Re: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton



On 6 Aug, 03:19, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
dear Matt,

I fear you have overlooked this:
Tickenham (according to "Collections for a Parochial History of Tickenham" [Bristol, 1895)) was held of William Berkeley, son of James & Isabel (Mowbray) Berkeley. "These he alienated during his life, the Manor of Tickenham passing into the hands of the Earl of Huntingdon, from whom, with other manors, it was held by John Berkeley, Esq."
as Hal Bradley informed us, already in the beginning.

It must have been SOMETHING that the earl of Huntingdon (and William Berkeley before him) held over the manor's 'owners'. Overlordship !?

Obviously, something passed to Huntingdon, apparently from William's confiscation or somesuch.
But still, Elizabeth Seympur's heirs continued as 'owners'.

So, as this sort of hold (is it overlordship or what?)
was held by William,
how do you explain the origin of that very holding and those rights,
if they do not come from the 5th Lord Berkeley
?

Dear M. (I'm afraid I don't know your name - would you tell us?),

I hadn't overlooked 'Collections for a Parochial History of Tickenham'
- I was instead ignoring it, as irredeemably confused. William
Herbert certainly held the overlordship of the manor of Tickenham, but
he didn't acquire it from William Berkeley. How he got it is
explained below:

Three levels of tenure in Tickenham have been confused with each
other: the overlordship, the manor, and the sub-manorial fee belonging
to the Berkeleys of Beverstone. I'll outline the history of each, in
reverse order.

1. The sub-manorial fee consisted of several freehold farms acquired
by the Berkeleys of Berkeley by a series of purchases in the early
14th century and later in that century allocated to the Berkeleys of
Beverstone, who still held it in 1428 (IpM of Sir John B. of B.) - I
don't know what happened to it thereafter.

2. There were 2 manors in Tickenham at the time of Domesday Book but
in the late 12th century they were united when the lord of one of
them, Nicholas Fitz Robert (a younger son of Robert Fitz Harding, the
progenitor of the Berkeleys of Berkeley) married the heiress of the
other. His descendants (who did not acquire a stable surname until
the 14th century, when they settled on Fitz Nichol) held the manor
until the 1330s or thereabouts, when it passed (I'm not sure exactly
how) to Thomas Basset and then to Edmund and Joan Seymour (though in
1382 Thomas Fitz Nichol tried to recover it and was granted the
reversion after the Seymours' death).

In 1415 that reversion was purchased by Thomas, lord Berkeley. It
seems he acquired it to perfect the title of the Seymours'
granddaughter Elizabeth and her husband Thomas Berkeley (whose precise
relationship to the other Berkeley lines is uncertain), since that
reversionary interest is not mentioned again. This Thomas Berkeley of
Tickenham held the manor in 1428 (IpM of Sir John B. of B.) and died
in 1443. At some point thereafter his widow Elizabeth transferred the
manor to feoffees, who after the death of her son John Berkeley in
1479 transferred it to her daughter Cecily and Cecily's husband James
Ash (per John's IpM). The Ash family held the manor for several
generations thereafter.

3. I know of only two references to the overlordship. The first is
in Kirby's Quest of 1303, which states that Nicholas fitz Ralph (whose
descendants called themselves Fitz Nichol) held the manor of the earl
marshall. The second is the 1479 IpM mentioned above, which is very
clear - it says James and Cecily Ash held the manor of the earl of
Huntingdon as of his manor or castle of Chepstow. It is not difficult
to work out the chain of ownership between 1303 and 1479.

In 1303 the earl marshal was Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, one of
whose estates was the lordship of Chepstow. He died in 1306, but when
the earldom of Norfolk was granted to Thomas of Brotherton in 1317 it
came with the lordship of Chepstow, which thereafter passed to
successive earls and dukes of Norfolk, until 1468, when John Mowbray,
fourth duke of Norfolk, sold it to William Herbert, earl of Pembroke.
His son William Herbert, 2nd earl of Pembroke, inherited the lordship
of Chepstow in 1469, and still held it in 1479 when he was obliged to
exchange his earldom of Pembroke for that of Huntingdon - and thus in
that year the overlordship of the manor of Tickenham was vested in the
earl of Huntingdon.

Matt Tompkins
.



Relevant Pages

  • New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
    ... The old overlordship does not mean anything in regard to determining which branch of Berkeleys would be producing Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham. ... it is not too likely that the Lord would have arranged a career as canon to an illegitimate son. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: GWR Outside frame locomotives
    ... I have now added photos of the 2 preserved GWR outside frame locos ... 3217 Earl of Berkeley & 3440 City of Truro together at Didcot ...
    (uk.railway)
  • New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
    ... or IS the notion that they held an overlordship, ... Probably the Seymour granddaughter (the wife of Thomas Berkeley) was one such heir, assuming her grandmother had been that Joan Basset. ... I was thinking that Lord Berkeley purchased the overlordship, or the overlord's right to reversion of that very manor of Twickenham. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
    ... don't think there's been any reference to the Berkeleys of Beverston ... Thomas de Berkeley who bought the reversion from FitzNichol in 1416 ... and that after knight William Berkeley, of Beverstone, the overlordship became transferred to the earl of Huntingdon. ... Ah, yes, the overlordship had indeed been mentioned. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)