John P. Ravilious
2007-05-12 03:34:47 UTC
Friday, 11 May, 2007
Hello All,
An interesting entry in the Patent Rolls was noted lately,
which indicates an association between William de Ros of
Ingmanthorpe (d. bef 28 May 1310) and John de Eyville, or Deiville
(d. ca. 1325) concerning unidentified lands in northern Wales,
and obligations with regard to Isabella de Beaumont, widow of
William de Vescy. This entry is dated 16 Oct., 1331:
' Oct. 16. Grant to Isabella de Bello Monte, lady of Vescy,
Westminster now tenant of certain lands in North Wales, late
of William de Ros of Igmanthorp and John Deyvill
of Athelynflet in respect of which she has been
grievously harassed by distraints made to recover
debts owing to the late king and the king by
by the said William and John, that such debts
shall not be levied during her lifetime, but that
all process shall be stayed until after death.
By K. ' [1]
This entry becomes more interesting when certain additional
pieces of information are noted.
1. William de Ros had a daughter Mary, who was prioress of
Rosedale prior to December 1306. She was identified
as the daughter of Sir William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe in
the Register of William Greenfield, Archbishop of York,
as she had recieved licence to visit her father twice a
year, dated 30 Dec. 1306 [2]. She was forced to resign
her position as prioress in September 1310; she
subsequently died before 1 Jan 1311 [3].
2. Among the nuns of Rosedale, we find Isabella Dayvill
in 1321, and Eleanor Dayvill in 1322. There clearly
was an association of the Dayvill family with this
priory, possibly connected to the position of Mary de
Ros as prioress [see [3] below].
3. William de Ros was known to have married Eustache, widow
of Nicholas de Cantelou (or Cantilupe). However, he
evidently was subsequently married to a 2nd wife, Joan,
mention of whom is found in the IPM of Reginald Fitz
Peter (extent made at Wichton, Friday, 26 July, 1286):
' Besides, William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe and Joan
his wife hold in chief in Lavynton in the county of
Lincoln one knight's fee which appertains to the
land of Wychton and Lounesborg' in the county of
York,...' [4]
4. In addition to Mary de Ros and her other sisters, there
was one Margaret de Ros, concerning whom I find the
following entry in 1310, but following which I have
no further record:
' Grant in tail by Margaret de Ros of Dyghton to Sir
William de Ros, her brother, lord of Ingmanthorp, and
Isabel his wife, of the manor of Scakelthorp, which she
had had of the grant of William and Isabel by a fine
levied in the king's court', 7 Dec 4 Edw. II (1310) '[5]
I currently conjecture that Margaret, the 2nd wife of Sir John
de Eyville (or Deiville) was the same individual as Margaret de
Ros, daughter of William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe, most likely by
his 2nd wife Joan. In addition to the providing an explanation
for the many associations noted above, this would also explain the
name Joan being given to the one known daughter of Sir John de
Eyville and his wife Margaret (this is not an element of proof
in this matter). The variance in ages and marriage dates among
the children of the elder Sir William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe may
well be explained by his issue being by more than one wife, over
an extended period of time. For example, Isabel de Ros married
Marmaduke de Thweng ca. 1273, while Jueta de Ros most likely
married Geoffrey le Scrope ca 1305/1310. Jueta de Ros was more
likely the daughter of Joan, and half-sister to Isabel (de Ros)
de Thweng.
William de Ros = 1) Eustache = 2) Joan
d before 28 I : m. bef 26 Jul
May 1310 I : 1286
________________I_______________ :...........
I I I I I :
Sir William Mary <siblings> Margaret
= Isabel de prioress = 1) (2nd wife)
Steeton of Rosedale John de Eyville
d. 1310 I = 2) Adam de
I Everingham 'Sr'
__________I I_______
I I I I
Joan Deiville <Everingham
= Sir Adam de siblings>
Everingham 'Jr'
( d. 8 Feb 1387/8)
Substantially more evidence than the foregoing is needed to
prove the conjecture. Should anyone have any additional relevant
documentation (e.g. concerning the lands in North Wales mentioned
above) or suggestions for further research, that would be most
welcome.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] CPR 5 Edw. III, Part II, p. 182, mem. 11.
[2] Reg. Greenfield, III:12, no. 1158.
[3] A History of the County of York, Volume 3 (1974): 'Houses of
Cistercians nuns: Rosedale Priory', pp. 174-76.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=36251
The pertinent section of this account follows:
' On 17 October 1306, (fn. 4) in consequence of a visitation,
Archbishop Greenfield issued injunctions to the prioress and
convent. Most were of the usual character, as to the due
observance of the rules of the order. Charity was to be
cultivated, corrections made in chapter without favour, the
nuns not to quarrel, the infirmary to be kept from the going
to and fro of seculars, and confessors were not to be
indiscriminately chosen by the nuns, but two brothers of the
order of Friars Minor were to be chosen, and their names
submitted to the archbishop.
On 22 August 1310 (fn. 5) Archbishop Greenfield ordered an
inquiry as to certain unspecified articles urged against the
prioress. The nuns and conversi were to be sworn and examined
privately, all secular persons being removed from their presence.
The accounts of the prioress, from the time of her administration,
as well as those of the bailiffs and other officials and servants
bound to render accounts were to be examined, and the prioress was
ordered to render to the commissioners full and complete accounts
from the time of her promotion, as well as a statement of the
then position of the house, and a further letter was sent by the
archbishop to the sub-prioress and nuns, telling them to render
an account of the house to the commissioners, as it was when the
prioress took office and as it was at the time he wrote. Evidently
the charge was one of maladministration. Whether the charges
proved against her were those of wilful wrongdoing or merely of
incompetent management, Mary de Ros resigned the office of
prioress sentiens se impotens, and on 30 September (fn. 6) the
archbishop directed the sub-prioress and convent to elect 'aliam
idoneam et honestam de vestri monasterii gremio monialem in
priorissam,' but before any election was made Mary de Ros died,
and on 1 January 1311 the king, as patron during the minority of
Thomas Wake, granted the nuns leave to elect a new
prioress. (fn. 7)
Another visitation of the house was held on Saturday,
28 September 1315, (fn. 8) as a result of which Archbishop
Greenfield issued another set of injunctions. A certified
statement, showing the credit and debit accounts of the house,
was to be sent to the archbishop before the feast of St.
Nicholas. The prioress was to see that the defects in the roof
of the cloister and other buildings were repaired, alms were
to be only given to the poor as the means of the house allowed.
An elderly nun of good fame and honest conversation was to have
charge of the cloister keys, the sick were to be duly tended,
and any nun disobedient and rebellious in receiving correction
was for each offence to receive a discipline from the president
in chapter and say the seven penitential psalms with the litany,
and if still rebellious, the archbishop would impose a more
severe penance.
The archbishop forbade all to accept presents from anybody, or
give any, except with the consent of the prioress. Under pain of
the greater excommunication no nun was to cause a girl or boy to
sleep, under any consideration, in the dormitory, and if any nun
broke this command the prioress, under pain of deposition from
office, was to signify her name to the archbishop without
delay. All nuns of the house were forbidden to wear mantles or
other garments of a colour or shade different from those
accustomed to be worn by. religious, and no unprocessed sister
was to wear the black veil.
The prioress and sub-prioress were ordered not to allow
puppies to enter the quire or church, which would impede the
service and hinder the devotion of the nuns. Those nuns who were
allowed out to visit their parents or friends were to return
within fifteen days, and no corrodies were to be granted, or
boarders, &c., received without the archbishop's special
licence.
On 17 May 1321 (fn. 9) Archbishop Melton wrote to the
Prioress and convent of Handale, that he was sending to them
Isabella Dayvill, nun of the house of Rosedale, vestri ordinis,
who, contary to the honesty of religion, had apostatized. She
was to undergo her appointed penance in their house, was to be
last in the convent, was to talk to no one, secular or religious,
and not to go out of the precincts of the monastery. Every Friday
she was to fast on bread and water, and every Wednesday to
abstain from fish, and on each of those days was to receive a
discipline in chapter from the hands of the president.
On 21 November 1322, (fn. 10) owing to the ravages of the
Scots, the monastery of Rosedale suffered so severely that the
nuns Were dispersed, and the archbishop wrote to Nunburnholme
to receive Alice de Rippinghale, to Sinningthwaite to receive
Avelina de Brus, to Thicket to receive Margaret de Langtoft,
and to Wykeham on behalf of Joan Crouel, nuns of Rosedale; and
it is noted that another nun, Eleanor Dayvill, entered the
house of Hampole, with letters from the queen. If Isabella
Dayvill was still at Handale this would account for six nuns,
and as there is no mention of the prioress it is probable that
she, and probably another nun to keep her company, were able to
remain at Rosedale. This would bring up the number to eight,
and it appears that another nun, Joan de Dalton, had been
previously sent away, for the archbishop (3 June 1323) (fn. 11)
ordered that she should be re-admitted. This would account for
nine nuns belonging to Rosedale, and that is believed to have
been the number usually forming the convent. From the date of
Joan de Dalton's re-admission it is evident that the dispersion
of the nuns did not extend beyond six months.'
[4] William Brown, ed., Yorkshire Inquisitions II:50
(No. XXXVIII).
[5] William Brown, ed., Yorks. Deeds II:160, No. 430.
* John P. Ravilious
Hello All,
An interesting entry in the Patent Rolls was noted lately,
which indicates an association between William de Ros of
Ingmanthorpe (d. bef 28 May 1310) and John de Eyville, or Deiville
(d. ca. 1325) concerning unidentified lands in northern Wales,
and obligations with regard to Isabella de Beaumont, widow of
William de Vescy. This entry is dated 16 Oct., 1331:
' Oct. 16. Grant to Isabella de Bello Monte, lady of Vescy,
Westminster now tenant of certain lands in North Wales, late
of William de Ros of Igmanthorp and John Deyvill
of Athelynflet in respect of which she has been
grievously harassed by distraints made to recover
debts owing to the late king and the king by
by the said William and John, that such debts
shall not be levied during her lifetime, but that
all process shall be stayed until after death.
By K. ' [1]
This entry becomes more interesting when certain additional
pieces of information are noted.
1. William de Ros had a daughter Mary, who was prioress of
Rosedale prior to December 1306. She was identified
as the daughter of Sir William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe in
the Register of William Greenfield, Archbishop of York,
as she had recieved licence to visit her father twice a
year, dated 30 Dec. 1306 [2]. She was forced to resign
her position as prioress in September 1310; she
subsequently died before 1 Jan 1311 [3].
2. Among the nuns of Rosedale, we find Isabella Dayvill
in 1321, and Eleanor Dayvill in 1322. There clearly
was an association of the Dayvill family with this
priory, possibly connected to the position of Mary de
Ros as prioress [see [3] below].
3. William de Ros was known to have married Eustache, widow
of Nicholas de Cantelou (or Cantilupe). However, he
evidently was subsequently married to a 2nd wife, Joan,
mention of whom is found in the IPM of Reginald Fitz
Peter (extent made at Wichton, Friday, 26 July, 1286):
' Besides, William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe and Joan
his wife hold in chief in Lavynton in the county of
Lincoln one knight's fee which appertains to the
land of Wychton and Lounesborg' in the county of
York,...' [4]
4. In addition to Mary de Ros and her other sisters, there
was one Margaret de Ros, concerning whom I find the
following entry in 1310, but following which I have
no further record:
' Grant in tail by Margaret de Ros of Dyghton to Sir
William de Ros, her brother, lord of Ingmanthorp, and
Isabel his wife, of the manor of Scakelthorp, which she
had had of the grant of William and Isabel by a fine
levied in the king's court', 7 Dec 4 Edw. II (1310) '[5]
I currently conjecture that Margaret, the 2nd wife of Sir John
de Eyville (or Deiville) was the same individual as Margaret de
Ros, daughter of William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe, most likely by
his 2nd wife Joan. In addition to the providing an explanation
for the many associations noted above, this would also explain the
name Joan being given to the one known daughter of Sir John de
Eyville and his wife Margaret (this is not an element of proof
in this matter). The variance in ages and marriage dates among
the children of the elder Sir William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe may
well be explained by his issue being by more than one wife, over
an extended period of time. For example, Isabel de Ros married
Marmaduke de Thweng ca. 1273, while Jueta de Ros most likely
married Geoffrey le Scrope ca 1305/1310. Jueta de Ros was more
likely the daughter of Joan, and half-sister to Isabel (de Ros)
de Thweng.
William de Ros = 1) Eustache = 2) Joan
d before 28 I : m. bef 26 Jul
May 1310 I : 1286
________________I_______________ :...........
I I I I I :
Sir William Mary <siblings> Margaret
= Isabel de prioress = 1) (2nd wife)
Steeton of Rosedale John de Eyville
d. 1310 I = 2) Adam de
I Everingham 'Sr'
__________I I_______
I I I I
Joan Deiville <Everingham
= Sir Adam de siblings>
Everingham 'Jr'
( d. 8 Feb 1387/8)
Substantially more evidence than the foregoing is needed to
prove the conjecture. Should anyone have any additional relevant
documentation (e.g. concerning the lands in North Wales mentioned
above) or suggestions for further research, that would be most
welcome.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] CPR 5 Edw. III, Part II, p. 182, mem. 11.
[2] Reg. Greenfield, III:12, no. 1158.
[3] A History of the County of York, Volume 3 (1974): 'Houses of
Cistercians nuns: Rosedale Priory', pp. 174-76.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=36251
The pertinent section of this account follows:
' On 17 October 1306, (fn. 4) in consequence of a visitation,
Archbishop Greenfield issued injunctions to the prioress and
convent. Most were of the usual character, as to the due
observance of the rules of the order. Charity was to be
cultivated, corrections made in chapter without favour, the
nuns not to quarrel, the infirmary to be kept from the going
to and fro of seculars, and confessors were not to be
indiscriminately chosen by the nuns, but two brothers of the
order of Friars Minor were to be chosen, and their names
submitted to the archbishop.
On 22 August 1310 (fn. 5) Archbishop Greenfield ordered an
inquiry as to certain unspecified articles urged against the
prioress. The nuns and conversi were to be sworn and examined
privately, all secular persons being removed from their presence.
The accounts of the prioress, from the time of her administration,
as well as those of the bailiffs and other officials and servants
bound to render accounts were to be examined, and the prioress was
ordered to render to the commissioners full and complete accounts
from the time of her promotion, as well as a statement of the
then position of the house, and a further letter was sent by the
archbishop to the sub-prioress and nuns, telling them to render
an account of the house to the commissioners, as it was when the
prioress took office and as it was at the time he wrote. Evidently
the charge was one of maladministration. Whether the charges
proved against her were those of wilful wrongdoing or merely of
incompetent management, Mary de Ros resigned the office of
prioress sentiens se impotens, and on 30 September (fn. 6) the
archbishop directed the sub-prioress and convent to elect 'aliam
idoneam et honestam de vestri monasterii gremio monialem in
priorissam,' but before any election was made Mary de Ros died,
and on 1 January 1311 the king, as patron during the minority of
Thomas Wake, granted the nuns leave to elect a new
prioress. (fn. 7)
Another visitation of the house was held on Saturday,
28 September 1315, (fn. 8) as a result of which Archbishop
Greenfield issued another set of injunctions. A certified
statement, showing the credit and debit accounts of the house,
was to be sent to the archbishop before the feast of St.
Nicholas. The prioress was to see that the defects in the roof
of the cloister and other buildings were repaired, alms were
to be only given to the poor as the means of the house allowed.
An elderly nun of good fame and honest conversation was to have
charge of the cloister keys, the sick were to be duly tended,
and any nun disobedient and rebellious in receiving correction
was for each offence to receive a discipline from the president
in chapter and say the seven penitential psalms with the litany,
and if still rebellious, the archbishop would impose a more
severe penance.
The archbishop forbade all to accept presents from anybody, or
give any, except with the consent of the prioress. Under pain of
the greater excommunication no nun was to cause a girl or boy to
sleep, under any consideration, in the dormitory, and if any nun
broke this command the prioress, under pain of deposition from
office, was to signify her name to the archbishop without
delay. All nuns of the house were forbidden to wear mantles or
other garments of a colour or shade different from those
accustomed to be worn by. religious, and no unprocessed sister
was to wear the black veil.
The prioress and sub-prioress were ordered not to allow
puppies to enter the quire or church, which would impede the
service and hinder the devotion of the nuns. Those nuns who were
allowed out to visit their parents or friends were to return
within fifteen days, and no corrodies were to be granted, or
boarders, &c., received without the archbishop's special
licence.
On 17 May 1321 (fn. 9) Archbishop Melton wrote to the
Prioress and convent of Handale, that he was sending to them
Isabella Dayvill, nun of the house of Rosedale, vestri ordinis,
who, contary to the honesty of religion, had apostatized. She
was to undergo her appointed penance in their house, was to be
last in the convent, was to talk to no one, secular or religious,
and not to go out of the precincts of the monastery. Every Friday
she was to fast on bread and water, and every Wednesday to
abstain from fish, and on each of those days was to receive a
discipline in chapter from the hands of the president.
On 21 November 1322, (fn. 10) owing to the ravages of the
Scots, the monastery of Rosedale suffered so severely that the
nuns Were dispersed, and the archbishop wrote to Nunburnholme
to receive Alice de Rippinghale, to Sinningthwaite to receive
Avelina de Brus, to Thicket to receive Margaret de Langtoft,
and to Wykeham on behalf of Joan Crouel, nuns of Rosedale; and
it is noted that another nun, Eleanor Dayvill, entered the
house of Hampole, with letters from the queen. If Isabella
Dayvill was still at Handale this would account for six nuns,
and as there is no mention of the prioress it is probable that
she, and probably another nun to keep her company, were able to
remain at Rosedale. This would bring up the number to eight,
and it appears that another nun, Joan de Dalton, had been
previously sent away, for the archbishop (3 June 1323) (fn. 11)
ordered that she should be re-admitted. This would account for
nine nuns belonging to Rosedale, and that is believed to have
been the number usually forming the convent. From the date of
Joan de Dalton's re-admission it is evident that the dispersion
of the nuns did not extend beyond six months.'
[4] William Brown, ed., Yorkshire Inquisitions II:50
(No. XXXVIII).
[5] William Brown, ed., Yorks. Deeds II:160, No. 430.
* John P. Ravilious