Ancestral to the Leek family of Cotham are the de Vaux. Not much
seems to be available on them in print.
We see the link in a reference in the Calendar of Papal Letters
Concerning England, vol 3 1342-62, p 456:
"Kal. June 1351: to the Abbot of Welbeck: mandate to dispense Simon de
Leyk, donsel, and Margaret de Vaux, so as to remain in the marriage
which they contracted without banns, knowing that they were related in
the fourth degree on kindred on both sides, first enjoining them a
salutary penance, and declaring their offspring legitimate".
A tentative stemma may be drafted on the basis of the following
material, relying on Thoroton's Nottinghamshire [unless otherwise
stated]:
1. Sir Roger de Vaux held lands at Clifton, Cotham and Sibthorpe,
Notts by Michaelmas 1265, and owed 5 marks in Lincolnshire, 1285
(Knights of Edward I); he held 16 bovates at Cotham of the fee of
Dover of Stephen de la Hay, who held in chief, 8 Edward I [1279-80],
and in that year agreed mutual rights of common at Cotham with Robert
de Compton of Houton; in 10 Edward I [1281-2] it was adjudged that he
and his wife Clemence should recover their seisin of certain customs
and services at Cotham; in 15 Edward I [1286-7] he was found to have
rights in six bovates at Cotham, held of the castle of Dover; married
Clemence. Likely father of:
2. Sir John de Vaux, of Derbyshire and Notts (Knights of Edward I); in
31 Edward I [1302-3] a fine was passed at York between John de Ludham
and John de Vaux whereby the manor of Cotham was settled on the said
John de Vaux and Constance his wie, and the heirs of their body;
married Constance. Likely father of:
3. John de Vaux; in 2 Edward III [1328-9] a fine was passed between
John de Vaux and Sibyl his wife, and Thomas de Sibthorpe, clerk,
settling Cotham on John and Sibyl and the heirs of their bodies,
remainder to Arnold, Robert and John, sons of John de Mounteney; one
of this name escheator and sheriff of Notts and Derby, 1340s (Cal.
Patent Rolls); married Sibyl. Likely father of:
4. Margaret de Vaux, married Simon Leek before 1351.
It is interesting to note that the arms of this family, recorded in
the Visitation of Notts, 1615, and in 'Knights of Edward I' were:
chequy argent and gules, a label azure.
The arms of the de Vaux family of Suffolk and Norfolk were: chequy
argent and gules (eg Knights of Edward I, sub Sir John de Vaux).
It is also interesting to note that, according to Thoroton, Petronilla
de Craon held an estate at Cotham in 12 John [1210-1]. She was
married to Oliver de Vaux, and they were parents of Sir John de Vaux
of Norfolk and Suffolk; he died circa leaving two daughters as his
coheirs.
It may be worth speculating whether Sir Roger de Vaux of Cotham was a
younger son of Oliver de Vaux and Petronilla de Craon, and a brother
of Sir John de Vaux. The similarity of the two coats of arms strongly
suggests a tie, and that Roger headed a cadet branch.
Michael Andrews-Reading
de Vaux of Cotham, Notts: a branch of the East Anglian famil
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: de Vaux of Cotham, Notts: a branch of the East Anglian f
Dear Michael,
Thanks for that post, and the conjectured pedigree for de Vaux of
Cotham, Notts. The ancestry of the Leeke family is of interest to
myself, and no doubt to a number of other descendants of this family.
The heraldic evidence is interesting, and I agree it is likely
that de Vaux of Cotham was a cadet of de Vaux of Pentney, Norfolk &
c. However, it is very unlikely that Sir Roger was a son of Sir
Oliver de Vaux and his wife Petronilla de Craon. A record in the
Nomina Fundatorum de Pentney indicates that Sir Oliver (presumably by
Petronilla only) had four sons - ' Quintus patronus fuit Oliverus,
filius dicti Roberti, qui genuit Robertum, Will. et Ioh. et
Oliverum.' [Mon. Angl. VI(1) p. 70, Num. III]. Sir John de Vaux, the
third son, was the heir of his brother William in Pentney, Wisset &
c., and the descent of these manors is traced through his daughters.
There was evidently no younger son Roger.
It is of course possibly that Roger was a son of Oliver, fourth
son of Sir Oliver de Vaux. Further, Sir Oliver had younger brothers,
including one named Roger (I have no further details re: this Roger),
and he also had a number of paternal uncles. Sir Roger de Vaux of
Cotham might well be the son, or descendant, of one of these.
Cheers,
John
On Aug 14, 6:09?pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
Thanks for that post, and the conjectured pedigree for de Vaux of
Cotham, Notts. The ancestry of the Leeke family is of interest to
myself, and no doubt to a number of other descendants of this family.
The heraldic evidence is interesting, and I agree it is likely
that de Vaux of Cotham was a cadet of de Vaux of Pentney, Norfolk &
c. However, it is very unlikely that Sir Roger was a son of Sir
Oliver de Vaux and his wife Petronilla de Craon. A record in the
Nomina Fundatorum de Pentney indicates that Sir Oliver (presumably by
Petronilla only) had four sons - ' Quintus patronus fuit Oliverus,
filius dicti Roberti, qui genuit Robertum, Will. et Ioh. et
Oliverum.' [Mon. Angl. VI(1) p. 70, Num. III]. Sir John de Vaux, the
third son, was the heir of his brother William in Pentney, Wisset &
c., and the descent of these manors is traced through his daughters.
There was evidently no younger son Roger.
It is of course possibly that Roger was a son of Oliver, fourth
son of Sir Oliver de Vaux. Further, Sir Oliver had younger brothers,
including one named Roger (I have no further details re: this Roger),
and he also had a number of paternal uncles. Sir Roger de Vaux of
Cotham might well be the son, or descendant, of one of these.
Cheers,
John
On Aug 14, 6:09?pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
Ancestral to the Leek family of Cotham are the de Vaux. Not much
seems to be available on them in print.
We see the link in a reference in the Calendar of Papal Letters
Concerning England, vol 3 1342-62, p 456:
"Kal. June 1351: to the Abbot of Welbeck: mandate to dispense Simon de
Leyk, donsel, and Margaret de Vaux, so as to remain in the marriage
which they contracted without banns, knowing that they were related in
the fourth degree on kindred on both sides, first enjoining them a
salutary penance, and declaring their offspring legitimate".
A tentative stemma may be drafted on the basis of the following
material, relying on Thoroton's Nottinghamshire [unless otherwise
stated]:
1. Sir Roger de Vaux held lands at Clifton, Cotham and Sibthorpe,
Notts by Michaelmas 1265, and owed 5 marks in Lincolnshire, 1285
(Knights of Edward I); he held 16 bovates at Cotham of the fee of
Dover of Stephen de la Hay, who held in chief, 8 Edward I [1279-80],
and in that year agreed mutual rights of common at Cotham with Robert
de Compton of Houton; in 10 Edward I [1281-2] it was adjudged that he
and his wife Clemence should recover their seisin of certain customs
and services at Cotham; in 15 Edward I [1286-7] he was found to have
rights in six bovates at Cotham, held of the castle of Dover; married
Clemence. Likely father of:
2. Sir John de Vaux, of Derbyshire and Notts (Knights of Edward I); in
31 Edward I [1302-3] a fine was passed at York between John de Ludham
and John de Vaux whereby the manor of Cotham was settled on the said
John de Vaux and Constance his wie, and the heirs of their body;
married Constance. Likely father of:
3. John de Vaux; in 2 Edward III [1328-9] a fine was passed between
John de Vaux and Sibyl his wife, and Thomas de Sibthorpe, clerk,
settling Cotham on John and Sibyl and the heirs of their bodies,
remainder to Arnold, Robert and John, sons of John de Mounteney; one
of this name escheator and sheriff of Notts and Derby, 1340s (Cal.
Patent Rolls); married Sibyl. Likely father of:
4. Margaret de Vaux, married Simon Leek before 1351.
It is interesting to note that the arms of this family, recorded in
the Visitation of Notts, 1615, and in 'Knights of Edward I' were:
chequy argent and gules, a label azure.
The arms of the de Vaux family of Suffolk and Norfolk were: chequy
argent and gules (eg Knights of Edward I, sub Sir John de Vaux).
It is also interesting to note that, according to Thoroton, Petronilla
de Craon held an estate at Cotham in 12 John [1210-1]. She was
married to Oliver de Vaux, and they were parents of Sir John de Vaux
of Norfolk and Suffolk; he died circa leaving two daughters as his
coheirs.
It may be worth speculating whether Sir Roger de Vaux of Cotham was a
younger son of Oliver de Vaux and Petronilla de Craon, and a brother
of Sir John de Vaux. The similarity of the two coats of arms strongly
suggests a tie, and that Roger headed a cadet branch.
Michael Andrews-Reading
-
Gjest
Re: de Vaux of Cotham, Notts: a branch of the East Anglian f
On 15 Aug., 00:55, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear John
Many thanks for that.
Prompted by a useful note from Will Johnson, I poked my head into
Burke's Peerage (latest edition) this morning, sub Vaux of Harrowden.
Curiously, it gives four sons to Sir Oliver and Petronilla: Robert
(dsp); William (dsp 1252); John (d c1288) and Roger (sic) whom it
lists as "presumably" the ancestor of the Vaux family of Bottisham,
Cambs, afterwards Lords Vaux of Harrowden.
As usual, BP does not cite any courses, and contains some manifest
errors (eg Sir John's wife Sibyl is said to have died by 1261, whereas
his IPM refers to her having dower as his widow in November 1288).
The reason I had speculated that Roger was a son of Sir Oliver was
because Petronilla's holding at Cotham as detailed in Thoroton seemed
independent of her Vaux marriage - eg it referred to her earlier de
Mare marriage - and I therefore supposed it related to her de Craon
inheritance, meaning it was likely that any Vaux holders of property
there would also be her descendants.
I will do some more digging!
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Michael,
Thanks for that post, and the conjectured pedigree for de Vaux of
Cotham, Notts. The ancestry of the Leeke family is of interest to
myself, and no doubt to a number of other descendants of this family.
The heraldic evidence is interesting, and I agree it is likely
that de Vaux of Cotham was a cadet of de Vaux of Pentney, Norfolk &
c. However, it is very unlikely that Sir Roger was a son of Sir
Oliver de Vaux and his wife Petronilla de Craon. A record in the
Nomina Fundatorum de Pentney indicates that Sir Oliver (presumably by
Petronilla only) had four sons - ' Quintus patronus fuit Oliverus,
filius dicti Roberti, qui genuit Robertum, Will. et Ioh. et
Oliverum.' [Mon. Angl. VI(1) p. 70, Num. III]. Sir John de Vaux, the
third son, was the heir of his brother William in Pentney, Wisset &
c., and the descent of these manors is traced through his daughters.
There was evidently no younger son Roger.
It is of course possibly that Roger was a son of Oliver, fourth
son of Sir Oliver de Vaux. Further, Sir Oliver had younger brothers,
including one named Roger (I have no further details re: this Roger),
and he also had a number of paternal uncles. Sir Roger de Vaux of
Cotham might well be the son, or descendant, of one of these.
Cheers,
John
Dear John
Many thanks for that.
Prompted by a useful note from Will Johnson, I poked my head into
Burke's Peerage (latest edition) this morning, sub Vaux of Harrowden.
Curiously, it gives four sons to Sir Oliver and Petronilla: Robert
(dsp); William (dsp 1252); John (d c1288) and Roger (sic) whom it
lists as "presumably" the ancestor of the Vaux family of Bottisham,
Cambs, afterwards Lords Vaux of Harrowden.
As usual, BP does not cite any courses, and contains some manifest
errors (eg Sir John's wife Sibyl is said to have died by 1261, whereas
his IPM refers to her having dower as his widow in November 1288).
The reason I had speculated that Roger was a son of Sir Oliver was
because Petronilla's holding at Cotham as detailed in Thoroton seemed
independent of her Vaux marriage - eg it referred to her earlier de
Mare marriage - and I therefore supposed it related to her de Craon
inheritance, meaning it was likely that any Vaux holders of property
there would also be her descendants.
I will do some more digging!
Best wishes, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: de Vaux of Cotham, Notts: a branch of the East Anglian f
On 15 Aug., 22:31, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Many thanks, Will.
I had a look at Dugdale's Baronage, but nothing in either volume
there.
Cheers, Michael
Michael per your request, I've again dug up the Throckmorton work where the de Vaux occupy a sort of Appendix if you will and posted the relevant material in total herehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/ceci ... ry_sources
As you can see, he only cites Burke's Peerage although he does give some curiously specific details which must be based on something.. you'd think.
Will Johnson
Many thanks, Will.
I had a look at Dugdale's Baronage, but nothing in either volume
there.
Cheers, Michael