at Holton, Trinity term 6 Richard II (1382):
1. Richard de Holbrook, Knight
2. John de Holbrook, ff Edward I
3. Thomas de Holbrook
4. John de Holbrook
(The defendant was Sir John Bourchier - whom we would style 2nd Lord
Bourchier - whose sister Maud had married John Holbrook).
This pedigree appears to omit one generation of John Holbrook as per
Copinger.
At p 54 we find a rather more confusing and probably garbled stemma:
1. Antigonus de Mountchesny; issue:
2a. Matilda de Mountchesny
3. Wegnes de Chircheford
4. William de Pebenersh
5. Ralph, plaintiff
2b. Margaret de Mountchesny
2c. Agnes de Mountchesny
2d. Weynes (sic) de Mountchesny, married Richard de Brahame; issue:
3a. Roger
3b. John, enfeoffed by his brother Roger; issue:
4. Edmund
5. William
6. Richard de Holebrok, minor
In this case, dated Michaelmas term 30 Edward III [1346] "Ralph, son of
William de Pebnersh, sued Margaret, formerly wife of William le Roos of
Hamelak, and Thomas de Holebrok for the next presentation to the church
of Capeles."
MAR
-
Gjest
Re: Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
Knights of Edward I:
Holebrok, Sr Richard de, Kt. Or crusilly and a chevron gu. (Charles).
Grant of free warren to Ric. fil. Wm. de Holebroc at Tatingeston,
Benetleye, Rushabh, and Foxhole, Suff., and Senges, Norf., 16 June 1267
(Cart. R.). Made Custos of K's cstle of Rockingham and all castles
in Ess., Herts., Suff., Norf., Lincs., Hunts., Cambs., Bucks., Beds.,
Northants., Rut., Warw., Leic., and Midx., and Steward between bridges
of Oxford and Stamford, and also Custos of Sabaud Cas., Rutland Forest,
and K's castles and demesnes in divers counties, 10 Nov. 1275 (F.R.),
and Escheator in same counties 16 Nov 1276 (P.R.). He witnesses homage
of Alex., K. of Scotland, in Parl. at Westminster, Mich 1278. Sr Ric.
de H., Kt., witnesses deed of Roger, E. of Norfolk, 6 Nov. 1281 (C.R.).
Sum'd to Parl. at Shrewsbury 30 Sep 1283 (P.W.). Grant of free
warren at Tatingeston, Benetlee, Freestone, Werstede, Stubover,
Buclesham, Slich, and Sprouton, Suff., 25 Ap 1286 (Cart.R.). Lic. for
him and w. Isabella to retain the warren of Leventon granted by Rog.,
E. of Norfolk, if not within forest, and also 5 acres heath in
Kilverton, 26 Ap. 1286. Comr of gaol deliver, Lincoln 10 Jy. 1289.
Late Steward of K. 30 May 1285 (P.R.). Dead 27 Feb 1291, leaving s. h.
John (F.R.). His Exors. to cede Rockingham Cas. 10 Mar. 1291 (C.R.).
Holebrok, Sr John de. Kt. De or crusule de goules a un cheveron de
goules. Suff. (Parl). Sealed, 1301: A chevron bet. 10 crosslets
(Birch). S.H. of the last. Sum'd to defend coast agst. French 30
Aug 1295. Sumd from Suff. to serve agst. Scots 25 May 1298, and again
from Norf and Suff. 24 June 1301 (P.W.). His w. invited to marriage of
K's daughter Elizabeth to C. of Flanders at Ipswich on 7 Jan next, 30
Dec. 1296. Quittance to John s.h. of Ric. de H., L45 arrears of ferm
of Saham Manor, 4 Ap. 1304 (C.R.). His wid. Alice and 2 others hold 3
3/4 Kt. Fees at Debenham, Sekford, Skarneston, and Burstall, Suff.,
late of Roger, E. of Norfolk, and 1 Fee at Friston and Holebrok and
1/10 Fee at Brok, Suff., 6 Dec 1306 (Inq.). She is deat 8 Dec 1309
(F.R.), holding Naketon Manor, lands at Foxhole, Holebrok Manor, with
advowson there and at Freston as 1 Fee, Langiston Manor in Stroutone,
Tatingeston Manor, and lands at Burstall, Bramford, Braham, Coppedok,
Belstede, Wenham, Holton, Capele, Freston, Scottone, Chelmenton,
Wolferston, and Bentleye, Suff., and leaving s.h. John, 16-20 (Inq.).
who was dead 12 Oct. 1316 (F.R.), leaving wid. Petronilla (Inq.).
Holebrok, Sr Richard de, Kt. Or crusilly and a chevron gu. (Charles).
Grant of free warren to Ric. fil. Wm. de Holebroc at Tatingeston,
Benetleye, Rushabh, and Foxhole, Suff., and Senges, Norf., 16 June 1267
(Cart. R.). Made Custos of K's cstle of Rockingham and all castles
in Ess., Herts., Suff., Norf., Lincs., Hunts., Cambs., Bucks., Beds.,
Northants., Rut., Warw., Leic., and Midx., and Steward between bridges
of Oxford and Stamford, and also Custos of Sabaud Cas., Rutland Forest,
and K's castles and demesnes in divers counties, 10 Nov. 1275 (F.R.),
and Escheator in same counties 16 Nov 1276 (P.R.). He witnesses homage
of Alex., K. of Scotland, in Parl. at Westminster, Mich 1278. Sr Ric.
de H., Kt., witnesses deed of Roger, E. of Norfolk, 6 Nov. 1281 (C.R.).
Sum'd to Parl. at Shrewsbury 30 Sep 1283 (P.W.). Grant of free
warren at Tatingeston, Benetlee, Freestone, Werstede, Stubover,
Buclesham, Slich, and Sprouton, Suff., 25 Ap 1286 (Cart.R.). Lic. for
him and w. Isabella to retain the warren of Leventon granted by Rog.,
E. of Norfolk, if not within forest, and also 5 acres heath in
Kilverton, 26 Ap. 1286. Comr of gaol deliver, Lincoln 10 Jy. 1289.
Late Steward of K. 30 May 1285 (P.R.). Dead 27 Feb 1291, leaving s. h.
John (F.R.). His Exors. to cede Rockingham Cas. 10 Mar. 1291 (C.R.).
Holebrok, Sr John de. Kt. De or crusule de goules a un cheveron de
goules. Suff. (Parl). Sealed, 1301: A chevron bet. 10 crosslets
(Birch). S.H. of the last. Sum'd to defend coast agst. French 30
Aug 1295. Sumd from Suff. to serve agst. Scots 25 May 1298, and again
from Norf and Suff. 24 June 1301 (P.W.). His w. invited to marriage of
K's daughter Elizabeth to C. of Flanders at Ipswich on 7 Jan next, 30
Dec. 1296. Quittance to John s.h. of Ric. de H., L45 arrears of ferm
of Saham Manor, 4 Ap. 1304 (C.R.). His wid. Alice and 2 others hold 3
3/4 Kt. Fees at Debenham, Sekford, Skarneston, and Burstall, Suff.,
late of Roger, E. of Norfolk, and 1 Fee at Friston and Holebrok and
1/10 Fee at Brok, Suff., 6 Dec 1306 (Inq.). She is deat 8 Dec 1309
(F.R.), holding Naketon Manor, lands at Foxhole, Holebrok Manor, with
advowson there and at Freston as 1 Fee, Langiston Manor in Stroutone,
Tatingeston Manor, and lands at Burstall, Bramford, Braham, Coppedok,
Belstede, Wenham, Holton, Capele, Freston, Scottone, Chelmenton,
Wolferston, and Bentleye, Suff., and leaving s.h. John, 16-20 (Inq.).
who was dead 12 Oct. 1316 (F.R.), leaving wid. Petronilla (Inq.).
-
Gjest
Re: Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
I typed up the Holbrook entries from Knights of Edward I hurriedly this
morning and am just now finding time to look it over carefully with
comparison to Copinger. Copinger mentions a Richard son of William
obtaining Colville manor in 1260 and a Richard who dies in 1290. If K
Edw I is right then I should think the Richard of 1260 and 1290 are the
same man. K Edw I gives us two succeeding Johns as does Copinger. The
first John (d. 1306) left a widow Alice. Both sources agree on that.
The second John (d. 1316) seems to have left two widows: Margaret (per
Copinger, who says that the widow's interest in the manor passed to
Sir Thomas, son and heir of Sir John - does this imply that Thomas was
not Margaret's son?), and Petronilla (per K Edw I citing an
Inquisition).
It would be interesting to see the Inquisition, which names John's
(1316) widow Petronilla (see Knights of Edw I). There is no reference
given for Copinger's naming of the widow as Margaret, however he says
to see the Manor of Holbrook, in Samford Hundred (Suffolk Manors). I
do not have access to these sources until some undetermined time in the
future, so if someone could check on them and share, it would be most
helpful.
Thanks. Mardi
morning and am just now finding time to look it over carefully with
comparison to Copinger. Copinger mentions a Richard son of William
obtaining Colville manor in 1260 and a Richard who dies in 1290. If K
Edw I is right then I should think the Richard of 1260 and 1290 are the
same man. K Edw I gives us two succeeding Johns as does Copinger. The
first John (d. 1306) left a widow Alice. Both sources agree on that.
The second John (d. 1316) seems to have left two widows: Margaret (per
Copinger, who says that the widow's interest in the manor passed to
Sir Thomas, son and heir of Sir John - does this imply that Thomas was
not Margaret's son?), and Petronilla (per K Edw I citing an
Inquisition).
It would be interesting to see the Inquisition, which names John's
(1316) widow Petronilla (see Knights of Edw I). There is no reference
given for Copinger's naming of the widow as Margaret, however he says
to see the Manor of Holbrook, in Samford Hundred (Suffolk Manors). I
do not have access to these sources until some undetermined time in the
future, so if someone could check on them and share, it would be most
helpful.
Thanks. Mardi
-
Gjest
Re: Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
I found this interesting, and possibly applicable entry on PROCAT:
[? 1324] Scope and Content
Petitioners: Peter [de Maulay] and Margaret [de Maulay], his wife.
Addressees: King and Council.
Places mentioned: Leeds Castle, [Kent].
Other people mentioned: Peter de Maulay, father of the petitioner;
Alice [Bygod, de Hainault], Countess Marshal; John [de Holebrok
(Holbrook)], son of John de Holebrok; John de Holebrok (Holbrook).
Nature of request: Peter and Margaret de Maulay state that Alice,
formerly Countess Marshal, granted Margaret the wardship of the body
and lands of John, son of John de Holebrok, which she held until the
fall of Leeds Castle. She therefore requests that this wardship be
restored to her.
Endorsement: Come to Chancery, and show how and in what manner the
wardship appertains to them, and how they were seised of it, and for
how long, and let the king be certified by the chancellor.Coram Rege.
[? 1324] Scope and Content
Petitioners: Peter [de Maulay] and Margaret [de Maulay], his wife.
Addressees: King and Council.
Places mentioned: Leeds Castle, [Kent].
Other people mentioned: Peter de Maulay, father of the petitioner;
Alice [Bygod, de Hainault], Countess Marshal; John [de Holebrok
(Holbrook)], son of John de Holebrok; John de Holebrok (Holbrook).
Nature of request: Peter and Margaret de Maulay state that Alice,
formerly Countess Marshal, granted Margaret the wardship of the body
and lands of John, son of John de Holebrok, which she held until the
fall of Leeds Castle. She therefore requests that this wardship be
restored to her.
Endorsement: Come to Chancery, and show how and in what manner the
wardship appertains to them, and how they were seised of it, and for
how long, and let the king be certified by the chancellor.Coram Rege.
-
Gjest
Re: Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
E 40/3683 Friday the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, 25 Edward I
Scope and Content:
Grant by Adam de Holebrok, of Ipswich, and Alice his wife, to the prior
and convent of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Ipswich, of a piece of land
in the hamlet of Brokes, abutting on the high road from Ipswich to
Bramford bridge and towards Brademere, in exchange for land in Brokes
granted to them by the convent, abutting eastward towards Brademere and
westward towards Bramford, both grants for Alice's life. (Suff.)
Who was Adam Holebrok? Broke Hall, Nacton, in Colneis Hundred,
ultimately descended into the Fastolf family through the marriage of
Margery, dau. of John Holbrook (d. 1375). Another manor to look up in
Copinger.
Scope and Content:
Grant by Adam de Holebrok, of Ipswich, and Alice his wife, to the prior
and convent of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Ipswich, of a piece of land
in the hamlet of Brokes, abutting on the high road from Ipswich to
Bramford bridge and towards Brademere, in exchange for land in Brokes
granted to them by the convent, abutting eastward towards Brademere and
westward towards Bramford, both grants for Alice's life. (Suff.)
Who was Adam Holebrok? Broke Hall, Nacton, in Colneis Hundred,
ultimately descended into the Fastolf family through the marriage of
Margery, dau. of John Holbrook (d. 1375). Another manor to look up in
Copinger.
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Sydney University Library
Hi MAR:
If I remember rightly, you are from Sydney, AUS. If this is the case,
then you might like to go to Sydney University Library. On the top
floor in the stack (public are allowed there) are their collections of
PRO records and others:
They include
Cal. of Patent Rolls
Cal. of Close Rolls
Cal. of Inq. Post Mortems
Cal. of Fines
Cal. of Charters
Cal. of Curia Regia
Year Books
and many others.
These are readily accessible, no need to order, and you can peruse the
shelfs.
Also they have desks where you can study, opposite the shelfs.
Regards
Paul.
Glass House Mountains
Queensland
Australia.
If I remember rightly, you are from Sydney, AUS. If this is the case,
then you might like to go to Sydney University Library. On the top
floor in the stack (public are allowed there) are their collections of
PRO records and others:
They include
Cal. of Patent Rolls
Cal. of Close Rolls
Cal. of Inq. Post Mortems
Cal. of Fines
Cal. of Charters
Cal. of Curia Regia
Year Books
and many others.
These are readily accessible, no need to order, and you can peruse the
shelfs.
Also they have desks where you can study, opposite the shelfs.
Regards
Paul.
Glass House Mountains
Queensland
Australia.
-
Gjest
Re: Sydney University Library
Wow, magnificent progress!
Mardi, those additional documents and references are very interesting
and very useful.
Paul, you are right - I am a Sydneysider, but I divide my time between
Sydney and London, and am presently in the latter, so I shall chase up
these references in the British Library during the week. The British
Record Society volumes are in the shelves between CP et al and the
various County Histories, including Copinger, so one is spoiled for
choice. I'm a Sydney Uni. graduate, so also have many happy memories
of The Stack - it's good to know I can continue to dig when I'm Down
Under later this year.
The Holbrooks certainly appear to be less obscure that I had imagined.
Best wishes
Michael
Mardi, those additional documents and references are very interesting
and very useful.
Paul, you are right - I am a Sydneysider, but I divide my time between
Sydney and London, and am presently in the latter, so I shall chase up
these references in the British Library during the week. The British
Record Society volumes are in the shelves between CP et al and the
various County Histories, including Copinger, so one is spoiled for
choice. I'm a Sydney Uni. graduate, so also have many happy memories
of The Stack - it's good to know I can continue to dig when I'm Down
Under later this year.
The Holbrooks certainly appear to be less obscure that I had imagined.
Best wishes
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Sydney University Library
Right, back to the fray.
Looking at the IPMs et al, there appears to be an inconsistency with
the received pedigree, which has the effect of splitting it into two.
Part I:
1. William de Holbrook, named in 1267 as father of the following:
2. Sir Richard de Holbrook, received grant of free warren at
Tattingston, Bentley, Foxhole etc, 16 June 1267 (Cart. R.); Keeper of
Rockingham Castle; died circa 1291:
27 February 1291: Order to the esceator on this side of the Trent to
take into the King's hand the goods late of Richard de Holebrok
deceased (Cal. Fine Rolls)
31 May 1291: Order to Malcolm de Harleye, escheator beyond Trent, after
taking from the executors of the will of Richard de Holebrok for
rendering his debts, to permit them to have free administration of his
debts. (Ibid)
married Isabella (living 26 April 1286 - Knights of Edward I); issue:
3. Sir John de Holbrook, heir to his father, 1291:
27 March 1291: Order to Malcolm de Harleye, escheator beyond Trent,
after taking security from John son and heir of Richard de Holebrok for
rendering his said father's debts and accounts for the time his father
was constable of Rokingham Castle and keeper of the forest there, not
to meddle hereafter in the lands late of Richard (Cal. Fine Rolls)
held land at Stouttone, Suffolk, of Robert de Ufford, 12 November 26
Edward I [Cal. IPMs Vol. 3 #469 p 354];
said to have died 1306; married Alice, died circa 1309:
IPM: Alice late the wife of John de Holebrok the elder: writ dated 4
December 3 Ed II
Suffolk: 17 December 3 Edward II: Naketone manor and advowson for life
of the inheritance of the said John; Foxhole: tenements called
Tirellisfe [Tirrellsfee]; John de Holebrok son of the said John and
Alice aged 20 on St Andrew's Day [30 November] 3 Edward II is next
heir;
Suffolk: 19 December 3 Edward II: Holbrook manor and advowson; advowson
of Freston church; at Burstalle, 37 acres arable, 8 acres pasture by
service of her proportion of 3 3/4 knights fees which Joan de
Rocheford, Bartholomew de Elmham and the said Alice held in Debenham,
Sekford, Scarmston and Burstalle; Langiston in Sprouton manor;
Braunford manor; Sproutone; Tattingston manor and advowson; meadow and
reant in Braham; rent in Coppedok; rent in Belstede; moiety of advowson
of Wenham and same of Holton; rent in Capele, and in Stottone, and in
Chelmenton, and Wolferston, and Freston; messuage and 90 acres arable
and 1 pasture in Bentley. [Cal. IPMs Vol 5 #215 p 115]
Issue:
4. John de Holbrook, born 30 November 1289; heir to his mother, 1309;
died circa 1316:
IPM: John de Holebrok: writ issued 12 October 10 Edward II:
Suffolk: 15 November 10 Edward II: Holbrook manor; Tattingston manor;
rent in Alton and Brantham; manor in Bentley; messuage and land in
Sprouton; 20 acres of land and 4 acres of wood in Braunford; tenement
called Frankisfee in Burstalle; 1 acre in Brende Wenham; messuage at
Wassebrok; John his son aged 3 at Whitsun last is his heir [Cal. IPMs
Vol 6 #59 pp 44-45]
probably married Petronilla:
"3 parts of a knight's fee in Tunstal, Suffolk held by Petronilla de
Holbrook, 22 December 10 Edward II" [Cal. IPMs Vol 6 #58: Robert de
Ufford]
"55 acres of arable, 3 acres meadow, 3 acres pasture at Stratford,
Suffolk, held of Petronilla late the wife of John de Holebrok, 6 April
17 Edward II" [Cal. IPMs Vol 6 #461: Thomas Baldewyne of Bergholt].
Issue:
5. John de Holbrook, born circa 1313; heir to his father, 1316; his
wardship granted to Alice, Countess Marshal, and thence transferred to
Margaret and Peter de Maulay [PROCAT SC 8/127/6345 dated circa 1324]
*************************
It is this latest IPM which causes our major problem, for it names the
heir in 1316 as being a third John de Holbrook, not Thomas de Holbrook,
whom we know as the subsequent lord of Holbrook and the other estates
named above. The existence of this third John is confirmed by the
wardship suit which Mardi uncovered. Perhaps this is where the
pedigree from the Plea Rolls comes into play.
In the suit of 6 Richard II at p 143 of Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls,
Thomas de Holbrook is said to be son of "John de Holbrook ff Edward I"
and grandson of Richard de Holbrook, knight. This would give us the
following:
3. Sir John de Holbrook, d 1306; married Alice, died 1309; issue:
4a. John de Holbrook, 1289-1316; married Petronilla; issue:
5. John de Holbrook, born 1313; died without issue [perhaps he married
the Margaret to whom Copinger refers as having "claimed a moiety of the
manor of Colvile in dower" as widow of John de Holbrook, 1330, without
citing the reference]
4b. Sir Thomas de Holbrook, succeeded to Colvile's manor, 1330, and
presented to Rendlesham, 1332 [Copinger]; died 1360; left issue, who
succeeded to Holbrook etc.
MAR
Looking at the IPMs et al, there appears to be an inconsistency with
the received pedigree, which has the effect of splitting it into two.
Part I:
1. William de Holbrook, named in 1267 as father of the following:
2. Sir Richard de Holbrook, received grant of free warren at
Tattingston, Bentley, Foxhole etc, 16 June 1267 (Cart. R.); Keeper of
Rockingham Castle; died circa 1291:
27 February 1291: Order to the esceator on this side of the Trent to
take into the King's hand the goods late of Richard de Holebrok
deceased (Cal. Fine Rolls)
31 May 1291: Order to Malcolm de Harleye, escheator beyond Trent, after
taking from the executors of the will of Richard de Holebrok for
rendering his debts, to permit them to have free administration of his
debts. (Ibid)
married Isabella (living 26 April 1286 - Knights of Edward I); issue:
3. Sir John de Holbrook, heir to his father, 1291:
27 March 1291: Order to Malcolm de Harleye, escheator beyond Trent,
after taking security from John son and heir of Richard de Holebrok for
rendering his said father's debts and accounts for the time his father
was constable of Rokingham Castle and keeper of the forest there, not
to meddle hereafter in the lands late of Richard (Cal. Fine Rolls)
held land at Stouttone, Suffolk, of Robert de Ufford, 12 November 26
Edward I [Cal. IPMs Vol. 3 #469 p 354];
said to have died 1306; married Alice, died circa 1309:
IPM: Alice late the wife of John de Holebrok the elder: writ dated 4
December 3 Ed II
Suffolk: 17 December 3 Edward II: Naketone manor and advowson for life
of the inheritance of the said John; Foxhole: tenements called
Tirellisfe [Tirrellsfee]; John de Holebrok son of the said John and
Alice aged 20 on St Andrew's Day [30 November] 3 Edward II is next
heir;
Suffolk: 19 December 3 Edward II: Holbrook manor and advowson; advowson
of Freston church; at Burstalle, 37 acres arable, 8 acres pasture by
service of her proportion of 3 3/4 knights fees which Joan de
Rocheford, Bartholomew de Elmham and the said Alice held in Debenham,
Sekford, Scarmston and Burstalle; Langiston in Sprouton manor;
Braunford manor; Sproutone; Tattingston manor and advowson; meadow and
reant in Braham; rent in Coppedok; rent in Belstede; moiety of advowson
of Wenham and same of Holton; rent in Capele, and in Stottone, and in
Chelmenton, and Wolferston, and Freston; messuage and 90 acres arable
and 1 pasture in Bentley. [Cal. IPMs Vol 5 #215 p 115]
Issue:
4. John de Holbrook, born 30 November 1289; heir to his mother, 1309;
died circa 1316:
IPM: John de Holebrok: writ issued 12 October 10 Edward II:
Suffolk: 15 November 10 Edward II: Holbrook manor; Tattingston manor;
rent in Alton and Brantham; manor in Bentley; messuage and land in
Sprouton; 20 acres of land and 4 acres of wood in Braunford; tenement
called Frankisfee in Burstalle; 1 acre in Brende Wenham; messuage at
Wassebrok; John his son aged 3 at Whitsun last is his heir [Cal. IPMs
Vol 6 #59 pp 44-45]
probably married Petronilla:
"3 parts of a knight's fee in Tunstal, Suffolk held by Petronilla de
Holbrook, 22 December 10 Edward II" [Cal. IPMs Vol 6 #58: Robert de
Ufford]
"55 acres of arable, 3 acres meadow, 3 acres pasture at Stratford,
Suffolk, held of Petronilla late the wife of John de Holebrok, 6 April
17 Edward II" [Cal. IPMs Vol 6 #461: Thomas Baldewyne of Bergholt].
Issue:
5. John de Holbrook, born circa 1313; heir to his father, 1316; his
wardship granted to Alice, Countess Marshal, and thence transferred to
Margaret and Peter de Maulay [PROCAT SC 8/127/6345 dated circa 1324]
*************************
It is this latest IPM which causes our major problem, for it names the
heir in 1316 as being a third John de Holbrook, not Thomas de Holbrook,
whom we know as the subsequent lord of Holbrook and the other estates
named above. The existence of this third John is confirmed by the
wardship suit which Mardi uncovered. Perhaps this is where the
pedigree from the Plea Rolls comes into play.
In the suit of 6 Richard II at p 143 of Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls,
Thomas de Holbrook is said to be son of "John de Holbrook ff Edward I"
and grandson of Richard de Holbrook, knight. This would give us the
following:
3. Sir John de Holbrook, d 1306; married Alice, died 1309; issue:
4a. John de Holbrook, 1289-1316; married Petronilla; issue:
5. John de Holbrook, born 1313; died without issue [perhaps he married
the Margaret to whom Copinger refers as having "claimed a moiety of the
manor of Colvile in dower" as widow of John de Holbrook, 1330, without
citing the reference]
4b. Sir Thomas de Holbrook, succeeded to Colvile's manor, 1330, and
presented to Rendlesham, 1332 [Copinger]; died 1360; left issue, who
succeeded to Holbrook etc.
MAR
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Sydney University Library
Hi All:
The following may be of some (background) interest.
1. Michaelmas Parliament 1276
A single mandate of 15 November enrolled on the Close Rolls and
addressed to the king's steward, Richard of Holbrook, which is noted as
having been authorised by king and council, orders him to arrange a
settlement with the abbot of Owston of the complaints the abbot had made
of disseisins committed against the abbot's predecessor by constables of
the castle of Sauvey. This was presumably authorised at the session of
parliament.
2.Michaelmas Parliament 1281.
A parliament was certainly held some time after Michaelmas in 1281. No
writs of summons survive for it but it may have been in session as early
as the Thursday after Michaelmas (2 October), the day to which all cases
brought by the king against Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, were
adjourned out of the Wiltshire eyre for determination before king and
council.[1] It certainly seems to have been expected in July that it
would be in session by three weeks after Michaelmas (the week beginning
20 October) for it was by that return-day that the escheator, Richard of
Holbrook, and the sheriff of Essex, were instructed to return the
findings of their enquiry into the allegedly unjustified distraints by
the bailiff of the escheated honours of Boulogne and Peverel for the
performance of suit of court by Robert de Valoignes junior and his wife
Eva, the tenants of Tolleshunt and Bluntshall in Essex, to the court of
the honour of Boulogne for Bluntshall and to the court of the honour of
Peverel for Tolleshunt, in the king's name by his bailiffs.
3. Easter Parliament 1290
Parliament Rolls Roll 1
[Proceedings on the complaints of William Latimer and Lawrence of
Preston against Richard of Holbrook, alleging the abuse of his position
as steward of Rockingham forest].
43 (30). The complaint of William Latimer against Richard of Holbrook.
William Latimer makes complaint to the lord king on this: that, whereas
he holds the manor of Corby and a wood within the same manor, with the
other appurtenances of the same manor, of the same lord king in chief,
paying £10 a year to the lord king for all service, and the same lord
king is obliged to warrant, acquit and defend that manor, with its wood
and other appurtenances, by the aforesaid service, to the same William
against all men, Richard of Holbrook, the lord king's steward of his
forest of Rockingham, before the present lord king's voyage to Gascony,
destroyed the aforesaid wood, felling great oaks without number
throughout the land, and also cart-loads of underwood, and numberless
small branches, and also keeping in the same wood six charcoal-burners,
who destroyed and laid waste great stretches of that wood for six years,
each of whom gave the aforesaid Richard £10 a year on condition that
they should not be removed and that no others should make charcoal
there, or sell it, or exercise that trade. And also, whereas no pigs or
goats belonging to this same William, or to anyone else, are allowed to
enter the aforesaid wood except at the proper time, that aforesaid
Richard had and kept in his same wood around eighty pigs and a hundred
goats, with their offspring throughout the whole year, both during the
close season and at other times, to the great injury of the same
William, and against the terms of the lord king's charter which he has
on the matter, etc.
Lawrence of Preston makes complaint to the lord king in the same way,
and in the same words, on this: that whereas he holds the manor of
Gretton with its appurtenances from the same lord king in chief, by the
service of £25 a year, for all service, and the same lord king in return
for that service is obliged to warrant, acquit and defend the aforesaid
manor with its appurtenances to the same Lawrence against everyone, the
aforesaid Richard of Holbrook laid waste and destroyed the wood of the
same Lawrence in the same manor, to the great injury of the same
Lawrence, and against the tenor of the charter of the lord king, etc.
The aforesaid William Latimer, who sues on the king's behalf, also says
that, whereas the same lord king at a certain time granted to a certain
Richard Basset that the same Richard might assart thirty-nine acres of
land only, and bring it into cultivation, because the same Richard
Basset had granted and given to the same lord king stone from his quarry
to repair the castle of Rockingham and its buildings, the aforesaid
Richard of Holbrook, by virtue of that grant, permitted the same Richard
Basset to assart, and bring into cultivation, around 4 carucates of land
within the limits and bounds of the lord king's forest of Rockingham,
contrary to the grant and wishes of the same lord king, and to the great
injury and disinheritance of the same lord king, etc.
And Richard of Holbrook appears. He says, concerning both the woods of
the aforesaid William and the woods of the aforesaid Lawrence, that the
same William and Lawrence hold their aforesaid woods from the lord king,
on condition that the lord king should take and have from them whatever
is required for his castle of Rockingham, and as often as this should be
necessary.
And he says that the stewards who were there in the past, during their
term of office always took whatever was required by them for the
aforesaid castle from the aforesaid woods, and that he continued their
possession, and took from the aforesaid woods, whenever the same lord
king needed this, for the repair, renovation and upkeep of his castle,
and used them for the profit of the lord king, in the same way as the
stewards of the aforesaid forest were hitherto accustomed to do; but he
completely denies that he ever caused any oaks to be felled in the
aforesaid woods, or small branches or underwood to be carried out of
them, or charcoal to be made in the same woods, or pigs or goats to be
introduced into or kept in the same woods, except for the profit of the
lord king, and in the accustomed manner, and for the upkeep and repair
of the aforesaid castle, as he was fully entitled to do according to the
custom hitherto in use there; and that all the profit arising from this
went to the use of the lord king, and not to the use of the said
Richard, he puts himself on the country.
And similarly, as for the aforesaid Richard Basset, he appears and
denies that the same Richard Basset, ever with his assent, will or
permission, assarted more land than the lord king granted to him. And
concerning this he puts himself on the country, etc.
And the aforesaid William and Lawrence, with regard to their woods, say
that they do not believe that the lord king wishes that his stewards at
Rockingham for the time being should be able or allowed to destroy and
lay waste the woods of the same William and Lawrence at will, or sell
anything from them without a special order from the lord king, even
though the stewards of the same lord king may take house-bote and
hay-bote in those woods for the castle of Rockingham, whenever it is
necessary.
And they say that the aforesaid Richard, long before he began to repair
or build anything in the aforesaid castle, destroyed and laid waste the
greater part of their aforesaid woods, without a special order, and
contrary to a writ of the lord king which came to him on the subject and
also contrary to an injunction by the lord king's council not to make
waste or destruction in the aforesaid woods.
And they say that the same Richard converted the greater part of the
income arising out of this to his own use, and not to the profit of the
same lord king, as he says.
And similarly, with regard to the aforesaid land of Richard Basset, the
aforesaid William Latimer says that the aforesaid Richard Holbrook
permitted the same Richard Basset to assart around four carucates of
land within the boundaries of the forest, beyond what the lord king
granted to him, and without him causing any fine to be paid for this.
And they request that the lord king of his special grace should be
pleased to appoint certain justices to investigate the truth of the all
the above, etc.
And the aforesaid Richard of Holbrook similarly requests that, since the
same Richard has no lands or houses in those parts, for whose repair or
upkeep he might have needed to lay waste or destroy the aforesaid woods,
it should be investigated, to whom, and in what places, other than to
the profit of the lord king, he sold, gave or alienated the oaks, or
small branches of the aforesaid woods, which the aforesaid William and
Lawrence say that the same Richard caused to be felled and cut down and
sold for his own benefit.
And because the lord king wishes to be fully informed on the above, he
has appointed etc.
The king will institute an enquiry when he goes to those parts, or will
then appoint certain justices.
Reference: Parliament Rolls of Medieval England—SDE edition
Regards
Paul
The following may be of some (background) interest.
1. Michaelmas Parliament 1276
A single mandate of 15 November enrolled on the Close Rolls and
addressed to the king's steward, Richard of Holbrook, which is noted as
having been authorised by king and council, orders him to arrange a
settlement with the abbot of Owston of the complaints the abbot had made
of disseisins committed against the abbot's predecessor by constables of
the castle of Sauvey. This was presumably authorised at the session of
parliament.
2.Michaelmas Parliament 1281.
A parliament was certainly held some time after Michaelmas in 1281. No
writs of summons survive for it but it may have been in session as early
as the Thursday after Michaelmas (2 October), the day to which all cases
brought by the king against Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, were
adjourned out of the Wiltshire eyre for determination before king and
council.[1] It certainly seems to have been expected in July that it
would be in session by three weeks after Michaelmas (the week beginning
20 October) for it was by that return-day that the escheator, Richard of
Holbrook, and the sheriff of Essex, were instructed to return the
findings of their enquiry into the allegedly unjustified distraints by
the bailiff of the escheated honours of Boulogne and Peverel for the
performance of suit of court by Robert de Valoignes junior and his wife
Eva, the tenants of Tolleshunt and Bluntshall in Essex, to the court of
the honour of Boulogne for Bluntshall and to the court of the honour of
Peverel for Tolleshunt, in the king's name by his bailiffs.
3. Easter Parliament 1290
Parliament Rolls Roll 1
[Proceedings on the complaints of William Latimer and Lawrence of
Preston against Richard of Holbrook, alleging the abuse of his position
as steward of Rockingham forest].
43 (30). The complaint of William Latimer against Richard of Holbrook.
William Latimer makes complaint to the lord king on this: that, whereas
he holds the manor of Corby and a wood within the same manor, with the
other appurtenances of the same manor, of the same lord king in chief,
paying £10 a year to the lord king for all service, and the same lord
king is obliged to warrant, acquit and defend that manor, with its wood
and other appurtenances, by the aforesaid service, to the same William
against all men, Richard of Holbrook, the lord king's steward of his
forest of Rockingham, before the present lord king's voyage to Gascony,
destroyed the aforesaid wood, felling great oaks without number
throughout the land, and also cart-loads of underwood, and numberless
small branches, and also keeping in the same wood six charcoal-burners,
who destroyed and laid waste great stretches of that wood for six years,
each of whom gave the aforesaid Richard £10 a year on condition that
they should not be removed and that no others should make charcoal
there, or sell it, or exercise that trade. And also, whereas no pigs or
goats belonging to this same William, or to anyone else, are allowed to
enter the aforesaid wood except at the proper time, that aforesaid
Richard had and kept in his same wood around eighty pigs and a hundred
goats, with their offspring throughout the whole year, both during the
close season and at other times, to the great injury of the same
William, and against the terms of the lord king's charter which he has
on the matter, etc.
Lawrence of Preston makes complaint to the lord king in the same way,
and in the same words, on this: that whereas he holds the manor of
Gretton with its appurtenances from the same lord king in chief, by the
service of £25 a year, for all service, and the same lord king in return
for that service is obliged to warrant, acquit and defend the aforesaid
manor with its appurtenances to the same Lawrence against everyone, the
aforesaid Richard of Holbrook laid waste and destroyed the wood of the
same Lawrence in the same manor, to the great injury of the same
Lawrence, and against the tenor of the charter of the lord king, etc.
The aforesaid William Latimer, who sues on the king's behalf, also says
that, whereas the same lord king at a certain time granted to a certain
Richard Basset that the same Richard might assart thirty-nine acres of
land only, and bring it into cultivation, because the same Richard
Basset had granted and given to the same lord king stone from his quarry
to repair the castle of Rockingham and its buildings, the aforesaid
Richard of Holbrook, by virtue of that grant, permitted the same Richard
Basset to assart, and bring into cultivation, around 4 carucates of land
within the limits and bounds of the lord king's forest of Rockingham,
contrary to the grant and wishes of the same lord king, and to the great
injury and disinheritance of the same lord king, etc.
And Richard of Holbrook appears. He says, concerning both the woods of
the aforesaid William and the woods of the aforesaid Lawrence, that the
same William and Lawrence hold their aforesaid woods from the lord king,
on condition that the lord king should take and have from them whatever
is required for his castle of Rockingham, and as often as this should be
necessary.
And he says that the stewards who were there in the past, during their
term of office always took whatever was required by them for the
aforesaid castle from the aforesaid woods, and that he continued their
possession, and took from the aforesaid woods, whenever the same lord
king needed this, for the repair, renovation and upkeep of his castle,
and used them for the profit of the lord king, in the same way as the
stewards of the aforesaid forest were hitherto accustomed to do; but he
completely denies that he ever caused any oaks to be felled in the
aforesaid woods, or small branches or underwood to be carried out of
them, or charcoal to be made in the same woods, or pigs or goats to be
introduced into or kept in the same woods, except for the profit of the
lord king, and in the accustomed manner, and for the upkeep and repair
of the aforesaid castle, as he was fully entitled to do according to the
custom hitherto in use there; and that all the profit arising from this
went to the use of the lord king, and not to the use of the said
Richard, he puts himself on the country.
And similarly, as for the aforesaid Richard Basset, he appears and
denies that the same Richard Basset, ever with his assent, will or
permission, assarted more land than the lord king granted to him. And
concerning this he puts himself on the country, etc.
And the aforesaid William and Lawrence, with regard to their woods, say
that they do not believe that the lord king wishes that his stewards at
Rockingham for the time being should be able or allowed to destroy and
lay waste the woods of the same William and Lawrence at will, or sell
anything from them without a special order from the lord king, even
though the stewards of the same lord king may take house-bote and
hay-bote in those woods for the castle of Rockingham, whenever it is
necessary.
And they say that the aforesaid Richard, long before he began to repair
or build anything in the aforesaid castle, destroyed and laid waste the
greater part of their aforesaid woods, without a special order, and
contrary to a writ of the lord king which came to him on the subject and
also contrary to an injunction by the lord king's council not to make
waste or destruction in the aforesaid woods.
And they say that the same Richard converted the greater part of the
income arising out of this to his own use, and not to the profit of the
same lord king, as he says.
And similarly, with regard to the aforesaid land of Richard Basset, the
aforesaid William Latimer says that the aforesaid Richard Holbrook
permitted the same Richard Basset to assart around four carucates of
land within the boundaries of the forest, beyond what the lord king
granted to him, and without him causing any fine to be paid for this.
And they request that the lord king of his special grace should be
pleased to appoint certain justices to investigate the truth of the all
the above, etc.
And the aforesaid Richard of Holbrook similarly requests that, since the
same Richard has no lands or houses in those parts, for whose repair or
upkeep he might have needed to lay waste or destroy the aforesaid woods,
it should be investigated, to whom, and in what places, other than to
the profit of the lord king, he sold, gave or alienated the oaks, or
small branches of the aforesaid woods, which the aforesaid William and
Lawrence say that the same Richard caused to be felled and cut down and
sold for his own benefit.
And because the lord king wishes to be fully informed on the above, he
has appointed etc.
The king will institute an enquiry when he goes to those parts, or will
then appoint certain justices.
Reference: Parliament Rolls of Medieval England—SDE edition
Regards
Paul
-
Gjest
Re: Sydney University Library
Very interesting additions, Paul - thanks for posting them. They out
some flesh on the bones, as it were.
Regards
Michael
some flesh on the bones, as it were.
Regards
Michael