On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 2:30:45 am UTC+10, Richard Ebdon wrote:

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 14:49:13 UTC+1, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 4:16:18 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:

Something else to throw into the mix. Watson views there being two Mauds de Nerford, one the daughter of William de Nerford and mistress of Earl John, and the other the daughter of Richard de Skeyton. However, here I find the mistress called "widow

of William de Nerford". Maybe Watson's basis for there being two Mauds is an error in the relationship of Maud to William - the daughter of Richard de Skeyton and the widow of William de Nerford could indeed have been the same woman.

Roy Martin Haines, King Edward II: His Life, His Reign, and Its Aftermath, 1284-1330, p. 406, note 79:
"Select Cases before the King's Council 1243-1482, pp. lxvi-lxix, 27-33 (MS Holkham Misc. 29, fos. 229r-31r) Matilda de Neyrford, widow of Sir WIlliam de Neyrford, was Warenne's mistess, and a case of divorce with her as 'actric' had been brought

into the court of the archdeacon of Norfolk 'in dedecus ipsius domini regis manifestum er contemptum.' . . ."

taf

I have to preface this by the fact that I write as a genealogist and not an accomplished historian as many of you are, but the descendants of Warenne are a subject near and dear to my heart as my father's mother was
Warren who descends from the Poynton Warennes through Humphrey Warren of Virginia.

With this in mind, quite by accident I discovered a history describing the provenance of Skeyton Hall which states in part "...In 1315 Sir Ralf de Skeyton was lord and patron, who in 1321 released to Alice Bretoun and her heirs, and to Robert Brian

of Felmingham and Hawise his wife, and their heirs, all his claim in the homages, services, and customs which they formerly held of Sir Ralf, and Sara his mother, in Felmingham and Skeyton; he sealed with Vair erm. and sab. a bend. Felicia his widow was
alive in 1358, but in 1323 Sir Ralf settled it, with Boton, on himself and Maud de Nerford, and her sons, as in Boton, and in 1345 Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then widow of Hautein, her second husband, released all right to the said Maud...."

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Skeyton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 359-364. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/

vol6/pp359-364 located online at: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364#anchorn5

While I fought against this theory for some time, I must agree with taf in that there does appear to have been two contemporary Mauds de Nerford associated with the earls Warenne. What their relationship to each other may have been remains a question

to be ferreted out.

~Gail

I think it has already been stated above that this was a mis-reading: "Unfortunately, I think this must be a mis-reading. The select cases (p 28) makes it clear that the Earl's mistress is "[Matilda] de Neyrford filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford militis defuncti" (daughter of the late William de Nerford, knight,

deceased), so I don't know the reference to her being Sir William's widow has arisen here. In any case, the widow of the only Sir William de Nerford I am aware of, was the well-attested Petronilla, heiress of the Vaux family."

There was only one contemporary Maud de Nerford who was associated with the Earl. And this was the Maud who was daughter of William de Nerford:

"On 8 March 1315 Maud was described as "Maud of Neyrford, daughter of the former William of Neyrford Knight, deceased, of the diocese of Norwich."[25][b] This description occurred during a notice delivered by "Robert, called of the chapel of Jackesle,

a clerk of the diocese of Lincoln," to Joan of Bar that she was cited to appear before Thomas Gerdeston, the Archdeacon of Norfolk or his commissary to answer in a case of matrimony and divorce between herself and John de Warenne. This case was brought
by Maud herself. However, the notice was read out to Joan while she was in the crypt of Saint Stephen's in Westminster and attending to the queen, which was forbidden. And so Robert was sent to the Tower of London, and Thomas Gerdeston was ordered to
appear at the next parliament.[28] Maud had petitioned for the divorce of Warenne and his wife Joan on the basis that she had been precontracted to be married to John.

[25]. "1315. Rex v. Gerdeston". Leadam, I. S: Baldwin, J.F. (1918). Select cases before the King's Council, 1243-1482.Selden Society.p.29.
https://archive.org/details/selectcasesbefo00grea/page/n181/mode/2up
[b]. Maud's father had died in 1302, and in his inquisition post mortem named Petronilla his wife, as heir.[26] Maud's father William de Nerford (or Narford) was lord of the manor of Narford in Norfolk, and became a Knight by 1277. His wife Petronilla

was a daughter of Sir John de Vaux. Petronilla divided her estate in the 16th year of the reign of Edward I, between herself and her sister Maud, then the wife of William de Roos or Roose. Petronilla's sister was assigned the lordships of Thirston and
Shotesham, and a moiety of those of Holt, Cley juxta Mare, and Houghton by Walsingham, with many knights fees in Norfolk and Suffolk. Petronilla was lady of the manor of Narford in 1315. She died in 1326 and was buried in the priory of Petney, nearby to
Narford. Maud de Nerford/ Narford's brothers were Sir John, Sir Thomas and Edmund. Edmund died in 1330 without issue.[27]

[26]. "Inquisitions Post Mortem, Edward I, File 106: 114. WILLIAM DE NEYRFORD alias DE NERFORD". Sharp, J.E.E.S: Stamp, A.E.(1913).Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem: Volume 4, Edward I. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.p.76.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387820/page/n123/mode/2up
[27]. "The Manor of Narford, Alias Oldhall". Blomefield, F. (1807). 'Hundred of South Greenhoe: Narford', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6. London.pp.229-231.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1." -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Warenne,_7th_Earl_of_Surrey

Something (possibly or possibly not) relevant to the above and might be added to note [b] is that Maud de Nerford also appears to have had a sister named Felicia:
"What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?
See CP vol. 9 p. 469 note (k):

"Besides his 2 elder sons [John (died 5 Feb 1328/29) and Thomas (died 14 May 1344)], who suc. him in turn, he [William de Nerford (died 12 June/9 July 1302)] left issue Piers, Edmund, Felicie, and Maud (Parl. Writs; Rye, Norfolk Fines, p. 172; Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vii, no. 350 ; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 5, 401; Her. and Gen., vol. vii, pp. 215-218)." -

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hu1M9_JmbtA/m/OPJdEcK6pmkJ
Page 5 here mentions Felicia, daughter of William de Narford and a moiety of an acre of land in Raynham, Norfolk (around 28 miles from Skeyton). Dated 20th of July 1313. -
https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/4/mode/2up?q=Felicia

Page 223 - The Earl granting his manor at "Sadeliscombe", Sussex, to Thomas de Nerford for his life. February the 22nd 1315. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/222/mode/2up?q=Felicia Other listings of Maud's siblings with reference to the earl:
Page 481 of the same books describes John de Warren, the earl of Surrey granting to Edmund de Nerford and his heirs the reversion of a messuage, 2 carucates(?) of land, 24 acres of meadow and 10 marks of rent. 12th of June 1316. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/480/mode/2up?q=Felicia

The same book again from page 653: The Sirs John and Thomas de Nerford witnessed a Charter in 1317 by John de Warren. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/652/mode/2up?q=Felicia Thank you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 6:35:47 PM UTC-7, macken...@gmail.com wrote:

3. The remainders are somewhat strange. The primary remainder is to Maltida de Nerford
and her heirs of her body. The secondary remainder is then to Ralph and Edward the sons
of said Maltida. It raises the question why was this secondary remainder was needed.
From a purely legalistic viewpoint there may have been doubts on whether Ralph and
Edward were legitimate heirs of their Mother [stepsons or bastards?]. Thus the need for
the secondary remainder.

It would be unusual, in my experience, to call step-sons 'son' in such a context. Too many family members looking to challenge to leave anything to change by stating the relationships imprecisely. When I have seen step-relatives in fines, they have been
descibed in a manner that was accurate, even if this did not link them to the primary beneficiary (e.g. naming them as sons of the father, without reference to them being Matilda's step-sons). This would seem to represent Ralph and Edward as biological
sons of Matilda, and yet not the heirs of her body, which seemingly describes illegitimacy.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I noticed the interest in Maud Nerford. Here are some relevant translations of Norfolk Feet of Fines with references to the originals on AALT.

NORFOLK

FEET OF FINE

This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister two weeks from the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the 17th year of the reign of our lord king Edward son of king Edward before William de Bereford, John de Mutford,
William de Herle, John de Boussier, William de [illegible], Geoffrey le Scrope Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time, between Ralph de Skegeton querent and Oliver de Reedham and Richard de Drengeston parson of the church
of Skegeton deforciants concerning the manors of Skegeton and Boton with appurtenances and the advowson of the church of the same manors where a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely that said Ralph acknowledges said manors
with appurtenances and said advowson is the right of the same Oliver, which the same Oliver and Richard have of the gift of said Ralph Skegeton and for this acknowledgement, agreement and fine, the same Oliver and Richard grant said Ralph said manors
with appurtenances with said advowson and that they have surrendered it to him in the same court. The same Ralph and heirs of his body are to have and hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in
perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs procreated of his body then after the death of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and the aforesaid advowson are to remain wholly to Maltida de Nerford and heirs
of her body so procreated to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Maltida should die without heirs of her body so procreated then after the
decease of said Maltida said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Ralph son of the same Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by
service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs of his body so procreated then after the decease of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Edward son of said
Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen the same Edward should die without heirs of his body so procreated then
after the decease of said Edward said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to the right heirs of said Ralph Skegeton to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in
perpetuity.


The King app. Clam.;
David de Strabolgy, Com. Atthi (Earl of Athol) app. Clam.;
Philip son of Robert de Baldeswell of Boton app. Clam.;
Roger de Gyney and Margery his wife and William de Whytewell app. clam.; Richard  vicar of the church of Aylesham, Peter Skypping, Richard de Drenkeston, parson of the church of Skeyton, William Hauteyn and Alicia his wife, Henry de Walcote and Beatrix his wife, app. clam. ;
Richard son of Evorard de Thorton and Peter Waleys of Boton app. clam.

Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0518.htm

Comments on this Feet of Fine
1. There is no reference to the familial relationship if any between Ralph de Skegeton and Maltida de Nerford. It is common in such fines for the property to be granted to both husband and wife for life and then their heirs. In this case, she is most
unlikely to be the husband of Ralph Skegeton.
2. There is no mention of the Warren family.
3. The remainders are somewhat strange. The primary remainder is to Maltida de Nerford and her heirs of her body. The secondary remainder is then to Ralph and Edward the sons of said Maltida. It raises the question why was this secondary remainder was
needed. From a purely legalistic viewpoint there may have been doubts on whether Ralph and Edward were legitimate heirs of their Mother [stepsons or bastards?]. Thus the need for the secondary remainder.
4. There were many opposing claims made. The claim made by the king was settled on 1325 Sept. 16 by pardon to Maud de Nerford for acquiring in fee simple from Richard de Drencheston and Oliver de Redham a messuage, 43 acres and two parts of 5 bovates of
land, and a fourth part of a messuage in Causton, Boton, Brandeston, and Skeggeton, held in chief, as of the king's manors of Aylesham and Causton, as appears by inquisition made by John de Blomvill, escheator in the counties of Norfolk, &c., and
entering therein without licence, with restitution of the same. By fine of 5 marks. Norfolk. C.P. Edw. II Vol5 p. 173
5. It is remarkable that one of the trustees to this fine, a Richard de Drenkeston, parson of the church of Skeyton, also made an opposing Claim.



FEET OF FINE

This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister three weeks from Easter in the forty second year of the reign of king Edward third after the conquest before Robert de Thorpe, John Mowbray, William de Fynde Senior, William
de Wichyngham, Justices and then fourteen days from Saint Mary in the reign of the same king Edward aforesaid granted and recorded before the same Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time between John Whyte querent and
William son of Edward Warrene knight deforciant of eighteen acres of land with appurtenances in Skeyton which Cecilia who was the wife of Edward Warrene held for life whence a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely the
aforesaid William acknowledged the said land with appurtenances to be the right of the same John and he granted for himself and his heirs that said land with appurtenances which said Cecilia holds for life of the heirs of said William in the said village
on the day this agreement was made and which after the death of the same Cecilia was to revert to said William and his heirs, are to remain wholly after the decease of said Cecilia to said John and his heirs to hold of the chief lords of the fee by the
services which pertain to the said land forever. And said William and his heirs warrant the aforesaid land with appurtenances to said John and his heirs against all men forever And for this acknowledgement grant warranty fine and agreement the said John
gives said William twenty marcs of silver.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 02:35:47 UTC+1, macken...@gmail.com wrote:

I noticed the interest in Maud Nerford. Here are some relevant translations of Norfolk Feet of Fines with references to the originals on AALT.

NORFOLK

FEET OF FINE

This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister two weeks from the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the 17th year of the reign of our lord king Edward son of king Edward before William de Bereford, John de Mutford,

William de Herle, John de Boussier, William de [illegible], Geoffrey le Scrope Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time, between Ralph de Skegeton querent and Oliver de Reedham and Richard de Drengeston parson of the church
of Skegeton deforciants concerning the manors of Skegeton and Boton with appurtenances and the advowson of the church of the same manors where a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely that said Ralph acknowledges said manors
with appurtenances and said advowson is the right of the same Oliver, which the same Oliver and Richard have of the gift of said Ralph Skegeton and for this acknowledgement, agreement and fine, the same Oliver and Richard grant said Ralph said manors
with appurtenances with said advowson and that they have surrendered it to him in the same court. The same Ralph and heirs of his body are to have and hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in
perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs procreated of his body then after the death of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and the aforesaid advowson are to remain wholly to Maltida de Nerford and heirs
of her body so procreated to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Maltida should die without heirs of her body so procreated then after the
decease of said Maltida said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Ralph son of the same Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by
service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs of his body so procreated then after the decease of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Edward son of said
Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen the same Edward should die without heirs of his body so procreated then
after the decease of said Edward said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to the right heirs of said Ralph Skegeton to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in
perpetuity.

The King app. Clam.;
David de Strabolgy, Com. Atthi (Earl of Athol) app. Clam.;
Philip son of Robert de Baldeswell of Boton app. Clam.;
Roger de Gyney and Margery his wife and William de Whytewell app. clam.; Richard vicar of the church of Aylesham, Peter Skypping, Richard de Drenkeston, parson of the church of Skeyton, William Hauteyn and Alicia his wife, Henry de Walcote and Beatrix his wife, app. clam. ;
Richard son of Evorard de Thorton and Peter Waleys of Boton app. clam.

Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0518.htm

Comments on this Feet of Fine
1. There is no reference to the familial relationship if any between Ralph de Skegeton and Maltida de Nerford. It is common in such fines for the property to be granted to both husband and wife for life and then their heirs. In this case, she is most

unlikely to be the husband of Ralph Skegeton.

According to Bloomfield, Ralph's widow was Felicia. From a comment copied and pasted on this page by Mark66j:

"Maud likely cannot be a widow of either Ralph de Skeyton, whose widow Felicia survived him according to Blomefield,..."

In 1346, Felicia held "Boton" (Booton, Norfolk) (of?) the heirs of Thomas de Nerford:

"Felicia de Skegton tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome de Nerford, et dicti heredes de domina de Clare, et dicta domina de rege, quod Augnes de Baldeswell et Willelmus de Thorp quondam tenuerunt - - - xx.s." -

Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de South Erpyngham: A.D. 1346". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. p.487. -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/487/mode/2up?view=theater

Sir Thomas de Nerford (Maud's brother), died in 1344. He was survived by his son and heir John de Nerford who was around eight or nine when his father died. He was also survived by his wife Alice. He held the manor of Saddlescombe at death jointly with
Alice his wife. In Norfolk, Sir Thomas held a moiety or part of the manors of Houghton, Holt, Cley, Panworth and Narford. -

Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Sharp, J.E.E.S (1913)."508. Thomas de Nerford, Knight (Chivaler)". In Calendar Of Inquisitions Post Mortem. Vol.VIII.Edward III. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.pp.360-361. -

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387861/page/n407/mode/2up

In 1346 Edward de Warren held two parts of a fee of lands in Skeyton in the hundred of South Erpingham, and Crostwick, Berton and Tibenham outside of this hundred of the heirs of Fulk Baniard which had formerly been held by John de Skeyton. -

"Edwardus de Warrenne, miles, tenet in Skegton in dicto hundredo, Crostweyt, Berton et Tybenham duas partes j. f. m. de heredibus Fulconis Baniard, et dicti heredes de domino rege, quod quondam fuit Johannis de Skegton xxvj.s. viij.d." -

Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de South Erpyngham: A.D. 1346". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. p.485. -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/485/mode/2up?view=theater&q=de+Warrenne

William de Whitwell also held part of Skeyton in 1346:

"Willelmus de Wytewell tenet in Skeyton terciam partem j. f. m. de heredibus Fulconis Bainard, et dicti heredes de domino rege, quod quondam fuit Johannis de Wytewell ...-.----- xiij.s. iiij.d." (p.486 of above book).

Edward de Warren is also mentioned in 1346 in the hundred of Laundich, with regards to Rougham and Fransham. From p.539 of above book:

"Johannes atte Grene et Johannes de Doune et percenarii tenent j. f. m. in RouGHAM, Fransham de Edwardo de Warrennia, et idem de heredibus Johannis de Gatesdene, et idem de comite Warrennie, unde Alicia Mareschal tenet quartam partem de Johanne Extraneo
et percenariis suis, et idem de predictis heredibus Johannis de Gatesden, et idem de comite Warrennie, et comes de rege, quod heres Willelmi le Boteler quondam tenuit." -



https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/538/mode/2up?view=theater

2. There is no mention of the Warren family.

Yes, it is of course true that there is no mention of the Warren family in the 1323/24 fine.
But I personally do not see this as a significant factor when considered in relation to prior and subsequent events to that date:

The Earl's mistress was Maud (would she have been named "Matilda" in Latin? https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/yUR5DGngc70 ) de Nerford. She was a daughter of "the former William of Neyrford Knight, deceased, of the diocese of Norwich."
-

Leadam, I. S: Baldwin, J.F. (1918) "1315. Rex v. Gerdeston". In Select cases before the King's Council, 1243-1482.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Selden Society. p.29. -
https://archive.org/details/selectcasesbefo00grea/page/n181/mode/2up

William de Nerford had died in 1302 and Petronilla his wife was his heir. (p.76 here):
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387820/page/n123/mode/2up

By 1320 the Earl had "expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his company." It is interesting (to me anyway) that John de Mutford is one of the names mentioned in the petition. I think it is very likely that this is the same person mentioned in the
1323/24 Fine. -

"Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his men given to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John le Claver at the suit of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be repealed, as these justices are of the fees and
robes of Lady de Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can to his people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at common law if it seems good to
him....
Nature of endorsement: [On face] John de Mutforde is to be one, and the commission is to stand.[None on dorse]." -

"Petitioners: John de Warenne, Earl Warenne. Reference: SC 8/87/4348". -

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9148890

"Lady de Nerford" mentioned above was Petronilla, widow of William de Nerford and mother of John and Maud named in the petition. Petronilla died in 1326 according to Bloomfield, and buried in Pentney Priory.(p.230 here:https://www.google.co.uk/books/
edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). Petronilla was also mother of Thomas (died in 1344 mentioned above), and Edmund:
John de Nerford died on 5 February in the 3rd year of the reign of Edward III (1328 or 1329). He held the manor of "Wysete" (Wissett) in Suffolk jointly with his wife Agnes, of the honour of Richmond. Thomas de Nerford, his brother was to become John's
heir after the death of Agnes, John's wife. The age of Thomas at the date of John de Nerford's inquisition was roughly estimated to be 30 years and more. (p.149 here):

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387853/page/n199/mode/2up?q=Narford

Edmund de Nerford, brother of Thomas, John and Maud had died by 17 February in the 5th year of Edward III's reign. Edmund held a moiety of the manor of "Hogstone" (Houghton) by Walsingham in Norfolk. He held this for life from a grant of Petronilla de
Nerford, his mother. His brother Thomas de Nerford, Knight, son of Petronilla was Edmund's heir. (p.255 here):

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387853/page/n305/mode/2up?q=Narford

The Earl's son Edward de Warren, held lands in Norfolk in 1346 (which indeed he did, see above). On 22 April 1346, the Earl asked the Chancellor for his son Edward to be excused from finding a man at-arms for his Norfolk lands before serving the King
abroad (at Crecy and/or Calais). p.248 here:

https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/270/mode/2up


We also know that the Earl had a son named Ralph de Warren/Warrenne:

"Ravlyn son of the Earl of Warenne" was named in a parliamentary petition by Ralph le Botiller (Butler) in 1334. -

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9209964

On the 20th of November 1338, John de Warren, Earl of Surrey had a licence to "grant a sixth part of the barony of Wich-Malbank to John de Gaydon and William de Blorton, in trust to grant the same to John Mautravers and Joan his wife, for life, with
remainder to Ralph de Warrenne, and Joan his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and, them failing, to the right heirs of the said Joan, wife of the aforesaid John Mautravers." "Warren- Warenna - Wareyn." Welsh Records: Recognizance Rolls Of Chester, (
p.508 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Ralph de Warrenne died without issue. - "Browning." Welsh Records: Recognizance Rolls Of Chester, (p.62 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

It is believed by P.W. Mackenzie, that Ralph died between 1342, and 1346 (because he was not named in the Feudal Aids of Norfolk in that year, but Edward was and held two parts of a fee of land in Skeyton).
He was also not named in the Earl's will in 1347, but Edward was.
Ralph's widow Joan, a daughter of Nicholas Percy, then married Peter de Brewes. Peter held the manor of Skeyton by October 1349. It has been presumed by Mackenzie that Peter held this on behalf of his wife Joan, as her dower from her first husband Ralph
de Warrenne.(p.17 "Review" here);

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf

By this date, Edward de Warren had died and he was named as the previous lord of the manor of Skeyton before Peter de Brewes. His wife named Cicely was still alive:

"(1349. October 20. Westminster). Commission of oyer and terminer to Richard de Kelleshull, Ralph de Bokkyngg, Robert Clere and John de Berneye, touching a complaint by
Peter de Brewes containing that, whereas he, in his manor of Skeyton,
co. Norfolk, which by a writing of Edward de Garrenne, late lord of that
manor, is bound to him in a rent of 10 marks for which he can distrain when in arrear, had taken certain cattle of Cecily late the wife of the said Edward by John Bryd and Richard de Chinham, his servants, for 5 marks of the rent in arrear, and the same
John and Richard would have impounded these, some evildoers rescued them and assaulted John and Richard and other of his men and servants, whereby he lost their service for a great time. By p.s" -

C.P.R. 1348–1350 (1905):451–452. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr06offigoog/page/n462/mode/2up

FEET OF FINE

This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister three weeks from Easter in the forty second year of the reign of king Edward third after the conquest before Robert de Thorpe, John Mowbray, William de Fynde Senior, William

de Wichyngham, Justices and then fourteen days from Saint Mary in the reign of the same king Edward aforesaid granted and recorded before the same Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time between John Whyte querent and
William son of Edward Warrene knight deforciant of eighteen acres of land with appurtenances in Skeyton which Cecilia who was the wife of Edward Warrene held for life whence a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely the
aforesaid William acknowledged the said land with appurtenances to be the right of the same John and he granted for himself and his heirs that said land with appurtenances which said Cecilia holds for life of the heirs of said William in the said village
on the day this agreement was made and which after the death of the same Cecilia was to revert to said William and his heirs, are to remain wholly after the decease of said Cecilia to said John and his heirs to hold of the chief lords of the fee by the
services which pertain to the said land forever. And said William and his heirs warrant the aforesaid land with appurtenances to said John and his heirs against all men forever And for this acknowledgement grant warranty fine and agreement the said John
gives said William twenty marcs of silver.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm

Some more:

Sir Edward de Warren's son John was named in the inquisition post mortem of Isabel de Stokeport in March 1370 . -

"...she died in the feast of St.Luke the Evangelist (October 18th), 43 Edward III (1369), and John, the son of Sir Edward Warren, Knt., is next of kin and next heir, namely son of a certain Cicely, sister of Robert de Stokeport, father of the said Sir
Richard de Stokeport, Knt., father of the said Isabella, and the said John is of the age of 26 years and more." (p.341 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?q=Bramhall&gbpv=1#f=false

On the 8th of March 1370 at Erpingham in Norfolk Sir Robert de Erpingham and his son Sir John, signed their names to a charter, along with Sir Robert de Salle and Sir John de Colby, all testifying that John de Warren was the next heir of Isabel, daughter
of Sir Richard de Stokeport (Richard's father Robert de Eton, brother of Cicely, became known as "de Stokeport") They testified that John was the son of Sir Edward de Warren and his mother was Cicely, a daughter of Nicholas de Eton, and John de Warren
was heir to Isabel because they both shared a common ancestor in Nicholas. ("Preface" p.clxxix here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Cronica_maiorum_et_vicecomitum_Londoniar/hicikUSheyYC?hl=en&gbpv=1

In the same year as Isabel's inquisition, John de Warren held "Bintre's Portion" of the adowson of Itteringham in Norfolk. His father Edward held this same portion of that adowson in 1348. (p.475):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

He married Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Stafford in 1371. John had been Knighted by 1379, and held the adowson of Skeyton that year presenting Roger de Schevesby as rector. (p.363 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

On the 1st of May 1382 at "Skegeton" (Skeyton in Norfolk), Sir John de Warren granted the Manor of Woodplumpton in Lancashire to John de Davenport. It can be viewed on p.47-48 here. It is from John's inquisitions relating to Woodplumpton after his death:

https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis00langgoog/page/n70/mode/2up

British History online, describes this dispute lasting after John had died until 1392:

" (19) Lancs. Inq. p.m. (Chet. Soc), i, 25, 34, 47. In 1382 Sir John de Warren had granted this manor to John de Davenport and others; after his death a dispute ensued between the Duke of Lancaster and these trustees as to the custody of the manor,
lasting from 1387 to 1392; Dep. Keeper's Rep. xl, App. 525." -


'Townships: Woodplumpton', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 7, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1912), pp. 284-291. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp284-291 [accessed 30 July 2021].

The Warren family soon received back this manor.

On 20 April 1383, Sir John de Warren was recorded in a writ of supersedeas by mainprise which involved Roger parson of Skeggton (Skeyton):
"To the sheriff of Norffolk. Writ of supersedeas, by mainprise of William de Snetesham, William de Basyngham and John de Beston of Norffolk and Roger de Blaby of Leycestershire, in favour of Roger parson of Skeggeton at suit of John de Warenne knight
averring threats." (p.306 here):

https://archive.org/details/calendarofclos02grea/page/306/mode/2up?view=theater

On the 19th of March 1386 Sir John de Warren witnessed a charter with Sir Thomas Erpingham, at Brandiston, just under two miles from Booton, Norfolk. (p.135 here):

https://archive.org/details/calendarofclo03grea/page/134/mode/2up?view=theater

Sir John de Warren died on the 25th of November 1386. (pp.25 - 26 here):

https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis00langgoog/page/n48/mode/2up

He was buried at Booton. (p.275 here):

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=317&skin=2021&q1=Sir%20Edward%20Warren

His widow Margaret married John Mainwaring of Over Peover, who was recorded as holding Booton and Skeyton in 1401. -

"Johannes Maynwaryn tenet in Skeggeton in dicto hundredo, Crostweyt Berton, et Tybenham extra dictum hundredum duas partes j. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Baniard, domini de Haddystoun, quod Johannes Stuclee tenet de comite Rutlandie, ut de jure uxoris
sue, et idem de rege, ut parcellam baronie vocate Baniardescastell." - (p.617 of "Feudal Aids" here):

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/617/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Maynwaryn

"Johannes Maynwaryn tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome de Nerford, et lidem heredes de herede comitis le Marchie {sic), et est infra etatem etc." - (p.618 of above book).

Also in this same year, Roger Boys, Henry Betelee, and Henry Lesyngham held land in Crostweyt (Crostwick) of the heirs of John de Warren. And land in Berton was held in 1401 of the heirs of John de Warren. (p.619 of above):

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/619/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Maynwaryn

John Mainwaring is likely to have been the same John Mainwaring that a writ was issued regarding his death in 1409 / 1410 dated March the 13th. It can be viewed here on page 319, of Volume 36 of The Deputy Keeper of The Public Records: Welsh Records:
Recognizance Rolls Of Chester. - https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

Lawrence de Warren was named as heir to his grandmother Margaret (widow of John Mainwaring, previously also widow of Sir John de Warren) in her inquisition of 1418. In that inquisition Lawrence's age was listed as 24 years and above. Margaret's
inquisition post mortem can be viewed here on page 131-132. -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

And then in 1428, from Feudal Aids Volume 3, pages 554 and 555: There was a "Lawrence Maynwaren" who held Skeyton, and Boton (Booton) in Norfolk:

"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Skeyton duas partes J. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Banyard, que nuper fuerunt Edwardi de Warenne."


"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome Narford, quod nuper fuit Felicia de Skeyton." -


https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/554/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Meynwaren

Was this actually Lawrence de Warren, great grandson of Sir Edward de Warren?

Scouring google books and the internet archive, I cannot find any reference to a Lawrence Mainwaring during this time at all. There are references to his step grandfather John Mainwaring. And also to a Randle and William Mainwaring. But no Lawrence
Mainwaring who was a Knight.

And from page 769 of this book, Lawrence le Warren had become a Knight by 1428:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/55QbAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

I suggest this also partly because the Skeyton/ Booton Norfolk link to the Warren's of Stockport and Poynton did not end there:

Sir Lawrence Warren died in 1444. His heir was John who died in 1474. This comes from "Warren of Poynton" tree, on page 286, of Earwaker's History of East Cheshire Volume 2. It can be viewed here on image page 328:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=328&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley

In 1473, John de Warren, lord of Skeyton presented Master Roger Davenport as Rector at Skeyton. -

"1473, Master Roger Davenport. John de Warren, lord of Skeyton." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Skeyton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 359-364. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/
pp359-364 [accessed 28 July 2021].

And then in 1529 we have this. -

"In 1529, Thomas Tropnel and others settled Boton and Skeyton manors on Lawrence Warren, Esq. and Sibil his wife; and in 1531 John Horseman kept his first court at Booton." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/
pp352-359 [accessed 21 July 2021].

Lawrence Warren, mentioned in the passage above, who held Boton and Skeyton manors in 1529, was the great grandson of the John Warren named as lord of Skeyton in 1473. His second wife was Sybil, widow of William Honford. This Lawrence died on the 18th of
September 1530. -

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=329&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 21:41:58 UTC+1, Richard Ebdon wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 02:35:47 UTC+1, macken...@gmail.com wrote:

I noticed the interest in Maud Nerford. Here are some relevant translations of Norfolk Feet of Fines with references to the originals on AALT.

NORFOLK

FEET OF FINE

This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister two weeks from the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the 17th year of the reign of our lord king Edward son of king Edward before William de Bereford, John de Mutford,

William de Herle, John de Boussier, William de [illegible], Geoffrey le Scrope Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time, between Ralph de Skegeton querent and Oliver de Reedham and Richard de Drengeston parson of the church
of Skegeton deforciants concerning the manors of Skegeton and Boton with appurtenances and the advowson of the church of the same manors where a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely that said Ralph acknowledges said manors
with appurtenances and said advowson is the right of the same Oliver, which the same Oliver and Richard have of the gift of said Ralph Skegeton and for this acknowledgement, agreement and fine, the same Oliver and Richard grant said Ralph said manors
with appurtenances with said advowson and that they have surrendered it to him in the same court. The same Ralph and heirs of his body are to have and hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in
perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs procreated of his body then after the death of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and the aforesaid advowson are to remain wholly to Maltida de Nerford and heirs
of her body so procreated to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Maltida should die without heirs of her body so procreated then after the
decease of said Maltida said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Ralph son of the same Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by
service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs of his body so procreated then after the decease of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Edward son of said
Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen the same Edward should die without heirs of his body so procreated then
after the decease of said Edward said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to the right heirs of said Ralph Skegeton to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in
perpetuity.

The King app. Clam.;
David de Strabolgy, Com. Atthi (Earl of Athol) app. Clam.;
Philip son of Robert de Baldeswell of Boton app. Clam.;
Roger de Gyney and Margery his wife and William de Whytewell app. clam.; Richard vicar of the church of Aylesham, Peter Skypping, Richard de Drenkeston, parson of the church of Skeyton, William Hauteyn and Alicia his wife, Henry de Walcote and Beatrix his wife, app. clam. ;
Richard son of Evorard de Thorton and Peter Waleys of Boton app. clam.

Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm
Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0518.htm

Comments on this Feet of Fine
1. There is no reference to the familial relationship if any between Ralph de Skegeton and Maltida de Nerford. It is common in such fines for the property to be granted to both husband and wife for life and then their heirs. In this case, she is most

unlikely to be the husband of Ralph Skegeton.

According to Bloomfield, Ralph's widow was Felicia. From a comment copied and pasted on this page by Mark66j:

"Maud likely cannot be a widow of either Ralph de Skeyton, whose widow Felicia survived him according to Blomefield,..."

In 1346, Felicia held "Boton" (Booton, Norfolk) (of?) the heirs of Thomas de Nerford:
"Felicia de Skegton tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome de Nerford, et dicti heredes de domina de Clare, et dicta domina de rege, quod Augnes de Baldeswell et Willelmus de Thorp quondam tenuerunt - - - xx.s." -
Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de South Erpyngham: A.D. 1346". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. p.487. -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/487/mode/2up?view=theater

Sir Thomas de Nerford (Maud's brother), died in 1344. He was survived by his son and heir John de Nerford who was around eight or nine when his father died. He was also survived by his wife Alice. He held the manor of Saddlescombe at death jointly with

Alice his wife. In Norfolk, Sir Thomas held a moiety or part of the manors of Houghton, Holt, Cley, Panworth and Narford. -

Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Sharp, J.E.E.S (1913)."508. Thomas de Nerford, Knight (Chivaler)". In Calendar Of Inquisitions Post Mortem. Vol.VIII.Edward III. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.pp.360-361. -

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387861/page/n407/mode/2up

In 1346 Edward de Warren held two parts of a fee of lands in Skeyton in the hundred of South Erpingham, and Crostwick, Berton and Tibenham outside of this hundred of the heirs of Fulk Baniard which had formerly been held by John de Skeyton. -

"Edwardus de Warrenne, miles, tenet in Skegton in dicto hundredo, Crostweyt, Berton et Tybenham duas partes j. f. m. de heredibus Fulconis Baniard, et dicti heredes de domino rege, quod quondam fuit Johannis de Skegton xxvj.s. viij.d." -

Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de South Erpyngham: A.D. 1346". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. p.485. -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/485/mode/2up?view=theater&q=de+Warrenne

William de Whitwell also held part of Skeyton in 1346:

"Willelmus de Wytewell tenet in Skeyton terciam partem j. f. m. de heredibus Fulconis Bainard, et dicti heredes de domino rege, quod quondam fuit Johannis de Wytewell ...-.----- xiij.s. iiij.d." (p.486 of above book).

Edward de Warren is also mentioned in 1346 in the hundred of Laundich, with regards to Rougham and Fransham. From p.539 of above book:

"Johannes atte Grene et Johannes de Doune et percenarii tenent j. f. m. in RouGHAM, Fransham de Edwardo de Warrennia, et idem de heredibus Johannis de Gatesdene, et idem de comite Warrennie, unde Alicia Mareschal tenet quartam partem de Johanne

Extraneo et percenariis suis, et idem de predictis heredibus Johannis de Gatesden, et idem de comite Warrennie, et comes de rege, quod heres Willelmi le Boteler quondam tenuit." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/538/mode/2up?view=theater

2. There is no mention of the Warren family.

Yes, it is of course true that there is no mention of the Warren family in the 1323/24 fine.
But I personally do not see this as a significant factor when considered in relation to prior and subsequent events to that date:

The Earl's mistress was Maud (would she have been named "Matilda" in Latin? https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/yUR5DGngc70 ) de Nerford. She was a daughter of "the former William of Neyrford Knight, deceased, of the diocese of Norwich.

" -

Leadam, I. S: Baldwin, J.F. (1918) "1315. Rex v. Gerdeston". In Select cases before the King's Council, 1243-1482.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Selden Society. p.29. -
https://archive.org/details/selectcasesbefo00grea/page/n181/mode/2up

William de Nerford had died in 1302 and Petronilla his wife was his heir. (p.76 here):
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387820/page/n123/mode/2up

By 1320 the Earl had "expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his company." It is interesting (to me anyway) that John de Mutford is one of the names mentioned in the petition. I think it is very likely that this is the same person mentioned in

the 1323/24 Fine. -

"Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his men given to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John le Claver at the suit of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be repealed, as these justices are of the fees and

robes of Lady de Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can to his people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at common law if it seems good to
him....

Nature of endorsement: [On face] John de Mutforde is to be one, and the commission is to stand.[None on dorse]." -

"Petitioners: John de Warenne, Earl Warenne. Reference: SC 8/87/4348". -

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9148890

"Lady de Nerford" mentioned above was Petronilla, widow of William de Nerford and mother of John and Maud named in the petition. Petronilla died in 1326 according to Bloomfield, and buried in Pentney Priory.(p.230 here:https://www.google.co.uk/books/

edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). Petronilla was also mother of Thomas (died in 1344 mentioned above), and Edmund:

John de Nerford died on 5 February in the 3rd year of the reign of Edward III (1328 or 1329). He held the manor of "Wysete" (Wissett) in Suffolk jointly with his wife Agnes, of the honour of Richmond. Thomas de Nerford, his brother was to become John's

heir after the death of Agnes, John's wife. The age of Thomas at the date of John de Nerford's inquisition was roughly estimated to be 30 years and more. (p.149 here):

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387853/page/n199/mode/2up?q=Narford

Edmund de Nerford, brother of Thomas, John and Maud had died by 17 February in the 5th year of Edward III's reign. Edmund held a moiety of the manor of "Hogstone" (Houghton) by Walsingham in Norfolk. He held this for life from a grant of Petronilla de

Nerford, his mother. His brother Thomas de Nerford, Knight, son of Petronilla was Edmund's heir. (p.255 here):

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387853/page/n305/mode/2up?q=Narford

The Earl's son Edward de Warren, held lands in Norfolk in 1346 (which indeed he did, see above). On 22 April 1346, the Earl asked the Chancellor for his son Edward to be excused from finding a man at-arms for his Norfolk lands before serving the King

abroad (at Crecy and/or Calais). p.248 here:

https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/270/mode/2up

We also know that the Earl had a son named Ralph de Warren/Warrenne:

"Ravlyn son of the Earl of Warenne" was named in a parliamentary petition by Ralph le Botiller (Butler) in 1334. -

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9209964

On the 20th of November 1338, John de Warren, Earl of Surrey had a licence to "grant a sixth part of the barony of Wich-Malbank to John de Gaydon and William de Blorton, in trust to grant the same to John Mautravers and Joan his wife, for life, with

remainder to Ralph de Warrenne, and Joan his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and, them failing, to the right heirs of the said Joan, wife of the aforesaid John Mautravers." "Warren- Warenna - Wareyn." Welsh Records: Recognizance Rolls Of Chester, (p.
508 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Ralph de Warrenne died without issue. - "Browning." Welsh Records: Recognizance Rolls Of Chester, (p.62 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

It is believed by P.W. Mackenzie, that Ralph died between 1342, and 1346 (because he was not named in the Feudal Aids of Norfolk in that year, but Edward was and held two parts of a fee of land in Skeyton).
He was also not named in the Earl's will in 1347, but Edward was.
Ralph's widow Joan, a daughter of Nicholas Percy, then married Peter de Brewes. Peter held the manor of Skeyton by October 1349. It has been presumed by Mackenzie that Peter held this on behalf of his wife Joan, as her dower from her first husband

Ralph de Warrenne.(p.17 "Review" here);

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf

By this date, Edward de Warren had died and he was named as the previous lord of the manor of Skeyton before Peter de Brewes. His wife named Cicely was still alive:
"(1349. October 20. Westminster). Commission of oyer and terminer to Richard de Kelleshull, Ralph de Bokkyngg, Robert Clere and John de Berneye, touching a complaint by
Peter de Brewes containing that, whereas he, in his manor of Skeyton,
co. Norfolk, which by a writing of Edward de Garrenne, late lord of that manor, is bound to him in a rent of 10 marks for which he can distrain when in arrear, had taken certain cattle of Cecily late the wife of the said Edward by John Bryd and Richard de Chinham, his servants, for 5 marks of the rent in arrear, and the

same John and Richard would have impounded these, some evildoers rescued them and assaulted John and Richard and other of his men and servants, whereby he lost their service for a great time. By p.s" -

C.P.R. 1348–1350 (1905):451–452. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr06offigoog/page/n462/mode/2up

FEET OF FINE

This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister three weeks from Easter in the forty second year of the reign of king Edward third after the conquest before Robert de Thorpe, John Mowbray, William de Fynde Senior,

William de Wichyngham, Justices and then fourteen days from Saint Mary in the reign of the same king Edward aforesaid granted and recorded before the same Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time between John Whyte querent
and William son of Edward Warrene knight deforciant of eighteen acres of land with appurtenances in Skeyton which Cecilia who was the wife of Edward Warrene held for life whence a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely the
aforesaid William acknowledged the said land with appurtenances to be the right of the same John and he granted for himself and his heirs that said land with appurtenances which said Cecilia holds for life of the heirs of said William in the said village
on the day this agreement was made and which after the death of the same Cecilia was to revert to said William and his heirs, are to remain wholly after the decease of said Cecilia to said John and his heirs to hold of the chief lords of the fee by the
services which pertain to the said land forever. And said William and his heirs warrant the aforesaid land with appurtenances to said John and his heirs against all men forever And for this acknowledgement grant warranty fine and agreement the said John
gives said William twenty marcs of silver.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm

Some more:

Sir Edward de Warren's son John was named in the inquisition post mortem of Isabel de Stokeport in March 1370 . -

"...she died in the feast of St.Luke the Evangelist (October 18th), 43 Edward III (1369), and John, the son of Sir Edward Warren, Knt., is next of kin and next heir, namely son of a certain Cicely, sister of Robert de Stokeport, father of the said Sir

Richard de Stokeport, Knt., father of the said Isabella, and the said John is of the age of 26 years and more." (p.341 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?q=Bramhall&gbpv=1#f=false

On the 8th of March 1370 at Erpingham in Norfolk Sir Robert de Erpingham and his son Sir John, signed their names to a charter, along with Sir Robert de Salle and Sir John de Colby, all testifying that John de Warren was the next heir of Isabel,

daughter of Sir Richard de Stokeport (Richard's father Robert de Eton, brother of Cicely, became known as "de Stokeport") They testified that John was the son of Sir Edward de Warren and his mother was Cicely, a daughter of Nicholas de Eton, and John de
Warren was heir to Isabel because they both shared a common ancestor in Nicholas. ("Preface" p.clxxix here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Cronica_maiorum_et_vicecomitum_Londoniar/hicikUSheyYC?hl=en&gbpv=1

In the same year as Isabel's inquisition, John de Warren held "Bintre's Portion" of the adowson of Itteringham in Norfolk. His father Edward held this same portion of that adowson in 1348. (p.475):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

He married Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Stafford in 1371. John had been Knighted by 1379, and held the adowson of Skeyton that year presenting Roger de Schevesby as rector. (p.363 here):

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

On the 1st of May 1382 at "Skegeton" (Skeyton in Norfolk), Sir John de Warren granted the Manor of Woodplumpton in Lancashire to John de Davenport. It can be viewed on p.47-48 here. It is from John's inquisitions relating to Woodplumpton after his

death:

https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis00langgoog/page/n70/mode/2up

British History online, describes this dispute lasting after John had died until 1392:

" (19) Lancs. Inq. p.m. (Chet. Soc), i, 25, 34, 47. In 1382 Sir John de Warren had granted this manor to John de Davenport and others; after his death a dispute ensued between the Duke of Lancaster and these trustees as to the custody of the manor,

lasting from 1387 to 1392; Dep. Keeper's Rep. xl, App. 525." -

'Townships: Woodplumpton', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 7, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1912), pp. 284-291. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp284-291 [accessed 30 July 2021].

The Warren family soon received back this manor.
On 20 April 1383, Sir John de Warren was recorded in a writ of supersedeas by mainprise which involved Roger parson of Skeggton (Skeyton):
"To the sheriff of Norffolk. Writ of supersedeas, by mainprise of William de Snetesham, William de Basyngham and John de Beston of Norffolk and Roger de Blaby of Leycestershire, in favour of Roger parson of Skeggeton at suit of John de Warenne knight

averring threats." (p.306 here):

https://archive.org/details/calendarofclos02grea/page/306/mode/2up?view=theater

On the 19th of March 1386 Sir John de Warren witnessed a charter with Sir Thomas Erpingham, at Brandiston, just under two miles from Booton, Norfolk. (p.135 here):

https://archive.org/details/calendarofclo03grea/page/134/mode/2up?view=theater

Sir John de Warren died on the 25th of November 1386. (pp.25 - 26 here):

https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis00langgoog/page/n48/mode/2up

He was buried at Booton. (p.275 here):

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=317&skin=2021&q1=Sir%20Edward%20Warren

His widow Margaret married John Mainwaring of Over Peover, who was recorded as holding Booton and Skeyton in 1401. -

"Johannes Maynwaryn tenet in Skeggeton in dicto hundredo, Crostweyt Berton, et Tybenham extra dictum hundredum duas partes j. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Baniard, domini de Haddystoun, quod Johannes Stuclee tenet de comite Rutlandie, ut de jure uxoris

sue, et idem de rege, ut parcellam baronie vocate Baniardescastell." - (p.617 of "Feudal Aids" here):

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/617/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Maynwaryn

"Johannes Maynwaryn tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome de Nerford, et lidem heredes de herede comitis le Marchie {sic), et est infra etatem etc." - (p.618 of above book).

Also in this same year, Roger Boys, Henry Betelee, and Henry Lesyngham held land in Crostweyt (Crostwick) of the heirs of John de Warren. And land in Berton was held in 1401 of the heirs of John de Warren. (p.619 of above):

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/619/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Maynwaryn

John Mainwaring is likely to have been the same John Mainwaring that a writ was issued regarding his death in 1409 / 1410 dated March the 13th. It can be viewed here on page 319, of Volume 36 of The Deputy Keeper of The Public Records: Welsh Records:

Recognizance Rolls Of Chester. -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

Lawrence de Warren was named as heir to his grandmother Margaret (widow of John Mainwaring, previously also widow of Sir John de Warren) in her inquisition of 1418. In that inquisition Lawrence's age was listed as 24 years and above. Margaret's

inquisition post mortem can be viewed here on page 131-132. -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

And then in 1428, from Feudal Aids Volume 3, pages 554 and 555: There was a "Lawrence Maynwaren" who held Skeyton, and Boton (Booton) in Norfolk:

"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Skeyton duas partes J. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Banyard, que nuper fuerunt Edwardi de Warenne."

"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome Narford, quod nuper fuit Felicia de Skeyton." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/554/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Meynwaren

Was this actually Lawrence de Warren, great grandson of Sir Edward de Warren?

Scouring google books and the internet archive, I cannot find any reference to a Lawrence Mainwaring during this time at all. There are references to his step grandfather John Mainwaring. And also to a Randle and William Mainwaring. But no Lawrence

Mainwaring who was a Knight.

And from page 769 of this book, Lawrence le Warren had become a Knight by 1428:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/55QbAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

I suggest this also partly because the Skeyton/ Booton Norfolk link to the Warren's of Stockport and Poynton did not end there:
Sir Lawrence Warren died in 1444. His heir was John who died in 1474. This comes from "Warren of Poynton" tree, on page 286, of Earwaker's History of East Cheshire Volume 2. It can be viewed here on image page 328:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=328&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley
In 1473, John de Warren, lord of Skeyton presented Master Roger Davenport as Rector at Skeyton. -

"1473, Master Roger Davenport. John de Warren, lord of Skeyton." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Skeyton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 359-364. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/

vol6/pp359-364 [accessed 28 July 2021].

And then in 1529 we have this. -

"In 1529, Thomas Tropnel and others settled Boton and Skeyton manors on Lawrence Warren, Esq. and Sibil his wife; and in 1531 John Horseman kept his first court at Booton." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/

pp352-359 [accessed 21 July 2021].

Lawrence Warren, mentioned in the passage above, who held Boton and Skeyton manors in 1529, was the great grandson of the John Warren named as lord of Skeyton in 1473. His second wife was Sybil, widow of William Honford. This Lawrence died on the 18th

of September 1530. -

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=329&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley

Going back to the original fine, this section as taf as already stated, does state Ralph and Edward as biological sons of Matilda de Nerford, but not "heirs of her body so procreated" which indicates they were illegitimate:

"And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs procreated of his body then after the death of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and the aforesaid advowson are to remain wholly to Matilda de Nerford and heirs of her body
so procreated to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Matilda should die without heirs of her body so procreated then after the decease of said
Matilda said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Ralph son of the same Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in
perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs of his body so procreated then after the decease of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Edward son of said Matilda and
heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. "

As stated aboved, Ralph de Warren died without issue approximated sometime between 1342-46 by Mackenzie.
Maud de Nerford was dead by the 22nd of November 1345. (p.16 here):

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079307&view=1up&seq=34&skin=2021

And then in 1346, Ralph de Skeyton's widow (believed to be so by Bloomfield) Felicia, was still alive and held Booton or part of that. -
"Felicia de Skeyton held it in dower at half a fee, of Thomas de Nerford, who held it of the honour of Clare." -

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359

While Edward de Warren held two parts of a fee of Skeyton in 1346.

Although the identity of Felicia wife of Ralph de Skeyton is unknown, William de Nerford did have a daughter by this name. In 1313, "Felicia, daughter of William de Narford" was granted licence to acquire rents to a moiety of an acre of land in Raynham,
Norfolk which is nearby to Narford. (p.5 here):

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/4/mode/2up?q=Felicia

Again, according to Bloomfield this Felicia was still alive in 1358. -

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364

Thank you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)