Robert Blake Follow

A SECOND CORRECTION: ( A major re-write, hoping that I finally have it all right now!) Peter, Will, and Group, Many thanks for your inputs. Peter, You are absolutely correct about the arms of Sir Robert de Ros; I was depending on my memory; I should have known better! Gules and Argent is correct. I do apologize. Will, Thanks for your inputs; have now reviewed all the relevant pages in the CPR, and have found the reference, which does indicate that John de Kirketon had died by 3 Edward III (1329-30) (ref.: Cal. Pat. Rolls, 21 Edward III, Part II, Vol.,7, p.326) which states: "...that one John de Kirketon in Hoyland was seized of the manor (of Sibethorpe) and that after his death without heirs to himself the same descended to his sisters, Margaret...., Alice...., and Joan..... " "..., on 3 Edward III (1329-30), the said John son of Ralph Chaumpeneys and Margaret, his wife, acknowledged....", an event which presumably could only have taken place after John de Kirketon's death. This all relates to the cases pertaining to the wind-up of Sibthorpe Manor, as related in "Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls", p.55: "De Banco, Mich. 20 Edward III (1347), no. 164. Notts.---John, son of Ralph de Chaumpeney of Quappelade and Margaret his wife, and Fulk Everard of Sutton, the Blake (sic) , and Alice his wife, sued Thomas de Sibethorpe, Parson of the church of Bekingham, for the manor of Sibethorpe, by writ of right in the Lords Court, and Stephen Walys, the capital lord, had remitted the writ into the King's Court." On page 55 is shown a pedigree, which, I suspect is not quite correct, as it begins with "Alexander Bozon of Kirketon in Hoyland, Temp. K. Richard." (King Richard I was killed in 1199, probably before Sir Alexander de Kirketon was born.) So, I will add here a new pedigree, based largely on CPR, 22 Edward III, Part 1, Vol. 8, page 53, dated 12 Feb., 1348, with any known additions:- The plaintiffs stated that Ralph de Sancto Paulo, their ancestor, was seized of the Manor of Sibethorpe in the time of King Richard, and that from him the right therein descended to Dionisia, his daughter and heir, who afterwards married Alexander Bozon of Kirketon in Hoyland, knight, and had issue Ralph, to whom the inheritance descended. Ralph must have been born circa 1225, and married his wife, Alice, circa 1250. Sir Ralph de Kirketon, Knight, also had a sister, Isabel de Kirketon, who, some time after his father's death in 1285, presumably, Sir Ralph gave in marriage to Sir William de Staunton of Scarthorpe and Silkeby, co. Notts., (ref.: " History of the Commoners", Burke, Vol. 1, p. 257). The same Sir William de Staunton, who died in 1326, and his own son, William, having died within his father's lifetime, was succeeded as his heir by his grandson, Sir Geoffrey de Staunton. (ref.: "The Antiquities of Nottinghamshire" (1797) by Thoroton, sub Newark Hundred, p. 307-8; ref. also three emails to Gen-Med from Michael Andrews-Reading of 10 Feb., 2008) "Ralph de Kirketon, knight, gave his sister Isabel to Sir William de Staunton in free-marriage, with all his lands in Kilvington and Wilberdeston, together with the right of patronage of the church of Kilvington." This indicates that the father of Sir Ralph and Isabel had died before the time of the marriage. It is clear that Thoroton (p.321) certainly believed that Sir Ralph was the son of Sir Alexander de Kirketon. Ralph himself died in 1303, stated to have died s,p., leaving his younger (half?) brother, Hugh de Kirketon as his male heir, although his wife, Alice was still living until after 1329-30, and evidently retained certain rights, as the then lady of the Manor of Sibethorpe (CPR, Vol.7, pages 327& 328), "who held the same by the inheritance of John de Kirketon" (her husband's (half?) brother's grandson), son of Simon de Kirketon, son of Hugh de Kirketon. So Dame Alice evidently retained certain rights for her lifetime from this last John de Kirketon, who had died by 1329-30. Be these date estimates as they may, the case in the King's Court dragged on from Feb., 1347 until at least Feb., 1348, and may have been quite notorious. For my purposes the results of the case(s) do not really matter. I suspect that Thomas Jenkyn's Book of Coats of Arms, circa 1450, was not like a Roll of Arms, but was a simple record, in an historical, or record keeping sense, of coats of arms which the author had recorded and collected together. Even though the use by Sir Rauf de Kirketon of his coat of arms, without the difference of a label, only lasted from 1285 until 1303, the facts of the long running court cases in 1347-8 in connection with the Manor of Sibethorpe, may well have produced an interest in Sir Rauf's coat of arms, even as late as about 100 years later, and that Jenkyn was indeed addressing the arms of the same Sir Ralph / Rauf, the son of Sir Alexander de Kirketon My guess is that when Sir William de Neve came to put together his book some 50 years later again, he simply repeated what Jenkyn had already shown. Jonathan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL- request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message