‹ E-CIPM 23-84: ELIZABETH WIDOW OF HENRY FITZHUGH, KNIGHT ›

Holdings

Holdings

John Marmyon and Maud had issue: Robert, Joan, and Avice. Robert Wynteryng and Simon Lyncoln afterwards entered the manor during John Marmyon ’s lifetime, and continued to have possession for the lifetime of John Marmyon and that of Maud. [2]+John and Maud died. Robert their son died without heir of his body. Joan married John Barnak , and they had issue: Maud. Joan and John Barnak afterwards died, and Maud married Ralph Cromwell, knight . They had issue: Ralph Cromwell, knight . He had issue: Ralph Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, knight , still living. Ralph, grandfather, died, and Ralph, father, died. Maud afterwards died. Avice, the other daughter and heir of John Marmyon , married John Gray of Rotherfield Greys, and they had issue: John Gray , alias John Marmyon , and Robert Gray . Avice and John her husband died. Robert son of John had issue: Elizabeth wife of Henry Fitzhugh, knight . Robert died and John Gray alias John Marmyon died without heir of his body. Elizabeth entered the manor of Berwick as kin and heir of John Marmyon in the first year of ‪ Henry VI ’s reign and was seised in demesne as of fee. She continued her possession and had issue: William Fitzhugh, knight , still living, and died seised of this estate on 14 December last.+[2]

Holdings

Holdings

Findings as 83, with exceptions relating to the manorial extent.

Holdings

Findings as the Exchequer versions of 83.ⁿ⁰²²

Holdings

Pleas before the king in Chancery three weeks after Easter 1429. The king ordered a close writ dated 16 March 1429 to the sheriff of Lincoln because he had been entreated by the following people for the following reasons regarding the findings of CIPM XXIII 84, 83, and 288. These inquisitions were taken in 1428 and are recited in the writ. William Fitzhugh, knight , Geoffrey Fitzhugh, knight , Robert Fitzhugh, clerk , Christopher Boynton , William Foxholes, clerk , and William Catryk entreated the king that since the manor of Willingham specified in 84 and the manor of Willingham specified in 83 are one and the same, the following people are one and the same: Elizabeth, John Marmyon , Robert son of John Marmyon , Joan, Avice, John Gray of Rotherfield Greys, and John and Robert his sons. The following is also true. John Marmyon was seised of the manor in demesne as of fee, and had issue: Robert Marmyon , Joan, and Avice. He died seised of this estate and the manor descended to Robert Marmyon , his son and heir. A fine was afterwards levied at York on the octave of Candlemas 1338 between Robert, described as Robert son of John Marmyon, chevalier , and Maud his wife, quer., and George de Colevill , deforc., regarding, among other tenements, the manor, described as Willingham by Greetwell. George granted the manor to Robert and Maud, and to the heirs of Maud in perpetuity [CP 25/1/287/39 no. 224]. Robert was seised in demesne as of free tenement, and Maud was seised in demesne as of fee. Robert died so seised and Maud his widow married the said George. A fine was afterwards levied at Westminster three weeks after Michaelmas 1342 between George and Maud his wife, quer., and Simon de Wyntryngham, chaplain , deforc., regarding the manor, described as the manor of Willingham. Simon granted two parts of the manor to George and Maud his wife for their lives, with successive remainders to Maud widow of John Marmyon for life; and to John Gray and Avice, described as John Gray of Rotherfield Greys and Avice his wife, and the heirs of the body of Avice in perpetuity [CP 25/1/139/110 no. 2]. George and Maud were thus seised of two parts of the manor in their demesne as of free tenement, and Simon was seised of one part in demesne as of fee. By charter dated Willingham 11 November 1342, Simon, described as Simon de Wyntryngham, chaplain , granted, among other tenements, the third, described as 1/3 manor of Willingham, to Maud widow of John Marmyon , described as Lady Maud who was the wife of Lord John Marmion , for life, with successive remainders to George de Colevill and Maud his wife for their lives; and to John Gray and Avice, described as Lord John Gray of Rotherfield Greys and Avice his wife, and the heirs of the body of Avice in perpetuity. George died, and Maud widow of John Marmyon afterwards died. Maud widow of George entered the third in her remainder and was seised in free tenement by virtue of the said grant, together with the two parts of the same manor granted to her and George formerly her husband for life. She continued her possession of the entire manor for life. John Gray and Avice had issue: John and Robert, and John Gray died during the lifetime of Maud widow of George. Maud afterwards died seised of her estate and Avice entered the manor because it was entailed to her in remainder. After the death of Avice, the manor descended to John her son and heir, and he was seised of the manor in demesne as of fee tail. Robert, son of John Gray and Avice, had issue: Elizabeth, and he died. John son of Avice afterwards died seised of the manor in demesne as of fee tail without heir of his body. The manor descended to Elizabeth, kin and heir of John son of Avice, as daughter of Robert brother of John. She entered the manor and was seised in demesne as of fee tail and had issue: William Fitzhugh . Elizabeth afterwards enfeoffed William Fitzhugh , Geoffrey, Robert Fitzhugh , Christopher, William Foxholes , and William Catryk , still living, and John Pygot , now deceased, in the manor, to hold to them and their heirs and assigns in perpetuity. William Fitzhugh etc. [as above] continued their estate for the life of Elizabeth and afterwards, until they were unjustly expelled because of the said inquisitions and because of letters patent of ‪ Henry VI , made to William Eure, knight , and Thomas Tunstall, knight [CFR 1422–1430, p. 241]. These letters concerned the custody of all manors, lands, and tenements that were of Elizabeth, described as Elizabeth widow of Henry Fitzhugh, chevalier , and held of the king in chief on the day she died on 28 October last. William Eure and Thomas Tunstall were to hold the manors etc. according to the form of the letters. This was to no little damage to William Fitzhugh , Geoffrey, Robert Fitzhugh , Christopher, William Foxholes , and William Catryk on the following grounds. Emma, specified in 84 and 83, had not entered the manor or continued her possession during the life of John Marmyon ; Elizabeth had not died seised of the manor of Willingham, or any part of it, in demesne as of fee, nor had held anything at the time of her death; Ralph son of Ralph did not make his uninterrupted claim by authority of his right of descent during Elizabeth’s possession of the manor for her lifetime; and the manor of Willingham, or any part of it, was not held of the crown in chief by knight service, as supposed, nor by any other service. The king accordingly orders that the letters issued to William Eure and Thomas Tunstall regarding the manor be annulled, the king’s hands removed from the manor, and that William Fitzhugh , Geoffrey, Robert Fitzhugh , Christopher, William Foxholes , and William Catryk be restored to their possession of the manor along with any profits received since their expulsion. The sheriff of Lincoln is ordered to inform William Eure and Thomas Tunstall to come before the king in Chancery three weeks after Easter next, to say or show why the letters should not be annulled and the king’s hands not removed. The sheriff is also ordered to bring the names of those by whom William and Thomas were informed of this, as well as the writ. [End of close writ.] The sheriff returned to Chancery that William Eure and Thomas Tunstall had been informed by John Swynton , Robert Smyth , John Hert , and William Man . William and Thomas appeared by John Shawe , their attorney, in Chancery on the appointed day, as did William Fitzhugh , Geoffrey, Robert Fitzhugh , Christopher, William Foxholes , and William Catryk , by John Squery , their attorney. William Eure and Thomas Tunstall said that the letters should not be annulled for any of the reasons put forward by William Fitzhugh etc. [as above], nor should the hands of the king be removed from the manor because Elizabeth did die seised in demesne as of fee of the manor, and the manor is held of the king in chief by knight service. It was decided that all should come before the court of the king on the octave of Trinity. The sheriff of Lincolnshire was ordered to provide 24 knights and other honest men of the neighbourhood of Willingham who were not related to any individual in either of the opposing parties that, by their oath, the truth might fully be recognised.

Holdings

Rose de Dovorre was seised in demesne as of fee of

Holdings

Findings as 87.

Holdings

She held no lands or tenements of the king in chief in demesne or service.

Holdings

By a fine levied in 1327, John de Appelby, parson of Wath , and Robert de Sourneton, parson of West Tanfield , quer., granted the manors of Tanfield and Carthorpe, and a messuage, 20 tofts, one carucate and 10 bovates of land, 10 a. wood, and ½ mill in East Tanfield, Nosterfield, Manfield, and Brough, and the advowson of the church of Wath by Tanfield to John Marmyon and Maud his wife, deforc., and to the heirs male of their bodies, to hold of the chief lords of the fee by due service in perpetuity [CP 25/1/272/102 no. 8]. Failing such issue, the manors and tenements with advowson should remain to the right heirs of John Marmyon . John and Maud had issue: Robert, Joan, and Avice. Robert Noreys, parson of West Retford , and Simon de Wyntryngham, master of the hospital of St Giles by Catterick, afterwards entered the above during the lifetime of John Marmyon , and continued their possession for the lives of John Marmyon and Maud. Continues as 82+[2].