Criol/Pecche/Pabenham/Clifford

[jwflank]

As to the question of Margery Clifford vs Margery Pecche as wife of
Nicholas de Criol and the children of the union:

The Visitation of Huntingdon, 1613 pg 114 has multiple errors/
suppositions in the early Criol lineage which has created descents
that are not correct. The visitation has a Nicholas de Criol married
to Margery Clifford who had children Bertram, Agnes (m. Michael
Poynings, miles), Joanna (m. William Baude, militus), Elizabeth (m.
John Pabenham, militus), Katherine (m. Galfrid Braddene, militus),
Margaret (m. Robert Hereward, militus). On a separate branch,
visitation has a Nicholas de Criol (nephew to the previous Nicholas
through a younger brother also named Nicolas) married to Margery
Pecche having an only son, Nicholas who married Rosia.

The only thus-far found recorded marriage of a 'Nicholas de Criol' to
'Margery' is given in Patent Rolls, Henry III A D 1266-1272 which
lists the patent of marriage of Nicholas de Cryoll to Margery daughter
of Gilbert Peche (pg 623)

A copy of the translated will of Margery de Criol (Pecche) dated 1319
can be found in 'Early Lincoln Wills' and gives evidence that most, if
not all of the early lineage of the visitation is incorrect:

"Margerie de Crioll.

Dated at Irencester, Sat. after the Annunciation, 1319. [fo. 10].
To be buried in the Choir of the Friars Minors of Bedeford, on the
right of Bertram my son.
Masses for my soul, and the souls of Fr. Richard de Clifford, my son
Bertram, my daughters Katherine de Braddene and Margaret Hereward, &
Robert Hereward.
Vestments &c. to my chapel of Corby; also iiij towayls p'le autel des
le une paire des armes de Leyourn.
v chaplains to celebrate in my chapel of St John at Lllyngston, v a
Irencestr', and v at Corby, in the chapel of Our Lady which I have
built.
Bequest to the Chruches of Hynton, Croxton, Hostrynghangre,
Irencestre, Serres, & Farndisshe.
Fr. John de Clifford, lxs.
Sire Richard de Clifford, canon of Raveneston, xxc.
Gaborn de Crioll, kli.
To Lady margery le Valence, whatever in my wordrobe was her mother's;
also a piece of the true cross, and my Matyns de Notre Dame, which
were my sister Johan's.
Sir John de Pavenham, and Elizabeth my daughter his wife; Elizabeth
their child.
To Lady Margery de Say, a coffer at Irencester which belonged to Sir
Robert Hereward, and a pyne de Euere which belonged to Saint Thomas of
Canterbury.
My niece Lady Johan de Playte.
To my nephew Sir Gilbert Petche, garments which Margaret de Wylughby
gave me.
John Hereward.
Several bequests to servants, &c.
The will of my dau. Margaret Hereward to be fulfilled.
A Reynald mom keu mon chival lemonner a mon charre.
To Elizabeth de Pavenham, a nun at Shaftesbyr, my pat' nost' of coral
and white pearls, which the Countess of Penbrok gave me.
My chaplains Simon xl souz & Wm. de Foxcote xls.
My little Book of Matyns and Common of the Saints to John Petche.
Executors: - Sire Gilbert Petche my nephew, Symon de Brunne, Sire
William de Foxcote, Gilbert de Crioll.
No probate annexed. [Early Lincoln Wills pp4-5]"

According to this will - it would seem that Margery Pecche was mother
to Bertram de Criol, Katherine (m. Galfrid Braddene), Margaret (m.
Robert Hereward/Howard) [who all predeceased her], and Elizabeth (m.
John Pabenham). Also, with mention of her nephew Gilbert Petche
(Pecche) there is not doubt that she is of the Pecche family and not
the Clifford family, though she made several bequests - to a Fr John
de Clifford and Richard de Clifford, canon - which seem to be
religious bequests and not familial. Apparently the "soul of Fr
Richard de Clifford" mentioned in this translation has been taken to
mean brother Richard de Clifford in the familial sense and not Brother
(Friar/Father) Richard de Clifford in the religious sense.

There has also been the supposition that Nicholas de Criol was firstly
married to a Margery Clifford then married to Margery Pecche. Adding
to the confusion of Margery Clifford/Pecche is an entry in the
VCH:Buckingham IV:191-197 "Lillingstone Lovell':

"William Clifford, tenant of lands in Lillingstone in 1131, (fn. 23)
was evidently an ancestor of Margery Clifford, who was holding under
Sir Hugh de Chanceporc in 1254. (fn. 24) Her first husband was Peter
de St. Martin, (fn. 25) but she was the wife of Peter Dansey in 1260,
when Lillingstone Manor was settled on them and their issue with
remainder to Margery's right heirs. (fn. 26) He was living in 1266
(fn. 27) and she in 1284. (fn. 28) Her heirs appear to have been
Margery Criol (Keriel), Elizabeth wife of John Pabenham, and Margery
daughter and heir of Robert and Margaret Hereward, (fn. 29) to whom
Richard son and heir of Sir John Clifford quitclaimed in 1313 his
rights in Lillingstone and elsewhere, a special point being made of
the lands held by Margery Criol it that date, (fn. 30) probably by
settlement on her marriage. She was the widow of Sir Nicholas Criol,
kt., (fn. 31) and was holding this manor in 1316. (fn. 32)"

(23) Gt. R. of the Pipe 31 Hen. I (Rec. Com.), 85.

(24) Hund. R. (Rec. Com.), ii, 44.

(25) Roberts, Cal. Gen. 331. She was holding dower in her first
husband's lands in Wiltshire in 1283, Patrick Chaworth having the
reversionary rights.

(26) Feet of F. Oxon. Hil. 44 Hen. III, no. 19. A clove gillyflower
was to be given at Easter to Richard Clifford and his heirs.

(27) Excerpta c Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), ii, 450. The king remitted
100s. exacted by the Exchequer for relief from lands once Peter de St.
Martin's.

(28) Feud. Aids, iv, 157.

(29)There were agreements between Margery Criol and John and Elizabeth
Pabenham in 1303 and 1304 respecting land in Hinwick (Beds.) (Cal.
Inq. p.m. [Edw. III], viii, 438).

(30) Coram Rege R. 214, m. 67.

(31) Cal. Inq. p.m. loc. cit.; Coram Rege R. 214, m. 67. She seems to
have been the second wife of Sir Nicholas Criol, who in 1302 confirmed
the gifts of his ancestor, William Aubervill, to Langdon Abbey, Kent
(Dugdale, Mon. vi, 897), and died in 1303 (Cal. Fine R. 1272–1307, p.
483). He had married in his minority in 1272 Margery daughter of
Gilbert Peche (Cal. Pat. 1266–72, p. 623).

(32) Feud. Aids, iv, 169."

The supposition in fn 31 would seem to be in error given fn 25 and
that in the Inquisition Post Mortem of Patrick de Chaworcis [Chaworth]
dated 7 July, 11 Edw. I. [1283] the following entry occurs:

"WILTS. Extent, Saturday the eve of St James, 11 Edw. I.

Staundon. The manor (extent given) with the advowson of the chapel,
held of the king in chief, pertaining to the manor of Kenemarford.
Margery Dansey holds a third part of the said township in dower, by
reason of Peter Sancti Martini, sometime her husband and formerly lord
of that township, which is not extended above." [Cal. IPM Edward I.
No. 477, p288]

The language of the IPM would indicate that Margery Clifford (St
Martin, Dansey) was still living as Margery Dansey in 1283 which was
at least ten years after the patent of marriage of Nicholas de Criol
and Margery Pecche. Given that Margery Clifford was married to her
second husband Peter Dansey by 1260 which is approximately the time
that Nicholas de Criol (who was underage in 1277 according to CP III:
542) would have been either born or very young, that Nicholas de Criol
died in 1303 and that Margery Pecche died c 1319, it seems very
unlikely that a marriage between Nicholas de Criol and Margery
Clifford took place. Also, it seems unlikely that the Margery de Criol
of the will of 1319 is anyone other than Margery Pecche - (1)
according to VCH:Berks Margery (Pecche) de Criol, Elizabeth and John
Pabenham appear to be heirs of Margery Clifford c 1303 which is about
the time of Nicholas de Criol's death & (2) Margery Clifford would
have been of an advanced age (born c 1232-37 ? if she were holding
lands in 1254) were she to have lived to that time. (? Is it possible
Margery Clifford died sometime in the fall of 1283 when Isabel de
Chaworth was given dower of Staundon, Cal. Close Rolls Edw. I.
1279-1288 p 217.) The exchange of lands between the Clifford family
and the Criol descendants apparently occurred for some other reason
that has yet to become apparent.

Therefore the children of Nicholas de Criol (d 1303) and Margery
Pecche (d c 1319) would seem to be:

(1) Nicholas de Criol (d 1330) married Roesia (Vis. Huntingdon 114.
History of Walmer pp 45-47)
(2) Bertram de Criol (d bef 1319) mentioned in his mother's will
(3) Katherine de Criol (d bef 1319) married Sir Galfrid Bradenne
mentioned in her mother's will
(4) Margaret de Criol (d bef 1319) married Sir Robert Hereward (or
Howard) (d bef 1319) mentioned in her mother's will
(5) Elizabeth de Criol married bef 1303 Sir John Pabenham mentioned in
her mother's will
(6) Possibly Gilbert de Criol who is a witness to the will of Margery
(Pecche) de Criol and appears in a lawsuit with Nicholas de Criol and
Roesia concerning the Manor of Walmer 7 Edw. II.


For a discussion of the mother of Margery Pecche see a posting by
Douglas Richardson, 11 Dec 2008, subject: "Maud de Hastings, wife of
Gilbert Pecche, and her Family"

Jane Williams Flank

[wjhonson]

What source is cited for in CP for stating that Nicholas was yet a
minor in 1277 ?

Thanks

Will

[jwflank]

Post by wjhonson
What source is cited for in CP for stating that Nicholas was yet a
minor in 1277 ?
Thanks
Will

CP cites "Writ of diem cl. ext. 2 July (Ch. Inq. p.m., Edw. I. file 7,
no. 10.)"

[Stephen Wilson]

How dare you post anything not of a political nature on the POL-MEDIEVAL
list. Don't you realize that members have joined this list to share their
interest, nay, passion, for douche-baggery* *with one another? Any posting
related to history or genealogy (and not to religion or politics) clearly
violates the by-laws of this esteemed assemblage of misanthropes and
dilletantes. You, ma'am, are worse than Hitler. May Barack Obama, the Lord
Messiah, have mercy on your soul.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:57:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Criol/Pecche/Pabenham/Clifford
As to the question of Margery Clifford vs Margery Pecche as wife of
The Visitation of Huntingdon, 1613 pg 114 has multiple errors/
suppositions in the early Criol lineage which has created descents
that are not correct. The visitation has a Nicholas de Criol married
to Margery Clifford who had children Bertram, Agnes (m. Michael
Poynings, miles), Joanna (m. William Baude, militus), Elizabeth (m.
John Pabenham, militus), Katherine (m. Galfrid Braddene, militus),
Margaret (m. Robert Hereward, militus). On a separate branch,
visitation has a Nicholas de Criol (nephew to the previous Nicholas
through a younger brother also named Nicolas) married to Margery
Pecche having an only son, Nicholas who married Rosia.
The only thus-far found recorded marriage of a 'Nicholas de Criol' to
'Margery' is given in Patent Rolls, Henry III A D 1266-1272 which
lists the patent of marriage of Nicholas de Cryoll to Margery daughter
of Gilbert Peche (pg 623)
A copy of the translated will of Margery de Criol (Pecche) dated 1319
can be found in 'Early Lincoln Wills' and gives evidence that most, if
"Margerie de Crioll.
Dated at Irencester, Sat. after the Annunciation, 1319. [fo. 10].
To be buried in the Choir of the Friars Minors of Bedeford, on the
right of Bertram my son.
Masses for my soul, and the souls of Fr. Richard de Clifford, my son
Bertram, my daughters Katherine de Braddene and Margaret Hereward, &
Robert Hereward.
Vestments &c. to my chapel of Corby; also iiij towayls p'le autel des
le une paire des armes de Leyourn.
v chaplains to celebrate in my chapel of St John at Lllyngston, v a
Irencestr', and v at Corby, in the chapel of Our Lady which I have
built.
Bequest to the Chruches of Hynton, Croxton, Hostrynghangre,
Irencestre, Serres, & Farndisshe.
Fr. John de Clifford, lxs.
Sire Richard de Clifford, canon of Raveneston, xxc.
Gaborn de Crioll, kli.
To Lady margery le Valence, whatever in my wordrobe was her mother's;
also a piece of the true cross, and my Matyns de Notre Dame, which
were my sister Johan's.
Sir John de Pavenham, and Elizabeth my daughter his wife; Elizabeth
their child.
To Lady Margery de Say, a coffer at Irencester which belonged to Sir
Robert Hereward, and a pyne de Euere which belonged to Saint Thomas of
Canterbury.
My niece Lady Johan de Playte.
To my nephew Sir Gilbert Petche, garments which Margaret de Wylughby
gave me.
John Hereward.
Several bequests to servants, &c.
The will of my dau. Margaret Hereward to be fulfilled.
A Reynald mom keu mon chival lemonner a mon charre.
To Elizabeth de Pavenham, a nun at Shaftesbyr, my pat' nost' of coral
and white pearls, which the Countess of Penbrok gave me.
My chaplains Simon xl souz & Wm. de Foxcote xls.
My little Book of Matyns and Common of the Saints to John Petche.
Executors: - Sire Gilbert Petche my nephew, Symon de Brunne, Sire
William de Foxcote, Gilbert de Crioll.
No probate annexed. [Early Lincoln Wills pp4-5]"
According to this will - it would seem that Margery Pecche was mother
to Bertram de Criol, Katherine (m. Galfrid Braddene), Margaret (m.
Robert Hereward/Howard) [who all predeceased her], and Elizabeth (m.
John Pabenham). Also, with mention of her nephew Gilbert Petche
(Pecche) there is not doubt that she is of the Pecche family and not
the Clifford family, though she made several bequests - to a Fr John
de Clifford and Richard de Clifford, canon - which seem to be
religious bequests and not familial. Apparently the "soul of Fr
Richard de Clifford" mentioned in this translation has been taken to
mean brother Richard de Clifford in the familial sense and not Brother
(Friar/Father) Richard de Clifford in the religious sense.
There has also been the supposition that Nicholas de Criol was firstly
married to a Margery Clifford then married to Margery Pecche. Adding
to the confusion of Margery Clifford/Pecche is an entry in the
"William Clifford, tenant of lands in Lillingstone in 1131, (fn. 23)
was evidently an ancestor of Margery Clifford, who was holding under
Sir Hugh de Chanceporc in 1254. (fn. 24) Her first husband was Peter
de St. Martin, (fn. 25) but she was the wife of Peter Dansey in 1260,
when Lillingstone Manor was settled on them and their issue with
remainder to Margery's right heirs. (fn. 26) He was living in 1266
(fn. 27) and she in 1284. (fn. 28) Her heirs appear to have been
Margery Criol (Keriel), Elizabeth wife of John Pabenham, and Margery
daughter and heir of Robert and Margaret Hereward, (fn. 29) to whom
Richard son and heir of Sir John Clifford quitclaimed in 1313 his
rights in Lillingstone and elsewhere, a special point being made of
the lands held by Margery Criol it that date, (fn. 30) probably by
settlement on her marriage. She was the widow of Sir Nicholas Criol,
kt., (fn. 31) and was holding this manor in 1316. (fn. 32)"
(23) Gt. R. of the Pipe 31 Hen. I (Rec. Com.), 85.
(24) Hund. R. (Rec. Com.), ii, 44.
(25) Roberts, Cal. Gen. 331. She was holding dower in her first
husband's lands in Wiltshire in 1283, Patrick Chaworth having the
reversionary rights.
(26) Feet of F. Oxon. Hil. 44 Hen. III, no. 19. A clove gillyflower
was to be given at Easter to Richard Clifford and his heirs.
(27) Excerpta c Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), ii, 450. The king remitted
100s. exacted by the Exchequer for relief from lands once Peter de St.
Martin's.
(28) Feud. Aids, iv, 157.
(29)There were agreements between Margery Criol and John and Elizabeth
Pabenham in 1303 and 1304 respecting land in Hinwick (Beds.) (Cal.
Inq. p.m. [Edw. III], viii, 438).
(30) Coram Rege R. 214, m. 67.
(31) Cal. Inq. p.m. loc. cit.; Coram Rege R. 214, m. 67. She seems to
have been the second wife of Sir Nicholas Criol, who in 1302 confirmed
the gifts of his ancestor, William Aubervill, to Langdon Abbey, Kent
(Dugdale, Mon. vi, 897), and died in 1303 (Cal. Fine R. 1272–1307, p.
483). He had married in his minority in 1272 Margery daughter of
Gilbert Peche (Cal. Pat. 1266–72, p. 623).
(32) Feud. Aids, iv, 169."
The supposition in fn 31 would seem to be in error given fn 25 and
that in the Inquisition Post Mortem of Patrick de Chaworcis [Chaworth]
"WILTS. Extent, Saturday the eve of St James, 11 Edw. I.
Staundon. The manor (extent given) with the advowson of the chapel,
held of the king in chief, pertaining to the manor of Kenemarford.
Margery Dansey holds a third part of the said township in dower, by
reason of Peter Sancti Martini, sometime her husband and formerly lord
of that township, which is not extended above." [Cal. IPM Edward I.
No. 477, p288]
The language of the IPM would indicate that Margery Clifford (St
Martin, Dansey) was still living as Margery Dansey in 1283 which was
at least ten years after the patent of marriage of Nicholas de Criol
and Margery Pecche. Given that Margery Clifford was married to her
second husband Peter Dansey by 1260 which is approximately the time
542) would have been either born or very young, that Nicholas de Criol
died in 1303 and that Margery Pecche died c 1319, it seems very
unlikely that a marriage between Nicholas de Criol and Margery
Clifford took place. Also, it seems unlikely that the Margery de Criol
of the will of 1319 is anyone other than Margery Pecche - (1)
according to VCH:Berks Margery (Pecche) de Criol, Elizabeth and John
Pabenham appear to be heirs of Margery Clifford c 1303 which is about
the time of Nicholas de Criol's death & (2) Margery Clifford would
have been of an advanced age (born c 1232-37 ? if she were holding
lands in 1254) were she to have lived to that time. (? Is it possible
Margery Clifford died sometime in the fall of 1283 when Isabel de
Chaworth was given dower of Staundon, Cal. Close Rolls Edw. I.
1279-1288 p 217.) The exchange of lands between the Clifford family
and the Criol descendants apparently occurred for some other reason
that has yet to become apparent.
Therefore the children of Nicholas de Criol (d 1303) and Margery
(1) Nicholas de Criol (d 1330) married Roesia (Vis. Huntingdon 114.
History of Walmer pp 45-47)
(2) Bertram de Criol (d bef 1319) mentioned in his mother's will
(3) Katherine de Criol (d bef 1319) married Sir Galfrid Bradenne
mentioned in her mother's will
(4) Margaret de Criol (d bef 1319) married Sir Robert Hereward (or
Howard) (d bef 1319) mentioned in her mother's will
(5) Elizabeth de Criol married bef 1303 Sir John Pabenham mentioned in
her mother's will
(6) Possibly Gilbert de Criol who is a witness to the will of Margery
(Pecche) de Criol and appears in a lawsuit with Nicholas de Criol and
Roesia concerning the Manor of Walmer 7 Edw. II.
For a discussion of the mother of Margery Pecche see a posting by
Douglas Richardson, 11 Dec 2008, subject: "Maud de Hastings, wife of
Gilbert Pecche, and her Family"
Jane Williams Flank

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

Below is my current file account of Sir Nicholas de Kyriel (or Criol)
(died 1303) and his wife, Margery Pecche, and that of their son,
Nicholas de Kyriel (died 1330) and his wives, Eleanor de Segrave and
Rose ____.

I believe some of the children you have assigned to Nicholas de Kyriel
and Margery Pecche actually belong to Nicholas' father, also named
Nicholas de Kyriel.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Family of Margery Pecche & Nicholas de Kyriel (or Criol).

I. MARGERY PECCHE, married before 25 Nov. 1271 (date of fine) NICHOLAS
DE KYRIEL (or CRIOL, CRIOLL, CRYOL, CRYELL), Knt., of Eynsford,
Stockbury, Walmer, Westenhanger, &c., Kent, Cherry Hinton,
Cambridgeshire, Sarre, Kent, Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire, Benhall,
Suffolk, etc., son and heir of Nicholas de Kyriel, of Cherry Hinton,
Cambridgeshire, Sarre, Kent, Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire, Benhall,
Suffolk, etc., Warden of the Cinque Ports, by his 1st wife, Joan,
daughter of William d’Auberville, Knt. He was born about 1260 (minor
in 1272 and 1280, of age in 1281). They had one son, Nicholas. In
1271 her father, Gilbert Pecche, conveyed a messuage and two carucates
of land in Cherry Hinton, Cambridgeshire and a carucate of land in
Sarre, Kent to Nicholas and his wife, Margery. In June 1280 the king
granted Gregory de Rokesle, Mayor of London, all the issues arising
from the custody of the lands late of Nicholas de Crioll, during the
minority of Nicholas son and heir of the said Nicholas. In June 1281
he appointed attorneys for one year in England, he then going beyond
seas. In 1291–1292 Nicholas conveyed the manor of Benhall, Suffolk to
Guy Ferre. SIR NICHOLAS DE KYRIEL died 12 October 1303. The dower of
his widow, Margery, was ordered to be assigned to her 1 Jan. 1303/4.
Margery had license to remarry 20 June 1304, but the name of her 2nd
husband is not known. Margery may have married (2nd) Ralph le
Sauvage, as in 1303–1304, a Ralph le Sauvage and Margaret his wife
conveyed the manor of Benhall, Suffolk to Guy Ferre; this manor had
previously been settled on Margery Pecche and her 1st husband,
Nicholas de Kyriel, by his father at the time of their marriage.
Margery died c.1313.

References:

Nichols, Hist. & Antiqs. of Leicestershire 2(1) (1795): 147 (Criol
pedigree). Hasted, Hist. & Top. Survey of Kent 5 (1798): 33–45.
Curtis, Topographical Hist. of the County of Leicester (1831): 49.
Palgrave, Docs. & Recs. illus. the Hist. of Scotland 1 (1837): 228
(“Nich’us de Kyriel Miles” included on list of people owing military
service in 1300). Elvin, Hist. of Walmer & Walmer Castle (1894): 45.
East Anglian n.s. 6 (1895–6): 378. C.P.R. 1301–1307 (1898): 236
(editor erroneously refers to license granted in 1304 to Margery,
widow of John Cryel; original document, however, calls her Margery,
widow of Nicholas de Cryel). Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk
(1900): 95, 108. C.P.R. 1272–1281 (1901): 378, 389, 400, 444.
Copinger County of Suffolk 1 (1904): 173. C.P.R. 1266–1272 (1913):
623. C.P. 3 (1913): 542 (sub Criol). Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire
(1920): 83–84. Churchill, Cal. of Kent Feet of Fines (Kent Recs. 15)
(1956): 419. Cotton, Hist. & Antiq. of the Church and Parish of St.
Laurence, Thanet (1895): 171–176. VCH Cambridge 10 (2002): 106–109.

Child of Margery Pecche, by Nicholas de Kyriel:

1). NICHOLAS DR KYRIEL (or CRIOL), of Sarre, Stockbury, and Walmer,
Kent, Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire, etc., Constable of Dover
Castle, Warden of the Cinque Ports, Admiral of the Fleet west of the
Thames, 1326, son and heir, born at Sarre, Kent 29 Dec. 1282. He
married (1st) about 25 May 1304 (date of marriage contract) ELEANOR DE
SEGRAVE, daughter of John de Segrave, Knt., 2nd Lord Segrave, by
Christian, daughter of Hugh de Plescy, of Hook Norton, Oxfordshire.
They had no issue. In July 1304 he appointed Alan de Hever his
attorney to give seisin to Stephen de Segrave of all his lands in his
charter of enfeoffment. His wife, Eleanor, died before 12 June 1307.
He married (2nd) before 1314 ROSE _____. They had one son, John,
Knt. In 1313–1314 a settlement of the manor of Walmer, Kent was made
on Nicholas and his wife, Rose, and the heirs of Nicholas. In 1313–
1314 he brought a writ of ejection against John de Segrave and his
wife, Julia. In 1318 he granted 2/3rd of the manor of Croxton
Kerrial, Leicestershire to Stephen de Segrave, together with the
advowson of Croxton Abbey and the reversion of 1/3rd of the said manor
held by Lady Margery de Kyriel in dower. Nicholas was first summoned
for military service in 1319. NICHOLAS DE KYRIEL died in 1330. In
1335 his widow, Rose, was granted the manor of Stockbury, Kent for
life by her son, John. Rose married (2nd) JOHN BERTRAM.

References:

Nichols, Hist. & Antiqs. of Leicestershire 2(1) (1795): 147 (Criol
pedigree); 3(1) (1800): 240 (Segrave pedigree from Chronicis apud
Chaucombe: “… & predictus Johannes de Segrave nupsit Christiane de
Plessy; de quibus dominus Stephanus de Segrave, Eleanora-Kiriell,
Margareta, Alicia, & Christiana de Moune [Mohun].”). Haydn, Book of
Dignities (1851): 153. Frampton, Glance at the Hundred of Wrotham
(1881): 80–90. Elvin Hist. of Walmer & Walmer Castle (1894): 45–46.
C.P.R. 1334–1338 (1895): 82. Cotton, Hist. & Antiq. of the Church and
Parish of St. Laurence, Thanet (1895): 171–176. Bolland, Year Books
of Edward II 8 (Selden Soc. 29) (1913): 90.

[jwflank]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Jane ~
Below is my current file account of Sir Nicholas de Kyriel (or Criol)
(died 1303) and his wife, Margery Pecche, and that of their son,
Nicholas de Kyriel (died 1330) and his wives, Eleanor de Segrave and
Rose ____.
I believe some of the children you have assigned to Nicholas de Kyriel
and Margery Pecche actually belong to Nicholas' father, also named
Nicholas de Kyriel.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Family of Margery Pecche & Nicholas de Kyriel (or Criol).
I. MARGERY PECCHE, married before 25 Nov. 1271 (date of fine) NICHOLAS
DE KYRIEL (or CRIOL, CRIOLL, CRYOL, CRYELL), Knt., of Eynsford,
Stockbury, Walmer, Westenhanger, &c., Kent, Cherry Hinton,
Cambridgeshire, Sarre, Kent, Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire, Benhall,
Suffolk, etc., son and heir of Nicholas de Kyriel, of Cherry Hinton,
Cambridgeshire, Sarre, Kent, Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire, Benhall,
Suffolk, etc., Warden of the Cinque Ports, by his 1st wife, Joan,
daughter of William d’Auberville, Knt.  He was born about 1260 (minor
in 1272 and 1280, of age in 1281).  They had one son, Nicholas.  In
1271 her father, Gilbert Pecche, conveyed a messuage and two carucates
of land in Cherry Hinton, Cambridgeshire and a carucate of land in
Sarre, Kent to Nicholas and his wife, Margery.  In June 1280 the king
granted Gregory de Rokesle, Mayor of London, all the issues arising
from the custody of the lands late of Nicholas de Crioll, during the
minority of Nicholas son and heir of the said Nicholas.  In June 1281
he appointed attorneys for one year in England, he then going beyond
seas.  In 1291–1292 Nicholas conveyed the manor of Benhall, Suffolk to
Guy Ferre.  SIR NICHOLAS DE KYRIEL died 12 October 1303.  The dower of
his widow, Margery, was ordered to be assigned to her 1 Jan. 1303/4.
Margery had license to remarry 20 June 1304, but the name of her 2nd
husband is not known.  Margery may have married (2nd) Ralph le
Sauvage, as in 1303–1304, a Ralph le Sauvage and Margaret his wife
conveyed the manor of Benhall, Suffolk to Guy Ferre; this manor had
previously been settled on Margery Pecche and her 1st husband,
Nicholas de Kyriel, by his father at the time of their marriage.
Margery died c.1313.
Nichols, Hist. & Antiqs. of Leicestershire 2(1) (1795): 147 (Criol
pedigree).  Hasted, Hist. & Top. Survey of Kent 5 (1798): 33–45.
Curtis, Topographical Hist. of the County of Leicester (1831): 49.
Palgrave, Docs. & Recs. illus. the Hist. of Scotland 1 (1837): 228
(“Nich’us de Kyriel Miles” included on list of people owing military
service in 1300).  Elvin, Hist. of Walmer & Walmer Castle (1894): 45.
East Anglian n.s. 6 (1895–6): 378.  C.P.R. 1301–1307 (1898): 236
(editor erroneously refers to license granted in 1304 to Margery,
widow of John Cryel; original document, however, calls her Margery,
widow of Nicholas de Cryel).  Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk
(1900): 95, 108.  C.P.R. 1272–1281 (1901): 378, 389, 400, 444.
623.  C.P. 3 (1913): 542 (sub Criol).  Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire
(1920): 83–84.  Churchill, Cal. of Kent Feet of Fines (Kent Recs. 15)
(1956): 419.  Cotton, Hist. & Antiq. of the Church and Parish of St.
Laurence, Thanet (1895): 171–176.  VCH Cambridge 10 (2002): 106–109.
1).     NICHOLAS DR KYRIEL (or CRIOL), of Sarre, Stockbury, and Walmer,
Kent, Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire, etc., Constable of Dover
Castle, Warden of the Cinque Ports, Admiral of the Fleet west of the
Thames, 1326, son and heir, born at Sarre, Kent 29 Dec. 1282.  He
married (1st) about 25 May 1304 (date of marriage contract) ELEANOR DE
SEGRAVE, daughter of John de Segrave, Knt., 2nd Lord Segrave, by
Christian, daughter of Hugh de Plescy, of Hook Norton, Oxfordshire.
They had no issue.  In July 1304 he appointed Alan de Hever his
attorney to give seisin to Stephen de Segrave of all his lands in his
charter of enfeoffment.  His wife, Eleanor, died before 12 June 1307.
He married (2nd) before 1314 ROSE _____.  They had one son, John,
Knt.  In 1313–1314 a settlement of the manor of Walmer, Kent was made
on Nicholas and his wife, Rose, and the heirs of Nicholas.  In 1313–
1314 he brought a writ of ejection against John de Segrave and his
wife, Julia.  In 1318 he granted 2/3rd of the manor of Croxton
Kerrial, Leicestershire to Stephen de Segrave, together with the
advowson of Croxton Abbey and the reversion of 1/3rd of the said manor
held by Lady Margery de Kyriel in dower.  Nicholas was first summoned
for military service in 1319.  NICHOLAS DE KYRIEL died in 1330.  In
1335 his widow, Rose, was granted the manor of Stockbury, Kent for
life by her son, John.  Rose married (2nd) JOHN BERTRAM.
Nichols, Hist. & Antiqs. of Leicestershire 2(1) (1795): 147 (Criol
pedigree); 3(1) (1800): 240 (Segrave pedigree from Chronicis apud
Chaucombe: “… & predictus Johannes de Segrave nupsit Christiane de
Plessy; de quibus dominus Stephanus de Segrave, Eleanora-Kiriell,
Margareta, Alicia, & Christiana de Moune [Mohun].”).  Haydn, Book of
Dignities (1851): 153.  Frampton, Glance at the Hundred of Wrotham
(1881): 80–90.  Elvin Hist. of Walmer & Walmer Castle (1894): 45–46.
C.P.R. 1334–1338 (1895): 82.  Cotton, Hist. & Antiq. of the Church and
Parish of St. Laurence, Thanet (1895): 171–176.  Bolland, Year Books
of Edward II 8 (Selden Soc. 29) (1913): 90.

If that is the case - did the senior Nicholas de Criol (first wife
Joan d'Auberville) have a second wife Margery who was some how related
to the Pecche family? With the exception of Nicholas and Gilbert all
the children of a Margery de Criol whose will was dated at Irencester,
Sat. after the Annunciation, 1319. [fo. 10] listed in my previous post
specifically mentions children - Katherine, Margaret, Elizabeth, and
Bertram and nephew Gilbert Pecche. VCH:Nottingham IV:Irchester 21-27,
makes the tie to the Cliffords but states that in 1313 Richard de
Clifford surrendered Irchester to Margery (then widow of Nicholas de
Criol) and her co-heirs Elizabeth, wife of John Pabenham; and Margery
Hereward, late wife of Robert Hereward. In the previous sentence
VCH:Nots stated that Margery was tenant in 1298 and 1316.

Couple of suppositions. Who would the Margery de Criol of the will of
1319 be other than Margery Pecche? Unless there is a second Margery de
Clifford who married one generation of the Nicholas de Criols, than
the Margery de Clifford who married Peter St Martin then Peter Dansey
doesn't fit chronologically as a wife of either generation. Could
there be a third Nicholas? Could there be a second Margery? Then what
would her relationship be to the Pecche family that would allow her to
refer to Gilbert de Pecche as nephew? Did Alfred Gibbons mistranslate
the language of the will? I can only get snippets of the will in the
original language as it was published in the Bedfordshire Historical
Record Society publications.

I've dug and dug on this one and keep coming back to the will, which
is also mentioned in the entry for Nicholas de Criol CP III:542. - Any
help would be appreciated.

JWF

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

I've reviewed the evidence which you've presented regarding the 1319
will of Margery de Criol, an abstract of which is presented in Early
Lincoln Wills, pp. 4-5. This Margery de Criol is believed to be the
widow of Nicholas de Criol (died 1273). She is also thought to have
been a member of the Clifford family, as suggested by the Visitation
of Huntingdon. The abstract of the 1319 will of Margery de Criol may
be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uBYRAAAAYAAJ&dq=Early+Lincoln+Wills&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ytwc6E52vq&sig=qZEvFJMb2RlvWPuqHlha07Stmps&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA4,M1

Besides looking at your evidence, I have also reviewed the material
presented on the identity of Margery de Criol found on Chris Phillips'
website at the following weblink:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/criol.shtml

While you are correct that Margery de Criol's will names her nephew,
Sir Gilbert Pecche, it should be pointed out that there were actually
three Gilbert Pecche's in this time period. The first one was Gilbert
Pecche I, who died in 1291. He married (1st) Maud de Hastings and
(2nd) Joan de Creye.

The second Gilbert Pecche (who I will call Gilbert Pecche II) was the
son of John Pecche, of Great Bealings, Grundisburgh, and Felsham,
Suffolk. Gilbert Pecche II was the grandson and heir male of Gilbert
Pecche I, by his first wife, Maud de Hastings. Gilbert Pecche II was
as you know the nephew of the Margery Pecche who married Nicholas de
Criol, who died in 1303.

The other Gilbert Pecche (who I will called Gilbert Pecche III) was
the son of Gilbert Pecche I, by his 2nd wife, Joan de Creye. As such,
he was the uncle of the half-blood to Gilbert Pecche II. Gilbert
Pecche III was also the half-brother of Margery Pecche, who married
the younger Nicholas de Criol, who died in 1303. Gilbert Pecche III
was of legal age in 1386, and died in 1322. Gilbert Pecche III was
knighted [see Complete Peerage, 10 (1945): 337], whereas the other
Gilbert Pecche II his half-nephew is not known to have been knighted.
Gilbert Pecche III and Gilbert Pecche II appear together in a Suffolk
fine dated 1313-1314 [see Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk
(1900): 129, which item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&pg=PA84&dq=Gilbert+Peche+Clifford#PPA129,M1].
So both Gilbert Pecche III and Gilbert Pecche II were living about the
time that Margery de Criol made her will in 1319.

I believe it was Gilbert Pecche III (died 1322) the knight who is the
Sir Gilbert Pecche who is called nephew in the 1319 will of Margery de
Criol. While I can not prove it, I suspect that Sir Gilbert Pecche's
mother, Joan de Creye, was a half-sister of Margery de Criol who left
the will dated 1319. If so, this would presumably mean that both Joan
de Creye and Margery de Criol of the 1319 were possibly daughters of
the Margery de Clifford, living in 1254 [see Victoria County History,
Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 192].

That there was a double connection between the Criol and Pecche
families is suggested by the fact that Master Richard de Clifford and
Master William de Clifford (almost certainly brothers of Margery de
Criol of the 1319 will) served as feoffees in fines dated 1280-1281
and 1283-1284 for Gilbert Pecche I and his 2nd wife, Joan de Creye
[see Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 81, 84, a copy of
which items can be seen at the following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&pg=PA84&dq=Gilbert+Peche+Clifford#PPA81,M1;
http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&pg=PA84&dq=Gilbert+Peche+Clifford#PPA84,M1].
The purpose of these fines was to settle the manor Great Thurlaw,
Suffolk on Gilbert Pecche I and his 2nd wife, Joan de Creye, to the
exclusion of Gilbert Pecche I's son and heir, John Pecche, by his 1st
wife, Maud de Hastings.

I know of no reason for the Clifford brothers to appear as feoffees
for Gilbert Pecche I back in the 1280's. However, if Gilbert Pecche's
wife, Joan de Creye, was the half-sister of Master Richard de Clifford
and Master William de Clifford, it would explain their appearance
together in these fines. Also, if would explain how Margery de Criol
of the 1319 will (assumed to be a Clifford) had a nephew named Sir
Gilbert Pecche.

This arrangement would create the odd situation of two successive
Criol widows named Margery de Criol, both of whom had nephews named
Gilbert Pecche. This can possibly be proved. If Joan de Creye's
father, Simon de Creye, was married to the elder Margery de Clifford,
lving in 1254, there would presumably be some record to connect them
together as husband and wife. Unfortunately, my own files have
nothing on Simon de Creye.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

As a followup, I should point out that the 1319 will of Margery de
Criol refers to "a pair of the arms of Leyborne." This is not easily
explained, as Margery de Criol herself is thought to have been a
Clifford. However, if Margery's mother was a Leyborne of Kent, it
would explain this connection.

Curiously, I just found a reference to Simon de Creye being associated
with a William de Leyburn. This reference is found in English
Historical Review, a snippet view of which may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eBkSAAAAIAAJ&q=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&lr=&pgis=1

If Margery de Criol's mother was a Leyborne, and if that mother was
the wife of both _____ de Clifford and Simon de Creye, it would
explain the reference to the Leyborne arms in Margery de Criol's will
and also how Margery de Criol had a nephew named Sir Gilbert Pecche,
whose mother was Joan, daughter of Simon de Creye.

This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

There appears to be a reference to Simon de Creye and to Nicholas and
Margery Criol, and Elizabeth Criol, wife of John Pabenham, found in
Antiquaries Journal, vol. 77 (1997), pg. 181.

See the following three snippet weblinks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&q=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&lr=&pgis=1

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&q=criol&pgis=1#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&q=hours&pgis=1#search_anchor

This material appears to concern a Book of Hours found in Fitz
Williams MS 242 which is dated c.1313-1331.

I know of no reason why Simon de Creye should be mentioned on the same
page 181, as Nicholas and Margery de Criol, unless perhaps these
people are named in the Book of Hours together. If Simon de Creye was
married to Margery de Criol's sister, it would explain why they would
be mentioned in the same Book of Hours. This article is probably
worth investigating. Let me know what you find out.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[jwflank]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Jane ~
There appears to be a reference to Simon de Creye and to Nicholas and
Margery Criol, and Elizabeth Criol, wife of John Pabenham, found in
Antiquaries Journal, vol. 77 (1997), pg. 181.
http://books.google.com/books?id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&q=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&...
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%27Simon+de+Crey...
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%27Simon+de+Crey...
This material appears to concern a Book of Hours found in Fitz
Williams MS 242 which is dated c.1313-1331.
I know of no reason why Simon de Creye should be mentioned on the same
page 181, as Nicholas and Margery de Criol, unless perhaps these
people are named in the Book of Hours together.  If Simon de Creye was
married to Margery de Criol's sister, it would explain why they would
be mentioned in the same Book of Hours.  This article is probably
worth investigating.  Let me know what you find out.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

In further digging today I have found several Patent Roll entries
(Edw. I. 1279-1281) and Close Roll (Edw I. 1279-1288) entries for the
first Nicholas de Criol as well as a partial IPM (Cal. IPM Edw I p
253) on him. It would seem that he did have a second wife after the
death of Joan d'Auberville who was named either Margaret or Margery
(I've found both names used in conjuction with this wife) who was
named in conjunction with the manor of Wrotham and the inheritance of
the heir of Nicholas de Criol in wardship of Geoffrey de Rokesley.
Margery/Margaret appears listed in several membranes dated 1280.
(Which would make Nicholas II de Criol not yet of age in 1280).

A clearer picture seems to be forming of this lineage.

Supposition: - also following some of the thoughts that you have put
forth.

The Will of Margery de Crioll dated 1319 is not that of Margery Pecche
as put forth by CP III:542 but that of Margery de Creye a second
(older ?) dau of Simon de Creye and sister of Joan de Creye who
married Gilbert Pecche and had a son named Gilbert, making Margery his
aunt. This Margery de Crioll was second wife to the 1st Nicholas de
Criol whose first wife Joan d'Auberville must have died extremely
shorly (? possibly in childbirth) after giving birth to their son
Nicholas. Nicholas I would have then married very shortly after Joan's
death Margery de Creye in order for them to have had the four children
mentioned in Margery's will prior to Nicholas I's death in 1273.

Nicholas II de Criol and Margery Pecche did have a patent of marriage
d 1272 (Patent Rolls, Henry III A D 1266-1272 pg 623) but the Margery
de Crioll of the will of 1319 is not his that of his wife but his
stepmother who also had ties through marriage to the Pecche family. -
error in CP III:542.

Other questions that begin to develop in following this line:

(1) If Joan de Creye and this Margery de Crioll are sisters, did Joan
de Creye marry a third time after the death of Gilbert Pecche to a le
Valence or did Joan and Gilbert Pecche have a daughter Margery who
married a le Valence? - per Margery de Crioll's will

(2) If the various VHC entries are to be followed could Margery de
Crioll (of the will of 1319) be the daughter of the family of Clifford
through her mother and if the supposition that she was sister to Joan
de Creye be correct would their father Simon have had a wife of the
Clifford family? and does Leybourn appear in the Clifford or Creye
lineage?

JWF

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Jan 28, 2:22 pm, jwflank <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

< In further digging today I have found several Patent Roll entries
< (Edw. I. 1279-1281) and Close Roll (Edw I. 1279-1288) entries for
the
< first Nicholas de Criol as well as a partial IPM (Cal. IPM Edw I p
< 253) on him.  It would seem that he did have a second wife after the
< death of Joan d'Auberville who was named either Margaret or Margery
< (I've found both names used in conjuction with this wife) who was
< named in conjunction with the manor of Wrotham and the inheritance
of
< the heir of Nicholas de Criol in wardship of Geoffrey de Rokesley.
< Margery/Margaret appears listed in several membranes dated 1280.
< (Which would make Nicholas II de Criol not yet of age in 1280).

< A clearer picture seems to be forming of this lineage.

< Supposition: - also following some of the thoughts that you have put
< forth.

< The Will of Margery de Crioll dated 1319 is not that of Margery
Pecche
< as put forth by CP III:542 but that of Margery de Creye a second
< (older ?) dau of Simon de Creye and sister of Joan de Creye who
< married Gilbert Pecche and had a son named Gilbert, making Margery
his
< aunt.

I believe Margery de Criol of the 1319 will was the second surviving
wife of Nicholas de Criol who died in 1273. I believe she was a
Clifford, as stated in the Visitation of Huntingdon.

And, if she was a Clifford and if she was the aunt of Joan de Creye's
son, Sir Gilbert Pecche, then presumably Margery de Criol and Joan de
Creye were half-sisters, they being the daughters of the earlier
Margery de Clifford, who was living in 1254, but by different
husbands. The 1254 Margery de Clifford was possibly a member of the
Leyborne family. If so, then as Margery de Leyborne, she presumably
married (1st) _____ de Clifford, and (2nd) Simon de Creye (or Craye).
This is all guesswork at this point, but it would explain how Margery
de Criol of the 1319 will was aunt to Sir Gilbert Pecche. It would
also explain the occurence of the Leyborne arms in Margery de Criol's
will. We already know that Joan de Creye's father, Simon de Creye,
was familiar with the Leyborne family.

<This Margery de Crioll was second wife to the 1st Nicholas de
< Criol whose first wife Joan d'Auberville must have died extremely
< shortly (? possibly in childbirth) after giving birth to their son
< Nicholas.

That is correct.

< Nicholas I would have then married very shortly after Joan's
< death Margery de Creye in order for them to have had the four
children
< mentioned in Margery's will prior to Nicholas I's death in 1273.

The younger Nicholas de Criol was born about 1260, he being a minor in
1272 and 1280, and of age in 1281. Assuming that Joan d'Auberville
died in or soon after 1260, it would allow Nicholas de Criol
sufficient time to marry (2nd) Margery de Clifford, and have several
more children.

< Nicholas II de Criol and Margery Pecche did have a patent of
marriage
< d 1272 (Patent Rolls, Henry III A D 1266-1272 pg 623) but the
Margery
< de Crioll of the will of 1319 is not his that of his wife but his
< stepmother who also had ties through marriage to the Pecche family.
-
< error in CP III:542.

That is my interpretation of the evidence. That is also the same
position held by Chris Phillips.

< Other questions that begin to develop in following this line:

< (1) If Joan de Creye and this Margery de Crioll are sisters, did
Joan
< de Creye marry a third time after the death of Gilbert Pecche to a
le
< Valence or did Joan and Gilbert Pecche have a daughter Margery who
< married a le Valence? - per Margery de Crioll's will

I have no knowledge that Joan de Creye remarried after the death of
Gilbert Pecche I.

< (2) If the various VHC entries are to be followed could Margery de
< Crioll (of the will of 1319) be the daughter of the family of
Clifford
< through her mother and if the supposition that she was sister to
Joan
< de Creye be correct would their father Simon have had a wife of the
< Clifford family? and does Leybourn appear in the Clifford or Creye
< lineage?

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Margery de Criol's father
was a Clifford, and that Master Richard de Clifford and Master William
de Clifford were her full-brothers. I assume that Margery de Criol
may have been the half-sister of Joan de Creye, 2nd wife of Gilbert
Pecche I. You'll probably know more when you see the information I
cited in the Book of Hours in Antiquaries Journal, vol. 77 (1997), pg.
181. If Simon de Creye and Margery de Criol are both named in the
same Book of Hours, it woud certainly lend support to the idea that
Simon de Creye was married to Margery de Criol's mother.

JWF

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Tony Ingham]

Post by Douglas Richardson
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Margery de Criol's father
was a Clifford, and that Master Richard de Clifford and Master William
de Clifford were her full-brothers.

Master Richard and Master William de Clifford were nephews of Peter
Chaceporc, treasurer of England 1253.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 4: Salisbury (1991), pp. 92.
Prebendaries: Ratfyn
Vol. IV. p.92
M. Richard de Clifford
Prob. not yet can. when occ. 1262 (cart. De Vaux fos. 25r-26r). Occ.
this preb. May-June 1284 (app. 2) and as can. 10 May 1288 (app. 3).
Still can. 28 Sept. 1294 (CPR 1292-1301 p. 94). Also preb. of York by
1270 (York Minster Fasti II 48); precentor of Chichester 1271. (fn. 1)
Had been succeeded at York by *29 Oct. 1295* (ibid.).
Royal clk. and escheator; for his career cf. Biog. Ox. III 2162-3,
where, however, he is wrongly stated to have been chanc. of Chichester
March 1298 (this was John de Lacy). He was nephew of Henry Chaceporc
and Peter Chaceporc (for whom see 1 Fasti III 20), cart. De Vaux fos.
25r-26r.

Their mother was Sibyl, wife of Richard de Clifford of Frampton on Severn.

Post by Douglas Richardson
1252 Calendar of Close Rolls 37 Henry III. p. 294.
De damis datis. - Mandatum est Willelmo Luvel et Henrico de
Candovere, venatoribus suis, quod in foresta de Cette capiant tres
damas ad opus Sibille de Clifford, sororis P. Chacep', et eas eidem
Sibille habere faciant de dono regis : ita quod numerus bestiarum quas
rex capi precepit ad opus suum non decrescat. Teste ut supra.

Tony Ingham.

Post by Douglas Richardson
My comments are interspersed below. DR
< In further digging today I have found several Patent Roll entries
< (Edw. I. 1279-1281) and Close Roll (Edw I. 1279-1288) entries for
the
< first Nicholas de Criol as well as a partial IPM (Cal. IPM Edw I p
< 253) on him. It would seem that he did have a second wife after the
< death of Joan d'Auberville who was named either Margaret or Margery
< (I've found both names used in conjuction with this wife) who was
< named in conjunction with the manor of Wrotham and the inheritance
of
< the heir of Nicholas de Criol in wardship of Geoffrey de Rokesley.
< Margery/Margaret appears listed in several membranes dated 1280.
< (Which would make Nicholas II de Criol not yet of age in 1280).
< A clearer picture seems to be forming of this lineage.
< Supposition: - also following some of the thoughts that you have put
< forth.
< The Will of Margery de Crioll dated 1319 is not that of Margery
Pecche
< as put forth by CP III:542 but that of Margery de Creye a second
< (older ?) dau of Simon de Creye and sister of Joan de Creye who
< married Gilbert Pecche and had a son named Gilbert, making Margery
his
< aunt.
I believe Margery de Criol of the 1319 will was the second surviving
wife of Nicholas de Criol who died in 1273. I believe she was a
Clifford, as stated in the Visitation of Huntingdon.
And, if she was a Clifford and if she was the aunt of Joan de Creye's
son, Sir Gilbert Pecche, then presumably Margery de Criol and Joan de
Creye were half-sisters, they being the daughters of the earlier
Margery de Clifford, who was living in 1254, but by different
husbands. The 1254 Margery de Clifford was possibly a member of the
Leyborne family. If so, then as Margery de Leyborne, she presumably
married (1st) _____ de Clifford, and (2nd) Simon de Creye (or Craye).
This is all guesswork at this point, but it would explain how Margery
de Criol of the 1319 will was aunt to Sir Gilbert Pecche. It would
also explain the occurence of the Leyborne arms in Margery de Criol's
will. We already know that Joan de Creye's father, Simon de Creye,
was familiar with the Leyborne family.
<This Margery de Crioll was second wife to the 1st Nicholas de
< Criol whose first wife Joan d'Auberville must have died extremely
< shortly (? possibly in childbirth) after giving birth to their son
< Nicholas.
That is correct.
< Nicholas I would have then married very shortly after Joan's
< death Margery de Creye in order for them to have had the four
children
< mentioned in Margery's will prior to Nicholas I's death in 1273.
The younger Nicholas de Criol was born about 1260, he being a minor in
1272 and 1280, and of age in 1281. Assuming that Joan d'Auberville
died in or soon after 1260, it would allow Nicholas de Criol
sufficient time to marry (2nd) Margery de Clifford, and have several
more children.
< Nicholas II de Criol and Margery Pecche did have a patent of
marriage
< d 1272 (Patent Rolls, Henry III A D 1266-1272 pg 623) but the
Margery
< de Crioll of the will of 1319 is not his that of his wife but his
< stepmother who also had ties through marriage to the Pecche family.
-
< error in CP III:542.
That is my interpretation of the evidence. That is also the same
position held by Chris Phillips.
< (1) If Joan de Creye and this Margery de Crioll are sisters, did
Joan
< de Creye marry a third time after the death of Gilbert Pecche to a
le
< Valence or did Joan and Gilbert Pecche have a daughter Margery who
< married a le Valence? - per Margery de Crioll's will
I have no knowledge that Joan de Creye remarried after the death of
Gilbert Pecche I.
< (2) If the various VHC entries are to be followed could Margery de
< Crioll (of the will of 1319) be the daughter of the family of
Clifford
< through her mother and if the supposition that she was sister to
Joan
< de Creye be correct would their father Simon have had a wife of the
< Clifford family? and does Leybourn appear in the Clifford or Creye
< lineage?
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Margery de Criol's father
was a Clifford, and that Master Richard de Clifford and Master William
de Clifford were her full-brothers. I assume that Margery de Criol
may have been the half-sister of Joan de Creye, 2nd wife of Gilbert
Pecche I. You'll probably know more when you see the information I
cited in the Book of Hours in Antiquaries Journal, vol. 77 (1997), pg.
181. If Simon de Creye and Margery de Criol are both named in the
same Book of Hours, it woud certainly lend support to the idea that
Simon de Creye was married to Margery de Criol's mother.

JWF

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------

[jwflank]

My comments are interspersed below.  DR
< In further digging today I have found several Patent Roll entries
< (Edw. I. 1279-1281) and Close Roll (Edw I. 1279-1288) entries for
the
< first Nicholas de Criol as well as a partial IPM (Cal. IPM Edw I p
< 253) on him.  It would seem that he did have a second wife after the
< death of Joan d'Auberville who was named either Margaret or Margery
< (I've found both names used in conjuction with this wife) who was
< named in conjunction with the manor of Wrotham and the inheritance
of
< the heir of Nicholas de Criol in wardship of Geoffrey de Rokesley.
< Margery/Margaret appears listed in several membranes dated 1280.
< (Which would make Nicholas II de Criol not yet of age in 1280).
< A clearer picture seems to be forming of this lineage.
< Supposition: - also following some of the thoughts that you have put
< forth.
< The Will of Margery de Crioll dated 1319 is not that of Margery
Pecche
< as put forth by CP III:542 but that of Margery de Creye a second
< (older ?) dau of Simon de Creye and sister of Joan de Creye who
< married Gilbert Pecche and had a son named Gilbert, making Margery
his
< aunt.
I believe Margery de Criol of the 1319 will was the second surviving
wife of Nicholas de Criol who died in 1273.  I believe she was a
Clifford, as stated in the Visitation of Huntingdon.
And, if she was a Clifford and if she was the aunt of Joan de Creye's
son, Sir Gilbert Pecche, then presumably Margery de Criol and Joan de
Creye were half-sisters, they being the daughters of the earlier
Margery de Clifford, who was living in 1254, but by different
husbands.  The 1254 Margery de Clifford was possibly a member of the
Leyborne family.  If so, then as Margery de Leyborne, she presumably
married (1st) _____ de Clifford, and (2nd) Simon de Creye (or Craye).
This is all guesswork at this point, but it would explain how Margery
de Criol of the 1319 will was aunt to Sir Gilbert Pecche.  It would
also explain the occurence of the Leyborne arms in Margery de Criol's
will.  We already know that Joan de Creye's father, Simon de Creye,
was familiar with the Leyborne family.
<This Margery de Crioll was second wife to the 1st Nicholas de
< Criol whose first wife Joan d'Auberville must have died extremely
< shortly (? possibly in childbirth) after giving birth to their son
< Nicholas.
That is correct.
< Nicholas I would have then married very shortly after Joan's
< death Margery de Creye in order for them to have had the four
children
< mentioned in Margery's will prior to Nicholas I's death in 1273.
The younger Nicholas de Criol was born about 1260, he being a minor in
1272 and 1280, and of age in 1281.  Assuming that Joan d'Auberville
died in or soon after 1260, it would allow Nicholas de Criol
sufficient time to marry (2nd) Margery de Clifford, and have several
more children.
< Nicholas II de Criol and Margery Pecche did have a patent of
marriage
< d 1272 (Patent Rolls, Henry III A D 1266-1272 pg 623) but the
Margery
< de Crioll of the will of 1319 is not his that of his wife but his
< stepmother who also had ties through marriage to the Pecche family.
-
< error in CP III:542.
That is my interpretation of the evidence.  That is also the same
position held by Chris Phillips.
< (1) If Joan de Creye and this Margery de Crioll are sisters, did
Joan
< de Creye marry a third time after the death of Gilbert Pecche to a
le
< Valence or did Joan and Gilbert Pecche have a daughter Margery who
< married a le Valence? - per Margery de Crioll's will
I have no knowledge that Joan de Creye remarried after the death of
Gilbert Pecche I.
< (2) If the various VHC entries are to be followed could Margery de
< Crioll (of the will of 1319) be the daughter of the family of
Clifford
< through her mother and if the supposition that she was sister to
Joan
< de Creye be correct would their father Simon have had a wife of the
< Clifford family? and does Leybourn appear in the Clifford or Creye
< lineage?
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Margery de Criol's father
was a Clifford, and that Master Richard de Clifford and Master William
de Clifford were her full-brothers.  I assume that Margery de Criol
may have been the half-sister of Joan de Creye, 2nd wife of Gilbert
Pecche I.  You'll probably know more when you see the information I
cited in the Book of Hours in Antiquaries Journal, vol. 77 (1997), pg.
181.   If Simon de Creye and Margery de Criol are both named in the
same Book of Hours, it woud certainly lend support to the idea that
Simon de Creye was married to Margery de Criol's mother.

JWF

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Another little tidbit on the Leyborne connection:

6 June 1297 [Canterbury] Licence for Nicholas de Cryoll, tenant in
chief, who is going beyond seas with the king on his service in the
company of William le Leybourne, to demise for seven years from next
Michaelmas to Ralph de Sandwyco the manor of Walemer, co. Kent. (25
Edw. I. m. 4.) [Patent Rolls, Edw. I. AD 1292-1301 p252]

Possible familial connection from his stepmother and his wife's
stepmother?

JWF

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

Reviewing the various records one more time, It appears that Margery
de Criol, who left the 1319 will, married (1st) Nicholas de Criol, who
died in 1273, and (2nd) Sir John de Clifford (living 1285, died by
1294), lord of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire. Margery is named
as Sir John de Clifford's widow in 1303. Although I don't find any
printed sources which say so, I imagine that Sir John de Clifford's
grandmother was Sibyl Chaceporc, wife of _____ de Clifford, which
Sibyl was the sister of Peter Chaceporc (died 1254), Treasurer of
England, and of Sir Hugh Chaceporc, of Lillingstone Lovel,
Buckinghamshire. Sibyl, Peter, and Sir Hugh Chaceporc were in turn
was the niece and nephews of the well known Sir Hugh de Vivonne, Knt.
(died 1249), of Chewton, Somerset, whose wife, Mabel Malet, was the
daughter of William Malet (died c.1216), the Magna Carta baron.
Following the death of baron William Malet, Sir Hugh de Vivonne
attempted to marry his nephew, Hugh Chaceporc, to Alice Basset, the
surviving widow of William Malet, which marriage did not take place
[see National Archives, SC 1/1/211: petition dated c.1220-1221 from
Hugh de Vivon’ to Hubert de Burgh, justiciar: he wishes to prolong his
stay in England; requests that H[ugh] Chaceporc, his nephew, should
have the daughter of Thomas Basset who is the widow of William Malet;
abstract of document available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp].
Rather, Hugh Chaceporc instead married Gwidona, an unidentified
kinswoman of King Henry III of England [see Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1232–1247 (1906): 502—Gwydona styled “king’s kinwoman" (cognata)];
available at the following weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h3v3/body/Henry3vol3page0502.pdf).

As best I can tell, Margery de Criol had her two daughters, Margaret
Hereward and Elizabeth Pabenham, by her Clifford marriage, not her
Criol marriage. This is indicated by the history of the manor of
Lillingstone Lovel, Buckinghamshire which was first held on lease by
Peter de Chaceporc, Treasurer of England, then in 1254 by his brother,
Sir Hugh de Chaceporc, and then it appears to have gone to the
Clifford family. The passage of lands would tend to confirm that the
maiden name of Margaret Hereward and Elizabeth Pabenham was Clifford.
For details of the history of the manor of Lillingstone Lovel,
Buckinghamshire in VCH Buckingham, see the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62565&strquery=Lillingstone

The above material discusses Peter Chaceporc, Treasurer of England,
and his brother, Sir Hugh Chaceporc, but does not mention their
sister, Sibyl, who married a Clifford. It does state that Margery de
Criol of the 1319 will was holding the manor of Lillingstone Lovel in
1316. Also, that Richard de Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de
Clifford, released his rights in the same manner in 1313.

There is more on this same Clifford family in VCH Northampton at the
following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66308&strquery=Irchester

The history of this manor indicates that in 1264 William de Clifford
(former Rector of Irchester, Northamptonshire, Bishop of Emly) and his
brother, Richard de Clifford, settled Irchester manor on a certain
Thomas de Morton, presumably in trust for another party. William de
Clifford and his brother, Richard de Clifford, would surely be the
individuals who occur elsewhere as Master William de Clifford and
Master Richard de Clifford.

VCH Northampton states that the 1264 settlement of Irchester manor was
probably done for the benefit of Margery, wife of Nicholas de Criol,
who held the manor in 1298 and 1316. But my guess, however, is that
the settlement was done on behalf of Master William and Master Richard
de Clifford's own brother, Sir John de Clifford, who married Margery,
widow of Nicholas de Criol. As for Margery de Criol, she held the
manor in dower in 1298 and 1316. In 1313 Richard son and heir of Sir
John de Clifford released his rights in the manor to his mother (or
step-mother), Margery de Criol, and to her daughter, Elizabeth
Pabenham, and granddaughter, Margery Hereward.

I've copied below several documents from the A2A Catalogue which
concern the Clifford family of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire.
These documents mention Sir John de Clifford, his widow, Margery, and
Sir John de Clifford's son and heir, Richard de Clifford. About
1300-1305 the manor of Frampton on Severn passed from Richard, son and
heir of Sir John de Clifford, to Robert Fitz Payn. See the following
weblink for the history of that manor in VCH Gloucester:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=15791&strquery=Frampton

The statements made in the various Victoria County Histories and the
records in the A2A Catalogue below make it rather that Margery, widow
of Nicholas de Criol, married (2nd) Sir John de Clifford, of Frampton
upon Severn, Gloucestershire. I also assume that Sir John de
Clifford's son and heir, Richard de Clifford, was not Margery's son,
as neither he or his family figure in the will of Margery de Criol's
rather detailed will.

As for the maiden name of Margery de Criol herself, now that it is
clear that Clifford was her married name and not her birth name, the
possibility should be explored that she was a Leyborne, as she
mentions the arms of that family in her will. Margery may also have
been full or half-sister of either Joan de Craye or Gilbert Pecche I,
as she refers to a certain Sir Gilbert Pecche as her nephew in her
will. I presume this Sir Gilbert Pecche is the son of Gilbert Pecche
I and his 2nd wife, Joan de Craye. So we have four possible maiden
names for Margery de Criol: Leyborne, Craye, Pecche, or e, none of the
above.

This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)

Reference: D149/T1005
Creation dates: Michaelmas 1285

Extent and Form: 1

Scope and Content

Final Concord:

Peter Flory of Gloucester v. John de Clifford

Two parts of the manor of Frampton.

+ + + + + + + +
Reference: D149/T1006
Creation dates: c. 1294

Extent and Form: 1

Scope and Content

Release:

(1) Rich. de Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de Clifford

(2) Lady Margery his mother

3 virgates of land held by Roger le Leche [the Leech], Reymondus de la
Wodende, Thos. le Gardener, and Walter de Fraxino [of the Ash] and
remainder of land and meadow in Frampton had of the tenement of Alured
de la Wodende.

Witnesses: Peter Flory, Thos. vicar of Frampton, Peter le Kyng, Milo
de Stoke, Phil. Dopping, John le Lokar.

Seal: on a tag; green wax, small fragment, heraldic.

+ + + + + + + +
Reference: D149/T1007
Creation dates: 17 May 1296

Extent and Form: 1

Scope and Content

Mortgage for £40:

(1) Richard de Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de Clifford, Kt., of
Frampton-on-Severn

(2) Peter Flory of Gloucester

Ploughland called Neotherhulishers, 10a. of meadow in Loverdismead
with piece of land called Okes, 20a. of wood in Frampton Park, with a
ploughland called Grarettisworthin; 10a. of land in Iddilseye,
ploughland in Baron' extending from Lanedicroft with piece of land
called Halecroft in the field called Inlonde; 10a. of land in the same
field near Longehegge with piece of land called Smihtcroft.

Money to be repaid within 2 years, Wm. Payen of Gloucester holding the
deed.

Witnesses: Walter de Wyke, Simon de Fromilode, Wm. de Clyfford, Walter
le Taylour, Rich. Podeford, Rich, de Sail, Milo de Stoke, Peter le
Kyng.

Seal: on a tongue, red wax; ecclesiastical type, virgin and child and
saint standing in simple canopies beneath a cross, with head and
shoulders of supplicant figure below.

+ + + + + + + +
Reference: D149/T1008
Creation dates: 1 March 1299/1300

Extent and Form: 1

Scope and Content

Bond for £15.12s. 0d.

(1) Sir Robt. fitz Payn, Kt.

(2) Rich. de Clifford

To provide drink allowance for (2), his wife Margery, children and
family, and provisions for their horses at Lanveyr [Llanvair Discoed,
Mon.]

Given at Wells.

Seal: on a tag, missing.

+ + + + + + + +
Reference: D149/T1009

Creation dates: 1 Feb. 1302/3

Extent and Form: 1

Physical characteristics: Document largely illegible

Scope and Content

Confirmation of grant [?].

(1) Margery de Clifford, widow of Sir John de Clifford, Kt.

(2) Robt. fitz Payne

Lands in Frampton.

Seal: on a tongue, missing.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

I found the document below in the online catalogue of the National
Archives. The record is dated 1301-1302. It concerns two known
daughters of Margery de Criol who left the 1319 will, namely
Katherine, wife of Geoffrey de Bradden, and Margaret, wife of Sir
Robert Hereward. This record is important as it specifically states
that Richard and William de Clifford were brothers of Margaret
Hereward.

Thus, from this document we learn that Sir John de Clifford (living
1285, died by 1294), of Frampton upon Severn, Gloucestershire (husband
of Margery de Criol) had two sons, Richard and William de Clifford.
This Richard and William de Clifford would appear to be different
individuals from the Master Richard and Master William de Clifford who
were adults by the 1280's.

In my last e-mail, I raised the question whether or not Margery de
Criol was the mother of her husband, Sir John de Clifford's son and
heir, Richard de Clifford. Although this document does not resolve
that question, it at least tells us that Margery de Criol's daughter,
Margaret Hereward, had a brother named Richard de Clifford, thus
fitting the other evidence we have on this family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Reference: National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
catalogue/search.asp)

E 210/1973

Record Summary
Scope and content

Geoffrey de Br[a]dden and Catherine his wife to Sir Robert Hereward
and Margaret his wife : Moiety of a third of the tenements in St.
Benet's and St. Peter's the Little, near Paul's Wharf, formerly of
Richard and William de Clifford, brothers of the said Margaret :
London.

Covering dates 30 Edward I [1301-1302].

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

I note that Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 448-451 (sub Fitzpayn)
identifies Isabel, wife of Robert Fitz Payn, 1st Lord Fitzpayn, as the
"sister and co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford, and daughter of Sir
John de Clifford, Knt., both of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire."
Isabel's alleged father is the same Sir John de Clifford, Knt. that
married Margery, widow of Nicholas de Criol. Yet Isabel Fitz Payn is
not mentioned in Margery de Criol's rather detailed will. So what is
the evidence of Isabel Fitz Payn's parentage? Or, that Isabel Fitz
Payn was the co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford?

Checking the documentation, we find that Complete Peerage cites no
evidence at all. All it says is that Richard son and heir of John de
Clifford granted the reversion of the manor of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire in 1303 to Thomas de Berkeley and his heirs, and that
Thomas de Berkeley in turn conveyed the manor in 1305 to Robert Fitz
Payn and Isabel his wife and the heirs of the body of Robert. A
similar statement of this information is given in VCH Gloucester at
the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=15791&strquery=frampton

No where is Isabel, wife of Robert Fitz Payn, identified as the
daughter of Sir John de Clifford, nor is she anywhere styled the
sister and co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford. Rather, it is clear
from other records that Richard de Clifford was in financial trouble
at the time of this conveyance, he having a wife, Sarah, and four
children, and the conveyance of the manor of Frampton on Severn was a
bona fide sale. In fact, Berkeley Castle Muniments clearly states
that Thomas de Berkeley PURCHASED the manor of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire from Richard de Clifford. In any case, Isabel wife of
Robert Fitz Payn certainly did not inherit this manor from Richard de
Clifford, nor from Richard's father, Sir John de Clifford.

Fortunately, the same documents cited by Complete Peerage as well as
several others not included by Complete Peerage are abstracted in
records pertaining to the manor of Frampton on Severn found in the
Berkeley Castle Muniments. I've copied all these records below.
Reviewing these records, I see that Margery, widow of Sir John de
Clifford, is identified as Richard de Clifford's mother in one
document. So, it would appear that Margery, widow of Nicholas de
Criol, was Richard de Clifford's mother.

Other records already cited show that Richard de Clifford was living
as late as 1313, when he settled Clifford family property on his
mother, Margery de Criol, and his sister, Elizabeth Pabenham, and his
niece, Margery Hereward. Thus, if anyone was Richard de Clifford's
heirs, it would either have been one of his four children living in
1303, or, if his children predeceased him, it would possibly his
sister, Elizabeth Pabenham, and his niece, Margery Hereward.

So I ask where is the evidence that Isabel, wife of Robert FitzPayn,
was a Clifford? As far as I can see, there is none. And, if there is
no evidence, the Clifford parentage for Isabel Fitz Payn must be
removed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue ()

Berkeley Castle Muniments

Purchases of Thomas II de Berkeley: "Major purchases with the same end
in view were the acquisitions of the small manor of Bradley within the
lordship manor of Wotton in 1292, the manor of Henry de Middleton at
Portbury in 1299 and the manor of Frampton on Severn in 1303, which
was immediately leased at a rent of £14 13s. 4d. to be paid to the
lordship manor of Hurst." END OF QUOTE.

Reference: BCM/A/2/23/1
Creation dates: [8 April 1303]
Language: French

Scope and Content

Richard de Clyfford, son and heir of Sir John de Clyfford, and Sir
Thomas de Berkelee, lord of Berkeley. Easter Monday, 31 Edw. I

Richard has granted to Thomas the annual farm of 3s. 4d. in which
Robert son of Payn and Isabel his wife are bound for their lives, with
robes for Richard, Sarah his wife and their children and household,
for the rent of £18 5s. a year from Peter Flori for the manor of
Frompton sur Severne, which Peter holds for life, along with the
reversion of the manor after Peter's death and the dower of Margery,
Richard's mother, when it falls in, which Robert and Isabel have for
their lives by grant of Richard; and Richard will grant to Thomas the
reversion of the manor after the deaths of Robert and Isabel, Peter
and Margery, for which Thomas has given him 100 marks and will enfeoff
him in his manor of Wyke juxta Erlyngham along with the fishery called
le Berewewater in the Severn, to Richard and Sarah and Richard their
eldest son for their lives, and will give to Richard 3½ marks a year
for robes for himself and his groom, and to Sarah 40s. for her robe,
and 60 marks for Richard's daughters Katherine and Maud, and
maintenance for his younger son Nicholas.

Witnesses: Hugh de Veer, Robert le FizPaeyn, John Abadam, Walter de
Gloucestre, Thomas de Gardyns, Thomas le Botyller, John Lovel of
Snorscomb, John Basset, Peter Crok, knights, Robert de Bradestone,
Robert de Bettlescombe, Richard de Byselee, Thomas de Styntescombe.

At: Berkeley.

[Please quote GC1044 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

+ + + + + + + + + +
Reference: BCM/A/2/23/2
Creation dates: [14 April 1303]

Scope and Content

Richard de Clyfford, son and heir of Sir John de Clyfford, and Sir
Thomas de Berkelee, lord of Berkeley. Sun. one week after Easter, 31
Edw. I

Richard has granted to Thomas all the rents and services which Sir
Robert son of Payn and Isabel his wife pay to Richard, for their
lives, for a rent of £18 5s. a year from Peter Flori for the manor of
Frompton super Sabrina, with the reversion of all the lands and
holdings of the same manor after the deaths of Peter and of Margery,
Richard's mother, which Robert and Isabel had by his grant for their
lives, and the reversion of the manor after the deaths of Robert and
Isabel, Peter and Margery.

Witnesses: Sir Hugh de Veer, Sir Robert son of Payn, Sir John Abadam,
Sir Walter de Glouc', Sir Thomas de Gardinis, Sir Thomas le Boteler,
Sir John Lovel of Snorscomb, Sir John Basset, Sir Peter Crok, knights,
Robert de Bradestone, Robert de Bettlescombe, Richard de Byselee,
Thomas de Styntescombe.

At: Berkeley.

[Please quote GC1046 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/2/23/3
Creation dates: [5 July 1303]

Scope and Content

Thomas de Berkeleye, knight, and Richard son of John de Clyfford. Fri.
after St. Peter and St. Paul, 31 Edw. I

Richard has acknowledged the right of Thomas in the manor of Frompton
super Severne (Glos.) before the king's justices in the Bench at York,
which manor Peter de Flory holds for life by grant of the said John,
so that the manor remains after the death of Peter to Robert le
FizPayn and Isabel his wife, for their lives, and one third of the
manor held in dower by Margery, widow of John de Clifford; further
Richard has confirmed to Thomas the rent of £20 16s. from Robert and
Isabel for their lives and the rent of 8 robes for him and his
household [familiares]; for this acknowledgement, Thomas acknowledges
that he is bound to Richard in 32 marks for his daughters, to support
Richard's son as a scholar until aged 16, and will give seisin to
Richard and his wife Sarah in a rent of 6½ marks a year in
Gloucestershire for their lives.

Witnesses: Sir William de Bereford, John Lovel of Snorscomb, John de
Bradeford, Anthony de Bradeneye, Henry Scrup, William de Herle,
Richard de Asbsheby, Richard de Roden[ey], William de Brocworth.

At: York.

[Please quote GC1049 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/2/23/4
Creation dates: [20 June 1305]


Scope and Content

Thomas de Berkeleye and Richard son of John de Clifford. One week
after Trinity, 33 Edw. I

Final concord, made at York the morrow of St. John the Baptist, 32
Edw. I [25 June 1304] and granted and recorded one week after Trinity,
33 Edw. I, concerning the manor of Frompton super Sabrinam; Richard
has acknowledged the manor to be the right of Thomas, which Robert son
of Payn and Isabel his wife hold for life, and Thomas has given
Richard £200.

At: Westminster.

[Please quote GC1070 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/2/23/5
Creation dates: [6 Oct. 1305]

Scope and Content

Robert son of Payn and Thomas de Berkeley the elder. One week after
Michaelmas, 33 Edw. I [Date supplied from PRO CP 25/1/75/39, no. 250.]

Copy of final concord concerning the manor of Fromptone super
Sabrinam; Robert has acknowledged the manor to be the right of Thomas,
and Thomas has granted it to Robert and Isabel his wife and Robert's
issue; rent 22 marks a year to Thomas and his heirs; contingent
reversion to Thomas.

[Please quote GC3272 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/2/23/6
Creation dates: [18 March 1397]


Scope and Content

Ivo FitzWaryn, knight, and his lord of Berkelegh. Sun. after St.
Gregory, 20 Ric. II

Ivo has appointed his lord of Berkelegh to govern his manor of
Fromptone super Sebrinam, and receive all the profits except the wood,
from Michaelmas next to the Michaelmas following for one year, and
orders all his ministers to obey the lord.

At: Frampton.

[Please quote GC3920 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/2/23/7
Creation dates: nd


Scope and Content

Copies of three final concords

[Please quote SR37 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]


Reference: BCM/A/2/23/7/i

Scope and Content
[As above, BCM/A/2/23/5 (GC 3272)]


Reference: BCM/A/2/23/7/ii

Scope and Content
[As above, BCM/A/2/23/4 (GC 1070)]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/2/23/7/iii

Scope and Content
Two weeks after Easter, 22 Edw. I [2 May 1294], William Bysshop and
Richard son of John Clifford, concerning one third of the manor of
Frumton super Sabrinam; William has acknowledged the one third to be
the right of Richard, who will pay William 100s. a year for William's
life.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

With regard to Master William de Clifford and Master Richard de
Clifford, the likely brothers of Margery de Criol's husband, Sir John
de Clifford, I note there is a record mentioning William and Richard
de Clifford in Sweetman, Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland :
1285-1292 (1879), page 385. This record may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NP0UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA385&dq=MASter+William+Clifford+Bishop+Emly&lr=

This record supports VCH Northampton's statement that Master William
Clifford became Bishop of Emly, as he is called Bishop of Emly in this
record dated 1290-1291.

Master William de Clifford is similarly styled Bishop of Emly in a
record dated 1288 found in Calendar of Close Rolls, 1279-1288 (1902),
pg. 419. This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9QQRAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA529&dq=MASter+William+Clifford+Bishop+Emly&lr=

In the above record, Master William de Clifford's lands in
Northamptonshire are specifically mentioned. This reference makes it
clear that he is the same person as William de Clifford mentioned in
VCH Northampton sub Irchester, which source I cited in an earlier
post.

Care should be taken to distinguish Master William de Clifford [Bishop
of Emly] and Master Richard de Clifford from their likely brother, Sir
John de Clifford's two sons, Richard and William de Clifford.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Here are three more records from the Berkeley Castle Muniments which
are found in the A2A Catalogue.

The first two documents are dated 1290 and c.1290. They involve
William de Clifford, Bishop of Emly, and Master Richard de Clifford.
The charters are witnessed by Sir John de Clifford, who I presume is
their brother. These document provides us evidence that Sir John de
Clifford, husband of Margery de Criol, was living in 1290.

The Cliffords of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire are descended
from Richard de Clifford, living 1200, and his wife, Lettice de
Berkeley. This explains why the Clifford family is involved in
records with Thomas de Berkeley. See the following weblink for
Richard de Clifford:

http://books.google.com/books?id=mgMVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=Eyton+Richard+Clifford+Leticia&source=bl&ots=WN8udwDSK0&sig=W-NQqAQq0UwBB_F8ym608gNr8aE&hl=en&ei=xpGESYX6MImQtQOEhsyxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA153,M1

Interestingly, Robert Fitz Payn who subsequently acquired the manor of
Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire witnesses the first two documents
below.

The third document below concerns Richard de Clifford, son and heir of
Sir John de Clifford of Frampton on Severn, by his wife, Margery,
widow of Nicholas de Criol.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)

Berkeley Castle Muniments

Reference: BCM/A/1/11/7
Creation dates: [17 July 1290]

Scope and Content

Sir Thomas de Berkeleye; and Master Richard de Clifford and William de
Clifford, bishop of Emly. Mon. before St. Margaret the virgin, 18 Edw.
I

Whereas Thomas has impleaded William and Richard in the king's court
for a messuage and 1 carucate of land in Erlyngham as his right and
inheritance, their friends have agreed a compromise, viz. that William
and Richard have acknowledged the right of Thomas and rendered it to
him, and Thomas has granted that they should hold it for their lives
from the following Michaelmas, to revert to Thomas after their deaths,
and until Michaelmas to be in the hands of Master Thomas de Sudynton.

Witnesses: Sir Robert son of Payn, Sir Robert de Berkeleye, Sir
William de Bereford, Sir John de Clifford, knights, Master Thomas de
Sudynton, Ralph Baron, William de Burgh, Robert de Bradeston, Walter
de Wyk, John de Bergh.

At: Westminster.

[Please quote GC577 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/1/11/8
Creation dates: [c. 1290]

Scope and Content

Thomas son of Maurice de Berkeleye; and William [de Clifford], bishop
of Emly, and Master Richard de Clifford. n.d.

Thomas has granted to William and Richard, for their lives, a messuage
and 1 carucate of land at Wyk in Erlyngham, which they previously
rendered to him in the king's court as his right and inheritance; rent
8d. a year and suit to his hundred court.

Witnesses: Robert son of Payn, Robert de Berkeleye, John de Clifford,
knights, Master Thomas de Sudinton, Bartholomew de Ulpenn, Robert de
Stannes, Simon de Fremelade, John Wyz, Walter de Wyk, John de Berewe.

[Please quote SC464 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: BCM/A/1/11/9
Creation dates: [14 April 1303]


Scope and Content

Thomas de Berkelee, lord of Berkeley; and Richard de Clyfford, Sarah
his wife and Richard their eldest son. Sun. a week after Easter, 31
Edw. I

Thomas has granted to Richard, Sarah and Richard his manor of Wyke by
Erlyngham, and the fishery which was of John de Boevyle called
Berewater in the Severn; to them for their lives, rent 1d. a year and
the royal service for one twentieth of a knight's fee.

Witnesses: Sir Hugh de Veer, Sir Robert son of Payn, Sir John Abadam,
Sir Walter de Glouc', Sir Thomas de Gardinis, Sir Thomas le Boteler,
Sir John Lovel of Snorscomb, Sir John Basset, Sir Peter Crok, knights,
Robert de Bradestone, Robert de Bettlescombe, Richard de Byselee,
Thomas de Styntescombe.

At: Berkeley.

[Please quote GC1045; duplicate GC1043 at Berkeley Castle Muniments
when requesting this file]

[Tony Ingham]

Comments interspersed

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Jane ~
I note that Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 448-451 (sub Fitzpayn)
identifies Isabel, wife of Robert Fitz Payn, 1st Lord Fitzpayn, as the
"sister and co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford, and daughter of Sir
John de Clifford, Knt., both of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire."
Isabel's alleged father is the same Sir John de Clifford, Knt. that
married Margery, widow of Nicholas de Criol. Yet Isabel Fitz Payn is
not mentioned in Margery de Criol's rather detailed will. So what is
the evidence of Isabel Fitz Payn's parentage? Or, that Isabel Fitz
Payn was the co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford?
Checking the documentation, we find that Complete Peerage cites no
evidence at all. All it says is that Richard son and heir of John de
Clifford granted the reversion of the manor of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire in 1303 to Thomas de Berkeley and his heirs, and that
Thomas de Berkeley in turn conveyed the manor in 1305 to Robert Fitz
Payn and Isabel his wife and the heirs of the body of Robert. A
similar statement of this information is given in VCH Gloucester at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=15791&strquery=frampton
No where is Isabel, wife of Robert Fitz Payn, identified as the
daughter of Sir John de Clifford, nor is she anywhere styled the
sister and co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford. Rather, it is clear
from other records that Richard de Clifford was in financial trouble
at the time of this conveyance, he having a wife, Sarah, and four
children, and the conveyance of the manor of Frampton on Severn was a
bona fide sale. In fact, Berkeley Castle Muniments clearly states
that Thomas de Berkeley PURCHASED the manor of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire from Richard de Clifford. In any case, Isabel wife of
Robert Fitz Payn certainly did not inherit this manor from Richard de
Clifford, nor from Richard's father, Sir John de Clifford.
Fortunately, the same documents cited by Complete Peerage as well as
several others not included by Complete Peerage are abstracted in
records pertaining to the manor of Frampton on Severn found in the
Berkeley Castle Muniments. I've copied all these records below.
Reviewing these records, I see that Margery, widow of Sir John de
Clifford, is identified as Richard de Clifford's mother in one
document. So, it would appear that Margery, widow of Nicholas de
Criol, was Richard de Clifford's mother.

Exactly which document is that, Douglas?

Post by Douglas Richardson
Other records already cited show that Richard de Clifford was living
as late as 1313, when he settled Clifford family property on his
mother, Margery de Criol, and his sister, Elizabeth Pabenham, and his
niece, Margery Hereward. Thus, if anyone was Richard de Clifford's
heirs, it would either have been one of his four children living in
1303, or, if his children predeceased him, it would possibly his
sister, Elizabeth Pabenham, and his niece, Margery Hereward.

Where is your evidence that Richard de Clifford settled Clifford family
property?

Firstly, he settled nothing however he did quitclaim :

IRCHESTER Northants. . . . . . . . . . . acquired by Master
William de Clifford, rector of Irchester acting as a trustee.
FARNDISH Beds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . a PABENHAM manor
WILBY Northants . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HINWICK PODINGTON Beds. . . . . . a PABENHAM manor
HIGHAM Bucks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LILLINGSTONE Oxon. . . . . . . . . . . . acquired by Margery de
Clifford by 1254, formerly a St. Martin property.
THENFORD Northants . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not one of these is a 'Clifford family property." For one so quick to
correct others you sure do make plenty of mistakes.

This is the record of the King's Bench hearing at P.R.O. KB 27/214 m. 67.

Ric'us de Clifford filius & heres d'ni Joh'is de Clifford militis
venit hic in cur' et
recognonit hoc scriptum in hec verba. -- ...sis xpi fidelib's hoc
p'sens scriptum vis..' vel'
and..' Ric'us filius & heres d'ni Joh'is de Clifford militis sal'em in
d'no sem-
p'ten'am

Non'it v..n'steas u'r'a me concessisse remisisse & ....
quietumclamasse.... per me her'-
dibus meis & meis assignatis' in p'pet'um d'ne Marg'ie de Crioll que
fuit ux' d'ni Nich'i de
Crioll & Elizabeth de Pabenham ux'i d'ni Joh'is de Pabenham militis
senioris & Marg'ie
Hereward filie & hered'is Margarete que sine uxor d'ni Rob'ti Hereward &
ead' heredibus
& assignatis totum jus & clam' q'd .... h'm vel' ...re hered'tar' habere
p......rone
aliquor' antecessor' meor' sen aliquo alio modo ...th. accidere possit
in omn'b's t'ris et
tenementis de Irencester Ffarnedissh Wileby Pudington Heyham Lillyngston et
Theneford in com' North't, Bedeford, Buk' & Oxon cu' omn'b's suis perten'
infra p'd'tas villas & ext'a que fu'nt aliquo temp'e antecessor' meor'
vel' que p'd'ta Mar-
geria de Crioll tenet die confector"s huius scripti

Ita quod nec ... ego p'd'tus Ric'us nec heredes mei' nec aliquis ....
.ro de p'd'tas t'ris et tenementas cu' suis p'tenenciis usus p'd'tas
Margeriam Elizabeth & Margeriam heredes suos vel' suos assignacos decedo
aliquod jus exig'a vel' clam'm venditare possimus' .nsi....

In cuius rei testimon'm huic p'senti sc'pto sigillu' meu' apposui
hiis testibus d'm's Joh'ne' de Wileby Galfrido de Bradden Joh'ne de
Aston Rob'to de Bray miltib's Joh'ne' ....dar Rad'o de Soame .... Rob'to
de Floribis de com Nor'h' d'm's Nich'o Gr.....l Hugone Chas..... mil'it'
de com Buck d'm's Ric' ...... Thom' de Sardinis mil'tab's Ric'o
Kynebelle Falc'o Ansel Thom' del Hay de com Oxon & multis aliis

Dat' apud Irencestre in festo S'ti Mich'is Archang'li anno reg'
Edwardi' filli Regis Edwardi septimo
[29 Sep 1313.]


Secondly nowhere in the Berkeley Castle Muniments is there any
suggestion that Margery, the widow of John de Clifford of Frampton on
Severn, was a Clifford.

She was, however, identified as 'sister of Robert son of Pagan in the

Post by Douglas Richardson
1309 Cornwall Record Office AR/1/1072
Creation dates: 1309, 30th Sep (3 Edw II); at Pole
Lease for term of life
Robert son of Pagan, knight = (1)
*Lady Margery de Clyfford, sister of (1)* = (2)
(1) to (2), all that tenement, with messuage(s), curtilage(s),
gardens, crofts, lands, meadows, pastures, etc., which Amity de
Durneford sometime held in the town (villa) of Pole, except for 1
cottage with curtilage and croft situated next to a cottage held by
Agnes Legat; for (2) to hold for term of her life, as Agnes de
Durneford formerly held it. Rent 6d yearly at 2 terms (Michaelmas and
Easter) during (1)'s life; after his death, rent 5 marks and 6d at 4
terms; for all services, etc., except royal service.
Warranty. Geoffrey de Morlegh, Walter Ryson, Walter de Baa, William
Scolas, Geoffrey Dauy. Seal [white; crumbling].
Pole [Poole, Dorset, presumably] A 19th-century note says "vide
Dug. Bar. voce Fitzpain".

So what other mis-corrections, wildy extravagant guesses or other
examples of your almost thorough lack of knowledge of English medieval
land tenure do you have for us?

Post by Douglas Richardson
So I ask where is the evidence that Isabel, wife of Robert FitzPayn,
was a Clifford? As far as I can see, there is none. And, if there is
no evidence, the Clifford parentage for Isabel Fitz Payn must be
removed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

There is no evidence, of course, which many of us know but we do manage
to resist the urge to seek self-aggrandizement by sprouting in this forum.

Yours in collegiality,

Tony Ingham

[Douglas Richardson]

Mr. Ingham has repeatedly stated that Margery, wife successively of
Nicholas de Criol and John de Clifford, was not a Clifford, even
though this allegation by Chris Phillips has already been shown to be
in error by the numerous documents which I've posted.

Specifically, Chris Phillips states the following on his website
(http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/criol.shtml):

"The elder Margery [de Criol] seems to have been married previously to
Peter de St Martin and (by 1260) Peter Dansey (who was living in
1266), and previously to have appeared as Margery de Clifford in 1254
[Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 192]. Although
the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he was
her son by Nicholas de Criol (whose father was called Bertram), it is
not clear whether Nicholas or Peter Dansey was the father of her
daughters Catherine, Margaret and Elizabeth." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, Mr. Phillips states that Margery de Criol "appeared
as Margery de Clifford in 1254." This is impossible. Margery de
Criol can't have married Sir John de Clifford until at least 1273.
Mr. Phillips has confused Margery de Criol with another Margery de
Clifford in the previous generation. This is a simple error, easily
made, but it has caused Mr. Ingham great indigestion. Even so,
hopefully we will be spared a hysterical diatribe by Mr. Ingham
directed at Mr. Phillips.

Mr. Ingham has claimed that Master Richard de Clifford was the "nephew
of Henry Chaceporc and Peter Chaceporc," citing Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 4, pp. 92. The correct names of the two
uncles, however, were Hugh Chaceporc and Peter Chaceporc, which
individuals occur in records in England in the the period, c.
1219-1254. Mr. Ingham's error on this point is small, but even so
significant.

Lastly, Mr. Ingham has doubted that Margery de Criol was the mother of
Sir John de Clifford's son and heir, Richard de Clifford. As such, I
direct his attention to the document below in which Margery is
specifically called Richard's mother. I posted this document in an
earlier post. It appears Mr. Ingham missed it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Reference: A2A Catalogue

Berkeley Castle Muniments
Reference: BCM/A/2/23/1
Creation dates: [8 April 1303]
Language: French

Scope and Content

Richard de Clyfford, son and heir of Sir John de Clyfford, and Sir
Thomas de Berkelee, lord of Berkeley. Easter Monday, 31 Edw. I

Richard has granted to Thomas the annual farm of 3s. 4d. in which
Robert son of Payn and Isabel his wife are bound for their lives, with
robes for Richard, Sarah his wife and their children and household,
for the rent of £18 5s. a year from Peter Flori for the manor of
Frompton sur Severne, which Peter holds for life, along with the
reversion of the manor after Peter's death and the dower of Margery,
Richard's mother, when it falls in, which Robert and Isabel have for
their lives by grant of Richard; and Richard will grant to Thomas the
reversion of the manor after the deaths of Robert and Isabel, Peter
and Margery, for which Thomas has given him 100 marks and will enfeoff
him in his manor of Wyke juxta Erlyngham along with the fishery called
le Berewewater in the Severn, to Richard and Sarah and Richard their
eldest son for their lives, and will give to Richard 3½ marks a year
for robes for himself and his groom, and to Sarah 40s. for her robe,
and 60 marks for Richard's daughters Katherine and Maud, and
maintenance for his younger son Nicholas.

Witnesses: Hugh de Veer, Robert le FizPaeyn, John Abadam, Walter de
Gloucestre, Thomas de Gardyns, Thomas le Botyller, John Lovel of
Snorscomb, John Basset, Peter Crok, knights, Robert de Bradestone,
Robert de Bettlescombe, Richard de Byselee, Thomas de Styntescombe.

At: Berkeley.

[Please quote GC1044 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

[Tony Ingham]

Hello Douglas,

It's so good to hear from you. I was beginning to think that you had
kill-filed me!!

I shall interpose my answers below.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Mr. Ingham has repeatedly stated that Margery, wife successively of
Nicholas de Criol and John de Clifford, was not a Clifford, even
though this allegation by Chris Phillips has already been shown to be
in error by the numerous documents which I've posted.

Exactly which of the documents you previously posted show that Margery
the widow of Nicholas de Criol married John de Clifford?

Post by Douglas Richardson
Specifically, Chris Phillips states the following on his website
"The elder Margery [de Criol] seems to have been married previously to
Peter de St Martin and (by 1260) Peter Dansey (who was living in
1266), and previously to have appeared as Margery de Clifford in 1254
[Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 192]. Although
the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he was
her son by Nicholas de Criol (whose father was called Bertram), it is
not clear whether Nicholas or Peter Dansey was the father of her
daughters Catherine, Margaret and Elizabeth." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Mr. Phillips states that Margery de Criol "appeared
as Margery de Clifford in 1254." This is impossible. Margery de
Criol can't have married Sir John de Clifford until at least 1273.
Mr. Phillips has confused Margery de Criol with another Margery de
Clifford in the previous generation. This is a simple error, easily
made, but it has caused Mr. Ingham great indigestion. Even so,
hopefully we will be spared a hysterical diatribe by Mr. Ingham
directed at Mr. Phillips.

If you check the item in Chris' webpage you will note that:

'Item last updated: 17 June 2008.'

Chris has had a change of mind since that time but has been so busy
abstracting the Feet of Fines (also on his most valuable website) that
the corrections and additions have been awaiting updates.

It may be of some interest to you to know that Chris and I are the best
of mates. He has more grasp of the subject of genealogy, medieval land
tenure, interpretation of documents and comprehension in his little
finger than you will acquire in your lifetime.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Mr. Ingham has claimed that Master Richard de Clifford was the "nephew
of Henry Chaceporc and Peter Chaceporc," citing Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 4, pp. 92. The correct names of the two
uncles, however, were Hugh Chaceporc and Peter Chaceporc, which
individuals occur in records in England in the the period, c.
1219-1254. Mr. Ingham's error on this point is small, but even so
significant.

Touche Douglas. I was hurrying to get my reply away to you and didn't
check thoroughly.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Lastly, Mr. Ingham has doubted that Margery de Criol was the mother of
Sir John de Clifford's son and heir, Richard de Clifford. As such, I
direct his attention to the document below in which Margery is
specifically called Richard's mother. I posted this document in an
earlier post. It appears Mr. Ingham missed it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Reference: A2A Catalogue
Berkeley Castle Muniments
Reference: BCM/A/2/23/1
Creation dates: [8 April 1303]
Language: French
Scope and Content
Richard de Clyfford, son and heir of Sir John de Clyfford, and Sir
Thomas de Berkelee, lord of Berkeley. Easter Monday, 31 Edw. I
Richard has granted to Thomas the annual farm of 3s. 4d. in which
Robert son of Payn and Isabel his wife are bound for their lives, with
robes for Richard, Sarah his wife and their children and household,
for the rent of £18 5s. a year from Peter Flori for the manor of
Frompton sur Severne, which Peter holds for life, along with the
reversion of the manor after Peter's death and the dower of Margery,
Richard's mother, when it falls in, which Robert and Isabel have for
their lives by grant of Richard; and Richard will grant to Thomas the
reversion of the manor after the deaths of Robert and Isabel, Peter
and Margery, for which Thomas has given him 100 marks and will enfeoff
him in his manor of Wyke juxta Erlyngham along with the fishery called
le Berewewater in the Severn, to Richard and Sarah and Richard their
eldest son for their lives, and will give to Richard 3½ marks a year
for robes for himself and his groom, and to Sarah 40s. for her robe,
and 60 marks for Richard's daughters Katherine and Maud, and
maintenance for his younger son Nicholas.
Witnesses: Hugh de Veer, Robert le FizPaeyn, John Abadam, Walter de
Gloucestre, Thomas de Gardyns, Thomas le Botyller, John Lovel of
Snorscomb, John Basset, Peter Crok, knights, Robert de Bradestone,
Robert de Bettlescombe, Richard de Byselee, Thomas de Styntescombe.
At: Berkeley.
[Please quote GC1044 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]

No, I haven't missed anything. All the Clifford content from the
Berkeley Castle Muniments has been in my files for at least a year.

All the above grant indicates to me is that a lady named Margery was
Richard's mother and that she was still alive in 1303. I don't see 'de
Criol' written anywhere.


If I may indulge myself with another point?

Do you still maintain that Master Richard and Master William de Cliford
were brothers of Margery widow of Nicholas de Criol?

Nowhere in the Berkeley Castle Muniments is there any suggestion that
Margery, the wife of John de Clifford of Frampton on Severn, was the
widow of Nicholas de Criol.
She was, however, identified as sister of Robert fitz Payn in the
following lease :


1309 Cornwall Record Office AR/1/1072
Creation dates: 1309, 30th Sep (3 Edw II); at Pole
Lease for term of life
Robert son of Pagan, knight = (1)
Lady Margery de Clyfford, sister of (1) = (2)
(1) to (2), all that tenement, with messuage(s), curtilage(s),
gardens, crofts, lands, meadows, pastures, etc., which Amity de
Durneford sometime held in the town (villa) of Pole, except for 1
cottage with curtilage and croft situated next to a cottage held by
Agnes Legat; for (2) to hold for term of her life, as Agnes de
Durneford formerly held it. Rent 6d yearly at 2 terms (Michaelmas and
Easter) during (1)'s life; after his death, rent 5 marks and 6d at 4
terms; for all services, etc., except royal service.
Warranty. Geoffrey de Morlegh, Walter Ryson, Walter de Baa, William
Scolas, Geoffrey Dauy. Seal [white; crumbling].
Pole [Poole, Dorset, presumably] A 19th-century note says "vide
Dug. Bar. voce Fitzpain".



Do you find this relationship insignificant?



Yours in collegiality

Tony Ingham

[wjhonson]

Post by Tony Ingham
Nowhere in the Berkeley Castle Muniments is there any suggestion that
Margery, the wife of John de Clifford of Frampton on Severn, was the
widow of Nicholas de Criol.
She was, however, identified as sister of Robert fitz Payn in the
1309  Cornwall Record Office  AR/1/1072
Creation dates: 1309, 30th Sep  (3 Edw II); at Pole
Lease for term of life
Robert son of Pagan, knight = (1)
Lady Margery de Clyfford, sister of (1) = (2)
 (1) to (2), all that tenement, with messuage(s), curtilage(s),
gardens, crofts, lands, meadows, pastures, etc., which Amity de
Durneford sometime held in the town (villa) of Pole, except for 1
cottage with curtilage and croft situated next to a cottage held by
Agnes Legat; for (2) to hold for term of her life, as Agnes de
Durneford formerly held it. Rent 6d yearly at 2 terms (Michaelmas and
Easter) during (1)'s life; after his death, rent 5 marks and 6d at 4
terms; for all services, etc., except royal service.
Warranty. Geoffrey de Morlegh, Walter Ryson, Walter de Baa, William
Scolas, Geoffrey Dauy.  Seal [white; crumbling].
Pole [Poole, Dorset, presumably]    A 19th-century note says "vide
Dug. Bar. voce Fitzpain".
Do you find this relationship insignificant?
Yours in collegiality
Tony Ingham

Would this perhaps be that same Robert Fitz Payn who was the father of
Joan (living Mar 1334/5) who married Robert Baron Grey (died about Mar
1334/5) of Codnor ?

Will Johnson

[Tony Ingham]

G'day Will,

I have that marriage in my database. Appended is a note,

(Paul Reed)
I have that Richard de Grey, of Codnor, co. Derby, was b. abt.
1281/2, as he was aged 26 or 27 at his father's death (CIPM), died
shortly before 10 March 1335 (the writ for the inquisition, CFR, & CIMP
Edw. II), that he married Joan fitz Payn, born about 1286, died after 18
October 1335 (CCR 18 Oct. 1335). Her dower was reserved when her son,
John, received livery of his father's lands 26 March 1335 [CFR].
I have that Joan was daugher of Robert, Lord Fitz Payne, by Isobel de
Clifford. In another place I had blindly followed CP in stating the
mother to be daughter of Guy, Lord Bryan.


which I would have culled from Gen-Med archives

Tony

Post by wjhonson

Post by Tony Ingham
Nowhere in the Berkeley Castle Muniments is there any suggestion that
Margery, the wife of John de Clifford of Frampton on Severn, was the
widow of Nicholas de Criol.
She was, however, identified as sister of Robert fitz Payn in the
1309 Cornwall Record Office AR/1/1072
Creation dates: 1309, 30th Sep (3 Edw II); at Pole
Lease for term of life
Robert son of Pagan, knight = (1)
Lady Margery de Clyfford, sister of (1) = (2)
(1) to (2), all that tenement, with messuage(s), curtilage(s),
gardens, crofts, lands, meadows, pastures, etc., which Amity de
Durneford sometime held in the town (villa) of Pole, except for 1
cottage with curtilage and croft situated next to a cottage held by
Agnes Legat; for (2) to hold for term of her life, as Agnes de
Durneford formerly held it. Rent 6d yearly at 2 terms (Michaelmas and
Easter) during (1)'s life; after his death, rent 5 marks and 6d at 4
terms; for all services, etc., except royal service.
Warranty. Geoffrey de Morlegh, Walter Ryson, Walter de Baa, William
Scolas, Geoffrey Dauy. Seal [white; crumbling].
Pole [Poole, Dorset, presumably] A 19th-century note says "vide
Dug. Bar. voce Fitzpain".
Do you find this relationship insignificant?
Yours in collegiality
Tony Ingham

Would this perhaps be that same Robert Fitz Payn who was the father of
Joan (living Mar 1334/5) who married Robert Baron Grey (died about Mar
1334/5) of Codnor ?
Will Johnson
-------------------------------

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

It has repeatedly stated here on the newsgroup that Margery, wife
successively of Nicholas de Criol and John de Clifford, was not a
Clifford, even though this allegation by Chris Phillips has been shown
to be an error by the documents which I've posted.

Specifically, Chris Phillips states the following on his website
(http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/criol.shtml):

"The elder Margery [de Criol] seems to have been married previously to
Peter de St Martin and (by 1260) Peter Dansey (who was living in
1266), and previously to have appeared as Margery de Clifford in 1254
[Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 192]. Although
the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he was
her son by Nicholas de Criol (whose father was called Bertram), it is
not clear whether Nicholas or Peter Dansey was the father of her
daughters Catherine, Margaret and Elizabeth." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, Mr. Phillips states that Margery de Criol "appeared
as Margery de Clifford in 1254." This is impossible. Margery de
Criol can't have married Sir John de Clifford until at least 1273,
when her first husband, Nicholas de Criol, died. Mr. Phillips has
confused Margery de Criol with another Margery de Clifford in the
previous generation. This is a simple error, easily made.

Next, I should note that Margery de Criol of the 1319 will was
definitely the mother of Clifford children which is proven by two
items. First, there is the document I found in the National Archives
copied below which shows that Margery de Criol's known daughter,
Margaret, wife of Robert Hereward, was the sister of Richard and
William de Clifford. That's rather explicit evidence.

Second, there is the article in the Antiquarians Journal, vol. 77
(1997), pg. 181, which I cited which concerns a Book of Hours.
According to our enthusiastic poster, the Book of Hours shows drawings
of a husband and his wife whose arms are represented on their
clothing. The bride wears the arms de Pabenham impaling Clifford of
Frampton on Severn. Without seeing the actual article, I'm unclear
that the groom's arms were those of the Pabenham family, but I assume
that they were. If so, then the couple depicted in the Book of House
would presumably be John de Pabenham and his wife, Elizabeth, another
known daughter of Margery de Criol. If so, then Elizabeth de Pabenham
would be the daughter of a male member of the Clifford family of
Frampton on Severn.

Third, we find that Richard de Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de
Clifford (living 1290), of Frampton on Severn, is known to have had a
mother named Margery, living in 1303. Proof of that is found in a
document which is copied below. That Richard's mother Margery de
Clifford is the same person as Margery de Criol is likely, as we know
that Margery de Criol's daughter, Margaret Hereward, had a brother
named Richard de Clifford. The implication (but not proof) is that
Richard de Clifford's father, Sir John de Clifford, was Margery de
Criol's second husband.

While it is possible that Margery de Criol was married to another
member of the Clifford family than Sir John de Clifford, it doesn't
seem likely. Otherwise, we would have three successive ladies named
Margery de Clifford in this family, and at least three Richard de
Cliffords. Possible, but not likely.

Beyond that, our enthusiastic poster has claimed that Margery de
Criol's niece, Lady Joan de Playte, was the same person as Joan, wife
of Sir Giles de Plaiz. Yet no evidence is cited to prove that
point. While Playte might be a variant form of Plaiz, I haven't seen
that particular form of Plaiz if indeed it exists.

Our enthusiastic poster has further claimed that Margery, wife of Sir
John de Clifford, was the sister of Robert Fitz Payn, 1st Lord Fitz
Payn. On that score, he produces a charter in which Robert Fitz Payn
names his "sister" Lady Margery de Clifford. That seems simple
enough. However, in this time period, the word "sister" can mean
either sister, half-sister, or sister-in-law. If correct, then it is
possible that Margery was Lord Fitz Pay's sister or half-sister, or
Margery might be the sister of his wife, Isabel. In any case, if
Margery de Clifford was a Fitz Payn, the reference to the Leyborne
family arms in Margery de Criol's will is left unexplained, as is how
Margery de Criol was the aunt of Sir Gilbert Pecche as stated in her
will. Neither of the two Gilbert Pecche's who are the best
candidates to be Margery de Criol's nephew had a mother surnamed
Fitzpayn. Rather, one had a mother who was a Cray of Kent; the other
had a mother who was a le Moyne of Huntingdonshire. No Fitz Payn.

My thought is that Margery de Criol was possibly a Leyborne, not a
Fitz Payn. It is possible that she was the sister or half-sister of
Gilbert Pecche I, or his 2nd wife, Joan de Cray, who had a son, Sir
Gilbert Pecche. If so, this would explain how Margery de Criol had a
nephew, Sir Gilbert Pecche. I lean towards the theory that Margery de
Criol was the sister or half-sister of Joan de Cray, as we know that
Joan de Cray's father, Simon de Cray, is associated in one record with
the Leyborne family. Margery de Criol mentioned the Leyborne arms in
her will. if Simon de Cray married a Leyborne widow, it might explain
the relationship we are seeing between Margery de Criol and her
nephew, Sir Gilbert Pecche.

Lastly, if Robert Fitz Payn truly had a blood sister, Margery de
Clifford, it is possible there was a third Margery de Clifford
floating around who is a separate and distinct person from Margery de
Criol. Again, that is possible. Whatever the case, there appears to
be no evidence that Isabel, wife of Robert Fitz Payn, was a daughter
of Sir John de Clifford, of Frampton on Severn, as claimed by Complete
Peerage.

This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Reference: National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
catalogue/search.asp)

E 210/1973

Record Summary
Scope and content

Geoffrey de Br[a]dden and Catherine his wife to Sir Robert Hereward
and Margaret his wife : Moiety of a third of the tenements in St.
Benet's and St. Peter's the Little, near Paul's Wharf, formerly of
Richard and William de Clifford, brothers of the said Margaret :
London.

Covering dates 30 Edward I [1301-1302].

+ + + + + + + + + + +
Reference: A2A Catalogue

Berkeley Castle Muniments
Reference: BCM/A/2/23/1
Creation dates: [8 April 1303]
Language: French

Scope and Content

Richard de Clyfford, son and heir of Sir John de Clyfford, and Sir
Thomas de Berkelee, lord of Berkeley. Easter Monday, 31 Edw. I

Richard has granted to Thomas the annual farm of 3s. 4d. in which
Robert son of Payn and Isabel his wife are bound for their lives, with
robes for Richard, Sarah his wife and their children and household,
for the rent of £18 5s. a year from Peter Flori for the manor of
Frompton sur Severne, which Peter holds for life, along with the
reversion of the manor after Peter's death and the dower of Margery,
Richard's mother, when it falls in, which Robert and Isabel have for
their lives by grant of Richard; and Richard will grant to Thomas the
reversion of the manor after the deaths of Robert and Isabel, Peter
and Margery, for which Thomas has given him 100 marks and will enfeoff
him in his manor of Wyke juxta Erlyngham along with the fishery called
le Berewewater in the Severn, to Richard and Sarah and Richard their
eldest son for their lives, and will give to Richard 3½ marks a year
for robes for himself and his groom, and to Sarah 40s. for her robe,
and 60 marks for Richard's daughters Katherine and Maud, and
maintenance for his younger son Nicholas.

Witnesses: Hugh de Veer, Robert le FizPaeyn, John Abadam, Walter de
Gloucestre, Thomas de Gardyns, Thomas le Botyller, John Lovel of
Snorscomb, John Basset, Peter Crok, knights, Robert de Bradestone,
Robert de Bettlescombe, Richard de Byselee, Thomas de Styntescombe.

At: Berkeley.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

Chris Phillips who has confused the two Margery de Criol's is also
uncertain regarding the paternity of Margery de Criol's son, Bertram.

Specifically, Chris Phillips states the following on his website
(http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/criol.shtml):

"The elder Margery [de Criol] seems to have been married previously
to Peter de St Martin and (by 1260) Peter Dansey (who was living in
1266), and previously to have appeared as Margery de Clifford in 1254
[Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 192].  Although
the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he was
her son by Nicholas de Criol (whose father was called Bertram), it is
not clear whether Nicholas or Peter Dansey was the father of her
daughters Catherine, Margaret and Elizabeth."  END OF QUOTE.

It would appear that Bertram was in fact the child of Margery de
Criol's marriage to Nicholas de Criol. We can be certain of this as
Margery de Criol and her son Bertram, together with her step-son,
Nicholas son of Nicholas de Criol, are mentioned in a charter (or
charters) pertaining to Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire (a Criol
family property) found in a cartulary of Croxton Abbey,
Leicestershire. This charter (or charters) is/are cited in
Manuscripts of His Grace, the Duke of Rutland, G.C.B., Preserved at
Belvoir Castle, vol. 4 (Hist. MSS Comm. 24) (1905) pg. 180, which may
be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=16sKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180&dq=Margery+criol&lr=#PPA180,M1

Bertram would not have joined his mother, Margery, in a grant of
property at Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire unless he was a member of
the Criol family.

So one more fact has been established regarding Margery de Criol's
immediate family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

< Chris Phillips who has confused the two Margery de Criol's is also

Post by Douglas Richardson
uncertain regarding the paternity of Margery de Criol's son, Bertram.

I meant to say: "Chris Phillips who has confused the two Margery de
Clifford's."

DR

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

It seems we've just scratched the surface regarding records involving
Margery de Criol. Here are several more items.

First, there is mention made of Nicholas de Criol and his wife,
Margery de Clifford [sic], in Charles Cotton, History and Antiquities
of the Church and Parish of St. Laurence, Thanet (1895): 172.
Nicholas and Margery are there stated to have left three daughters and
co-heirs. This record echoes Chris Phillips' erroneous statement
about Margery being a Clifford, and Mr. Phillips' confusion over their
children. It is incorrect that Nicholas and Margery had three
daughters and co-heirs. Actually, Nicholas de Criol (died 1273) left
a son and heir, Nicholas de Criol, by his 1st marriage to Joan
d'Auberville. And, so far, I can only confirm that Nicholas de Criol
and his wife, Margery, had one son, Bertram de Criol. For what it is
worth, the account by Cotton may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HCMXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA172&dq=Margery+Criel&lr=

Next, there is an undated list of gifts to Croxton Abbey,
Leicestershire found in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(2)
(1830): 876–877. The gifts mentioned include those of Sir Nicholas de
Cryoll [domini Nicholai de Cryoll]; Margery de Cryoll (which gift was
confirmed by her unnnamed son); and Nicholas son of Sir Nicholas de
Cryoll. This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/MatrixBooks/Dugdale/Volume6-2/Dugdale%20Monasticon(Vol.%206-2%20Part%20007).pdf

Since we know from an earlier post today that Margery de Criol's gift
to Croxton was made with her son, Bertram, of property at Croxton
Kerrial, Leicestershire (a Criol family estate), this proves that
Bertram was a child of her marriage to Sir Nicholas de Criol (died
1273). Presumably he is the son who confirmed her gift to Croxton
Abbey.

Next, there are various records found in William Farrer, Feudal
Cambridgeshire, pp. 83-84, which show that Margery, widow of Nicholas
de Criol, held the manor of Hinton, Cambridgeshire in 1276, 1279,
1282, 1284-1286, and 1302-1303. This material may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xdY8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA84&dq=Margery+Criel#PPA83,M1

Next, there is a record in the Close Rolls dated 30 April 1277,
whereby the king ordered that Stephen de Pencestre be paid £600 from
the issues of the custody of the lands that belonged to Nicholas de
"Cryul," tenant in chief, "in the hands of Gregory Rokesle, mayor of
London, Isabella de Eynsford, and Margery de Cryul by the king's
commission; see Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (1900), pg.
379, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FJkKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA379&dq=Margery+Criel#PPP7,M1

Next, I find that in 2 Edward II [1308-1309], Richard de Abyndon and
Margery de "Criel" sued the tenants of the hundred of Witchford,
Cambridgeshire for 89s. 6d. being their contingent part of a taillage
assessed during the voidance of the See of Ely. This record is found
in Stewart Kyd, Treatise on the Law of Corporations 1 (1793): 11,
which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=I5ADAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA11&dq=Margery+Criel#PPA11,M1

Finally, there is mention of Margery de Criol, then deceased, in court
records dating in the period, 1329-1331, found in Donald W.
Sutherland, Eyre of Northamptonshire 3–4 Edward III 2 (Selden Soc. 98)
(1982): 684–=686. This record concerns a lawsuit brought in that
time period by Margery de Criol's daughter, Elizabeth [de Clifford],
widow of John de Pabenham, senior, against William Lovel and Margery
his wife, which younger Margery was the daughter and heiress of
Elizabeth Pabenham's sister, Margaret Hereward. Elizabeth de Pabenjam
complained that the Lovels had disseised her of the manor of
Irchester, Northamptonshire. Although this material is in snippet
view, I see that it states that Margery de Criol formerly held the
property for the term of her life by the demise of Thomas de Morton.
The snippet view of this material can be viewed at the following
weblinks:

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=Fiw8AAAAIAAJ&dq=Margery+Kyriel&q=Pabenham&pgis=1#search_anchor
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fiw8AAAAIAAJ&q=Margery+Kyriel&dq=Margery+Kyriel&lr=&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=Fiw8AAAAIAAJ&dq=Margery+Kyriel&q=Thomas+de+Morton&pgis=1#search_anchor

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Tony Ingham]

Dear Douglas,

How about answering your mail on a previous topic rather than starting a
new one????

You [singular] might have just scratched the surface regarding records
involving Margery de Criol, but surprisingly others have had these in
hand for many months.

Unfortunately, you seem to find it neccessary to repeatedly point out
errors in Chris Phillip's reasoning, perhaps you get your jollies from
that kind of thing??? It certainly doesn't put you in a very favourable
light.


Relating to your last item, if you had thought to go to any half decent
University Law Library you could have read the report from the Eyre of

1329/30 Eyre of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III. (Selden Society Vol.
98) p. 588.
A writ was brought against William Lovel and Margery his wife. Thay
appeared and said that they held the tenements as Margery's dower of
the endowment of Theobald de Gayton and that the reversion belonged to
Scholastice de Meaux, Theobald's sister and heir.
1329/30 Eyre of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III. (Selden Society Vol.
98) pp. 683-687.
Elizabeth de Pabenham brought an assize of novel disseisin against
William Lovel and Margery his wife re. the manor of Irchester and two
carucates of land. Evidence produced showed that "Thomas de Mordoun
gave the tenements to William de Clifforth and Richard his brother, to
Margery Kiriel, to Elizabeth the present plaintiff and Margaret the
mother of Margery who now answers as tenant, and to Amy and Katherine
their sisters, jointly for their lives. Elizabeth was seised by virtue
of that gift, and survived all the others."
A deed was produced showing that the gift was made to the seven
persons mentioned above, to have and to hold to William, Richard, and
Margery Kiriel for their three lives and upon their death to remain to
Elizabeth and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies. provided that if
Elizabeth died without heirs of her body then her part should remain
to Amy and provided likewise that if Margaret etc. then her part
should remain to Amy.
The following data came to light as a result.
1316 Calendar of Close Rolls 10 Edward II. p. 368.
Oct. 8. York.
To Master John Walewayn, escheator beyond Trent. Order to deliver
to Henry de Valencia and Margery his wife the following of the lands
of her late husband Theobald de Gayton, tenant in chief, which the
king has assigned to her in dower, both of the lands that descended to
Theobald on the death of Philip his brother and of other lands : a
third of the manor of Shreueleye, co. Warwick, of the yearly value of
55s. ; a third of 10s. of yearly rent in Norton Lyndeseye, in the same
county, from the free tenants there ; a third of the manor of Gayton,
co. Northampton, of the yearly value of 20£. 12s. 6d. ; a third of the
lands in Creton, in the same county, of the yearly value of 27s. ; a
third of certain lands in Middelton, in the same county, of the yearly
value of 16s. ; a third of certain lands in Braumfeld, in the same
county, of the yearly value of 36s. 8d. ; a third of certain lands in
Colyntre, in the same county, of the yearly value of 2s.
1316/7 Calendar of Close Rolls 10 Edward II. p. 391.
Feb. 1. Clarendon.
To Master John Waleweyn, escheator this side Trent. Order to cause
assignment to be made to Henry de Valencia and Margery his wife of the
dower due to her of a parcel of land in Cottenhale called 'Tenacres,'
and of an adjoining meadow, which belonged to Theobald de Gayton,
tenant in chief, her late husband.
1322 Calendar of Fine Rolls 15 Edward II. p. 132.
May 28. Haverah.
Order to the escheator beyond Trent to take into the king's hand the
lands late of Henry de Valencia, deceased, tenant in chief.
1322 Calendar of Patent Rolls 15 Edward II. p. 141.
June 28. York.
Grant, at the request of Hugh le Despenser, the younger, to William
Lovel of what pertains to the king of the marriage of Margery, late
the wife of Henry de Valence, tenant in chief, to wit, the fine, if
any, or forfeiture to be incurred by her marrying without licence.
By p.s.
The following paragraph in Margery de Criol's will is now shown to be
a bequest to her grand-daughter.
To Lady Margery le Valence, whatever in my wardrobe was her mother's ;
also a piece of the true cross, and my Matyns de Notre Dame, which
were my sister Johan's.
To Lady Margery de Say, a coffer at Irencester which belonged to Sir
Robert Hereward, a pyne de Evere which belonged to St. Thomas of
Canterbury.
1286-1287 Suffolk Feet of Fines 15 Edward I. p. 88.
Margaret de Criollys v. John son of Geoffrey de Say of the Manor of
Denham.
wherein Margery de Criol gifted the manor of Denham to John de Say and
his wife Margery and to the heirs of their bodies, in default to John
de Say. This John de Say also held the manor of Rickling Essex which
he sold to Humphrey de Waleden. Humphrey and Margery had six
illegitimate children and I descend from the son and heir Humphrey de
Waleden.
And lastly from Margery's will
My niece Lady Johan de Playte.
This is Joan wife of Giles de Plaiz 1st Lord Plaiz (d. bef. 15 Oct 1302)
Christobel Mary Hoare Hood in her book 'The History of an East Anglian
Soke' (available on Google Books) suggested that Giles de Plaiz
married Joan Burgulio.
Sadly, it seems that Robert le BURGUILLON knight of Great Snoring
Norfolk married Joan after Giles de Plaiz's death. Robert's son and
heir Hugh was born 2 Feb 1309/1310. So, unfortunately, we are no
closer to finding Joan's surname.

Best wishes,


Tony Ingham.

Dear Newsgroup ~
It seems we've just scratched the surface regarding records involving
Margery de Criol. Here are several more items.
First, there is mention made of Nicholas de Criol and his wife,
Margery de Clifford [sic], in Charles Cotton, History and Antiquities
of the Church and Parish of St. Laurence, Thanet (1895): 172.
Nicholas and Margery are there stated to have left three daughters and
co-heirs. This record echoes Chris Phillips' erroneous statement
about Margery being a Clifford, and Mr. Phillips' confusion over their
children. It is incorrect that Nicholas and Margery had three
daughters and co-heirs. Actually, Nicholas de Criol (died 1273) left
a son and heir, Nicholas de Criol, by his 1st marriage to Joan
d'Auberville. And, so far, I can only confirm that Nicholas de Criol
and his wife, Margery, had one son, Bertram de Criol. For what it is
http://books.google.com/books?id=HCMXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA172&dq=Margery+Criel&lr=
Next, there is an undated list of gifts to Croxton Abbey,
Leicestershire found in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(2)
(1830): 876–877. The gifts mentioned include those of Sir Nicholas de
Cryoll [domini Nicholai de Cryoll]; Margery de Cryoll (which gift was
confirmed by her unnnamed son); and Nicholas son of Sir Nicholas de
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/MatrixBooks/Dugdale/Volume6-2/Dugdale%20Monasticon(Vol.%206-2%20Part%20007).pdf
Since we know from an earlier post today that Margery de Criol's gift
to Croxton was made with her son, Bertram, of property at Croxton
Kerrial, Leicestershire (a Criol family estate), this proves that
Bertram was a child of her marriage to Sir Nicholas de Criol (died
1273). Presumably he is the son who confirmed her gift to Croxton
Abbey.
Next, there are various records found in William Farrer, Feudal
Cambridgeshire, pp. 83-84, which show that Margery, widow of Nicholas
de Criol, held the manor of Hinton, Cambridgeshire in 1276, 1279,
1282, 1284-1286, and 1302-1303. This material may be viewed at the
http://books.google.com/books?id=xdY8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA84&dq=Margery+Criel#PPA83,M1
Next, there is a record in the Close Rolls dated 30 April 1277,
whereby the king ordered that Stephen de Pencestre be paid £600 from
the issues of the custody of the lands that belonged to Nicholas de
"Cryul," tenant in chief, "in the hands of Gregory Rokesle, mayor of
London, Isabella de Eynsford, and Margery de Cryul by the king's
commission; see Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (1900), pg.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FJkKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA379&dq=Margery+Criel#PPP7,M1
Next, I find that in 2 Edward II [1308-1309], Richard de Abyndon and
Margery de "Criel" sued the tenants of the hundred of Witchford,
Cambridgeshire for 89s. 6d. being their contingent part of a taillage
assessed during the voidance of the See of Ely. This record is found
in Stewart Kyd, Treatise on the Law of Corporations 1 (1793): 11,
http://books.google.com/books?id=I5ADAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA11&dq=Margery+Criel#PPA11,M1
Finally, there is mention of Margery de Criol, then deceased, in court
records dating in the period, 1329-1331, found in Donald W.
Sutherland, Eyre of Northamptonshire 3–4 Edward III 2 (Selden Soc. 98)
(1982): 684–=686. This record concerns a lawsuit brought in that
time period by Margery de Criol's daughter, Elizabeth [de Clifford],
widow of John de Pabenham, senior, against William Lovel and Margery
his wife, which younger Margery was the daughter and heiress of
Elizabeth Pabenham's sister, Margaret Hereward. Elizabeth de Pabenjam
complained that the Lovels had disseised her of the manor of
Irchester, Northamptonshire. Although this material is in snippet
view, I see that it states that Margery de Criol formerly held the
property for the term of her life by the demise of Thomas de Morton.
The snippet view of this material can be viewed at the following
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=Fiw8AAAAIAAJ&dq=Margery+Kyriel&q=Pabenham&pgis=1#search_anchor
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fiw8AAAAIAAJ&q=Margery+Kyriel&dq=Margery+Kyriel&lr=&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=Fiw8AAAAIAAJ&dq=Margery+Kyriel&q=Thomas+de+Morton&pgis=1#search_anchor
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

As I stated, we've just barely skimmed the surface when it comes to
records of the Criol and Clifford families. Below are three new
records.

1. There is an abstract of an undated conveyance by Master Richard de
Clifford to his aunt, Dame Floria de Clifford, in the Ancient Deeds,
Series B. The item is abstracted below.

Reference: Ancient Deeds—Series B 3 (List & Index Soc. 113) (1975),
unpaginated.

Number: B. 10,125.

Parties: Master Richard de Clifford to Dame Floria de Clifford, his
aunt.

Place or Subject: Land in and the advowson of Thenford (Thenneford),
Northamptonshire.

Undated.

The document is undated. As such, further research is needed to prove
that the Master Richard de Clifford named in this document is the same
person as Master Richard de Clifford, a royal clerk and escheator, who
occurs in the period, 1262-1295 [see Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 4 (1991): 92; Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 5 (1996): 11-14, 37-38; Greenway, Fasti
Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300: Volume 6 (1999): 84-86]. The royal
clerk was a member of the Clifford family of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire.

The name Floria is very rare. The only Floria which turns up in the
National Archives Catalogue is Floria, widow of Thomas de Bellhouse,
who was living in 1302-1305. The maiden name of this Floria is
unknown. Presumably Floria de Bellhouse is too young to be the aunt
of Master Richard de Clifford. Regardless, below are the two items
found in the Catalogue regarding Floria de Bellhouse:

Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)

SC 8/1/31 Petitioners: Floria [de Belhous (Bellhouse)] widow of
Thomas de Bellhouse. Addressees: King and council. Places mentioned:
Rammesden (Ramsden Bellhouse), [Essex]; Essex. Other people mentioned:
Thomas de Belhous (Bellhouse), Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, late husband
of the petitioner. [1305]

SC 8/316/E235 Petitioners: Floria [de Belhous (Bellhouse)] widow of
Thomas de Bellhouse. Addressees: King. Places mentioned: Stanway,
[Essex]; Rammesdene (Ramsden Bellhouse), [Essex]. Other people
mentioned: Thomas de Belhous (Bellhouse), late husband of the
petitioner; William de la Marche, late Treasurer. [1302]

The history of Thenford, Northamptonshire is not treated by VCH
Northampton. However, presumably there would be material on the
history of this place in either Baker or Bridges.

2. There is an abstract of an undated conveyance by Richard and
William de Clifford, brothers, to Elizabeth and Margaret de Clifford,
and Katherine called 'Chaumberleng,' their kinswoman regarding
property in London found in Ancient Deeds, Series B. The item is
abstracted below.

Source: Ancient Deeds—Series B 2 (List & Index Soc. 101) (1974),
unpaginated.

Number: B. 7167.

Parties: Richard and William de Clifford, brothers to Elizabeth and
Margaret de Clifford, and Katherine called 'Chaumberleng,' their
kinswoman.

Place or Subject: London, Thames Street.

Undated.

As noted, this document is undated. I assume the grantors are the
Richard and William de Clifford who were sons of Sir John de Clifford,
of Frampton on Severn, by his wife, Margery, widow of Nicholas de
Criol. The grantees would presumably be their sisters, Elizabeth and
Margaret de Clifford, who married respectively John de Pabenham and
Robert Hereward. If so, this would provide new evidence that
Margaret, wife of Robert Hereward, was a Clifford by birth, not a
Criol. As such, this conveyance would add a new piece to the Criol-
Clifford family puzzle. I'm unable to determine the identity of
Katherine called 'Chaumberleng' who alone is called "kinswoman."

Regardless, I can't help but think that the three grantees, Elizabeth
and Margaret de Clifford and Katherine called 'Chaumberleng' were the
three known daughters of Margery de Criol and that the word rendered
"kinswoman" in the modern abstract should actually be "kinswomen." If
so, this document would provide evidence that Katherine, daughter of
Margery de Criol, had a first marriage to someone named Chamberlain
before she married Geoffrey de Bradden. If possible, this document
should be checked for the correct wording. My guess is that all three
women were styled "kinswomen" by Richard and William de Clifford, not
just Katherine called 'Chaumberleng'.

I've already posted what appears to be a related document involving
three of these same people. This record is found in the National
Archives Catalogue. This second conveyance involves Margaret, wife of
Robert Hereward, and her sister, Katherine, wife of Geoffrey de
Bradden, both of whom are known daughters of Margery de Criol. In
this document, Richard and William de Clifford are called "brothers"
of Margaret Hereward. Richard and William de Clifford are not called
deceased in this abstract, so one can not assume that Katherine
Bradden and Margaret Hereward were the heirs of Richard and William de
Clifford in 1301-1302. However, I think it would be good to assume
that Katherine Bradden received her interest in the property below
from the Clifford brothers.

Reference: National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
catalogue/search.asp)

E 210/1973

Record Summary
Scope and content

Geoffrey de Br[a]dden and Catherine his wife to Sir Robert Hereward
and Margaret his wife : Moiety of a third of the tenements in St.
Benet's and St. Peter's the Little, near Paul's Wharf, formerly of
Richard and William de Clifford, brothers of the said Margaret :
London.

Covering dates 30 Edward I [1301-1302].

3. There is a Parliamentary petition dated 1330 by John de Causton and
John de Dallyng, executors of the will of Hugh de Garton, late
merchant of London, which concerns a debt of Elizabeth [de Clifford],
widow of Sir John de Pabenham. A transcript of this petition is found
in the Rotuli Parliamentoriam Anglie book. The document doesn't
appear to be catalogued in the National Archives Catalogue. I've
copied the first section of the petition below:

Reference: Richardson & Sayles Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie Hactenus
Inediti 1274–1373 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 51) (1935): 195-196.

'[19] A nostre seigneur le roi et a son cunsail mostrent Iohan de
Causton et Iohan de Dallyng, executours du testament Hugh de Garton
iadiz mercer de Londres, qe come Elizabeth, qe fust la femme sire
Iohan de Pabenham, fust tenuz al dit Hugh en xij'xx livres desterling
par sa reconisance faite en lescheqer nostre seigneur le roi, ...

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Watson]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The name Floria is very rare.  The only Floria which turns up in the
National Archives Catalogue is Floria, widow of Thomas de Bellhouse,
who was living in 1302-1305.  The maiden name of this Floria is
unknown.   Presumably Floria de Bellhouse is too young to be the aunt
of Master Richard de Clifford.   Regardless, below are the two items

Hi Douglas,

How about this Floria?

26 May 1299, To John de Kyngeston, constable of Edenburgh castle.
Order to cause dower to be assigned to Floria, late the wife of Alan
de Cantilupo, tenant in chief, as she has taken oath before the king
that she will not marry without his licence.

Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 4: 1296-1302 (1906), pp.
247-252

Regards,

John

[Tony Ingham]

Douglas et al,

Chris Phillips kindly made an translation/abstract of a document
referred to below. I have inserted it in your email.

Tony Ingham

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
As I stated, we've just barely skimmed the surface when it comes to
records of the Criol and Clifford families. Below are three new
records.
1. There is an abstract of an undated conveyance by Master Richard de
Clifford to his aunt, Dame Floria de Clifford, in the Ancient Deeds,
Series B. The item is abstracted below.
Reference: Ancient Deeds—Series B 3 (List & Index Soc. 113) (1975),
unpaginated.
Number: B. 10,125.
Parties: Master Richard de Clifford to Dame Floria de Clifford, his
aunt.
Place or Subject: Land in and the advowson of Thenford (Thenneford),
Northamptonshire.
Undated.
The document is undated. As such, further research is needed to prove
that the Master Richard de Clifford named in this document is the same
person as Master Richard de Clifford, a royal clerk and escheator, who
occurs in the period, 1262-1295 [see Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 4 (1991): 92; Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 5 (1996): 11-14, 37-38; Greenway, Fasti
Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300: Volume 6 (1999): 84-86]. The royal
clerk was a member of the Clifford family of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire.
The name Floria is very rare. The only Floria which turns up in the
National Archives Catalogue is Floria, widow of Thomas de Bellhouse,
who was living in 1302-1305. The maiden name of this Floria is
unknown. Presumably Floria de Bellhouse is too young to be the aunt
of Master Richard de Clifford. Regardless, below are the two items
Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)
SC 8/1/31 Petitioners: Floria [de Belhous (Bellhouse)] widow of
Thomas de Belhous (Bellhouse), Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, late husband
of the petitioner. [1305]
SC 8/316/E235 Petitioners: Floria [de Belhous (Bellhouse)] widow of
Thomas de Bellhouse. Addressees: King. Places mentioned: Stanway,
[Essex]; Rammesdene (Ramsden Bellhouse), [Essex]. Other people
mentioned: Thomas de Belhous (Bellhouse), late husband of the
petitioner; William de la Marche, late Treasurer. [1302]
The history of Thenford, Northamptonshire is not treated by VCH
Northampton. However, presumably there would be material on the
history of this place in either Baker or Bridges.
2. There is an abstract of an undated conveyance by Richard and
William de Clifford, brothers, to Elizabeth and Margaret de Clifford,
and Katherine called 'Chaumberleng,' their kinswoman regarding
property in London found in Ancient Deeds, Series B. The item is
abstracted below.
Source: Ancient Deeds—Series B 2 (List & Index Soc. 101) (1974),
unpaginated.
Number: B. 7167.
Parties: Richard and William de Clifford, brothers to Elizabeth and
Margaret de Clifford, and Katherine called 'Chaumberleng,' their
kinswoman.
Place or Subject: London, Thames Street.
Undated.
As noted, this document is undated. I assume the grantors are the
Richard and William de Clifford who were sons of Sir John de Clifford,
of Frampton on Severn, by his wife, Margery, widow of Nicholas de
Criol. The grantees would presumably be their sisters, Elizabeth and
Margaret de Clifford, who married respectively John de Pabenham and
Robert Hereward. If so, this would provide new evidence that
Margaret, wife of Robert Hereward, was a Clifford by birth, not a
Criol. As such, this conveyance would add a new piece to the Criol-
Clifford family puzzle. I'm unable to determine the identity of
Katherine called 'Chaumberleng' who alone is called "kinswoman."
Regardless, I can't help but think that the three grantees, Elizabeth
and Margaret de Clifford and Katherine called 'Chaumberleng' were the
three known daughters of Margery de Criol and that the word rendered
"kinswoman" in the modern abstract should actually be "kinswomen." If
so, this document would provide evidence that Katherine, daughter of
Margery de Criol, had a first marriage to someone named Chamberlain
before she married Geoffrey de Bradden. If possible, this document
should be checked for the correct wording. My guess is that all three
women were styled "kinswomen" by Richard and William de Clifford, not
just Katherine called 'Chaumberleng'.
I've already posted what appears to be a related document involving
three of these same people. This record is found in the National
Archives Catalogue. This second conveyance involves Margaret, wife of
Robert Hereward, and her sister, Katherine, wife of Geoffrey de
Bradden, both of whom are known daughters of Margery de Criol. In
this document, Richard and William de Clifford are called "brothers"
of Margaret Hereward. Richard and William de Clifford are not called
deceased in this abstract, so one can not assume that Katherine
Bradden and Margaret Hereward were the heirs of Richard and William de
Clifford in 1301-1302. However, I think it would be good to assume
that Katherine Bradden received her interest in the property below
from the Clifford brothers.

1302 P.R.O. E 210/1973

We Geoffrey de Bradden' and Katherine, my wife, have granted and by
this charter have confirmed to Sir Robert Hereward and Margaret, his
wife, a moiety of a third part of the tenements with the houses built
thereon [etc] which were formerly wholly of Masters Richard and William
de Clifford' in the city of London' in the parishes of St Benet and St
Peter the Small next to the quay of St Paul, and which the same Richard
and William gave to Elizabeth de Clifford', Margaret and me Katherine,
sisters, for reasonable portions, between us now divided. Which moiety
of the third part lies neighbouring (propinquior) to the part of the
aforesaid Robert and Margaret against the Thames (versus Tamisiam), to
have and to hold the moiety [etc] to Sir Robert and Margaret and the
heirs of Margaret and their assigns of the chief lords of that fee by
the services owed and customary for ever. In witness of which we have
placed our seals.

Witnesses: John le Blund, mayor, Peter de Boseha[m?] and Robert le
Callere, sheriffs of London', William de Leyre, alderman, John de
Harewe, Adam Absolon, Peter de [Elelmeton], John Fairhod, Richard de
Bernes, Ellis Eu[er]ard and others.

Date added at bottom: 30 Edward [I; son of Henry]. [14 May 1302]

[seals lost]

On the dorse is a note that the charter was read, acknowledged and
enrolled in the Husting of London' of Common Pleas held on Monday next
before the feast of St Dunstan the Bishop, 30 Edward [I; son of
Henry]. 14 May 1302

Below is written "forisaffidauit" [apparently this relates to a formal
renunciation of a claim to dower].



[1] The Latin reads "Et que iidem Ric'us & Willm's dederunt Elysabeth de
Clifford' Margarete & michi Katerine sororibus p[ro] rat'is porco'ib[us]
Int' nos modo diuisis". The wording is odd, but it seems to me that
there's nothing to imply that Elizabeth, Margaret and Katherine are the
sisters of Richard and William - as the online abstract suggests - only
that the three women are sisters.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Reference: National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
catalogue/search.asp)
E 210/1973
Record Summary
Scope and content
Geoffrey de Br[a]dden and Catherine his wife to Sir Robert Hereward
and Margaret his wife : Moiety of a third of the tenements in St.
Benet's and St. Peter's the Little, near Paul's Wharf, formerly of
London.
Covering dates 30 Edward I [1301-1302].
3. There is a Parliamentary petition dated 1330 by John de Causton and
John de Dallyng, executors of the will of Hugh de Garton, late
merchant of London, which concerns a debt of Elizabeth [de Clifford],
widow of Sir John de Pabenham. A transcript of this petition is found
in the Rotuli Parliamentoriam Anglie book. The document doesn't
appear to be catalogued in the National Archives Catalogue. I've
Reference: Richardson & Sayles Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie Hactenus
Inediti 1274–1373 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 51) (1935): 195-196.
'[19] A nostre seigneur le roi et a son cunsail mostrent Iohan de
Causton et Iohan de Dallyng, executours du testament Hugh de Garton
iadiz mercer de Londres, qe come Elizabeth, qe fust la femme sire
Iohan de Pabenham, fust tenuz al dit Hugh en xij'xx livres desterling
par sa reconisance faite en lescheqer nostre seigneur le roi, ...
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------

[Chris]

Post by Douglas Richardson
First, there is mention made of Nicholas de Criol and his wife,
Margery de Clifford [sic], in Charles Cotton, History and Antiquities
of the Church and Parish of St. Laurence, Thanet (1895): 172.
Nicholas and Margery are there stated to have left three daughters and
This record echoes Chris Phillips' erroneous statement
about Margery being a Clifford, and Mr. Phillips' confusion over their
children.  It is incorrect that Nicholas and Margery had three
daughters and co-heirs.  Actually, Nicholas de Criol (died 1273) left
a son and heir, Nicholas de Criol, by his 1st marriage to Joan
d'Auberville.  And, so far, I can only confirm that Nicholas de Criol
and his wife, Margery, had one son, Bertram de Criol.  

I no longer participate in this newsgroup, and I'm afraid this
illustrates the reason perfectly.

To set the record straight, I have made no "erroneous statement" about
Margery being a Clifford, in the sense that Douglas Richardson implies
- of her having been born a Clifford. What I have said is that
"Margery's parentage is not quite clear. She was presumably closely
related to the Richard Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de Clifford,
who in 1313 surrendered his rights in various lands to Margery de
Crioll, widow of Sir Nicholas de Crioll ..." I have also said that she
_seemed_ to have appeared as Margery de Clifford in 1254, but
naturally that would not necessarily imply that Clifford was her
maiden name. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it now seems
that the Margery Clifford of 1254 was a different woman.

Douglas Richardson also appears to imply that, like Cotton, I believed
that Nicholas Criol and Margery had three daughters and coheirs.
Obviously I believed no such thing. But perhaps that appearance is
just the result of verbal clumsiness on his part. In any case, I
really cannot fathom what he means by my "confusion" over their
children. Earlier he discussed my statement about Margery's son, that
"the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he was
her son by Nicholas de Criol". I don't understand how this is evidence
of "confusion", as he appears to agree with the suggestion, though I
must say I don't see how the occurrence of Margery and her son Bertram
in a list of benefactors to Croxton Abbey in a secondary source proves
the identity of Bertram's father, as he seems to think it does. If he
had examined the document and found evidence of Bertram holding
property in Croxton, it might be a different matter. Obviously the
uncertainty about the identity of the father of Margery's daughters
has been resolved by the foregoing discussion.

[r***@msn.com]

I've interspersed my comments below.

Douglas Richardson

Post by Chris
To set the record straight, I have made no "erroneous statement" about
Margery being a Clifford, in the sense that Douglas Richardson implies
- of her having been born a Clifford.

Exactly what you said was: "The elder Margery seems to have been
married previously to Peter de St Martin and (by 1260) Peter Dansey
(who was living in 1266), and previously to have appeared as Margery
de Clifford in 1254 [Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, vol. 4,
p. 192]." END OF QUOTE.

All three statements are wrong, Chris. Margery, widow of Nicholas de
Criol, did not marry Peter de St. Martin. She did not married Peter
Dansey. And, she did not "seem" to appear as Margery de Clifford in
1254. In fact, you confused a completely different woman with
Margery, widow of Nicholas de Criol..

< What I have said is that "Margery's parentage is not quite clear."

This is exactly what you did say about Margery de Criol's parentage:

"Margery's parentage is not quite clear. She was presumably closely
related to the Richard Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de Clifford,
who in 1313 surrendered his rights in various lands to Margery de
Crioll, widow of Sir Nicholas de Crioll, Elizabeth, wife of Sir John
Pabenham the elder and Margery Hereward, daughter and heir of
Margaret, late the wife of Sir Robert Hereward [Baker, History and
antiquities of the county of Northampton, vol. 1, p. 713; cf VCH
Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, pp. 192, 193 and VCH Northamptonshire, vol.
4, p. 21]. Richard de Clifford and his brother William, rector of
Irchester from 1268, and later bishop of Emly, had in 1289 transferred
lands in Irchester, possibly in trust for Margery [VCH
Northamptonshire, vol. 4, p. 21]. Provision is made in Margery's will
for one "brother Richard de Clifford". It is possible, though
unproved, that the Richard, son of John de Clifford, who appears in
1313 was the Richard de Clifford who succeeded his father John as lord
of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire, by 1294 [VCH Gloucestershire,
vol. 10, p. 144]." END OF QUOTE.

The truth is that Margery, widow of Nicholas de Criol, was not a
Clifford at all as you suggest, but was married to a Clifford as his
2nd husband. This fact tumbled out of the wordwork when I posted the
reference to the article on the Book of Hours owned by her daughter,
Elizabeth de Clifford, wife of John de Pabenham. The Book of Hours
made it clear that Margery's known daughter, Elizabeth, was a Clifford
by birth. That discovery upended most of your comments on your
website implying that Margery herself might be a Clifford.

<In the light of the foregoing discussion, it now seems that the
Margery Clifford of 1254 was a different woman.

You're parsing words. It doesn't "seem" that the two women were
separate and distinct individuals. Let's get it straight. It is now
proven that the two Margery's were two separate and distinct
individuals.

< Douglas Richardson also appears to imply that, like Cotton, I
believed
< that Nicholas Criol and Margery had three daughters and coheirs.

You clearly expressed your uncertainties on your website. Thank you
for that.

<But perhaps that appearance is just the result of verbal clumsiness
on his part. In any case, I
< really cannot fathom what he means by my "confusion" over their
children.

Here is exactly what you said:

"Although the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests
that he was her son by Nicholas de Criol (whose father was called
Bertram), it is not clear whether Nicholas or Peter Dansey was the
father of her daughters Catherine, Margaret and Elizabeth." END OF
QUOTE.

This is not verbal clumsiness, Chris. You specifically stated that
you did not know the paternity of four of Margery de Criol's
children. You suggested that Margery de Criol's daughters might have
been the issue of either Nicholas de Criol or Peter Dansey, but Peter
Dansey was never Margery de Criol's husband. I've since found
evidence that proves Bertram was the son of Margery's Criol marriage.
I've also found evidence (with Tony Ingham's kind help) that shows
that Margery's three daughters, Katherine, Margaret, and Elizabeth
were full siblings and born of Margery's Clifford marriage.

<Earlier he discussed my statement about Margery's son, that
< "the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he
was
< her son by Nicholas de Criol". I don't understand how this is
evidence
< of "confusion", as he appears to agree with the suggestion, though I
< must say I don't see how the occurrence of Margery and her son
Bertram
< in a list of benefactors to Croxton Abbey in a secondary source
proves
< the identity of Bertram's father, as he seems to think it does. If
he
< had examined the document and found evidence of Bertram holding
< property in Croxton, it might be a different matter.

I strongly disagree. A contemporary record shows that Margery de
Criol AND her son Bertram gave property at Croxton Kerrial,
Leicestershire to Croxton Abbey (see weblink below). This means
Bertram had rights to lands at Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire.

http://books.google.com/books?id=16sKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180&dq=Margery+criol&lr=#PPA180,M1

Croxton Kerrial was a property belonging to the Criol family. Bertram
would have had no interest in property at Croxton Kerrial, unless he
was a son of Margery's Criol marriage. It's that simple.

<Obviously the uncertainty about the identity of the father of
Margery's daughters
< has been resolved by the foregoing discussion.

Happy ending. This was a very difficult medieval problem. The work
of all helped lead to the correct solutions.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Chris]

Douglas Richardson

I have absolutely no idea why you are determined to misrepresent what
I wrote about this, but let's be crystal clear about it.

I did _not_ state that Margery de Criol was a Clifford by birth, and
there was no "confusion" in what I wrote about her children, as you
claimed.

What I wrote was a reflection of the state of knowledge some six years
ago. Of course the identity of the father of Margery's daughters was
unknown then, and it did _seem_ at that time that Margery was
identical with the wife of Peter Dansey. (You will recall that
Lillingstone Lovell was settled on Peter and Margery and their issue,
with remainder to Margery's right heirs, and that it later ended up in
the hands of Margery de Criol's daughters.) All this was clarified
only a month ago when Tony Ingham published the information from the
Book of Hours.

Right up until that time you were telling us that you believed Margery
was a Clifford by birth. It's ironical that you criticised me in the
mistaken belief that I had said Margery was a Clifford, when in fact
you were the one who adopted that position ...

[r***@msn.com]

On Mar 2, 12:06 pm, Chris <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
< Douglas Richardson
<
< I have absolutely no idea why you are determined to misrepresent
what
< I wrote about this, but let's be crystal clear about it.

Your contribution was (and is) valuable and appreciated. If you have
any other impression than that, I apologize.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Chris]

I'm afraid the real confusion in this thread has come from the
inaccurate abstract of E 210/1973, which made it appear that the
daughters of Margery de Criol had brothers named Richard and William
Clifford, and which also omitted the title, "Masters", of the latter
two.

To my mind the correction of that error removes pretty well all the
evidence that Margery's Clifford husband was Sir John, as suggested
above, rather than another member of the same family. Really all we
are left with is the fact that Sir John left a widow whose name was
Margery.

Against that, there is the omission of any mention of Richard de
Clifford as her son in Margery's will (despite the fact that Sir
John's widow Margery is described as the mother of his son Richard).
There are also the records which describe her simply as Margery de
Criol, or as Margery, late the wife of Nicholas de Criol, at dates in
the 1270s and 1280s when Sir John de Clifford was living. And there is
the awkward refererence posted by Tony to a Lady Margery de Clifford
as the sister of Robert fitzPayn in 1309.

I think it's obviously unsafe to assume her husband was Sir John
unless some more evidence is forthcoming.

[Tony Ingham]

Douglas,

Please see comments interspersed below.

Tony Ingham

BTW. Glad to see your apology later.

Post by r***@msn.com
I've interspersed my comments below.
Douglas Richardson

Post by Chris
To set the record straight, I have made no "erroneous statement" about
Margery being a Clifford, in the sense that Douglas Richardson implies
- of her having been born a Clifford.

Exactly what you said was: "The elder Margery seems to have been
married previously to Peter de St Martin and (by 1260) Peter Dansey
(who was living in 1266), and previously to have appeared as Margery
de Clifford in 1254 [Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, vol. 4,
p. 192]." END OF QUOTE.
All three statements are wrong, Chris. Margery, widow of Nicholas de
Criol, did not marry Peter de St. Martin. She did not married Peter
Dansey. And, she did not "seem" to appear as Margery de Clifford in
1254. In fact, you confused a completely different woman with
Margery, widow of Nicholas de Criol..
< What I have said is that "Margery's parentage is not quite clear."
"Margery's parentage is not quite clear. She was presumably closely
related to the Richard Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de Clifford,
who in 1313 surrendered his rights in various lands to Margery de
Crioll, widow of Sir Nicholas de Crioll, Elizabeth, wife of Sir John
Pabenham the elder and Margery Hereward, daughter and heir of
Margaret, late the wife of Sir Robert Hereward [Baker, History and
antiquities of the county of Northampton, vol. 1, p. 713; cf VCH
Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, pp. 192, 193 and VCH Northamptonshire, vol.
4, p. 21]. Richard de Clifford and his brother William, rector of
Irchester from 1268, and later bishop of Emly, had in 1289 transferred
lands in Irchester, possibly in trust for Margery [VCH
Northamptonshire, vol. 4, p. 21]. Provision is made in Margery's will
for one "brother Richard de Clifford". It is possible, though
unproved, that the Richard, son of John de Clifford, who appears in
1313 was the Richard de Clifford who succeeded his father John as lord
of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire, by 1294 [VCH Gloucestershire,
vol. 10, p. 144]." END OF QUOTE.
The truth is that Margery, widow of Nicholas de Criol, was not a
Clifford at all as you suggest, but was married to a Clifford as his
2nd husband. This fact tumbled out of the wordwork when I posted the
reference to the article on the Book of Hours owned by her daughter,
Elizabeth de Clifford, wife of John de Pabenham. The Book of Hours
made it clear that Margery's known daughter, Elizabeth, was a Clifford
by birth. That discovery upended most of your comments on your
website implying that Margery herself might be a Clifford.

The article on the Book of Hours, written by John A. Goodall, was in
error. I sent an Email to the Society of Antiquaries pointing out the
fact after receiving a copy of the article and copies of folios 3r and
29r of MS 242 Fitzwilliam Museum on 31 May 2008.

Mr. Goodall for some unfathomable reason attributed the Book of Hours
(having correctly identifying the arms of Clifford of Frampton and
Pabenham) to John de Pabenham junior and *Joan* de Clifford.
Joan, whom John de Pabenham junior married after the death of his first
wife Agnes de Pateshull (d. bef 10 Jan 1312/3) was from the family of de
la Plaunche, not de Clifford.

We now know Elizabeth de Clifford married John de Pabenham senior
between 14 May 1302 (see E210/1973) and 31 May 1304 (Fine of 30 Edward
I.). The date was probably after 11 Nov 1303 when Margery de Cryol and
John de Pabenham made a Fine for a messuage and lands in Hinwick which
Margery subsequently gave to John, Elizabeth and John's heirs of the
body of Elizabeth in the Fine of 30 Edward I.

Both the following references clearly point to Elizabeth de Clifford.


1302 P.R.O. E 210/1973
We Geoffrey de Bradden' and Katherine, my wife, have granted and by
this charter have confirmed to Sir Robert Hereward and Margaret, his
wife, a moiety of a third part of the tenements with the houses built
thereon [etc] which were formerly wholly of Masters Richard and William
de Clifford' in the city of London' in the parishes of St Benet and St
Peter the Small next to the quay of St Paul, and which the same Richard
and William gave to Elizabeth de Clifford', Margaret and me Katherine,
sisters, for reasonable portions, between us now divided. Which moiety
of the third part lies neighbouring (propinquior) to the part of the
aforesaid Robert and Margaret against the Thames (versus Tamisiam), to
have and to hold the moiety [etc] to Sir Robert and Margaret and the
heirs of Margaret and their assigns of the chief lords of that fee by
the services owed and customary for ever. In witness of which we have
placed our seals.
Witnesses: John le Blund, mayor, Peter de Boseha[m?] [2] and Robert le
Callere, sheriffs of London', William de Leyre, alderman, John de
Harewe, Adam Absolon, Peter de [Edlimeton], John Fairhod, Richard de
Bernes, Ellis Eu[er]ard and others.
Date added at bottom: 30 Edward [I; son of Henry]. [14 May 1302]

1407 Calendar of Fine Rolls 2 Henry IV. pp. 88-90.
Nov. 6. Gloucester.
Order to the escheator in the county of Kent :- pursuant to an
inquisition made by him showing that 44 acres of land and pasture in
Blakmanston, Neuchirche and Seyntmaricherche, called 'Turnegate,' and a
certain yearly rent of 32s. and 12 hens from divers tenants in the town
of Yvechirche, at Easter, Michaelmas and Christmas, came into the late
king's hands and are in the king's hand by the death of Laurence
Pabenham, 'chivaler,' who held of Richard II in chief, and by reason of
the minority of John Pabenham his son and heir, who lately died a minor
in the king's ward ; and that Margery late the wife of Nicholas de
Cryoll gave all the said lands, pasture and rents to one Elizabeth de
Clifford and the heirs of her body, by a fine levied in the king's court
at York, 30 Edward I, by virtue of which gift one John de Pabenham and
the said Elizabeth his wife were seised of the premises, and had issue,
one Thomas, and died so seised, after whose death the said Thomas
entered into the premises, as son and heir of Elizabeth, and had issue
the said Laurence ; . . . . . .

Post by r***@msn.com
<In the light of the foregoing discussion, it now seems that the
Margery Clifford of 1254 was a different woman.
You're parsing words. It doesn't "seem" that the two women were
separate and distinct individuals. Let's get it straight. It is now
proven that the two Margery's were two separate and distinct
individuals.
< Douglas Richardson also appears to imply that, like Cotton, I
believed
< that Nicholas Criol and Margery had three daughters and coheirs.
You clearly expressed your uncertainties on your website. Thank you
for that.
<But perhaps that appearance is just the result of verbal clumsiness
on his part. In any case, I
< really cannot fathom what he means by my "confusion" over their
children.
"Although the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests
that he was her son by Nicholas de Criol (whose father was called
Bertram), it is not clear whether Nicholas or Peter Dansey was the
father of her daughters Catherine, Margaret and Elizabeth." END OF
QUOTE.
This is not verbal clumsiness, Chris. You specifically stated that
you did not know the paternity of four of Margery de Criol's
children. You suggested that Margery de Criol's daughters might have
been the issue of either Nicholas de Criol or Peter Dansey, but Peter
Dansey was never Margery de Criol's husband. I've since found
evidence that proves Bertram was the son of Margery's Criol marriage.
I've also found evidence (with Tony Ingham's kind help) that shows
that Margery's three daughters, Katherine, Margaret, and Elizabeth
were full siblings and born of Margery's Clifford marriage.
<Earlier he discussed my statement about Margery's son, that
< "the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he
was
< her son by Nicholas de Criol". I don't understand how this is
evidence
< of "confusion", as he appears to agree with the suggestion, though I
< must say I don't see how the occurrence of Margery and her son
Bertram
< in a list of benefactors to Croxton Abbey in a secondary source
proves
< the identity of Bertram's father, as he seems to think it does. If
he
< had examined the document and found evidence of Bertram holding
< property in Croxton, it might be a different matter.
I strongly disagree. A contemporary record shows that Margery de
Criol AND her son Bertram gave property at Croxton Kerrial,
Leicestershire to Croxton Abbey (see weblink below). This means
Bertram had rights to lands at Croxton Kerrial, Leicestershire.
http://books.google.com/books?id=16sKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180&dq=Margery+criol&lr=#PPA180,M1
Croxton Kerrial was a property belonging to the Criol family. Bertram
would have had no interest in property at Croxton Kerrial, unless he
was a son of Margery's Criol marriage. It's that simple.
<Obviously the uncertainty about the identity of the father of
Margery's daughters
< has been resolved by the foregoing discussion.
Happy ending. This was a very difficult medieval problem. The work
of all helped lead to the correct solutions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Tony Ingham kindly sent me a PDF copy of two folios taken from the
Pabenham-Clifford Book of Hours. This is the Book of Hours discussed
in an article by John A. Goodall in his article entitled “Heraldry in
the Decoration of English Medieval Manuscripts,” in Antiquaries
Journal, 77 (1997): 179 220. This article is available online in
only snippet view. Even in snippet view, I noted in an earlier post
that Simon de Cray was mentioned on the same page in this article as
Margery de Criol, mother of Elizabeth (de Clifford) de Pabenham. As
such, I suspected the article was implying that Simon de Cray was
somehow related to these people.

The reason for the Cray reference in the Goodale article is now
clear. On a page in the Book of Hours supplied by Tony Ingham, I see
that the figure of Elizabeth de Clifford, wife of Sir John de
Pabenham, is depicted. Elizabeth's dress displays the arms of
Clifford family of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire. This is
customary for the time period. On the same page in the right margin
are three coats of arms displayed in full color, they being the arms
of Pabenham, Clifford of Frampton on Severn, and Cray. These would
be the arms of Elizabeth de Clifford's immediate family. The Pabenham
arms are those of her husband. The Clifford of Frampton arms are her
own arms. And, Cray would the arms of her mother, Margery, wife
successively of Nicholas de Criol (died 1273) and John de Clifford
(died 1292).

We know from Elizabeth de Clifford's mother's will that Elizabeth's
mother, Margery, was the aunt of Sir Gilbert Pecche, whose mother was
Joan de Cray. Thus, it is clear from the Book of Hours that Elizabeth
de Clifford's mother, Margery, must have been the sister of Joan de
Cray (mother of Sir Gilbert Pecche), and thus the daughter of Simon de
Cray, of Kent. Mr. Goodale was obviously not aware that Elizabeth de
Clifford's mother was the aunt of Sir Gilbert Pecche, otherwise he
might have pieced together this difficult genealogical puzzle.

The arms of Simon de Cray in full color may be viewed at the weblink
below. These are the very same arms displayed in the Pabenham-
Clifford Book of Hours on the same page as the figure of Elizabeth de
Clifford, wife of Sir John de Pabenham.

http://perso.numericable.fr/briantimms1/rolls/deringA01.htm

Scroll down to Simon de Cray.

Thus, the mystery of the parentage of Margery de Criol of the 1319
will is now solved. She was the daughter of Simon de Cray.

Tony Ingham continues to doubt that Margery de Cray, widow of Nicholas
de Criol, married (2nd) Sir John de Clifford, of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire. However, I believe the documentation which I have
supplied already amply proves that Sir John de Clifford was her
husband. We know, for example, that Sir John de Clifford, of Frampton
on Severn, was survived by a wife, Margery, and a son, Richard de
Clifford. We know that Margery de Cray's daughter, Margaret Hereward,
had a brother named Richard de Clifford. We also know that Margery de
Cray's daughter, Elizabeth de Pabenham, bore the arms of the Clifford
of Frampton on Severn. Also, of significance, I note that Margery de
Cray was involved with Master William de Clifford and Master Richard
de Clifford, who are known to be members of the Clifford family of
Frampton on Severn. I also note that Masters William and Richard de
Clifford were involved in records with Margery de Criol's sister, Joan
de Cray, and her husband, Gilbert Pecche the elder.

I continue to believe that Sir John de Clifford (died 1292), of
Frampton on Severn, was the heir of the Chaceporc family. If
correct, then presumably he descends from Sibyl de Clifford, sister of
Peter Chaceporc, Keeper of the King’s Wardrobe under King Henry III.
Peter Chaceporc was the nephew of Sir Hugh de Vivonne, the son-in-law
of William Malet, the Magna Carta baron.

Thanks go to Tony Ingham for sending me a copy of the two pages from
the Book of Hours.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah










I've been working of the Margery de Criol conundrum since the issue
was
last raised on Gen-Med about 12 months ago..

The basis of most of my research was that Margery de Criol was the
daughter of Margery de Clifford de St. Martin de Anesey. This notion
has
since proved to be entirely untenable.

Fortunately I was able to acquire copies of various folios from MS242
Fitzwilliam Library.

Folio 3r lead me on a merry dance as it is set up as a tree and
consequently encouraged me to go along that path, albeit unrewarded.
Shields of de Cliftford, Leyburn, de Clifford of Frampton and de
Offington are featured on this folio.

Subsequent re-examination of folio 29r leads me to the conclusion
which
follows. As the illustration of the bride as part of the beautifully
executed capital letter shows her with a coat of de Pabenham impaling
de
Clifford of Frampton I feel that fact lends much credence to the other
shields. Which are :

Firstly her husband's arms :

Barry Argent and Azure, on a bend Gules three molets Or. for de
PABENHAM.

Secondly, her father's arms :

Chequy Or and Azure, on a bend Gules three lions passant Argent. for
de
CLIFFORD of Frampton.

and lastly her mother's arms :

Gules, a cross indented Or. for de CREYE.

The conclusion here is obviously that her mother's name was Margery de
Creye.

Although, at this stage, there is no proof that Margery married John
de
Clifford after the death of Nicholas de Criol, if it can be
established
that Elizabeth Katherine and Margaret are de Cliffords then the
marriage
obviously took place.

The proof hopefully lies in the two documents following :

1301-2 P.R.O. E 210/1973 Ancient Deeds, Series D.
Geoffrey de Br[a]dden and Catherine his wife to Sir Robert Hereward
and
Margaret his wife : Moiety of a third of the tenements in St. Benet's
and St. Peter's the Little, near Paul's Wharf, formerly of Richard and
William de Clifford, brothers of the said Margaret : London. 30 Edward
I.

xxxx P.R.O. E 329/xxxxx Ancient Deeds Series B 2. B.7167.
Richard and William de Clifford, brothers to Elizabeth and Margaret de
Clifford, and Katherine called 'Chaumberleng,' their kinswoman.
London,
Thames Street.

These are possibly for the same property. The first was the subject of
several entries in Google Books.

The Stonor Letters and Papers, 1290-1483
By Charles Lethbridge Kingsford
Published by Offices of the Society, 1919
Item notes: ser.3 v.29 (v.1)
Page xv

… the City of LONDON Sir John de Stonor acquired before 1348 from
Margery, late the wife of Sir William Lovel, a messuage in the Lane of
St. Peter the Little. At his death it was valued at 50s. 8d. This is
probably the hostel which Edmund de Stonor was asked to lend to Henry
le
Scrope. At Sir Ralph de Stonor's death it was valued at 100s., and …..

London Topographical Record‎ - Page 34
by London Topographical Society - London (England) – 1920

... had in 1348 a messuage in the Lane of St. Peter the Little, for
which he used
to render 16s. rent to Margery, late wife of Sir William Lovel. ...

STONOR. Sir John de Stonor, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, had in
1348 a messuage in the Lane of St. Peter the Little, for which he used
to render 16s. rent to Margery, late the wife of Sir William Lovel. At
his death in 1354 his ….

This is probably the hostel which his grandson Edmund de Stonor, about
1380, was asked to lend to Sir Henry le Scrope. In 1383 it was
described
as being on the north of the tenement of John Chaumbre, which latter
was
on the west side of St. Peter the Little. At the death of Edmund's ….

London Topographical Record‎ - Volume 14.
Page 79
by London Topographical Society, London Topographical Society - London
(England) – 1928

One of these is a deed determining the position of the Stonors' London
hostel. The originals are at the PRO, mostly among the Chancery
Miscellanea, ...

London Topographical Record, Illustrated‎ - Volume 11
Page 48
by London Topographical Society - London (England) – 1917

It may have been used by the Chief Justice as his London residence,
though he had another hostel in the City itself. His grandson Edmund
de
Stonor was found in 1382 to …

The large messuage was sited between St. Benet's Lane and St. Peter
the
Little Lane somewhere between Thames Street and St. Paul's Chains.

If anyone is interested in copies of the folios from MS242 drop me a
line and I'll send them off list as they are too large for this list.

All the best,

Tony Ingham

[Tony Ingham]

Douglas,

Just a small addition to your mail.

The illustration of Elizabeth de Clifford on fol.29r MS.242 does
(although indistinctly in a copy of a copy) show her clad in a robe
displaying the arms de Pabenham impaling de Clifford of Frampton.

I felt that this fact tended to place much importance on the three
shields depicted on that folio, namely de Pabenham, de Clifford of
Frampton and de Creye. In light of all the data that has been presented
over the last couple of years, particularly Margery de Criol's will, we
know that the grouping of those three shields relates to Margery de
Creye/de Criol/de Clifford sister of Joan de Creye and aunt of Gilbert
lord Peche, and her second husband John de Clifford of Frampton.

Unlike Douglas, I remain a trifle sceptical as to whether Richard son
and heir of John de Clifford was, in fact, the son of Margery de
Creye. Thus I hope that when the originals of the two 'Ancient
Documents' mentioned in previous mailings come to light they will reveal
the truth of the matter.

In the meantime I'd like to thank all those who contributed to the many
threads discussing Margery de Criol for their interest and perserverance
in helping solve this most difficult of genealogical conundrums.

Best wishes,

Tony Ingham

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Tony Ingham kindly sent me a PDF copy of two folios taken from the
Pabenham-Clifford Book of Hours. This is the Book of Hours discussed
in an article by John A. Goodall in his article entitled “Heraldry in
the Decoration of English Medieval Manuscripts,” in Antiquaries
Journal, 77 (1997): 179 220. This article is available online in
only snippet view. Even in snippet view, I noted in an earlier post
that Simon de Cray was mentioned on the same page in this article as
Margery de Criol, mother of Elizabeth (de Clifford) de Pabenham. As
such, I suspected the article was implying that Simon de Cray was
somehow related to these people.
The reason for the Cray reference in the Goodale article is now
clear. On a page in the Book of Hours supplied by Tony Ingham, I see
that the figure of Elizabeth de Clifford, wife of Sir John de
Pabenham, is depicted. Elizabeth's dress displays the arms of
Clifford family of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire. This is
customary for the time period. On the same page in the right margin
are three coats of arms displayed in full color, they being the arms
of Pabenham, Clifford of Frampton on Severn, and Cray. These would
be the arms of Elizabeth de Clifford's immediate family. The Pabenham
arms are those of her husband. The Clifford of Frampton arms are her
own arms. And, Cray would the arms of her mother, Margery, wife
successively of Nicholas de Criol (died 1273) and John de Clifford
(died 1292).
We know from Elizabeth de Clifford's mother's will that Elizabeth's
mother, Margery, was the aunt of Sir Gilbert Pecche, whose mother was
Joan de Cray. Thus, it is clear from the Book of Hours that Elizabeth
de Clifford's mother, Margery, must have been the sister of Joan de
Cray (mother of Sir Gilbert Pecche), and thus the daughter of Simon de
Cray, of Kent. Mr. Goodale was obviously not aware that Elizabeth de
Clifford's mother was the aunt of Sir Gilbert Pecche, otherwise he
might have pieced together this difficult genealogical puzzle.
The arms of Simon de Cray in full color may be viewed at the weblink
below. These are the very same arms displayed in the Pabenham-
Clifford Book of Hours on the same page as the figure of Elizabeth de
Clifford, wife of Sir John de Pabenham.
http://perso.numericable.fr/briantimms1/rolls/deringA01.htm
Scroll down to Simon de Cray.
Thus, the mystery of the parentage of Margery de Criol of the 1319
will is now solved. She was the daughter of Simon de Cray.
Tony Ingham continues to doubt that Margery de Cray, widow of Nicholas
de Criol, married (2nd) Sir John de Clifford, of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire. However, I believe the documentation which I have
supplied already amply proves that Sir John de Clifford was her
husband. We know, for example, that Sir John de Clifford, of Frampton
on Severn, was survived by a wife, Margery, and a son, Richard de
Clifford. We know that Margery de Cray's daughter, Margaret Hereward,
had a brother named Richard de Clifford. We also know that Margery de
Cray's daughter, Elizabeth de Pabenham, bore the arms of the Clifford
of Frampton on Severn. Also, of significance, I note that Margery de
Cray was involved with Master William de Clifford and Master Richard
de Clifford, who are known to be members of the Clifford family of
Frampton on Severn. I also note that Masters William and Richard de
Clifford were involved in records with Margery de Criol's sister, Joan
de Cray, and her husband, Gilbert Pecche the elder.
I continue to believe that Sir John de Clifford (died 1292), of
Frampton on Severn, was the heir of the Chaceporc family. If
correct, then presumably he descends from Sibyl de Clifford, sister of
Peter Chaceporc, Keeper of the King’s Wardrobe under King Henry III.
Peter Chaceporc was the nephew of Sir Hugh de Vivonne, the son-in-law
of William Malet, the Magna Carta baron.
Thanks go to Tony Ingham for sending me a copy of the two pages from
the Book of Hours.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[j***@talk21.com]

Post by Tony Ingham
Comments interspersed

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Jane ~
I note that Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 448-451 (sub Fitzpayn)
identifies Isabel, wife of Robert Fitz Payn, 1st Lord Fitzpayn, as the
"sister and co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford, and daughter of Sir
John de Clifford, Knt., both of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire."
Isabel's alleged father is the same Sir John de Clifford, Knt. that
married Margery, widow of Nicholas de Criol.  Yet Isabel Fitz Payn is
not mentioned in Margery de Criol's rather detailed will.  So what is
the evidence of Isabel Fitz Payn's parentage?  Or, that Isabel Fitz
Payn was the co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford?
Checking the documentation, we find that Complete Peerage cites no
evidence at all.  All it says is that Richard son and heir of John de
Clifford granted the reversion of the manor of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire in 1303 to Thomas de Berkeley and his heirs, and that
Thomas de Berkeley in turn conveyed the manor in 1305 to Robert Fitz
Payn and Isabel his wife and the heirs of the body of Robert.   A
similar statement of this information is given in VCH Gloucester at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=15791&strquery=fr...
No where is Isabel, wife of Robert Fitz Payn, identified as the
daughter of Sir John de Clifford, nor is she anywhere styled the
sister and co-heiress of Sir Richard de Clifford.  Rather, it is clear
from other records that Richard de Clifford was in financial trouble
at the time of this conveyance, he having a wife, Sarah, and four
children, and the conveyance of the manor of Frampton on Severn was a
bona fide sale.  In fact, Berkeley Castle Muniments clearly states
that Thomas de Berkeley PURCHASED the manor of Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire from Richard de Clifford.  In any case, Isabel wife of
Robert Fitz Payn certainly did not inherit this manor from Richard de
Clifford, nor from Richard's father, Sir John de Clifford.
Fortunately, the same documents cited by Complete Peerage as well as
several others not included by Complete Peerage are abstracted in
records pertaining to the manor of Frampton on Severn found in the
Berkeley Castle Muniments.  I've copied all these records below.
Reviewing these records, I see that Margery, widow of Sir John de
Clifford, is identified as Richard de Clifford's mother in one
document.  So, it would appear that Margery, widow of Nicholas de
Criol, was Richard de Clifford's mother.

Exactly which document is that, Douglas?

Post by Douglas Richardson
Other records already cited show that Richard de Clifford was living
as late as 1313, when he settled Clifford family property on his
mother, Margery de Criol, and his sister, Elizabeth Pabenham, and his
niece, Margery Hereward.   Thus, if anyone was Richard de Clifford's
heirs, it would either have been one of his four children living in
1303, or, if his children predeceased him, it would possibly his
sister, Elizabeth Pabenham, and his niece, Margery Hereward.

Where is your evidence that Richard de Clifford settled Clifford family
property?
IRCHESTER Northants.   . . . . . . . . . .     acquired by Master
William de Clifford, rector of Irchester acting as a trustee.
FARNDISH  Beds.   . . . . . . . . . . . . .       a PABENHAM manor
WILBY Northants   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
HINWICK PODINGTON  Beds.  . . . . .    a PABENHAM manor
HIGHAM  Bucks.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LILLINGSTONE Oxon.  . . . . . . . . . . .    acquired by Margery de
Clifford by 1254, formerly a St. Martin property.
THENFORD Northants . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not one of these is a 'Clifford family property."   For one so quick to
correct others you sure do make plenty of mistakes.
This is the record of the King's Bench hearing at  P.R.O. KB 27/214 m. 67.
   Ric'us de Clifford filius & heres d'ni Joh'is de Clifford militis
venit hic in cur' et
recognonit hoc scriptum in hec verba. --  ...sis xpi fidelib's hoc
p'sens scriptum vis..' vel'
and..' Ric'us filius & heres d'ni Joh'is de Clifford militis sal'em in
d'no sem-
p'ten'am
   Non'it v..n'steas u'r'a me concessisse remisisse & ....
quietumclamasse.... per me her'-
dibus meis & meis assignatis' in p'pet'um d'ne Marg'ie de Crioll que
fuit ux' d'ni Nich'i de
Crioll & Elizabeth de Pabenham ux'i d'ni Joh'is de Pabenham militis
senioris & Marg'ie
Hereward filie & hered'is Margarete que sine uxor d'ni Rob'ti Hereward &
ead' heredibus
& assignatis totum jus & clam' q'd .... h'm vel' ...re hered'tar' habere
p......rone                                    
aliquor' antecessor' meor' sen aliquo alio modo ...th. accidere possit
in omn'b's t'ris et
tenementis de Irencester Ffarnedissh Wileby Pudington Heyham Lillyngston et
Theneford in com' North't, Bedeford, Buk' & Oxon cu' omn'b's suis perten'
infra p'd'tas villas & ext'a que fu'nt aliquo temp'e antecessor' meor'
vel' que p'd'ta Mar-
geria de Crioll tenet die confector"s huius scripti
   Ita quod nec ... ego p'd'tus Ric'us nec heredes mei' nec aliquis ....
.ro de p'd'tas t'ris et tenementas cu' suis p'tenenciis usus p'd'tas
Margeriam Elizabeth & Margeriam heredes suos vel' suos assignacos decedo
aliquod jus exig'a vel' clam'm venditare possimus' .nsi....
   In cuius rei testimon'm huic p'senti sc'pto sigillu' meu' apposui
hiis testibus d'm's Joh'ne' de Wileby Galfrido de Bradden Joh'ne de
Aston Rob'to de Bray miltib's Joh'ne' ....dar Rad'o de Soame .... Rob'to
de Floribis de com Nor'h' d'm's Nich'o Gr.....l Hugone Chas..... mil'it'
de com Buck d'm's Ric' ...... Thom' de Sardinis mil'tab's Ric'o
Kynebelle Falc'o Ansel Thom' del Hay de com Oxon & multis aliis
   Dat' apud Irencestre in festo S'ti Mich'is Archang'li anno reg'
Edwardi' filli Regis Edwardi septimo
[29 Sep 1313.]
Secondly nowhere in the Berkeley Castle Muniments is there any
suggestion that Margery, the widow of John de Clifford of Frampton on
Severn, was a Clifford.
She was, however, identified as 'sister of Robert son of Pagan in the

Post by Douglas Richardson
1309  Cornwall Record Office  AR/1/1072
Creation dates: 1309, 30th Sep  (3 Edw II); at Pole
Lease for term of life
Robert son of Pagan, knight = (1)
*Lady Margery de Clyfford, sister of (1)* = (2)
(1) to (2), all that tenement, with messuage(s), curtilage(s),
gardens, crofts, lands, meadows, pastures, etc., which Amity de
Durneford sometime held in the town (villa) of Pole, except for 1
cottage with curtilage and croft situated next to a cottage held by
Agnes Legat; for (2) to hold for term of her life, as Agnes de
Durneford formerly held it. Rent 6d yearly at 2 terms (Michaelmas and
Easter) during (1)'s life; after his death, rent 5 marks and 6d at 4
terms; for all services, etc., except royal service.
Warranty. Geoffrey de Morlegh, Walter Ryson, Walter de Baa, William
Scolas, Geoffrey Dauy.  Seal [white; crumbling].
Pole [Poole, Dorset, presumably]    A 19th-century note says "vide
Dug. Bar. voce Fitzpain".

So what other mis-corrections, wildy extravagant guesses or other
examples of your almost thorough lack of knowledge of English medieval
land tenure do you have for us?

Post by Douglas Richardson
So I ask where is the evidence that Isabel, wife of Robert FitzPayn,
was a Clifford?  As far as I can see, there is none.  And, if there is
no evidence, the Clifford parentage for Isabel Fitz Payn must be
removed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

There is no evidence, of course, which many of us know but we do manage
to resist the urge to seek self-aggrandizement by sprouting in this forum.
Yours in collegiality,
Tony Ingham- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hi there, all and sundry,

I haven’t posted on this site before, and as I notice that posters can
be quite acerbic with each other, I do ask you to be nice to me and
not make my inadequacies the targets of your poisoned barbs.

I have come back to genealogy after a gap of some 4-5 years, and find
that people are still squabbling over Margery de Criol. Last time I
looked, the favoured solution was the one posited by Mr Phillips, but
it never seemed at the time to quite hang together, so I have been
reading your posts with interests. {When I say your, I mean
copllectively, so please don't take offence if I remark on something
that did not originate with you personally - just gently put me right,
please].

The fact of the matter is that I am in the most awful mess with the
Criols, which is a shame, as I feel a twinge of guilt for not getting
them sorted every time I drive past Cryall’s Lane.

Before I reveal the depths of my ignorance, can I just float a couple
of ideas, based on information in recent postings?

I expect you have noticed that one of the commissioners sent to
apprehend the killers of John de Clifford in 1292/3 was a Thomas de
Bellhouse? And you have a spare Dame Floria Clifford, aunt of Richard
and William; and a spare Floria, widow of Thomas Bellhouse. This looks
a possibility to me. In addition, you have the mention in the grant of
31Ed 1, of Peter Flori, to enjoy for his life – not a particularly
common name – Fleury – in connection with these families – could he be
Dame Floria’s natural son?

Secondly, one of the witnesses to the 1304 grant mentioned above is
Thomas de Gardyns; he may well be the grandson of Alexander Arsic, son
of Robert Arsic and Sybil de Crevequer, daughter of Robert de
Crevequer and great aunt of Eleanor Crevequer who married Bertram
Criol. Sir William Arsic was given Leyburne after Bishop Odo was
stripped of his lands. What the descent was to the time of Richard 1,
when the Leyburne family had it, I do not know; however, of interest
is the strong link Andrew Bridgford makes in “1066 The Hidden History
of the Bayeux Tapestry” between the various holdings of the fee of
Arsic, and the maintenance and defence of Dover Castle.

I have to admit to being totally confused by your posts – on January
28th, Douglas Richardson wrote ‘Master William de Clifford and Master
Richard de Clifford [almost certainly brothers of Margery de Criol of
the 1319 will] ” but on February 3, in the course of proving Margery
Criol could not be the Margery Clifford who married Peter de St Martin
and Peter Dantsey he said “That Richard’s mother Margery de Clifford
is the same person as Margery de Criol is likely, as we know that
Margery de Criol’s daughter Margaret Hereward had a brother named
Richard de Clifford”.

I take entirely the supposition that Simon de Creye may have married a
Leyburne, although I don’t see that she had to be a widow, unless all
Leyburne offspring are confidently accounted for – besides which, as a
widow, would she have had the right to pass on arms to her daughter?
That there is no mention of Leyburne inheritance of that kind for Joan
de Creye supports the idea that she and Margery were half-sisters. The
marriage of Nicholas, son of Nicholas Criol and Joan d’Auberville, to
Margery Pecche, daughter of Joan de Creye and Gilbert Pecche,
effectively his step-cousin, would be entirely within the bounds of
customary behaviour.

This leaves me with Margery’s second marriage, after the death of
Nicholas Criol in July 1273. I have a problem here, as it seems to me
that I may be missing a generation. I have John de Clifford, of
Frampton on Severn, with no accurate dates, son of Hugh, wife Margery,
son of Richard de Clifford d 1213 and Laetitia Berkely. From one post
I think the clouds are beginning to lift - no, still confused. -try
again - Richard and Laetitia had three sons - Hugh, Richard and Henry.
Richard married Sibyl and had Richard William and Margery. Hugh had
three sons, John, Master Richard and Master William. John married as
her second husband Marjery, widow of Nicholas de Criol, and had Sir
Richard, who married Sarah

I have a note from VCH Cambridgeshire that Margery de Criol was
holding Cherry Hinton around 1279-85, perhaps as dower, which you have
quoted more fully from the source. You remark that Gilbert Pecche
conveyed some holdings in Cherry Hinton to Nicholas Criol in 1271;
according to VCH, Bertram de Criol was granted the ⅔ part of Cherry
Hinton known as Netherhall in 1249 by Peter of Savoy, at a £10 farm.
The other ⅓, Upperhall, was held in 1346 by Sir John Leyburne.

Am I right in thinking that Marjory’s heirs of blood were Bertram
Criol, Elizabeth, Margaret and Katherine [either Criol or Clifford]
and her nephew Gilbert Pecche, but that Masters Richard de Clifford
and William de Clifford accorded her the title of mother but were in
fact from their father’s first marriage? Or is this Marjory the mother
of all of them? And if there were a first marriage, could it have also
been a Marjory, with a daughter Margaret Clifford who might have
married the two Peter’s? Or is Margery Clifford who married the Peters
a sister of John de Clifford? I don’t have accurate enough dares to be
able to make any sort of judgement on this.
Clarification, with dates for Cliffords would be much appreciated, if
possible [words of two syllables only, please].

The $100 question – who was Robert FitzPayn’s wife Isabella? If we
take notice of the Isabella of Eynesford you mention in your quote
from the Close Rolls 30 April 1277, have we a suitable candidate? Her
possible date of birth [c1260?] fits well with Robert’s of 1255. She
would be a daughter of Joan d’Auberville , who was the daughter and
heir of William d’Auberville of Eynesford; it is unlikely her father
was Henry de Sandwich, Joan’s first husband, as his daughter by Lucia
his first wife, Juliane de Sandwich was known as a great heiress, and
there is no hint of any division of inheritance. So…she is the infant
daughter of the newly dead Joan , who grows up with Marjory as her
mother; and acquires a new surname when Marjory remarries to John de
Clifford. Clever, huh – Isabella Clifford, but not Isabella Clifford.

Well, it’s a theory. Shoot me down, do, just don’t be snarky about it.

I don't have any axes to grind, but would appreciate a straight answer
of your collective straight opinions - I have read all [well, quite a
lot of] the stuff you've posted, but would like to hear the results of
your cogitations rather than the routes you took to get there, if
that's all right - I'm not trying to skimp, I just don't want to re-
invent the wheel.

hopefully gd

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

The full title of the article in Antiquaries Journal is:

John A. Goodall “Heraldry in the decoration of English medieval
manuscripts,” in Antiquaries Journal 77 (1997): 179 220.

The article has been printed as a separate book and is available for
purchase for $17.82 U.S. at the following weblink:

http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/pilgri/801975.shtml

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jane ~

The below weblink gives a full view of the reference to Simon de Creye
and William de Leyborne:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PDUGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA36&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&lr=#PPA36,M1

Also, I find that Simon de Creye was Warden of the Cinque Ports:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CwArAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA210&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&lr=

Simon de Creye was lord of St. Paul's Cray, Kent:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_QQrAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA50&dq=%27Simon+de+Craye%22&lr=

The name Creye is sometimes spelled Craye or Grey.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Tony Ingham]

Master Richard de Clifford and Master William de Clifford were NOT, I
repeat NOT the brothers of Margery de Criol of the 1319 Will.

Richard was born by 1222 and William by 1228. I now repeat what I stated
in an earlier mail (which you were obviously too pig-headed to read),
that Richard, William and Margery,wife of Peter de Sancto Martino and
Peter de Anesy, were the children of Richard de Clifford of Frampton on
Severn (d. bef 6 Dec 1247) and Sibyl Chaceporc. (fl. 27 Jul 1253).

I can't understand why you are getting so excited about Margery de
Valence, below.

There is nothing to indicate a relationship there!

to Lady Margery de Valence, whatever in my wardrobe was her mother's,
also a piece of the true cross, and my Matyns de Notre Dame, which
were my sister Joan's;

Have you thought about following up these two entries?

1:- to Lady Margery de Say, a coffer at Irencester which belonged to
Sir Robert Hereward, and a pyne de Euere which belonged to St Thomas of
Canterbury;


Margery was the wife of John son of Geoffrey de Say of Denham Suffolk.

Margery de Criol granted by Fine on 27 Jan 15 Edward II. the manor of
Denham to John, Margery and the heirs of her body by John, if no heirs
to remain to John.

Margery had no children by John but she did have several illegitimate
children by Sir Humphrey de Waleden.

Obviously Margery has a particular interest in Margery de Say and
finding Margery de Say's parents would surely be helpful in identifying
Margery widow of Nicholas de Criol.


2:-- to my niece Lady Joan de Playte;

Joan was the wife of Giles de Plaiz 1st Lord Plaiz (d. bef. 15 Oct
1302). Who are Joan's parents?

1310 Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem p. 141.
258. WILLIAM DE HANCHACCH.
Writ, 15 Oct. 4 Edw. II. [15 Oct 1310]
CAMBRIDGE. Inq. 30 Dec. 4 Edw. II. [ 30 Dec 1310]
Schodecaump. A messuage not built, 140 a. arable, 4 a. meadow, 2
a. pasture, 15s. 7d. rent, &c. held of Joan late the wife of Giles de
Plaiz by reason of her dower of his inheritance, by service of 1
knight's fee, and suit of court at Thremhale or Springfield ; a
messuage held of the earl of Oxford by service of 10d. yearly ; 40a.
arable held of the heirs of Walter Sampson by service of a clove
gillyflower ; 3½a. arable held of Robert de Say by service of 16d.
yearly ; and 3½a. arable held of Richard de Berardeshey by service of
18d. yearly.
Thomas his son, aged 15 and more, is his next heir.
C. Edw. II. File 20. (9.)
Dear Jane ~
snip
That there was a double connection between the Criol and Pecche
families is suggested by the fact that Master Richard de Clifford and
Master William de Clifford (almost certainly brothers of Margery de
Criol of the 1319 will) served as feoffees in fines dated 1280-1281
and 1283-1284 for Gilbert Pecche I and his 2nd wife, Joan de Creye
[see Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 81, 84, a copy of
http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&pg=PA84&dq=Gilbert+Peche+Clifford#PPA81,M1;
http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&pg=PA84&dq=Gilbert+Peche+Clifford#PPA84,M1].
The purpose of these fines was to settle the manor Great Thurlaw,
Suffolk on Gilbert Pecche I and his 2nd wife, Joan de Creye, to the
exclusion of Gilbert Pecche I's son and heir, John Pecche, by his 1st
wife, Maud de Hastings.

[Tony Ingham]

The Book of Hours referred to does not mention any person by name, but
does show drawings of a husband and his wife whose arms are represented
on their clothing.

The bride wears the arms de Pabenham impaling Clifford of Frampton on
Severn.

John A. Goodall presented this article in an attempt to provide an
accurate identification of the lady who originally owned the book.

The original identification made by Donald Drew Egbert was hopelessly
faulty, however Goodall was not completely correct. He mis-identified
the second wife of John de Pabenham the younger.

The evidence for the pedigree of the Pabenham family is not
complete but John de Pabenham (+1322) married Elizabeth daughter of
Margery de Criol, who surrendered Hinwick in Bedfordshire to him in
1303. He had three children: John de Pabenham whose first wife was
Agnes (+1313) and his second wife was Joan *Clifford* of Frampton,
perhaps married 1314 or 1315; Edward and Aline. John de Pabenham who
married Joan Clifford died in 1331 and so the hours must be dated c.
1314--31 and not to 1308.^9

John de Pabenham junior who died in 1331 married as his second wife Joan
de le Plaunche, not Joan de Clifford.

This then begs the question, which of the Pabenham wives was referred to
as the wearer of the de Pabenham/de Clifford arms? This can only be
Elizabeth de Pabenham, second wife of John de Pabenham senior. The
marriage would have occurred some time previous to 11 Nov 1303.

1303 Extract from Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem Vol. VIII. p.
438.
Copy of a foot of fine levied in the king's court at York on the
morrow of St. Martin, 31 Edward I, between Margery de Cryol and John
de Pabenham, touching a messuage, 60a. wood, 60a. pasture, 4 carucates
and 2¼ virgates of land, except 53½a. land, in Henewyk by Podynton and
Herewode, co. Bedford, and 50s. rent in Undle, co. Northampton, which
the said John acknowledges to be the right of the said Margery, and
surrenders them to her in the said court, to hold to her and her
heirs, and for this acknowledgment &c. the said Margery gave to the
said John 100 marks of silver. [11 Nov 1303]

However this raises another issue. We know that Elizabeth de Pabenham
was a daughter of Margerey de Criol who made her will in 1319.

As there were grants made to both of Elizabeth's sisters,

Margaret in 1300/1,

1300-1 Cambridge Feet of Fines 29 Edward I. p.67. also CP
25/1/26/48 No.7.
Robert Hereward and Margaret his wife v. Ralph Hereward and Margery
de Kyriel in Guilden Mordon.

and Catherine in 1299/1300

1299-1300 P.R.O. E 327/165
Exchequer: Augmentation Office: Ancient Deeds, Series BX
Geoffrey son and heir of William de Bradedene, knight, and Catherine
[Northamptonshire] Covering dates 28 Edw I

it would appear that the three sisters had all approached marriageable
age between 1299 and 1303. Therefore they were assumedly born not much
later than 1283-1287.

Thus Margery widow of Nicholas de Criol (d.<10 Feb 1271/2) must have
married a Clifford of Frampton on Severn after Nicholas' death, as
Elizabeth was garbed in the Clifford arms in the Book of Hours now in
the Fitzwilliam Museum.

Comment appreciated,

Tony Ingham.

Dear Jane ~
There appears to be a reference to Simon de Creye and to Nicholas and
Margery Criol, and Elizabeth Criol, wife of John Pabenham, found in
Antiquaries Journal, vol. 77 (1997), pg. 181.
http://books.google.com/books?id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&q=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&lr=&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&q=criol&pgis=1#search_anchor
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=aCpnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%27Simon+de+Creye%22&q=hours&pgis=1#search_anchor
This material appears to concern a Book of Hours found in Fitz
Williams MS 242 which is dated c.1313-1331.
I know of no reason why Simon de Creye should be mentioned on the same
page 181, as Nicholas and Margery de Criol, unless perhaps these
people are named in the Book of Hours together. If Simon de Creye was
married to Margery de Criol's sister, it would explain why they would
be mentioned in the same Book of Hours. This article is probably
worth investigating. Let me know what you find out.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------