Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 48 (sub Lisle) gives a good account of Sir
Gerard de Lisle, of Kingston Lisle (in Sparsholt), Berkshire, who died
in 1287/88. Regarding his marriage, the following information is
supplied:
"He married in or before 1271, Alice de Armenters, daughter of Henry de
Armenters. His widow was living in 1290."
In a footnote, Alice's father, Henry de Armenters, is further
identified as the "brother and heir of John, son of Geoffrey de
Armenters." The following source is cited: Plac. de Quo Warranto, pg.
527.
Research into Alice de Armenters's background reveals that she was the
daughter and heiress of Henry de Armenters, of Stowe and Kislingbury,
Northamptonshire, and Burley, Rutland (died shortly before 25 March
1256), by his wife, Alice (living 1266) [References: Charles Roberts,
ed., Excerpta e Rotulis Finium, 2 (1836): 225, 444, 538]. Henry de
Armenters was in turn the 2nd son of Sir Geoffrey de Armenters (living
1235-6), of Stowe and Kislingbury, Northamptonshire, and Burley,
Rutland, by his wife, Juliane, daughter of Sir Gilbert de Gant, of
Folkingham, Lincolnshire (died 1242). As such, Alice de Armenters
possesses the distinguished Carolingian ancestry which is found in the
Gant family tree.
In spite of Complete Peerage's identification of Alice's father as
Henry de Armenters, Alice's corredct parentage has been somewhat
obscured by an inaccurate account of the Armenters family found in
George Baker's History and Antiquities of the County of Northampton, 1
(1822-1830): 441-444. For reasons which are inexplicable, Baker argued
Alice de Armenters was the half-sister of Henry de Armenters, rather
than his daughter. This is in spite of the fact that Baker quotes a
document dated 1292-3 which specifically refers to Alice as the "cousin
and heir" (not sister) to Henry de Armenters' older brother, John de
Armenters, who died without issue. Baker cites as his source for this
document, Placit. 21 Edward I, r.43, which citation I assume is is the
same thing as Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Comm.), 232.
Baker does correctly show that Alice de Armenters married (2nd) before
3 December 1304 Sir Nicholas de Segrave, who died in 1321 [see Baker,
ibid.; Calendar of Inquisition Post Mortem 4 (1913): 154-157]. This
individual can be readily identified as Sir Nicholas de Segrave, Lord
Segrave, of Stowe, Northamptonshire, an account of which individual can
be found in Complete Peerage 11 (1949): 610-612 (sub Segrave).
Regarding Lord Segrave's marriage, the following limited information is
provided in Complete Peerage:
"He married Alice, who apparently predeceased him."
Sir Nicholas de Segrave was lord of Stowe, Northamptonshire in right of
his wife's inheritance in 1304 and 1316, as well as other Armenters
family properties [References: Calendar of Inquisition Post Mortem 4
(1913): 154-157; Feudal Aids, 4 (1906): 20, 30]. Regarding Alice de
Armenters' death date, I find that Alice, then wife of Sir Nicholas de
Segrave, was living in 1312-3, when her manor of Burley, Rutland was
settled on Nicholas and Alice and their male issue, with reversion to
Alice's younger son by her first marriage, John de Lisle [Reference:
Feet of Fines Rutland Hil. 6 Edward II, no. 8]. Baker states in a
chart on pg. 443 that Alice de Armenters was dead 12 Edward II. (1318),
but he gives no source for this information. Alice was certainly dead
on 2 Id. Sept. [12 September] 1318, when her husband, Sir Nicholas de
Segrave, presented to the church of Kislingbury, Northamptonshire "rat.
terre quond. Alic. ux. ejus." [Reference: John Bridges, History and
Antiquities of Northamptonshire, 1 (1791): 532].
Regarding Alice de Armenters' issue, Baker states that she had three
sons by her first marriage to Sir Gerard de Lisle, namely Gerard,
Warin, Knt., and John, Knt. She was also apparently the mother of
Nicholas de Segrave's daughter, Maud de Segrave, born about 1296 (aged
25 in 1321), who married Edmund de Bohun.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century
colonial New World immigrants who descend from Alice (de Armenters) (de
Lisle) de Segrave through intermarriages of the Lisle, Berkeley, and
Stonor families:
William Bladen, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, St.
Leger Codd, Edward Digges, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston,
Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas
Nelson, Herbert Pelham, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Mary
Johanna Somerset, John West.
Further details on the Armenters, Gant, Lisle, and Segrave families
will be found in my forthcoming book, Baronial Ancestry.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
C.P. Addition: Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard de Lisle a
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard de Lis
I think the timeline is a bit stretched here. If Henry de Armenters
died in 1254, Alice, his daughter would be born at the latest in 1255
as a posthumous daughter. If she married according to your timeline,
she would have been 42 at the birth of her last daughter in 1296. This
is possible, but at the extreme edge, one would think, and that's
presupposing a posthumous birth. If born say 1250, or earlier, then
she's well into her late forties and the possibility of her still
bearing children seems slight.
died in 1254, Alice, his daughter would be born at the latest in 1255
as a posthumous daughter. If she married according to your timeline,
she would have been 42 at the birth of her last daughter in 1296. This
is possible, but at the extreme edge, one would think, and that's
presupposing a posthumous birth. If born say 1250, or earlier, then
she's well into her late forties and the possibility of her still
bearing children seems slight.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard de Lis
Dear Newsgroup ~
In the commentary provided by the Berkeley Castle Muniments, Alice (de
Armenters) de Lisle is stated to have still been a widow in 1293. The
source for this statement is surely the inquisition cited by Baker
dated 1292-3, in which Alice de Lisle (not yet de Segrave) is styled
"cousin and heir" to her uncle, John de Armenters, who had died many
years previously without issue. Baker cited as his source for this
document, Placit. 21 Edward I, r.43, which I assume is is the same
thing I find referenced elsewhere as Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Comm.), 232.
If correct, then it would appear that Alice (de Armenters) de Lisle
married (2nd) in or after 1293 (date employed by Berkeley Castle
Muniments) but before 20 Jan. 1297 Sir Nicholas de Segrave, afterwards
Lord Segrave.
Custody of Alice de Armenters' was granted in 1256 to her great-uncle,
Gilbert de Gant [see Charles Roberts, Excerpta e Rotulis Finium, 2
(1836): 225]. A document in the Berkeley Castle Muniments included in
my last post indicates that Alice's marriage was subsequently acquired
by Sir Henry de Almain, son and heir of Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Sir
Henry de Almain had dealings with Alice and her husband, Gerard,
following their marriage. We know from other sources that Sir Henry de
Almain was cruelly murdered by his cousins, Simon and Guy de Montfort,
at Viterbo, Italy 13 March 1270/1 [see Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004): 231]. Thus, from this information, we can be certain
that Alice de Armenters married (1st) before 13 March 1270/1 Sir Gerard
de Lisle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
In the commentary provided by the Berkeley Castle Muniments, Alice (de
Armenters) de Lisle is stated to have still been a widow in 1293. The
source for this statement is surely the inquisition cited by Baker
dated 1292-3, in which Alice de Lisle (not yet de Segrave) is styled
"cousin and heir" to her uncle, John de Armenters, who had died many
years previously without issue. Baker cited as his source for this
document, Placit. 21 Edward I, r.43, which I assume is is the same
thing I find referenced elsewhere as Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Comm.), 232.
If correct, then it would appear that Alice (de Armenters) de Lisle
married (2nd) in or after 1293 (date employed by Berkeley Castle
Muniments) but before 20 Jan. 1297 Sir Nicholas de Segrave, afterwards
Lord Segrave.
Custody of Alice de Armenters' was granted in 1256 to her great-uncle,
Gilbert de Gant [see Charles Roberts, Excerpta e Rotulis Finium, 2
(1836): 225]. A document in the Berkeley Castle Muniments included in
my last post indicates that Alice's marriage was subsequently acquired
by Sir Henry de Almain, son and heir of Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Sir
Henry de Almain had dealings with Alice and her husband, Gerard,
following their marriage. We know from other sources that Sir Henry de
Almain was cruelly murdered by his cousins, Simon and Guy de Montfort,
at Viterbo, Italy 13 March 1270/1 [see Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004): 231]. Thus, from this information, we can be certain
that Alice de Armenters married (1st) before 13 March 1270/1 Sir Gerard
de Lisle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard de Lis
Dear Newsgroup ~
The evidence appears to suggest that Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard
de Lisle and Nicholas de Segrave, Lord Segrave, had some descent from
the Picot family of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire. Baker's History
and Antiquities of the County of Northampton, 1 (1822-1830): 443 stated
in a chart that Alice de Armenters' unnamed mother was a daughter of
Peter Picot, of Church Bampton, Northamptonshire. While this may be
true, he assigned Alice's unnamed mother as a second wife of Alice's
grandfather, Geoffrey de Armenters, whereas she is probably the same
person as Alice (living 1266), the wife of Geoffrey's son, Henry de
Armenters. Unfortunately Baker gave no documentation to support the
alleged Picot connection, but, as we will see below, Baker probably got
his information from a court case of some sort which presumably alleged
an Armenters-Picot connection.
That Alice (de Armenters) (de Lisle) de Segrave had a Picot connection
is suggested by the descent of the manor and advowson of Church
Brampton, Northamptonshire and other properties. The historian John
Bridges shows that a Thomas Picot presented to the church at Church
Brampton in 1230, and that a Sir Peter Picot presented to the church
there in 1265 [Reference: John Bridges, History and Antiquities of
Northamptonshire, 1 (1791): 490]. By 1296, the property was in the
hands of Sir Robert Peverel, who presented to the church in 1296.
Sometime in or before 1314, Sir Robert Peverel was wrangling with Alice
de Armenters regarding the manor and advowson of Church Brampton. In
that year, Robert Peverel presented to the church there and Bridges
adds that Robert Peverel had "recup. praes. versus Dom. Mich. [recte
Nich.] de Segrave Mil. & Alic. uxor ejus." Evidently Peverel's victory
was temporary, as in 1315-6, lands and the advowson of Church Brampton
were settled on Alice de Armenters' daughter, Maud de Segrave. In
1329-30 Edmund Peverel, son of Robert, launched a counterattack against
Maud de Segrave and her husband, Edmund de Bohubn, in the court of
common pleas for the recovery of lands in Church Brampton. The
premises were likewise claimed by Alice de Armenters' grandson, Gerard
de Lisle [see John Bridges, History and Antiquities of
Northamptonshire, 1 (1791): 489].
It is not certain how Sir Robert Peverel obtained his interest in
Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, but presumably it was one of the
many acquisitions of his high powered brother, Bishop Walter Langton,
Treasurer of England. Besides Church Brampton, Walter Langton at one
time owned the manors of Elmedon and Chrishall, Essex, after which
Elmedon passed to Nicholas de Segrave, husband of Alice de Armenters,
and Chrishall passed to the Peverel family. This is indicated by the
petition below found in the helpful online National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp):
SC 8/123/6110
Date: 1322-1324
Scope and content
Petitioners: Abbot and Convent of Lesnes.
Addressees: King and Council.
Places mentioned: Lesnes, [Kent]; Elmedon, [Essex]; Crishale
(Chishill), [Essex].
Other people mentioned: Walter de Langton, former Treasurer of England;
Edward [I], King of England; Nicholas de Segrave (Seagrave); Edmund de
Bohun; Matilda (Maud) [de Bohun], daughter and heir of Nicholas de
Segrave.
Nature of request: The Abbot and Convent of Lesnes request the
restoration of the view of frankpledge appertaining to their manor of
Elmdon. They state that this had belonged to them since the foundation
of the abbey, but had been taken from them by Walter de Langton, and
they had been unable to recover it due to the power of the next holder,
Nicholas de Segrave. It is now in the hands of the escheator following
Segrave's death.
Endorsement: While the manor contained within is in the hands of the
king by reason of the trespass of Edmund de Bohun, who married Matilda,
daughter and heiress of Nicholas de Segrave, the abbot should wait
while the manor so remains." END OF QUOTE.
Research suggests that the Peter Picot of Church Brampton,
Northamptonshire, living in 1265, is the same individual who appeared
in an earlier pedigree I posted for the descendants of Robert de Lucy,
of Chrishall and Elmedon, Essex. Robert de Lucy in turn was likely a
brother of Sir Richard de Lucy (died 1179), Chief Justiciar of England.
If correct, then it appears that Alice (de Armenters) (de Lisle) de
Segrave is perhaps a long lost descendant of Robert de Lucy.
A1. Robert de Lucy, of Chrishall, Essex, m. Emme _____.
B4. Agnes de Lucy, +before 1222, m. _____ de Somery
C1. Miles de Somery, of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire and North
Mimms, Hertfordshire (+1229)
D6. Muriel de Somery, m. Thomas Picot, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar,
Nottinghamshire (+1255)
E1. Peter Picot, +1286
Commentary available in the Berkeley Castle Muniments in the online A2A
Catalogue states that a later Peter Picot died in 1313, after which
Alice de Armenters' 2nd husband, Nicholas de Segrave, bought the
interests of two of Peter Picot's heirs at Heydon, Essex, namely his
sister, Isabel Touke, and his nephew, Simon de Seneville. It was about
this same time that Alice de Armenters also recovered the manor and
advowson of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire from Sir Robert Peverel,
on an assize of mort d'ancestor, and settled it on her daughter, Maud
de Segrave. My impression is that Alice de Armenters, must have been
another of the heirs of the Peter Picot who died in 1313. This would
presumably also have made her in turn one of the co-heirs of the
earlier Lucy family. In short order, she rapidly bought out her fellow
relatives, and became the sole owner of Elmedon and Heydon, Essex. She
also sued to recover Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, which had
belonged to the earlier Peter Picot, living in 1265.
Further research needs to be done in the records to prove the exact
connection between Alice de Armenters and the Picot and Lucy families.
But, surely such a connection exists, as Alice de Armenters claimed the
manor and advowson of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, previously a
Picot family property, in an assize of morte d'ancestor. Such a court
case would have looked something like this:
"The King to the sheriff greeting. If A shall make you secure, &c. then
summon, &c. twelve free and lawful men of the neighbourhood of
Trumpington that they be before our justices at the first assize when
they shall come into those parts, ready to recognise by oath if B
father [mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt,] of the aforesd A was
seised in his demesne as of fee, of one messuage with the appurtenances
in Trumpington the day whereon he died, and if he died after [the
period of limitation] and if the same A be his next heir: and in the
mean time let them view the messuage, and cause their names to be put
in the writ, and summon by good summoners X who now holds the aforesaid
messuage, that he may be there to hear that recognizance; and have
there the summoners and this writ [F.N.B. 195E]." END OF QUOTE.
In other words, Alice de Armenters claimed Church Brampton by virtue of
being the heir of an earlier owner of the property. I presume Alice's
ancestor was Sir Peter Picot, who presented to the church at Church
Brampton in 1265. If Alice so identified her grandfather as being Sir
Peter Picot, and, if Baker saw this lawsuit, it would explain why he
stated in his history that Alice de Armenters' mother was the daughter
of Peter Picot, of Church Brampton.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The evidence appears to suggest that Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard
de Lisle and Nicholas de Segrave, Lord Segrave, had some descent from
the Picot family of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire. Baker's History
and Antiquities of the County of Northampton, 1 (1822-1830): 443 stated
in a chart that Alice de Armenters' unnamed mother was a daughter of
Peter Picot, of Church Bampton, Northamptonshire. While this may be
true, he assigned Alice's unnamed mother as a second wife of Alice's
grandfather, Geoffrey de Armenters, whereas she is probably the same
person as Alice (living 1266), the wife of Geoffrey's son, Henry de
Armenters. Unfortunately Baker gave no documentation to support the
alleged Picot connection, but, as we will see below, Baker probably got
his information from a court case of some sort which presumably alleged
an Armenters-Picot connection.
That Alice (de Armenters) (de Lisle) de Segrave had a Picot connection
is suggested by the descent of the manor and advowson of Church
Brampton, Northamptonshire and other properties. The historian John
Bridges shows that a Thomas Picot presented to the church at Church
Brampton in 1230, and that a Sir Peter Picot presented to the church
there in 1265 [Reference: John Bridges, History and Antiquities of
Northamptonshire, 1 (1791): 490]. By 1296, the property was in the
hands of Sir Robert Peverel, who presented to the church in 1296.
Sometime in or before 1314, Sir Robert Peverel was wrangling with Alice
de Armenters regarding the manor and advowson of Church Brampton. In
that year, Robert Peverel presented to the church there and Bridges
adds that Robert Peverel had "recup. praes. versus Dom. Mich. [recte
Nich.] de Segrave Mil. & Alic. uxor ejus." Evidently Peverel's victory
was temporary, as in 1315-6, lands and the advowson of Church Brampton
were settled on Alice de Armenters' daughter, Maud de Segrave. In
1329-30 Edmund Peverel, son of Robert, launched a counterattack against
Maud de Segrave and her husband, Edmund de Bohubn, in the court of
common pleas for the recovery of lands in Church Brampton. The
premises were likewise claimed by Alice de Armenters' grandson, Gerard
de Lisle [see John Bridges, History and Antiquities of
Northamptonshire, 1 (1791): 489].
It is not certain how Sir Robert Peverel obtained his interest in
Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, but presumably it was one of the
many acquisitions of his high powered brother, Bishop Walter Langton,
Treasurer of England. Besides Church Brampton, Walter Langton at one
time owned the manors of Elmedon and Chrishall, Essex, after which
Elmedon passed to Nicholas de Segrave, husband of Alice de Armenters,
and Chrishall passed to the Peverel family. This is indicated by the
petition below found in the helpful online National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp):
SC 8/123/6110
Date: 1322-1324
Scope and content
Petitioners: Abbot and Convent of Lesnes.
Addressees: King and Council.
Places mentioned: Lesnes, [Kent]; Elmedon, [Essex]; Crishale
(Chishill), [Essex].
Other people mentioned: Walter de Langton, former Treasurer of England;
Edward [I], King of England; Nicholas de Segrave (Seagrave); Edmund de
Bohun; Matilda (Maud) [de Bohun], daughter and heir of Nicholas de
Segrave.
Nature of request: The Abbot and Convent of Lesnes request the
restoration of the view of frankpledge appertaining to their manor of
Elmdon. They state that this had belonged to them since the foundation
of the abbey, but had been taken from them by Walter de Langton, and
they had been unable to recover it due to the power of the next holder,
Nicholas de Segrave. It is now in the hands of the escheator following
Segrave's death.
Endorsement: While the manor contained within is in the hands of the
king by reason of the trespass of Edmund de Bohun, who married Matilda,
daughter and heiress of Nicholas de Segrave, the abbot should wait
while the manor so remains." END OF QUOTE.
Research suggests that the Peter Picot of Church Brampton,
Northamptonshire, living in 1265, is the same individual who appeared
in an earlier pedigree I posted for the descendants of Robert de Lucy,
of Chrishall and Elmedon, Essex. Robert de Lucy in turn was likely a
brother of Sir Richard de Lucy (died 1179), Chief Justiciar of England.
If correct, then it appears that Alice (de Armenters) (de Lisle) de
Segrave is perhaps a long lost descendant of Robert de Lucy.
A1. Robert de Lucy, of Chrishall, Essex, m. Emme _____.
B4. Agnes de Lucy, +before 1222, m. _____ de Somery
C1. Miles de Somery, of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire and North
Mimms, Hertfordshire (+1229)
D6. Muriel de Somery, m. Thomas Picot, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar,
Nottinghamshire (+1255)
E1. Peter Picot, +1286
Commentary available in the Berkeley Castle Muniments in the online A2A
Catalogue states that a later Peter Picot died in 1313, after which
Alice de Armenters' 2nd husband, Nicholas de Segrave, bought the
interests of two of Peter Picot's heirs at Heydon, Essex, namely his
sister, Isabel Touke, and his nephew, Simon de Seneville. It was about
this same time that Alice de Armenters also recovered the manor and
advowson of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire from Sir Robert Peverel,
on an assize of mort d'ancestor, and settled it on her daughter, Maud
de Segrave. My impression is that Alice de Armenters, must have been
another of the heirs of the Peter Picot who died in 1313. This would
presumably also have made her in turn one of the co-heirs of the
earlier Lucy family. In short order, she rapidly bought out her fellow
relatives, and became the sole owner of Elmedon and Heydon, Essex. She
also sued to recover Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, which had
belonged to the earlier Peter Picot, living in 1265.
Further research needs to be done in the records to prove the exact
connection between Alice de Armenters and the Picot and Lucy families.
But, surely such a connection exists, as Alice de Armenters claimed the
manor and advowson of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, previously a
Picot family property, in an assize of morte d'ancestor. Such a court
case would have looked something like this:
"The King to the sheriff greeting. If A shall make you secure, &c. then
summon, &c. twelve free and lawful men of the neighbourhood of
Trumpington that they be before our justices at the first assize when
they shall come into those parts, ready to recognise by oath if B
father [mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt,] of the aforesd A was
seised in his demesne as of fee, of one messuage with the appurtenances
in Trumpington the day whereon he died, and if he died after [the
period of limitation] and if the same A be his next heir: and in the
mean time let them view the messuage, and cause their names to be put
in the writ, and summon by good summoners X who now holds the aforesaid
messuage, that he may be there to hear that recognizance; and have
there the summoners and this writ [F.N.B. 195E]." END OF QUOTE.
In other words, Alice de Armenters claimed Church Brampton by virtue of
being the heir of an earlier owner of the property. I presume Alice's
ancestor was Sir Peter Picot, who presented to the church at Church
Brampton in 1265. If Alice so identified her grandfather as being Sir
Peter Picot, and, if Baker saw this lawsuit, it would explain why he
stated in his history that Alice de Armenters' mother was the daughter
of Peter Picot, of Church Brampton.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard de Lis
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my last post, I explored the possibility that the mother of Alice
(de Armenters) (de Lisle) de Segrave might be a daughter of Sir Peter
Picot (died 1286), of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, as alleged by
George Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of the County of Northampton, 1
(1822-1830): 443. Reviewing the records, however, it is clear that
Alice de Armenters' mother can not have been a child of this man. In
1313, Sir Peter Picot's younger son, Peter the younger, died without
issue and his sole heirs were determined to be his sister, Isabel
Touke, and a nephew, Simon de Senvyll [Reference: Cal. IPM, 5 (1908):
249]. At that point, however, Alice de Armenters is stated to have
bought the rights of these two Picot heirs to family property at
Heydon, Essex. She also appears to have filed a morte d'ancestor
lawsuit against Sir Robert Peverel for the former Picot manor and
advowson of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire. It is unclear on what
basis Alice de Armenters filed such a lawsuit, as she wasn't descended
from either Sir Peter Picot (died 1286) or either of his sons, John and
Peter. In fact, judging from the chronology, Alice can not have been a
grandchild of Sir Peter Picot (died 1286). She can, however, have been
his niece. If so, the possibility exists that Alice's mother, Alice de
Armenters, the elder, was a daughter of Thomas Picot, died 1255, and
his wife, Muriel de Somery.
The pedigree below shows the descent of the Picot family:
A1. Thomas Picot, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire (+1255), m.
Muriel de Somery. He presented to Church Brampton, Northamptonshire in
1230, after a dispute with Ralph de la Hay.
B1. Peter Picot, Knt., of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire,
Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire, Elmedon and Heydon, Essex, North Mimms,
Middlesex, died 1286. The name of his wife is unknown. He presented
to Church Brampton, Northamptonshire in 1265 and to North Mimms,
Middlesex in 1277.
C1. John Picot, 1st son, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire,
born c. 1252-1265 (aged 21, 24, 34 in 1286), died c. 1293-4, m. Hawise.
They had no issue. His widow, Hawise, m. (2nd) Thomas Barkeby.
C2. Peter Picot, 2nd son, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire,
Heydon and Chrishall, Essex, etc., died 1313, m. Joan _____. They had
no issue. In 1304-1305 he conveyed property in Chrishall, Essex to
Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield.
C3. Margery Picot, died before 1314, married _____ Senvyll.
D1. Simon de Senvyll, born c. 1273 (aged 40 in 1313), living
1314.
C4. Isabel Picot, born c. 1263 (aged 50 in 1313), living 1314,
married _____ Touke.
It is difficult to know why George Baker thought Alice de Armenters'
mother was a daughter of Sir Peter Picot, as Baker did not document his
statement. My best guess is that Baker saw a transcript of the lawsuit
dated c. 1314 between Alice (de Armenters) (de Lisle) de Segrave and
Sir Robert Peverel relating to the manor and advowson of Church
Brampton. I assume that Alice made some claim to being related to Sir
Peter Picot in that lawsuit. The basis of her claim was evidently
derived from her having bought out Sir Peter Picot's two immediate
descendants, as well as the claims of a certain Alice, widow of John
Picot (see further below regarding Alice Picot). If Alice de Armenters
was Sir Peter Picot's next heir after Sir Peter Picot's daughter and
grandson, for example his niece, presumably she could have then filed a
lawsuit to recover Church Brampton. This is pure speculation until the
lawsuit between Alice de Armenters and Sir Robert Peverel is located
and examined. For now, it is sufficient to say that Alice de
Armenters' mother, Alice (living 1266), can not have been a child of
Sir Peter Picot, as alleged by George Baker.
For interest's sake, the following records below were found in the
National Archives catalogue which pertain to the Picot family above.
E 40/5141 Grant by John son of Saer son of Henry de London', to Thomas
de Leuekenor, of the manor of Schenlee, with the advowson of the church
there and of the chapel of Colneye. Witnesses:- Sirs Robert de Munteny,
Peter Picot, Hubert de Munchensi, and Adam de Sumery, knights, and
others (named): [Herts.
E 326/1405 Covenant between Peter Picot and Henry de Pinkeny relative
to a messuage, land, and mill in Dodenho in the parish of Elmedone held
by him. Each to have an entire moiety of services, &c., due from the
said messuage, land, and mill, viz., by receiving the same in alternate
years. Essex
DL 25/2218 John Pycot son and heir of Peter Pycot, knight, to Edmund,
Earl of Lancaster: Grant of rents in the mills of Marchington
(Mersington) and Barton [-under-Needwood]: (Staffs).
C 47/22/3/126 Request from William de Ferrars, lord of Leuchars, to
the Chancellor for protection for Sir Piers Picot and Sir Alexander de
Harcas going with him to Scotland. 1301 [Query - if this is the right
date. DR].
C 143/63/16 Peter Pycot to have view of frankpledge in Ratcliffe on
Soar, with the assize of bread and ale, pillory, tumbrel, infangthef,
and gallows, for a fixed rent. Notts. 35 EDWARD I.
C 143/73/21 Peter Pycot to settle two thirds of the manor of
Ratcliffe-on-Soar, and the reversion of the third part held in dower by
Helewyse, wife of Thomas de Barkeby, on himself, Joan his wife, and his
heirs, retaining the manor of Heydon, Essex. (Writ dated 8 June. 2
EDWARD II.
C 143/94/15 Peter Pycot to grant two-thirds of the manor of
Ratcliffe-on-Soar, and the reversion of the third part held by Thomas
de Barkeby and Heloise his wife of the inheritance of the grantor, to
Ralph Basset of Drayton, retaining a messuage and land in
Ratcliffe-on-Soar. 6 EDWARD II.
C 143/103/7 John son of John Pycot to grant his reversion in land and
rent in Heydon now held by Alice, late the wife of John Pycot, in
dower, to William Launcelyn of Hail-Weston. Essex. Joan late the wife
of Peter Pycot to retain for life the manor of Heydon acquired by the
said Joan and Peter from Robert Rose. 7 EDWARD II.
C 143/173/18 Isabel late the wife of Robert de Scales to retain a
quarter of the manor of Haslingfield acquired by herself and Robert
from William de Monte Caniso, and another quarter similarly acquired
from Peter Pycot, to themselves and the heirs of Robert. Camb. 17
EDWARD II.
SC 8/67/3306 Petitioners: Joan [Pycot], widow of Peter Pycot.
Addressees: King and council. Places mentioned: Flaflore (Flawford),
Nottinghamshire. Other people mentioned: Peter Pycot, formerly Sheriff
of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, husband of petitioner; Edward [II],
King of England; Richard de Thorp, Keeper of the lands of the Templars
in Nottinghamshire; the Order of the Temple (Knights Templars). [c.
1330]
SC 8/67/3307 Petitioners: Alice Pycot. Addressees: King. Places
mentioned: Heydon, [Essex]. Other people mentioned: Nicholas de
Segrave; Edmund de Bohun. Nature of request: Alice Pycot states that
she delivered her lands to Nicholas de Segrave in return for an annual
rent of 5 marks, but that since the land has been in the King's
wardship because of Nicholas' death, her rent has not been paid.
[1321-1324]
SC 8/67/3326 Petitioners: Alice Pikot (Pycot) of Heydon. Addressees:
King and council. Places mentioned: Heydon, [Essex]; Thorley,
Hertfordshire; Storteforde (Bishop's Stortford), Hertfordshire; St
Albans, [Hertfordshire]; Westminster. Other people mentioned: Richard
de Katesbiri; Robert de Rudham, chaplain; William de Berford
(Bereford), justice of the Bench. [1319]
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
In my last post, I explored the possibility that the mother of Alice
(de Armenters) (de Lisle) de Segrave might be a daughter of Sir Peter
Picot (died 1286), of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire, as alleged by
George Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of the County of Northampton, 1
(1822-1830): 443. Reviewing the records, however, it is clear that
Alice de Armenters' mother can not have been a child of this man. In
1313, Sir Peter Picot's younger son, Peter the younger, died without
issue and his sole heirs were determined to be his sister, Isabel
Touke, and a nephew, Simon de Senvyll [Reference: Cal. IPM, 5 (1908):
249]. At that point, however, Alice de Armenters is stated to have
bought the rights of these two Picot heirs to family property at
Heydon, Essex. She also appears to have filed a morte d'ancestor
lawsuit against Sir Robert Peverel for the former Picot manor and
advowson of Church Brampton, Northamptonshire. It is unclear on what
basis Alice de Armenters filed such a lawsuit, as she wasn't descended
from either Sir Peter Picot (died 1286) or either of his sons, John and
Peter. In fact, judging from the chronology, Alice can not have been a
grandchild of Sir Peter Picot (died 1286). She can, however, have been
his niece. If so, the possibility exists that Alice's mother, Alice de
Armenters, the elder, was a daughter of Thomas Picot, died 1255, and
his wife, Muriel de Somery.
The pedigree below shows the descent of the Picot family:
A1. Thomas Picot, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire (+1255), m.
Muriel de Somery. He presented to Church Brampton, Northamptonshire in
1230, after a dispute with Ralph de la Hay.
B1. Peter Picot, Knt., of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire,
Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire, Elmedon and Heydon, Essex, North Mimms,
Middlesex, died 1286. The name of his wife is unknown. He presented
to Church Brampton, Northamptonshire in 1265 and to North Mimms,
Middlesex in 1277.
C1. John Picot, 1st son, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire,
born c. 1252-1265 (aged 21, 24, 34 in 1286), died c. 1293-4, m. Hawise.
They had no issue. His widow, Hawise, m. (2nd) Thomas Barkeby.
C2. Peter Picot, 2nd son, of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire,
Heydon and Chrishall, Essex, etc., died 1313, m. Joan _____. They had
no issue. In 1304-1305 he conveyed property in Chrishall, Essex to
Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield.
C3. Margery Picot, died before 1314, married _____ Senvyll.
D1. Simon de Senvyll, born c. 1273 (aged 40 in 1313), living
1314.
C4. Isabel Picot, born c. 1263 (aged 50 in 1313), living 1314,
married _____ Touke.
It is difficult to know why George Baker thought Alice de Armenters'
mother was a daughter of Sir Peter Picot, as Baker did not document his
statement. My best guess is that Baker saw a transcript of the lawsuit
dated c. 1314 between Alice (de Armenters) (de Lisle) de Segrave and
Sir Robert Peverel relating to the manor and advowson of Church
Brampton. I assume that Alice made some claim to being related to Sir
Peter Picot in that lawsuit. The basis of her claim was evidently
derived from her having bought out Sir Peter Picot's two immediate
descendants, as well as the claims of a certain Alice, widow of John
Picot (see further below regarding Alice Picot). If Alice de Armenters
was Sir Peter Picot's next heir after Sir Peter Picot's daughter and
grandson, for example his niece, presumably she could have then filed a
lawsuit to recover Church Brampton. This is pure speculation until the
lawsuit between Alice de Armenters and Sir Robert Peverel is located
and examined. For now, it is sufficient to say that Alice de
Armenters' mother, Alice (living 1266), can not have been a child of
Sir Peter Picot, as alleged by George Baker.
For interest's sake, the following records below were found in the
National Archives catalogue which pertain to the Picot family above.
E 40/5141 Grant by John son of Saer son of Henry de London', to Thomas
de Leuekenor, of the manor of Schenlee, with the advowson of the church
there and of the chapel of Colneye. Witnesses:- Sirs Robert de Munteny,
Peter Picot, Hubert de Munchensi, and Adam de Sumery, knights, and
others (named): [Herts.
E 326/1405 Covenant between Peter Picot and Henry de Pinkeny relative
to a messuage, land, and mill in Dodenho in the parish of Elmedone held
by him. Each to have an entire moiety of services, &c., due from the
said messuage, land, and mill, viz., by receiving the same in alternate
years. Essex
DL 25/2218 John Pycot son and heir of Peter Pycot, knight, to Edmund,
Earl of Lancaster: Grant of rents in the mills of Marchington
(Mersington) and Barton [-under-Needwood]: (Staffs).
C 47/22/3/126 Request from William de Ferrars, lord of Leuchars, to
the Chancellor for protection for Sir Piers Picot and Sir Alexander de
Harcas going with him to Scotland. 1301 [Query - if this is the right
date. DR].
C 143/63/16 Peter Pycot to have view of frankpledge in Ratcliffe on
Soar, with the assize of bread and ale, pillory, tumbrel, infangthef,
and gallows, for a fixed rent. Notts. 35 EDWARD I.
C 143/73/21 Peter Pycot to settle two thirds of the manor of
Ratcliffe-on-Soar, and the reversion of the third part held in dower by
Helewyse, wife of Thomas de Barkeby, on himself, Joan his wife, and his
heirs, retaining the manor of Heydon, Essex. (Writ dated 8 June. 2
EDWARD II.
C 143/94/15 Peter Pycot to grant two-thirds of the manor of
Ratcliffe-on-Soar, and the reversion of the third part held by Thomas
de Barkeby and Heloise his wife of the inheritance of the grantor, to
Ralph Basset of Drayton, retaining a messuage and land in
Ratcliffe-on-Soar. 6 EDWARD II.
C 143/103/7 John son of John Pycot to grant his reversion in land and
rent in Heydon now held by Alice, late the wife of John Pycot, in
dower, to William Launcelyn of Hail-Weston. Essex. Joan late the wife
of Peter Pycot to retain for life the manor of Heydon acquired by the
said Joan and Peter from Robert Rose. 7 EDWARD II.
C 143/173/18 Isabel late the wife of Robert de Scales to retain a
quarter of the manor of Haslingfield acquired by herself and Robert
from William de Monte Caniso, and another quarter similarly acquired
from Peter Pycot, to themselves and the heirs of Robert. Camb. 17
EDWARD II.
SC 8/67/3306 Petitioners: Joan [Pycot], widow of Peter Pycot.
Addressees: King and council. Places mentioned: Flaflore (Flawford),
Nottinghamshire. Other people mentioned: Peter Pycot, formerly Sheriff
of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, husband of petitioner; Edward [II],
King of England; Richard de Thorp, Keeper of the lands of the Templars
in Nottinghamshire; the Order of the Temple (Knights Templars). [c.
1330]
SC 8/67/3307 Petitioners: Alice Pycot. Addressees: King. Places
mentioned: Heydon, [Essex]. Other people mentioned: Nicholas de
Segrave; Edmund de Bohun. Nature of request: Alice Pycot states that
she delivered her lands to Nicholas de Segrave in return for an annual
rent of 5 marks, but that since the land has been in the King's
wardship because of Nicholas' death, her rent has not been paid.
[1321-1324]
SC 8/67/3326 Petitioners: Alice Pikot (Pycot) of Heydon. Addressees:
King and council. Places mentioned: Heydon, [Essex]; Thorley,
Hertfordshire; Storteforde (Bishop's Stortford), Hertfordshire; St
Albans, [Hertfordshire]; Westminster. Other people mentioned: Richard
de Katesbiri; Robert de Rudham, chaplain; William de Berford
(Bereford), justice of the Bench. [1319]
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard de Lis
Dear Douglas
This has been a very interesting series of posts - much appreciated.
You may have seen the recent posts on the topic between Henry Sutcliff
and myself, and the details of Thoroton's text about the Picots at
Ratcliffe. According to my notes, he also refers to contemporary
Picots at Barow (sic) in Leicestershire: e.g. Alexander and Robert
resident there tempus Henry III - Edward II; Peter Picot 27 Henry II,
30 Henry II.
Sarah Picot of Ratcliffe is said to have married William de la Hay of
Shepreth, Foxton and Papworth Everard, Cambs, and by him had a daughter
and heiress Margaret, first wife of Sir John Engaine.
According to a note I have made [I can't lay my hands on the original
at present, which is irritating as it would give sources] which states
that Margaret de la Hay was also "kinswoman and next heir" of Alice,
widow of Sir John Heslerton of Fowlmere and Harston - if through her
mother, perhaps this could be another part of the Picot jigsaw.
Best wishes
Michael
This has been a very interesting series of posts - much appreciated.
You may have seen the recent posts on the topic between Henry Sutcliff
and myself, and the details of Thoroton's text about the Picots at
Ratcliffe. According to my notes, he also refers to contemporary
Picots at Barow (sic) in Leicestershire: e.g. Alexander and Robert
resident there tempus Henry III - Edward II; Peter Picot 27 Henry II,
30 Henry II.
Sarah Picot of Ratcliffe is said to have married William de la Hay of
Shepreth, Foxton and Papworth Everard, Cambs, and by him had a daughter
and heiress Margaret, first wife of Sir John Engaine.
According to a note I have made [I can't lay my hands on the original
at present, which is irritating as it would give sources] which states
that Margaret de la Hay was also "kinswoman and next heir" of Alice,
widow of Sir John Heslerton of Fowlmere and Harston - if through her
mother, perhaps this could be another part of the Picot jigsaw.
Best wishes
Michael