Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1025671042

From: "Rosie Bevan" <>
Subject: Re: Another puzzle: Faucomberge and Felton
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:37:22 +1200
References: <000b01c22151$299cba80$540286d9@oemcomputer>

Dear Chris

I am beginning to wonder whether Eustantia and Constantia are actually the
same person. The letters of the names would look very similar in
contemporary handwriting and I am wondering whether there has been a
transcription error somewhere along the line. It doesn't make an awful lot
of sense for John to have named his daughter after his father's first wife.

1.William de Felton (c.1260-aft 1316)
+ Constance de Pontop (1263 - d.c.1291) da. and coh. of Thomas Pontop or
Punthop (IPM 49 Hen III 1265)
+ Eustantia
2. Sir William Felton c 1299-1358
+ Miss de Grey c.1310-c.1338
4. William de Felton b. c 1330 d.1367
5.Thomas de Felton d.s.p.bef 1367
2.Sir William Felton married secondly
+ Isabella of Fife (see Doug Richardson's post 23 Mar 2002 )
3.Sir John Felton.d.1396
2.John de Felton
2. Alice
2. Eleanor

I agree that the chronology indicates that the Constance who married Thomas
Fauconberge was from a later generation. I would put her birth 1340 onwards
and think it unlikely she was the one named in the settlement prior to 1328.

There appears to be another family of Feltons in Northumberland. A William
de Felton was a juror in the proof of age of Thomas son and heir of John de
Trewyk in 1370. He is stated to be 43 years of age and in his statement said
that he had a son buried in the churchyard at Lamesley, Northumberland on
the day that Thomas Trewyk was baptised.[CIPM v.XIII ; no.61]

(It seems to have been a busy day for the village priest on that day for 3
of the 12 witnesses had family members buried that day, 3 had children
baptised and another was married on that day.)

In 1442 there was a William and John Felton of Kildale, Yorks. John de
Felton was awarded the wardship of the Percy of Kildale estates on the death
of John Percy in 1442. The son and heir, John Percy was a minor aged 10.[VCH
North Riding of Yorkshire v.2 p. 251; The Guisborough Cartulary v.1p.229n].

I think we need to continue searching for answers.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Another puzzle: Faucomberge and Felton

> I wrote:
> > Looking at the account of Fauconberge in the Complete Peerage (vol.5,
> > pp.271-281), there is indeed a Fauconberge who married in or before 1366
> > Felton heiress, and had a son John, who would have been living in 1403.
> But
> > it's Thomas Faucomberge marrying Constance Felton, not Walter
> > marrying Joan Felton.
> >
> > CP says this Constance was "da. and h., most probably of John de Felton
> (yr.
> > br. of Sir William de Felton, of Edlingham, Northumberland)". One of the
> > feoffees for the marriage settlement was John de Felton, chivaler; in
> > will Constance appoints Edmund Hastynges and his wife Elizabeth as
> > coexecutors (Elizabeth being a daughter of Sir John de Felton (d.1396)).
> In
> > support of its identification of Constance's parentage CP says that her
> will
> > makes it clear she was of the family of Felton of Edlingham, "who are,
> > moreover, known to have been cousins of the King, and there seems little
> > doubt that she was the Constance who is mentioned as da. of this John de
> > Felton (Coram Rege, Trin. 43 Edw. III, m.22)".
> ...
> > The pedigree in the History of Northumberland. vol.7, does indeed show a
> > John as younger brother of William de Felton (d. 1358), citing the same
> > Coram Rege reference, and gives him a daughter Constance. On the other
> hand,
> > if there was such a John, it seems odd that the settlement of the Felton
> > lands in 1316 is on William (the father of William who d. 1358), with
> > remainder to William (d. 1358) and the heirs of his body, with
> > remainders to Robert de la Vale and Alice his wife and her heirs, and
> > de Fenwyke and Eleanor his wife and her heirs male, with final remainder
> to
> > the right heirs of the elder William. If the elder William did have a
> > John, this would pointedly pass over him in favour of his sisters Alice
> and
> > Eleanor.
> Looking at my copies of Felton inquisitions post mortem, I've just noticed
> that the relevant plea coram rege is recited in documents associated with
> the inquisition of William de Felton (d. 1367), the son of William (d.
> 1358). This does state that William de Felton [the father of the William
> d. 1358] gave various lands by an undated charter to his son William, with
> various remainders, including one to Constance, the daughter of John de
> Felton, his son, and her male heirs.
> So William de Felton did have a brother John, who had a daughter
> But as far as I can see, it's actually quite unlikely that this Constance
> the wife of Thomas Faucomberge. The William de Felton who made the grant
> apparently dead by May 1328 [History of Northumberland, vol.7, p.121]. The
> terms of the grant suggest that his John was dead by this time, leaving
> a daughter Constance.
> But according to CP vol.5, pp.276-281, the Thomas Faucomberge who married
> Constance was born in 1345, and married her "before 17 November 1366". The
> John de Felton who appears as a Faucomberge feoffee at this time is
> presumably the one who d. 1396 (younger son of William d.1358), whose
> daughter Elizabeth was an executor of Constance Faucomberge.
> The chronology seems to place Constance in the same generation as John (d.
> 1396). I can't help coming back to that inquisition post mortem of John's
> son (d. 1403), which says that John (d. 1396) had a sister who married a
> Faucomberge, and who died before 1403 leaving a son John Faucomberge aged
> about 30 - all of which would fit Constance the wife of Thomas
> But the inquisition calls her Joan, not Constance, and calls her husband
> Walter, not Thomas, Faucomberge.
> It's tempting to think that the jurors made an error over the names,
> obviously there would have to be good evidence to accept that explanation.
> (NB It can't be just a question of - for example - two sisters marrying
> brothers, as Constance's son John was certainly alive in 1403 and on that
> hypothesis he should have been a coheir of his cousin John de Felton,
> with John the son of "Walter and Joan".)
> Chris Phillips

This thread: