On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:42:43 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: > Another interesting tidbit found in one of the fines mentioned above is that there is reference to William Kelke, the elder and Margaret his wife, and in the same fine reference to William Kelke, the younger and his wife Isabel. The fine is dated 25 June 1406, making the elder William Kelke married to Margaret a possibility as the William Kelke who was the son of Roger Kelke married to _____ Leyburne. If William Kelke the elder is this same William Kelke son of Roger, would that possibly make Margaret the wife mentioned the daughter of John Barnetby? > > http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_144_152.shtml#17 > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/CP25%281%29/CP25%281%29no144/IMG_2695.htm > > CP 25/1/144/152, number 18. > Link: Image of document at AALT > County: Lincolnshire. > Place: Westminster. > Date: The day after St John the Baptist, 7 Henry [IV] [25 June 1406]. > Parties: William Kelk the elder and Margaret, his wife, querents, and John Kydale and John Grene of Benyngworth', deforciants. > Property: 4 messuages, 16 bovates and 60 acres of land and 60 acres of meadow in Gunwardby, Louthburgh' and Bynbroke. > Action: Plea of covenant. > Agreement: William and Margaret have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Kydale, as those which the same John and John Grene have of their gift. > For this: John and John have granted to William and Margaret the tenements and have rendered them to them in the court, to hold to William and Margaret, of the chief lords for the lives of William and Margaret. And after the decease of William and Margaret the tenements shall remain to William Kelk the younger and Isabel, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of Margaret. > > Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.) > Persons: William Kelk, Margaret Kelk, John Kiddall, John Green, Isabel Kelk > Places: Benniworth, Gonerby, Ludborough, Binbrook > > > > Any insight would be welcome and appreciated. > Jordan. > ... Yes, that is one of the fines I mentioned in my post. The abstract of the fine doesn't state that the younger William was the son of the elder William and Margaret, but it does seem consistent with that hypothesis. A William Kelke was an escheater in the mid 1380s. It seems plausible that he was the man married to Margaret by 1390. A problem is that such a William would be too old to be the son of a Roger born in 1349. Perhaps the statement in the inquisition should be interpreted as at least age 60. Or perhaps the Roger in the inquisition is a different man.

On 10/06/2017 9:46 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > > On 10/06/2017 6:25 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote: >> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 3:10:50 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote: >>> One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, >>> fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says? >>> >>> While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William >>> (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a >>> statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as >>> claimed by Mason. >> A reader kindly sent me a link to the transcription of B. M. Cotton >> MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v: >> http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1336043/f569.item >> >> It does appear to imply that an Avicia domina de Salewarp was the >> mother of William de Bello Campo. In the next entry, is Walter >> confirming the same gift? > > Yes, this is the "praeceptum" of her son that Avicia referred to in > her charter. > > Apologies for the cross-purpose of my earlier posts, Jan, I didn't > receive your much more helpful one until after these were sent. I beg your pardon, Jan - I didn't read it or your post carefully enough. The next entry is a charter of Walter, not of Avicia's son William (assuming that Richard Graves made an accurate transcription and didn't wrongly supply the name of one or other 'W'). So this appears to be a later confirmation by Avicia's grandson Walter, presumably the man in the 1221 and 1227 records we have been discussing. Peter Stewart

On 9/06/2017 11:34 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: >> As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows >> this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently >> thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of >> Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241. >> >> Peter Stewart > True. And "thought that" is a bit of an understatement. I'm sure he knew his own sisters! > > This makes it really impossible that Berta was married to William 1 de Beauchamp. It looks to me as if Emma Mason has muddled the wives in early generations of the Beauchamp family. The chronology of the Walter de Beauchamp in the 1221 and 1227 records is puzzling. He was evidently underage in 1212 when Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks in order to marry his daughter Joan to Walter. According to the 1227 fine, Berta de Braiose had been given her maritagium by her father William, who was deprived and exiled in 1208. So if Berta was married by 1208 to the same Walter de Beauchamp who later married Joan de Mortimer, he could only have been at most ca 16 years old at the time. Then Berta would have to have died by 1212, and her brother Reynold would have known for certain in 1221 if she had left any offspring living whose existence would justify Walter in holding on to her maritagium. But all this seems implausible to me. Assuming her brother Giles was aged 30 or more on becoming bishop of Hereford in 1200, he was born by 1170. Her sister Lauretta was married to Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester, in or after 1196 so was presumably born ca 1180. Their mother Maud de Saint-Valery evidently had her children from the mid- to late- 1160s onwards. But the Walter de Beauchamp who was lord of Elmley in 1221 was not born until ca 1192. This makes him far more probably a son of Berta de Braiose than her cougar-husband by 1208. This raises the question of whether Emma Mason has identified the right William de Beauchamp as the son of Amicia/Avicia of Salwarpe. I don't have time to pursue this at present. Does anyone know when Avicia's tenant Osbert fitz Walter de Broc was living? Peter Stewart

Another interesting tidbit found in one of the fines mentioned above is that there is reference to William Kelke, the elder and Margaret his wife, and in the same fine reference to William Kelke, the younger and his wife Isabel. The fine is dated 25 June 1406, making the elder William Kelke married to Margaret a possibility as the William Kelke who was the son of Roger Kelke married to _____ Leyburne. If William Kelke the elder is this same William Kelke son of Roger, would that possibly make Margaret the wife mentioned the daughter of John Barnetby? http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_144_152.shtml#17 http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/CP25%281%29/CP25%281%29no144/IMG_2695.htm CP 25/1/144/152, number 18. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Lincolnshire. Place: Westminster. Date: The day after St John the Baptist, 7 Henry [IV] [25 June 1406]. Parties: William Kelk the elder and Margaret, his wife, querents, and John Kydale and John Grene of Benyngworth', deforciants. Property: 4 messuages, 16 bovates and 60 acres of land and 60 acres of meadow in Gunwardby, Louthburgh' and Bynbroke. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: William and Margaret have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Kydale, as those which the same John and John Grene have of their gift. For this: John and John have granted to William and Margaret the tenements and have rendered them to them in the court, to hold to William and Margaret, of the chief lords for the lives of William and Margaret. And after the decease of William and Margaret the tenements shall remain to William Kelk the younger and Isabel, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of Margaret. Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.) Persons: William Kelk, Margaret Kelk, John Kiddall, John Green, Isabel Kelk Places: Benniworth, Gonerby, Ludborough, Binbrook Any insight would be welcome and appreciated. Jordan. On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:14:06 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: > Good day, > > I have a question about Roger Kelke who was father to Alice Kelke (wife of Robert Tirwhit) that I was hoping someone would be able to answer. > Is this Roger Kelke the same person as the Roger Kelke who married ______ Leyburne (daughter of Henry Leyburne) and had a son William Kelke? > > They seem as though they would be the same age. There are also a number of fines where the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's are found together from around the same period. > > http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/search.php?s=1&surname=kelke&given=&place=&after=&before=&county=&finecase=&finefile=&finenumber= > > CP 25/1/144/150, number 5: (1395) > Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit'; Nicholas Tournay; Thomas Ruston'; Joan > Places: Magna Stepyng'; Frisby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/144/151, number 33: (1401) > Persons: William Kelke; Richard Tirwhit; Robert Tirwhit; Walter de Flynton'; Thomas la Warre > Places: Barnetby; Ketilby; Netilton' [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/290/60, number 68: (1402-1403) > Persons: Thomas Haweley; William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; John Turnay; Roger de Bernardeston'; William Ingham; Margery > Places: Bernetby; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Dagenham; Berkyng'; Whetele; Dancastre; Baldirton' [Suffolk. Essex. Yorkshire] > > CP 25/1/144/153, number 7: (1409-1410) > Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; Nicholas Tournay; Stephen Burne; Alice > Places: Magna Stepyng; Frysby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/145/158, number 23: (1435) > Persons: Roger Kelke; Robert Feryby; Patrick Skypwyth'; Agnes > Places: Frothyngham; Bekeby; Wraweby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/280/159, number 3: (1442) > Persons: William Tirwhit; William Kelke; Thomas Tirwhit; William West; Thomas Kelke; Elizabeth > Places: Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laci [Yorkshire] > > Any insight would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks, > Jordan Vandenberg.

On 10/06/2017 6:25 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote: > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 3:10:50 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote: >> One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says? >> >> While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason. > A reader kindly sent me a link to the transcription of B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v: > http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1336043/f569.item > > It does appear to imply that an Avicia domina de Salewarp was the mother of William de Bello Campo. In the next entry, is Walter confirming the same gift? Yes, this is the "praeceptum" of her son that Avicia referred to in her charter. Apologies for the cross-purpose of my earlier posts, Jan, I didn't receive your much more helpful one until after these were sent. Peter Stewart

On 10/06/2017 5:10 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote: > One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says? > > While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason. I posted too soon - see http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol2/pp148-151, citing Cott. MS. Vespas, E. ix. f. 2d: "Alicia, the lady of Salwarpe, gave the nuns half a yardland in Boicot for the good estate of her own soul and of her children and for the souls of her husband William Beauchamp and her son William, the grant being confirmed by Walter Beauchamp". Peter Stewart

On 10/06/2017 5:10 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote: > One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says? > > While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason. I haven't seen this source, the cartulary of Westwood priory in Worcestershire, that as far as I know is unpublished. If Mason was relying on an implication, she thought it a clear one - although she didn't quote the relevant text, she stated (on page xxii): "Her antecedents are unknown, but from the cartulary of Westwood priory it is clear that Amice (or Avice), 'lady of Salwarpe' was the mother of William( II)'s heir and other children." Peter Stewart

On 2017-06-10 11:52:11 +0000, Patrick Nielsen Hayden said: > That pedigree also shows the Roger Kelke in question as the son of a > William Kelke whose father was Walter Kelke and whose mother was > "Margery, dau. of Sir William St. Quintin of Harpham, Co. York, Knt." > According to the History of Parliament and other sources, Robert > Tyrwhit and Alice Kelk's son William married Constance, daughter of > Anselm St. Quintin of Brandsburton, Yorkshire. Proving nothing, but > adding plausibility to the original suggestion that the Roger Kelke of > this pedigree was the Roger Kelk given elsewhere as the father of Alice > Kelk, wife of Robert Tyrwhit, the justice of the king's bench who died > in 1428. I should have noted that the History of Parliament actually gives William Tyrwhit's wife Constance as merely "poss." a daughter of Sir Anselm St. Quintin. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden [email protected] nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng

On 2017-06-10 06:42:52 +0000, Jan Wolfe said: > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:42:27 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: >> Here are some more fines that include both the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's. >> The William Kelke appearing in the majority of them, I am guessing is >> William Kelke, son of Roger Kelke and _____ Leyburne, and the Robert >> Tirwhit is likely the Robert Tirwhit married to Alice Kelke. Does >> anyone know if this is correct? >> > ... >> >> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:14:06 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: >>> Good day, >>> >>> I have a question about Roger Kelke who was father to Alice Kelke (wife >>> of Robert Tirwhit) that I was hoping someone would be able to answer. >>> Is this Roger Kelke the same person as the Roger Kelke who married >>> ______ Leyburne (daughter of Henry Leyburne) and had a son William >>> Kelke? >>> >>> They seem as though they would be the same age. There are also a number >>> of fines where the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's are found together from >>> around the same period. >>> >>> http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/search.php?s=1&surname=kelke&given=&place=&after=&before=&county=&finecase=&finefile=&finenumber= >>> > ... > > The Kelke pedigree at > https://books.google.com/books?id=6-8xAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA555 has a Robert > Tirwhit marrying a Kelke daughter (an Isabel) in a later generation. > > The pedigree shows Roger Kelke's granddaughter Isabella as the wife of > Roger Barnardiston. Roger Barnardiston's son Thomas married Joan > Vavasour, daughter of Henry Vavasour and Margaret Skipwith. I think > Joan was born between 1407 and 1413. That pedigree also shows the Roger Kelke in question as the son of a William Kelke whose father was Walter Kelke and whose mother was "Margery, dau. of Sir William St. Quintin of Harpham, Co. York, Knt." According to the History of Parliament and other sources, Robert Tyrwhit and Alice Kelk's son William married Constance, daughter of Anselm St. Quintin of Brandsburton, Yorkshire. Proving nothing, but adding plausibility to the original suggestion that the Roger Kelke of this pedigree was the Roger Kelk given elsewhere as the father of Alice Kelk, wife of Robert Tyrwhit, the justice of the king's bench who died in 1428. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden [email protected] nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng

Good day, Thanks Jan and Patrick for your insight and assistance on this. The pedigree found in Lincolnshire Pedigrees seems a bit of a mess. It looks to me that there may be an extra generation or two included within the area of focus (extra William Kelke at least). I found reference in the Discovery catalogue to a couple of Chancery proceedings that include reference to the Roger Kelke and William Kelke together. The first mentions an Em, late the wife of Roger Kelke, and William Kelke and Thomas Tirwhit as the said Roger's executors. Both the catalogue reference and the image are below. The second Chancery proceeding mentions a Roger Kelke esq. who was the grandson of Roger Kelke, the elder and William Kelk, gent., of Ludborough, and is in regards to the manor of Barnetby. I could not locate the image for the second record at the AALT site. The correct folder was there, but the number of the documents on the images is a mess and I could not find it. The link to the folder is below it's catalogue entry, if someone wants to see if they have better luck than me finding it. To me it appears the Roger Kelke, the elder referred to in the second proceeding and the Roger Kelke referred to as deceased are one and the same, and the same Roger Kelke who is subject of the thread. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7440230 http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no17/C1no17%20pt%202/IMG_0334.htm Reference: C 1/17/240 Description: Short title: Kelk v Kelk. Plaintiffs: Em, late the wife of Roger Kelk. Defendants: William Kelk and Thomas Tyrwhit, executors of the said Roger. Subject: A third part of deceased's goods.. SFP Date: 1407-1456 Held by: The National Archives, Kew Legal status: Public Record(s) Closure status: Open Document, Open Description http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7443211 http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no29/C1no29nos%20301-549/index.htm Reference: C 1/29/508 Description: Short title: Kelk v Kelk. Plaintiffs: Roger Kelk, esq., grandson of Roger Kelk, the elder. Defendants: William Kelk, gent., of Ludborough (Ludburgh), feoffee of petitioner's grandfather. Subject: Manor of Barnetby. Lincolnshire Date: 1460-1465 Held by: The National Archives, Kew Legal status: Public Record(s) Closure status: Open Document, Open Description Jordan. On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:14:06 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: > Good day, > > I have a question about Roger Kelke who was father to Alice Kelke (wife of Robert Tirwhit) that I was hoping someone would be able to answer. > Is this Roger Kelke the same person as the Roger Kelke who married ______ Leyburne (daughter of Henry Leyburne) and had a son William Kelke? > > They seem as though they would be the same age. There are also a number of fines where the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's are found together from around the same period. > > http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/search.php?s=1&surname=kelke&given=&place=&after=&before=&county=&finecase=&finefile=&finenumber= > > CP 25/1/144/150, number 5: (1395) > Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit'; Nicholas Tournay; Thomas Ruston'; Joan > Places: Magna Stepyng'; Frisby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/144/151, number 33: (1401) > Persons: William Kelke; Richard Tirwhit; Robert Tirwhit; Walter de Flynton'; Thomas la Warre > Places: Barnetby; Ketilby; Netilton' [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/290/60, number 68: (1402-1403) > Persons: Thomas Haweley; William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; John Turnay; Roger de Bernardeston'; William Ingham; Margery > Places: Bernetby; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Dagenham; Berkyng'; Whetele; Dancastre; Baldirton' [Suffolk. Essex. Yorkshire] > > CP 25/1/144/153, number 7: (1409-1410) > Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; Nicholas Tournay; Stephen Burne; Alice > Places: Magna Stepyng; Frysby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/145/158, number 23: (1435) > Persons: Roger Kelke; Robert Feryby; Patrick Skypwyth'; Agnes > Places: Frothyngham; Bekeby; Wraweby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/280/159, number 3: (1442) > Persons: William Tirwhit; William Kelke; Thomas Tirwhit; William West; Thomas Kelke; Elizabeth > Places: Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laci [Yorkshire] > > Any insight would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks, > Jordan Vandenberg.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason for the uncertain dating of early Chancery proceeding? Were they taken out of sequence by a 19th century archivist? This is what happened with the 14th century parliamentary petitions. They were taken out of their original order and arranged by county and alphabetically by the name of petitioner.

On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 03:08:03 UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > Hi all, > > The evidence is as follows: > > In 1212, Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks to have the custody of Walter de Beauchamp and married him to his daughter:- > 1212, Rogerus de Mortuo Mari finem fecit pro Waltero de Bello Campo et terris ejus pro iii. m. marcis, et maritaviit ei filiam suam. > Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 400. > > The annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of Joan wife of William de Beauchamp:- > 1225, [Died] Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo. > Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 418. > > The fine of 3,000 marks was still outstanding in 1229, after the death of Hugh de Mortimer:- > 8 July 1229, For Ralph de Mortimer. To the barons of the Exchequer. The king has pardoned to Ralph de Mortimer, brother and heir of Hugh de Mortimer, for his faithful service, up to £500 of the £511 2s. 4d. that is exacted from the same Ralph at the Exchequer for the same Hugh of the fine which Roger de Mortimer, father of Hugh and Ralph, made with King John, the king’s father, for having custody of Walter de Beauchamp. > Calendar of Fine Rolls 13 Henry III, No. 255. > > I can't imagine Roger de Mortimer paying (or owing) such a huge amount of money if Walter de Beauchamp did not marry his daughter. > > Regards, > > John A further piece of evidence that Walter de Beauchamp was married to Joan, daughter of Roger de Mortimer appears in the will of his son William de Beauchamp, dated January 1268/9 ... "for my soul and the souls of Isabella my wife and Isabella de Mortuo Mari and all the faithful dead" ... J. W. Willis Bund, Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard, Part 1: 1268-1273, Worcestershire Historical Society (1898), 7-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=xYFKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA8 Isabella de Mortuo Mari was no doubt William's maternal grandmother, Isabel de Ferrières, wife of Roger de Mortimer. She died before 29 April 1252 (CP, ix, 273). See also: http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00320043 Regards, John

On 9/06/2017 11:34 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: >> As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows >> this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently >> thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of >> Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241. >> >> Peter Stewart > True. And "thought that" is a bit of an understatement. I'm sure he knew his own sisters! > > This makes it really impossible that Berta was married to William 1 de Beauchamp. > > Peter, when you write > > "Giles had returned to England in 1213 and - of course - he and his > brother could do business other than with the king. I dare say that, > between them, they could even chew gum at the same time. > > From May 1216 Reynold was in possession of the Braiose lordships that > Giles had recovered in 1215. If their sister's maritagium (or even a > part of it) had been improperly withheld from the family at a time when > they needed every resource they could get hold of, why would they have > left Walter de Beauchamp in undisturbed possession when he was marrried > to Joan de Mortimer from 1212? " > > I wonder if you have a knowledge of the situation in England and Wales at that time? > It was not a place where Giles and Reynold could carry out business, chewing gum or not! > They were at war with the King, marching about with armies in Wales. Land disputes were only settled by force of arms. The niceties of legal documentation came later. The timeframe in question is 1213 to 1221. I doubt that Berta's maritagium was being retained by Walter against the interests of the Braiose brothers and their nephew John through those eight years before an effort was made either to force the issue or to reach an agreement. Troubled times are not the same as absolute country-wide mayhem. In troubled times, especially after the dramas afflicting the Braiose family, every resource may be called upon to ensure support, including a lapsed maritagium for instance that could provide for a new one to help co-opt another potential in-law. I just don't buy the conjectural explanation that the Braioses let it hang until 1221. > I value Matthew Tompkins' inputs which may explain some of the legal points in the fines. > > It looks to me now as if the 1227 fine could allow "Walter and his heirs by the daughter.." to mean the heirs through his mother, excluding heirs through his father's sons by a later wife. In my second post of this thread, on 31 May, I wrote: 'How certain is it that the original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to be the son rather than husband of Berta?" A delayed response is better than none, but I don't know why it should take 10 days to acknowledge an obvious possibility from the incomplete evidence available. Peter Stewart

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:42:27 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: > Here are some more fines that include both the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's. > The William Kelke appearing in the majority of them, I am guessing is William Kelke, son of Roger Kelke and _____ Leyburne, and the Robert Tirwhit is likely the Robert Tirwhit married to Alice Kelke. Does anyone know if this is correct? > ... > > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:14:06 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: > > Good day, > > > > I have a question about Roger Kelke who was father to Alice Kelke (wife of Robert Tirwhit) that I was hoping someone would be able to answer. > > Is this Roger Kelke the same person as the Roger Kelke who married ______ Leyburne (daughter of Henry Leyburne) and had a son William Kelke? > > > > They seem as though they would be the same age. There are also a number of fines where the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's are found together from around the same period. > > > > http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/search.php?s=1&surname=kelke&given=&place=&after=&before=&county=&finecase=&finefile=&finenumber= ... The Kelke pedigree at https://books.google.com/books?id=6-8xAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA555 has a Robert Tirwhit marrying a Kelke daughter (an Isabel) in a later generation. The pedigree shows Roger Kelke's granddaughter Isabella as the wife of Roger Barnardiston. Roger Barnardiston's son Thomas married Joan Vavasour, daughter of Henry Vavasour and Margaret Skipwith. I think Joan was born between 1407 and 1413. A Roger Kelke was born about 1349 according to his stated age as a witness in the following proof of age: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol19/pp234-250 William Kelke of Barnetby and his wife Margaret were married by 24 April 1390: http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_143_147.shtml#14 William and Margaret's son(?) William was married by 1406: http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_144_152.shtml#18

For a long time historians believed that the first wife of Kalman, king of Hungary (d 1116) was named "Busilla". She was a daughter of Roger I, most probably by his second wife, Eremburge of Mortain. This was from the error of a 14th-century Italian translator of an 11th-century chronicle, who misread the word "puella" and mistook this for the lady's name. The original account, by Geoffrey Malaterra, did not give her name. In 1963 Walter Holtzmann pointed out the problem and explained how it came about. In 1964 Holtzmann's explanation was accurately related for Hungarian readers by Elemér Mályusz. Neither of them suggested a name for the lady, contenting themselves with noting that she was not called "Buzilla". However, in 1968 Szabolcs de Vajay invented the name Felicia for her, with a false explanation that he repeated in 1972 - according to him (citing only Holtzmann, who had said nothing of the kind), her name was supposedly given in a Siciilian diploma written in Greek as "Eleutheria" (it wasn't). Vajay then asserted, wrongly, that the Latin form of Eleutheria was "Felicia" (eleutheria means freedom, not felicity that is usually 'eutuchia'), and that this was the lady's name. He sought to justify his bogus claim by analogy with Felicia of Roucy (the second wife of Sancho IV of Aragon), who he said was close to the Sicilian ruler's family (in fact she was a sister-in-law of one of the Hungarian queen's many first cousins). The alleged Greek diploma giving the lady's name as "Eleutheria" was actually a genealogy of the Hauteville family by the 17th-century Sicilian historian Rocco Pirri, and he gave the name as "Busilla or Elateria", not by any means the same as "Eleutheria". Pirri cited two 16th-century works, and as Holtzmann had noted the first of these gave no name while the second gave only "Busilla". So Vajay had managed to turn yet another repetition of the old mistake into a new one of his own imagination. Unfortunately his authority has been accepted without question by many historians, and the baseless "Felicia" is now taken into the historical canon as the anonymous queen's name. Peter Stewart

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:41:19 PM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: > > Please help with a good descent from Magna Carta Baron Robert de Vere to > > Robert Abell. > > The following line is found on Leo's site. However, it contains one generation that I am not convinced of, though others here accept it wholeheartedly, even vehemently: > > 1. Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford > 2. Hugh de Vere, Earl > 3. Robert de Vere, Earl > 4. Joan de Vere = William de Warenne > 5. John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey > ........ > 6. Edward de Warren of Poynton, said to be his illegitimate son > 7. John de Warren > 8. Nicholas de Warren > 9. Lawrence de Warren > 10. Margery de Warren m. John Honford > 11. John Honford > 12. Katherine Honford m. John Mainwaring of Over Peover > 13. Randall Mainwaring of Over Peover > 14. Margaret Mainwaring m. Arthur Mainwaring of Ightfield > 15. Mary Mainwaring m. Richard Cotton > 16. Frances Cotton m. George Abell > 17. Robert Abell > > Fortunately, there is a bypass (but already having typed out the other, I will leave it). > > 4. Joan de Vere = William de Warenne > 5. Alice de Warenne m. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel > 6. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl > 7. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl > 8. Elizabeth Fitz Alan m. Robert Goushill > 9. Joan Goushill m. Thomas Stanley > 10. Katherine Stanley m. John Savage > 11. Margaret Savage m. John Honford > 12. Katherine Honford m. John Mainwaring > > There may be other descents - I seem to recall that Abell had multiple lines of descent from Joan Goushill. > > taf Thank you - your posts were extremely helpful - I used this line of descent: 1. Robert de Vere, Knt. = Isabel de Bolebec 2. Hugh de Vere, Knt. = Hawise de Quincy 3. Robert de Vere, Knt. = Alice de Sanford 4. Joan de Vere = William de Warenne, Knt. 5. Alice de Warenne = Edmund Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel 6. Richard Fitz Alan, Knt., Earl of Arundel = Eleanor of Lancaster 7. Richard Fitz Alan, K.G., Earl of Arundel = Elizabeth de Bohun 8. Elizabeth Fitz Alan = Robert Goushill, Knt. 9. Joan Goushill = Thomas Stanley, K.G. 10. Katherine Stanley = John Savage, K.G. 11. Margaret Savage = John Honford, Esq. 12. Katherine Honford = John Mainwaring, Knt. of Over Peover 13. Randall Mainwaring of Over Peover = Elizabeth Brereton 14. Margaret Mainwaring = Arthur Mainwaring, Knt., of Ightfield 15. Mary Mainwaring = Richard Cotton, Esq. 16. Frances Cotton = George Abell, Gent. 17. Robert Abell, Colonial Immigrant = Joanna I appreciate all of your posts. Valerie

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:41:19 PM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: > > Please help with a good descent from Magna Carta Baron Robert de Vere to > > Robert Abell. > > The following line is found on Leo's site. However, it contains one generation that I am not convinced of, though others here accept it wholeheartedly, even vehemently: > > 1. Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford > 2. Hugh de Vere, Earl > 3. Robert de Vere, Earl > 4. Joan de Vere = William de Warenne > 5. John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey > ........ > 6. Edward de Warren of Poynton, said to be his illegitimate son > 7. John de Warren > 8. Nicholas de Warren > 9. Lawrence de Warren > 10. Margery de Warren m. John Honford > 11. John Honford > 12. Katherine Honford m. John Mainwaring of Over Peover > 13. Randall Mainwaring of Over Peover > 14. Margaret Mainwaring m. Arthur Mainwaring of Ightfield > 15. Mary Mainwaring m. Richard Cotton > 16. Frances Cotton m. George Abell > 17. Robert Abell > > Fortunately, there is a bypass (but already having typed out the other, I will leave it). > > 4. Joan de Vere = William de Warenne > 5. Alice de Warenne m. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel > 6. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl > 7. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl > 8. Elizabeth Fitz Alan m. Robert Goushill > 9. Joan Goushill m. Thomas Stanley > 10. Katherine Stanley m. John Savage > 11. Margaret Savage m. John Honford > 12. Katherine Honford m. John Mainwaring > > There may be other descents - I seem to recall that Abell had multiple lines of descent from Joan Goushill. > > taf Thank you - your post was extremely helpful. I used the second line - did 5. Alice de Warenne m. Edmund Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel?

Here are some more fines that include both the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's. The William Kelke appearing in the majority of them, I am guessing is William Kelke, son of Roger Kelke and _____ Leyburne, and the Robert Tirwhit is likely the Robert Tirwhit married to Alice Kelke. Does anyone know if this is correct? CP 25/1/290/59, number 34: (1395-1401) Persons: William Kelk; Robert Tyrwhyt'; John Ingelby; Ellen; Maud Wykes; Thomas de Welton'; William Wesci; Robert Crosse; John Pothowe; William Melton'; Thomas de Melton'; William Ricardson'; William Balcok; William Gardyner; Robert Haldenby; Walter Ake; William B Places: Bernetby; Melton'; Northferiby; Feriby; Hull' [Yorkshire] CP 25/1/279/150, number 1: (1403) Persons: William Kelk'; Hugh Ardern'; Richard Tirwhit; Robert Bret; Thomas de Sc'o Quintino; Agnes Places: Barnetby; Harpham; Harpham; Thirnome; Grauncemore; Burton' Annays; Kill'ome; Louthorp'; Kyngeston' sup[er] Hull' [Yorkshire] CP 25/1/144/150, number 23: (1396) Persons: William Kelk'; Thomas Tirwhit; Robert Tirwhit; Lawrence Bradley; Amy Places: Bernetby; Bytham; Amwyk' [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/144/150, number 47: (1398) Persons: William Kelk'; Thomas Tirwhit'; Robert Tirwhit'; Thomas la Warre Places: Bernetby; Scalby [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/279/150, number 23: (1404) Persons: William Kelk'; John Wanesford'; Robert Tirwhit; Thomas Coupeland'; Margaret Places: Bernetby; Gymlyng'; [B]ersewyk'; Leuen; Holdernesse [Yorkshire] CP 25/1/144/152, number 47: (1408) Persons: William Kelk; Nicholas Tournay; Roger Berneston'; William Tirwhit; Thomas Scardeburgh'; George Monboucher; Elizabeth Places: Thorp'; Bekeby [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/144/153, number 32: (1411) Persons: William Kelk'; Nicholas Tournay; Richard [Tir?]whit; Walter Flynton'; John Hornse; Michael de la Pole; earl of Suffolk; Katherine Places: Herpeswell' [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/144/154, number 4: (1413) Persons: William Kelk'; William Tirwhit; Richard Trippok; John Beseby; Richard Galbard'; John de Cotom'; Joan Places: Bernetby; Scamelsby; Dunston' [Lincolnshire] On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:14:06 PM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: > Good day, > > I have a question about Roger Kelke who was father to Alice Kelke (wife of Robert Tirwhit) that I was hoping someone would be able to answer. > Is this Roger Kelke the same person as the Roger Kelke who married ______ Leyburne (daughter of Henry Leyburne) and had a son William Kelke? > > They seem as though they would be the same age. There are also a number of fines where the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's are found together from around the same period. > > http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/search.php?s=1&surname=kelke&given=&place=&after=&before=&county=&finecase=&finefile=&finenumber= > > CP 25/1/144/150, number 5: (1395) > Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit'; Nicholas Tournay; Thomas Ruston'; Joan > Places: Magna Stepyng'; Frisby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/144/151, number 33: (1401) > Persons: William Kelke; Richard Tirwhit; Robert Tirwhit; Walter de Flynton'; Thomas la Warre > Places: Barnetby; Ketilby; Netilton' [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/290/60, number 68: (1402-1403) > Persons: Thomas Haweley; William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; John Turnay; Roger de Bernardeston'; William Ingham; Margery > Places: Bernetby; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Dagenham; Berkyng'; Whetele; Dancastre; Baldirton' [Suffolk. Essex. Yorkshire] > > CP 25/1/144/153, number 7: (1409-1410) > Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; Nicholas Tournay; Stephen Burne; Alice > Places: Magna Stepyng; Frysby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/145/158, number 23: (1435) > Persons: Roger Kelke; Robert Feryby; Patrick Skypwyth'; Agnes > Places: Frothyngham; Bekeby; Wraweby [Lincolnshire] > > CP 25/1/280/159, number 3: (1442) > Persons: William Tirwhit; William Kelke; Thomas Tirwhit; William West; Thomas Kelke; Elizabeth > Places: Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laci [Yorkshire] > > Any insight would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks, > Jordan Vandenberg.

John Cliderhowe's main extra-curricular activities were in mainperning, and procuring pardons, especially in cases of homicide! Colin

On 09/06/2017 19:11, Jan Wolfe wrote: > >> There are two men, John Lylleston and John Shelton, of Middlesex, listed at the bottom right of the document. What is the roll of these two men in the case? A John Lylleston is named to collect aid in Middlesex for the marriage of Blanche in 1401 in the fine rolls of Henry IV: >> http://scans.library.utoronto.ca/pdf/1/16/calendaroffiner12greauoft/calendaroffiner12greauoft.pdf#page=162 > A John Lylleston of Middlesex is mentioned in the close rolls in 1393: > Sept. 20. Westminster. To the sheriff of Cantebrigge. Writ of supersedeas, and order by mainprise of John Lylleston of Middlesex, John Wilteshire of Cambridgeshire, Robert Goderiche of London and Thomas Blakehay of Devon to set free William Bertilmewe of Cantebrigge, if taken at suit of the king and John Penteney for leaving John Penteney's service before the term agreed. > > A John Lylleston died in London before 1 July 1397, see https://www.british-history.ac.uk/plea-memoranda-rolls/vol3/pp248-259 > > ------------------------------- > 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 The two names at the bottom of the suit are often the names of the pledges on behalf of the plaintiff to sue the case. Although any male adult could mainpern, it was a very common and popular way for Chancery clerks and other King's Clerks to supplement their incomes, so often the first name is of a King's clerk, and given that the mainpernors were all of different counties, and not one was from the home county of the prisoner, it would appear, on the face of it, that they were all probably king's clerks (but not Chancery clerks). John Cliderhowe (Clitherhowe, Clitherow) was a Chancery clerk, active from around 1373 until 1418 when he disappears from the Chancery rolls. If the John Lylleston who died before 1 Jul 1397 is the same as one of the pledges in the Chancery suit, then that constrains the date quite a lot (21 years at least). Thanks for the interest :) Colin (Wibs)