Please note that many of the
dates are estimated.
1. Margery de Neville (c. 1242-1279)
At the time of the death of
Alexander, son of Alexander de Neville in 1252, his sister Margery was in the
custody of her mother Mateleon [1]. Some
time before 1258 (based on the age of her son), she married Nicholas de
Neville.
Exactly who Nicholas de Neville
was is a matter of conjecture. Some sources state that he was the son of a
Roger de Neville of Kings Walden, Hertfordshire. The only source which I can
find for the Kings Walden branch of the Nevilles, does not mention Roger or
Nicholas and traces their descent from a Walter de Neville, said to be a
younger brother of Alexander de Neville (I) of Redbourne [2]. In
which case, Margery married her first or second cousin which seems unlikely. It
is quite possible that Nicholas was not a Neville at all and that he adopted
his wife’s name. In a grant of a toft and croft in Redbourne to Selby abbey he
describes himself as “Nicholaus de Neuill' de Redburne filius Rogeri de
Redburne”. He says that he held this property by the gift of William son of
Alexander de Redburne, who I think was quite probably his relative [3].
Margery de Neville died before
1280-1, when a jury at an enquiry in Manley wapentake, Lincolnshire found that
Alexander de Neville's barony had been divided between five sisters. Two of the
sisters were dead at the time of the hearing and their fifths were held by
their husbands and sons, Nicholas de Neville and his son Roger, and John de
Heton and his son Thomas. The other three sisters were also married but still
living; Julian was married to Ingram Folenfaunt, Cecily to Adam de Neufmarché,
and Ellen to Henry le Tyas[4].
Nicholas de Neville (or perhaps
de Redburne) died before 14 April 1285. His inquisition post mortem found that
he held a fifth part of the barony of Redbourne by knight’s service and that he
also held two [fifth] parts of Ingram Folenfaunt and Henry le Tyas and their
wives, parceners of the same barony, by exchange of lands in Yorkshire which
are not held of the king [5].The
capital messuage in Redbourne was stated to be “not built”, which presumably
means that it was in ruins and Nicholas had been living in a cottage worth 12d.
per year.
2. Roger de Neville (I) (c. 1259-1322)
Nicholas de Neville was succeeded
by his eldest son Roger who was aged 26 at the date of his father’s inquisition
post mortem. He married Beatrice. He died shortly before 5 March 1322, aged
about 64 [6].
3. Roger de Neville (II) (c. 1290-1357)
Roger de Neville
(I) was succeeded by his son Roger de Neville (II), said to be aged 30 and more
at his father’s inquisition post mortem. On 10 April 1322, the escheator beyond
Trent was ordered to deliver to Roger de Neville of Redbourne, son and heir of
Roger de Neville of Redbourne, tenant in chief, the lands late of his said
father, he having done homage; saving to Beatrice late the wife of Roger her
dower [7]. In
1329, he and his wife Margaret bought property in Searby, Lincolnshire [8].
Roger died on 24 June 1357, aged about 67 [9].
Roger and his wife Margaret
had three children; Peter, Philippa and Beatrice.
4. Peter de Neville (c1331-1366)
Roger de Neville
(II) was succeeded by his son Peter de Neville, said to be aged 26 at his
father’s inquisition post mortem. He married Constance. He died on 4 June 1366,
leaving a son and heir Roger, aged 3 [10].
Constance survived her husband and was still living in 1410 (see i.p.m. of
Gerard Sothill).
5. Roger de Neville (III) (c1363-1369)
Roger de Neville,
the infant son of Peter de Neville died on 9 September 1369. His heirs were
John de Neville, aged 28, son of his father’s sister Philippa, and Philippa’s
sister Beatrice, wife of John de Beckingham, aged 36 [11].
4. Philippa de Neville (c. 1325 – bef. 1361)
Philippa, eldest sister
of Peter de Neville married Thomas de Neville of Faldingworth and Snitterby,
Lincolnshire. Thomas de Neville died on 12 November 1361, leaving a son and
heir John, aged 20 [12].
Philippa must have died some time before Thomas because on 10 July 1362, the
escheator was ordered to take an oath of Isabel who was wife of Thomas de
Neville of Snitterby, tenant in chief that she will not marry without the
king's licence, and to cause dower to be assigned her [13].
4. Beatrice de Neville (c. 1333- aft. 1374)
Beatrice, younger
sister of Peter de Neville was married to John de Beckingham at the time of her
nephew’s death in 1369. There is no evidence that she had any previous
husband(s) (although see below for a possibility).
The Manor of Redbourne and the Sothills
After the death of
Roger de Neville (III) in 1369, the manor of Redbourne was divided between John
de Neville of Faldingworth and Beatrice de Neville and her husband John de
Beckingham. On 15 November 1370, John de Beckingham had licence from the king for
John de Neville of Faldingworth to grant to him and Beatrice, his wife, and his
heirs, a moiety of the manor of Redbourne, said to be held in chief [14].
So now the Beckinghams were holding both parts of the manor.
On 10 May 1371,
John de Beckingham and Beatrice his wife, had licence from the king to grant
two parts of the manor of Redbourne, held in chief, and the reversion of a third
part of the manor expectant on the demise of Constance, late the wife of Peter
de Neville, to Gerard de Sothill and Robert, his brother, and the heirs of
Gerard [15].
This transfer was finalized by a fine in 1374 [16].
So why did the
Beckinghams grant the manor to Gerard de Sothill and his heirs and was there a
connection between the families of Neville and Sothill? Interesting questions
which have been debated here before without reaching any conclusions.
So at the risk of
opening another can of red herrings, I will hazard
a guess. I think that the answer to these questions could be found by looking
for the identity of Joan the (second?) wife of Gerard Sothill. In 1432, the lay
subsidy roll for Lincolnshire records that Joan, widow of Gerard Sothill,
knight, was seized of the manor of Wasselyns in Redbourne [17]. This
was not the Neville manor in Redbourne, but another manor in the parish which
had been held by the family of Wasselyn or Wascelin, since at least early in
the thirteenth century. This suggests that Joan may have been a Wascelin or had
been married to one. The Nevilles and Wascelins had been neighbours in
Redbourne for a couple of centuries and it is not unlikely that the two
families had intermarried. Was Beatrice previously married to a Wascelin? Did
Beatrice give the manor to her daughter or grand-daughter Joan?
This is all speculation of
course, but it may be a part of the answer. There again, it may have just been
a straightforward property sale.
No comments:
Post a Comment