Haringel: a St George ancestry for the Draxes

[Gjest]

According to the Visitation of Yorkshire in 1563-1564, C. Norcliffe
(ed), London, 1881, p 102 (1), the Drax family of Woodhall included
within its quarterings that for Haringell ["gules, 3 mullets or, a
canton ermine"]

On pp 27-28 (2) we see that the descent was thus:

(A) Katherine, eldest daughter and coheir of Robert Haryngell of
Yorkshire, married John Fitzwilliam; issue:

(B) Isabel, only child and heir, married Thomas Barley of Woodhall;
issue:

(C) Margaret, younger daughter and coheir, married John Drax; their
issue is outlined at page 103.

The identity of Robert Haringel's wife may be found in a PROCAT
document (3) which records that in 7 Edward II (1314), Margaret de St
George granted the manor of Melton-on-the-Hill,
Yorkshire, to Robert Haringel in free marriage with her daughter
Margaret, with remainder, in default of heirs of the marriage, to the
grantor, who retained the manor of Soham (PRO C143/102/23) (4).

The pedigree of the St Georges may be seen in the Visitation of
Cambridgeshire, 1575 and 1619, J. Clay (ed), London, 1897, p 90 et seq
(5), or by searching the archives here [eg posts by Henry Sutcliff and
Rosie Bevan, June 2003]. Thus we have:

1. Sir William St George married Margaret de Turenberd
2. Margaret St George married Robert Haringell
3. Katherine Haringel married John Fitzwilliam
4. Isabel Fitzwilliam married Thomas Barley
5. Margaret Barley married John Drax
6. Robert Drax married Eleanor Rokley, and left issue.

MA-R

(1)

https://proxify.com/p/011010A1000110/68 ... 6272723d30

(2)

https://proxify.com/p/011010A1000110/68 ... 6272723d30

(3)

I posted it in here on 12 June 2006:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... be3bcc8231

(4)

http://www.pro.gov.uk

(5)

https://proxify.com/p/011010A1000110/68 ... 6272723d30

[Gjest]

On Dec 7, 2:51 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

But Thomas Barley was only of Woodhall jure uxoris, so we should at
least call Isabel the heiress of Woodhall... to be fair

Will

Ah, but do we know that he did not hold by the curtesy of England?

MA-R

[wjhonson]

On Dec 6, 5:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:

According to the Visitation of Yorkshire in 1563-1564, C. Norcliffe
(ed), London, 1881, p 102 (1), the Drax family of Woodhall included
within its quarterings that for Haringell ["gules, 3 mullets or, a
canton ermine"]

On pp 27-28 (2) we see that the descent was thus:

(A) Katherine, eldest daughter and coheir of Robert Haryngell of
Yorkshire, married John Fitzwilliam; issue:

(B) Isabel, only child and heir, married Thomas Barley of Woodhall;
issue:

(C) Margaret, younger daughter and coheir, married John Drax; their
issue is outlined at page 103.

--------

But Thomas Barley was only of Woodhall jure uxoris, so we should at
least call Isabel the heiress of Woodhall... to be fair

Will

[wjhonson]

On Dec 6, 8:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 7, 2:51 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

But Thomas Barley was only of Woodhall jure uxoris, so we should at
least call Isabel the heiress of Woodhall... to be fair

Will

Ah, but do we know that he did not hold by the curtesy of England?

MA-R

I admit I have no idea what that means and how it affects that his
wife was the heiress, not himself. What does it mean?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

On Dec 7, 3:20 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 6, 8:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 7, 2:51 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

But Thomas Barley was only of Woodhall jure uxoris, so we should at
least call Isabel the heiress of Woodhall... to be fair

Will

Ah, but do we know that he did not hold by the curtesy of England?

MA-R

I admit I have no idea what that means and how it affects that his
wife was the heiress, not himself. What does it mean?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Holding "jure uxoris" means by right of your wife; holding "of the
curtesy of England" means by right of your deceased wife, where you
had issue by her (even if that issue is no longer surviving).

MA-R

[wjhonson]

On Dec 6, 8:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 7, 3:20 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:





On Dec 6, 8:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 7, 2:51 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

But Thomas Barley was only of Woodhall jure uxoris, so we should at
least call Isabel the heiress of Woodhall... to be fair

Will

Ah, but do we know that he did not hold by the curtesy of England?

MA-R

OK so your question appears to be, could be have been granted the
Manor, *after* she herself had died, simply because he was her
widower. That is, her mother survived *her*.

The answer is from a post by John Ravilous 27 Sep 2007 in which *he*
states that in a case at Westminster 1446 etc etc etc *they* say that
she Isabel FitzWilliam "heiress of Woodhall" settled (she did) all
*her* lands in trust on her marriage... etc

Interesting. Seems to imply that both her parents were dead *before*
she herself was married. Otherwise I suppose one of *them* would have
settled the lands on her when she married, or whatever.

The full re-post is below.

Will Johnson

Posting by John Ravilous to Gen-Med 27 Sep 2007, "Rockley or Rokeley
family"
<snip>
'Robert Drax', plaintiff with his cousin William Bosvile: ' The record
in a case at Westminster, 1446, of Will. Bosvyle and Robert Drax
against Will. Mauleverer, Knt., and ors., recites that the manor of
Wodonson was given by Robert Berley, Knt., to his son, Richard, temp.
Edw. III; Richard had a son and heir, Thomas, who in 1392 married
Isabel Fitz William, the heiress of Woodhall, who settled all her
lands at Woodhall, Darfield, Wombwell, etc., in trust on her marriage.
Thomas and Isabel Berley had two daughters co-heiresses, Mary, who
married John Bosvyle, and Margaret the wife of John de Drax: in the
proceedings the two sons of these marriages, namely, William Bosvyle
and Robert Drax, claimed recovery of the properties against Mauleverer
and ors., the Trustees, the Mauleverer pedigree showing marriages in
the fourteenth century with both Bosvyle and Berlay. ' [Barlow p.
161[2], cites De Banco Rolls, No. 741, m. 328; Cal. Pat. Rolls, Hen
VI, 1425, Feb. 12]

[suthen]

Michael,

From Lodge's peerage of Ireland (Volume II, page 161), John
FitzWilliam and Katherine Haringale/Haringell had other children:

Sons Thomas and Roger did not marry or have issue

Other daughters: Catherine, Margaret and Joan, but no listed marriages
or issue.

John Drax is mentioned on the same page as husband of Margaret and her
sister Mary (Mariota) as wife of John Bosley of Erdisley, Yorks.

Hap

[Gjest]

On Dec 7, 5:37 pm, suthen <[email protected]> wrote:

Michael,

From Lodge's peerage of Ireland (Volume II, page 161), John
FitzWilliam and Katherine Haringale/Haringell had other children:

Sons Thomas and Roger did not marry or have issue

Other daughters: Catherine, Margaret and Joan, but no listed marriages
or issue.

John Drax is mentioned on the same page as husband of Margaret and her
sister Mary (Mariota) as wife of John Bosley of Erdisley, Yorks.

Hap

Dear Hap

I've just seen this - many thanks - I am not surprised that you had
already spotted the Haringel connection!

I was pleased to find this additional St George link, as it gives both
of my parents a descent from that family. Meanwhile, Wessex-watchers
world-wide wait for another addition to the tree...

Best wishes, Michael

[John P. Ravilious]

Dear Hap, Michael, et al.,

I had not seen prior evidence of any sons of the marriage of John
FitzWilliam (aka John de Woodhall) and Katherine Haringell (als
Haringsell). I noted the slight difference in language in two of the
Yorkshire pedigrees re: their daughter Isabel, wife of Thomas Barley:

' Izabell doughter & sole heyr wyff to Thomas Barley of
Woodhall.' [HSP 16:123, pedigree of Fitz William]

' Isabell Fytzwilliam sole doughter & heyre. = Thomas Barley of
Woodsome or of Woodhall.' [HSP 16:27, pedigree of Bosvyle.]

It would seem that the FitzWilliam pedigree got it right (50-50
chance there, but perhaps a little surprising anyway). The other
daughters, Catherine, Margaret and Joan are also given in Collins'
Peerage of England (1768), which provides an explanation for the 'sole
heyr' attribution in the HSP pedigree: the other three daughters are
identified as nuns.

Cheers,

John


On Dec 7, 1:37�am, suthen <[email protected]> wrote:

Michael,

From Lodge's peerage of Ireland (Volume II, page 161), John
FitzWilliam and Katherine Haringale/Haringell had other children:

Sons Thomas and Roger did not marry or have issue

Other daughters: Catherine, Margaret and Joan, but no listed marriages
or issue.

John Drax is mentioned on the same page as husband of Margaret and her
sister Mary (Mariota) as wife of John Bosley of Erdisley, Yorks.

Hap