Post by taf Post by Mark Jennings
You're quite right - the implication is that Alice Breton/Hauteyn is giving up a half
share to a coheiress, although it isn't clear whether that is a construction placed
on the quitclaim based on an assumption about the relationships or on the wording
of the quitclaim. I don't suppose the original of this can also be traced for review?
That all Ralph de Skegeton held at the time was a half-share.
That (for reasons that can only be guessed at) he granted the reversion of these properties to Maud.
That Alice, as sister and heiress to Ralph de Skegeton, executed a quitclaim to confirming the alienation of this part of her inheritance by her brother.
Watson interpreted these two acts as paired transactions involving each half of the land, and as such concluded from there being two such halves that Alice (explicit) and Maud (implicit) were the two heiresses, but instead what we actually are dealing with are two transactions relating to the same single half, transferred to Maud by Ralph with the (later formalized) consent of his full-heiress Alice.
In tis reconstruction, the later dispute over presentation, Edward de Warenne and Maud Dalling would be the representatives of these two halves, with Dalling representing the other half that was never part of the Ralph de Skegeton - Alice Hayteyn - Maud de Nerford - Ralph & Edward de Warenne devolution. (Though there is an alternative here, that Maud was widow of one of the Ralphs, claiming some sort of dower right).
According to Blomefield, the 3rd portion of the advowson of Itteringham, which he calls Bintre's Portion, was held in 1275 by Robert de Skeyton and Cecily his wife, and John de Bintre. The alternating presentations to this third were presumably shared between the descendants/representatives of the de Skeyton, and de Bintre. Edward de Warenne seems to have represented the de Skeytons (possibly the advowson was pendant upon the manor which he acquired under the terms of the 1324 settlement); Maud and John de Dalling presumably represented the de Bintre moiety. Robert de Bintre had presented in 1304, and Ralph de Skeyton in 1320 (Sir Ralph of course made the 1324 settlement, and was the son of John de Skeyton, son of Robert and Cecily de Skeyton.
Maud likely cannot be a widow of either Ralph de Skeyton, whose widow Felicia survived him according to Blomefield, or of Ralph the son of Maud de Nerford, since he probably died vita matris (although he may have died between 1345 when Maud died, and 1349 when her son Edward was concerned in the presentation to Itteringham).
Blomefield does say that the main manor at Skeyton had been divided, but 2/3 to the de Skeytons and 1/3 to the Whitwells (descended from a cadet de Skeyton's heiress) under a settlement of 1187. Skeyton was held under the Baynard family, whereas Boton was held of the de Nerfords, presumably as heirs of the Vaux family.
Now then, I wander if there could be a chance that Felicia, the widow of Ralph de Skeyton who survived him and was living in 1358, according to Bloomfield, was a sister of Maud de Nerford?
This is copied and pasted from Peter Stewarts comments in a Google Group discussion on 24th of October 2010:
"What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?
See CP vol. 9 p. 469 note (k):
"Besides his 2 elder sons [John (died 5 Feb 1328/29) and Thomas (died 14 May
1344)], who suc. him in turn, he [William de Nerford (died 12 June/9 July
1302)] left issue Piers, Edmund, Felicie, and Maud (Parl. Writs; Rye,
Norfolk Fines, p. 172; Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vii, no. 350 ; Cal. Patent
Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 5, 401; Her. and Gen., vol. vii, pp. 215-218)." -
From British History Online:
"In 1315 Sir Ralf de Skeyton was lord and patron, who in 1321 released to Alice Bretoun and her heirs, and to Robert Brian of Felmingham and Hawise his wife, and their heirs, all his claim in the homages, services, and customs which they formerly held of Sir Ralf, and Sara his mother, in Felmingham and Skeyton; he sealed with Vair erm. and sab. a bend. Felicia his widow was alive in 1358, but in 1323 Sir Ralf settled it, with Boton, on himself and
Maud de Nerford, and her sons, as in Boton, and in 1345 Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then widow of Hautein, her second husband, released all right to the said Maud." -
But the next sentence might be a bit confusing:
" In 1345, Sir William de Warren, Knt. held two parts of a fee in Skeyton, Boton, Crostweyt, and Tibenham, of the heirs of Fulk Baniard, and had issue, Edward, John, and William, and died in 1382, leaving to his son, Sir John Warren, Knt. whose wife Margaret carried it to her second husband, John Mayne-Wareyne, who had it in 1401, and held it in 1403, of Hadeston manor, and it passed with Booton, till it was purchased by
William Hare of Beeston, Gent. about 1532."
"Skeyton's Manor, or Skeyton Hall." Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Skeyton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 359-364. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364 [accessed 21 July 2021].
Shouldn't "Sir William de Warren, Knt" mentioned as holding Skeyton etc in 1345 be substituted for Sir Edward de Warren, Knt?
Edward's son Sir John Warren married Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Stafford of Wickham. John died in 1386 and was buried at Booton, Norfolk.
His widow Margaret then married John Mainwaring (or le Mainwaring) of Over Peover. Margaret died April the 6th 1418. Her Inquisition Post Mortem was taken the same year.
John's Inquisition Post Mortem (abstract of) can be viewed here on p.25 - 26:
"Johannes de Wareyn, Chivaler (10 Richard.II)." -
His wife Margaret's (widow of John Mainwaring or similar surname) inquisition dated 9th of June 1418, can be viewed in the same book on pages 131 - 132.
On the next page follows some notes of the Warrens and other information followed by a tree. Relating to John this tree reads:
"Sir John Warying, or Warren, died Sunday next before St. Andrew's day, 10 Ric 2, 1386." -
Margaret's Inquisition Post Mortem from 1418 can also be viewed on p.275 of Earwaker's History of East Cheshire, Volume 2. The paragraph before this inquisition states that Margaret was the daughter of Sir John de Stafford of Wickham, Norfolk. Note (h) on this page states that the marriage settlement was dated 1371 "is preserved amongst the Woodford deeds now at Capesthorne."
Her inquisition states that Margaret had been the wife of Sir John de Warren. They had a son Nicholas. John then died, and Margaret then married John "le Mainwarying." Nicholas has a son named Lawrence. Nicholas, her son died while Margaret was still alive. So Margaret's grandson Lawrence "aged 24 years or more" was heir. -
In 1369 John was heir to the daughter of his cousin.
John's cousin was Sir Richard de Eton, alias de Stokeport/Stockport. Sir Richard's daughter Isabel/Isabella died on October the 18th 1369.
Volume II, p.275 of Earwaker's History of East Cheshire (above) states that Sir Edward's son, "John de Warren, was found heir to his cousin Isabel de Stokeport." It might seem a bit pedantic, but she was the daughter of his cousin, not strictly a plain cousin.
This is Isabel/Isabella's inquisition post mortem taken in 1370, which also states that John was above the age of 26 years. The relationships written out in this inquisition states that her father was John's cousin. It also states that John's father was Sir Edward de Warren:
"...she died in the feast of St.Luke the Evangelist (October 18th), 43 Edward III (1369), and John, the son of Sir Edward Warren, Knt., is next of kin and next heir, namely son of a certain Cicely, sister of Robert de Stokeport, father of the said Sir Richard de Stokeport, Knt., father of the said Isabella, and the said John is of the age of 26 years and more." -
"Isabel, daughter of Sir Richard de Stokeport, Knt: Cheshire Inquisitions Post Mortem - Record Office." in "The Barons of Stockport." Earwaker, J.P. (1877). East Cheshire Past And Present: Or A History Of The Hundred Of Macclesfield In The County Palatine of Chester. From Original Records. Volume I, p.341.
It can be viewed on Google Books here:
So Isabel was John's first cousin once removed.
Page 341 of this book shows the family tree "Stokeport and Eton of Stockport." It is clearly a mistake by listing on there John's father as Sir William Warren, Knt, and not Sir Edward: The information in the above Inquisition Post Mortem gives his father as Edward. And also previous pages in the same chapter give his father as Sir Edward:
"In addition to the three sons mentioned above, Nicholas de Eton and Joan had a daughter Cicely, who married for her first husband John, son of Sir John de Arderne, Knt. (as see in the Arderne pedigree), but who was divorced from him in 1332. She subsequently married Sir Edward Warren, Knt., whose son, Sir John Warren, ultimately succeeded to Stockport, Poynton, &c." -
From p.339 of above book.
Then there is this one:
"SIR JOHN DE WARREN, KNT., the son of Sir Edward de Warren, Knt., and Cicely de Eton his wife, who thus succeeded to the manors and lands of the de Stokeports, was the first of a long line of Warrens who successively held these estates." -
From p.342 of the above book.
Then there is this relating to Boton (Booton, Norfolk) from British History Online:
"In 1323 Oliver de Redham, and Ralf, rector of Skeyton, as trustees, settled this and Skeyton on Sir Ralf de Skeyton aforesaid for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two sons, Ralf and Edward.
¶This Maud (fn. 7) was concubine to William Earl Warren, and had by him these two sons, who took the name of Warren, the Earl having no legitimate issue; (fn. 8) and Sir Edward Warren, (fn. 9) Knt. (fn. 10) had the manor here; his 2d son, Sir John de Warren, Knt. succeeded him here, and was buried in Boton church in 1382; this Sir John, in 1347, was not in possession, for then Felicia de Skeyton held it in dower at half a fee, of Thomas de Nerford, who held it of the honour of Clare; Sir John married Margaret, daughter and heiress of Sir John Stafford of Wykham, Knt who afterwards remarried to John le Mayne Warren, who in 1401 was lord here; and in 1427, Laurence Mainwarren had it." -
Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359 [accessed 21 July 2021].
Once again we know that this Maud de Nerford was concubine to John Earl Warren, not William as above stated. And Sir John de Warren died in 1386 and was buried at Boton (Booton).
I KNOW I have waffled on for FAR too long. But what does anyone think to the idea of Felicia the widow of Ralph Skeyton being a sister of Maud de Nerford?
Is it a none starter?
Thank you very much.