Dear MM,
Comments interspersed.
Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
I was gobsmacked at the PRO on Friday last, studying the IPMs of members of
the Eylesford family of Tillington, Hds, Westbury, Glos, etc. A particular
problem was posed by the two IPMs of Isabel de la Mare, former wife of John
Eylesford of Tillington, Hds, both included in the national archives at
C138/58/40, but also printed in [I think accurate] translation in the published
calendar, available on the open shelves in the Map Reading room at Kew, 2nd floor.
I know that corner of the map room at the National Archives very well,
and have used the CIPM series there quite a bit. I'm eagerly awaiting
for the series, currently in the first half of the reign of Henry VI,
to complete itself and catch up to Henry VII.
Isabel de la Mare, wife of Richard, and former wife of Sir John de
Eylesford, has two IPMs in C/138/58/40 (1422)- one in Hds and one in Glos. I was able
to see the original writs (both referring to her as the wife of Richard de la
Mare and "nuper uxor" of John Eynesford [sic]of Tolyngton[sic]), and the IPMs
(in latin). The PRO also holds a modern printed translation, which I can
confirm as substantially correct.
Thanks for this post - I've been tracking Richard de la Mare (aka
Delamare), sheriff of Herefordshire, for a couple years now, as he was
the second husband of Alice Talbot, younger sister of the 1st Earl of
Shrewsbury. I knew he had a first wife Isabel, it's great now to know
her identity and more of her chronology.
I could not find a Shropshire IPM, although we know from the Calendar of
Patent Rolls that the Eylesfords acquired the manors of Buildwas and Isenbrigg,
both in Shropshire, held in chief, by the service of keeping the forests of
Shropshire, as well as the manor of Brimfield, Hds, from the Boulewas family.
Check the Calendar of Fine Rolls to see if a writ of diem clausit
extremum was issued to the escheator of Shropshire following Isabel
Delamare's death. If so, then the resulting IPM has been lost (or was
never undertaken). If not so, then either a) the Eylesford Shropshire
properties were not held of the king in chief, or b) by the time of her
death, Isabel Delamare held no interest in them.
But, alas, the VCH for Shropshire gives no details of the descent of the
Shriopshire manors
That's curious. Are the manors covered at all?
The Hds one shows her as dying 24th Sept 1421, and as holding:-
The manor of Brimfield in chief, by the service of keeping the Forest of Morf
Muryvale? and Tyberton (not held in chief)
Howton manor, by grant of Sir John de Ellesford [sic] and his wife Margaret
- Fine in CP25/1/83/51- reversion to R. de la Mare, remainder to John de
Mellesbourne, kinsman of John de Mellesbourne Kt: the manor held of John Merbury
and his wife Agnes
The fine regarding Howton manor was Isabel and her second husband
negotiating with the kinsman and heir (John Eylesford the younger) of
Isabel's first husband (John Eylesford the elder). She may have
exchanged other properties that were hers by right of dower (the
Shropshire ones?) for Howton. The fact that the manor would pass to
John de Mellesbourne (aka Milborne) after the death of Isabel and her
husband Richard Delamare, could indicate that John Milborne had a
kinship with the Eylesfords and/or Isabel, but it doesn't mean he HAD
to have had one. He could have been a loyal friend, attorney, etc.
whom the two childless couples (John and Margaret Eylesford, Isabel and
Richard Delamare) wished to reward in such a manner.
1/3 of the manor of Tillington, as dower, held of the Lord of Berkeley
Heir William Bourghull, aged 40 et amplius
Since Tillington was held by Isabel in dower, and was then an Eylesford
property, I would guess that William Bourghull was the Eylesford heir
in 1421. Do you know if John Eylesford the younger was dead by that
date?
The Gloucester one, showing her as dying 17th Sept 1421, and as holding:-
1/3 of the manor of Westbury, with reversion to John Merbury, John Brugge
and John Vyntier, esqs, by grant made by John Mellebourne, son of Peter
Mellebourne, to Isabel and her husband Richard de la Mare. On Isabel's death
Merbury, Brugge and Vyntier entered and granted Isabel's share of the manor to John
Mellebourne and his wife Elizabeth.
So John Milborne was clearly important to the childless Isabel, as she
made him, through fines, the heir to two Eylesford properties. That
this had to be done through fines indicates he was not the immediate
Eylesford heir (probably William Bourghull was).
Also a messuage at Bollow, held in chief as of the Duchy of Lancaster
Heir ["consanguineus et heres eiusdem"] John Barre, son of Thomas Barre
junior, knight, "aet octo annorum et amplius".
This more than likely is the key to Isabel's parentage: she was a Barre
of Barr's Court, Herefordshire, the daughter (or possibly sister) of
Thomas Barre 'Senior' (d. 1421), and sister (or possibly aunt) of Sir
Thomas Barre, Junior, the father of 8-year-old John Barre, Isabel's
nephew and heir. If a woman died childless, her next heir of blood
would be her eldest brother or his issue.
It also helps explain the second marriage of Alice Talbot and Richard
Delamare - they were surviving spouses of two siblings, Thomas Barre
'Junior' and his sister Isabel Barre Eylesford.
Here then we have some serious problems, which I have shared with Michael
Andrews-Reading (mjcar). He agrees that they are worth airing on SGM.
I offer the following notes on the above documents:-
1. There is plenty of evidence that the manor of Tillington (in the parish
of Burghill, Hds)
eventually descended through the Milborne family to the philoprogenitive
Simon Milborne (died 1522, IPM at Kew). Burghill church contains a rather
battered monument to his father John Milborne in armour, and in the church there is
exhibited a note that this John was the husband of Elizabeth Devereux,
daughter of the Devereux killed at the battle of Pilleth
Tillington, though, likely did not become the property of John
Milborne, husband of Elizabeth Devereux, through inheritance, but
rather through the process of fines (a form of purchase, in a way). I
imagine that once he negotiated the third of the manor that Isabel held
in dower, he proceeded to negotiate gaining the remaining two-thirds
from whoever the Eylesford heir was (John Eylesford the Younger, or
after him, William Bourghill?).
2. Simon Milborne's daughters' marriages, and many of their descendants,
have been extensively discussed on SGM
3. The Bourghull/Burghill family, and their dealings with the Berkeley
family, are copiously referred to to the Berkeley Castle archives in
_www.a2a.org.uk_ (
http://www.a2a.org.uk)
Were there any marriages between the two families?
4. The IPM of Sir John Eylesford of Tillington is in the national archives,
dated 1396, and shows his heir- by a somewhat remote collateral descent- as
being Sir John Eylesford the younger. The IPM does however present an entirely
plausible descent of the two cousins, from their common ancestors, sons of
William de E and his Furnival wife. The Eylesfords mentioned in the Calendar of
Close Rolls for the period include Gerald, Richard, Edmund, John, John and
Hugh
If they had to go so far back to a distant cousin when Sir John
Eylesford the Elder died in 1396, it may explain why his widow Isabel
and heir John Eylesford the Younger were willing to alienate the lands
to John Milborne.
5. The older Sir John E (died 1396, many times Knight of the shire of
Hereford, and King's Knight to Edward III and Richard II) is not known to have had
any other wife than the Isabel (parentage unknown) who died in September
1421.
If Isabel was a daughter of Thomas Barre 'Senior' then she was likely
young when married to Sir John Eylesford the Elder, and married fairly
soon before his death. Thomas Barre 'Junior' married Anne Talbot in
1411.
I think it possible that she may have been a Burghhill, which might account
for her husband having acquired Tillington. And of course that would also
explain the finding in PRO C138/58/40 that her heir was Walter de Bourghull.
Yet the Gloucestershire IPM called young John Barre, Isabel's "kinsman"
("consanguineus") as well as heir, with Burghill only being described
(apparently) as heir in the Herefordshire IPM. This would seem to
indicate Barre was her heir of blood while Burghill was the heir to the
properties (which were Eylesford ones).
But this Sir John and his wife Isabel cannot have had any children by their
marriage, since if they had had children those children would have been his
heirs to the exclusion of the younger Sir John, his heir, and also his wife's
heirs to the exclusion of this otherwise (to me) unknown Walter Bourghull
Correct.
6. The younger Sir John, heir of the elder Sir John, is known to have
married as her second husband Margaret Swillington, heiress of Bolley and of the
hundred of Framland. But her heir was a Cromwell, who did not inherit any of
the Eylesford properties, so it seems that she could not have had issue by her
second husband
Correct. So it also seems likely that Sir John Eylesford the Younger
also died without issue, which would explain a Burghull as heir. This
works if the younger Sir John died before Isabel. I would imagine,
though, there would have been an IPM for him.
7. There is the possibility that the younger Sir John E had been married
before his marriage to Margaret Swillington
Yes, and either John Milburne or William Burghull could have been a
nephew, son-in-law, etc.
8. Some traditions have it that one of the Sir John Eylesfords was married
to an Isabel de la Barre. But it seems clear that this Isabel cannot have
been the lady who died in 1421, or the wife of the younger Sir John, since he
had already been married long before then to Margaret Swillington. However the
Herefordshire IPM of Isabel, showing her heir as the infant de la Barre boy,
does suggest that one of the Eylesford knights had indeed married a de la
Barre. Did Sir John E the elder perhaps marry an Isabel de la Barre? If there
was such a marriage it must have been childless, or else Isabel's heir would
have been one of her children
It would appear that Sir John Eylesford the Elder did indeed marry
Isabel Barre, and died, as you have researched, childless, as also did
Isabel, despite her second marriage to Richard Delamare.
Anyway, in these mists of antiquity, I find myself totally baffled.
All guidance welcomed
Not totally baffled, by any means. You've deduced most of it. The
connection of William Burghull to these Eylesford properties needs to
be more firmly established, and if Sir John Eylesford the Younger,
husband of Margaret Swillington, died after 1421, then things do get
rather complicated, as in that case he would have been the heir to all
of the properties Isabel held on behalf of her Eylesford first
marriage, and should appear so on her IPMs.
I hope this is of some assistance and look forward to your further
research.
Cheers, -------------Brad