GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-03 > 1015249445
From: "Patricia Junkin" <>
Subject: Re: Eudo la Zouche
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:44:05 -0500
"In 1304 Roger la Zouch deceased held the manor of Lubbesthorpe of William
la Zouch by the service of the third part of a knight¹s fee; Roger la Zouch,
son and heir of the foresaid Roger was then aged 11 [b. 1268 or 1293]. IPM 7
Edw I " It is confusing.
Timothy Owston, herein copied, states: "Sir Roger la Zouche, died 1303 of
Lubesthorpe, in Leicester (given by Milicent de Monealto wife of Eudes la
Zouche and sister and heiress of George de Cantilupe)"...but Millicent was
dead in 1299 so it would seem that Millicent could only have given this
information at a 1272 IPM. Alan and Elena la Zouche had a son William who
was granted the manor of Black Torrington by his father and died before
1287, perhaps this is the IPM of this William la Zouche who may have died in
1272. I believe his son to be Almaric. But, since William de Cantilupe was
granted Lubbesthorpe in 1253, which William la Zouche acquired it and when?
I have not seen it mentioned among the possessions of Eudo and Millicent's
son William of Haryngsworth b. ca. 1277.
I need to research exactly how this is worded so as not to mislead further.
Roger la Zouch to grant a messuage, brushwood, land, and rent in
to a chaplain of the chapel of St. Peter there, retaining land. Leic.
30 EDWARD I. 
C 143/292/5 William la Zouche, late dean of the church of St. Peter, York,
and Roger la Zouche, knight, to grant rent in North Witham and Gunby to a
chaplain in the parish church of Clipsham. Lincoln. The same to grant
messuages and land in Lubbesthorpe to certain chaplains in the chapel of St.
Mary there, the said Roger retaining land and rent in Lubbesthorpe. Leic. 23
EDWARD III 
>From: "Chris Phillips" <>
>Subject: Re: Eudo la Zouche
>Date: Sun, Mar 3, 2002, 5:44 PM
> Patricia Junkin wrote:
>> WILLIIAM DE CANTILUPO IN 1253 GAINED LUBBESTHORPE. HE ALSO HELD EYTON ,
>> In 1304 Roger la Zouch deceased held the manor of Lubbesthorpe of William
>> Zouch by the service of the third part of a knight¹s fee; Roger la Zouch,
>> son and heir of the foresaid Roger was then aged 11 [b. 1268]. IPM 7 Edw I
>> Father is Roger b. pro. 1240-50 making it impossible for him to be the son
>> of Eudo and Millicent so how then could he have come to Lubesthorpe. Was
>> holding it of William, Eudo's son? If so, why?
> Thanks for the further information on the lands held by Millicent.
> I don't quite follow the bit above. Was Roger, the son of Roger 11 in 1304
> or in 7 Edward I? If 1304, the son would have been born 1293, and the father
> could just about have been a son of Millicent, although he would have had to
> been a father by about 15...
> Chris Phillips
|Re: Eudo la Zouche by "Patricia Junkin" <>|