On 08/05/16 07:04, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > How much can one expect to learn about the family that held a manor > from the surviving manorial rolls of its manor(s)? As Matt says in his reply, not much. In addition the manor may not necessarily remain in the same family. Where the rolls are published the editors may, however, have done the work for you and included such details in the introduction. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 2:17:01 PM UTC-4, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > A little more here: > > Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees, 1906, sub Meres of Great Carlton, Kirton, and Aubourn. > > Elizabeth apparently m. 2nd Robert Meeres, chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral. > > Doug smith http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/meres-thomas-1634-1715. as well

A little more here: Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees, 1906, sub Meres of Great Carlton, Kirton, and Aubourn. Elizabeth apparently m. 2nd Robert Meeres, chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral. Doug smith

From: Richard Carruthers via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 08 May 2016 07:04 > > How much can one expect to learn about the family that held a manor from the surviving manorial rolls of its manor(s)? > > This may seem a very elementary sort of question, but it is not clear to me how helpful these records may be in establishing the pedigrees of manor lords as opposed to the tenants of their manor(s). > > I expect, of course, that they vary from place to place and era to era, but can one expect to find certain constants that may prove helpful to one's research into the genealogies of their holders? > > I hope to learn more about this from the experts on the list. > > Thank you, > > Richard > ------------------------------- ________________________________________ I'm afraid manor court rolls won't be much use for this purpose, from any period or region. Being concerned solely with regulating the affairs of the tenants of the manor and extracting dues from them, they seldom contain any information at all about the lord of the manor, often not even his name. Some court rolls state the name of the lord in the heading at the start of each court, and if you get a continuous series of rolls you may be able to make deductions from the dates when the name changes - but many rolls do not mention the lord's name at all (it becomes more common from the sixteenth century onwards), and anyway continuous series of rolls are rare. In fact the survival of court rolls is not good generally - many more have been lost than have survived, and the survivals tend to be from manors owned by ecclesiastical institutions such as monasteries and dioceses, and by the great aristocratic families, rather than those owned by the gentry. There is one special type of manor court which would be particularly useful for your purpose, the court of recognition. This was held when a new lord came into possession of the manor and all the tenants assembled to acknowledge him as their new lord (and, inevitably, to pay him a fee for the privilege) - but these were not always held and are not often met. The same comments apply to the two other great categories of manorial records: account rolls, and the various types of survey - extents, rentals, custumals and the like. They will never give any information about the lord, and will only occasionally even provide his name. You would stand a slightly better chance of getting genealogical information from the rolls of adjoining or neighbouring manors where the lord owned smaller properties as a sub-tenant of the local manor. Here the death of the lord and the identity of his heir will often be recorded, especially if the property is copyhold rather than leasehold or freehold. But ownership by manorial lords of small properties in neighbouring manors was uncommon in the high medieval period, only becoming prevalent in the fifteenth century and later (when holding land by copyhold tenure became socially acceptable). And court rolls unfortunately record less and detail about freeholds and leaseholds from the fifteenth century onwards. Matt Tompkins

I've come across a Huw ap William (or Huw Williams or Hugh Williams) and can't seem to find anything apart from his wife and decedents and wonder if anyone else could help. Ancient & Modern Denbigh (John Williams) has: "Dr John Dolben, Archbishop of York; and it's worth observing that his mother was the daughter of Capt Williams of Cochwillian, and sister of Archbishop Williams." National library of wales (http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-DOLB-EN0-1500.html) has: "daughter of captain Hugh Williams of Wig , a soldier of fortune ( A.P.C. , 1621-3 , 368), and of Elizabeth , sister of archbishop John Williams" Annals and Antiquities of the Counties and County Families of Wales (Thomas Nicholas) p363 has: "Dorothy, who m Capt Hugh Williams of Weeg." The baronetage of England (William Betham) p279: "Edmund had also 2 daughters, Dorothy, the wife of Captain Hugh Williams of Weeg; secondly of sir ___ Powl, Knt" Observations on the Snowdon Mountains (William Williams) p182: "Dorothy, the wife of Captin Hugh Williams of weeg, killed in Flanders"

Wondering if someone can help point me in the right direction? The homepage for the project is http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/4026 I was looking at Marchudd 6 (D1) here http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5234/MARCHUDD%206%28D1%29_1270.png?sequence=9&isAllowed=y At the bottom I'm wanting to find the children of: 15 Huw = Alice f. John Owen of Abergeie I tried following to the Iarddur 3 but can't seem to find them anywhere.

Yes, Douglas, I have seen this patronymic change at about the same time in Europe, specifically in France, c 1260-1310, with many notable families who dropped their original patronymic, usually one that denoted that the holder was actually or historically the son of another, to the name of their seigneurial holding. Ironically when the use of multiple surnames became the norm, that is when the power of the nobility was lessened and the holders needed a prop, the original patronymic was re-inserted into the gammut of surnames, thus Mr de Bellenave de Saint Fleuret, became in the latter part of the 16th century, Mr Jehan de Bellenave de Saint Fleuret. The 20th century showed the inverse when the bearers of multiple surnames, usually denoting bourgeois status, dropped their original surname, although it features on the Etat Civil, and adopted their territorial one, to big themselves up - one classic name was that of Dominique de Villepin who is in fact Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin. Errare est humanum! regards, Peter In a message dated 08/05/2016 00:15:05 GMT Daylight Time, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: Dear Newsgroup ~ Over the course of the past several years, I've posted evidence which conclusively shows that the baronial Fitz Alan family dropped the surname, Fitz Alan, in favor of Arundel. The last detected use of the name Fitz Alan by any member of this family dates c.1312-3, when Edmund, 9th Earl of Arundel (died 1326), brought a writ as "Edmund Fitz Alan" [see Year Books of Edward III 12 (Rolls Ser. 31b) (1905): 518-521]. Thereafter, for two centuries, all further references in contemporary records to this family employ the surname Arundel to the complete exclusion of the surname Fitz Alan. So exactly when did the change in surnames start to take place? My research indicates that Richard Fitz Alan, 8th Earl of Arundel [died 1302] was created Earl of Arundel in 1289. In 1285, as "Richard le Fiz Aleyn," he was granted a weekly market to be held at his manor of Arundel, Sussex. In 1291-2, as "Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel," he was summoned by two different writs to answer to the king respecting the hundred of Pesseburn and other property in Shropshire. He was summoned to Parliament 24 June 1295 by writ directed Ricardo filio Alani Comiti Arundell'. It seems clear that Richard was known as Richard Fitz Alan. Or was he? Elsewhere I find that Earl Richard was called "Richard de Arundel, Earl of Chichester" in a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1291 [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/91, image 40f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no91/aCP40no91fronts/IMG_0040.htm)]. The same year as the above mentioned lawsuit, Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1281-1292 (1893): 421 records that Earl Richard received a grant addressed to him as "Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel": "1291. Feb. 12. Grant, during pleasure, to Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel, at the instance of queen Eleanor, the king's mother, that, whereas his grandfather John son of Alan obtained license from Henry III. to pay off his debts at the Exchequer at the rate of 100l. a year, he may pay them off at the rate of 50l. a year." END OF QUOTE. With these two records dated 1291, we see the beginning of the eventual name change from Fitz Alan to Arundel. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

How much can one expect to learn about the family that held a manor from the surviving manorial rolls of its manor(s)? This may seem a very elementary sort of question, but it is not clear to me how helpful these records may be in establishing the pedigrees of manor lords as opposed to the tenants of their manor(s). I expect, of course, that they vary from place to place and era to era, but can one expect to find certain constants that may prove helpful to one's research into the genealogies of their holders? I hope to learn more about this from the experts on the list. Thank you, Richard

On Sunday, 8 May 2016 04:26:10 UTC+1, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: > On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:14:50 PM UTC+12, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > > The applicable part of Rosie Bevan's article I cited earlier in this thread is: > > > > "In 1371 Sir Nicholas and Alice arranged to lease for 40 years, to their niece Maud Neville, sole heir of her parents, and her ill-fated first husband Sir William de Cantelupe 32 , "their purparty of Le Parkhall manor with appurtenances; saving all manner of rents, advowsons, profits of courts, their purparty of mills and the woods and pastures of their parks, and their purparty of Colebotirley, Asshouere, Chestirfeld, Aluy Wod, Grayhirstmore, Brampton Wode, and Molotgroue, of lands and tenements, rents and services in le Peek and of the reversion of Boythorp manor with appurtenances; rent, 66s. 8d. p.a., payable at the two terms of the year " 33 > > > > 32. Maud and her lover are said to have murdered Sir William Cantelupe in 1375 (Roskell, 1992, > > Vol.2, pp.449-450). > > 33. Manchester University: Crutchley Muniments CRU/18." > > > > She had earlier stated that Alice's sister Joan was married to Robert Neville of Scotton. > > > > Doug Smith > > I've been asked whether I can throw some light on the information about Maud de Neville in my article on the Longfords. I had reservations about the traditional pedigree and came to the conclusion that Maud de Neville must have been a daughter of Joan Deincourt. > > Joan Deincourt and Robert de Neville married in 1343 and Maud de Neville was married to William de Cantilupe by 1371. In the intervening 28 years it seemed chronologically unlikely that a son could have been born early enough to father a daughter married by 1371. Joan's mother, Maud Bugge, was under age in 1325 i.e. under the age of 14/15, so unlikely to have had Joan, (who I believe was the elder daughter since her sister Alice's marriage was not arranged until 1346), until around 1330-1331. This is consistent with Joan being around 12-13 upon her marriage to Robert de Neville and not likely to bear children for another few years. So any child would probably be born no earlier than 1345 and certainly no later than 1353 when Robert died. For a son Philip to have a married daughter in 1371, he would have had to father her at the age of 14, which seemed too much of a stretch. I think Philip must have been an elder brother of Robert de Neville in the light that Philip's wife Sarah died in 1344 according to Baker. If that is the case Philip certainly wasn't son of Joan Deincourt. > > Incidentally, the mother of the unfortunate Nicholas and William de Cantilupe was Joan, eldest daughter of Adam, Lord Welles (d. 1344/45). I didn't see this mentioned in Pederson's article. > > Cheers > Rosie Dear Rosie, Nice to hear from you. What sources are you using for Robert de Neville of Scotton and Joan Deincourt? I am unable to find any contemporary references to them in any of the published calendars or feet of fines, etc. The exact dates of death given in Nichols' pedigree of the family seem to be derived from inquisitions, but I have been unable to find any. Best regards, John

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:14:50 PM UTC+12, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > The applicable part of Rosie Bevan's article I cited earlier in this thread is: > > "In 1371 Sir Nicholas and Alice arranged to lease for 40 years, to their niece Maud Neville, sole heir of her parents, and her ill-fated first husband Sir William de Cantelupe 32 , "their purparty of Le Parkhall manor with appurtenances; saving all manner of rents, advowsons, profits of courts, their purparty of mills and the woods and pastures of their parks, and their purparty of Colebotirley, Asshouere, Chestirfeld, Aluy Wod, Grayhirstmore, Brampton Wode, and Molotgroue, of lands and tenements, rents and services in le Peek and of the reversion of Boythorp manor with appurtenances; rent, 66s. 8d. p.a., payable at the two terms of the year " 33 > > 32. Maud and her lover are said to have murdered Sir William Cantelupe in 1375 (Roskell, 1992, > Vol.2, pp.449-450). > 33. Manchester University: Crutchley Muniments CRU/18." > > She had earlier stated that Alice's sister Joan was married to Robert Neville of Scotton. > > Doug Smith I've been asked whether I can throw some light on the information about Maud de Neville in my article on the Longfords. I had reservations about the traditional pedigree and came to the conclusion that Maud de Neville must have been a daughter of Joan Deincourt. Joan Deincourt and Robert de Neville married in 1343 and Maud de Neville was married to William de Cantilupe by 1371. In the intervening 28 years it seemed chronologically unlikely that a son could have been born early enough to father a daughter married by 1371. Joan's mother, Maud Bugge, was under age in 1325 i.e. under the age of 14/15, so unlikely to have had Joan, (who I believe was the elder daughter since her sister Alice's marriage was not arranged until 1346), until around 1330-1331. This is consistent with Joan being around 12-13 upon her marriage to Robert de Neville and not likely to bear children for another few years. So any child would probably be born no earlier than 1345 and certainly no later than 1353 when Robert died. For a son Philip to have a married daughter in 1371, he would have had to father her at the age of 14, which seemed too much of a stretch. I think Philip must have been an elder brother of Robert de Neville in the light that Philip's wife Sarah died in 1344 according to Baker. If that is the case Philip certainly wasn't son of Joan Deincourt. Incidentally, the mother of the unfortunate Nicholas and William de Cantilupe was Joan, eldest daughter of Adam, Lord Welles (d. 1344/45). I didn't see this mentioned in Pederson's article. Cheers Rosie

Dear Newsgroup ~ Over the course of the past several years, I've posted evidence which conclusively shows that the baronial Fitz Alan family dropped the surname, Fitz Alan, in favor of Arundel. The last detected use of the name Fitz Alan by any member of this family dates c.1312-3, when Edmund, 9th Earl of Arundel (died 1326), brought a writ as "Edmund Fitz Alan" [see Year Books of Edward III 12 (Rolls Ser. 31b) (1905): 518-521]. Thereafter, for two centuries, all further references in contemporary records to this family employ the surname Arundel to the complete exclusion of the surname Fitz Alan. So exactly when did the change in surnames start to take place? My research indicates that Richard Fitz Alan, 8th Earl of Arundel [died 1302] was created Earl of Arundel in 1289. In 1285, as "Richard le Fiz Aleyn," he was granted a weekly market to be held at his manor of Arundel, Sussex. In 1291-2, as "Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel," he was summoned by two different writs to answer to the king respecting the hundred of Pesseburn and other property in Shropshire. He was summoned to Parliament 24 June 1295 by writ directed Ricardo filio Alani Comiti Arundell'. It seems clear that Richard was known as Richard Fitz Alan. Or was he? Elsewhere I find that Earl Richard was called "Richard de Arundel, Earl of Chichester" in a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1291 [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/91, image 40f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no91/aCP40no91fronts/IMG_0040.htm)]. The same year as the above mentioned lawsuit, Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1281-1292 (1893): 421 records that Earl Richard received a grant addressed to him as "Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel": "1291. Feb. 12. Grant, during pleasure, to Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel, at the instance of queen Eleanor, the king's mother, that, whereas his grandfather John son of Alan obtained license from Henry III. to pay off his debts at the Exchequer at the rate of 100l. a year, he may pay them off at the rate of 50l. a year." END OF QUOTE. With these two records dated 1291, we see the beginning of the eventual name change from Fitz Alan to Arundel. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Details of John Atkins of Brightling's family are given here: http://www.thekeep.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Brightling-Tenement-Analysis-Maps.pdf Doug Smith

Interesting account of these Thurlands here: Orange, James, History and Antiquities of Nottingham (London: Hamilton, Adams and Co., 1840.), 2: 731-2. at https://books.google.com/books?id=MOoHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA732&lpg=PA732&dq=orange+thurland&source=bl&ots=pT3HYWXziJ&sig=ZRCIi97qrZAe44NQ4IUPKlvDGpc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7uPq7_sfMAhWFmR4KHRagCBEQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=orange%20thurland&f=false. Doug Smith

Todd: Thanks very much. I'll check Ancestry. I found an estate settlement at the UK Nat Archives Discovery Catalogue. Steven On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 12:27 AM, taf via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 9:10:03 PM UTC-7, steven perkins via wrote: > > The Genealogics website has the following information on Thomas Howard of > > Corby Castle: > > > > http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00008313&tree=LEO > > > > Does anyone have Thomas Howard's will or his wive's wills, estate > > settlements, or Funeral Certificates? > > Given the wives predeceased him, a will for them is unlikely, but that of > Thomas was proved at PCC and is on Ancestry.com. THere seem to have been > three additional children by wife Barbara Musgrave not given in Genealogics. > > taf > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

The Genealogics website has the following information on Thomas Howard of Corby Castle: http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00008313&tree=LEO Does anyone have Thomas Howard's will or his wive's wills, estate settlements, or Funeral Certificates? ​Regards, Steven​ -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

In my research on my Howard ancestors, I have discovered that various different Howard families who settled in New England and Virginia in the 1600s have stories of their being descended from the Dukes of Norfolk. I have a theory that they may have descended from Henry Howard of Lambeth (c. 1510 to after 1542), eldest son of Lord Edmund Howard and Joyce Culpepper, and his wife Ann. >From "The House of Howard", by Gerald Brenan & Edward Phillips Statham, Vol.I, (1907) London, the Authors say thus concerning Henry and Ann Howard on page 283: "What eventually became of this pair, or whether they left any children, is at present unknown, nor can we penetrate the reasons why Henry Howard's marriage and career at Court should have been suppressed by Lilly, Mr. Howard of Corby, and other chroniclers in the confidence of the heads of the family. "All great houses have their secrets; and there is something strangely suspicious about the received accounts of Katharine Howard's brothers, all of whom are said to have died without issue. It is by no means improbable that the Howards, Earls of Wicklow, or some other line of Howards whose ancestry is now in doubt, may spring from Henry Howard of Lambeth and his wife Ann." Henry Howard is thought to have married Ann (maiden name unknown) about 1535 and so by the year 1542, when they disappeared from history, may have had by then  several young children. I believe they may have settled on lands owned by Henry's mother's family the Culpeppers of Preston Hall, near Aylesford in the County of Kent. In "A Genealogical Record embracing all the known descendants in this Country of Thomas and Susanna Howard..." by Jarvis Cutler Howard, A.M. (1881) Hartford, Conn., USA, on page 5 I found the following: Among the "Emigrants in the (ship) Hercules of Sandwich, John Wetherly, master, bound for the plantation called New England, in America, with certificates from the minister where they last dwelt of their conversion and conformity to the order and discipline of the Church, and that they had taken the oath of allegiance, etc., "Thomas Hayward (Howard) of Aylesford, tailor, "Susanna his wife, and five children. "Their certificate is signed by William Colpepper (Culpepper), Caleb Bancks, Edw Duke, Han. Crispe, and Franc. Froiden, clerk, and was dated March 14, 1634." The youngest brother of Henry Howard was Sir George Howard (c. 1519 to c. 1580) who obtained government appointments (and resulting income) from King Edward VI, Queen Mary I, and Queen Elizabeth I. I believe that he became the patron of his older brother Henry and his family. In January of 1553 George rented several houses in London from the Crown and I believe he may have installed Henry and Ann (if they were still alive) and  their children in at least one of those houses. Over the following years George would have obtained positions  in the trades or professions or other favourable situations for any of his nephews/nieces whether in London or Kent or elsewhere. There is no record of George leaving a Will which is strange to say as he was a wealthy man at his death, but if it be discovered, it should mention who his heirs were and I believe it would mention nephews and nieces. Dr. Len Howard of Hawaii had collected information on my ancestor Edward Howard who settled in Boston, MA about 1642. Some of it is wrong such as Edward being the son of Sir Francis Howard who was born in 1628 and was baptised in St. Margaret's Westminster. However I do believe the information that Edward being trained in Law in London before he moved to New England is probably correct and I believe he actually was the Edward Howard who was baptised in St. Margaret's Westminster in the year 1616 which would have made him age 26 years or so when he left England for America. Darrel Hockley Regina, SK, Canada

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 9:10:03 PM UTC-7, steven perkins via wrote: > The Genealogics website has the following information on Thomas Howard of > Corby Castle: > > http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00008313&tree=LEO > > Does anyone have Thomas Howard's will or his wive's wills, estate > settlements, or Funeral Certificates? Given the wives predeceased him, a will for them is unlikely, but that of Thomas was proved at PCC and is on Ancestry.com. THere seem to have been three additional children by wife Barbara Musgrave not given in Genealogics. taf

On Thursday, 5 May 2016 07:08:04 UTC+1, Jason Quick wrote: > More Neville of Scotton > > This is from The history and antiquities of the county of Leicester v.4 pt.1. Nichols, John, 1745-1826, Neville info on pgs, 156-161, pedigree 167 > > The Pedigree is very inaccurate in earlier generations. Baker did mention he took some of his info from this pedigree. > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000032377101;view=1up;seq=15 > > This is a link to the whole digital series of Nichols's books that were at one time next to impossible to find > > https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100002521 Dear Jason, My previous post thanking you for these links to the Neville of Scotton pedigree seems to have got lost on the aether. Thank you again. Best regards, John

On Saturday, 7 May 2016 04:27:15 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear John ~ > > Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated. > > I see you have identified Mary, wife of Sir Ralph Daubeney and Sir John Bussy, as previously being the wife of John de Multon, who died in Prussia, 18 August 1368. Can I ask your source for the marriage of Mary and John de Multon? > > Recently I located two Common Pleas lawsuits which involve Sir Ralph Daubeney and his wife, Mary. The first lawsuit establishes that Ralph and Mary were married before Trinity term 1376. > > l. In 1376 Ralph and his wife, Mary, sued Robert Blades in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 10 marks. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/463, image 62f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no463/aCP40no463fronts/IMG_0062.htm). > > 2. In 1377 Ralph and his wife, Mary, sued John del More, of Asgarby, Lincolnshire and Robert Carter in the Court of Common Pleas regarding their fee at Kirkby la Thorpe, Lincolnshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/466, image 63 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no466/466_0063.htm). > > I believe the fee at Kirkby la Thorpe, Lincolnshire was part of Mary's dower from her first marriage to John de Multon. If so, this information helps confirm Mary's marriage to John de Multon. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Douglas. The information on Mary's first marriage to John de Multon of Frampton comes from her inquisition post mortem. "Mary wife of John Bussy, knight. Writ, 8 July, 22 Richard II [8 July 1398]. Lincoln, Inquisition taken at Lincoln, Tuesday before St Mark, 22 Richard II [22 April 1399]. She held the under-mentioned lands for life by the gift of John de Multon, knight, deceased, formerly her husband, ... " Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 17, Richard II (1988), No. 1127. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol17/pp402-417 The information that she was married secondly to Sir Ralph Daubney comes from another inquisition: 28 June 1386, Inquisition post mortem of Giles Daubenay, knight. Lincoln, "South Ingelby. The manor, in Saxilby and Broxholm, with the advowson of the church of Broxholm and all other its appurtenances, held of the lord de Roos, as of his honor of his castle of Bewer, by service of 2 1/2 knight's fees and 21s. 4d. rent yearly. The manor renders to Mary wife of John Bossy, knight, formerly the wife of Ralph Daubeney, knight, Giles's father £33 6s. 8d. yearly, with a clause of entry in default of payment." Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 16, Richard II (1974), No. 367. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol16/pp132-135 Any ideas on who Mary was? Best regards, John

Dear John ~ Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated. I see you have identified Mary, wife of Sir Ralph Daubeney and Sir John Bussy, as previously being the wife of John de Multon, who died in Prussia, 18 August 1368. Can I ask your source for the marriage of Mary and John de Multon? Recently I located two Common Pleas lawsuits which involve Sir Ralph Daubeney and his wife, Mary. The first lawsuit establishes that Ralph and Mary were married before Trinity term 1376. l. In 1376 Ralph and his wife, Mary, sued Robert Blades in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 10 marks. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/463, image 62f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no463/aCP40no463fronts/IMG_0062.htm). 2. In 1377 Ralph and his wife, Mary, sued John del More, of Asgarby, Lincolnshire and Robert Carter in the Court of Common Pleas regarding their fee at Kirkby la Thorpe, Lincolnshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/466, image 63 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no466/466_0063.htm). I believe the fee at Kirkby la Thorpe, Lincolnshire was part of Mary's dower from her first marriage to John de Multon. If so, this information helps confirm Mary's marriage to John de Multon. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah