C.P. Correction/Addition: Zouche

Dear John ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

In regards to your comments about Roger la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe,
Leicestershire, you're quite correct that there is most likely an error
in the transcript of the charter dated 1289-1296 in which Milicent de
Mohaut, widow of Sir Eudes la Zouche, granted the manor of
Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire to "Richard" la Zouche, son of Sir William
la Zouche. As you have noted, this manor was actually granted to Roger
la Zouche, son of Sir William la Zouche.

That Roger, not Richard, la Zouche was the grantee of Lubbesthorpe is
directly stated in another Zouche family charter that I've found
published elsewhere:

"3 May 1406. - Grant by Monsieur William la Zouche, "seigneur" de
Harringworth, to Thomas Assheby, of the custody, during the minority of
Robert, son and heir of Monsieur Marmaduke Constable, of a third part
of the Manor, it [i.e. the Manor] having been held of the grantor in
chief by Marmduke, together with Robert Seint Andrew and Thomas
Assheby, severally and in purparty, for estates in tail, by the service
of one knight - they being the heirs of Roger son of William la Zouche,
to whom the Manor had been granted for an estate tail by Milicent de
Montalt; the ultimate remainder in default of their issue belonging to
the grantor. - Dated at London, 2 May, 7 Henry IV. In French. Very
fine remains of his Seal of Arms - bezantée (ten shewing), a canton
ermine; the shield (which is perfect and fine) couchée from helm
surmounted by crest - out of a coronet a mule's head; to the dexter
side of the helm (the other side is missing), an eagle rising.
[Legend:] ............ DE HARYNGWORTH." [Reference: Report on the MSS
of Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq. 1 (Hist. MSS Comm. 78) (1928): 60].

There is also in print a transcript of another charter in which
Milicent de Mohaut, widow of Sir Eudes la Zouche, specifically
addresses Roger la Zouche, who she calls "her beloved and faithful":

"12 March 1280/1. - Letters Patent of Milicent de Monte Alto, widow,
acknowledging that "her beloved and faithful" Roger la Zusche had
returned his account, before her and "her beloved and faithful" Sir
John de Harigworte, chaplain, and WIlliam de Kaune, clerk, and before
Thomas la Zusche, then steward of her household, comprising all his
receipts and expenses from the first day of his employment to the feast
of the Purification, 9 Edward I; and releasing him from the said
account. Witnesses - "the said auditors, Sir Richard de Geytynton,
chaplain, William de Harigworthe, clerk, John de Houdeyng, then
bailiff, and others. - St. Gregory the Pope, 9 Edward I. Her very fine
and nearly perfect pointed oval Seal, in green wax - her full-length
figure in long Empire dress and cloak, the dress charged with rows of
roundles nearly to the bottom, the lining of the cloak charged with
vair spots; square flat head dress; in either hand she holds a shield,
that to the dexter is charged with a lion rampant, that to the sinister
defaced, but suggestive of three leopards' faces inverted jessant de
lys. Legend: S' MILISENTE .........TO. [Reference: Report on the MSS
of Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq. 1 (Hist. MSS Comm. 78) (1928): 143].

Birch gives a similar seal for Milicent de Montalt in his work,
Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, 2 (1892): 393:

Pointed oval. In tightly-fitting dress, fur cloak, in each hand a
shield of arms. Standing on a carved corbel. Arms: right hand a lion
rampant, MONTALT; left hand three leopards' heads jessants-de-lis,
CANTELOWE. In the field on each side a wavy sprig of foliage).

We see above that a Thomas la Zouche was acting as Milicent de
Montalt's steward in 1281. This Thomas la Zouche is surely the same
person as Thomas son of Eudes la Zouche who in 1307 was owed a debt in
Northamptonshire. In 1313 Thomas was pardoned for his involvement in
the death of Peter de Gavaston, Earl of Cornwall. In 1324 he was
pardoned for acquiring without license of King Edward I (prior to 1307)
five messuages and lands in Basford, Nottinghamshire for life from
William la Zouche [presumably his brother] [References: J. Throsby
Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire, 2: 227; Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1321-1324 (1904): 393; C. Moor Knights of Edward I 5: 225].

If the same Thomas la Zouche is involved in all of these records, it
seems obvious that Thomas la Zouche was very likely the step-son of
Milicent de Montalt, he being the son of Sir Eudes la Zouche (died
1279), by an unknown 1st wife or mistress. It seems possible that
Thomas la Zouche was a legitimate son of Eudes la Zouche. As best I
know, all of Eudes la Zouche's known land holdings were derived from
his wife, Milicent's Cantelowe inheritance; if Eudes had a son by a
priior marriage, it would be obscured by the passage of all of Eudes'
wife's lands to their son, William la Zouche. There appears to have
been no inquisition post mortem folliowing Eudes la Zouche's death.

With respect to the identity of Sir William la Zouche, father of Roger
la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, he is undoubtedly the Sir William la Zouche,
Knt. (died 1272), of King's Nympton, Devon, Farleigh Wallop,
Hampshire, and Norton, Northamptonshire, which individual was the
brother of Milicent de Montalt's husband, Sir Eudes la Zouche. The
authoritative Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 957 (sub Zouche) states
that Sir William la Zouche (died 1272) was survived by a daughter and
sole heiress, Joyce la Zouche, wife of Robert de Mortimer, but this is
not correct. My research indicates that Sir William la Zouche was
actually survived by a son and heir, William la Zouche the younger.
Upon the death of the younger William, the family estates fell to his
full sister, Joyce la Zouche, widow of Ncholas de Whelton, and then
wife of Robert de Mortimer. It appears that Roger la Zouche, later of
Lubbesthorpe, was excluded from the Zouche family inheritance, he being
a brother of the half blood to William la Zouche the younger.

Furthermore, given that Milicent de Montalt addresses Roger la Zouche
of Lubbesthorpe as "her beloved and faithful," and not otherwise, I
believe this is fatal to the theory that Roger la Zouche was married to
an hitherto unknown daughter of Milicent de Montalt's 1st marriage to
John de Montalt. Had Roger la Zouche been married to Milicent de
Montalt's daughter, or contracted to marry her daughter, this would
likely have been mentioned in either the charter that I have copied
above, or the one you cited in your post.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net