Discussion:
Hickson of Ightfield, Sanford of Lee, Brereston of Malpas
Add Reply
J. Sardina
2021-07-10 15:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hello,

While trying to verify names and coats of arms included in the certification of arms of one John Cuerton, from Shropshire, but resident at Bilbao, in 1559, which finally reappeared recently at an antiquities shop in Madrid, we come across a few families that have mentioned before in this group, such as Sanford and Brereton.

According to what can be read and seen from photographs of the original grant provider by the seller, John Cuerton's maternal line starts with one William Sanford, esq. married to one Alicia, daughter of Randulph Brereton, knight.

They were the parents of at least one daughter, Jocosa Sanford, who married one John Hickson, esquire, from Ightfield.

They were the parents of at least one daughter, Elena, who married John Cuerton, junior, another esquire, from "Darlason." I am guessing that Darlason may be Darlaston, but I am doubtful at this point. It might be an unidentified place in Shropshire near Ightfield.

The only date, and not from this document, is the date of John Cuerton junior, who should have been born between 1510 and 1520 since he was already at Bilbao in the 1550s and a little earlier. He was a younger, possibly second son. The certification of arms mentions his older brother, George, esquire of Ightfield, but trying to estimate birthdates for his mother, grandmother and great-grandmother is very trickly.

After searching for Hickson or names with similar spelling, from the 14th to the 16th centuries, in Shropshire, Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire in the visitations, i still don't find any. There is however, Hixon in Staffordshire and I am guessing that might be the origin of my line of interest. The name is not uncommon, but so far I can't link any to esquire of the 16th century.

However, there is one Hickeson mentioned in a document at the Shropshire archive for the period of interest:

https://www.shropshirearchives.org.uk/collections/getrecord/CCA_X465_1_1_3_1_34

The description mentions one William Sonforde of Lee who may be the same one mentioned above, or a son by the same name.

Grant Description: By William Sonforde of Lee to Thomas Hinton of Hinton, William Hyckeson rector of Igthefelde, Lord Thomas Raynalde, parish priest of Egedon, Edward Plavden and Richard Sonford son of William Sanforde of Lee, of all lands, tenements, rents, services with all appurtenances in the County of Salop. To have and to hold forever by above parties and their heirs, of the chief lords of the fee for due and customary services.

Warranty against all people.

Witnesses: Richard Sandforde Esq, lord of Sanforde, William Bromley, William Chedlow, William Lee and many others.

Docketed: William Sandford of Lea. 22nd Edward 4th, 1482.

Date: 4 January 22 Edward IV 1481/2

Interestingly, the certification of arms of John Cuerton gives quartered arms for his Hickson line, discussed already in the thread about them in this group, which are the same, if not similar, to the arms for Lee, Peshall and one unidentified line.

In the archives of Shropshire, there is another document including members of these families also:

Place: Shropshire Archives System Reference: X465/1/1/3/1/30

Document Reference: 465/30

Date: 17 June 1455 Level: file

Description: Tuesday before the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist 33 Henry VI at the Lee.

By Thomas son of Nicholas Sondeford to William Parker vicar of Prys, William Hicson, rector of Ightfeld, and William Sondeford son of Gruffin Sondeford, of all lands and tenements which he has in the Lee, with appurtenances. To have and to hold by above parties and their heirs and assigns, rendering due service to the lord of the fee.

Warranted against all people.

Witnesses: William Maynewaryng, William Colclogh, Hugh Peesall, Ralph Coton, John Huwet and others.

1 red seal.

Docketed: Thomas Sandford son of Nicholas Sandford Lea 33 H,6, 15 June 1454.

Held At: Shropshire Archives

I will try obtaining images of these documents, but I doubt they will explain the relationship, if any, between William Hickson, the rector of Ightfield, and the Sandfords. I am assuming it is the same William, from 1455 to 1482, but it might be two different people. Any ideas on where else to look?

J Sardina
taf
2021-07-11 00:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is another from Cheshire (via TNA) naming the same man, without the Sondford connections:

GRANT in fee by Hugh Browe de Tussyngeham to John Maynwaryng, chaplain, rector of the parish church of Warmyngeham, and William Hyckeson, chaplain, rector of the parish church of Ightfeld, of 4 parcels of land in the township of TUSSYNGEHAM, of which 1 lies in le henlowe, 1 in le horstonesfeld, 1 is called the Berecroft and the fourth is called le Flaxeyorde.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/ef6231ea-8f4f-4cd0-be8d-2e80b0308a44

Doesn't look like it is genealogically interesting.

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-11 03:35:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
GRANT in fee by Hugh Browe de Tussyngeham to John Maynwaryng, chaplain, rector of the parish church of Warmyngeham, and William Hyckeson, chaplain, rector of the parish church of Ightfeld, of 4 parcels of land in the township of TUSSYNGEHAM, of which 1 lies in le henlowe, 1 in le horstonesfeld, 1 is called the Berecroft and the fourth is called le Flaxeyorde.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/ef6231ea-8f4f-4cd0-be8d-2e80b0308a44
Doesn't look like it is genealogically interesting.
taf
well, i am wondering if the Hycksons of Ightfield were somehow related to the Sandfords of the Lea already through some descendants of the Lee family. Looking at the list of deeds and other documents in the Shropshire archives, for the Sanford of the Lea collection, there seems to be yet another entry connecting William Hykson and the Sandfords, this one from 1470. It mentions one Jocosa Sandford, but i don't know if she could be the one who is said to have married John Hickson. The heirs of Jocose are mentioned, but not by name. She could be a different Jocose.

Place:
Shropshire Archives
System Reference:
X465/1/1/3/1/32
Document Reference:
465/32
Date:
21 September 1470
Level:
file
Description:
By William Hikson parson of Ightfeld and William Sandford, son of Gruff(in) de Sandford of Shaynton to William Sandford of lee, son of Thomas Sandford of Lee, and Sebilla his wife, of one pasture called Le Robrich and another pasture called Jankyns hey with all appurtenances within the demesne of Whitchurch lately held by the grantors together with William Parker, Vicar of Prees, deceased, by the grant and enfeoffment of Thomas de Sandford. To have and hold to William and Sebilla his wife and their heirs for ever of the chief lords of the fee for services due and by right accustomed. In default of their heirs Nicholas, brother of William, shall possess the above; in default of Nicholas's heirs George Sandford, his brother, shall possess the above premises; in default of George's heirs, Jocose, his sister, to possess the above; in default of Jocose's heirs, Richard Sandford to possess the above.
Witnesses: William Maynwaring, George Maynwaryng, Thomas Maynwaryng, Thomas Hynton, esquire, William Colclogh, William Chidlowe, Thomas Stanwardyn and others.
Parchment tag with 2 seals on it - a letter `R' on each seal.
Docketed: "Deed of entail 21 September 1470 from a Wm. ap Sandford of Sandford to Sandford of the Lea."
Held At:
Shropshire Archives

and I still don't understand how these Sandfords were related to the Sanford of the Lee. There is another document in the archive from about 1350 regarding a a successions from John de Lee senior but it appears to end with the death of the last descendant through a female line before any Sandfords are mentioned.

The document summary does not explain how Thomas Sandford of Lee was related to William Sandford, son of Gruffin de Sandford of Sandford.

The second William Sandford is said to be a son of Thomas Sandford, and was married to one Sibilla. Apparently he had a brother called Nicholas and another one called George, and a sister, Jocosa.
taf
2021-07-11 19:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
well, i am wondering if the Hycksons of Ightfield were somehow related to
the Sandfords of the Lea already through some descendants of the Lee
family. Looking at the list of deeds and other documents in the Shropshire
archives, for the Sanford of the Lea collection, there seems to be yet another
entry connecting William Hykson and the Sandfords, this one from 1470. It
mentions one Jocosa Sandford, but i don't know if she could be the one who
is said to have married John Hickson. The heirs of Jocose are mentioned,
but not by name. She could be a different Jocose.
She would be a different Jacose if you are to accept the tree you have as authentic - it calls her daughter of William, this Jacose was daughter of Thomas, and sister of a William.
Post by J. Sardina
Shropshire Archives
X465/1/1/3/1/32
465/32
21 September 1470
Note that there is a second grant about a week later involving a pasture, perhaps accidentally omitted from the first, number 465/33. Best I can tell on brief inspection, it has the same players, with the addition that the final Richard in the reversion chain is specified as Richard Sandford of Sandford - back to the senior line with it.
Post by J. Sardina
and I still don't understand how these Sandfords were related to the Sanford of the Lee. There is another document in the archive from about 1350 regarding a a successions from John de Lee senior but it appears to end with the death of the last descendant through a female line before any Sandfords are mentioned.
The document summary does not explain how Thomas Sandford of Lee was related to William Sandford, son of Gruffin de Sandford of Sandford.
Take this for what it's worth - Stirnet shows Nicholas de Sandford of Sandford and his wife Alice Boteler, dau. William 1st Lord Boteler of Webbe, to have had three sons: 1. Richard Sandford of Sandford, sheriff of Shropshire, 2. Griffin Sandford, father of William Sandford, and 3. Nicholas Sandford of Calverhall, later of The Lee.

Filling this out (dates are of appearance in your documents, not necessarily indicating the person was living at that time):

1. Nicholas, m. Alice Boteler
11. Richard Sandford (the following from Burke's Landed Gentry, just for context)
(111. John Sandford of Sandford)
1111. Richard Sandford of Sandford, 1470, 1482
12. Griffin Sandford of Shayntown 1455, 1470
121. William Sandford of Shayntown, 1455, 1470
13. Nicholas Sandford of Calverhall and the Lea 1455
131. Thomas Sandford of the Lea 1455, 1470
1311. William Sandford of the Lea 1470, 1482 m. Sibyl, 1470, dau. Sir Foulke Springseais/Sprenchaus
13111. Richard Sandford of the Lea 1482
1312. Nicholas Lea of the Lea 1470
1313. George Sandford of the Lea 1470
1314. Jacose Sandford of la Lea 1470

For Sibyl see:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/6eb6e66c-101c-4827-88f3-04f2faa6f887

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-11 22:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by J. Sardina
well, i am wondering if the Hycksons of Ightfield were somehow related to
the Sandfords of the Lea already through some descendants of the Lee
family. Looking at the list of deeds and other documents in the Shropshire
archives, for the Sanford of the Lea collection, there seems to be yet another
entry connecting William Hykson and the Sandfords, this one from 1470. It
mentions one Jocosa Sandford, but i don't know if she could be the one who
is said to have married John Hickson. The heirs of Jocose are mentioned,
but not by name. She could be a different Jocose.
She would be a different Jacose if you are to accept the tree you have as authentic - it calls her daughter of William, this Jacose was daughter of Thomas, and sister of a William.
Post by J. Sardina
Shropshire Archives
X465/1/1/3/1/32
465/32
21 September 1470
Note that there is a second grant about a week later involving a pasture, perhaps accidentally omitted from the first, number 465/33. Best I can tell on brief inspection, it has the same players, with the addition that the final Richard in the reversion chain is specified as Richard Sandford of Sandford - back to the senior line with it.
Post by J. Sardina
and I still don't understand how these Sandfords were related to the Sanford of the Lee. There is another document in the archive from about 1350 regarding a a successions from John de Lee senior but it appears to end with the death of the last descendant through a female line before any Sandfords are mentioned.
The document summary does not explain how Thomas Sandford of Lee was related to William Sandford, son of Gruffin de Sandford of Sandford.
Take this for what it's worth - Stirnet shows Nicholas de Sandford of Sandford and his wife Alice Boteler, dau. William 1st Lord Boteler of Webbe, to have had three sons: 1. Richard Sandford of Sandford, sheriff of Shropshire, 2. Griffin Sandford, father of William Sandford, and 3. Nicholas Sandford of Calverhall, later of The Lee.
1. Nicholas, m. Alice Boteler
11. Richard Sandford (the following from Burke's Landed Gentry, just for context)
(111. John Sandford of Sandford)
1111. Richard Sandford of Sandford, 1470, 1482
12. Griffin Sandford of Shayntown 1455, 1470
121. William Sandford of Shayntown, 1455, 1470
13. Nicholas Sandford of Calverhall and the Lea 1455
131. Thomas Sandford of the Lea 1455, 1470
1311. William Sandford of the Lea 1470, 1482 m. Sibyl, 1470, dau. Sir Foulke Springseais/Sprenchaus
13111. Richard Sandford of the Lea 1482
1312. Nicholas Lea of the Lea 1470
1313. George Sandford of the Lea 1470
1314. Jacose Sandford of la Lea 1470
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/6eb6e66c-101c-4827-88f3-04f2faa6f887
taf
Very good.
Thanks.

For now i think that is the best that can be done from the summary of the various documents and the information coming from the Cuerton's genealogical tree. Apparently, the Jocosa in his line, assuming of course that the information is correct, as it was gathered around 1558/59, which was about 80 years after these events, was the daughter of 121. Maybe that is why the arms depicted for the Cuerton line seem to match the ones for the Sanford senior line. I have seen a variation of arms with a crescent for difference for the Sanford of the Lea.

I am now wondering why did they have to do these series of transactions starting in 1425 or earlier and why they had to involve the parish rector. Apparently my Jocosa was not the only daughter and heiress of that William Sandford.

I am also wondering where the name came from as it was used by at least two other Sandfords.
The documents from the Sanford of the Lea family have a lot more about William Sanford of the Lea and his descendants.

I am still trying to verify which Randulph Brereton was William's father in law.
It seems to be the one married to Alice of Ipstone, but i am not sure if the dates fit.
From what i have seen from the visitations, he had a son and at least one grandson with the same name. but apparently he is the only one that was a knight. Unless there was another contemporary Randulph in the senior line.
Cuerton's tree call the wife of William Sanford, Alicia, so i guess it makes sense she would be Alicia of Ipstone's daughter.
I am not finding any other near matches.

And of course the Hicksons are a mystery because the rector must have been at Ightfield for several years, and i am guessing he was related to William Sandford's son in law in some way, but their parentage is unknown, and so far no Hicksons show up as armigers, except for an older line in Staffordshire that had ended earlier. Apparently they took their name from Hixon. The descriptions of Staffordshire published in the 1800s mention it, but they seem to copy from an older source not identified yet, with almost exactly the same wording. They say some of the manors ended up by inheritance in the family of lord Mountjoy, but going through at least two or three women.

J. Sardina
taf
2021-07-12 00:43:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
For now i think that is the best that can be done from the summary of
the various documents and the information coming from the Cuerton's
genealogical tree. Apparently, the Jocosa in his line, assuming of course
that the information is correct, as it was gathered around 1558/59,
which was about 80 years after these events, was the daughter of 121.
Just based on chronology, it could be either William (or, heaven forbid, neither), given that Hickson interacted with multiple branches. That said, with William son of Thomas married to Sibyl, it would take positing another marriage for him.
Post by J. Sardina
Maybe that is why the arms depicted for the Cuerton line seem to match
the ones for the Sanford senior line. I have seen a variation of arms with
a crescent for difference for the Sanford of the Lea.
No, there is no logical way through this - if the illuminator was being careful, there should have been some sort of different on every line but the senior line - you didn't get a pass for being the second son. That said, such differences were often ignored when conveying such historical information (when nobody on the ground was claiming the Sandford arms).
Post by J. Sardina
I am now wondering why did they have to do these series of transactions
starting in 1425 or earlier and why they had to involve the parish rector.
Nothing special about this. It was par for the course, plus there is a whole lot going on under the surface that we don't see in the surviving documents. So many are lost you may not be seeing the other half of an exchange. There may be other goods or services changing hands that are not made evident. Sometimes you are seeing the consequence of a fine - in particular the 1570 document has that feel. (To explain this, it could have been William son of Thomas's land, and he wanted explicitly to settle it on himself and his new wife, with a specific sequence of remainders, so he would invent a phony land dispute with trusted people like a cousin and the local priest. He would admit that he was in the wrong, and that it rightly belonged to the other parties, and then they would grant it back to him with a newly-defined inheritance scheme - the phony land dispute was nothing but a pretext to readjust the inheritance, and all we are seeing is the final transaction.) Another thing I have seen might be called an inheritance tax dodge, where a man would grant his land to a proxy in trust for the upbringing of his minor heirs so that when he died it wouldn't fall under the king's control because he didn't technically own it anymore. Then some time later, the proxy would grant it back to the heirs, and we may just be seeing the second half of an inheritance scheme set up by Thomas that is opaque to us. Don't trouble yourself with Why? You will probably never figure it out.
Post by J. Sardina
Apparently my Jocosa was not the only daughter and heiress of that William Sandford.
Based on . . . ? What other evidence do you have of other heiresses?

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-12 11:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by J. Sardina
For now i think that is the best that can be done from the summary of
the various documents and the information coming from the Cuerton's
genealogical tree. Apparently, the Jocosa in his line, assuming of course
that the information is correct, as it was gathered around 1558/59,
which was about 80 years after these events, was the daughter of 121.
Just based on chronology, it could be either William (or, heaven forbid, neither), given that Hickson interacted with multiple branches. That said, with William son of Thomas married to Sibyl, it would take positing another marriage for him.
Post by J. Sardina
Maybe that is why the arms depicted for the Cuerton line seem to match
the ones for the Sanford senior line. I have seen a variation of arms with
a crescent for difference for the Sanford of the Lea.
No, there is no logical way through this - if the illuminator was being careful, there should have been some sort of different on every line but the senior line - you didn't get a pass for being the second son. That said, such differences were often ignored when conveying such historical information (when nobody on the ground was claiming the Sandford arms).
Post by J. Sardina
I am now wondering why did they have to do these series of transactions
starting in 1425 or earlier and why they had to involve the parish rector.
Nothing special about this. It was par for the course, plus there is a whole lot going on under the surface that we don't see in the surviving documents. So many are lost you may not be seeing the other half of an exchange. There may be other goods or services changing hands that are not made evident. Sometimes you are seeing the consequence of a fine - in particular the 1570 document has that feel. (To explain this, it could have been William son of Thomas's land, and he wanted explicitly to settle it on himself and his new wife, with a specific sequence of remainders, so he would invent a phony land dispute with trusted people like a cousin and the local priest. He would admit that he was in the wrong, and that it rightly belonged to the other parties, and then they would grant it back to him with a newly-defined inheritance scheme - the phony land dispute was nothing but a pretext to readjust the inheritance, and all we are seeing is the final transaction.) Another thing I have seen might be called an inheritance tax dodge, where a man would grant his land to a proxy in trust for the upbringing of his minor heirs so that when he died it wouldn't fall under the king's control because he didn't technically own it anymore. Then some time later, the proxy would grant it back to the heirs, and we may just be seeing the second half of an inheritance scheme set up by Thomas that is opaque to us. Don't trouble yourself with Why? You will probably never figure it out.
Post by J. Sardina
Apparently my Jocosa was not the only daughter and heiress of that William Sandford.
Based on . . . ? What other evidence do you have of other heiresses?
taf
Thanks for the explanation regarding this type of transactions. Based on the surviving documents listed at the Shrophire archive, there was a whole series regarding properties near Withchurch for the Sandford family.

Of course, i haven't seen the actual documents to determine if there are more genealogical details or if the summary has a mistake.

Right now the only evidence regarding one or more daughters for a William Sanford is the document from London for John Cuerton.

i don't have any evidence of multiple heiresses.

If the person who prepared the genealogical tree for the Cuertons and drew the arms was very careful, and had the correct information, his Alicia Sandford is not shown as the heiress of her father William, just as a daughter.

In other cases in the same document, a woman is shown as daughter and heiress. It could be an oversight of course.

I am still not sure which William was her supposed father. If he was the son of Griffith then I am a little surprised that his daughter(s) and/or sons are not mentioned in the summary. Maybe he didn't have any and that is why some of the transactions took place.

That does not happen in the later document with the other William and his heirs which mentions brothers and a sister, Jocosa.
However, like you pointed out, the Jocosa shown in Cuerton's line can't be that one, because that William was the son of a Thomas, not of another William.

J. Sardina
taf
2021-07-12 14:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks for the explanation regarding this type of transactions. Based on
the surviving documents listed at the Shrophire archive, there was a whole
series regarding properties near Withchurch for the Sandford family.
These are all in a single collection, which came from the Sandfords of the Isle, who would have retained them originally to document their land title, then they became just like the portraits of ancestors on all the walls and such, just part of the family's inheritance even if they no longer served their purpose. At some point, upon the dissolution of the family among too many heirs to divide them, or the sale of the family hope to an American, they then donated the whole stack of muniments. Archives often have these pockets of documents that provide detailed coverage on a specific family amidst a sea of obscurity.
If the person who prepared the genealogical tree for the Cuertons and drew
the arms was very careful, and had the correct information, his Alicia Sandford
is not shown as the heiress of her father William, just as a daughter.
In other cases in the same document, a woman is shown as daughter and heiress.
It could be an oversight of course.
There were likely one or more sons, not just another daughter and co-heiress.
I am still not sure which William was her supposed father. If he was the son of
Griffith then I am a little surprised that his daughter(s) and/or sons are not mentioned
in the summary. Maybe he didn't have any and that is why some of the transactions
took place.
That does not happen in the later document with the other William and his heirs which
mentions brothers and a sister, Jocosa.
However, like you pointed out, the Jocosa shown in Cuerton's line can't be that one,
because that William was the son of a Thomas, not of another William.
The 1470 document only named the siblings of William filius Thomas for the specific purpose of providing a detailed path of future inheritance - no need to do this for the grantors, particularly given their role.

I know I said you can never really figure out why these grants were made, but I was speaking without taking a close enough look. in this case it can be deduced, with interesting consequences.

The 1455 document is setting up a trust for the care of Thomas' wife and/or minor children in anticipation of his mortality (or perhaps to shield it from a debt collection). The recipients are trusted people, a local vicar, a local rector and a cousin (notably in the first two cases, people with no prospects of children). It would have specified that they were to hold it for the use of Thomas, his wife and children. There would have been no change on the ground during Thomas' life - he would have continued to use the property, but not now the owner of record. Why do it? It allowed passing use of the land after death, keeping the widow, particularly were she a step-mother, from being turfed out by the heir, or if the wording were a little different, protect the heir from the extractive hand of anyone the widow might remarry to, or of a guardian appointed during minority. Trusts like this were becoming quite common in the second half of the 15th century.

The 1470 document is then the dissolution of the 1555 trust, the vicar having died and so the grantors are the surviving trustees, William and William, who are transferring the land back to the family, probably at some pre-agreed benchmark - the widow had died, William filius Thomas reached majority, he married.

The 1482 transaction looks similar, a trust for the life of the recipients, for the use of William, his wife during her life, and then the heir (who was one of the trustees, so this wouldn't need a second document to resolve it if it was written such that it was granted for the life of the trustees, with remainder on the trusteeship going to Richard son of William and his heirs, thereby making Richard or his heirs, when all the other trustees died, sole trustee for himself.

Then we get to the 1503 transactions. They are clearly another trust, which is spelled out in the second, 465/36. It is an enfeoffment by William and his son Richard to family head Richard Sandford, Sir Ranulf and Ralph Brereton and George Bromley of all his local lands, "to the use of William during his life and that of Alice his wife after his decease, to the use of Richard his son and heir." So it was ensuring that the whole thing was to the benefit of the widow before going to William's son, her step-son - here the wife is Alice, not the Sibella of 1470.

In 1509 we see two documents. The first is a resolution of the 1503 trust, with the same trustees granting the lands back to Richard, his father having died. No mention of Alice, but that is because of the second 1509 document, formally executed days later, is setting up a new trust to the benefit of a woman named Alice Bromley, wife of William Bromley - I think there is every reason to view these two documents in tandem, and that this represents the old trust being replaced by a new trust that is focused on the remarried widow Alice. And note that changes in the trustees: Richard Sandford of Sandford is removed from the list, while George Bromley remains (fitting given the widow's new husband), as do Sir Ranulph Brereton and Ralph Brereton, and added are Ranulf's son, another Ranulf Breteton, and Bartholomew Brereton. That's a lot of Breretons. It sure looks like the Brereton family took a special interest in Alice.

So, we have William Sandford, son of Thomas, married as a second (or third) wife an Alice with strong connection to the Brereton family headed by Sir Ranulf, who as his widow some time between 1503 and 1509 remarried William Bromley. Given that your pedigree shows an Alice Brereton, daughter of Sir Ranulf marrying a William Sandford, I think we have our man.

taf
taf
2021-07-12 15:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks for the explanation regarding this type of transactions. Based on
the surviving documents listed at the Shrophire archive, there was a whole
series regarding properties near Withchurch for the Sandford family.
These are all in a single collection, which came from the Sandfords of the Isle, who would have retained them originally to document their land title, then they became just like the portraits of ancestors on all the walls and such, just part of the family's inheritance even if they no longer served their purpose. At some point, upon the dissolution of the family among too many heirs to divide them, or the sale of the family hope to an American,
. . . sale of the family HOME . . .
taf
2021-07-12 16:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
So, we have William Sandford, son of Thomas, married as a second
(or third) wife an Alice with strong connection to the Brereton family
headed by Sir Ranulf, who as his widow some time between 1503
and 1509 remarried William Bromley.
Following up on this, there appears to be another mention of Alice elsewhere in the collection.

465/478
William Bromley of Hodnet, and Alice his wife to Richard Sandforde of Alvelde, for £200 to be paid to Richard or his attorney, by the feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist next following the sealing of this bond.

Condition of the obligation that William Bromley and Alive (sic) his wife, keep the award of George Earl of Shrewsbury "umpior" and Richard Sandford esq., of Sandford, Gryff. Hynton of Hynton, gent. Hugh Sandford of Acheley gent, William Sandford of Criche, Derbyshire. gent, arbitrators.

JANUARY 14th, (1519/20) 11 Henry VIII

[A general warning here - this came up on a general Google search, but is not coming up when I search for "William Bromley" directly on The National Archives site, even though it is there. I also ran across this looking for George Bromley - I was looking at a page with him on it, but when I searched for his name, that same page didn't come up. Their search engine is leaky.]

George Bromley of Hodnet was clearly the George of our documents. He was father of Sir George, Justice of Chester, and of Elizabeth I's chancellor Thomas Bromley, and also brother of Jane Brompley who married none other than Richard son of William Sandford. Who was William then? If we slot simply by generation, Alice, as step-mother of Richard, would be of the same generation as George's father, called in pedigrees William Bromley of Mitley. It is also possible, though, that as a younger second wife she could have married as a widow to a brother of George, though the pedigrees don't give him a brother William. Looks like her husband was William of Mitley, later of Hodnet.

Richard Sonford, esq, and William Bromley of Hodnet were two of the jurors for the 1484 ipm of Humphrey Hille. (the ipm volume for Edward V and Richard III is hot off the presses - Google lets me see just a few pages, but one has this). Richard was probably not yet married, instead his role was as feudal overlord for one of Humphrey's properties.

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-12 18:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
So, we have William Sandford, son of Thomas, married as a second
(or third) wife an Alice with strong connection to the Brereton family
headed by Sir Ranulf, who as his widow some time between 1503
and 1509 remarried William Bromley.
Following up on this, there appears to be another mention of Alice elsewhere in the collection.
465/478
William Bromley of Hodnet, and Alice his wife to Richard Sandforde of Alvelde, for £200 to be paid to Richard or his attorney, by the feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist next following the sealing of this bond.
Condition of the obligation that William Bromley and Alive (sic) his wife, keep the award of George Earl of Shrewsbury "umpior" and Richard Sandford esq., of Sandford, Gryff. Hynton of Hynton, gent. Hugh Sandford of Acheley gent, William Sandford of Criche, Derbyshire. gent, arbitrators.
JANUARY 14th, (1519/20) 11 Henry VIII
[A general warning here - this came up on a general Google search, but is not coming up when I search for "William Bromley" directly on The National Archives site, even though it is there. I also ran across this looking for George Bromley - I was looking at a page with him on it, but when I searched for his name, that same page didn't come up. Their search engine is leaky.]
George Bromley of Hodnet was clearly the George of our documents. He was father of Sir George, Justice of Chester, and of Elizabeth I's chancellor Thomas Bromley, and also brother of Jane Brompley who married none other than Richard son of William Sandford. Who was William then? If we slot simply by generation, Alice, as step-mother of Richard, would be of the same generation as George's father, called in pedigrees William Bromley of Mitley. It is also possible, though, that as a younger second wife she could have married as a widow to a brother of George, though the pedigrees don't give him a brother William. Looks like her husband was William of Mitley, later of Hodnet.
Richard Sonford, esq, and William Bromley of Hodnet were two of the jurors for the 1484 ipm of Humphrey Hille. (the ipm volume for Edward V and Richard III is hot off the presses - Google lets me see just a few pages, but one has this). Richard was probably not yet married, instead his role was as feudal overlord for one of Humphrey's properties.
taf
Thanks
Very interesting and i will need to dig further to see if there are any more clues.
I noticed that the search is not very good lately at the Shrophshire and National archives.,
or at least not all the names that appear in the summary give entries when we search for them directly,
not even the most important ones.
I am not sure if it is just that the indexes have not been updated yet or might be under maintenance.
Google searches have been a little unpredictable lately. They seem to be pulling pages from scanned books as well, but sometimes not with a exact word match. And sometimes it does suggest a search that would give more entries.

I have been looking at the Bromleys just in case, since Margaret Bromley's family appears to have one of the Lowe families from Staffordshire, though I can't tell if related to the 'Loe' related by marriage to the Cuertons.

J. Sardina
taf
2021-07-12 21:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One more chronological nugget. I have found a report of a grant made in 1479 by Margery, widow of Fulk Springseaux, in favor of her four daughters, Margery Lee, Mary Springseaux, Margaret Tyndale, and Sibilla Sandford.

This shows that William Sandford's first wife, Sibilla Springseaux was still living in 1479, so his second marriage must have come later. The details of the 1482 grant should make this clear - as I said, in all likelihood, it will record that the grant of the land was for the use of William, his wife, and his heir, and it should name the wife. If it is Sibilla, that will push the marriage to Alice Brereton farther forward in time. If the wife in 1482 is Alice, then we would have pinned down the second marriage to 1479-1482, with a good estimate of the birth of the daughter Jacose Sandford. This will also help in placing Alice in the appropriate generation of the Brereton tree.


And speaking of chronology, I know some county historians have compiled lists of religious incumbents. Has this been done with Shropshire, such that we can determine the tenure of William Hikson at Ightfield?

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-13 02:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One more chronological nugget. I have found a report of a grant made in 1479 by Margery, widow of Fulk Springseaux, in favor of her four daughters, Margery Lee, Mary Springseaux, Margaret Tyndale, and Sibilla Sandford.
This shows that William Sandford's first wife, Sibilla Springseaux was still living in 1479, so his second marriage must have come later. The details of the 1482 grant should make this clear - as I said, in all likelihood, it will record that the grant of the land was for the use of William, his wife, and his heir, and it should name the wife. If it is Sibilla, that will push the marriage to Alice Brereton farther forward in time. If the wife in 1482 is Alice, then we would have pinned down the second marriage to 1479-1482, with a good estimate of the birth of the daughter Jacose Sandford. This will also help in placing Alice in the appropriate generation of the Brereton tree.
And speaking of chronology, I know some county historians have compiled lists of religious incumbents. Has this been done with Shropshire, such that we can determine the tenure of William Hikson at Ightfield?
taf
Hello,

Thanks for the efforts. i think this search is turning up more interesting that expected. I wish the investigation file for John Cuerton had not been lost, or misplaced, and it should have included details by various witnesses for each of the families shown in the genealogical tree, which seems to be the only part that has survived.

Without the details, I doubt that the Bilbao authorities would have accepted a list of names and coats of arms as good enough proof that John Cuerton was an armiger on both sides of his family.

Since the exemplification of arms appears to have been issued at Chester by the king of arms, it is thought that the investigation was done there, but the certification of arms was actually from London.

In any case, the copy of the investigation file that should have been sent to Bilbao seems to have become separated from the certification and also from the request for information sent to London. I doubt that a copy of file will ever be found. It is almost a miracle that the certification resurfaced recently.

The Bilbao archive contains a few other files from the period, including the one for another English merchant, but not the one for Cuerton. I doubt there would have a copy at the college of arms.

John Cuerton's line is:
Alice Sanford, mother of Jocosa Sanford, mother of Helena Hickson, mother of George & John Cuerton.
Unfortunately, since there are three generations of women, the span could be relatively short or cover 90 years and we know that John was not the eldest son.
John's birth date is unknown, but he a factor at Bilbao by 1555, and his children were born in the 1550s and 60s.
so I am guessing he was born between 1520 to 1530.

So i am speculating that the Alice Brereton of his line would have born around 1430 or 1440, and married to a William Sandford at some point between 1445 and 1465, maybe a little later. But it seems a tight fit for this Jocosa Sanford to be born in say 1480, with Helen born around 1500, then with George Cuerton born, say in 1519, and John Cuerton the next year or soon after.

J Sardina
taf
2021-07-13 04:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
John's birth date is unknown, but he a factor at Bilbao by 1555, and his children were born in the 1550s and 60s.
so I am guessing he was born between 1520 to 1530.
So i am speculating that the Alice Brereton of his line would have born around 1430 or 1440, and married to a William Sandford at some point between 1445 and 1465, maybe a little later. But it seems a tight fit for this Jocosa Sanford to be born in say 1480, with Helen born around 1500, then with George Cuerton born, say in 1519, and John Cuerton the next year or soon after.
20-years is a pretty typical generation span for oldest children of females, with George being the oldest son, and perhaps Helen's first child overall, and Helen perhaps being Jacosa's oldest (even only) as well, such a span would not surprise me. It could vary over time and location, but, for example, the Wareyns of Ightfield a century earlier had a shorter generation span, less than 20 years, for the male line in their last generations, so going through females who often had their first child at 17, or even younger, this doesn't look all that short to me at all, and that's going with the 1520 option of your birth range for John. If it was at the other end, 1530, then we would have 1480, 1504, 1528 for George and 1530 for John, which if anything is unexpectedly long. If he were born that late, then the wife in 1482 could still be Sibilla, and there would still easily be time for a remarriage, a daughter and two grandsons by 1530. And just to push the limits, I know of one case where someone was sent overseas to be a merchant at the age of 19, which would add even more leeway. Were that the case, Jacose could have been born after 1500 and it would still be able to be shoehorned in, though that would be decidedly less likely.

That is a long way of saying it is not as much of a stretch as you are painting it to be.

If Alice was married in 1480, how does that affect your thinking on where she fits in the Brereton pedigree? For a family that appears so often in people's family trees, they have surprisingly few authentic chronological data points.

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-14 10:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
John's birth date is unknown, but he a factor at Bilbao by 1555, and his children were born in the 1550s and 60s.
so I am guessing he was born between 1520 to 1530.
So i am speculating that the Alice Brereton of his line would have born around 1430 or 1440, and married to a William Sandford at some point between 1445 and 1465, maybe a little later. But it seems a tight fit for this Jocosa Sanford to be born in say 1480, with Helen born around 1500, then with George Cuerton born, say in 1519, and John Cuerton the next year or soon after.
20-years is a pretty typical generation span for oldest children of females, with George being the oldest son, and perhaps Helen's first child overall, and Helen perhaps being Jacosa's oldest (even only) as well, such a span would not surprise me. It could vary over time and location, but, for example, the Wareyns of Ightfield a century earlier had a shorter generation span, less than 20 years, for the male line in their last generations, so going through females who often had their first child at 17, or even younger, this doesn't look all that short to me at all, and that's going with the 1520 option of your birth range for John. If it was at the other end, 1530, then we would have 1480, 1504, 1528 for George and 1530 for John, which if anything is unexpectedly long. If he were born that late, then the wife in 1482 could still be Sibilla, and there would still easily be time for a remarriage, a daughter and two grandsons by 1530. And just to push the limits, I know of one case where someone was sent overseas to be a merchant at the age of 19, which would add even more leeway. Were that the case, Jacose could have been born after 1500 and it would still be able to be shoehorned in, though that would be decidedly less likely.
That is a long way of saying it is not as much of a stretch as you are painting it to be.
If Alice was married in 1480, how does that affect your thinking on where she fits in the Brereton pedigree? For a family that appears so often in people's family trees, they have surprisingly few authentic chronological data points.
taf
Good morning,

Thanks for the explanation on the typical age of marriage of the period. You are right. There is not enough information on the Cuerton side to pinpoint the possible latest birth year for Alice, since there is no evidence on the birth dates for her supposed daughter, grand-daughter and great-grandsons. I am not sure if definite dates will appear on that side.

On the Brereton side it seems difficult to pinpoint as well. The only places where I have seen a Sandford Brereton marriage is in the Cuerton pedigree and in the documents for the Sandford of the list. Just based on onomastics, it would make sense she could have been a daughter or grand-daughter of Alice Ipstone, for which I think there are date ranges. But there could have been multiple Alice Breretons among her descendants.

The only possible other clue (or incorrect data) I have seen for her is that the Cuerton documentation shows her father Randulph as being a knight. It could be a mistake. It depends on information found at Chester in 1558 for Cuerton, but there might have been some confusion since Randulph/Randall was common in that family. As far as I know there was one knight, the husband of Alice Ipstone, but he died in 1437. It is not clear if his son and grandson of the same name were knights too. The visitation of Shropshire may have missed some members of the line of Malpas.

J. Sardina
taf
2021-07-14 12:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The only possible other clue (or incorrect data) I have seen for her is that the
Cuerton documentation shows her father Randulph as being a knight. It could
be a mistake. It depends on information found at Chester in 1558 for Cuerton,
but there might have been some confusion since Randulph/Randall was common
in that family. As far as I know there was one knight, the husband of Alice Ipstone,
but he died in 1437. It is not clear if his son and grandson of the same name were
knights too. The visitation of Shropshire may have missed some members of the
line of Malpas.
This is a case where I definitely wouldn't trust the Cuerton pedigree, over whether her father was a knight or not, given that if her father wasn't a knight, then her brother and grandfather were, and they had the same name. Ample ground for confusion. The only precise timepoint I was was a report that Ralph Brereton's daughter received a disposition to marry (or perhaps to remain married) in 1507, as reported in Ormerod's pedigree. On the off chance that we would get lucky I looked at Ralph's PCC will, and it is focused on that daughter and her husband. The will about the same time for Sir Randle goes on and on until my eyes started to cross, but at one point it named an uncle John Brereton not in any of the published pedigrees, so who else might they be missing?

We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness (and, as I said, it would help to know who the wife of Sandford was in 1482). Another thing to consider, not that we can answer it with the data at hand. A second wife was often a widow, so that might make Alice older than your average first-married first wife. It is a long string of 'if's but if she was a second wife and if she married Sandford in 1480 and if Ralph's daughter was only just married or about to marry in 1507, it would seem to place Alice in Ralph's generation. However, were this her first marriage and it was closer to 1503, and Ralph's daughter's dispensation came some time after marriage, then that would make her Ralph's niece (and would fit with her 'brother' if that is what he is, outliving her Sandford husband by a couple of decades).

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-15 00:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The only possible other clue (or incorrect data) I have seen for her is that the
Cuerton documentation shows her father Randulph as being a knight. It could
be a mistake. It depends on information found at Chester in 1558 for Cuerton,
but there might have been some confusion since Randulph/Randall was common
in that family. As far as I know there was one knight, the husband of Alice Ipstone,
but he died in 1437. It is not clear if his son and grandson of the same name were
knights too. The visitation of Shropshire may have missed some members of the
line of Malpas.
This is a case where I definitely wouldn't trust the Cuerton pedigree, over whether her father was a knight or not, given that if her father wasn't a knight, then her brother and grandfather were, and they had the same name. Ample ground for confusion. The only precise timepoint I was was a report that Ralph Brereton's daughter received a disposition to marry (or perhaps to remain married) in 1507, as reported in Ormerod's pedigree. On the off chance that we would get lucky I looked at Ralph's PCC will, and it is focused on that daughter and her husband. The will about the same time for Sir Randle goes on and on until my eyes started to cross, but at one point it named an uncle John Brereton not in any of the published pedigrees, so who else might they be missing?
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness (and, as I said, it would help to know who the wife of Sandford was in 1482). Another thing to consider, not that we can answer it with the data at hand. A second wife was often a widow, so that might make Alice older than your average first-married first wife. It is a long string of 'if's but if she was a second wife and if she married Sandford in 1480 and if Ralph's daughter was only just married or about to marry in 1507, it would seem to place Alice in Ralph's generation. However, were this her first marriage and it was closer to 1503, and Ralph's daughter's dispensation came some time after marriage, then that would make her Ralph's niece (and would fit with her 'brother' if that is what he is, outliving her Sandford husband by a couple of decades).
taf
Hello,

There seem to be several documents for the Breretons from the 16th century and a few from the 15th century at the website for the National archives.

One of them is the following document
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/4b66919f-3be3-426c-aa0b-1d274a64da5c
Reference: D1229/1/7/6
Description:
Testament by John Brereton brother of Randle Brereton of the Malpas that he has delivered to William Brereton of Horac the evidences relating to Blowres lands: 12 January

Date: 1502/3
Held by: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service: Staffordshire County Record Office, not available at The National Archives
Language: English

That may be the John Brereton you were mentioning. From the description it seems he died in 1502, or at least had made a testament by then.

There are at least two pedigrees of the Breretons of Malpas, from they were made in the 16th century and might be missing part of the earlier generations.

For example,

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd403730-61b3-4d62-8268-abc80900af47

Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
This record is held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies
Reference: DDX95
Title: Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
Description:
Illuminated Pedigree
Date: 1564
Held by: Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, not available at The National Archives

J. Sardina
pj.ev...@gmail.com
2021-07-15 00:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
The only possible other clue (or incorrect data) I have seen for her is that the
Cuerton documentation shows her father Randulph as being a knight. It could
be a mistake. It depends on information found at Chester in 1558 for Cuerton,
but there might have been some confusion since Randulph/Randall was common
in that family. As far as I know there was one knight, the husband of Alice Ipstone,
but he died in 1437. It is not clear if his son and grandson of the same name were
knights too. The visitation of Shropshire may have missed some members of the
line of Malpas.
This is a case where I definitely wouldn't trust the Cuerton pedigree, over whether her father was a knight or not, given that if her father wasn't a knight, then her brother and grandfather were, and they had the same name. Ample ground for confusion. The only precise timepoint I was was a report that Ralph Brereton's daughter received a disposition to marry (or perhaps to remain married) in 1507, as reported in Ormerod's pedigree. On the off chance that we would get lucky I looked at Ralph's PCC will, and it is focused on that daughter and her husband. The will about the same time for Sir Randle goes on and on until my eyes started to cross, but at one point it named an uncle John Brereton not in any of the published pedigrees, so who else might they be missing?
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness (and, as I said, it would help to know who the wife of Sandford was in 1482). Another thing to consider, not that we can answer it with the data at hand. A second wife was often a widow, so that might make Alice older than your average first-married first wife. It is a long string of 'if's but if she was a second wife and if she married Sandford in 1480 and if Ralph's daughter was only just married or about to marry in 1507, it would seem to place Alice in Ralph's generation. However, were this her first marriage and it was closer to 1503, and Ralph's daughter's dispensation came some time after marriage, then that would make her Ralph's niece (and would fit with her 'brother' if that is what he is, outliving her Sandford husband by a couple of decades).
taf
Hello,
There seem to be several documents for the Breretons from the 16th century and a few from the 15th century at the website for the National archives.
One of them is the following document
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/4b66919f-3be3-426c-aa0b-1d274a64da5c
Reference: D1229/1/7/6
Testament by John Brereton brother of Randle Brereton of the Malpas that he has delivered to William Brereton of Horac the evidences relating to Blowres lands: 12 January
Date: 1502/3
Held by: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service: Staffordshire County Record Office, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
That may be the John Brereton you were mentioning. From the description it seems he died in 1502, or at least had made a testament by then.
There are at least two pedigrees of the Breretons of Malpas, from they were made in the 16th century and might be missing part of the earlier generations.
For example,
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd403730-61b3-4d62-8268-abc80900af47
Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
This record is held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies
Reference: DDX95
Title: Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
Illuminated Pedigree
Date: 1564
Held by: Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, not available at The National Archives
J. Sardina
I think this "testament" is more like a legal statement than a will.
J. Sardina
2021-07-15 01:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by J. Sardina
The only possible other clue (or incorrect data) I have seen for her is that the
Cuerton documentation shows her father Randulph as being a knight. It could
be a mistake. It depends on information found at Chester in 1558 for Cuerton,
but there might have been some confusion since Randulph/Randall was common
in that family. As far as I know there was one knight, the husband of Alice Ipstone,
but he died in 1437. It is not clear if his son and grandson of the same name were
knights too. The visitation of Shropshire may have missed some members of the
line of Malpas.
This is a case where I definitely wouldn't trust the Cuerton pedigree, over whether her father was a knight or not, given that if her father wasn't a knight, then her brother and grandfather were, and they had the same name. Ample ground for confusion. The only precise timepoint I was was a report that Ralph Brereton's daughter received a disposition to marry (or perhaps to remain married) in 1507, as reported in Ormerod's pedigree. On the off chance that we would get lucky I looked at Ralph's PCC will, and it is focused on that daughter and her husband. The will about the same time for Sir Randle goes on and on until my eyes started to cross, but at one point it named an uncle John Brereton not in any of the published pedigrees, so who else might they be missing?
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness (and, as I said, it would help to know who the wife of Sandford was in 1482). Another thing to consider, not that we can answer it with the data at hand. A second wife was often a widow, so that might make Alice older than your average first-married first wife. It is a long string of 'if's but if she was a second wife and if she married Sandford in 1480 and if Ralph's daughter was only just married or about to marry in 1507, it would seem to place Alice in Ralph's generation. However, were this her first marriage and it was closer to 1503, and Ralph's daughter's dispensation came some time after marriage, then that would make her Ralph's niece (and would fit with her 'brother' if that is what he is, outliving her Sandford husband by a couple of decades).
taf
Hello,
There seem to be several documents for the Breretons from the 16th century and a few from the 15th century at the website for the National archives.
One of them is the following document
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/4b66919f-3be3-426c-aa0b-1d274a64da5c
Reference: D1229/1/7/6
Testament by John Brereton brother of Randle Brereton of the Malpas that he has delivered to William Brereton of Horac the evidences relating to Blowres lands: 12 January
Date: 1502/3
Held by: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service: Staffordshire County Record Office, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
That may be the John Brereton you were mentioning. From the description it seems he died in 1502, or at least had made a testament by then.
There are at least two pedigrees of the Breretons of Malpas, from they were made in the 16th century and might be missing part of the earlier generations.
For example,
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd403730-61b3-4d62-8268-abc80900af47
Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
This record is held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies
Reference: DDX95
Title: Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
Illuminated Pedigree
Date: 1564
Held by: Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, not available at The National Archives
J. Sardina
I think this "testament" is more like a legal statement than a will.
Yes. I could not read the document, but from the description, it seems he was actually giving testimony, but at least it proves he was alive in that year.

J. Sardina
taf
2021-07-15 01:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
There seem to be several documents for the Breretons from the 16th
century and a few from the 15th century at the website for the National
archives.
One of them is the following document
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/4b66919f-3be3-426c-aa0b-1d274a64da5c
Reference: D1229/1/7/6
Testament by John Brereton brother of Randle Brereton of the Malpas
that he has delivered to William Brereton of Horac the evidences relating
to Blowres lands: 12 January
Date: 1502/3
That may be the John Brereton you were mentioning. From the description
it seems he died in 1502, or at least had made a testament by then.
Not if he really did die in 1502/3, as I think mine was still living (though my memory is sketchy, I wasn't really reading the will all that closely, given how inanely verbose it was.

There was also a John in C 1/85/48 (1486-1493), John Brereton, esquire, and Katherine, his wife, sister and heir to William Berkeley, of Bettesthorn, versus William Berkeley, of Wyle, knight. But he may not have lived long enough to be the 1502 man, else he and not his daughter would likely have been plaintiff here: C 1/84/73 (again 1486-1493) Werburgh Brereton, daughter of Katherine, sister of Sir William Berkeley, knight, versus Sir William Pole, knight, son of John, duke of Suffolk, and Katherine, lady Grey, his wife.

taf
Will Johnson
2021-07-15 04:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
The only possible other clue (or incorrect data) I have seen for her is that the
Cuerton documentation shows her father Randulph as being a knight. It could
be a mistake. It depends on information found at Chester in 1558 for Cuerton,
but there might have been some confusion since Randulph/Randall was common
in that family. As far as I know there was one knight, the husband of Alice Ipstone,
but he died in 1437. It is not clear if his son and grandson of the same name were
knights too. The visitation of Shropshire may have missed some members of the
line of Malpas.
This is a case where I definitely wouldn't trust the Cuerton pedigree, over whether her father was a knight or not, given that if her father wasn't a knight, then her brother and grandfather were, and they had the same name. Ample ground for confusion. The only precise timepoint I was was a report that Ralph Brereton's daughter received a disposition to marry (or perhaps to remain married) in 1507, as reported in Ormerod's pedigree. On the off chance that we would get lucky I looked at Ralph's PCC will, and it is focused on that daughter and her husband. The will about the same time for Sir Randle goes on and on until my eyes started to cross, but at one point it named an uncle John Brereton not in any of the published pedigrees, so who else might they be missing?
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness (and, as I said, it would help to know who the wife of Sandford was in 1482). Another thing to consider, not that we can answer it with the data at hand. A second wife was often a widow, so that might make Alice older than your average first-married first wife. It is a long string of 'if's but if she was a second wife and if she married Sandford in 1480 and if Ralph's daughter was only just married or about to marry in 1507, it would seem to place Alice in Ralph's generation. However, were this her first marriage and it was closer to 1503, and Ralph's daughter's dispensation came some time after marriage, then that would make her Ralph's niece (and would fit with her 'brother' if that is what he is, outliving her Sandford husband by a couple of decades).
taf
Hello,
There seem to be several documents for the Breretons from the 16th century and a few from the 15th century at the website for the National archives.
One of them is the following document
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/4b66919f-3be3-426c-aa0b-1d274a64da5c
Reference: D1229/1/7/6
Testament by John Brereton brother of Randle Brereton of the Malpas that he has delivered to William Brereton of Horac the evidences relating to Blowres lands: 12 January
Date: 1502/3
Held by: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service: Staffordshire County Record Office, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
That may be the John Brereton you were mentioning. From the description it seems he died in 1502, or at least had made a testament by then.
There are at least two pedigrees of the Breretons of Malpas, from they were made in the 16th century and might be missing part of the earlier generations.
For example,
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd403730-61b3-4d62-8268-abc80900af47
Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
This record is held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies
Reference: DDX95
Title: Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
Illuminated Pedigree
Date: 1564
Held by: Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, not available at The National Archives
J. Sardina
This particular pedigree is, I'm sure the same as detailed here

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/9d814f83-311b-4954-834c-627a0a33593a

*Starting* with that Randall who d 1530, husband of eleanor Dutton
Will Johnson
2021-07-15 04:50:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It seems a little curious that his father is executing the pre-nuptial agreement if Isabel Boteler (Butler) were his *second* wife. Esp as this pedigree states that he already had a child by his prior wife.

I was at first thinking perhaps he married as a minor and the first wife died without consummation, and he was yet a minor at this second marriage, but now I can't see that possibility

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Collections_for_a_History_of_Staffordshi/zAEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Bartholomew%20%2FBrereton%2F%20of%20Grafton&pg=PA304-IA2&printsec=frontcover&bsq=Bartholomew%20Brereton%20of%20Grafton
taf
2021-07-15 16:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It seems a little curious that his father is executing the pre-nuptial agreement if Isabel Boteler (Butler) were his *second* wife. Esp as this pedigree states that he already had a child by his prior wife.
I was at first thinking perhaps he married as a minor and the first wife died without consummation, and he was yet a minor at this second marriage, but now I can't see that possibility
There are actually three documents regarding this marriage agreement that I saw when going through Breretons on TNA yesterday, but I seem to be having the search-engine problem today as only one other is showing up.

Cheshire Archives and Local Studies DCH/X/12/8
Pre-nuptial agreement between Sir Thomas Boteler kt, Sir Randle Brereton kt and son Randle, concerning marriage of Randle junior to Elizabeth Boteler
1512

Note that pedigrees place the father as nephew of Ralph, whose daughter married in 1506.

Papal dispensation for marriage between John Holford and Margaret Brereton
Cheshire Archives and Local Studies DCH/X/13/1
1506

Sir John Holforde, knight, and Dame Margery his wife, daughter and heir of Ralph Brereton, esquire, deceased to Ralph Waryne, gentleman: Indenture of receipt for £172.6s.8d. in respect of lands in Middle Aldersey, Croke Aldersey, Chowley (Cholley), Clutton, and Coddington, etc: (Ches.)
WALE 29/204 28 Hen. VIII.

That would make either this Randle marriage very early (e.g. a child marriage), or else there was a generational skew with some combination of Ralph being born a good bit later than his brother and having his daughter later in life. I bring this up because if the 1507 date is relatively late compared to where one would expect marriages in that generation, it affects how we view our chronological framework. Just for kicks, I find the following relational statements involving a Randle, with some other possibly-relevant entries:

1410 Randle son William (re Elizabeth wid Sir John Ipstones)
1413 Randle son William
1421 Richard de Cholmondeley to Randle Brereton, his brother
1440|1480 Sir Randle of Malpas 'the father'; Randle of Malpas 'the son'
1466 Ralph son Urian; Sir Ralph (sic - both probably Randle)
1466 Randle son Urian; Sir Randle
1468 Randle son Sir Randle
1471 Randle son Urian; also names Humphrey
1473 Randle son Sir Randle
1474 Randle son Sir Randle; Humphrey brother Sir Randle
1476 Randle son Humphrey of Malpas
1477 Randle son Urian late of Malpas; names Sir Randle
1478 Sir Randle; Randle Urianson
1497 Randle son and heir Randle of Malpas, chamberlain Chester
1502 John brother of Randle of Malpas; mentions William of Horac
1507/1508 Sir Randle and William his son
1515|1518 Sir Randle, brother of Ralph
1518 dowery set out for Lady Brereton
1519 Sir Randle and wife Joan, dau William Stanley
1520 Ellen wife Sir Handle (sic); son Roger
1523 Ellen wife Sir Randle, son Roger
1524 Randle, son & heir Sir Randle
1523 Ellen wife Sir Randle, son Roger
1529 William son Sir Ralph (sic - prob an error for Randle)
1529/1530 William son Sir Randle
1532 Roger brother Randle
1538|1544 Randle, grandson & heir Sir Randle; Sir Richard, son of Sir Randle
1538|1544 Wardship of Randle son of Randle
1538|1544 Thomas son Randle of Chester, dec.

taf
taf
2021-07-15 16:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It seems a little curious that his father is executing the pre-nuptial agreement if Isabel Boteler (Butler) were his *second* wife. Esp as this pedigree states that he already had a child by his prior wife.
I was at first thinking perhaps he married as a minor and the first wife died without consummation, and he was yet a minor at this second marriage, but now I can't see that possibility
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Collections_for_a_History_of_Staffordshi/zAEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Bartholomew%20%2FBrereton%2F%20of%20Grafton&pg=PA304-IA2&printsec=frontcover&bsq=Bartholomew%20Brereton%20of%20Grafton
This whole 'first marriage' may be some kind of Dod family confusion between Randle Brereton married to Eleanor, daughter of Philip Egerton, and in the generation before, Eleanor, daughter of Randle Brereton, married to Philip Egerton.

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-15 09:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Johnson
Post by J. Sardina
The only possible other clue (or incorrect data) I have seen for her is that the
Cuerton documentation shows her father Randulph as being a knight. It could
be a mistake. It depends on information found at Chester in 1558 for Cuerton,
but there might have been some confusion since Randulph/Randall was common
in that family. As far as I know there was one knight, the husband of Alice Ipstone,
but he died in 1437. It is not clear if his son and grandson of the same name were
knights too. The visitation of Shropshire may have missed some members of the
line of Malpas.
This is a case where I definitely wouldn't trust the Cuerton pedigree, over whether her father was a knight or not, given that if her father wasn't a knight, then her brother and grandfather were, and they had the same name. Ample ground for confusion. The only precise timepoint I was was a report that Ralph Brereton's daughter received a disposition to marry (or perhaps to remain married) in 1507, as reported in Ormerod's pedigree. On the off chance that we would get lucky I looked at Ralph's PCC will, and it is focused on that daughter and her husband. The will about the same time for Sir Randle goes on and on until my eyes started to cross, but at one point it named an uncle John Brereton not in any of the published pedigrees, so who else might they be missing?
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness (and, as I said, it would help to know who the wife of Sandford was in 1482). Another thing to consider, not that we can answer it with the data at hand. A second wife was often a widow, so that might make Alice older than your average first-married first wife. It is a long string of 'if's but if she was a second wife and if she married Sandford in 1480 and if Ralph's daughter was only just married or about to marry in 1507, it would seem to place Alice in Ralph's generation. However, were this her first marriage and it was closer to 1503, and Ralph's daughter's dispensation came some time after marriage, then that would make her Ralph's niece (and would fit with her 'brother' if that is what he is, outliving her Sandford husband by a couple of decades).
taf
Hello,
There seem to be several documents for the Breretons from the 16th century and a few from the 15th century at the website for the National archives.
One of them is the following document
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/4b66919f-3be3-426c-aa0b-1d274a64da5c
Reference: D1229/1/7/6
Testament by John Brereton brother of Randle Brereton of the Malpas that he has delivered to William Brereton of Horac the evidences relating to Blowres lands: 12 January
Date: 1502/3
Held by: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service: Staffordshire County Record Office, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
That may be the John Brereton you were mentioning. From the description it seems he died in 1502, or at least had made a testament by then.
There are at least two pedigrees of the Breretons of Malpas, from they were made in the 16th century and might be missing part of the earlier generations.
For example,
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd403730-61b3-4d62-8268-abc80900af47
Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
This record is held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies
Reference: DDX95
Title: Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
Illuminated Pedigree
Date: 1564
Held by: Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, not available at The National Archives
J. Sardina
This particular pedigree is, I'm sure the same as detailed here
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/9d814f83-311b-4954-834c-627a0a33593a
*Starting* with that Randall who d 1530, husband of eleanor Dutton
Yes. It seems to be the same one.
It is one or two generations after the ones I am trying to research..
taf
2021-07-15 17:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The following looks interesting:
Gift by Ranulph Brereton, kt., to Thomas Venabuls, esq., William Standley, esq., Peter Dotton, junior, esq., Ralph Dotton, esq., of the manor of Ipstones with all his messuages, lands, tenements, rents, etc. within the lordship of Ipstones: 8 November 12 Henry VII
D1229/1/4/37
1496

Though no relationships are given, Sir Randle granting all of his Ipstone holdings to Venables, Stanley Dutton jun and Dutton looks like the kind of trusteeship I have discussed before, and the fact that it is so Dutton-heavy suggests to me that the marriage between Sir Richard and his wife, Eleanor Dutton, had already taken place at this time (consistent with the agreement of their son to marry in 1511/12).

Either the 1506 marriage for Margery, only daughter of Ralph, was late for her generation, or alternatively, there is a Ralph confusion - note that my listing shows a Ralph brother of Sir Richard in 1515|1518, not uncle of Sir Richard. Were there two Ralphs, or has the traditional pedigree placed Ralph in the wrong generation? Or had the husband of Emma Carrington become a knight after all?

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-15 18:43:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Gift by Ranulph Brereton, kt., to Thomas Venabuls, esq., William Standley, esq., Peter Dotton, junior, esq., Ralph Dotton, esq., of the manor of Ipstones with all his messuages, lands, tenements, rents, etc. within the lordship of Ipstones: 8 November 12 Henry VII
D1229/1/4/37
1496
Though no relationships are given, Sir Randle granting all of his Ipstone holdings to Venables, Stanley Dutton jun and Dutton looks like the kind of trusteeship I have discussed before, and the fact that it is so Dutton-heavy suggests to me that the marriage between Sir Richard and his wife, Eleanor Dutton, had already taken place at this time (consistent with the agreement of their son to marry in 1511/12).
Either the 1506 marriage for Margery, only daughter of Ralph, was late for her generation, or alternatively, there is a Ralph confusion - note that my listing shows a Ralph brother of Sir Richard in 1515|1518, not uncle of Sir Richard. Were there two Ralphs, or has the traditional pedigree placed Ralph in the wrong generation? Or had the husband of Emma Carrington become a knight after all?
taf
Hello,
thanks for looking up further into the Breretons.
I would think the gift wouldn't have taken place before the Brereton-Dutton marriage, or at least before the contract was in works.
I think there may have been two Ralphs, and i would not be surprised if the one who married Emma became a knight but that was lost in the confusion of having so many Ralphs, some of which were knights, and some appear to have been only esq.
if one did become a knight, would there be a record of that event anywhere that might have survived?
J. Sardina
taf
2021-07-16 01:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Sardina
I would think the gift wouldn't have taken place before the Brereton-Dutton
marriage, or at least before the contract was in works.
Hard to be sure without seeing it, but this is an outright grant of his major landholding to four unrelated people. I just can't see that happening in anticipation of a potential wedding. It was typically a grant to the trustees for their lives of all his land for the use of him and his wife and their heirs. Do this before the wedding and one would have to phrase it very carefully to avoid them just walking away with it if the plans fell through. He couldn't just call backsies.

That said, I do know of one instance in which a man granted his lands to trustees, for the use of him and his wife for life, then the use for life of any children his wife might have with a long list of men she was never married to nor had any plans to, before finally reverting to his right heir - the goal seems to have been to create an administrative nightmare that would keep the land from reverting to his eldest son too soon, that son being at the time on the run, accused of murder and subject to attainder (having all of his lands confiscated) were he caught and convicted.
Post by J. Sardina
I think there may have been two Ralphs, and i would not be surprised if the
one who married Emma became a knight but that was lost in the confusion
of having so many Ralphs, some of which were knights, and some appear to
have been only esq.
Hold on, are you talking about Ralph or Randle? My point was that the pedigree makes Ralph the brother of Randle (esquire) husband of Emma, but since we have a Ralph, brother of Sir Randle, then 1) the pedigree is correct, and the Randle married to Emma was knighted in the end; 2) the pedigree is wrong, and Ralph was son of Randle and Emma, and brother of Sir Randle; 3) the pedigree is sort of both right and wrong - there was a Ralph brother of the Randle, esquire, who married Emma, but there was also an overlooked Ralph who was son of Randle, esquire and brother of Sir Randle; 4) the document itself (or its summary in TNA catalog) is erroneous.
Post by J. Sardina
if one did become a knight, would there be a record of that event anywhere
that might have survived?
Not of the event itself, but every time he appeared in records subsequently he would be referred to as Randle Brereton, knight, rather than just as Randle Brereton or Randle Brereton, esquire. Not that there weren't mistakes, but we should see a pattern where someone is listed without the title, and then suddenly appear with it from that point forward. This would be relatively straightforward in a normal family, but since this family seemed to think Randle was such a spectacular name, we don't see the pattern because we don't know for sure which generation is being referred to.

As an example, though we have in 1497 reference to Randle Brereton, chamberlain of Chester. Then in 1508, it is to Randle Brereton, knight, chamberlain of Chester, and we see the chamberlain described as knight in 1510, 1516|8, 1524 and 1528. I do find one document from 1514 without, but that could always be a cataloging error. Thus, with the usual caveats, the Randle who was chamberlain was knighted between 1497 and 1508. It also tells us something the other way around. In 1478 we have Sir Randle, as we have continuously from 1466. Then in 1497 we have just Randle. Again barring an error, this indicates that this is a different person than the knight (e.g. the next generation).

taf
taf
2021-07-16 04:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ancient Deeds: Volume 6

C. 4366. Indenture between Randolf Brerton and Hugh Dawan (sic), esquires, whereby the said Hugh agrees, and 'geves his goodwill in as much as in him is' that Randolf have the wardship of Philip Egerton, son and heir of John Egerton, esq., deceased, to be married to Randolf's daughter, in which case Hugh to have the manor of Egerton in farm during the nonage of the said Philip with allowance for repairs by the oversight of Sir Uryan Damport and Sir James Molyneux, clerks, or, if they differ, of Sir William Stanley, knight, chamberlain to the king; Hugh to have the keeping of the said Philip as long as the said Randolph shall think reasonable; within two months after the marriage and 'also after the decesse of Randolf son of Urian of Brerton,' Randolf to release to Philip and his heirs his right in such lands 'as Philip Egerton and John Egerton died diseisid of, parcell of the manoir of Hampton'; Elizabeth, daughter of the said Hugh and late the wife of the said John Egerton, to have her dower without interruption of the said Randolph. 6 December, 1 Henry VII. English. Seal, damaged.


At least according to the pedigrees, this is the father of Sir Randle, chamberlain of Chester, and he is arranging the marriage of a daughter in 1487. Of course, the traditional pedigree could be wrong, but the father is not a knight, so appears to be a different Randle than we see in the 1470s, which supports the traditional placement of Eleanor, wife of Philip Egerton, as daughter of Richard, esquire, and Emma Carrington. In correlating Brereton generations, this 1487 date for a marriage is getting awfully close to the 'after 1479 and maybe by 1482' date we have for Alice's marriage.

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-24 17:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Ancient Deeds: Volume 6
C. 4366. Indenture between Randolf Brerton and Hugh Dawan (sic), esquires, whereby the said Hugh agrees, and 'geves his goodwill in as much as in him is' that Randolf have the wardship of Philip Egerton, son and heir of John Egerton, esq., deceased, to be married to Randolf's daughter, in which case Hugh to have the manor of Egerton in farm during the nonage of the said Philip with allowance for repairs by the oversight of Sir Uryan Damport and Sir James Molyneux, clerks, or, if they differ, of Sir William Stanley, knight, chamberlain to the king; Hugh to have the keeping of the said Philip as long as the said Randolph shall think reasonable; within two months after the marriage and 'also after the decesse of Randolf son of Urian of Brerton,' Randolf to release to Philip and his heirs his right in such lands 'as Philip Egerton and John Egerton died diseisid of, parcell of the manoir of Hampton'; Elizabeth, daughter of the said Hugh and late the wife of the said John Egerton, to have her dower without interruption of the said Randolph. 6 December, 1 Henry VII. English. Seal, damaged.
At least according to the pedigrees, this is the father of Sir Randle, chamberlain of Chester, and he is arranging the marriage of a daughter in 1487. Of course, the traditional pedigree could be wrong, but the father is not a knight, so appears to be a different Randle than we see in the 1470s, which supports the traditional placement of Eleanor, wife of Philip Egerton, as daughter of Richard, esquire, and Emma Carrington. In correlating Brereton generations, this 1487 date for a marriage is getting awfully close to the 'after 1479 and maybe by 1482' date we have for Alice's marriage.
taf
Hello,

Thanks for the information. I think we are lucky that quite a few documents of these particular families of Brereton and Sanford have survived to this date, which i would think is not common, and that they happen to mention individuals that may match those of the Cuerton files. I doubt that the investigation files from Shropshire and Cheshire will turn up one day for sale or at an archive in Spain. If they did, the witnesses would have provided more details that would help identify them.

There is one book that claims that Sibilla de Sprencheaux was still alive in 1479, based on a document from her widowed mother that mentioned the four co-heiresses. Apparently Sibilla was one of the oldest children. If she died later that year on 1480, the second marriage with Alice could have taken place by 1482. I would not be surprised if Alice was a few years younger than Sibilla and managed to outlive her husband by a few years.

The book in question contains a series of a series of articles and one of them discussed the Sprencheaux family in some detail.

Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History
Volume 5
By Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society
The pages would be 359 and following.

Interestingly, the same book mentions that Sibilla's sister Margaret (or Margery), married one Richard de Lee. They are given five sons and two daughters, which are mentioned in the same range of pages. It is not known if three sons had descendants. A couple of female descendants are mentioned with their known marriages. I have not been able to find any Hickson- Lee marriages to explains the arms attributed to John Hickson, Jocosa Sandford's supposed husband. I have not been able to find any Lee-Peshall or Hickson Peshall marriages in the 15th century, but coincidentally, there seems to have been one Sandord-Peshall alliance. However, i have read that the source is not trusthworthy: https://archive.org/details/parshallfamilyad00pars
The Parshall family, A.D. 870-1913 : a collection of historical records and notes to accompany the Parshall pedigree (1915)



J. Sardina

taf
2021-07-15 02:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness
Not entirely what I was asking for, but:

PRE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT between Sir Rondulph of Brereton Kt., and Thomas Domok, gentleman. It is agreed that Thomas Vachr, son of the said Thomas shall wed Anne daughter of the said Randle; that the
Cheshire Archives and Local Studies 1466 DCH/C/425. I take Vachr to be Welsh Fychan - in this case 'the younger'.

If this us the first Sir Randle of Ipstone, it gives us a an idea of when his daughters were marrying.


And at the other end:

PRE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT between Sir Thomas Boteler Kt. and Sir Randulph Brereton, prior to the intended marriage of Randulph son of the said Sir Randulph and Isabel daughter of the said Sir Thomas

1511/12, 4. Jan DCH/C/367

(pedigrees make this his second marriage)

taf
J. Sardina
2021-07-15 02:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness
PRE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT between Sir Rondulph of Brereton Kt., and Thomas Domok, gentleman. It is agreed that Thomas Vachr, son of the said Thomas shall wed Anne daughter of the said Randle; that the
Cheshire Archives and Local Studies 1466 DCH/C/425. I take Vachr to be Welsh Fychan - in this case 'the younger'.
If this us the first Sir Randle of Ipstone, it gives us a an idea of when his daughters were marrying.
PRE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT between Sir Thomas Boteler Kt. and Sir Randulph Brereton, prior to the intended marriage of Randulph son of the said Sir Randulph and Isabel daughter of the said Sir Thomas
1511/12, 4. Jan DCH/C/367
(pedigrees make this his second marriage)
taf
Thanks
I will also continue digging up about the Brerestons since there were two lines.
The visitation names several members of subsequent generations, but there may a few individuals missing from the first ones of Malpas.
The other line seems to be better represented in the visitation.

The archive website for Cheshire does show a painted pedigree of the Malpas line, apparently prepared in 1564, which would be contemporary with the Cuerton papers, but it is not available online, and i am afraid it would show just the eldest representative in each generation and long with the wives and their arms, possibly with no dates and it seems the information would need to go back at least 100 years.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd403730-61b3-4d62-8268-abc80900af47

Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
This record is held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies

Reference: DDX95
Title: Brereton of Malpas Pedigree Roll
Description:
Illuminated Pedigree

Date: 1564
Held by: Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, not available at The National Archives

J. Sardina
J. Sardina
2021-07-15 03:04:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
We just need one critical datum here to break the logjam - a precise age for a Brereton heir or a witness
PRE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT between Sir Rondulph of Brereton Kt., and Thomas Domok, gentleman. It is agreed that Thomas Vachr, son of the said Thomas shall wed Anne daughter of the said Randle; that the
Cheshire Archives and Local Studies 1466 DCH/C/425. I take Vachr to be Welsh Fychan - in this case 'the younger'.
If this us the first Sir Randle of Ipstone, it gives us a an idea of when his daughters were marrying.
PRE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT between Sir Thomas Boteler Kt. and Sir Randulph Brereton, prior to the intended marriage of Randulph son of the said Sir Randulph and Isabel daughter of the said Sir Thomas
1511/12, 4. Jan DCH/C/367
(pedigrees make this his second marriage)
taf
There seems to be some genealogical information about the Brerestons of Malpas and Ipstone, but apparently compiled in the 19th century. I am afraid it would not add to what can be seen at the printed visitations.

Brereton of Malpas and Ipstones
This record is held by Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service: William Salt Library
See contact details
Reference: 2/25/00/p.91
Description:
Brereton of Malpas and Ipstones

Held by: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service: William Salt Library, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
Loading...