All,
I am still working on the la Zouche family and attempting to account
for individuals. From research I have there seems to be no certainty
that Elizabeth Zouche, daughter of Eudo and Milicent married Oliver
Ingham. Eudo and Milicent's daughter, Elizabeth married de Poyntz.
That Oliver Ingham married a daughter of a Zouche seems credible.
Oliver la Zouche, son of Alan and Elena, died in 1316. His grandson or
great grandson was an Oliver who married an Isabel and inherited his
Hampshire property. In In 1338, there is an appointment of Oliver la
Zouche...to arrest named individuals indicted in the death of Oliver
son of Oliver de Ingham, knt. and imprison them in the castle of
Norwich.
Could Elizabeth Zouche possibly be of this line?
Thank you in advance,
Pat
Zouche-Ingham
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Hickory
Re: Zouche-Ingham
In connection with my academically oriented research on Thomas Mallory
of Papworth St Agnes, I have been doing considerable research on
earlier generations of the different branches of the Mallory family.
Inevitably, this forced on me quite a bit of research regarding the la
Zouche family. In a book on seals by Sir Christopher, a charter of
Millicent's which was meant as a marriage settlement for her daughter
is published where it is stated that Elizabeth de Poyntz is the
daughter of her first husband and not of Eudo.
The la Zouche's had a habit of repeating the same names across
different nearly related branches, thus making it a nightmare for
historians to disentangle, something which no published historical
work seems to have so far been completely successful at. The prime
example is that of the Archbishop William la Zouche of York. After
approximately a week of intense research, I was finally able to come
across proof that he was the second son of the first Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth and not the second son of that baron's younger brother
Roger as is maintained in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
of Papworth St Agnes, I have been doing considerable research on
earlier generations of the different branches of the Mallory family.
Inevitably, this forced on me quite a bit of research regarding the la
Zouche family. In a book on seals by Sir Christopher, a charter of
Millicent's which was meant as a marriage settlement for her daughter
is published where it is stated that Elizabeth de Poyntz is the
daughter of her first husband and not of Eudo.
The la Zouche's had a habit of repeating the same names across
different nearly related branches, thus making it a nightmare for
historians to disentangle, something which no published historical
work seems to have so far been completely successful at. The prime
example is that of the Archbishop William la Zouche of York. After
approximately a week of intense research, I was finally able to come
across proof that he was the second son of the first Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth and not the second son of that baron's younger brother
Roger as is maintained in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 5:53 am, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:
Given the amount that this has been discussed here, I am curious what
proof you found that this was the case.
taf
The prime
example is that of the Archbishop William la Zouche of York. After
approximately a week of intense research, I was finally able to come
across proof that he was the second son of the first Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth and not the second son of that baron's younger brother
Roger as is maintained in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
Given the amount that this has been discussed here, I am curious what
proof you found that this was the case.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 2:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
< Given the amount that this has been discussed here, I am curious
what
< proof you found that this was the case.
<
< taf
taf ~
Before Hickory proceeds, I suggest that you post your own analysis of
this matter, and see if that stands up to scrutiny.
And, be sure to post your sources and your weblinks, if you have any.
Remember no sources and no weblinks means you get ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Given the amount that this has been discussed here, I am curious
what
< proof you found that this was the case.
<
< taf
taf ~
Before Hickory proceeds, I suggest that you post your own analysis of
this matter, and see if that stands up to scrutiny.
And, be sure to post your sources and your weblinks, if you have any.
Remember no sources and no weblinks means you get ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Patricia A. Junkin
Re: Zouche-Ingham
All,
We have discussed the Archbishop at length. I believe we have come to
accept that Roger of Lubbesthorpe was his brother. Their father was a
William to whom Millicent Monte Alto gave rights in Lubbesthorpe in
1268.
However, I am mystified by a comment in the DNB (1900), which states
Archbishop Zouche’s alluded to the fact “his parents were alive in
1349.” I would like to see the original of this, if we could find it.
I firmly believe that we must follow the descendants of Oliver la
Zouche and William la Zouche of Blaketoriton, both sons of Alan and
Elena de Quinci.
Pat
On Jan 26, 2008, at 3:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
We have discussed the Archbishop at length. I believe we have come to
accept that Roger of Lubbesthorpe was his brother. Their father was a
William to whom Millicent Monte Alto gave rights in Lubbesthorpe in
1268.
However, I am mystified by a comment in the DNB (1900), which states
Archbishop Zouche’s alluded to the fact “his parents were alive in
1349.” I would like to see the original of this, if we could find it.
I firmly believe that we must follow the descendants of Oliver la
Zouche and William la Zouche of Blaketoriton, both sons of Alan and
Elena de Quinci.
Pat
On Jan 26, 2008, at 3:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:53 am, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:
The prime
example is that of the Archbishop William la Zouche of York. After
approximately a week of intense research, I was finally able to come
across proof that he was the second son of the first Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth and not the second son of that baron's younger brother
Roger as is maintained in the Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography.
Given the amount that this has been discussed here, I am curious what
proof you found that this was the case.
taf
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 3:25 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Your suggestion has been logged and will be given it's due
consideration. (flush . . . . swirl . . . glug, glug, glug). There.
Now Hickory can proceed, if he feels so inclined.
taf
On Jan 26, 2:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
Given the amount that this has been discussed here, I am curious
what
proof you found that this was the case.
taf
taf ~
Before Hickory proceeds, I suggest that you post your own analysis of
this matter, and see if that stands up to scrutiny.
Your suggestion has been logged and will be given it's due
consideration. (flush . . . . swirl . . . glug, glug, glug). There.
Now Hickory can proceed, if he feels so inclined.
taf
-
Hickory
Re: Zouche-Ingham
The case of the Archbishop was peripheral to my research, so it will
mean several hours at the Institute of Historical Research on either
Monday or Tuesday making sure I have my sources right. But I thought I
would provide a quick summary of relationships first.
First, indeed, the Archbishop William la Zouche had a brother Roger
who was William the first Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth's fourth son
and who did become Lord of Lubbesthorpe around 1326. He was not,
however, the first Roger la Zouche who was Lord of Lubbesthorpe. That
honor goes to a Roger la Zouche born around 1267 who was the son of
Eudo (also appearing variously in the records as Eon, Ivo, and John,
depending on the scribe and the part of England from which the records
originated) la Zouche and Millicent de Cantilupe (also written
Cantilow, etc., etc.). Millicent's first husband was John de Monte
Alto (also written as Mohaut, etc.) who died around 1265, leaving her
with a daughter Elizabeth who was later betrothed to Nicholas Poyntz,
son of Hugh de Poyntz. Millicent and Eudo's first child William, the
future Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth, would have been born in 1266.
In dealing with early medieval records, it is important to note that a
woman who had been married more than once or had property, for
whatever reason, under different family names, could be referred to in
legal documents at any time during her life by whatever name seemed to
best suit the occasion. This would apply to Millicent, as I have seen
it apply to many other medieval women, with her sometimes appearing
under one surname and sometimes under another.
At any rate, Millicent granted Lubbesthorpe to her second la Zouche
son Roger very shortly after his birth in 1267 with reversionary
rights to her own right heirs (i.e. Roger's older brother William).
This Roger passed away in 1302, leaving a son Roger and possibly one
or two others. His widow appears to have been a woman by the name of
Julia who later married Reginald (also written as Reynald) Mallory
(the spelling variations in this name are too various to make
illustration worthwhile) who was the lord of Walton on the Wold in
Leicestershire. Roger la Zouche, the nephew of the first Baron la
Zouche of Haryngworth, together with his cousin the first baron's
oldest son Eudo (Eon, Ivo, etc.) and his own brother Ralph had the
misfortune of becoming involved with the Folville brothers and
becoming outlawed as a result. The young men all fled England. The
baron's oldest son passed away shortly thereafter in Paris leaving an
infant (another William) who later became the second Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth.
In becoming an outlaw and leaving the country without permission, the
first Baron's nephews were judged to have forfeited their properties
(Lubbesthorpe) in England and these properties were returned to the
right heir of the granter, their grandmother Millicent's oldest son
the first Baron who was legally unaffected by the Folville mess. By
this point, the first baron's second son William was already a member
of the clergy and was making a name for himself in the king's service.
The first Baron followed his mother's precedent by giving Lubbesthorpe
to the next available younger son, yet another Roger who seems to have
been particularly close to the future Archbishop.
The first Baron, by the way, had 10 recorded children, whose relative
ages to each other according to their sex can be known thanks to a
document in which the reversionary rights of each is specified. The
sons were Eudo (Eon), William, John, Roger, Thomas, another John, and
Edmund. The daughters were Millicent, married to William Deincourt,
Isabel and Thomasina. Isabel, in medieval documents, was sometimes
simply the Latin version of the English Elizabeth, though sometimes
the English name could also be Isabel. Thus, this particular Isabel
might be an Elizabeth in hiding. Thomasina would have been the
youngest daughter, though she may not have been a youngest child.
Other evidence would indicate that either Elizabeth or Thomasina was
the wife of the Anketill (again, many spelling variations as it was a
surprisingly common name for the times) Mallory mentioned in the
Archbishop's will and to whom the Archbishop gave at least part of the
Manor of Sudborough in Northamptonshire, most probably as a marriage
settlement. Considering that this particular Anketill would have most
likely been born between 1315 and 1320, it would seem that the
youngest of the first baron's daughters Thomasina rather than
Elizabeth was his wife, though there is no way I know of at present to
prove this. The daughter of this marriage was Ala (also spelled Ela,
etc.) Mallory who brought Sudborough to her husband Thomas Greene, by
whom she became an ancestress of Catherine Parr. The son of this
marriage would seem to have been the Anketill Mallory who married
Alice de Driby as her third husband.
Going back to the Archbishop's brother, Roger of Lubbesthorpe, he had
a son William who inherited the Lubbesthorpe property. The
Archbishop's cousins, Roger and Ralph disappear completely from
Leicestershire records and, not being even peripherally important to
my research, I haven't tried to locate them elsewhere. Likewise, I
haven't tried to research the connection between William la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe and the eventual heirs to the property, i.e. Sir
Marmaduke Constable, Robert St. Andrew, and Thomas Assheby.
I'm running out of time in England before my sabbatical finishes and I
have to go back to Japan, so I don't have the heart to go through all
my notes to source every detail I have written when other research is
begging to be done, but unlike some of my other work, nothing here is
based on manuscript sources. Everything should be available in any
good library possessing a full collection of the published works of
Her Majesty's Stationary Office. I will try to come back in two or
three days, though, with the sources for the Archbishop, as that seems
to have attracted people's attention and should not take up too much
time for me to reconfirm.
mean several hours at the Institute of Historical Research on either
Monday or Tuesday making sure I have my sources right. But I thought I
would provide a quick summary of relationships first.
First, indeed, the Archbishop William la Zouche had a brother Roger
who was William the first Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth's fourth son
and who did become Lord of Lubbesthorpe around 1326. He was not,
however, the first Roger la Zouche who was Lord of Lubbesthorpe. That
honor goes to a Roger la Zouche born around 1267 who was the son of
Eudo (also appearing variously in the records as Eon, Ivo, and John,
depending on the scribe and the part of England from which the records
originated) la Zouche and Millicent de Cantilupe (also written
Cantilow, etc., etc.). Millicent's first husband was John de Monte
Alto (also written as Mohaut, etc.) who died around 1265, leaving her
with a daughter Elizabeth who was later betrothed to Nicholas Poyntz,
son of Hugh de Poyntz. Millicent and Eudo's first child William, the
future Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth, would have been born in 1266.
In dealing with early medieval records, it is important to note that a
woman who had been married more than once or had property, for
whatever reason, under different family names, could be referred to in
legal documents at any time during her life by whatever name seemed to
best suit the occasion. This would apply to Millicent, as I have seen
it apply to many other medieval women, with her sometimes appearing
under one surname and sometimes under another.
At any rate, Millicent granted Lubbesthorpe to her second la Zouche
son Roger very shortly after his birth in 1267 with reversionary
rights to her own right heirs (i.e. Roger's older brother William).
This Roger passed away in 1302, leaving a son Roger and possibly one
or two others. His widow appears to have been a woman by the name of
Julia who later married Reginald (also written as Reynald) Mallory
(the spelling variations in this name are too various to make
illustration worthwhile) who was the lord of Walton on the Wold in
Leicestershire. Roger la Zouche, the nephew of the first Baron la
Zouche of Haryngworth, together with his cousin the first baron's
oldest son Eudo (Eon, Ivo, etc.) and his own brother Ralph had the
misfortune of becoming involved with the Folville brothers and
becoming outlawed as a result. The young men all fled England. The
baron's oldest son passed away shortly thereafter in Paris leaving an
infant (another William) who later became the second Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth.
In becoming an outlaw and leaving the country without permission, the
first Baron's nephews were judged to have forfeited their properties
(Lubbesthorpe) in England and these properties were returned to the
right heir of the granter, their grandmother Millicent's oldest son
the first Baron who was legally unaffected by the Folville mess. By
this point, the first baron's second son William was already a member
of the clergy and was making a name for himself in the king's service.
The first Baron followed his mother's precedent by giving Lubbesthorpe
to the next available younger son, yet another Roger who seems to have
been particularly close to the future Archbishop.
The first Baron, by the way, had 10 recorded children, whose relative
ages to each other according to their sex can be known thanks to a
document in which the reversionary rights of each is specified. The
sons were Eudo (Eon), William, John, Roger, Thomas, another John, and
Edmund. The daughters were Millicent, married to William Deincourt,
Isabel and Thomasina. Isabel, in medieval documents, was sometimes
simply the Latin version of the English Elizabeth, though sometimes
the English name could also be Isabel. Thus, this particular Isabel
might be an Elizabeth in hiding. Thomasina would have been the
youngest daughter, though she may not have been a youngest child.
Other evidence would indicate that either Elizabeth or Thomasina was
the wife of the Anketill (again, many spelling variations as it was a
surprisingly common name for the times) Mallory mentioned in the
Archbishop's will and to whom the Archbishop gave at least part of the
Manor of Sudborough in Northamptonshire, most probably as a marriage
settlement. Considering that this particular Anketill would have most
likely been born between 1315 and 1320, it would seem that the
youngest of the first baron's daughters Thomasina rather than
Elizabeth was his wife, though there is no way I know of at present to
prove this. The daughter of this marriage was Ala (also spelled Ela,
etc.) Mallory who brought Sudborough to her husband Thomas Greene, by
whom she became an ancestress of Catherine Parr. The son of this
marriage would seem to have been the Anketill Mallory who married
Alice de Driby as her third husband.
Going back to the Archbishop's brother, Roger of Lubbesthorpe, he had
a son William who inherited the Lubbesthorpe property. The
Archbishop's cousins, Roger and Ralph disappear completely from
Leicestershire records and, not being even peripherally important to
my research, I haven't tried to locate them elsewhere. Likewise, I
haven't tried to research the connection between William la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe and the eventual heirs to the property, i.e. Sir
Marmaduke Constable, Robert St. Andrew, and Thomas Assheby.
I'm running out of time in England before my sabbatical finishes and I
have to go back to Japan, so I don't have the heart to go through all
my notes to source every detail I have written when other research is
begging to be done, but unlike some of my other work, nothing here is
based on manuscript sources. Everything should be available in any
good library possessing a full collection of the published works of
Her Majesty's Stationary Office. I will try to come back in two or
three days, though, with the sources for the Archbishop, as that seems
to have attracted people's attention and should not take up too much
time for me to reconfirm.
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 4:18 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Sheppard, in his article in TAG, says of this: "The article [in DNB
(taf)] says that he alludes to his parents as alive in 1349. This is
an apparent reference to the following passage in his will of that
date;
Residuum vero omnium bonorum meorum, in quibuscunque rebus et
quorumcunque manibus existencium, volo quod remaneant sub disposicione
executorum meorum, ut ipsi videlicet de eisdem bonis meis ordinent,
faciant, et disponant, ac parentes, cpnsanguineos meos et propinquos,
familiares et servitores meos, juxta meritum cujuslibet eorumdem inde
remunerent, prout animae meae saluti melius viderint expedire, et ispi
coram Deo voluerint respondere."
He continues, "While 'parentes' does indeed mean 'parents,' it can
also mean 'god-paretns'." The most logical godparents for this William
la Zouche would have been William Lord la Zouche of Haryngworth and
his wife, with which peer he is continually associated throughout his
career. If indeed this reference is to his _god-parents_, then the
inference that his natural parents were alive in 1349 can be dropped."
In light of the current reconstruction, there is a certain irony in
the above.
taf
wrote:
All,
We have discussed the Archbishop at length. I believe we have come to
accept that Roger of Lubbesthorpe was his brother. Their father was a
William to whom Millicent Monte Alto gave rights in Lubbesthorpe in
1268.
However, I am mystified by a comment in the DNB (1900), which states
Archbishop Zouche's alluded to the fact "his parents were alive in
1349." I would like to see the original of this, if we could find it.
Sheppard, in his article in TAG, says of this: "The article [in DNB
(taf)] says that he alludes to his parents as alive in 1349. This is
an apparent reference to the following passage in his will of that
date;
Residuum vero omnium bonorum meorum, in quibuscunque rebus et
quorumcunque manibus existencium, volo quod remaneant sub disposicione
executorum meorum, ut ipsi videlicet de eisdem bonis meis ordinent,
faciant, et disponant, ac parentes, cpnsanguineos meos et propinquos,
familiares et servitores meos, juxta meritum cujuslibet eorumdem inde
remunerent, prout animae meae saluti melius viderint expedire, et ispi
coram Deo voluerint respondere."
He continues, "While 'parentes' does indeed mean 'parents,' it can
also mean 'god-paretns'." The most logical godparents for this William
la Zouche would have been William Lord la Zouche of Haryngworth and
his wife, with which peer he is continually associated throughout his
career. If indeed this reference is to his _god-parents_, then the
inference that his natural parents were alive in 1349 can be dropped."
In light of the current reconstruction, there is a certain irony in
the above.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 10:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:18 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]
wrote:
All,
We have discussed the Archbishop at length. I believe we have come to
accept that Roger of Lubbesthorpe was his brother. Their father was a
William to whom Millicent Monte Alto gave rights in Lubbesthorpe in
1268.
However, I am mystified by a comment in the DNB (1900), which states
Archbishop Zouche's alluded to the fact "his parents were alive in
1349." I would like to see the original of this, if we could find it.
Sheppard, in his article in TAG, says of this: "The article [in DNB
(taf)] says that he alludes to his parents as alive in 1349. This is
an apparent reference to the following passage in his will of that
date;
Residuum vero omnium bonorum meorum, in quibuscunque rebus et
quorumcunque manibus existencium, volo quod remaneant sub disposicione
executorum meorum, ut ipsi videlicet de eisdem bonis meis ordinent,
faciant, et disponant, ac parentes, cpnsanguineos meos et propinquos,
familiares et servitores meos, juxta meritum cujuslibet eorumdem inde
remunerent, prout animae meae saluti melius viderint expedire, et ispi
coram Deo voluerint respondere."
He continues, "While 'parentes' does indeed mean 'parents,' it can
also mean 'god-paretns'." The most logical godparents for this William
la Zouche would have been William Lord la Zouche of Haryngworth and
his wife, with which peer he is continually associated throughout his
career. If indeed this reference is to his _god-parents_, then the
inference that his natural parents were alive in 1349 can be dropped."
In light of the current reconstruction, there is a certain irony in
the above.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 10:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
< On Jan 26, 4:18 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]>
< wrote:
< > We have discussed the Archbishop at length. I believe we have come
to
< > accept that Roger of Lubbesthorpe was his brother. Their father
was a
< > William to whom Millicent Monte Alto gave rights in Lubbesthorpe
in
< > 1268.
< > However, I am mystified by a comment in the DNB (1900), which
states
< > Archbishop Zouche's alluded to the fact "his parents were alive in
< > 1349." I would like to see the original of this, if we could find
it.
<
< Sheppard, in his article in TAG, says of this: "The article [in DNB
< (taf)] says that he alludes to his parents as alive in 1349. This is
< an apparent reference to the following passage in his will of that
< date;
<
< Residuum vero omnium bonorum meorum, in quibuscunque rebus et
< quorumcunque manibus existencium, volo quod remaneant sub
disposicione
< executorum meorum, ut ipsi videlicet de eisdem bonis meis ordinent,
< faciant, et disponant, ac parentes, cpnsanguineos meos et
propinquos,
< familiares et servitores meos, juxta meritum cujuslibet eorumdem
inde
< remunerent, prout animae meae saluti melius viderint expedire, et
ispi
< coram Deo voluerint respondere."
<
< He continues, "While 'parentes' does indeed mean 'parents,' it can
< also mean 'god-paretns'." The most logical godparents for this
William
< la Zouche would have been William Lord la Zouche of Haryngworth and
< his wife, with which peer he is continually associated throughout
his
< career. If indeed this reference is to his _god-parents_, then the
< inference that his natural parents were alive in 1349 can be
dropped."
<
< In light of the current reconstruction, there is a certain irony in
< the above.
<
< taf
I'm uncertain why taf cites the dated Zouche article by Walter Lee
Sheppard, F.A.S.G., as this article was deficient and quite inadequate
with respect to the parentage and ancestry of William la Zouche,
Archbishop of York. Rather, taf should be quoting from original
primary documents, if he has them, as I do.
For starters, here are some references from primary records which
concern the immediate kinsfolk of Archbishop William la Zouche:
1. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 11, 13 (Archbishop
William la Zouche styled "my dear cousin" [consanguinei mei karissimi]
in 1343 by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of Ilkeston, Derbyshire).
2. Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 55-56 (abstract
of will of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, names his brother,
Roger la Zouche, Knt.).
3. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 20 (Thomas de Helwell, clerk, son
of Robert de Helwell, Knt., styled "nephew" by Archbishop William),
168 (John de Helwell, clerk, styled "kinsman" of Archbishop
William).
4. National Archives Catalogue, C 143/200/14: William Moton and Joan
his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la Zouch, clerk, for
his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford. 2 Edward III.
[1328]
5. National Archives Catalogue, C 143/401/3 Anketill Mallore and John
Helwell, knights, James de Kineton, clerk, and John Auncell of Pointon
to grant a messuage, land, and rent in Exton to Thomas Hogekyn,
chaplain in the chapel of St. John the Evangelist in the manor of
Exton, and his successors, the said Anketill, John, and John retaining
land in Whissendine and Exton. 6 RICHARD II.
The first reference directly implies that Archbishop William la Zouche
was the son of William la Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of
Harringworth, whose mother was a Cantelowe
The second reference offers support for that identification, as
William la Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of Harringworth, is known
to have had younger sons named William and Roger, both of whom were
living in 1326.
The third reference is to Thomas de Helwell, clerk, and John de
Helwell, clerk, who are called nephew and kinsman respectively of
Archbishop la Zouche. This presumably means that Archbishop la Zouche
had a sister who married Sir Robert de Helwell, Knt. To my knowledge,
these references have never been discussed by anyone before this time.
The fourth reference mentions William Moton and his wife, Joan, which
Joan was the widow of Eudes la Zouche (died 1326). Eudes la Zouche
(died 1326) was in turn the eldest son and heir apparent of William la
Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of Harringworth. If the honorable Mr.
Hikaru Kitabayashi is correct, then Joan Moton would be the former
sister-in-law of Archbishop William la Zouche.
In the fifth reference, Anketil Mallory, Knt., a known relative of
Archbishop la Zouche, occurs with John de Helwell, Knt.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< On Jan 26, 4:18 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]>
< wrote:
All,
< > We have discussed the Archbishop at length. I believe we have come
to
< > accept that Roger of Lubbesthorpe was his brother. Their father
was a
< > William to whom Millicent Monte Alto gave rights in Lubbesthorpe
in
< > 1268.
< > However, I am mystified by a comment in the DNB (1900), which
states
< > Archbishop Zouche's alluded to the fact "his parents were alive in
< > 1349." I would like to see the original of this, if we could find
it.
<
< Sheppard, in his article in TAG, says of this: "The article [in DNB
< (taf)] says that he alludes to his parents as alive in 1349. This is
< an apparent reference to the following passage in his will of that
< date;
<
< Residuum vero omnium bonorum meorum, in quibuscunque rebus et
< quorumcunque manibus existencium, volo quod remaneant sub
disposicione
< executorum meorum, ut ipsi videlicet de eisdem bonis meis ordinent,
< faciant, et disponant, ac parentes, cpnsanguineos meos et
propinquos,
< familiares et servitores meos, juxta meritum cujuslibet eorumdem
inde
< remunerent, prout animae meae saluti melius viderint expedire, et
ispi
< coram Deo voluerint respondere."
<
< He continues, "While 'parentes' does indeed mean 'parents,' it can
< also mean 'god-paretns'." The most logical godparents for this
William
< la Zouche would have been William Lord la Zouche of Haryngworth and
< his wife, with which peer he is continually associated throughout
his
< career. If indeed this reference is to his _god-parents_, then the
< inference that his natural parents were alive in 1349 can be
dropped."
<
< In light of the current reconstruction, there is a certain irony in
< the above.
<
< taf
I'm uncertain why taf cites the dated Zouche article by Walter Lee
Sheppard, F.A.S.G., as this article was deficient and quite inadequate
with respect to the parentage and ancestry of William la Zouche,
Archbishop of York. Rather, taf should be quoting from original
primary documents, if he has them, as I do.
For starters, here are some references from primary records which
concern the immediate kinsfolk of Archbishop William la Zouche:
1. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 11, 13 (Archbishop
William la Zouche styled "my dear cousin" [consanguinei mei karissimi]
in 1343 by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of Ilkeston, Derbyshire).
2. Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 55-56 (abstract
of will of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, names his brother,
Roger la Zouche, Knt.).
3. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 20 (Thomas de Helwell, clerk, son
of Robert de Helwell, Knt., styled "nephew" by Archbishop William),
168 (John de Helwell, clerk, styled "kinsman" of Archbishop
William).
4. National Archives Catalogue, C 143/200/14: William Moton and Joan
his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la Zouch, clerk, for
his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford. 2 Edward III.
[1328]
5. National Archives Catalogue, C 143/401/3 Anketill Mallore and John
Helwell, knights, James de Kineton, clerk, and John Auncell of Pointon
to grant a messuage, land, and rent in Exton to Thomas Hogekyn,
chaplain in the chapel of St. John the Evangelist in the manor of
Exton, and his successors, the said Anketill, John, and John retaining
land in Whissendine and Exton. 6 RICHARD II.
The first reference directly implies that Archbishop William la Zouche
was the son of William la Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of
Harringworth, whose mother was a Cantelowe
The second reference offers support for that identification, as
William la Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of Harringworth, is known
to have had younger sons named William and Roger, both of whom were
living in 1326.
The third reference is to Thomas de Helwell, clerk, and John de
Helwell, clerk, who are called nephew and kinsman respectively of
Archbishop la Zouche. This presumably means that Archbishop la Zouche
had a sister who married Sir Robert de Helwell, Knt. To my knowledge,
these references have never been discussed by anyone before this time.
The fourth reference mentions William Moton and his wife, Joan, which
Joan was the widow of Eudes la Zouche (died 1326). Eudes la Zouche
(died 1326) was in turn the eldest son and heir apparent of William la
Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of Harringworth. If the honorable Mr.
Hikaru Kitabayashi is correct, then Joan Moton would be the former
sister-in-law of Archbishop William la Zouche.
In the fifth reference, Anketil Mallory, Knt., a known relative of
Archbishop la Zouche, occurs with John de Helwell, Knt.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 10:59 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Your lack of certainty over my reasoning is neither here not there.
If you can't figure it out from the context of what was asked and what
was answered, you could always ask for clarification, but that would
not give you the satisfaction of parading your ignorance before two
newsgroups. (Oh, and to answer your question, the reason I cited it
is because I quoted it. That is what scholars do when they quote
something.)
This is a non-sequitur. The question was not "what contemporary
evidence is there for this fact", but "why did DNB say this". As DNB
did not provide a linked citation for the statement, then there is no
"original primary document" that can answer this question, other than
the working notes of the scholar who prepared this entry in DNB. That
another established scholar has already addressed the question (again,
to remind you, the question is "why did DNB say this") is certainly
relevant. Further, this quotation provides the text of the original
primary document that would seem to serve as basis for the DNB
statement. As to quoting from original primary documents, unless you
have moved to Kew, you are no more quoting from original primary
documents than I am. If you mean from _transcripts_ of those
documents, you had best look at my post again - that part with all the
words that you don't understand - that would be from an 'original
primary document'.
This is all just another example of you taking every opportunity to
'make friends'.
OK, let's look at them and see whether they bear on Patricia's
question.
Nope, nothing about the Archbishop's parents in 1349.
Still nothing about his parents.
No parents yet. When are these going to actually bear on the question
at hand?
No parents.
No reference to parents. Not in the whole lot. And, for that matter,
not a single quote from an original primary document (you know, a
quote - when you provide the text exactly as it appears, in that other
language they so rudely used in the original rather than modern
English).
That is one interpretation, but not the only interpretation. A
previous poster to this group concluded, on 5 Nov. 2005:
"As best I can tell, there appears to have been two sets of
contemporary William la Zouche's, each with a brother named Roger.
Both families had connections to Clipsham, Rutland, both had lands in
Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire, and both it seems had a Cantelowe
connection."
Unless this poster was misinformed, . . . . too bad he provided no
citations or quotes from original primary documents, if he had them,
in that post.
Again, this is one interpretation, but see above.
Umm, then either your knowledge is faulty or your concept of what
represents "this time" is rather permissive. This is not even the
first time _you have discussed this here_.
And if he is not, then she would be the former feudal overlord and
representative fo the family that had been his personal patrons.
.. . . who is another known relative of the Archbishop. This is
supposed to show, what, that he didn't lie when he called these two
his nephews?
And still no mention, among all of these original primary sources, of
the answer to Patricia's question. So, you are faulting me for
quoting an article that discusses the precise question AND quotes an
original primary document that appears to have served as the basis for
this conclusion, and in rebuttal you quote nothing, providing
abstracts which do not bear on the question.
Here is a free one - citing a primary document is not an exercise in
superior scholarship - for that, the document should actually bear on
the question.
taf
On Jan 26, 10:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:18 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]>< wrote:
All,
We have discussed the Archbishop at length. I believe we have come
to
accept that Roger of Lubbesthorpe was his brother. Their father
was a
William to whom Millicent Monte Alto gave rights in Lubbesthorpe
in
1268.
However, I am mystified by a comment in the DNB (1900), which
states
Archbishop Zouche's alluded to the fact "his parents were alive in
1349." I would like to see the original of this, if we could find
it.
Sheppard, in his article in TAG, says of this: "The article [in DNB
(taf)] says that he alludes to his parents as alive in 1349. This is
an apparent reference to the following passage in his will of that
date;
Residuum vero omnium bonorum meorum, in quibuscunque rebus et
quorumcunque manibus existencium, volo quod remaneant sub
disposicione
executorum meorum, ut ipsi videlicet de eisdem bonis meis ordinent,
faciant, et disponant, ac parentes, cpnsanguineos meos et
propinquos,
familiares et servitores meos, juxta meritum cujuslibet eorumdem
inde
remunerent, prout animae meae saluti melius viderint expedire, et
ispi
coram Deo voluerint respondere."
He continues, "While 'parentes' does indeed mean 'parents,' it can
also mean 'god-paretns'." The most logical godparents for this
William
la Zouche would have been William Lord la Zouche of Haryngworth and
his wife, with which peer he is continually associated throughout
his
career. If indeed this reference is to his _god-parents_, then the
inference that his natural parents were alive in 1349 can be
dropped."
In light of the current reconstruction, there is a certain irony in
the above.
taf
I'm uncertain why taf cites the dated Zouche article by Walter Lee
Sheppard, F.A.S.G.,
Your lack of certainty over my reasoning is neither here not there.
If you can't figure it out from the context of what was asked and what
was answered, you could always ask for clarification, but that would
not give you the satisfaction of parading your ignorance before two
newsgroups. (Oh, and to answer your question, the reason I cited it
is because I quoted it. That is what scholars do when they quote
something.)
Rather, taf should be quoting from original
primary documents, if he has them, as I do.
This is a non-sequitur. The question was not "what contemporary
evidence is there for this fact", but "why did DNB say this". As DNB
did not provide a linked citation for the statement, then there is no
"original primary document" that can answer this question, other than
the working notes of the scholar who prepared this entry in DNB. That
another established scholar has already addressed the question (again,
to remind you, the question is "why did DNB say this") is certainly
relevant. Further, this quotation provides the text of the original
primary document that would seem to serve as basis for the DNB
statement. As to quoting from original primary documents, unless you
have moved to Kew, you are no more quoting from original primary
documents than I am. If you mean from _transcripts_ of those
documents, you had best look at my post again - that part with all the
words that you don't understand - that would be from an 'original
primary document'.
This is all just another example of you taking every opportunity to
'make friends'.
For starters, here are some references from primary records which
concern the immediate kinsfolk of Archbishop William la Zouche:
OK, let's look at them and see whether they bear on Patricia's
question.
1. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 11, 13 (Archbishop
William la Zouche styled "my dear cousin" [consanguinei mei karissimi]
in 1343 by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of Ilkeston, Derbyshire).
Nope, nothing about the Archbishop's parents in 1349.
2. Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 55-56 (abstract
of will of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, names his brother,
Roger la Zouche, Knt.).
Still nothing about his parents.
3. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 20 (Thomas de Helwell, clerk, son
of Robert de Helwell, Knt., styled "nephew" by Archbishop William),
168 (John de Helwell, clerk, styled "kinsman" of Archbishop
William).
No parents yet. When are these going to actually bear on the question
at hand?
4. National Archives Catalogue, C 143/200/14: William Moton and Joan
his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la Zouch, clerk, for
his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford. 2 Edward III.
[1328]
No parents.
5. National Archives Catalogue, C 143/401/3 Anketill Mallore and John
Helwell, knights, James de Kineton, clerk, and John Auncell of Pointon
to grant a messuage, land, and rent in Exton to Thomas Hogekyn,
chaplain in the chapel of St. John the Evangelist in the manor of
Exton, and his successors, the said Anketill, John, and John retaining
land in Whissendine and Exton. 6 RICHARD II.
No reference to parents. Not in the whole lot. And, for that matter,
not a single quote from an original primary document (you know, a
quote - when you provide the text exactly as it appears, in that other
language they so rudely used in the original rather than modern
English).
The first reference directly implies that Archbishop William la Zouche
was the son of William la Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of
Harringworth, whose mother was a Cantelowe
That is one interpretation, but not the only interpretation. A
previous poster to this group concluded, on 5 Nov. 2005:
"As best I can tell, there appears to have been two sets of
contemporary William la Zouche's, each with a brother named Roger.
Both families had connections to Clipsham, Rutland, both had lands in
Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire, and both it seems had a Cantelowe
connection."
Unless this poster was misinformed, . . . . too bad he provided no
citations or quotes from original primary documents, if he had them,
in that post.
The second reference offers support for that identification, as
William la Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of Harringworth, is known
to have had younger sons named William and Roger, both of whom were
living in 1326.
Again, this is one interpretation, but see above.
The third reference is to Thomas de Helwell, clerk, and John de
Helwell, clerk, who are called nephew and kinsman respectively of
Archbishop la Zouche. This presumably means that Archbishop la Zouche
had a sister who married Sir Robert de Helwell, Knt. To my knowledge,
these references have never been discussed by anyone before this time.
Umm, then either your knowledge is faulty or your concept of what
represents "this time" is rather permissive. This is not even the
first time _you have discussed this here_.
The fourth reference mentions William Moton and his wife, Joan, which
Joan was the widow of Eudes la Zouche (died 1326). Eudes la Zouche
(died 1326) was in turn the eldest son and heir apparent of William la
Zouche (died 1352), Lord Zouche of Harringworth. If the honorable Mr.
Hikaru Kitabayashi is correct, then Joan Moton would be the former
sister-in-law of Archbishop William la Zouche.
And if he is not, then she would be the former feudal overlord and
representative fo the family that had been his personal patrons.
In the fifth reference, Anketil Mallory, Knt., a known relative of
Archbishop la Zouche, occurs with John de Helwell, Knt.
.. . . who is another known relative of the Archbishop. This is
supposed to show, what, that he didn't lie when he called these two
his nephews?
And still no mention, among all of these original primary sources, of
the answer to Patricia's question. So, you are faulting me for
quoting an article that discusses the precise question AND quotes an
original primary document that appears to have served as the basis for
this conclusion, and in rebuttal you quote nothing, providing
abstracts which do not bear on the question.
Here is a free one - citing a primary document is not an exercise in
superior scholarship - for that, the document should actually bear on
the question.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 8:34 pm, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:
This reconstruction is problematic, based on what I have handy, which
is not much. First, apparently William was born 18 or 21 Dec. 1276.
This would make him younger than Roger, yet he was (as you indicate)
the heir of Milicent. More importantly, Roger of Lubbesthorpe
explicitly names his father as a William (Patent Rolls, Ed I, 1301-7,
p. 27), and lest the accuracy of this be questioned, a later document
traces the Lubbesthorpe claim to Roger, son of William la Zouche,
recipient of Milicent's grant (Clay, Early Bedfordshire Charters
12:150f). [cites from Sheppard, TAG, 49:1-12]
This does not mean that the general idea need be abandoned, simply
that Milicent must have granted it to her nephew or other kinsman,
rather than her son.
I know that William petitioned regarding this, but do you have direct
evidence of the reversion, or is this a supposition?
Again, do you have direct evidence of William granting this to his son
Roger.
William was father of: 1) Elizabeth, who married John Burdett, having
Elizabeth who married Richard Ashby, from whom derived Thomas; 2)
Juliana, m. John St. Andrews, father of (a) Robert St. Andrews; 3)
Joan, m. Marmaduke Constable, father of Robert, father of the coheir
Marmaduke.
Now we come to the second problem with the reconstruction. Ashby, St
Andrews and Constable, claim their right as heirs to the grant made to
Roger la Zouche, son of William la Zouche by Milicent de Montaut.
Your reconstruction does have them as heirs of a Roger, son of
William, but not the one to whom Milicent made the grant. Admittedly
it is not uncommon to see heirs push back the date of their holding,
and particularly in this case where you have someone of the same name
and father's name receiving it both times, confusion would be
possible, but it still gives pause. Likewise, while not so extremely
rare as to be distinctive, the appearance of the name Juliana in the
family of William de Lubbesthorpe seams to hearken back to Juliana,
wife of the first Roger, the grantee of Milicent's, yet your
reconstruction would seem to show no such descent. Neither of these
is as definitive as the first problem, above, but it still gives
pause.
This just leaped out as I was going through the previous posts on
this: Archbishop William was given his first parish in 1315. Given
that Eudo was born 1297/8, this makes a younger brother a little on
the junior side (15 or younger) to be a parish priest.
Understood.
taf
First, indeed, the Archbishop William la Zouche had a brother Roger
who was William the first Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth's fourth son
and who did become Lord of Lubbesthorpe around 1326. He was not,
however, the first Roger la Zouche who was Lord of Lubbesthorpe. That
honor goes to a Roger la Zouche born around 1267 who was the son of
Eudo (also appearing variously in the records as Eon, Ivo, and John,
depending on the scribe and the part of England from which the records
originated) la Zouche and Millicent de Cantilupe (also written
Cantilow, etc., etc.). Millicent's first husband was John de Monte
Alto (also written as Mohaut, etc.) who died around 1265, leaving her
with a daughter Elizabeth who was later betrothed to Nicholas Poyntz,
son of Hugh de Poyntz. Millicent and Eudo's first child William, the
future Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth, would have been born in 1266.
At any rate, Millicent granted Lubbesthorpe to her second la Zouche
son Roger very shortly after his birth in 1267 with reversionary
rights to her own right heirs (i.e. Roger's older brother William).
This reconstruction is problematic, based on what I have handy, which
is not much. First, apparently William was born 18 or 21 Dec. 1276.
This would make him younger than Roger, yet he was (as you indicate)
the heir of Milicent. More importantly, Roger of Lubbesthorpe
explicitly names his father as a William (Patent Rolls, Ed I, 1301-7,
p. 27), and lest the accuracy of this be questioned, a later document
traces the Lubbesthorpe claim to Roger, son of William la Zouche,
recipient of Milicent's grant (Clay, Early Bedfordshire Charters
12:150f). [cites from Sheppard, TAG, 49:1-12]
This does not mean that the general idea need be abandoned, simply
that Milicent must have granted it to her nephew or other kinsman,
rather than her son.
This Roger passed away in 1302, leaving a son Roger and possibly one
or two others. His widow appears to have been a woman by the name of
Julia who later married Reginald (also written as Reynald) Mallory
(the spelling variations in this name are too various to make
illustration worthwhile) who was the lord of Walton on the Wold in
Leicestershire. Roger la Zouche, the nephew of the first Baron la
Zouche of Haryngworth, together with his cousin the first baron's
oldest son Eudo (Eon, Ivo, etc.) and his own brother Ralph had the
misfortune of becoming involved with the Folville brothers and
becoming outlawed as a result. The young men all fled England. The
baron's oldest son passed away shortly thereafter in Paris leaving an
infant (another William) who later became the second Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth.
In becoming an outlaw and leaving the country without permission, the
first Baron's nephews were judged to have forfeited their properties
(Lubbesthorpe) in England and these properties were returned to the
right heir of the granter, their grandmother Millicent's oldest son
the first Baron who was legally unaffected by the Folville mess.
I know that William petitioned regarding this, but do you have direct
evidence of the reversion, or is this a supposition?
The first Baron followed his mother's precedent by giving Lubbesthorpe
to the next available younger son, yet another Roger who seems to have
been particularly close to the future Archbishop.
Again, do you have direct evidence of William granting this to his son
Roger.
Going back to the Archbishop's brother, Roger of Lubbesthorpe, he had
a son William who inherited the Lubbesthorpe property. The
Archbishop's cousins, Roger and Ralph disappear completely from
Leicestershire records and, not being even peripherally important to
my research, I haven't tried to locate them elsewhere. Likewise, I
haven't tried to research the connection between William la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe and the eventual heirs to the property, i.e. Sir
Marmaduke Constable, Robert St. Andrew, and Thomas Assheby.
William was father of: 1) Elizabeth, who married John Burdett, having
Elizabeth who married Richard Ashby, from whom derived Thomas; 2)
Juliana, m. John St. Andrews, father of (a) Robert St. Andrews; 3)
Joan, m. Marmaduke Constable, father of Robert, father of the coheir
Marmaduke.
Now we come to the second problem with the reconstruction. Ashby, St
Andrews and Constable, claim their right as heirs to the grant made to
Roger la Zouche, son of William la Zouche by Milicent de Montaut.
Your reconstruction does have them as heirs of a Roger, son of
William, but not the one to whom Milicent made the grant. Admittedly
it is not uncommon to see heirs push back the date of their holding,
and particularly in this case where you have someone of the same name
and father's name receiving it both times, confusion would be
possible, but it still gives pause. Likewise, while not so extremely
rare as to be distinctive, the appearance of the name Juliana in the
family of William de Lubbesthorpe seams to hearken back to Juliana,
wife of the first Roger, the grantee of Milicent's, yet your
reconstruction would seem to show no such descent. Neither of these
is as definitive as the first problem, above, but it still gives
pause.
This just leaped out as I was going through the previous posts on
this: Archbishop William was given his first parish in 1315. Given
that Eudo was born 1297/8, this makes a younger brother a little on
the junior side (15 or younger) to be a parish priest.
I'm running out of time in England before my sabbatical finishes and I
have to go back to Japan, so I don't have the heart to go through all
my notes to source every detail I have written when other research is
begging to be done,
Understood.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 26, 8:34 pm, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:
The date I have for the murder is 14 Apr. 1326. So then they flee and
the land reverts to William. However, we then have:
"Charter of William la Zousch', lord of Haryngworth, enfeoffing Roger
la Zousch', knight, son of Roger la Zousch', in his manor of
Lubbesthorp for the above service.
Lubbesthorpe, Sunday after St. Peter's Chair, 1 Edw. III [29 Feb.
1326-7]."
HMC Rutland, IV:10
So, I have to ask again, do we know that it was to his son Roger that
William granted Lubbesthorpe?
I have to think it continued in the family of the first Roger.
taf
Roger la Zouche, the nephew of the first Baron la
Zouche of Haryngworth, together with his cousin the first baron's
oldest son Eudo (Eon, Ivo, etc.) and his own brother Ralph had the
misfortune of becoming involved with the Folville brothers and
becoming outlawed as a result. The young men all fled England. The
baron's oldest son passed away shortly thereafter in Paris leaving an
infant (another William) who later became the second Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth.
In becoming an outlaw and leaving the country without permission, the
first Baron's nephews were judged to have forfeited their properties
(Lubbesthorpe) in England and these properties were returned to the
right heir of the granter, their grandmother Millicent's oldest son
the first Baron who was legally unaffected by the Folville mess. By
this point, the first baron's second son William was already a member
of the clergy and was making a name for himself in the king's service.
The first Baron followed his mother's precedent by giving Lubbesthorpe
to the next available younger son, yet another Roger who seems to have
been particularly close to the future Archbishop.
The date I have for the murder is 14 Apr. 1326. So then they flee and
the land reverts to William. However, we then have:
"Charter of William la Zousch', lord of Haryngworth, enfeoffing Roger
la Zousch', knight, son of Roger la Zousch', in his manor of
Lubbesthorp for the above service.
Lubbesthorpe, Sunday after St. Peter's Chair, 1 Edw. III [29 Feb.
1326-7]."
HMC Rutland, IV:10
So, I have to ask again, do we know that it was to his son Roger that
William granted Lubbesthorpe?
I have to think it continued in the family of the first Roger.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 27, 5:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
I just found an important document that falls immediately before this
grant:
13[26/]27 Feb. 19. "Pardon to Roger la Zousche, of Lobesthorp, knight,
for the death of Roger Beler, and for breaking prison in Leicester."
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward I, 1301-7, p. 20.
Thus Roger managed to weather the storm and be restored to legitimacy,
then William reenfeoffed Lubbesthorpe back to him. I think this makes
it hard to make the later Lubbesthorpe line descend from Roger,
younger son of Lord William of Haryngworth.
There was an interesting comment in the old threads - Roger la Zouche
of Lubbesthorpe (I) married Juliana. Roger II had a daughter Juliana.
There is another (supposed) Juliana la Zouche, the wife of Robert de
Pembrugge of Tong.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XLqEWw ... h12rmKe2Pk
Robert's birthdate is (at least to me) unknown, but his older brother
(he was 2nd) Fulk was b. Nov 30 1310, while Robert's daughter, also
Juliana, is said (on what basis?) to have been 60 in 1409 (which I
have to think is "60 and more"). This places a rough chronology over
the family. However, it is difficult to fit Juliana into the Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe. Were she to fit, she must be daughter of Roger I, yet he
died in or before 1304. This makes any daughter somewhat older than
her supposed husband, Robert de P, but more importantly, much older
than one would expect for a daughter and heiress (at least of her
husband) as young as Juliana de Pembrugge is said to be. Given the
chronology, and bearing in mind that Juliana is sometimes given an
entirely different surname, I would recommend caution.
taf
On Jan 26, 8:34 pm, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger la Zouche, the nephew of the first Baron la
Zouche of Haryngworth, together with his cousin the first baron's
oldest son Eudo (Eon, Ivo, etc.) and his own brother Ralph had the
misfortune of becoming involved with the Folville brothers and
becoming outlawed as a result. The young men all fled England. The
baron's oldest son passed away shortly thereafter in Paris leaving an
infant (another William) who later became the second Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth.
In becoming an outlaw and leaving the country without permission, the
first Baron's nephews were judged to have forfeited their properties
(Lubbesthorpe) in England and these properties were returned to the
right heir of the granter, their grandmother Millicent's oldest son
the first Baron who was legally unaffected by the Folville mess. By
this point, the first baron's second son William was already a member
of the clergy and was making a name for himself in the king's service.
The first Baron followed his mother's precedent by giving Lubbesthorpe
to the next available younger son, yet another Roger who seems to have
been particularly close to the future Archbishop.
The date I have for the murder is 14 Apr. 1326. So then they flee and
the land reverts to William. However, we then have:
"Charter of William la Zousch', lord of Haryngworth, enfeoffing Roger
la Zousch', knight, son of Roger la Zousch', in his manor of
Lubbesthorp for the above service.
Lubbesthorpe, Sunday after St. Peter's Chair, 1 Edw. III [29 Feb.
1326-7]."
HMC Rutland, IV:10
So, I have to ask again, do we know that it was to his son Roger that
William granted Lubbesthorpe?
I have to think it continued in the family of the first Roger.
I just found an important document that falls immediately before this
grant:
13[26/]27 Feb. 19. "Pardon to Roger la Zousche, of Lobesthorp, knight,
for the death of Roger Beler, and for breaking prison in Leicester."
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward I, 1301-7, p. 20.
Thus Roger managed to weather the storm and be restored to legitimacy,
then William reenfeoffed Lubbesthorpe back to him. I think this makes
it hard to make the later Lubbesthorpe line descend from Roger,
younger son of Lord William of Haryngworth.
There was an interesting comment in the old threads - Roger la Zouche
of Lubbesthorpe (I) married Juliana. Roger II had a daughter Juliana.
There is another (supposed) Juliana la Zouche, the wife of Robert de
Pembrugge of Tong.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XLqEWw ... h12rmKe2Pk
Robert's birthdate is (at least to me) unknown, but his older brother
(he was 2nd) Fulk was b. Nov 30 1310, while Robert's daughter, also
Juliana, is said (on what basis?) to have been 60 in 1409 (which I
have to think is "60 and more"). This places a rough chronology over
the family. However, it is difficult to fit Juliana into the Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe. Were she to fit, she must be daughter of Roger I, yet he
died in or before 1304. This makes any daughter somewhat older than
her supposed husband, Robert de P, but more importantly, much older
than one would expect for a daughter and heiress (at least of her
husband) as young as Juliana de Pembrugge is said to be. Given the
chronology, and bearing in mind that Juliana is sometimes given an
entirely different surname, I would recommend caution.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 27, 1:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
Regarding this association, here is another reference to Helwell:
"A commission was issued to try the offenders, and the goods of Roger
la Zouch, lord of Lubesthorp, and Robert de Helewele, charged as
acccessories, and flying from justice, were thereupon ordered to be
seized into the King's hands" [this in relevance to the murder of
Roger Beler]
Archaeologia Cambrensis IV (5th ser): 177
http://books.google.com/books?id=Jtg1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA177
So (assuming this summary of an uncited document is accurate) here we
have the known nephew of Archbishop William acting in concerted
skulduggery with Roger la Zouche of Lubbeshorpe, with whom Archbishop
William had close associations.
taf
On Jan 26, 10:59 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
In the fifth reference, Anketil Mallory, Knt., a known relative of
Archbishop la Zouche, occurs with John de Helwell, Knt.
. . . who is another known relative of the Archbishop. This is
supposed to show, what, that he didn't lie when he called these two
his nephews?
Regarding this association, here is another reference to Helwell:
"A commission was issued to try the offenders, and the goods of Roger
la Zouch, lord of Lubesthorp, and Robert de Helewele, charged as
acccessories, and flying from justice, were thereupon ordered to be
seized into the King's hands" [this in relevance to the murder of
Roger Beler]
Archaeologia Cambrensis IV (5th ser): 177
http://books.google.com/books?id=Jtg1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA177
So (assuming this summary of an uncited document is accurate) here we
have the known nephew of Archbishop William acting in concerted
skulduggery with Roger la Zouche of Lubbeshorpe, with whom Archbishop
William had close associations.
taf
-
wjhonson
Re: Zouche-Ingham
On Jan 27, 10:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
Thank you Todd for this most excellent rebuttal.
I am just now processing all these posts, and note that I can provide
the full text for the record, so here it is. Apologies if someone
downstream has already done this.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0027.pdf
30 EDWARD I.
Page 27 Membrane 26--
April 5. at Balsham
Licence, in consideration of a fine made before John de Drokenesford,
king's clerk, supplying the place of the treasurer, by Roger la
Zousche, for the alienation in mortmain by him of a messuage, 30 acres
of land, 4 acres of meadow, and 26s. 8d. of rent in Lubesthorp, and
two cartloads of brushwood (busce) in his wood of Lubesthorpe, to a
chaplain to celebrate divine service in the chapel of St. Peter there
daily for the souls of the said Roger, William la Zousche, his father,
and Eudo la Zousche and Milicent his wife, and all the faithful
departed.
Will Johnson
On Jan 26, 8:34 pm, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:
At any rate, Millicent granted Lubbesthorpe to her second la Zouche
son Roger very shortly after his birth in 1267 with reversionary
rights to her own right heirs (i.e. Roger's older brother William).
This reconstruction is problematic, based on what I have handy, which
is not much. First, apparently William was born 18 or 21 Dec. 1276.
This would make him younger than Roger, yet he was (as you indicate)
the heir of Milicent. More importantly, Roger of Lubbesthorpe
explicitly names his father as a William (Patent Rolls, Ed I, 1301-7,
p. 27), and lest the accuracy of this be questioned, a later document
traces the Lubbesthorpe claim to Roger, son of William la Zouche,
recipient of Milicent's grant (Clay, Early Bedfordshire Charters
12:150f). [cites from Sheppard, TAG, 49:1-12]
taf
Thank you Todd for this most excellent rebuttal.
I am just now processing all these posts, and note that I can provide
the full text for the record, so here it is. Apologies if someone
downstream has already done this.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0027.pdf
30 EDWARD I.
Page 27 Membrane 26--
April 5. at Balsham
Licence, in consideration of a fine made before John de Drokenesford,
king's clerk, supplying the place of the treasurer, by Roger la
Zousche, for the alienation in mortmain by him of a messuage, 30 acres
of land, 4 acres of meadow, and 26s. 8d. of rent in Lubesthorp, and
two cartloads of brushwood (busce) in his wood of Lubesthorpe, to a
chaplain to celebrate divine service in the chapel of St. Peter there
daily for the souls of the said Roger, William la Zousche, his father,
and Eudo la Zousche and Milicent his wife, and all the faithful
departed.
Will Johnson
-
Patricia A. Junkin
Re: Zouche-Ingham
All,
Although, not conclusive proof of the identity of Elizabeth Zouche who
married Oliver Ingham, I just came across evidence of proximity to the
Oliver la Zouche line.
1307 "descending southwards from the soil of Oliver la Zouche under
the covert of the wood of Bokholte .." CPR EDW. I
In 19th c. Tytherley in West Hampshire included Buckholt Farm.
1316 (SC 8/205/10220)Petitioners: Oliver la Zouche.
Addressees: King and council.
Places mentioned: Tytherley, Hampshire.
Other people mentioned: Joan [la Zouche], wife of the petitioner;
escheator of Hampshire.
Nature of request: Request for the petitioner's rights in the manor of
Tytherley, lately taken into the king's hands on the death of his wife
Joan.
Endorsement: Petition of Oliver la Zouche
Oliver la Zouche's son or grandson, Oliver la Zouche who married an
Isabel succeeded to the inheritance in 1349, therefore it is possible
that this Oliver is the same and that Elizabeth la Zouche may have
been his sister. 1338 Dec. 26. appointment of Oliver la Zousche, John
son of Robert de Ingham, and William de Mattesdon, to arrest .....CPR
Edw. III
Tytherley encompassed the manors of Westththerley and West Dean.
At West Dean: Aubree de Botereaux died in 1269–70 and was succeeded by
Oliver Ingham, her son by her second husband. (fn. 70) The manor
descended from father to son in the Ingham family (fn. 71) until 1344,
when Oliver Ingham died leaving co-heirs, his daughter Joan wife of
Roger Lestrange, and his granddaughter Mary daughter of John
Curzon...Walter de Loverez died seised of a carucate of land in West
Tytherley held of Oliver de Ingham in 1272, leaving as his heir his
son John. (fn. 109) ...The estate in West Dean was evidently assigned
to Henry Popham, for he died seised of it in 1418–19, leaving Stephen
his son and heir. British History Online. VCH History of Hampshire.
Berrry's Hampshire Pedigrees indicate that a daughter of Oliver la
Zouche married John Popham. I do not think this was the Oliver son of
Alan and Elana la Zouche but a later son of this line.
Part of Oliver la Zouche's property was settled on, probably Matilda/
Maud la Zouche, but not until later in the 14th c.1394-- Release by
John Popham kt. and Matilda, his wife, to John Chynnore and Robert
Waryner, executors of Will of John South (Zouche)kt., of all actions.
Dated at Brommore [Hants.]. 23 January 1394.
Subsequent to the Popham exchange, I find la Zouche males dealing with
the properties of old Oliver. His line did not end with the Popham
marriage.
Will appreciate observations,
Pat
Although, not conclusive proof of the identity of Elizabeth Zouche who
married Oliver Ingham, I just came across evidence of proximity to the
Oliver la Zouche line.
1307 "descending southwards from the soil of Oliver la Zouche under
the covert of the wood of Bokholte .." CPR EDW. I
In 19th c. Tytherley in West Hampshire included Buckholt Farm.
1316 (SC 8/205/10220)Petitioners: Oliver la Zouche.
Addressees: King and council.
Places mentioned: Tytherley, Hampshire.
Other people mentioned: Joan [la Zouche], wife of the petitioner;
escheator of Hampshire.
Nature of request: Request for the petitioner's rights in the manor of
Tytherley, lately taken into the king's hands on the death of his wife
Joan.
Endorsement: Petition of Oliver la Zouche
Oliver la Zouche's son or grandson, Oliver la Zouche who married an
Isabel succeeded to the inheritance in 1349, therefore it is possible
that this Oliver is the same and that Elizabeth la Zouche may have
been his sister. 1338 Dec. 26. appointment of Oliver la Zousche, John
son of Robert de Ingham, and William de Mattesdon, to arrest .....CPR
Edw. III
Tytherley encompassed the manors of Westththerley and West Dean.
At West Dean: Aubree de Botereaux died in 1269–70 and was succeeded by
Oliver Ingham, her son by her second husband. (fn. 70) The manor
descended from father to son in the Ingham family (fn. 71) until 1344,
when Oliver Ingham died leaving co-heirs, his daughter Joan wife of
Roger Lestrange, and his granddaughter Mary daughter of John
Curzon...Walter de Loverez died seised of a carucate of land in West
Tytherley held of Oliver de Ingham in 1272, leaving as his heir his
son John. (fn. 109) ...The estate in West Dean was evidently assigned
to Henry Popham, for he died seised of it in 1418–19, leaving Stephen
his son and heir. British History Online. VCH History of Hampshire.
Berrry's Hampshire Pedigrees indicate that a daughter of Oliver la
Zouche married John Popham. I do not think this was the Oliver son of
Alan and Elana la Zouche but a later son of this line.
Part of Oliver la Zouche's property was settled on, probably Matilda/
Maud la Zouche, but not until later in the 14th c.1394-- Release by
John Popham kt. and Matilda, his wife, to John Chynnore and Robert
Waryner, executors of Will of John South (Zouche)kt., of all actions.
Dated at Brommore [Hants.]. 23 January 1394.
Subsequent to the Popham exchange, I find la Zouche males dealing with
the properties of old Oliver. His line did not end with the Popham
marriage.
Will appreciate observations,
Pat