Discussion:
Maud de Nerford and the illegitimate childen of John, Earl of Warenne
Add Reply
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 14:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.

The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).

Apparently prior to this, the Earl already had at least one illegitimate son, William, who was granted the manor and advowson of Beeston, Norfolk by his father in 1311. That son was, unsurprisingly, a minor when a presentation to Beeston rectory was made by the earl as custodian in March 1311 (Register of John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, 1299-1325, E. Gemmill [ed], 2019, p 108).

On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself for life, remainder to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic) and the heirs of his body, remainder to Thomas de Warenne, son of the said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in the Patent Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which time those two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not expected to leave legitimate issue.

In 1324 we have the fine settling property at Skeyton away from the de Skeyton family after the death of the childless Sir Ralph, to Maud de Nerford and her sons Ralph and Edward (Alice de Hauteyn, sister and heir of Sir Ralph de Skeyton quitclaiming in 20 Edward II).

In 1344 the Earl obtained a papal indulgence in favour of himself, his wife, his son William de Warenne, knight, and the latter's wife Margaret.

Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the church according to the tenor of his bequest, daughters Johan de Basyng and Katerin, and son Edward de Warenne.

It isn't clear on the face of the foregoing that Edward de Warenne, illegitimate son of the Earl, was the son of Maud de Nerford, although it seems that Maud did have a son Edward (as well as a son Ralph, and sons John and Thomas whose father was the Earl).

Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?

Incidentally, it would appear that Maud de Nerford was not the same individual as Maud the wife of John de Dalling, who was dealing with the advowson of Itteringham along with Edward de Warenne. Maud de Nerford was dead by 22 November 1345 as the Patent Roll entry for that date makes clear, while Mad de Dalling was still living in 1349 (Calendar of Close Rolls, 23 February 1349).
taf
2021-02-11 15:56:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl
of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal
XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
Post by Mark Jennings
In 1324 we have the fine settling property at Skeyton away from the de Skeyton family
after the death of the childless Sir Ralph, to Maud de Nerford and her sons Ralph and
Edward (Alice de Hauteyn, sister and heir of Sir Ralph de Skeyton quitclaiming in 20
Edward II).
This is really where it all hangs - if this Maud de Nerford who received Skeyton is the same as the Maud de Nerford who was mistress of John de Warenne, then there is no reason to question the whole thing. However, Watson maintained that there was documentation giving the mistress different parentage than the Skeyton holder - that there were two different contemporary Mauds de Nerford.
Post by Mark Jennings
Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.
Post by Mark Jennings
Incidentally, it would appear that Maud de Nerford was not the same individual as
Maud the wife of John de Dalling, who was dealing with the advowson of Itteringham
along with Edward de Warenne. Maud de Nerford was dead by 22 November 1345 as
the Patent Roll entry for that date makes clear, while Mad de Dalling was still living in
1349 (Calendar of Close Rolls, 23 February 1349).
Clearly Maud, wife of Dalling, was distinct from Maud, mistress of Earl John. If I remember correctly, Maud Dalling and Edward disputed the presentation and reached an agreement to alternate, which would have been unusual had Maud been the mother of Edward and conduit for his claim.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 16:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl
of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal
XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
Post by Mark Jennings
In 1324 we have the fine settling property at Skeyton away from the de Skeyton family
after the death of the childless Sir Ralph, to Maud de Nerford and her sons Ralph and
Edward (Alice de Hauteyn, sister and heir of Sir Ralph de Skeyton quitclaiming in 20
Edward II).
This is really where it all hangs - if this Maud de Nerford who received Skeyton is the same as the Maud de Nerford who was mistress of John de Warenne, then there is no reason to question the whole thing. However, Watson maintained that there was documentation giving the mistress different parentage than the Skeyton holder - that there were two different contemporary Mauds de Nerford.
Post by Mark Jennings
Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.
Fair enough. So in turn, unless secondary evidence of the "MS in the College of Arms by Glover" can be identified, we only have Watson's [tertiary] word for it that there was a [primary] deed calling Maud de Nerford the daughter of Richard de Skeyton (even if it is by inference, eg because Alice the sister of Richard son Ralph calls Maud her sister). Watson seems to have been determined to assert/prove a legitimate descent for the Poynton Warrens, so I am a little wary of his claims, lest for all we know he jumped to conclusions on the basis of the 1324 settlement and a subsequent quitclaim by Alice.

The one item by Glover that is readily accessible is his & Flower's Visitation of Cheshire, 1580, printed in 1882. This contains a pedigree for the Poynton Warrens:

1. John, Erle Warren Sussex & Surrey married Jane daughter to Lord William Mowbray
2. Sir Edward Warren
3. Edward Warren married Ciceley Elton [sic]

https://archive.org/details/visitationofches00glov/page/242/mode/2up

I expect this pedigree pleases no-one.
taf
2021-02-11 16:33:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fair enough. So in turn, unless secondary evidence of the "MS in the College of Arms
by Glover" can be identified, we only have Watson's [tertiary] word for it that there was
a [primary] deed calling Maud de Nerford the daughter of Richard de Skeyton (even if
it is by inference, eg because Alice the sister of Richard son Ralph calls Maud her sister).
Watson seems to have been determined to assert/prove a legitimate descent for the
Poynton Warrens, so I am a little wary of his claims, lest for all we know he jumped to
conclusions on the basis of the 1324 settlement and a subsequent quitclaim by Alice.
Yes, quite. I would appreciate better sourcing all the way around.
I expect this pedigree pleases no-one.
Given that the Warrens of Ightfield also have a visitation pedigree tracing their descent from the Earls Warenne and Geoffrey Plantagenet, clearly invented, I am underwhelmed by this visitation claim of Warren of Poynton.

taf
taf
2021-02-11 21:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fair enough. So in turn, unless secondary evidence of the "MS in the College of Arms
by Glover" can be identified, we only have Watson's [tertiary] word for it that there was
a [primary] deed calling Maud de Nerford the daughter of Richard de Skeyton (even if
it is by inference, eg because Alice the sister of Richard son Ralph calls Maud her sister).
Something else to throw into the mix. Watson views there being two Mauds de Nerford, one the daughter of William de Nerford and mistress of Earl John, and the other the daughter of Richard de Skeyton. However, here I find the mistress called "widow of William de Nerford". Maybe Watson's basis for there being two Mauds is an error in the relationship of Maud to William - the daughter of Richard de Skeyton and the widow of William de Nerford could indeed have been the same woman.

Roy Martin Haines, King Edward II: His Life, His Reign, and Its Aftermath, 1284-1330, p. 406, note 79:
"Select Cases before the King's Council 1243-1482, pp. lxvi-lxix, 27-33 (MS Holkham Misc. 29, fos. 229r-31r) Matilda de Neyrford, widow of Sir WIlliam de Neyrford, was Warenne's mistess, and a case of divorce with her as 'actric' had been brought into the court of the archdeacon of Norfolk 'in dedecus ipsius domini regis manifestum er contemptum.' . . ."

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 22:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fair enough. So in turn, unless secondary evidence of the "MS in the College of Arms
by Glover" can be identified, we only have Watson's [tertiary] word for it that there was
a [primary] deed calling Maud de Nerford the daughter of Richard de Skeyton (even if
it is by inference, eg because Alice the sister of Richard son Ralph calls Maud her sister).
Something else to throw into the mix. Watson views there being two Mauds de Nerford, one the daughter of William de Nerford and mistress of Earl John, and the other the daughter of Richard de Skeyton. However, here I find the mistress called "widow of William de Nerford". Maybe Watson's basis for there being two Mauds is an error in the relationship of Maud to William - the daughter of Richard de Skeyton and the widow of William de Nerford could indeed have been the same woman.
"Select Cases before the King's Council 1243-1482, pp. lxvi-lxix, 27-33 (MS Holkham Misc. 29, fos. 229r-31r) Matilda de Neyrford, widow of Sir WIlliam de Neyrford, was Warenne's mistess, and a case of divorce with her as 'actric' had been brought into the court of the archdeacon of Norfolk 'in dedecus ipsius domini regis manifestum er contemptum.' . . ."
taf
Unfortunately, I think this must be a mis-reading. The select cases (p 28) makes it clear that the Earl's mistress is "[Matilda] de Neyrford filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford militis defuncti" (daughter of the late William de Nerford, knight, deceased), so I don't know the reference to her being Sir William's widow has arisen here. In any case, the widow of the only Sir William de Nerford I am aware of, was the well-attested Petronilla, heiress of the Vaux family.
Peter Stewart
2021-02-11 22:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl
of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal
XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
Maud de Nerford's husband was named as Sir Simon de Driby in a letter
from the bishop of Llandaff to the archbishop of Canterbury and other
prelates at the provincial council of London in 1313 ("diabolus
instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino Simoni de Dribi
nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse coniuncta, in
adulteriis detinuit amplexibus").

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-02-11 22:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8,
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl
of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
  and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal
  XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of
Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal
household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de
Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
Maud de Nerford's husband was named as Sir Simon de Driby in a letter
from the bishop of Llandaff to the archbishop of Canterbury and other
prelates at the provincial council of London in 1313 ("diabolus
instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino Simoni de Dribi
nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse coniuncta, in
adulteriis detinuit amplexibus").
Apologies - I forgot to include the name of the subject in the passage
quoted, who had engaged in adultery with Sir Simon de Driby's wife Maud
de Nerford: "nobilis vir Iohannes de Warenne, comes Surriae ..."

Peter Stewart
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 22:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8,
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital
career of John, Earl
of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal
XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of
Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal
household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de
Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
Maud de Nerford's husband was named as Sir Simon de Driby in a letter
from the bishop of Llandaff to the archbishop of Canterbury and other
prelates at the provincial council of London in 1313 ("diabolus
instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino Simoni de Dribi
nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse coniuncta, in
adulteriis detinuit amplexibus").
Apologies - I forgot to include the name of the subject in the passage
quoted, who had engaged in adultery with Sir Simon de Driby's wife Maud
de Nerford: "nobilis vir Iohannes de Warenne, comes Surriae ..."
Peter Stewart
Many thanks Peter. I am very conscious that this is raking over ground that has been cultivated intensively for the best part of 250 years now, but it never hurts to revisit and go back to basics; I am grateful for the List's forbearance.

It would be instructive to track down the document which Watson used to assert that [at least one] Maud was a de Skeyton, since this is the only potential stumbling block to accepting Edward of Poynton as the son of Earl John (something, incidentally, that I am happy to accept). I see there is another 19 Edward II record naming "Matil[da] de Nerford", in which she makes a fine for 5 marks for a pardon for having acquired from Richard de Drencheston [Drinkstone] and Oliver de Re[e]dham property in Causton, Bo[o]ton, Brandeston and Skeyton, Norfolk (Rotulorum Originalium In Curia Scaccarii Abbreviatio, I, 293).
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 23:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8,
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital
career of John, Earl
of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl
of Warenne
and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal
XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313,
when the first
round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as
"Matilda who
was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of
Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal
household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de
Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
Maud de Nerford's husband was named as Sir Simon de Driby in a letter
from the bishop of Llandaff to the archbishop of Canterbury and other
prelates at the provincial council of London in 1313 ("diabolus
instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino Simoni de Dribi
nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse coniuncta, in
adulteriis detinuit amplexibus").
Apologies - I forgot to include the name of the subject in the passage
quoted, who had engaged in adultery with Sir Simon de Driby's wife Maud
de Nerford: "nobilis vir Iohannes de Warenne, comes Surriae ..."
Peter Stewart
Many thanks Peter. I am very conscious that this is raking over ground that has been cultivated intensively for the best part of 250 years now, but it never hurts to revisit and go back to basics; I am grateful for the List's forbearance.
It would be instructive to track down the document which Watson used to assert that [at least one] Maud was a de Skeyton, since this is the only potential stumbling block to accepting Edward of Poynton as the son of Earl John (something, incidentally, that I am happy to accept). I see there is another 19 Edward II record naming "Matil[da] de Nerford", in which she makes a fine for 5 marks for a pardon for having acquired from Richard de Drencheston [Drinkstone] and Oliver de Re[e]dham property in Causton, Bo[o]ton, Brandeston and Skeyton, Norfolk (Rotulorum Originalium In Curia Scaccarii Abbreviatio, I, 293).
OK, so this probably does relate to the 1324 fine, which was detailed in a post here (again, apologies for the self-indulgent regurgitation on my part):

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hu1M9_JmbtA/m/OPJdEcK6pmkJ

"Rad. de Skegeton v Oliver de Reedham and Rich[ard] de Drengeston, parson of the church of Skegeton [Skeyton], of the manors of Skegeton and Boton: The King puts in a claim; David de Strabolgi, Earl of Atholl puts in a claim; Philip son of Robert de Baldeswell of Boton puts in a claim; Roger de Gyney and Margery his wife and William de Whytewell put in a claim; Richard, vicar of the church of Aylesham, Peter Skypping, Richard de Drenkeston, parson of the church of Skeyton, William Hauteyn and Alicia his wife, Henry de Walcote and Beatrix his wife put in a claim; Richard son of Evorard de Thornton and Peter le Waleys of Boton put in a claim.

As the original poster noted, this extract by Rye says nothing about any reversionary clauses [this may be the first of a succession of transactions, ie the initial transfer of the property to feoffees] so we are left with Blomefield assertion about the beneficiaries being Ralph de Skeyton, them Maud de Nerford, then her sons Ralph and Edward, and none the wiser about Watson's assertion that Maud was Ralph de Skeyton's sister.
taf
2021-02-12 02:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
As the original poster noted, this extract by Rye says nothing about any reversionary clauses
[this may be the first of a succession of transactions, ie the initial transfer of the property to
feoffees] so we are left with Blomefield assertion about the beneficiaries being Ralph de
Skeyton, them Maud de Nerford, then her sons Ralph and Edward, and none the wiser about
Watson's assertion that Maud was Ralph de Skeyton's sister.
The original is on AALT:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm
Mark Jennings
2021-02-12 09:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
As the original poster noted, this extract by Rye says nothing about any reversionary clauses
[this may be the first of a succession of transactions, ie the initial transfer of the property to
feoffees] so we are left with Blomefield assertion about the beneficiaries being Ralph de
Skeyton, them Maud de Nerford, then her sons Ralph and Edward, and none the wiser about
Watson's assertion that Maud was Ralph de Skeyton's sister.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm
Perfect - thanks!

So, if I am reading it correctly, that talks about the remainder to Matilda de Nerford and the heirs of her body, and then remainder in default of such heirs to Rad. [Ralph] her son, and Edward her son.

Two points to be gleaned: (1) no relationship is mentioned between Maud de Nerford and any member of the Skeyton family, and (2) the fact that the grant is not to Maud for life, but to Maud and the heirs of her body, and only then with remainder to her sons Ralph and Edward posits that those two sons were illegitimate. This is strong supporting evidence that Watson/Glover are wrong, and that Edward (and Ralph) were sons of John, Earl of Warenne by Maud de Nerford.
joseph cook
2021-02-12 12:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Post by taf
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm
Perfect - thanks!
So, if I am reading it correctly, that talks about the remainder to Matilda de Nerford and the heirs of her body, and then remainder in default of such heirs to Rad. [Ralph] her son, and Edward her son.
Two points to be gleaned: (1) no relationship is mentioned between Maud de Nerford and any member of the Skeyton family, and (2) the fact that the grant is not to Maud for life, but to Maud and the heirs of her body, and only then with remainder to her sons Ralph and Edward posits that those two sons were illegitimate. This is strong supporting evidence that Watson/Glover are wrong, and that Edward (and Ralph) were sons of John, Earl of Warenne by Maud de Nerford.
I agree with this conclusion; although still think Richardson should suck lemons for his rude uncalled for comments earlier. This isn't a validation of his approach at all.
--JC
taf
2021-02-12 13:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Two points to be gleaned: (1) no relationship is mentioned between Maud de
Nerford and any member of the Skeyton family, and (2) the fact that the grant
is not to Maud for life, but to Maud and the heirs of her body, and only then
with remainder to her sons Ralph and Edward posits that those two sons were
illegitimate. This is strong supporting evidence that Watson/Glover are wrong,
and that Edward (and Ralph) were sons of John, Earl of Warenne by Maud de
Nerford.
If I recall correctly from when I looked at it, I was not entirely clear that Watson was drawing his conclusions regarding relationship solely from this fine alone and not also the quitclaim by Maud's 'sister' Alice of her half-share.

I found an antiquarian commentary from the late 1800s on Watson's theory that among other things laid set out that the Skegeton family was holding these properties by infeudation under William de Nerford and Petronilla. (unfortunately my computer rebooted on me and I lost the link)

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-12 13:51:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Two points to be gleaned: (1) no relationship is mentioned between Maud de
Nerford and any member of the Skeyton family, and (2) the fact that the grant
is not to Maud for life, but to Maud and the heirs of her body, and only then
with remainder to her sons Ralph and Edward posits that those two sons were
illegitimate. This is strong supporting evidence that Watson/Glover are wrong,
and that Edward (and Ralph) were sons of John, Earl of Warenne by Maud de
Nerford.
If I recall correctly from when I looked at it, I was not entirely clear that Watson was drawing his conclusions regarding relationship solely from this fine alone and not also the quitclaim by Maud's 'sister' Alice of her half-share.
I found an antiquarian commentary from the late 1800s on Watson's theory that among other things laid set out that the Skegeton family was holding these properties by infeudation under William de Nerford and Petronilla. (unfortunately my computer rebooted on me and I lost the link)
taf
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?

(And IIRC Blomefield might support your memory of the feudal relationships between the Skeytons and the Nerfords)
taf
2021-02-12 16:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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?
I can't help but wonder if there isn't confusion on top of confusion here, and would suggest the following:

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).

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-12 18:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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).
taf
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.
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-21 15:55:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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).
taf
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)." -

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hu1M9_JmbtA/m/OPJdEcK6pmkJ

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].


https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364

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)." -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

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." -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

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. -

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=317&skin=2021&q1=Sir%20Edward%20Warren

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:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

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].

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359

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.

Richard Ebdon.
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-21 16:35:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Ebdon
Page 341 of this book shows the family tree "Stokeport and Eton of Stockport."
Sorry, I meant to put p.343. -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-22 12:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Regarding Sir Edward Warren, illegitimate son of the last Earl, there is this note (9) from "Boton" on British History online:

"9. Sir Edward was alive in 1365, and Cecily, daughter and coheir of Nicholas de Eton, Knt. relict of John, son and heir of John Ardern, Knt. was his wife." -

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359

Does anybody know please where the evidence is, apart from Bloomfield stating this in his book, that Sir Edward was alive in 1365?

I also found this from Geni.com on Sir Edward's biography:

"He was at the Seige of Calais in 1347."

Is anyone aware that there exists evidence stating that he was at the Siege of Calais?

I know there is probably a chance that he may have been at this siege because part of his biography on Geni.com states:

"In 1346 he was serving in France in the retinue of his brother, William de Warenne; his father the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk." -

https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-de-Warren-of-Poynton/6000000000146847868

And part of the above statement is true: I remember viewing on google groups somewhere that John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey stated in 1345/ 1346 that his sons William and Edward were ready to "serve the king abroad," and requested Edward was to be discharged from the demand to find a man at arms for his lands in Norfolk. But where is it recorded that Edward was in the retinue of his brother William?

And this statement about Edward being Knighted on the same page as above does not make sense at all either:

"Knighted by Joan de Stoke Knight (Joan de Stockport)."

I have always wandered when it was that Edward may have been knighted though:

He was just named as plain Edward in his father John's will in 1347.

By 1348 or 1349 (sorry I can't remember the record that I viewed recording this), Edward had become a Knight. It may have been a record in 1348/49 in relation to his Norfolk estates.

Thank you very much.

Any information would be gratefully accepted.
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-22 12:39:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Ebdon
He was just named as plain Edward in his father John's will in 1347.
By 1348 or 1349 (sorry I can't remember the record that I viewed recording this), Edward had become a Knight. It may have been a record in 1348/49 in relation to his Norfolk estates.
I think I've found it:

He is recorded as Sir Edward Warren by 1348:

" III. Bintre's Portion.

1275, Rt. de Skeyton, and Cecily his wife, and John de Bintre were then patrons.

1304, James Bacon, by Rt. de Bintre.

1320, John de la Grene, by Sir Ralph de Skeyton, Knt. this turn.

¶1346, Maud, relict of John de Dallyng, was patroness this turn.

1348, (fn. 6) Nicks. le Weyte, by Sir Edward Warren, Knt.

Bintre Manor.
¶In 1275 it belonged to John de Bintre, and Hawise his wife, they purchased one moiety of it of Robert de Skeyton, and Cecily his wife, sister probably of Hawise, and in 1285, he had view of frank pledge, and assize of bread and beer. In 1313, Maud de Bintre had it; she married John de Dallyng, and was his widow in 1346, after this it passed as may be seen in Bintre's portion above.

Footnotes:
6. Each portion at this time was taxed et 5 marks." -



Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Itteringham', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 472-477. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp472-477 [accessed 22 July 2021].
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-22 16:09:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Ebdon
"He was at the Seige of Calais in 1347."
Is anyone aware that there exists evidence stating that he was at the Siege of Calais?
"In 1346 he was serving in France in the retinue of his brother, William de Warenne; his father the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk." -
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-de-Warren-of-Poynton/6000000000146847868
And part of the above statement is true: I remember viewing on google groups somewhere that John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey stated in 1345/ 1346 that his sons William and Edward were ready to "serve the king abroad," and requested Edward was to be discharged from the demand to find a man at arms for his lands in Norfolk.
Here we are I've found this one:

"1346. April 22. John, Earl of Warenne, Surrey, and Stratherne, to the Chancellor. As his two sons, Edward de Warenne and William de Warenne, are ready to attend the King abroad, he begs that the former may be discharged from the demand to find a man- at-arms for his lands in Norfolk, as he holds no others there. (3)

(3). Pat. 20 Edw. III., part 1., m. 15, p. 265, No. 1450*." -

"The Last Earl of Warenne And Surrey, And The Distribution of His Possessions". Fairbank, F.R. (1907). The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal vol.XIX. p.248:

https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/270/mode/2up

But that still doesn't necessarily mean that Edward was at the siege of Calais, or even in the retinue of his brother William. Although there is a possibility that he may have been.
taf
2021-02-14 23:40:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of Robert and Joan
de Tattershall and was a member of the royal household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I
find reference to a Simon de Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
Maud de Nerford's husband was named as Sir Simon de Driby in a letter
from the bishop of Llandaff to the archbishop of Canterbury and other
prelates at the provincial council of London in 1313 ("diabolus
instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino Simoni de Dribi
nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse coniuncta, in
adulteriis detinuit amplexibus").
In addition to this entry I am finding two other references to 'Sir" Simon de Driby during this period in primary records. In 1318 "Sir Simon de Driby" was compensated for taking Gilbert de Middeltone and his brother John to the Tower, and in 1319, "Sir Simon de Dryby" was one of the admirals of ships going against the Scots.

While secondary sources identify this 'Sir Simon' with the son of Robert, I am not finding any primary sources that allow this identification to be made definitively. There were at least three Simons living during this period.

1. Simon, son of Sir Simon de Driby, debtor, 1290. In 1313 and 1325 the same debt was outstanding, owed by Simon son of Simon (no 'Sir'), who could be the same man, or the next generation. (TNA)
2. Simon, son of Sir John de Driby, creditor, with his father, 1311 (TNA)
3. Simon, son of Robert de Driby and Joan, d. 1322, widow Margery, heir brother Robert (40 & more) (IPM)

On #1, the father in the 1290 record is Sir Simon, fl. 1270s, 1280s, husband of Alice dau Hugh Fitz Ralph. W.O. Massingberd, History of the parish of Ormsby-cum-Ketsby (1893) reports:
6 Edw . I. Simon de Dryby and Alice his wife , besides Robert his son and heir , had Hugh , Ralph , and Simon . - Feet of Fines , Lincoln , case 5.

taf
taf
2021-02-15 02:11:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
6 Edw . I. Simon de Dryby and Alice his wife , besides Robert his son and heir , had Hugh , Ralph , and Simon . - Feet of Fines , Lincoln , case 5.
For a summary of this final concord, and a lot more on the Dribys, see:
W. O. Massingberd, "Lords of the Manor of Driby", Reports and Papers of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of the Counties of Lincoln and Northampton, vol. 23, pp. 106-134
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015062791267&view=1up&seq=192

The original is here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/CP25(1)/CP25(1)132Lincs52/IMG_0028.htm
and a second here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/CP25(1)/CP25(1)132Lincs52/IMG_0031.htm

taf
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-22 13:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.
Yes, Ralph could have been a kinsman of Maud: Could Maud have been the sister of Sir Ralph de Skeyton's wife Felicie?
Please see my comment relating to this.

Thank you.

Richard.
taf
2021-07-22 15:04:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Ebdon
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.
Yes, Ralph could have been a kinsman of Maud: Could Maud have been the sister of Sir Ralph de Skeyton's wife Felicie?
Please see my comment relating to this.
Looks like a reasonable possibility, though this wouldn't explain Ralph's sister executing a quitclaim (unless I have lost track of something).

taf
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-22 15:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Richard Ebdon
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.
Yes, Ralph could have been a kinsman of Maud: Could Maud have been the sister of Sir Ralph de Skeyton's wife Felicie?
Please see my comment relating to this.
Looks like a reasonable possibility, though this wouldn't explain Ralph's sister executing a quitclaim (unless I have lost track of something).
taf
Thank you.
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-25 20:47:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Richard Ebdon
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.
Yes, Ralph could have been a kinsman of Maud: Could Maud have been the sister of Sir Ralph de Skeyton's wife Felicie?
Please see my comment relating to this.
Looks like a reasonable possibility, though this wouldn't explain Ralph's sister executing a quitclaim (unless I have lost track of something).
taf
"Blomefield (63) reports that in 1323 Oliver de Redham and Ralf, Rector of Skeyton,
acting as Trustees, settled a moiety of the manor of Booton, together with the manor
of Skeyton, on Sir Ralf de Skeyton for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two
sons, Ralf and Edward, who took the name of Warren. Watson (64) refers it seems to
this same settlement, but states one Rither vicar of Aylesham, had released his right,
as a trustee in the said manors to said Maud and heirs of her body. Blomefield (65 )also
reports that subsequent to the settlement, Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then
widow of Hauteyn her second husband, released all her moiety of said manors to
Maud de Nerford. Watson (66) dates this release as 1326, and states Alice settled this
moiety on Maud de Nerford, and heirs of her body, with remainder to Ralph son of
said Maud and heirs of his body, remainder to his brother Edward and his heirs of his
body, remainder to Alice and her heirs. Watson (67) also refers to an indenture dated
1326, concerning the manors of Skeyton, Booton, and lands and rent in Booton,
Skeyton, Canston, Bradiston, Tybenham, and Briston to be settled as above.

(Notes):
63 Blomefield, History of Norfolk 3 (1769) page 609
64 Watson, John. Memoirs of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey, and their descendants to the
present time. By the Rev. John Watson, 1782, vol 2 p91
65 Blomefield History of Norfolk 3 (1769) page 604
66 Watson, John. Memoirs of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey, and their descendants to the
present time. By the Rev. John Watson, 1782, vol 2 p91
67 ibid. " -

THE MATERNITY of JOHN and BEATRIX de BREWES
by P.W. Mackenzie, pp 6-7:

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf


Thank you.

Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 16:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Apparently prior to this, the Earl already had at least one illegitimate son, William, who was granted the manor and advowson of Beeston, Norfolk by his father in 1311. That son was, unsurprisingly, a minor when a presentation to Beeston rectory was made by the earl as custodian in March 1311 (Register of John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, 1299-1325, E. Gemmill [ed], 2019, p 108).
On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself for life, remainder to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic) and the heirs of his body, remainder to Thomas de Warenne, son of the said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in the Patent Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which time those two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not expected to leave legitimate issue.
In 1324 we have the fine settling property at Skeyton away from the de Skeyton family after the death of the childless Sir Ralph, to Maud de Nerford and her sons Ralph and Edward (Alice de Hauteyn, sister and heir of Sir Ralph de Skeyton quitclaiming in 20 Edward II).
In 1344 the Earl obtained a papal indulgence in favour of himself, his wife, his son William de Warenne, knight, and the latter's wife Margaret.
Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the church according to the tenor of his bequest, daughters Johan de Basyng and Katerin, and son Edward de Warenne.
It isn't clear on the face of the foregoing that Edward de Warenne, illegitimate son of the Earl, was the son of Maud de Nerford, although it seems that Maud did have a son Edward (as well as a son Ralph, and sons John and Thomas whose father was the Earl).
Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
Incidentally, it would appear that Maud de Nerford was not the same individual as Maud the wife of John de Dalling, who was dealing with the advowson of Itteringham along with Edward de Warenne. Maud de Nerford was dead by 22 November 1345 as the Patent Roll entry for that date makes clear, while Mad de Dalling was still living in 1349 (Calendar of Close Rolls, 23 February 1349).
Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant, in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue. It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.

Fairbanks seems to indicate that the Earl also had children by his last concubine, Isabel de Holande, as he implies that "Dame Maud de Holande", "Mon[sieur] Robert de Holande" and "Mon[sieur] Otes de Holande" named in his will, were his children. I'm not convinced.
taf
2021-02-11 16:42:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it
is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant,
in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue.
Yes. There is continuity in the Skeyton-Nerford-Warren of Poynton line.
Post by Mark Jennings
It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
A provision for Ralph would certainly tip the balance.
Post by Mark Jennings
Fairbanks seems to indicate that the Earl also had children by his last concubine, Isabel de
Holande, as he implies that "Dame Maud de Holande", "Mon[sieur] Robert de Holande" and
"Mon[sieur] Otes de Holande" named in his will, were his children. I'm not convinced.
Look like the Holands of Upholand to me. Matilda la Zouche, widow of Robert de Holand, 1st baron (d. 1328), their heir Robert and younger son Otho, KG.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 16:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it
is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant,
in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue.
Yes. There is continuity in the Skeyton-Nerford-Warren of Poynton line.
Post by Mark Jennings
It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
A provision for Ralph would certainly tip the balance.
Post by Mark Jennings
Fairbanks seems to indicate that the Earl also had children by his last concubine, Isabel de
Holande, as he implies that "Dame Maud de Holande", "Mon[sieur] Robert de Holande" and
"Mon[sieur] Otes de Holande" named in his will, were his children. I'm not convinced.
Look like the Holands of Upholand to me. Matilda la Zouche, widow of Robert de Holand, 1st baron (d. 1328), their heir Robert and younger son Otho, KG.
taf
Good spot. Doubtless Isabel the concubine belongs there too then, presumably as a sister of Robert the younger and Otho. Fairbanks also cites a 1346 settlement by the Earl (which I think is taken from Watson) in which he considers the possibility of heirs born by Isabel, whom he refers to as wife, which indicates they then had no issue (or at least, issue that the earl could consider legitimate).
taf
2021-02-11 17:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Good spot. Doubtless Isabel the concubine belongs there too then, presumably as
a sister of Robert the younger and Otho.
At least according to Wikipedia (all necessary caveats apply) the old DNB entry for Earl John makes this relationship explicit, that his mistress Isabel de Holand was sister of Thomas, 1st Earl of Kent (brother of Robert, 2nd baron, and Otho).

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 18:02:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it
is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant,
in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue.
Yes. There is continuity in the Skeyton-Nerford-Warren of Poynton line.
Post by Mark Jennings
It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
A provision for Ralph would certainly tip the balance.
Could Ralph be the "Ravlyn fitz al Counte de Garrein" (Ravlyn son of the Earl of Warenne) named in the Parliamentary Petitions (#63, 8 Edward III - 1334)?

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000020573638&view=1up&seq=94

(I omitted the will reference to the Earl's daughter Isabel, "noneyne de Sempryngham" - a nun at Sempringham - to complete the list of his children.)
taf
2021-02-11 20:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it
is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant,
in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue.
Yes. There is continuity in the Skeyton-Nerford-Warren of Poynton line.
Post by Mark Jennings
It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
A provision for Ralph would certainly tip the balance.
Could Ralph be the "Ravlyn fitz al Counte de Garrein" (Ravlyn son of the Earl of Warenne) named in the Parliamentary Petitions (#63, 8 Edward III - 1334)?
DNB names him as one of the Earl's bastards, but for some reason calls him Welsh. Not sure if they were interpreting the name as having a different etymology than as a pet name for Rauf (Ralph).

taf
taf
2021-02-12 13:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
Regarding his son Rawlin, doing an archive dive, I note that a decade ago Mr. Richardson cited a grant from Earl John to a Ralph de Warenne without indicating any relationship. This could mean that he indeed made provision for additional bastards, but in documents that either by intent or omission simply do not make the relationship explicit.

taf
taf
2021-02-12 13:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
Regarding his son Rawlin, doing an archive dive, I note that a decade ago Mr. Richardson cited a grant from Earl John to a Ralph de Warenne without indicating any relationship.
I see in retrospect my wording is ambiguous. It is the grant itself what gave no relationship. Mr. Richardson was not so prudent.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-12 21:02:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
Regarding his son Rawlin, doing an archive dive, I note that a decade ago Mr. Richardson cited a grant from Earl John to a Ralph de Warenne without indicating any relationship. This could mean that he indeed made provision for additional bastards, but in documents that either by intent or omission simply do not make the relationship explicit.
taf
Good spot - I had searched the archives and missed some of that thread. This also shows that Ralph had a wife Joan, who likely had some dower or settlement rights in Skeyton, and that Ralph was dead by 1346, when Edward held at Skeyton (if Ralph ever held, it was for a very short period - although Paul Mazkenzie's post argues that he was dead by 1342, based on a reconstruction of Joan's subsequent marital history).
taf
2021-02-13 04:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself for life, remainder
to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic) and the heirs of his body, remainder to
Thomas de Warenne, son of the said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in
the Patent Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which time those
two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not expected to leave legitimate issue.
TNA SC 8/280/13971
Petitions to the King and Council, etc.

"The Earl Warenne requests that the King and council review the descent of his lands in Surrey, Sussex, Yorkshire and Wales so that his heirs not be disinherited. The petitioner enfeoffed the King in all his castles, manors, lands and tenements in Surrey, Sussex Yorkshire and Wales, and the King then re-enfeoffed Warenne in the same in Surrey, Sussex and Wales for life, descending after his death to John, son of Maud and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to his brother Thomas and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to the male heirs of the petitioner, and in default of a male heir to the King and his heirs, and also re-enfeoffed Warenne in the same in Yorkshire for life, descending after his death to Maud, and after her death to her son John and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to his brother Thomas and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to the male heirs of the petitioner, and in default of a male heir to the King and his heirs."

"Dated on the guard to c. 1326, with reference to SC 8/174/8702B."

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9517919 (Free to download)

Also:

TNA SC 8/87/4348
Petitions to the King and Council, etc.

"Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his men given to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John le Claver at the suit of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be repealed, as these justices are of the fees and robes of Lady de Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can to his people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at common law if it seems good to him."

"CPR 1317-21 p.474 is dated 1 December 1319, and p.537 is dated 8 July 1320. This petition, however, like many of this file, is most likely to have been presented at the Michaelmas parliament of 1320, so either or both of these would seem more likely to represent the commission about which the petitioner is complaining, rather than the confirmation of this commission given in the endorsement."

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9148890 (Free to download)

taf
taf
2021-02-13 05:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
"Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his men given
to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John le Claver at the suit
of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be repealed, as these justices are of the fees
and robes of Lady de Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can
to his people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his
company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at common law
if it seems good to him."
"CPR 1317-21 p.474 is dated 1 December 1319, and p.537 is dated 8 July 1320. This
petition, however, like many of this file, is most likely to have been presented at the
Michaelmas parliament of 1320, so either or both of these would seem more likely to
represent the commission about which the petitioner is complaining, rather than the
confirmation of this commission given in the endorsement."
The text of these CPR citations:

1) p. 474 "Dec. 1. York. The like to John de Mutford, John Bacun, John de Radenhale, and John Claver on complaint by John de Neyrford touching the persons who broke his close at Wesenham, co. Norfolk, and carried away his goods."

2) p. 537 "July 8. Westminster. Commission of oyer and terminer to John de Mutford, John Bacun, John de Redenhale and John Claver, on complaint by John de Neyrford that John Sprygi, Simon Plesent, Robert de Reppes and John Caunceler, with others, broke his close at Wesenham, co. Norfolk, and took and carried away his goods. Witness, the said earl."

taf
taf
2021-02-13 06:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313,
when the first round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She
was described as "Matilda who was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified
by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Apparently prior to this, the Earl already had at least one illegitimate son,
William, who was granted the manor and advowson of Beeston, Norfolk
by his father in 1311. That son was, unsurprisingly, a minor when a
presentation to Beeston rectory was made by the earl as custodian in
March 1311 (Register of John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, 1299-1325, E.
Gemmill [ed], 2019, p 108).
On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself
for life, remainder to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic)
and the heirs of his body, remainder to Thomas de Warenne, son of the
said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in the Patent
Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which
time those two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not
expected to leave legitimate issue.
An addition to the early timeline that refers to children of the couple, though does not name them - Helen Matthews, The Legitimacy of Bastards (2019) includes the following in reference to a 1331 confirmation to Lewes of grants for Earl John's soul and that of his wife Joan de Bar :

"This charter marks a contrast with one from 1316 when Warenne confirmed his and his ancestors' donations to the Priory of Thetford. Then it had been Maud Nerford and their children, rather than his wife, whose souls he had been concerned about: 'ac etiam pro salute animae Matildis de Nereford et antecessorum suorum, et puerorum nostrorum'."

(no page number in the preview Google is showing me, no citation given for the paragraph)

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-02-13 11:41:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313,
when the first round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She
was described as "Matilda who was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified
by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Apparently prior to this, the Earl already had at least one illegitimate son,
William, who was granted the manor and advowson of Beeston, Norfolk
by his father in 1311. That son was, unsurprisingly, a minor when a
presentation to Beeston rectory was made by the earl as custodian in
March 1311 (Register of John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, 1299-1325, E.
Gemmill [ed], 2019, p 108).
On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself
for life, remainder to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic)
and the heirs of his body, remainder to Thomas de Warenne, son of the
said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in the Patent
Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which
time those two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not
expected to leave legitimate issue.
"This charter marks a contrast with one from 1316 when Warenne confirmed his and his ancestors' donations to the Priory of Thetford. Then it had been Maud Nerford and their children, rather than his wife, whose souls he had been concerned about: 'ac etiam pro salute animae Matildis de Nereford et antecessorum suorum, et puerorum nostrorum'."
(no page number in the preview Google is showing me, no citation given for the paragraph)
This quotation is from the end of John's confirmation of a series of his
predecessors' donations to Thetford priory, printed in Monasticon vol. 6
part II pp. 729-730, here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=hc3PxVZNZugC&pg=PA730.

Peter stewart
Mark Jennings
2021-02-13 11:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313,
when the first round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She
was described as "Matilda who was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified
by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
Apparently prior to this, the Earl already had at least one illegitimate son,
William, who was granted the manor and advowson of Beeston, Norfolk
by his father in 1311. That son was, unsurprisingly, a minor when a
presentation to Beeston rectory was made by the earl as custodian in
March 1311 (Register of John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, 1299-1325, E.
Gemmill [ed], 2019, p 108).
On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself
for life, remainder to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic)
and the heirs of his body, remainder to Thomas de Warenne, son of the
said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in the Patent
Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which
time those two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not
expected to leave legitimate issue.
"This charter marks a contrast with one from 1316 when Warenne confirmed his and his ancestors' donations to the Priory of Thetford. Then it had been Maud Nerford and their children, rather than his wife, whose souls he had been concerned about: 'ac etiam pro salute animae Matildis de Nereford et antecessorum suorum, et puerorum nostrorum'."
(no page number in the preview Google is showing me, no citation given for the paragraph)
taf
There was a brief discussion of some of this back in 2010, when Peter Stewart sensibly picked up that the Warenne-Nerford spat must have meant that the Earl had ended his liaison with Maud by 1320, thus assisting in any estimate of the birthdates of their sons. He also added the following very useful item on 25.10.2010:

"At least two of these children were born before 30 April 1313, when John de
Monmouth, bishop of Llandaff, mentioned them in writing to Robert
Winchelsey, archibishop of Canterbury, and other prelates in the provincial
council of 1313 in London - here's a new reference for your list, _Records
of Convocation_ edited by Gerald Bray, vol. 3, Canterbury, 1313-1377
(Woodbridge, 2005), p. 8 [NB the editor misdates this 30 April 1314, but
Robert Winchelsey died on 11 May 1313]:

"Scelus nefandum adulterii notorii quod nobilis vir Iohannes de Warenne,
comes Surriae damnabiliter perpetrare non metuit et notorie committere non
desistit ... (nobili muliere domina Iohanna, excellentissimi principis
Edwardi, Dei gratia regis Angliae nepote, uxore sua legitima, cui se olim in
facie ecclesiae solemniter compulavit, sine iudicio ecclesiae temere
dimissa), diabolus instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino
Simoni de Dribi nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse
coniuncta, in adulteriis detinuit amplexibus ... sicut in adulterio per
multa iam tempora notorie detenuit et adhuc detinet et soboles praestitit
sui testes adhuc superstites ex ipsa suscitavit ..."

This text is from the register of the succeeding archbishop, Walter
Reynolds, folios 52v-53r"

Although we don't know how many of the illegitimate children were born to Maud de Nerford (William the knight, William the prior, Joan, Katherine and Isabel remain 'motherless', we can guess that the affair began circa 1310, two children were born by April 1313 - but probably only two boys (John and Thomas) needed to be provided for in 1316, when the grand resettlement was made - and then perhaps Ralph and Edward followed between 1316 and 1320.
taf
2021-02-18 02:44:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur
William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the
church according to the tenor of his bequest,
On this latter:
The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216-1377, p. 237
William de Warenne M. of Lewes, illegitimate s. of John, Earl Warenne, born at Conisbrough Castle (Cal. Misc. Inq., II, 397). Occ. 1 June 1335 (BL, Stowe ms. 935, f. 45r); Mar. 1337 (CCR 1337-39, pp. 106, 109) 22 Feb. 1339, 8 May 1339) (CCR 1339-41, pp. 18, 82). Transferred to Castleacre (q.v.) from Monks Horton (CPL, III, 124).

Cal. Papal Reg. 2:11
1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To John, son of John, earl of Warrenne, of the diocese of Hereford, who having been ordained priest under age, held the churches of Westbiri, Dorkingue, and Fichelarke, in the dioceses of Winchester and York, and a canonry and prebend of York, without papal dispensation. Dispensation to retain the same.
. . .
1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To William, son of John, earl of Warrenne, who having been ordained priest under age, and held the churches of Heytfeld and Northerpples, in the dioceses of Norwich and York. Dispensation to retain the same, with licence to accept an additional benefice.

Cal. Inq. Misc. 2:397
1622. Writ to the sheriff of Kent. Witness : — Edward, duke of Cornwall and earl of Chester, guardian of England. Kenyngton. 8 November 12 Edward III. [1338.]
Inquisition : — Canterbury. Wednesday after St. Lucy.
William de Warenna, prior of Horton, co. Kent, is son of John earl of Warenne, and was born in England at Conesburgh castle, co. York ; neither he nor his predecessors have made any payment or done any service [intendenciam] to any foreign religious house. Cf. Close Roll Calendar, 1339-1341, p. 18.
C. Inq. Misc. File 136. (13.)

Cal. Close R. 1339-41, p. 18, 82
22 Feb. 1339 Kennington. To the sheriff of Kent. Order not to intermeddle further with the priory of Horton in that county, which is a cell of the priory of Lewes, as is said, restoring the issues to the prior, as lately at the prior‘s suit showing that he is an Englishman and has never made any apportum or tax to any religious house beyond the sea, and that the priory and its possessions were never taken into the king’s hands with the possessions of alien men of religion, yet the priory has been taken into the king's hands as an alien priory and the prior has besought the king to order his hand to be amoved therefrom, wherefore the king ordered the sheriff to take an inquisition upon the matter, by which it is found that William de Warenna, son of John de Warenna, earl of Surrey, the present prior, was born in England in Conesburgh castle, co. York, and neither he nor his predecessors have made any apportum, tax or service (intendenciam) to any religious house beyond the sea.

8 May 1339 Berkampstead. To the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Order to revoke assignments made upon the priory of Horton, co. Kent, a cell of the priory of Lewes, and permit the prior to hold the priory and lands without rendering any form to the king as an alien, provided that he answer for any other forms which he may owe, as he has shown the king that he is an Englishman, and neither he nor his predecessors have been bound to make any apportum, tax or service to any religious house in parts beyond the sea, and the priory has never been taken into the hands of the kings as alien in past times, and it has been so taken by the king's order, and the king ordered the sheriff of Kent to take an inquisition upon the matter, by which it is found that William de Warenna son of John de Warenna, earl of Surrey, then prior, was born in England in Conesburgh Castle, co. York, and no priors had made any apportion, tax or service to any religious house beyond the sea, wherefore the king ordered the sheriff not to intermeddle further with the priory, and now the king has learned that the treasurer and barons aggrieve the prior, pretending that he ought to render a ferm for the priory, and have made assignments upon the prior for that ferm to divers persons, whereupon the prior has besought the king to provide a remedy.

Cal. Papal Reg. 3:12, 124, 139
1344 17 Kal. Dec. Avignon. To John, earl of Warenne. Recommending John de Janicuria for the priory of St. Pancras, in the diocese of Chichester, now void, and accepting the instance made for the promotion of bis son William, prior of Castleacre, by Iterius, abbot of Cluny.

1344 16 Kal. Feb. Avignon. To the priors of Westacre, Cokesford, and Thetford. Mandate to make provision to William de Warrenne, successively prior of Horton and Castleacre, of the latter, which he obtained irregularly by virtue of a dispensation from Benedict XII. enabling him to hold any office of his order short of the abbatial, and which is therefore void since this does not include a conventual priory. [Cal. Pet. i. 38.]

1344 16 Kal. Feb. Avignon. To William de Warrenn, monk of Lewes. Rehabilitation touching dispensations granted him, so that, having held the non-conventual priory of Horton, be may hold the conventual priory of Castelacre, notwithstanding illegitimacy.

TNA Petitions to the King, etc.
SC 8/247/12337
Petitioners: Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel.
Nature of request: Fitz Alan requests remedy and that Pileryn be commanded to cease the grievous and wrongful demand for the first fruits made on the priory of Castle Acre because of the provision of Warenne as prior, as the demand would ruin the house.
People mentioned: Raymond Pileryn, proctor of the Pope; William de Warenne, bastard son of [John de Warenne], Earl of Warenne, prior of Castle Acre.
Note: The petition dates to 1348 as the privy seal warrant with which it was formerly enclosed dates to 22 February 1348 [22 Edw. III] (C 81/328/19299). William de Warenne's successor as prior was appointed in 1348, and the petition appears to be in the aftermath of Warenne's election and subsequent attempts to obtain dispensation for his illegitimacy (The Heads of Religious Houses, II, pp.224-5). The petition also seems to be after the death of the last Warenne earl in 1348, as the petitioner's interest in Castle Acre Priory only came as heir to Warenne.

taf
taf
2021-02-18 03:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur
William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the
church according to the tenor of his bequest,
Another mention:
Cal. Pat. R. Ed. II, 1307-1313, p. 343
1311 April 15. Berwick on Tweed. Licence for the alienation in mortmain by John de Warenna, earl of Surrey, to Master William de Warenna, parson of the church of North Reppes, of a messuage and 4 acres of land in that place.

taf
taf
2021-02-18 04:07:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Jennings
Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur
William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the
church according to the tenor of his bequest,
The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216-1377, p. 237
William de Warenne M. of Lewes, illegitimate s. of John, Earl Warenne, born at Conisbrough Castle (Cal. Misc. Inq., II, 397). Occ. 1 June 1335 (BL, Stowe ms. 935, f. 45r); Mar. 1337 (CCR 1337-39, pp. 106, 109) 22 Feb. 1339, 8 May 1339) (CCR 1339-41, pp. 18, 82). Transferred to Castleacre (q.v.) from Monks Horton (CPL, III, 124).
Cal. Papal Reg. 2:11
1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To John, son of John, earl of Warrenne, of the diocese of Hereford, who having been ordained priest under age, held the churches of Westbiri, Dorkingue, and Fichelarke, in the dioceses of Winchester and York, and a canonry and prebend of York, without papal dispensation. Dispensation to retain the same.
. . .
1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To William, son of John, earl of Warrenne, who having been ordained priest under age, and held the churches of Heytfeld and Northerpples, in the dioceses of Norwich and York. Dispensation to retain the same, with licence to accept an additional benefice.
Sorry, their initial episcopal dispensation was in 1294, so these and the William in the followup are sons of the previous Earl John. For them see:
S. J. Chadwick, "Notes on Dewsbury Church and Some of Its Rectors and Vicars", The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 20, pp. 369-446 at 405-417

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044094420452&view=1up&seq=547

taf
Loading...