Discussion:
Strange of Walton in Warwickshire
(too old to reply)
lancast...@gmail.com
2021-03-14 16:46:46 UTC
Permalink
I have posted here before concerning the Le Strange family of Walton d'Eiville. It does not seem to be a family that attracts much interest but they are, like the Le Stranges of Hunstanton, a junior line of Le Strange who survived through the middle ages, and appeared in various historical records. After 1485, when the last of their male line died, the two heiresses were married with distant cousins of the Hunstanton line, so they have many descendants.

Some publications have touched on them:
*The antiquities of Warwickshire, by Sir William Dugdale page 577. http://books.google.be/books?id=EWhZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA577
*'Parishes: Wellesbourne with Walton', A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 5: Kington hundred (1949), pp. 193-198. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57073
*STRANGE, Thomas (d.1436), of Walton Deyville and Walton Maudit, Warws. and Warkworth, Northants. Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993. http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/strange-thomas-1436

From what I can see, Dugdale's 15th century pedigree is too simple, and it probably went like this (after the first generations covered by Ewen L'Estrange). I will note new proposed complications with ***.

1. John died about 1400 and his widow Mabel was alive still in 1402 https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp167-187 no. 527 (The editor was thus wrong to "correct" her name. This type of thing is a constant problem for this poorly known family. John and Maud were Knockin Stranges.)
Mabel was still alive in 1405-1410 when she had papal permission for a portable alter http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-papal-registers/brit-ie/vol6/pp348-364

2. Alan, son, died in the French campaigns initiated by Henry V.
IPM: http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/20-703/ or https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol20/pp219-234 (no. 704)
His heiress was a minor, Alice, who died soon after.
A 1396 document confirms his parents' name and names his brothers as Michael, Thomas, John and Baldwin Strange, and Philippa and Ida as his sisters. CP 25/1/21/109, number 14. http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_21_109.shtml

3. Thomas, brother, eventually took over, as shown by the claim he presented in 1426 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t6542rp7k&view=1up&seq=338
***This Thomas apparently died the same year as that claim in 1426. His memorial in Wellesbourne was dated two different ways. 'Hic jacet dominus Thom' le Straunge miles|—nuper Constabularius Regis in Hibernia qui obijt|—tertio die Maij anno domini mcccc|—xxvi et Regni Regis Henrici sexti quarto cujus animae p.pitietur deus.' (See for example VCH Warwickshire or Dugdale's Warwickshire, but it is quite well known and illustrations can be found around the internet.)

4. ***Another Thomas, of unknown relationship, continued the line and was similarly posted in Ireland. HOP and other sources all equate this Thomas with the previous one. In 1427, getting ready to go to Ireland, he seems to have been only an esquire, not yet a knight, like the miles who died in 1426.
It was apparently this Thomas who married Amabel Grene, the widow of Sir John Chetwode, and was dead by 1431, as reported in HOP. Thomas re-married to an Elizabeth by 1431 when he had his Walton manors re-granted to himself and Elizabeth, and he died in 1436. She was perhaps a daughter of Thomas Wykeham and relative of the Danvers family.
***The 1436 will of this Thomas has survived in Warwickshire archives and I have a scan: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/a26cd580-20d4-4507-82c7-5aa4ce7057fa It mentions his wife Elizabeth, two bastard sons Christopher and John, and a daughter Margaret who is not yet married. Note that he mentioned no son named Thomas.

5. ***The next person we know is also called Thomas and he died at Bosworth in 1485, but he appears to somehow be a grandson, and not son, of the previous one.
A copy of his will also still exists dated 8 Aug 3 Ric III [1485]. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/640d69d4-36e1-4850-bf8f-6fe08d0933aa
In it he mentions not only his wife Anne but also his mother Anne Castell and GRANDMOTHER Dame Elizabeth Strange. He wanted his daughter Anne to be married to "Dyntones sone". He clearly expected his wife might be troubled by Lord "Sey" or his heirs. Lord Say at this time was Henry Fiennes, whose mother was a Wykeham.

Published accounts of the family all describe Elizabeth as mother of this Thomas, not grandmother. Elizabeth is important to confirming this story because she out-lived the whole male line and died 20 Sept 1491.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/series2-vol1/pp230-246 no. 599

The English summary of her IPM says Thomas was "her son", but even if this appears in the Latin, the 1485 will makes it likely this was an understandable error. Note that it Elizabeth's 2 grand-daughters, who were probably actually great grand-daughters, who were the heiresses.
lancast...@gmail.com
2021-03-14 19:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
I have posted here before concerning the Le Strange family of Walton d'Eiville. It does not seem to be a family that attracts much interest but they are, like the Le Stranges of Hunstanton, a junior line of Le Strange who survived through the middle ages, and appeared in various historical records. After 1485, when the last of their male line died, the two heiresses were married with distant cousins of the Hunstanton line, so they have many descendants.
*The antiquities of Warwickshire, by Sir William Dugdale page 577. http://books.google.be/books?id=EWhZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA577
*'Parishes: Wellesbourne with Walton', A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 5: Kington hundred (1949), pp. 193-198. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57073
*STRANGE, Thomas (d.1436), of Walton Deyville and Walton Maudit, Warws. and Warkworth, Northants. Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993. http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/strange-thomas-1436
From what I can see, Dugdale's 15th century pedigree is too simple, and it probably went like this (after the first generations covered by Ewen L'Estrange). I will note new proposed complications with ***.
1. John died about 1400 and his widow Mabel was alive still in 1402 https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp167-187 no. 527 (The editor was thus wrong to "correct" her name. This type of thing is a constant problem for this poorly known family. John and Maud were Knockin Stranges.)
Mabel was still alive in 1405-1410 when she had papal permission for a portable alter http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-papal-registers/brit-ie/vol6/pp348-364
2. Alan, son, died in the French campaigns initiated by Henry V.
IPM: http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/20-703/ or https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol20/pp219-234 (no. 704)
His heiress was a minor, Alice, who died soon after.
A 1396 document confirms his parents' name and names his brothers as Michael, Thomas, John and Baldwin Strange, and Philippa and Ida as his sisters. CP 25/1/21/109, number 14. http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_21_109.shtml
3. Thomas, brother, eventually took over, as shown by the claim he presented in 1426 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t6542rp7k&view=1up&seq=338
***This Thomas apparently died the same year as that claim in 1426. His memorial in Wellesbourne was dated two different ways. 'Hic jacet dominus Thom' le Straunge miles|—nuper Constabularius Regis in Hibernia qui obijt|—tertio die Maij anno domini mcccc|—xxvi et Regni Regis Henrici sexti quarto cujus animae p.pitietur deus.' (See for example VCH Warwickshire or Dugdale's Warwickshire, but it is quite well known and illustrations can be found around the internet.)
4. ***Another Thomas, of unknown relationship, continued the line and was similarly posted in Ireland. HOP and other sources all equate this Thomas with the previous one. In 1427, getting ready to go to Ireland, he seems to have been only an esquire, not yet a knight, like the miles who died in 1426.
It was apparently this Thomas who married Amabel Grene, the widow of Sir John Chetwode, and was dead by 1431, as reported in HOP. Thomas re-married to an Elizabeth by 1431 when he had his Walton manors re-granted to himself and Elizabeth, and he died in 1436. She was perhaps a daughter of Thomas Wykeham and relative of the Danvers family.
***The 1436 will of this Thomas has survived in Warwickshire archives and I have a scan: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/a26cd580-20d4-4507-82c7-5aa4ce7057fa It mentions his wife Elizabeth, two bastard sons Christopher and John, and a daughter Margaret who is not yet married. Note that he mentioned no son named Thomas.
5. ***The next person we know is also called Thomas and he died at Bosworth in 1485, but he appears to somehow be a grandson, and not son, of the previous one.
A copy of his will also still exists dated 8 Aug 3 Ric III [1485]. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/640d69d4-36e1-4850-bf8f-6fe08d0933aa
In it he mentions not only his wife Anne but also his mother Anne Castell and GRANDMOTHER Dame Elizabeth Strange. He wanted his daughter Anne to be married to "Dyntones sone". He clearly expected his wife might be troubled by Lord "Sey" or his heirs. Lord Say at this time was Henry Fiennes, whose mother was a Wykeham.
Published accounts of the family all describe Elizabeth as mother of this Thomas, not grandmother. Elizabeth is important to confirming this story because she out-lived the whole male line and died 20 Sept 1491.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/series2-vol1/pp230-246 no. 599
The English summary of her IPM says Thomas was "her son", but even if this appears in the Latin, the 1485 will makes it likely this was an understandable error. Note that it Elizabeth's 2 grand-daughters, who were probably actually great grand-daughters, who were the heiresses.
Should have been "the widow of Sir John Chetwode, WHO was dead by 1431"
Loading...