GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-01 > 1201408494


From: Hickory <>
Subject: Re: Zouche-Ingham
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:34:54 -0800 (PST)
References: <mailman.2599.1201322787.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> <29248883-3caf-4127-9d90-80385297dadd@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <debe0f70-e9e7-4f5c-bda6-2bbc9c4a6394@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <8a18276a-5dda-4a2a-a811-cb85d40a0921@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <349caf5d-0089-446e-8acd-1ec878020893@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>


The case of the Archbishop was peripheral to my research, so it will
mean several hours at the Institute of Historical Research on either
Monday or Tuesday making sure I have my sources right. But I thought I
would provide a quick summary of relationships first.

First, indeed, the Archbishop William la Zouche had a brother Roger
who was William the first Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth's fourth son
and who did become Lord of Lubbesthorpe around 1326. He was not,
however, the first Roger la Zouche who was Lord of Lubbesthorpe. That
honor goes to a Roger la Zouche born around 1267 who was the son of
Eudo (also appearing variously in the records as Eon, Ivo, and John,
depending on the scribe and the part of England from which the records
originated) la Zouche and Millicent de Cantilupe (also written
Cantilow, etc., etc.). Millicent's first husband was John de Monte
Alto (also written as Mohaut, etc.) who died around 1265, leaving her
with a daughter Elizabeth who was later betrothed to Nicholas Poyntz,
son of Hugh de Poyntz. Millicent and Eudo's first child William, the
future Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth, would have been born in 1266.

In dealing with early medieval records, it is important to note that a
woman who had been married more than once or had property, for
whatever reason, under different family names, could be referred to in
legal documents at any time during her life by whatever name seemed to
best suit the occasion. This would apply to Millicent, as I have seen
it apply to many other medieval women, with her sometimes appearing
under one surname and sometimes under another.

At any rate, Millicent granted Lubbesthorpe to her second la Zouche
son Roger very shortly after his birth in 1267 with reversionary
rights to her own right heirs (i.e. Roger's older brother William).
This Roger passed away in 1302, leaving a son Roger and possibly one
or two others. His widow appears to have been a woman by the name of
Julia who later married Reginald (also written as Reynald) Mallory
(the spelling variations in this name are too various to make
illustration worthwhile) who was the lord of Walton on the Wold in
Leicestershire. Roger la Zouche, the nephew of the first Baron la
Zouche of Haryngworth, together with his cousin the first baron's
oldest son Eudo (Eon, Ivo, etc.) and his own brother Ralph had the
misfortune of becoming involved with the Folville brothers and
becoming outlawed as a result. The young men all fled England. The
baron's oldest son passed away shortly thereafter in Paris leaving an
infant (another William) who later became the second Baron la Zouche
of Haryngworth.

In becoming an outlaw and leaving the country without permission, the
first Baron's nephews were judged to have forfeited their properties
(Lubbesthorpe) in England and these properties were returned to the
right heir of the granter, their grandmother Millicent's oldest son
the first Baron who was legally unaffected by the Folville mess. By
this point, the first baron's second son William was already a member
of the clergy and was making a name for himself in the king's service.
The first Baron followed his mother's precedent by giving Lubbesthorpe
to the next available younger son, yet another Roger who seems to have
been particularly close to the future Archbishop.

The first Baron, by the way, had 10 recorded children, whose relative
ages to each other according to their sex can be known thanks to a
document in which the reversionary rights of each is specified. The
sons were Eudo (Eon), William, John, Roger, Thomas, another John, and
Edmund. The daughters were Millicent, married to William Deincourt,
Isabel and Thomasina. Isabel, in medieval documents, was sometimes
simply the Latin version of the English Elizabeth, though sometimes
the English name could also be Isabel. Thus, this particular Isabel
might be an Elizabeth in hiding. Thomasina would have been the
youngest daughter, though she may not have been a youngest child.
Other evidence would indicate that either Elizabeth or Thomasina was
the wife of the Anketill (again, many spelling variations as it was a
surprisingly common name for the times) Mallory mentioned in the
Archbishop's will and to whom the Archbishop gave at least part of the
Manor of Sudborough in Northamptonshire, most probably as a marriage
settlement. Considering that this particular Anketill would have most
likely been born between 1315 and 1320, it would seem that the
youngest of the first baron's daughters Thomasina rather than
Elizabeth was his wife, though there is no way I know of at present to
prove this. The daughter of this marriage was Ala (also spelled Ela,
etc.) Mallory who brought Sudborough to her husband Thomas Greene, by
whom she became an ancestress of Catherine Parr. The son of this
marriage would seem to have been the Anketill Mallory who married
Alice de Driby as her third husband.

Going back to the Archbishop's brother, Roger of Lubbesthorpe, he had
a son William who inherited the Lubbesthorpe property. The
Archbishop's cousins, Roger and Ralph disappear completely from
Leicestershire records and, not being even peripherally important to
my research, I haven't tried to locate them elsewhere. Likewise, I
haven't tried to research the connection between William la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe and the eventual heirs to the property, i.e. Sir
Marmaduke Constable, Robert St. Andrew, and Thomas Assheby.

I'm running out of time in England before my sabbatical finishes and I
have to go back to Japan, so I don't have the heart to go through all
my notes to source every detail I have written when other research is
begging to be done, but unlike some of my other work, nothing here is
based on manuscript sources. Everything should be available in any
good library possessing a full collection of the published works of
Her Majesty's Stationary Office. I will try to come back in two or
three days, though, with the sources for the Archbishop, as that seems
to have attracted people's attention and should not take up too much
time for me to reconfirm.

This thread: