Discussion:
Maud de Grey, wife of John de Botetourt and Thomas de Harcourt
Add Reply
Chris Phillips
2003-12-10 10:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From our previous discussion in October, it appeared that the account of
Botetourt in the Complete Peerage (ii 235) was wrong in giving Grey wives to
both John de Botetourt, Lord Botetourt (d. 1385), and his son John de
Botetourt (d. 1369). Only the younger John married a Grey - Maud, the
daughter of John de Grey of Rotherfield. But we didn't uncover any decisive
contemporary evidence to determine whether Maud was he daughter of the first
Lord Grey of Rotherfield (d. 1359), by his second wife, Avice Marmion, or of
the second Lord Grey (d. 1375) - as stated by CP.

We had seen that Maud was commemorated by an "elaborate" tomb at Stanton
Harcourt, but hadn't been able to find a detailed description, and according
to Pevsner the heraldry on the tomb was modern.

Yesterday I had a chance to look at a small book by George Simon, Earl
Harcourt (d. 1809), entitled "An Account of the Church and Remains of the
Manor House of Stanton Harcourt in the County of Oxford" (1808). This
includes (pp. 8, 9) a description of Maud's tomb, which I've copied below in
case it's of interest to anyone. Genealogically, the important thing is that
four shields of arms are described - Harcourt; Harcourt impaling Grey; Grey;
Marmion.

Further to this, on p. 13 is a description of a monument in the Harcourt
Chapel, to Sir Robert Harcourt (d. 1471) and his wife Margaret (Byron), in
which the heraldry is described as follows:
"On the front, four spread six foils, containing shields with the following
arms; namely, Harcourt impaling Byron twice, and twice Marmion; which Maud
Grey, his grandmother, bore in right of her mother, heiress of the
Marmions."

From the appearance of the Marmion arms on these monuments, it seems clear
that Maud was the daughter of John, first Lord Grey of Rotherfield, by his
second wife Avice Marmion (and not of his son, John, by his first marriage).

Incidentally, this removes any possible conflict with Rosie Bevan's
suggestion that Maud, wife of Ralph Hastings, could have been a daughter of
the younger John de Grey, as in the light of Maud de Harcourt's parentage
this would not require John to have had two daughters named Maud.

Chris Phillips
____________________________________________________________________________
________

Earl Harcourt's description of Maud's monument:
"The ancient monument under an arch in the south wall of the chancel is that
of Maud, daughter of John Lord Grey of Rotherfield, by his second wife,
Avice, daughter and co-heiress of John Lord Marmion, (which Maud, with her
two brothers, assumed the name and arms of Marmion,) wife of Sir Thomas de
Harcourt, son of Sir William and of Johanna, daughter of Richard Lord Grey
of Codnor. She died in the 17th year of Richard II. She has the reticulated
head-dress, with a narrow gold binding across the forehead : a scarlet
mantle lined with ermine, and a deep cape of the same, scolloped at the
edge, on either side of which are two small gold tassels : a broad band of
ermine, with a narrow gold binding across the breasts : the upper part of
the sleeves of the same ; the lower part blue, and reaching to the knuckles,
like mittens. On the surcoat, the arms of Harcourt impaled with those of
Grey. Those parts both of the arms and of the dress which are blue are
damasked. At her feet a small dog. On the front of the monument four
shields, with the following arms ; namely, Harcourt; Harcourt impaling Grey;
Grey; Marmion.
Douglas Richardson
2003-12-10 17:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Chris ~

Nice work. This is a great example of how heraldic evidence at
ancient tombs can solve a genealogical problem. Thanks for sharing
your research with all of us. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Chris Phillips
From our previous discussion in October, it appeared that the account of
Botetourt in the Complete Peerage (ii 235) was wrong in giving Grey wives to
both John de Botetourt, Lord Botetourt (d. 1385), and his son John de
Botetourt (d. 1369). Only the younger John married a Grey - Maud, the
daughter of John de Grey of Rotherfield. But we didn't uncover any decisive
contemporary evidence to determine whether Maud was he daughter of the first
Lord Grey of Rotherfield (d. 1359), by his second wife, Avice Marmion, or of
the second Lord Grey (d. 1375) - as stated by CP.
We had seen that Maud was commemorated by an "elaborate" tomb at Stanton
Harcourt, but hadn't been able to find a detailed description, and according
to Pevsner the heraldry on the tomb was modern.
Yesterday I had a chance to look at a small book by George Simon, Earl
Harcourt (d. 1809), entitled "An Account of the Church and Remains of the
Manor House of Stanton Harcourt in the County of Oxford" (1808). This
includes (pp. 8, 9) a description of Maud's tomb, which I've copied below in
case it's of interest to anyone. Genealogically, the important thing is that
four shields of arms are described - Harcourt; Harcourt impaling Grey; Grey;
Marmion.
Further to this, on p. 13 is a description of a monument in the Harcourt
Chapel, to Sir Robert Harcourt (d. 1471) and his wife Margaret (Byron), in
"On the front, four spread six foils, containing shields with the following
arms; namely, Harcourt impaling Byron twice, and twice Marmion; which Maud
Grey, his grandmother, bore in right of her mother, heiress of the
Marmions."
From the appearance of the Marmion arms on these monuments, it seems clear
that Maud was the daughter of John, first Lord Grey of Rotherfield, by his
second wife Avice Marmion (and not of his son, John, by his first marriage).
Incidentally, this removes any possible conflict with Rosie Bevan's
suggestion that Maud, wife of Ralph Hastings, could have been a daughter of
the younger John de Grey, as in the light of Maud de Harcourt's parentage
this would not require John to have had two daughters named Maud.
Chris Phillips
____________________________________________________________________________
________
"The ancient monument under an arch in the south wall of the chancel is that
of Maud, daughter of John Lord Grey of Rotherfield, by his second wife,
Avice, daughter and co-heiress of John Lord Marmion, (which Maud, with her
two brothers, assumed the name and arms of Marmion,) wife of Sir Thomas de
Harcourt, son of Sir William and of Johanna, daughter of Richard Lord Grey
of Codnor. She died in the 17th year of Richard II. She has the reticulated
head-dress, with a narrow gold binding across the forehead : a scarlet
mantle lined with ermine, and a deep cape of the same, scolloped at the
edge, on either side of which are two small gold tassels : a broad band of
ermine, with a narrow gold binding across the breasts : the upper part of
the sleeves of the same ; the lower part blue, and reaching to the knuckles,
like mittens. On the surcoat, the arms of Harcourt impaled with those of
Grey. Those parts both of the arms and of the dress which are blue are
damasked. At her feet a small dog. On the front of the monument four
shields, with the following arms ; namely, Harcourt; Harcourt impaling Grey;
Grey; Marmion.
Peter Stewart
2003-12-10 21:15:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A few minor queries occur to me:

Harcourt in the early-19th century described Maud's monument as
"ancient", while Pevsner in the mid-20th century said the heraldry on
her tomb was "modern". Were they both talking about the same thing, an
older construction with more recent decoration?

If so, what are the chances that the Harcourts in the 18th century,
say, had taken it into their heads that a claim to Marmion descent
through Maud would add lustre to their pedigree & give a claim to the
barony, and simply represented graphically that she had been Avice's
daughter who assumed the name & arms of Marmion along with her alleged
two brothers? CP only mentions that the elder, John (died without
issue) did this, and that the Marmion arms were on his monument at
Tanfield. Is it known that his brother Robert, lord Grey of
Rotherfield (died without male issue, father of Elizabeth wife of
Henry, lord FitzHugh) did so as well? And are there other examples
from the time of a sister doing this when she had two brothers and a
niece with senior claims, who might transmit an assumed name & arms to
their posterity?

Peter Stewart
Post by Chris Phillips
From our previous discussion in October, it appeared that the account of
Botetourt in the Complete Peerage (ii 235) was wrong in giving Grey wives to
both John de Botetourt, Lord Botetourt (d. 1385), and his son John de
Botetourt (d. 1369). Only the younger John married a Grey - Maud, the
daughter of John de Grey of Rotherfield. But we didn't uncover any decisive
contemporary evidence to determine whether Maud was he daughter of the first
Lord Grey of Rotherfield (d. 1359), by his second wife, Avice Marmion, or of
the second Lord Grey (d. 1375) - as stated by CP.
We had seen that Maud was commemorated by an "elaborate" tomb at Stanton
Harcourt, but hadn't been able to find a detailed description, and according
to Pevsner the heraldry on the tomb was modern.
Yesterday I had a chance to look at a small book by George Simon, Earl
Harcourt (d. 1809), entitled "An Account of the Church and Remains of the
Manor House of Stanton Harcourt in the County of Oxford" (1808). This
includes (pp. 8, 9) a description of Maud's tomb, which I've copied below in
case it's of interest to anyone. Genealogically, the important thing is that
four shields of arms are described - Harcourt; Harcourt impaling Grey; Grey;
Marmion.
Further to this, on p. 13 is a description of a monument in the Harcourt
Chapel, to Sir Robert Harcourt (d. 1471) and his wife Margaret (Byron), in
"On the front, four spread six foils, containing shields with the following
arms; namely, Harcourt impaling Byron twice, and twice Marmion; which Maud
Grey, his grandmother, bore in right of her mother, heiress of the
Marmions."
From the appearance of the Marmion arms on these monuments, it seems clear
that Maud was the daughter of John, first Lord Grey of Rotherfield, by his
second wife Avice Marmion (and not of his son, John, by his first marriage).
Incidentally, this removes any possible conflict with Rosie Bevan's
suggestion that Maud, wife of Ralph Hastings, could have been a daughter of
the younger John de Grey, as in the light of Maud de Harcourt's parentage
this would not require John to have had two daughters named Maud.
Chris Phillips
____________________________________________________________________________
________
"The ancient monument under an arch in the south wall of the chancel is that
of Maud, daughter of John Lord Grey of Rotherfield, by his second wife,
Avice, daughter and co-heiress of John Lord Marmion, (which Maud, with her
two brothers, assumed the name and arms of Marmion,) wife of Sir Thomas de
Harcourt, son of Sir William and of Johanna, daughter of Richard Lord Grey
of Codnor. She died in the 17th year of Richard II. She has the reticulated
head-dress, with a narrow gold binding across the forehead : a scarlet
mantle lined with ermine, and a deep cape of the same, scolloped at the
edge, on either side of which are two small gold tassels : a broad band of
ermine, with a narrow gold binding across the breasts : the upper part of
the sleeves of the same ; the lower part blue, and reaching to the knuckles,
like mittens. On the surcoat, the arms of Harcourt impaled with those of
Grey. Those parts both of the arms and of the dress which are blue are
damasked. At her feet a small dog. On the front of the monument four
shields, with the following arms ; namely, Harcourt; Harcourt impaling Grey;
Grey; Marmion.
Chris Phillips
2003-12-10 22:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Harcourt in the early-19th century described Maud's monument as
"ancient", while Pevsner in the mid-20th century said the heraldry on
her tomb was "modern". Were they both talking about the same thing, an
older construction with more recent decoration?
If so, what are the chances that the Harcourts in the 18th century,
say, had taken it into their heads that a claim to Marmion descent
through Maud would add lustre to their pedigree & give a claim to the
barony, and simply represented graphically that she had been Avice's
daughter who assumed the name & arms of Marmion along with her alleged
two brothers? CP only mentions that the elder, John (died without
issue) did this, and that the Marmion arms were on his monument at
Tanfield. Is it known that his brother Robert, lord Grey of
Rotherfield (died without male issue, father of Elizabeth wife of
Henry, lord FitzHugh) did so as well? And are there other examples
from the time of a sister doing this when she had two brothers and a
niece with senior claims, who might transmit an assumed name & arms to
their posterity?
It's difficult to tell whether the heraldry given by Harcourt is the same as
that described by Pevsner as "modern", without more information. Given his
careful description of the effigy, I think it would be a bit strange if
Harcourt had omitted to mention that the heraldry was a recent addition, if
that had been the case. There are also the arms of Marmion on the monument
of Maud's grandson (though I suppose it's equally possible they were an
addition). Maybe someone with more knowledge of Harcourt genealogy than I
have can say how likely the 18th-century Harcourts would have been to want
to embellish their ancestry, and if so how likely they would have been to
seize on a possible Marmion descent to do so.

On the question of whether Maud assumed the Marmion arms, the heraldry on
Maud's tomb would argue against this, as Harcourt is shown impaling Grey
(not Marmion), and Marmion is shown separately. But the heraldry on Robert
Harcourt's tomb, if I interpret the description correctly, shows Harcourt
impaling Marmion, which does seem to imply Maud bore the arms of Marmion.

In an ideal world, it would be nice to have a good scholarly opinion on how
old the heraldry is, or to find an earlier description of it. Unfortunately,
Richard Lee's 16th-century church notes, published by the Harleian Society
(vol. 5, 1871), don't include anything for Stanton Harcourt.

Chris Phillips
f***@gmail.com
2018-04-26 12:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In case anyone is, after 15 years, still following this discussion ....
In Aug/Sept of 2017 I visited the 1)Marmion tombs at West Tanfield, 2)Harcourt tombs at Stanton Harcourt,and 3) younger Robert Grey brass at Rotherfield Greys.
Just to clarify:
The father of Maud de Grey was John II de Grey, 2nd Baron of Rotherfield,d.1359. He was a founding Knight of the Garter who married first to Katherine FitzAlan and with her had one son, his heir (John III, 3rd Baron Rotherfield).
He married 2nd to Avice Marmion and had 2 sons,the first also named John, who became his mother's heir and took the Marmion name,as his half brother was to be Baron Rotherfi. Younger brother Robert de Grey of Marmion did similar. They each married 2 sisters, Elizabeth and Lora St Quintin. Neither had male heirs so the Marmion estate went to Robert's daughter Elizabeth and her husband Sir Henry Fitzhugh.
Meanwhile Maud de Grey, whose mother was most likely Avice, married Thomas Harcourt.
The shields with COA at Maud's tomb are carved and appear to be very old though the framing around them looked repaired. The effigies of Maud and her son Robert Harcourt were repainted in 19th century, and the shields are also. However as I said earlier, the shields appear very old and some are getting crumbly.
j***@gmail.com
2018-04-26 15:51:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For whatever it's worth... Thomas Grey and Maud Harcourt appear in the upper right corner of this 5-generation chart at wikitree, showing my solution of the old Harcourt/Lewknor conundrum: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Harcourt-Family-Tree-171

If this lineage is correct, then the "bishop's lineage" involving Bishop William Barlow and his daughters who all married bishops, is descended from both the Harcourts and Lewknors, with various Magna Carta and royal connections.

Furthermore, with the realization that Bishop Tobey Mathews had TWO sons named Samuel, the earlier supposition that Samuel Mathews of Virginia, father of the early governor by the same name, was the son of Bishop Tobey Mathews becomes viable again. This is discussed at Samuel Mathews' wikitree profile at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Mathews-14

Back to the old Harcourt/Lewknor conundrum:
1. The conundrum relates to the manor of Ranton (also spelled Raunton or Ronton), the reversion of which Roger Lewknor sold to John Harcourt in 1473 (at which time the manor was in the hands of Roger's cousin John D'Oyly).

2. Ranton had been held by Roger Lewknor's D'Oyly ancestors since the 12th century. see Part 1 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=U6VCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=sir+john+d%27oyly+raunton&source=bl&ots=Rx7OaP-TLk&sig=wru_PswcHzcXid5OY5stZCnHXVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ0pz5zOLSAhVIOCYKHQlWA60Q6AEILjAE#v=onepage&q=sir%20john%20d'oyly%20raunton&f=false
and Part 2 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=yknQAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA69&lpg=RA1-PA69&dq=%22Thomas+Lewknor,+the+eldest+son,+was+in+1403,+found+heir,%22&source=bl&ots=xQQOVpeuh8&sig=Nr1P2rwcPzFKmYMSYo9-BG7W_S4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NpqWVfmgJ8qz-AGNpoC4BA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Thomas%20Lewknor%2C%20the%20eldest%

3. This last link cites A Biographical, Historical, Genealogical and Heraldic Account of the House of D'Oyly (1845) for the statement that Roger Lewknor sold the reversion of Ranton to John Harcourt to keep the ancient manor within the family. This led earlier researchers to incorrectly assume that John Harcourt (who purchased the reversion of Ranton) was the son of one Eleanor Lewknor, assumed to have been an aunt of Roger Lewknor. But this led to unsatisfactory theorizing about the father of John Harcourt; see https://books.google.com/books?id=zAEVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=richard+harcourt+of+wytham&source=bl&ots=g117JNdp1A&sig=8Vv14DHLrwT6wCF-5wtaJnUws74&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip3Pipi97SAhVpzFQKHVFTDRE4ChDoAQg7MAc#v=onepage&q=ri

4. Douglas Richardson gives the parents of John Harcourt (his mother was a Fraunceys, not a Lewknor) and mentions John's buying Ranton from Roger Lewknor. But Richardson doesn't show any family connection between the Harcourts and the Lewknors. See http://https://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA1-PA346&lpg=RA1-PA346&dq=thomas+harcourt++magna+carta+ancestry&source=bl&ots=kvpLNYJR53&sig=vXJJt8YDPzJB

5. And here the plot thickens. There was a younger John Harcourt, parents unknown, who married Ann Scalers (Challers), heiress of the manor of Challers, which had been held by the Scalers family since the time of William the Conqueror(!). John and Ann had a daughter Margery, born in 1475, and then John died in debt. His widow Ann then married Giles Wellesbourne, who died in debt. (This was the final period of the Wars of the Roses, and Giles appears to have been on the wrong side.) Giles's presumed younger brother Humphrey Wellesbourne helped out Widow Ann with her deceased husbands' debts, and then he got to marry her heiress daughter Margery. The younger John Harcourt's wikitree profile is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-449

6. The big question here is, how does this younger John Harcourt fit into the family? He definitely existed, per his widow's inquisition post mortem, here (scroll down, #995): https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/series2-vol1/pp407-43
Douglas Richardson doesn't mention this John Harcourt, and neither does anyone else. Here is my proposed solution:
a) The elder John Harcourt was the husband, not the son of Eleanor Lewknor. She was his first wife, and she died shortly after the birth of her son John, and then the elder John married (2) Margaret Bracy and had several children.
b) The elder John Harcourt bought the reversion of Ranton from his deceased first wife's brother Roger Lewknor in 1473, expecting it to pass to his eldest son and heir, the younger John Harcourt, nephew of Roger Lewknor.
c) However, because of the untimely death of the younger John Harcourt without a son, Ranton passed to the elder John's next son Thomas, who of course wasn't related to the Lewknors.
Jason Quick
2018-04-26 16:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"5. And here the plot thickens. There was a younger John Harcourt, parents unknown, who married Ann Scalers (Challers), heiress of the manor of Challers, which had been held by the Scalers family since the time of William the Conqueror(!). John and Ann had a daughter Margery, born in 1475, and then John died in debt. His widow Ann then married Giles Wellesbourne, who died in debt. (This was the final period of the Wars of the Roses, and Giles appears to have been on the wrong side.) Giles's presumed younger brother Humphrey Wellesbourne helped out Widow Ann with her deceased husbands' debts, and then he got to marry her heiress daughter Margery. The younger John Harcourt's wikitree profile is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-449"

That John Harecourt(e) is the elder

John Harecourte (bastard) b.c. 1536* - (de Wytney, esq., the elder, senior, Gentleman Usher of the King’s Chamber, Receiver, Keeper of the Peace of Oxfordshire). Eldest (illegitimate) son of Robert Harecourt KG. Married Ann Scales (Scalers) and had one daughter b.c. 1475, Margery who Married Humphrey Wellesbourne c.1493-4

I collected a bit of info on him a while back

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/harcourt%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/aWHunzol9PQ/7SCrRakLDAAJ
j***@gmail.com
2018-04-26 18:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Quick
"5. And here the plot thickens. There was a younger John Harcourt, parents unknown, who married Ann Scalers (Challers), heiress of the manor of Challers, which had been held by the Scalers family since the time of William the Conqueror(!). John and Ann had a daughter Margery, born in 1475, and then John died in debt. His widow Ann then married Giles Wellesbourne, who died in debt. (This was the final period of the Wars of the Roses, and Giles appears to have been on the wrong side.) Giles's presumed younger brother Humphrey Wellesbourne helped out Widow Ann with her deceased husbands' debts, and then he got to marry her heiress daughter Margery. The younger John Harcourt's wikitree profile is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-449"
That John Harecourt(e) is the elder
John Harecourte (bastard) b.c. 1536* - (de Wytney, esq., the elder, senior, Gentleman Usher of the King’s Chamber, Receiver, Keeper of the Peace of Oxfordshire). Eldest (illegitimate) son of Robert Harecourt KG. Married Ann Scales (Scalers) and had one daughter b.c. 1475, Margery who Married Humphrey Wellesbourne c.1493-4
I collected a bit of info on him a while back
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/harcourt%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/aWHunzol9PQ/7SCrRakLDAAJ
Jason, it seems to me that the problems with your supposition are
(1) As far as I can tell, there is no evidence connecting John the bastard son of Richard with John Harcourt, husband of Anne Scalars. Perhaps you know of such a connection.
(2) John the bastard had a position as a keeper of certain lands, but did not hold any lands. It is hard to imagine that such a man would marry the heiress of the ancient Scalars family, which held on to the same land going back almost to the time of William the Conqueror.
(3) John the bastard had a daughter Margery who was "abducted" in 1493. However, John Harcourt, husband of Ann Scalars, was DEAD WELL BEFORE 1493, when Ann, widow of both John Harcourt and of her second husband Giles Wellesbourne, arranged for the marriage of her daughter Margaret to Humphrey Wellesbourne.

Unless I am missing something, this clearly proves that John Harcourt the bastard was not the same man as John Harcourt, husband of heiress Ann Scalers.
Jason Quick
2018-04-26 20:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Jason Quick
"5. And here the plot thickens. There was a younger John Harcourt, parents unknown, who married Ann Scalers (Challers), heiress of the manor of Challers, which had been held by the Scalers family since the time of William the Conqueror(!). John and Ann had a daughter Margery, born in 1475, and then John died in debt. His widow Ann then married Giles Wellesbourne, who died in debt. (This was the final period of the Wars of the Roses, and Giles appears to have been on the wrong side.) Giles's presumed younger brother Humphrey Wellesbourne helped out Widow Ann with her deceased husbands' debts, and then he got to marry her heiress daughter Margery. The younger John Harcourt's wikitree profile is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-449"
That John Harecourt(e) is the elder
John Harecourte (bastard) b.c. 1536* - (de Wytney, esq., the elder, senior, Gentleman Usher of the King’s Chamber, Receiver, Keeper of the Peace of Oxfordshire). Eldest (illegitimate) son of Robert Harecourt KG. Married Ann Scales (Scalers) and had one daughter b.c. 1475, Margery who Married Humphrey Wellesbourne c.1493-4
I collected a bit of info on him a while back
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/harcourt%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/aWHunzol9PQ/7SCrRakLDAAJ
Jason, it seems to me that the problems with your supposition are
(1) As far as I can tell, there is no evidence connecting John the bastard son of Richard with John Harcourt, husband of Anne Scalars. Perhaps you know of such a connection. Bastard son of Robert
(2) John the bastard had a position as a keeper of certain lands, but did not hold any lands. It is hard to imagine that such a man would marry the heiress of the ancient Scalars family, which held on to the same land going back almost to the time of William the Conqueror.
(3) John the bastard had a daughter Margery who was "abducted" in 1493. However, John Harcourt, husband of Ann Scalars, was DEAD WELL BEFORE 1493, when Ann, widow of both John Harcourt and of her second husband Giles Wellesbourne, arranged for the marriage of her daughter Margaret to Humphrey Wellesbourne.
John the Bastard d. bef. 1485 Jan. 11th If we could get access and a full translation to (KB 9 Indictment Rolls) KB9/402/52 and KB27/933, 934, 935. It might give the full picture of Margery's abduction .
Post by j***@gmail.com
Unless I am missing something, this clearly proves that John Harcourt the bastard was not the same man as John Harcourt, husband of heiress Ann Scalers.
John Harcourt(e)the Bastard(de Whitney) was an usher and receiver of the King at the time) died d. bef. Jan. 11th 1485, had a wife Anne and a daughter Margery who was abducted in 1485. What sources does the other John Harecourt(e)of Ranton have that specifically link him with a wife Anne or daughter Margery and the lands of the Scalers? John Harcourt of Ranton is not the same person as John Harcoute (Bastard) de Whitney and his brother John Harecourt de Staunton
Jason Quick
2018-04-26 20:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Jason Quick
"5. And here the plot thickens. There was a younger John Harcourt, parents unknown, who married Ann Scalers (Challers), heiress of the manor of Challers, which had been held by the Scalers family since the time of William the Conqueror(!). John and Ann had a daughter Margery, born in 1475, and then John died in debt. His widow Ann then married Giles Wellesbourne, who died in debt. (This was the final period of the Wars of the Roses, and Giles appears to have been on the wrong side.) Giles's presumed younger brother Humphrey Wellesbourne helped out Widow Ann with her deceased husbands' debts, and then he got to marry her heiress daughter Margery. The younger John Harcourt's wikitree profile is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-449"
That John Harecourt(e) is the elder
John Harecourte (bastard) b.c. 1536* - (de Wytney, esq., the elder, senior, Gentleman Usher of the King’s Chamber, Receiver, Keeper of the Peace of Oxfordshire). Eldest (illegitimate) son of Robert Harecourt KG. Married Ann Scales (Scalers) and had one daughter b.c. 1475, Margery who Married Humphrey Wellesbourne c.1493-4
I collected a bit of info on him a while back
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/harcourt%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/aWHunzol9PQ/7SCrRakLDAAJ
Jason, it seems to me that the problems with your supposition are
(1) As far as I can tell, there is no evidence connecting John the bastard son of Richard with John Harcourt, husband of Anne Scalars. Perhaps you know of such a connection.
(2) John the bastard had a position as a keeper of certain lands, but did not hold any lands. It is hard to imagine that such a man would marry the heiress of the ancient Scalars family, which held on to the same land going back almost to the time of William the Conqueror.
(3) John the bastard had a daughter Margery who was "abducted" in 1493. However, John Harcourt, husband of Ann Scalars, was DEAD WELL BEFORE 1493, when Ann, widow of both John Harcourt and of her second husband Giles Wellesbourne, arranged for the marriage of her daughter Margaret to Humphrey Wellesbourne.
John the Bastard d. bef. Jan. 11th 1485 If we could get access and a full translation to (KB 9 Indictment Rolls) KB9/402/52 and KB27/933, 934, 935. It might give the full picture of Margery's abduction
Unless I am missing something, this clearly proves that John Harcourt the bastard was not the same man as John Harcourt, husband of heiress Ann Scalers.
My Question is how do you disprove it?
What sources does the other John Harcourt of Ranton have that specifically link him with a wife Anne or daughter Margery and the lands of the Scalers? John Harcourt of Ranton is not the same person as John Harcourt (Bastard) of Whitney or his brother John Harcourt of Staunton
Jason Quick
2018-04-26 20:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Jason Quick
"5. And here the plot thickens. There was a younger John Harcourt, parents unknown, who married Ann Scalers (Challers), heiress of the manor of Challers, which had been held by the Scalers family since the time of William the Conqueror(!). John and Ann had a daughter Margery, born in 1475, and then John died in debt. His widow Ann then married Giles Wellesbourne, who died in debt. (This was the final period of the Wars of the Roses, and Giles appears to have been on the wrong side.) Giles's presumed younger brother Humphrey Wellesbourne helped out Widow Ann with her deceased husbands' debts, and then he got to marry her heiress daughter Margery. The younger John Harcourt's wikitree profile is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-449"
That John Harecourt(e) is the elder
John Harecourte (bastard) b.c. 1536* - (de Wytney, esq., the elder, senior, Gentleman Usher of the King’s Chamber, Receiver, Keeper of the Peace of Oxfordshire). Eldest (illegitimate) son of Robert Harecourt KG. Married Ann Scales (Scalers) and had one daughter b.c. 1475, Margery who Married Humphrey Wellesbourne c.1493-4
I collected a bit of info on him a while back
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/harcourt%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/aWHunzol9PQ/7SCrRakLDAAJ
Jason, it seems to me that the problems with your supposition are
(1) As far as I can tell, there is no evidence connecting John the bastard son of Richard with John Harcourt, husband of Anne Scalars. Perhaps you know of such a connection.
(2) John the bastard had a position as a keeper of certain lands, but did not hold any lands. It is hard to imagine that such a man would marry the heiress of the ancient Scalars family, which held on to the same land going back almost to the time of William the Conqueror.
(3) John the bastard had a daughter Margery who was "abducted" in 1493. However, John Harcourt, husband of Ann Scalars, was DEAD WELL BEFORE 1493, when Ann, widow of both John Harcourt and of her second husband Giles Wellesbourne, arranged for the marriage of her daughter Margaret to Humphrey Wellesbourne.
John the Bastard d. bef. Jan. 11th 1485. If we could get access and a full translation to (KB 9 Indictment Rolls) KB9/402/52 and KB27/933, 934, 935. It might give the full picture of Margery's abduction.
Unless I am missing something, this clearly proves that John Harcourt the bastard was not the same man as John Harcourt, husband of heiress Ann Scalers.
John Harcourt the Bastard(de Whitney) was an usher and receiver of the King at the time. He died d. bef. Jan. 11th 1485, had a wife Anne and a daughter Margery who was abducted in 1485.

What sources does the other John Harcourt of Ranton have that specifically link him with a wife Anne or daughter Margery and the lands of the Scalers? You are correct that John Harcourt of Ranton is not the same person as John Harcourt (Bastard) of Whitney or his brother John Harcourt of Staunton
Loading...