Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 nov 2004 00:58:25

Dear Newsgroup ~

When I first started posting to the newsgroup, I had no idea what a
large number of pantywaists populated this place. While the self
appointed "experts" of the newsgroup continue to wax long about Latin
declensions (they have a dictionary and know how to use it), correct
methodology (their methodology is right, your's is, well, just plain
wrong), the proper use of sources (they know the sources, you don't
dummy), Stradling-Beaufort (whine! whine! whine!), and such nonsense,
I thought maybe we'd get back to something more basic today: medieval
genealogy. Medieval genealogy - what a novel idea!

Sometime ago, I posted a lengthy message regarding the identity of
Maud, wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles (see copy of message
below). Lady Welles is in the ancestry of well over 34 colonial
immigrants. As such, many newsgroup members have Lady Welles' blood
flowing through their veins.

In my initial post (see copy below), I pointed out that Complete
Peerage (sub Welles) identified Maud, wife of John de Welle(s), as
the probable daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley,
based solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was
granted 17 March 1344/5, to Lord Roos' widow, Margery [Reference:
C.P., 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d, citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol.
5, pp. 412,417]. In my post, I added several other pieces of evidence
which made a compelling case that Maud de Welles was probably a Roos.

In a subsequent post (see copy of message below), I showed that Maud
de Welles' grandson, Henry le Scrope, was styled "kinsman" by King
Henry V of England. Again, assuming that Maud de Welles was a Roos,
King Henry V of England and Henry le Scrope would be related in the
4th and 4th degrees of kinship (that is 3rd cousins), by virtue of
common descent from Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord
Badlesmere (died 1322).

At that point, a deadend seemed to be hit. Recently, however, I was
going through the fascintating multi-volume series, Catalogue of Seals
in the British Museum, by Walter de Gray Birch. In Volume 3 (1894),
pg. 651, Mr. Birch included the description of a surviving seal of a
certain Matildis de Well' [Maud de Welles], who he identified as being
the widow of Sir John de Well[es], of Lincolnshire. This would be
Maud, wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles. The seal was evidently
taken from a document taken 1373, during the period of Lady Roos'
widowhood. According to Mr. Birch, the seal has a shield of arms on
it. The dexter side (usually reversed for the husband's arms) is
uncertain. The sinister side (usually reserved for the woman's arms)
display the arms of Roos, namely three water-bougets, two and one. I
believe this seal is conclusive evidence that Maud de Welles was a
Roos.

Special acknowledgement go to Mr. Walter de Gray Birch for his
painstaking job of transcribing the details of thousands of medieval
seals in the British Mueseum. Now that was a medieval genealogist!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF MESSAGE #1:

From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: REVISED POST: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th
Lord Welles
Date: 23 Jun 2002 09:55:39 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

Another related problem involving the recent identification of Maud le
Scrope, wife of Baldwin de Freville, is the identification and
parentage of Maud le Scrope's maternal grandmother, Maud, wife of John
de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles.

Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441 sub Welles says that Maud, wife
of John de Welle(s), was "probably da. of William (de Ros), 2nd Lord
Ros (of Helmsley), by Margery, sister and coheiress of Giles (de
Badlesmere), 2nd Lord Badlesmere, lst da. of Bartholomew, lst Lord
Badlesmere." The evidence the editor cites for this parentage
consists solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was
granted 17 Mar. 1344/5, to his presumed mother-in-law, Margery, widow
of William de Ros [Reference: C.P., 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d,
citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. 5, pp. 412,417]. All of this seems like
rather skimpy evidence to me. As such, I've looked elsewhere to see
if a confirmation of Maud de Welles' parentage could be found. The
evidence I've located is presented below. It falls into three parts:

(lst) As with the Scrope-Welles marriage on which I posted on
yesterday, there is heraldic evidence which indicates that a
Welles-Roos marriage took place. In 1935/37, Commander S.N. Smith
published an interesting
article on the Delamare and Paulet Family Monuments found in the
church at Nunney, Somerset. At the tomb of Sir John Paulet and his
wife, Constance Poynings, there was formerly found a series of
heraldic shields which commemorated the various marital matches in the
ancestry of this couple. Among the shields placed at this tomb were
the arms of Poynings impaling Welles (for Constance's parents), the
arms of Welles impaling Mowbray (for Constance's maternal
grandparents), and the arms of Welles impaling Roos (evidently for
Constance's great-grandparents, John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, and
his wife, Maud de Roos) [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldic, 5th ser., 9 (1935-1937): 84-87].

(2nd) There exists an ancient visitation pedigree of the Roos family
taken c. 1480-1500 in the Visitation of the North. This pedigree was
published in 1930, in Surtees Society, vol. 144, pp. 161-164. This
pedigree is reliable in most details. This pedigree lists four
children for William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos, and his wife, Margery de
Badlesmere, including a daughter, Maud. Unfortunately, no marriage is
provided for Maud. Evidence exists, however, to prove the existence
of the other three children named in this visitation record. Also, I
find that Collins-Brydges' Peerage of England lists the same four
children, including Maud, again without a marriage for her.

(3rd) Complete Peerage 10 (1945): 123-130 sub Ormond includes an
interesting account of the life of James Butler, 4th Earl of Ormond
(died 1452),
which James' mother, Anne, was a daughter of John de Welle(s), 4th
Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos. This account in Complete
Peerage shows that in 1432 James Butler obtained a dispensation to
marry his second wife, Elizabeth Fitzgerald, daughter of Gerald
FitzGerald, lst Earl of Kildare, by his 2nd wife, Agnes Darcy.

As it turns out, James Butler and Elizabeth Fitzgerald were doubly
related. According to my notes of their dispensation, they were
related on their fathers' sides in the 3rd degree of kindred, and on
their mothers' sides in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred)
[Reference: Cal. Entries in the Papal Registers: Letters 8 (1909):
442-443]. Clearly, James and Elizabeth were closely related to one
another.

A good bet is that James and Elizabeth were related through the Darcy
family, as James Darcy' paternal grandmother was a Darcy and Elizabeth
Fitzgerald's mother was a Darcy. Assuming this was the 3rd and 3rd
degree kinship involves a common Darcy descent between the two
parties, then Elizabeth's mother, Agnes, would have to have been a
daughter of John Darcy, 2nd Lord Darcy, died 1356, by his wife,
Elizabeth Meinell. The kinship would be as follows:

John Darcy lst Lord Darcy

Elizabeth Darcy lst degree John 2nd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 2nd degree Agnes Darcy
* *
James Butler 3rd degree Elizabeth Fitzgerald

As for the other 3rd and 4th degrees kinship, this appears to have
come through James Butler's mother, Anne de Welles, and Elizabeth
Fitzgerald's grandmother, Elizabeth Meinell, both of whom share a
descent from the Roos family. The kinship would be as follows:

William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos

Maud de Roos 1st degree Alice de Roos
=John de Welle =Nicholas de Meinell
* *
Anne de Welles 2nd degree Elizabeth de Meinell
=James Butler =John Darcy, 2nd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 3rd degree Agnes Darcy
1=Urien Cokeshay
2= Gerald FitzGerald
*
4th degree Elizabeth FitzGerald

If the above pedigree is correct, then the identity of James Butler's
grandmother, Maud de Roos, is fully established. Maud de Roos'
placement as a daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley,
would make her grandson, James Butler, related to Elizabeth FitzGerald
in the 3rd and 4th degree of kindred.

CONCLUSION:

Although the evidence of Maud de Welles' parentage is slim, it is
certainly compelling. The grant of John Welles' wardship to Lady
Roos, the shield of arms, the visitation, and the dispensation all
provide good indication that John de Welles' wife, Maud, was a
daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. While I would
certainly like to see better evidence for this affliation, given the
evidence in hand, I feel reasonably confident that the editor of
Complete Peerage has correctly identified the parentage of Maud de
Welles. Comments are invited.

For interest sake, I've listed below the colonial immigrants who are
descended from John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de
Roos. The individual descents down to the immigrants will be found in
the forthcoming books, Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

- - - - - - - -
List of Colonial immigrants who descend from John de Welle(s), 4th
Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos:

l. Robert Abell.

2. Dannett Abney.

3. William Asfordby.

4. Richard & William Bernard.

5. Essex Beville.

6. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.

7. Joseph Bolles.

8. Thomas Booth.

9. Nathaniel Browne.

10. Charles Calvert.

11. Edward Carleton (two descents).

12. Grace Chetwode (two descents).

13. Jeremy Clarke (two descents).

14. Henry Corbin.

15. John Davenport.

16. Gerard Fowke.

17. William Goddard.

18. Katherine Hamby.

19. Anne Humphrey (two descents).

20. Mary Launce (two descents).

21. Henry, Jane, & Nicholas Lowe.

22. Thomas Lunsford.

23. Anne Mauleverer.

24. Philip & Thomas Nelson.

25. Thomas Owsley.

26. Herbert Pelham (two descents).

27. George Reade.

28. Diana & Grey Skipwith.

29. Maria Johanna Somerset.

30. John Stockman.

31. Olive Welby.

33. John West (two descents).

34. Thomas Wingfield.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF MESSAGE #2:

From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: King's Kinsfolk: King Henry V's kinsman, Henry le Scrope,
Lord Scrope of Masham
Date: 22 Oct 2003 14:12:29 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

King Henry V of England referred Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of
Masham, as his "kinsman" in 1414 [Reference: T. Rymer, Foedera, 9
(1727): 102 ("Consanguinei nostri carissimi")].

King Henry V of England and Henry le Scrope were related in the 4th
and 4th degrees of kinship (that is 3rd cousins), by virtue of common
descent from Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlesmere
(died 1322). For information proving the identity of Henry Scrope's
mother, Margery Welles, please see my earlier post dated June 21,
2002, which message I've copied below for convenience.

Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlemere (died 1322)
_____________/_______________
/ /
Elizabeth de Badlesmere Margery de Badlesmere
= William de Bohun, = William de Roos
Earl of Northampton /
/ /
Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Maud de Roos
Hereford and Essex = John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles
/ /
Mary de Bohun Margery Welles
= King Henry IV of England = Stephen le Scrope, 2nd Lord Scrope
/ of Masham
/ /
King Henry V of England Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope
of Masham

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 nov 2004 00:58:26

No.

The word is PANTYWAISTS.

Richardson has used it correctly.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6_Ppd.49619$K7.33092@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| Comments interspersed:
|
| Douglas Richardson wrote:

| > Dear Newsgroup ~
| >
| > When I first started posting to the newsgroup, I had no idea what a
| > large number of pantywaists
|
| Are you quite sure that's what you mean, and not [recte
| "pantywastes"]?

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 nov 2004 01:36:18

Comments interspersed:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

When I first started posting to the newsgroup, I had no idea what a
large number of pantywaists

Are you quite sure that's what you mean, and not [recte "pantywastes"]?

populated this place. While the self
appointed "experts" of the newsgroup continue to wax long about Latin
declensions (they have a dictionary and know how to use it),

Um, declensions are not elaborated in dictionaries - words are defined
in the nominative, something you STILL don't begin to understand....

correct
methodology (their methodology is right, your's is, well, just plain
wrong),

[Recte "yours"]. Whether or not a methodology is EFFECTIVE in collecting
information, analysing it and finding solutions to problems is the
point, not WHOSE the methodologies might be. Inadequate method is just a
waste of everybody's time.

The subjectiveness in your approach, exemplified again here and as
always contrived to bolster your own standing with newcomers to medieval
studies, is at the heart of your problems. You are trying to sustain a
reputation that was only ever a sandcastle, built on false foundations,
against the tide of logic. Methodology is just solid groundwork.

the proper use of sources (they know the sources, you don't
dummy),

It is in no way dumb to be unaware of the existence of sources or
ignorant of details contained in them. Masquerading as an expert in
spite of this, however, is a problem - specifically, your problem.

Stradling-Beaufort (whine! whine! whine!), and such nonsense,
I thought maybe we'd get back to something more basic today: medieval
genealogy. Medieval genealogy - what a novel idea!

Ah, so the truth is irrelevant and making progress towards it is only
worthwhile if the garish light of your ego can shine unimpeded by
criticism along the way. Stradling-Beaufort = Pish-Tosh if there's
nothing in it for you and your book sales. And none of this even
pertains to medieval genealogy unless you are seen to be cresting the
waves in the crumbling tower of your sandcastle - what a novel lack of
ideas!

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 nov 2004 02:45:38

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
No.

The word is PANTYWAISTS.

Richardson has used it correctly.

So this refers to the elastic waistbands holding up undergarments,
rather than to the unpleasant homophone? Are there indeed a lot of
flexible & useful types on SGM that Richardson is complaining about?

It's notable, and deeply peculiar, that underclothing creeps into
Douglas Richardson's thoughts whenever he can't come up with a more
relevant defensive twist to try on the newsgroup.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av John Brandon » 28 nov 2004 18:59:45

(lst) As with the Scrope-Welles marriage on which I posted on
yesterday, there is heraldic evidence which indicates that a
Welles-Roos marriage took place. In 1935/37, Commander S.N. Smith
published an interesting
article on the Delamare and Paulet Family Monuments found in the
church at Nunney, Somerset. At the tomb of Sir John Paulet and his
wife, Constance Poynings, there was formerly found a series of
heraldic shields which commemorated the various marital matches in the
ancestry of this couple. Among the shields placed at this tomb were
the arms of Poynings impaling Welles (for Constance's parents), the
arms of Welles impaling Mowbray (for Constance's maternal
grandparents), and the arms of Welles impaling Roos (evidently for
Constance's great-grandparents, John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, and
his wife, Maud de Roos) [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldic, 5th ser., 9 (1935-1937): 84-87].

Doug,

I think the Welles-Roos-Poynings heraldic evidence is also discussed
at length in a couple volumes of _Proceedings of the Somersetshire
Archaeological &
Natural History Society_.

John

Bronwen Edwards

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 29 nov 2004 07:46:11

Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<6%Qpd.49691$K7.38752@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
So this refers to the elastic waistbands holding up undergarments,
rather than to the unpleasant homophone? Are there indeed a lot of
flexible & useful types on SGM that Richardson is complaining about?

It's notable, and deeply peculiar, that underclothing creeps into
Douglas Richardson's thoughts whenever he can't come up with a more
relevant defensive twist to try on the newsgroup.

Peter Stewart

As a citizen of California I can tell you with great authority that,
according to our current "governor" (does not merit a "G"), the word
should be "girlie-men"....Bronwen

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 nov 2004 08:03:58

Bronwen Edwards wrote:
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<6%Qpd.49691$K7.38752@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

So this refers to the elastic waistbands holding up undergarments,
rather than to the unpleasant homophone? Are there indeed a lot of
flexible & useful types on SGM that Richardson is complaining about?

It's notable, and deeply peculiar, that underclothing creeps into
Douglas Richardson's thoughts whenever he can't come up with a more
relevant defensive twist to try on the newsgroup.

Peter Stewart


As a citizen of California I can tell you with great authority that,
according to our current "governor" (does not merit a "G"), the word
should be "girlie-men"....Bronwen

Yes, I understand that "pantywaist" can mean a namby-pamby young man,
but this doesn't make any sense as far as I can see in the way Douglas
Richardson used the term - he had in mind specifically the
Stradling-Beaufort matter, in which his critics included, amongst
others, two distinguished Antipodean ladies.

So how could a perjorative meaning "girlie-men" be applied to a group
including women? And what can Richardson know of the age and manners of
male critics whom he has never met?

His snivelling is still incomprehensible to me....

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 nov 2004 08:35:44

Dear John ~

Thank you for mentioning the Somerset Proceedings article. Have you
seen the material?

Douglas Richardson

starbuck95@hotmail.com (John Brandon) wrote in message news:<942d5b80.0411280959.7ef64645@posting.google.com>...
(lst) As with the Scrope-Welles marriage on which I posted on
yesterday, there is heraldic evidence which indicates that a
Welles-Roos marriage took place. In 1935/37, Commander S.N. Smith
published an interesting
article on the Delamare and Paulet Family Monuments found in the
church at Nunney, Somerset. At the tomb of Sir John Paulet and his
wife, Constance Poynings, there was formerly found a series of
heraldic shields which commemorated the various marital matches in the
ancestry of this couple. Among the shields placed at this tomb were
the arms of Poynings impaling Welles (for Constance's parents), the
arms of Welles impaling Mowbray (for Constance's maternal
grandparents), and the arms of Welles impaling Roos (evidently for
Constance's great-grandparents, John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, and
his wife, Maud de Roos) [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldic, 5th ser., 9 (1935-1937): 84-87].

Doug,

I think the Welles-Roos-Poynings heraldic evidence is also discussed
at length in a couple volumes of _Proceedings of the Somersetshire
Archaeological &
Natural History Society_.

John

John Brandon

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 nov 2004 13:19:53

Yes, a few years ago. That journal ran a series of articles on
funeral monuments in Somersetshire. I'm thinking the Paulet-Poynings
stuff was somewhere in vols. 80-90.

John

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 nov 2004 22:54:57

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post this past week, I stated:

"The seal was evidently taken from a document taken 1373, during the
period of Lady Roos' widowhood."

I meant to say:

"The seal was evidently taken from a document taken 1373, during the
period of Lady Welles' widowhood."

My identification of Lady Maud de Welles as a Roos stands as stated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411261558.4596d108@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Sometime ago, I posted a lengthy message regarding the identity of
Maud, wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles (see copy of message
below). Lady Welles is in the ancestry of well over 34 colonial
immigrants. As such, many newsgroup members have Lady Welles' blood
flowing through their veins.

In my initial post (see copy below), I pointed out that Complete
Peerage (sub Welles) identified Maud, wife of John de Welle(s), as
the probable daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley,
based solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was
granted 17 March 1344/5, to Lord Roos' widow, Margery [Reference:
C.P., 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d, citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol.
5, pp. 412,417]. In my post, I added several other pieces of evidence
which made a compelling case that Maud de Welles was probably a Roos.

In a subsequent post (see copy of message below), I showed that Maud
de Welles' grandson, Henry le Scrope, was styled "kinsman" by King
Henry V of England. Again, assuming that Maud de Welles was a Roos,
King Henry V of England and Henry le Scrope would be related in the
4th and 4th degrees of kinship (that is 3rd cousins), by virtue of
common descent from Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord
Badlesmere (died 1322).

At that point, a deadend seemed to be hit. Recently, however, I was
going through the fascintating multi-volume series, Catalogue of Seals
in the British Museum, by Walter de Gray Birch. In Volume 3 (1894),
pg. 651, Mr. Birch included the description of a surviving seal of a
certain Matildis de Well' [Maud de Welles], who he identified as being
the widow of Sir John de Well[es], of Lincolnshire. This would be
Maud, wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles. The seal was evidently
taken from a document taken 1373, during the period of Lady Roos'
widowhood. According to Mr. Birch, the seal has a shield of arms on
it. The dexter side (usually reversed for the husband's arms) is
uncertain. The sinister side (usually reserved for the woman's arms)
display the arms of Roos, namely three water-bougets, two and one. I
believe this seal is conclusive evidence that Maud de Welles was a
Roos.

Special acknowledgement go to Mr. Walter de Gray Birch for his
painstaking job of transcribing the details of thousands of medieval
seals in the British Mueseum. Now that was a medieval genealogist!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF MESSAGE #1:

From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: REVISED POST: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th
Lord Welles
Date: 23 Jun 2002 09:55:39 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

Another related problem involving the recent identification of Maud le
Scrope, wife of Baldwin de Freville, is the identification and
parentage of Maud le Scrope's maternal grandmother, Maud, wife of John
de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles.

Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441 sub Welles says that Maud, wife
of John de Welle(s), was "probably da. of William (de Ros), 2nd Lord
Ros (of Helmsley), by Margery, sister and coheiress of Giles (de
Badlesmere), 2nd Lord Badlesmere, lst da. of Bartholomew, lst Lord
Badlesmere." The evidence the editor cites for this parentage
consists solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was
granted 17 Mar. 1344/5, to his presumed mother-in-law, Margery, widow
of William de Ros [Reference: C.P., 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d,
citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. 5, pp. 412,417]. All of this seems like
rather skimpy evidence to me. As such, I've looked elsewhere to see
if a confirmation of Maud de Welles' parentage could be found. The
evidence I've located is presented below. It falls into three parts:

(lst) As with the Scrope-Welles marriage on which I posted on
yesterday, there is heraldic evidence which indicates that a
Welles-Roos marriage took place. In 1935/37, Commander S.N. Smith
published an interesting
article on the Delamare and Paulet Family Monuments found in the
church at Nunney, Somerset. At the tomb of Sir John Paulet and his
wife, Constance Poynings, there was formerly found a series of
heraldic shields which commemorated the various marital matches in the
ancestry of this couple. Among the shields placed at this tomb were
the arms of Poynings impaling Welles (for Constance's parents), the
arms of Welles impaling Mowbray (for Constance's maternal
grandparents), and the arms of Welles impaling Roos (evidently for
Constance's great-grandparents, John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, and
his wife, Maud de Roos) [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldic, 5th ser., 9 (1935-1937): 84-87].

(2nd) There exists an ancient visitation pedigree of the Roos family
taken c. 1480-1500 in the Visitation of the North. This pedigree was
published in 1930, in Surtees Society, vol. 144, pp. 161-164. This
pedigree is reliable in most details. This pedigree lists four
children for William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos, and his wife, Margery de
Badlesmere, including a daughter, Maud. Unfortunately, no marriage is
provided for Maud. Evidence exists, however, to prove the existence
of the other three children named in this visitation record. Also, I
find that Collins-Brydges' Peerage of England lists the same four
children, including Maud, again without a marriage for her.

(3rd) Complete Peerage 10 (1945): 123-130 sub Ormond includes an
interesting account of the life of James Butler, 4th Earl of Ormond
(died 1452),
which James' mother, Anne, was a daughter of John de Welle(s), 4th
Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos. This account in Complete
Peerage shows that in 1432 James Butler obtained a dispensation to
marry his second wife, Elizabeth Fitzgerald, daughter of Gerald
FitzGerald, lst Earl of Kildare, by his 2nd wife, Agnes Darcy.

As it turns out, James Butler and Elizabeth Fitzgerald were doubly
related. According to my notes of their dispensation, they were
related on their fathers' sides in the 3rd degree of kindred, and on
their mothers' sides in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred)
[Reference: Cal. Entries in the Papal Registers: Letters 8 (1909):
442-443]. Clearly, James and Elizabeth were closely related to one
another.

A good bet is that James and Elizabeth were related through the Darcy
family, as James Darcy' paternal grandmother was a Darcy and Elizabeth
Fitzgerald's mother was a Darcy. Assuming this was the 3rd and 3rd
degree kinship involves a common Darcy descent between the two
parties, then Elizabeth's mother, Agnes, would have to have been a
daughter of John Darcy, 2nd Lord Darcy, died 1356, by his wife,
Elizabeth Meinell. The kinship would be as follows:

John Darcy lst Lord Darcy

Elizabeth Darcy lst degree John 2nd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 2nd degree Agnes Darcy
* *
James Butler 3rd degree Elizabeth Fitzgerald

As for the other 3rd and 4th degrees kinship, this appears to have
come through James Butler's mother, Anne de Welles, and Elizabeth
Fitzgerald's grandmother, Elizabeth Meinell, both of whom share a
descent from the Roos family. The kinship would be as follows:

William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos

Maud de Roos 1st degree Alice de Roos
=John de Welle =Nicholas de Meinell
* *
Anne de Welles 2nd degree Elizabeth de Meinell
=James Butler =John Darcy, 2nd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 3rd degree Agnes Darcy
1=Urien Cokeshay
2= Gerald FitzGerald
*
4th degree Elizabeth FitzGerald

If the above pedigree is correct, then the identity of James Butler's
grandmother, Maud de Roos, is fully established. Maud de Roos'
placement as a daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley,
would make her grandson, James Butler, related to Elizabeth FitzGerald
in the 3rd and 4th degree of kindred.

CONCLUSION:

Although the evidence of Maud de Welles' parentage is slim, it is
certainly compelling. The grant of John Welles' wardship to Lady
Roos, the shield of arms, the visitation, and the dispensation all
provide good indication that John de Welles' wife, Maud, was a
daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. While I would
certainly like to see better evidence for this affliation, given the
evidence in hand, I feel reasonably confident that the editor of
Complete Peerage has correctly identified the parentage of Maud de
Welles. Comments are invited.

For interest sake, I've listed below the colonial immigrants who are
descended from John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de
Roos. The individual descents down to the immigrants will be found in
the forthcoming books, Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

- - - - - - - -
List of Colonial immigrants who descend from John de Welle(s), 4th
Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos:

l. Robert Abell.
2. Dannett Abney.
3. William Asfordby.
4. Richard & William Bernard.
5. Essex Beville.
6. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
7. Joseph Bolles.
8. Thomas Booth.
9. Nathaniel Browne.
10. Charles Calvert.
11. Edward Carleton (two descents).
12. Grace Chetwode (two descents).
13. Jeremy Clarke (two descents).
14. Henry Corbin.
15. John Davenport.
16. Gerard Fowke.
17. William Goddard.
18. Katherine Hamby.
19. Anne Humphrey (two descents).
20. Mary Launce (two descents).
21. Henry, Jane, & Nicholas Lowe.
22. Thomas Lunsford.
23. Anne Mauleverer.
24. Philip & Thomas Nelson.
25. Thomas Owsley.
26. Herbert Pelham (two descents).
27. George Reade.
28. Diana & Grey Skipwith.
29. Maria Johanna Somerset.
30. John Stockman.
31. Olive Welby.
33. John West (two descents).
34. Thomas Wingfield.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF MESSAGE #2:

From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: King's Kinsfolk: King Henry V's kinsman, Henry le Scrope,
Lord Scrope of Masham
Date: 22 Oct 2003 14:12:29 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

King Henry V of England referred Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of
Masham, as his "kinsman" in 1414 [Reference: T. Rymer, Foedera, 9
(1727): 102 ("Consanguinei nostri carissimi")].

King Henry V of England and Henry le Scrope were related in the 4th
and 4th degrees of kinship (that is 3rd cousins), by virtue of common
descent from Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlesmere
(died 1322). For information proving the identity of Henry Scrope's
mother, Margery Welles, please see my earlier post dated June 21,
2002, which message I've copied below for convenience.

Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlemere (died 1322)
_____________/_______________
/ /
Elizabeth de Badlesmere Margery de Badlesmere
= William de Bohun, = William de Roos
Earl of Northampton /
/ /
Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Maud de Roos
Hereford and Essex = John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles
/ /
Mary de Bohun Margery Welles
= King Henry IV of England = Stephen le Scrope, 2nd Lord Scrope
/ of Masham
/ /
King Henry V of England Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope
of Masham

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 des 2004 18:55:33

Douglas Richardson wrote:
At that point, a deadend seemed to be hit. Recently, however, I was
going through the fascintating multi-volume series, Catalogue of
Seals
in the British Museum, by Walter de Gray Birch. In Volume 3 (1894),
pg. 651, Mr. Birch included the description of a surviving seal of a
certain Matildis de Well' [Maud de Welles], who he identified as
being
the widow of Sir John de Well[es], of Lincolnshire. This would be
Maud, wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles. The seal was
evidently
taken from a document taken 1373, during the period of Lady Roos'
widowhood. According to Mr. Birch, the seal has a shield of arms on
it. The dexter side (usually reversed for the husband's arms) is
uncertain. The sinister side (usually reserved for the woman's arms)
display the arms of Roos, namely three water-bougets, two and one. I
believe this seal is conclusive evidence that Maud de Welles was a
Roos.

I checked the modern transcript of this charter in the MS Reading Room
at the British Library, mainly to check whether Maud is described there
as the widow of John, or whether this was Birch's interpretation. It
_is_ in the text of the charter, which I've copied below.

By the charter, Maud demises to her son Sir John de Welle, knight, the
manors of Skendleby and Cumberworth, Lincolnshire, for the term of 60
years at a yearly rent of £60. The charter is dated 20 May 1373 at
Parkhall, Essex.

This is a fortnight after John was given seisin of his lands, according
to CP [xii/2, p. 442]. Cumberworth is earlier noted as a Welle manor
[p. 440, note d], and apparently "Parkhall" is the manor of Gaynes Park
in Theydon Gernon, which was also held by the family [VCH Essex, vol.
4, p. 266; Wright's History of Essex, vol. 2, p. 377, calls this manor
"Park Hall"].

Chris Phillips
_____________________________________________________________

Indentura qua dom. Matildis de Welle, quae fuit uxor dom. Johannis de
Welle, militis, dimittit dom. Johanni de Welle, mil., fil. suo, maneria
de Skendilby [Skendleby], et Cumberworth, [co. Linc.], a terminum 60
annorum : reddendo annuatim £60. Test. Dom. Ric. de Ravenser, Archd.
Linc., dom. Rad. de Crombwelle, et aliis. Dat. ap. Parkhall in Essex,
20 Maii, 47 Edw. III. [1373] Cum fragm. Sig.
[Harl. Charter 53 H 36. Modern transcript]

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 16 des 2004 19:15:22

Dear Chris ~

Thanks for posting this information from the original charter. Much
appreciated. You're the best!

Seasons greetings, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 des 2004 23:53:16

My records show the mother of Elizabeth Darcy (d'Arcy) as Joan de Burgh
who married Sir John d'Arcy in Maynooth 3 July 1329. Sir John's mother
is shown as Isabel d'Aton. The 1st Earl of Kildare is shown as John
FitzGerald (not Gerald), who was also the 8th Baron of Offaly, and with
Joan's mother being Blanche de la Roche.
A relationship to the royal family, for James Butler, 3rd Earl of
Ormond, would be most directly through his grandmother, Eleanor de
Bohun, granddaughter of Edward I.
My information shows that Ann de Welles' mother was Maud de Roos/Ros. I
must be missing something in the discussion here. My information is
from the late Lord Dunboyne via personal correspondence. Or maybe it
was just the "stupid pill" I took this morning. Is my information
screwed up? Did Lord Dunboyne have it wrong? I don't know his sources
although they are probably posted on the Butler Society site somewhere.
{:< Bronwen

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»