Proceedings (Volume 44)
pg. 16Huntelegh, Matilda, wife of John de 22 Edw. Ill, 22
„ Huntelege, Thomas de 27 Edw. Ill, 39
pp. 22-23
A PAPER BY THE RIGHT REV. W. R. BROWXLOW, D.D.,
Bishop of Clifton.
...YEOVIL, according- to the Domesday Siirvev, contained altogether eight hides, two of whic;h were held by Robert, Earl of Moretain, and the remaining six by William de Ou, who had sublet them to Hugh Maltravers — a name latinized in the Inq. Gheldi as " Hugo Malus-transitus." He was also William de Ou's tenant of Hinton Blewet, in Somerset, and of the manors of jNIappowder, Tjidlinch, Stourton-Candel, Candel-wake, Litchet Maltravers and Woolcombe Maltravers in Dorset.
William de Ou and William de Moretain (son and successor of Earl Robert) were attainted for taking part in the rebellion against William Rufus in 1088, and their possessions at Yeovil and elsewhere were forfeited to the Crown (Freeman's Norman Conquest I. 33), but Hugh Maltravers was probably not disturbed in his holding, as one of the same name, by charter, without date, gave to the Prior}'- of Montacute his " land near Preston (i.e., Preston Plucknet) by Southbroke," which gift was confirmed by John Maltravers of Gyvele (Yeovil) in 1262 (Montacute Cartulary, Som. Rec. Soc). At a very early period, a portion of Gyvele had been conferred on the Church and endowed with special rights and immunities as a " Free Ville or Liberty," but, in the early part of the reign of Henry III, it was known only by tradition that the donor
was the " daughter of a certain king " (see more on this head, Proceedings, vol. xxxii, p. 11).
The royal endowment (to which perhaps Collinson alludes in his History, vol. iii, p. 205) did not extend to the advowson of Gyvele, which remained appendant to the Maltravers manor, out of which, we may fairly presume, the endowment was taken, and the Maltravers family remained in possession of it for many generations, as well as of that part of William de Ou's six hides, which afterwards became known as the manor of Henford Maltravers, answering to the modern tything of that name, in which, indeed, the church is situated.
As to the remainder of the six hides we are left pretty much to conjecture, but, in the reign of King John, it had certainly become a separate manor, known as the manor of
Kingston juxta Yeovil, and answering to the modern tythings of Wigdon and Huntley.
Of the two hides held by the Earl of Moretain, one of them may have been the manor of Newton which was held by the family of DeGouiz, descendants of Roger Arundel, the Domesday tenant of many manors in Somerset, and the other, answering to the manor of Lyde, belonged to the Fitzpayns.
The earliest owner of Kingston that has been traced is Hugh Fitz Hugh, alias Hugh de Say, second son of Hugh Fitz Osbern, Lord of Richard's Castle, in Herefordshire, and Eustachia his wife, who was daughter and heiress of Theodoric de Say, Lord of Stoke Say, in Shropshire. In honour of their mother, this Hugh and his elder brother, Osbert Fitz Hugh, assumed her paternal name of de Say, which was borne also by the descendants of Hugh, who only left issue. Richard's Castle lies in a village to which it gives its name, about four miles S.W. of Ludlow, close to the old church of St. Bartholomew. The site, from its great eminence and commanding position, is evidently adapted for a fortress of unusual strength, and here, Richard Fitz Scrob and his son Osbern, in the time of Edward the Confessor, raised, aeeording to Freeman the historian, - the first castle on Enghsh ground " (Norman Conquest, vol. i). According to him, this was the castle the siirrender of which Avas demanded by the rebellious
Earl Godwin in the year 1051. Since the death of Mr. Freeman, his version of the transaction has been attacked bj an able, but severe critic, Avho contends that the castle was not Richard's Castle but the Castle of Euyas Harold in the same county, and that Freeman confused Osbern, son of Richard Fitz Scrob, Avith another Osbern, Avhose surname was Pentecost (Round's Feudal Eufjland, p. 320). Leaving Aviser men to decide such a momentous question, our course Avill now folloAv that of de Say, in Avhom the blood of Fitz Osbei-n Avas absorbed.
The family of de Say was of Norman origin. In the reign of Henry I, Jordan de Say and Lucy, his wife, in conjunction with Richard de Humet (the King's Constable of Normandy) and Agnes, his wife (a daughter of Jordan de Say), founded the Abbey of Aunay in the Diocese of Bayeux, and their son, Gilbert de Say, contributed to its endowment (Neustria. Pia, 759-60 ; Gallia Christiana XI Instrumenta; D^Anisy Extraits de Cartes Normandes /, 46, p. 89 ; Stapleton's Normandy I, IxxxA", clxxxii.)
In England, their first seat appears to have been at Clun, in Shropshire, and Stokesay was, in 1115, acquired from Walter de Lucy by Picot de Say, the grand-father of Eustachia, wife of Hugh Fitz Osbern. The family also held lands in Oxfordshire, AAhere .Jordan de Say was excused a debt due to the CroAvn in 1131 (Pipe Roll, 31, Hen. I) Oxon, and it may be assumed that this related to his manor of Solethoi-n (now Souldern), the church of which he bestoAved on the neighbouring Abbey of Egnesham (Kennett's Parochial Antiquities I, 193, 252, 500 ; Cott. MSS., Claud A 8, p. 135).
On the death s.p. of his elder brother, Osbert, Hugh de Say (I) succeeded to Richard's Castle (which, on account of the number of kniglits' fees held of it, was styled the
Honour of Richard's Castle) and married Lucy, younger daughter of Walter de Clifford, and sister of Fair Rosamond, the celebrated mistress of Henry II (Dugd. Mon. II. 49, 855), whose unfortunate life and miserable end are well known, and — what is perhaps not so well known — whose remains were not allowed to rest in the sanctuary of her tomb, but were, in 1191 (3 Ric. I) by order of Hugh, the stern Bishop of Lincohi, exluuned and cast out of the conventual Chiu'ch of Godsall. Hugh de Say must have died before 1177, as in the Pijie Roll for that year (23 Hen. II, Som. and Dors.) she paid seventy-live marks for license to marry again and to enjoy her dower in peace, and in right of it she presented Thomas Maltravers to the Chapel of All Saints, Kingston. There was issue of the marriage according to the historians of Worcestershire (Nash I, 241), and Shropshire (Eyton, 303), two sons only — Richard, who died s.p. and Hugh (II), who succeeded to Richard's Castle. He married Mabel, daughter of Robert Marmion, and left at his death, before 1204, two sons, who died s.p., and two daughters, Lucy and Margaret, but Lucy dying, her sister became sole heiress to their father's great possessions. On the 20th October, 1204, the Sheriff of Somerset was ordered to give possession of the manor of " Giffle," " quod fuit Luce de Say aine fil de Hug de Say,^'' to William Cantilupe. This was probably a grant of the wardship of the infant Margaret, but on the 8th of November following, the same sheriff was directed to deliver the manor to Gilbert de Say, and two years after to restore to Nicholas de Say his land in " Giffle " which Gilbert de Say held ( Close Rolls, 6 John).
Gilbert was a third son of Hugh (I) as is shewn by the record of a trial between him and John Maltravers, in 1213-14, relating to the Chapel of Kingston, when he proved, to the satisfaction of the jury, that Lucy de Say, " his mother," had presented the last clerk (Thomas Maltravers) in right of her doAver (Rot. Car., 15 John, Nos. 58-9). In adclition to this, Gilbert was assessed in the aid (13 John) for one kni Gyvele fLib. Rub;. He had a sister, Lucy, married to Thomas de Arderne, and in 1216 (17 John), the Slieiifl" of Somerset was ordered to enquire, by jury, whctlicr llu de Say, father of Margaret, then the wife of Robert de Mortimer, had given to Thomas de Ardei-ne the manor ol" Soulthorn in exchange for the manor of " Giitie," and wlietlier Soidthorn was the inheritance of Hugh, and if so, the sheriff was to give possession of Soulthorn to Robert and ^largaret ( Close Rolls). It is probable that the sheriff's return to the writ was in the negative, as we find that the Arderne family continued in the possession of Soulthorn, and, in 1255, Ralph de Arderne held that manor of the Barony of Richard's Castle (Ey ton's Salop II, 33, quoting Rot. Hand. II, 44).
It is very evident that there were many complications and conflicting claims relating to the paternal estates inherited by Margaret de Say — which extended to those in Somersetshire, as w^ell as Shropshire and Worcestershire — and Robert de Mortimer, her husband, Avas (according to the historian of Shropshire (Eyton iv. 303) forced to take proceedings against Gilbert de Say and others in order to recover them. He must have succeeded, ultimately, as he certified that he held no less than " twenty-three fees of the Honour of Richard's Castle by his marriage with the daughter of Hugh de Say, heir of Osbert Fitzhugh" {Lib. Nig. /, p. 159). Robert de Mortimer, who Avas a yoimger son of Roger de Mortimer, of Wigmoin?, was the second husband of Margaret de Say, and they were married before 1216 (17 John), as in that year he obtained a
grant from the king of all lands in Berewic, Sussex, which formerly belonged to Mabel de Say, mother of Margeiy his wife (Dugd. Bar. /, 152). Her first husband was Hugh de Ferriers, and before 1221, she had married her third, William de StutcAdlle. She had issue only by De ^Mortimer, and from them the Mortimers of Richard's Castle and their successors in the female line, the Talbots, were descended. The male line of the Talbots failed on the death of John Talbot, nnder age (12 Richard II), Avhen the Hononr of Richard's Castle fell to his three sisters and co-heiresses, Elizabeth, Avife of Warin Archdeene, Kt. ; Philippa, wife of Matthew Gournay and Alianor, who died unmarried (Nash I, 241).
Richard de Saj, brother of Gilbert, appears to have bought Kingston juxta Yeovil of Margaret de Say, after her marriage with Stnteville, for by a fine dated in 1221, between William de Stnteville and Margery his wife, plaintiffs, and Richard de Say, defendant, in consideration of 100 marks of silver, they conveyed to Richard and his heirs fonr carucates [or hides] of land in Gyvele, nnder the service of one knight's fee to be rendered to them, and the heirs of Margery {Somt. Fines, 5 Hen. Ill, No. 4). Not long after he confirmed to the Canons of Haghmond, Salop, a gift made to them by Lucy, his mother (Dugd. Man. II, 46), and by another charter made in "The Great Church of Gyvele in 1226, he gave lands in Gyvele (part no doubt of his piu'chase) to the Prior}^ of Montacute, reserving prayers for Lucy, his mother, on her 'obit,' for which provision had been made by 'Lord Gilbert, his brother,' by the gift of two measures of wheat every year. He died soon after s.p. leaving his brother Gilbert his heir,
and Lucy de Arderne, his sister, who, ' in her widowhood,' gave one furlong of land in Gyvele to the same Priory as ' a pittance,' to be bestowed every year on the anniversary [of the death] of Richard de Say, her brother" (Montacute Cartulary, Nos. 35-36, Som. Rec. Soc).
Thomas de Arderne, the husband of Lucy de Say, may have been one of the Ardernes of Warwickshire, as Dugdale, in his history for that count}', mentions one o£ that name who before 6 John had married a Avife whose Christian name was Lucy, but whose paternal name Avas imknown to him. She was living he says 1 Hen. Ill (1216). In the pedigree he gives of the family, the names of Thomas and Ralph frequently occur, Avliich, as we shall sec hereafter, were borne by the Yeovil branch (Dugxl. Hist. Wanoickshire 11, 92o).
There can be little doubt that the original seat of the Yeovil branch of the Ardernes was at Horndown, in Essex. In 1122, Thomas de Arderne and Thomas, his son, gave to
the Abbey of Bermondsey the Chapel of St. George, in Southwark, and the tithes of their demesne on Horndon. Ralph de Arderne, in the reign of Hen. II, married Annabella, second daughter of the illustrious Ralph de Glanville, Chief .Justiciary of England {Annals of Bermondsey II, 246), from whom descended another Ralph, who acquired lands in Yeovil, and died before 1259, in which year Erneburga, his widow, brought an action for the recovery of one-third of a messuage, and twelve acres of land in Yeovil as part of her dower out of her husband's lands in Essex and Somerset, and Hugh de jVIortiraer, son and heir of Margaret, as guardian of Thomas, the infant son of Ralph, was called to warrant her title (De Banco Roll, Mich., 43-4 Hen. Ill, No. 15, memb. 35d). She must have succeeded in her claim, as she sold her life-interest in the
Yeovil lands to one Richard de Collworth, who forfeited them for joining in the rebellion of the Barons against Hen. Ill, and possession was taken by the above Hugh de Mor-
timer as guardian of Thomas {Inrj. de Rebellihus, 49 Hen. Ill, No. 113). Putting the above facts together, there can 1)6 no doubt that Thomas de Arderne, who married Lucy de Say, was the father of Ralph, of Essex, who inherited her lands in Yeovil, and left a son, Thomas, to whom (subject to the dower of Erneburga) they descended in the reign of Hen. III. It may be that this last-named Thomas was the husband of Hugelina de Nevile, for, in the year 1294. an assize was held to try if John de Wigton, Robert Fitzpayn, and John, the vicar of Yevele, had disseised her of a tenement in Yevele, and of her manor of Yevele, and a plea being put in that she had a husband living— Thomas de Arderne— who was not named in the writ, it was adjudged that he ought to have been joined. ( Asii. Div. Cos., 22 Edw. I, N. 2. 8.-8).
Proceeding now to Gilbert de Say, he married Matilda, daughter of Matthew de Clivedon, Lord of Milton, near Bruton, and Isabella, his wife, who was a daughter of William de Montague of Sutton Montague or Montis, in this county, Avhich event involved him in litigation with his wife's family (Dc Bunco Rolls, Michaelmas term 7-8, Hen. Ill ; H. Hil term 10, Hen. III). On his death (which must have occurred soon after), his property at Yeovil, including the lands Avhich he inherited from his brother Richard, descended to his two daughters and co-heiresses, Edith, the wife of Thomas de Huntley, and Matilda, wife of Thomas de Arderne, son and heir of Ralph, already mentioned. The two sisters made partition of their inheritance, and Edith took that part called " La Marshe," noAv the hamlet of Yeovil Marsh, and Matilda the remainder, Avhicli retained the name of Kingston (De Banco Rolls, Michaelmas, 43 EdAV. Ill, 150). In the early part of the reign of EdAvard I, Kingston passed, by sale no doubt,
to Walter de Wigton, Lord of Wigton in Cumberland (Nichol- son's Cumberland II, 190), from whom, at his death in 1286, it descended to John de Wigton, his son and heir, then 22 years of age. In the Inquisition, p.m. of Walter, it is described as half a knight's fee of the Honovu- of Bvn-ford, held of Lord Robert de Mortimer, and consisting of a capital messuage, 200a. of arable, 10a. mead., I5a. Avood, 9a. past., £6 Os. 5d. ; rents of freehold tenants, £5 lOs. ; rents of villeins and pleas of Court (Esch. 14 EdAv. I, avs. 15). Robert de Mortimer, the superior lord, died aboiit the same time, as by an inquisition of the fees belonging to him the jury found that Thomas de Huntley (Edith, his wife, being probably dead) held of him the manor of Marshe by half a knight's fee, and John de Wigton, the manor of Kingston by another half-fee — the yearly A'alue of Avhich Avas £21, besides the advoAvson of a free chapel, Avithin the Court of Kingston, Avorth 100s. a year (Esch., 15 Edw. I, No. 30;. By a fine in the same year (14 EdAV. I), between John de Lovetot (one of the Jnstices itinerant who was closelj connected witli John de Wif^ton) ])h., and Thos. de Arderne, deft, (made in the presence and with the consent of Jolin de Wigton) two knights' fees, from the Manor of Kingston in Yeovil, with the appurtenances, viz., the homage and service of John de Wigton and his heirs of the whole tenement formerly held of the said Thomas in Kingston were limited to John de Lovetot and his heirs for ever. This transaction appears to have been a technical contrivance foi- enabling de Arderne to convey his interest in the manor, for by a fine of even date between John de Wigton, pit., and Thos. de Arderne, deft., he released the manor of Kingston to de Wigton, subject to a yearly rent of £20, payable to to him for his life (Somt. Fines, 14 Edw. I, Nos. 90-1). John de Wigton died about 1315, and there being a doubt respecting the legitimacy of his daughter Margaret, his five sisters were at first found to be his heirs (Esch., 8 Edw. II, No. 61 ; Close Rolls, 13 Edw. I), but the ecclesiastical authority having certified that she was legitimate, she succeeded her father as his sole heir (Plac. Abbrev., 316).^
Before his death, John de Wigton sold Kingston to Sir Robert Fitzpayn (the third of that name), first Baron Fitz- payn, who died about 1316 (Esch., 9 Edw. II, No. Q5), leaving a son and heir, Robert (IV). The manor was taken into the king's hands as belonging to the heirs of John de Wigton, and granted to Thos. de Marlberge during pleasure, the heirs of de Wigton denying Fitzpayn's right, alleging that the sale to him was only for his life, but the court was satisfied from the evidence that he bought the fee and inheritance, and so it Avas adjudged (Abbrev. Rot. orig., 9 Edw. II, No. 3 ; Mem. Rolls, L.T.R.,*13 Edw. II, Rot. 8).
1 At that period the marriage of the parents after the birth of children rendered them legitimate, but the widow in such a case was not entitled to dower, as Diompia, the widow of John de Wigton, made several unsuccessful attempts to recover it.
The Fitzpayns were a family of distinction, possessing large estates in the western counties. Robert Fitzpajn (the first of that name) being Lord of Cheddon, near Taunton, in the reign of Hen. II. Roger, his son, held the manor of Lyde, in Yeovil, on right of his Avife Margaret, one of the three sisters and co-heiresses of Alured de Lincoln, a descendant of Roger Arundel, the Domesday tenant of large possessions in the Avest, one of which, it has been suggested, Avas Lyde, imder the name of Eslade. Robert Fitzpayn (IV) married Ela, widow of John Mareschal (Bank's Baronage II, app., p. 9), and a daughter of Guy, Lord de Bryan {Complete Peerarje, by G.E.C, title Bryan). HaAang no son, he adopted Robert de Gray, of Codnore, and settled the bulk of his estates on him and his Avife, Elizabeth, daughter of Guy de Bryan, jun., in special tail, but he reserA^ed the manor of Kingston Avith the advowson of the chapel, and, in 1344, settled it on his only child Isabella, wife of John de Chydiok, of Chydiok, Dorset (I) (Somt. Fines, 19 Edw. Ill, No. 35), and died in 1355, seized of an annual rent of £6 7s., (charged upon certain lands in a street called Ford Street, in Kingston) ; a messuage and carucate of land at La Lude (Lyde); and the reversion of another messuage and lands at Yeovil Marsh, called Walrond's Marsh. After the death of John and Isabella, they Avere succeeded by three generations of sons (all Sir John de Chydiok), but, in the time of the fourth Sir John, there occurs a break in the title A\diich awaits explanation. ToAvards the end of the reign of Ric. II, the manor of Kingston with the advowson of the chapel there, was in the possession of the Earls of Kent. The first of these was Thos. de Holand, a distinguished knight in the service of the Black Prince, Avho married de Holand's mother — ^" the fair maid of Kent." The Earl died in 1397 (Esch., 20 Ric. II, No. 30) and Avas succeeded by his son, a second Thos. de Holand, also Earl of Kent, who, having joined in the conspiracy against the new King, Henry IV, was beheaded in 1399 (Esch., 22 Ric. II, No. 21). I have no means of ascertaining how they acquired any interest in the manor, l)iit it is ])robable tliat John dc Cliydiok (111) hatl mortgaged it to the Hrst Karl, which led to usual complications, and that, after his death, when his son John (IV), who was left a minor, had attained his majority, the whole matter was settled and mutual releases exchanged. This suggestion is strengthened by the f\ict that a deed is still extant, by Avliich Chydiok released to Alice, Countess of Kent, and others, all actions and claims concerning the manor of Kingston, or any other lands in the parish of Yeovil (Close Rolls, .3 Hen. IV, No. 10).
Turning now to Edith de Say and her husband, Thomas de Huntley, I have not been able to trace his family any farther back than this Thomas, or to identify the place from which they derived their name, but they were afterwards considerable land-owners in several manors called Adhere, in the adjoining parish of Mudford. Parts of these manors had belonged to the great estates of the Moliuns, in Somerset, but, in 1311, Geoffrey de Mohun and Margery his wife, settled them by the description of a messuage, 3 carucates of land, 3()a. meadow, 26a. wood, and 11 marcs of rent in Nether Attbere, Over Attebere and Homere, on themselves for life, remainder to the heirs of his body ; remainder to Nicholas, his brother, in tail ; remainder to David, son of Thomas de Huntley, in tail ; remainder to brother of David, in tail ; remainder to the right heirs of Geoffry ( Somt. Fines, 4 Edw. II, No. 34). David de Huntley must have succeeded to these lands as (20 Edw. 3) he was assessed 20s. for half-a-fee in
Little Adhere, formerly Geoffry de Mohun's. He died s.p. and, consequently, by the terms of the settlement, his brother, Thomas, succeeded to the estate, which de-
volved on John, his son, and then on Margaret de Huntley, his daughter. Ultimately, the manor of Nether Adhere was settled on Richard Huntley and Alianor, his wife, and the heirs of his body ; remainder to John, son of William Carent, in tail : remainder to William Carent, senior, in tail; remainder to the right heirs of Richard Huntley (Somt.Fines, 12 Ric. II, No. 1). In this way, I suppose, Adhere fell to the Carents, who were evidently related to the Huntleys. There was another branch of that family resident at Shiplade, in the parish of Bleadon, in this county, and another migrated to Milborn St. Andrew, Dorset.
Returning from this digression, Thomas de Huntley, the husband of Edith de Say, was also involved, with Brian Gouiz and other leading men, in the Rebellion of the Barons against Hen. Ill, and, after their defeat, was punished by the forfeiture of his lands, and, according to the Inquisition de Hebellibus, the bailiff of Lord Hugh de Mortimer, the over lord, had seized one carucate of land on the ville of Givele, worth 10s. a year, besides rents of assize of £6 a year in the same ville, and also a virgate and-half of land there, and 16s. a year rent of assize held of Huntley by one Richard de Peto, " another rebel." The forfeiture was, however, compounded for, in Ivirby's Quest (12 Edw. I). Walter de Wigton and Thos. de Huntley are said to hold Kingston, East Marsh, and West Marsh (into which " La Marsh" had been sub-divided) of Robert de Mortimer, by knight service, and, in 1307, among the knights' fees held of the king iii capite by Matilda, widow of Hugh de Mortimer at her death, was the manor of Mersshe held by John de Huntley by half a knight's fee, and the manor of Kingston juxta Yevele, held by Robert Fitz-payn by another half fee (Esch., 1 Edw. II, No. 59). This John de Huntley, son of Thomas and Edith, conveyed the moiety of the Say estate to Walter de Tryl, of Todbere, Dorset, who, in 1324, settled Marsh (with lauds derived from another source now unknown) by the description of 13 messuages, 8 acres and 6|- virgates of land, 23| acres of mead., 11 acres of past., 16 acres wood, 106s. rent, and rent of 1 lb. of pepper, 2 lbs. of cumin, and one rose, with the appurtenance in West Marsh, Kingston juxta Yevele, and Kingeswoode juxta Hardington, and also a moiety of the advowson of the chapel of Kingston, on himself and his wife, Ela, for their lives; remainder to William de Carent and Joanna, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies; remainder to Nicholas, son of Michael de Stoure, in fee to be held of tlie Kino- in Chief {Somt. Fines, 17 Edw. II, No. 45). The aljovc indicates the first connection of the De Carent family with Yeovil. Joanna, the wife of William de Carent, was probablv a daughter of Walter de Tryl. Her husband died in 1347, possessed of one moiety of the manors of Kingston and Marsh, leaving an infant son, another William de Carent (hu/. p.m., Esch., 22 Edw. Ill, No. 27). In my opinion, ^Matilda, the wife of John de Huntley, was another sister of De Tryl. She held, at her death, lands in the ville of iNIarsh in right of her dower, and also lands there by grant of Walter de
Romesey ; the reversion (her Inquisition states) belonging to WiUiam, son of William de Carent, who was heir as well of Walter de Tryl, as of Matilda (Esch., 21 Edw. Ill, No. 22).
From this it may be inferred that Walter de Tryl had two sisters — Matilda, wife of John de Huntly, and Joan, wife of William de Carent — that neither Walter or his sister, Matilda, left any issue, and that, therefore, William de Carent, son of the other sister, Joan, was heir both of his uncle and his aunt. West Marsh was at one time held by the family of Falconer, or Le Fauconer, Avho became possessed of it in the reign of Edw. I, for in the Inquisition of knights' fee in 1302 (31 Edw. F) Eobert Fitzpayn and John Fauconer (instead of Walter de Wigton and Thomas de Huntley, in Kirby's Quest) are said to hold the manors of Kingston, East INIarsh, and West
]\Iarsh, of Hugh de Mortimer, by the service of one fee. By disposition, or misfortune. Falconer was frequently at law with his neighbours (see Ass. R>Us Dii\ Cos., 27 Edw. I, Nos. 2-11). He had a wife, Joan, and died in 1342, holding of John Daunay (Lord of Hinton, in :\Iudford) a messuage and lands at HuUe in Marsh [now called Marsh Hdl] with two moors called Brooms Moor and Dichelfords Moor [now Dislemoor], and he left John le Falconer (II), his son, then 25 years old (Esch, 15 Edw. VI, No. 27).
John le Falconer (II) : resided at West Marsh, and is so described in a charter, dated there in 1354 (27 Edw. Ill), whereby he granted to John Gogh and John Say
certain lands in Kingsdon, near Ivelchester, of which he had l)een enfeoffed by Nicholas Gonys. The witnesses to this charter were Wm. D'anmarle, Wm. D'umfraville, and Walter de Romesey, knights ; and Wm. de Bingham and Wm. de Welde ; and to it was attached his seal — two bendlets between three falcons, with the legend, " Sigill .... Fauconer " (Pole's Collections, Queen's Coll., Oxford, MS. No. 151, f. 47). There are notices on the records of legal proceedings between the Huntleys, the Carents, and the Falconers, respecting their property at Marsh and Kingston, which it eould be unprofitable to explain in detail, but it is important to repeat what Collinson cites from the Close Rolls, that (30 Edw. Ill) John le Falconer released to William, son and heir of Wm. de Carent, then under age and in ward to the king, all his right to the manors of Kingston and Hunteley's Marsh {Rot. Claus., 30 Edw. Ill, cited by Collinson III, 207). This document confirmed to the de Carents their title to Marsh and the part of Kingston which did not belong to the Chydioks, and was substantially the property which afterwards passed from the de Carents to the Comptons, and subsequently to their relatives, the Harbins. This transaction with Carent did not, however, denude le Falconer of all his lands in Yeovil. In 1376, he had to resist an unfounded claim set
up by Alice, the Avidow of Wm. Welde, to lands of his in Kingston and West Marsh. It appears that le Falconer, when only 19 years old, agreed to grant a lease of the lands to Welde and his wife for their lives. After he came of age he went beyond seas for several years — during which time Welde died —and, on his return, the widow had the audacity to repudiate the lease and claim the lands as her freehold, but, of course, she was defeated (Ass. Rolls, Div. Cos., 40-9 Edw. III).
Le Falconer (II) married Matilda, daughter and heiress of John de Warmwell, of Warmwell, Dorset (Hutch. Dors. /, 428), and we may attribute the marriage to the fact that a branch of the de Warmwell family was seated at Newton Salmonville, in Yeovil. I have not been able to ascertain the date of his death, but, bj that event, if not by previous settlement, his daughter and heiress, AHce, the Avife of Nicholas Coker, must have acquired considerable property in Yeovil and the neighbourhood as, 12 Hen. IV (1411)', she and her husband sold a farm in Yevell and Kingston to Sir John Chydiok, lord of Kingston {So7rit. Fines), and as late as 1445 (23 Hen. VI), after her husband's death, she conveyed in Kingston and Marsh to her cousin, Thos. Lytc of Lytes' Gary ( The Lytes of Lytes Cary, p. 25). Nicholas Coker himself was the purchaser of the manor of Chilthorne Domer, which, by fine, 9 Hen. IV, was conveyed, subject to a life interest in Edmund Dummer, to Nicholas Coker and Alice his wife, and the heirs of Nicholas Coker.
The manor of West Marsh was, in the reign of Edw. II, held by John de Preston [Nomina Villarum, 9 Edw. II), who was a considerable land-owner in the adjoining parish of
Preston Plucknet. In 1363, the manor was held by Thomas de Preston for his life, and by a fine levied in that year (37 Edw. Ill) between Henry le Walslie, plaiutifi", and Master Robert de Stratforde, defendant, the reversion then vested in de Stratford was settled upon Henry le Walshe for his life ; remainder to John his son, and Isabel his wife, and the heirs of their bodies ; remainder to his brothers, Henry and Percival, successively in tail ; remainder to the right heirs of the said John. He resided at East Marsh, and purchased from the Crown the wardship of William, the infant son of Wm. de Carent, and Joan, his wife; but, going on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land he died on the journey, leaving his wife, Isabel, surviving, but we hear no mention of him or West Marsh afterwards, and it was probably absorbed into the de Carent Estate {Exchequer, L. §' 7?., Memoranda Bulls, Hil., 27 Edw. Ill, No. 12). I should observe that it was from de Chydiok, and not from de Carent as CoUinson states, that Kingston
came to the Stourtons.
There was yet another part of La Marsh, called Walerands or Walrond's Marsh. As early as 1340, John Walerand, which held under John de Wigton, died, leaving an infant son, John, and his wife, Matilda, surviving, and she was obliged to take legal steps for the recovery of her dower out of it {Ass. Rolls Div. Cos., 3 Edw. II, N. 2. 15-1). The widow probably married again — DoAvre, as (28 Edw. Ill) Robert Fitzpayn held, at his death, the reversion of one messuage, and one carucate of land in Walronde's Marslie, which Matilda Dowre held for her life by grant of John Walrond, which reversion belonged to John Chydiok, and Isabella, his wife (Esch., No. 41).
...
SOURCE: http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/somersetshire-archaeological-and-natural-history-s/proceedings-volume-44-emo/page-24-proceedings-volume-44-emo.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment