A tale of three Philips

The Woozle effect, or an example of it, is when an idea becomes accepted as a result of repetition of something that was always wrong (or not relevant). Winnie the Pooh and Piglet one day walked round and round a spinney, in snowy conditions. As they completed their first circuit, they saw that they were following footsteps, which they assumed to have been made by a Woozle. At the end of the second circuit they saw that another Woozle had joined the first, and so on until Christopher Robin came, and put them right! 

Each time they went round, what they saw reinforced what they had first thought. 

We see the Woozle effect in the endless repetition of the phrase "of the Oaks," when talking about the Beaumonts of Darton, and "of Highampton" when talking about Devon Beaumonts.

Going back to the Hundred Acre Wood that snowy day, there was a Woozle, and then there were two, and then three. On another occasion Piglet thought he saw a Heffalump, a "Heffable Horralump," but it was only Pooh with a honey jar stuck on his head. A reversed Woozle effect, might be this. If Piglet had seen a real Heffalump in the wood three days running, he would have assumed it was the same Heffalump.

I have been looking at multiple references circa 1190-1250 to the name Philip Beaumont, and published secondary sources appear largely to have assumed this to be one person. But just in the English sources, it has to be three of them!

Number one Philip was some sort of lawyer or advocate in the courts, in Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset and Warwickshire and perhaps other counties. He first appears in 1201. He had property at Dorsington, which it appears he bought rather than inherited. He was not a major landowner. Circa 1215 he died, leaving a widow called Felicia and two sons, John and Walter, There was also Richard, referred to once as John's brother (but is that the same John?).

Number two Philip was the heir to a substantial inheritance mainly in Devon. It was held from major Devon baronies, Okehampton and Plympton, and involved places including Shirwell (near Barnstaple) and Ilsington. His father Richard had inherited this from his elder brother Thomas, and Philip's grandfather had also been a Thomas. Philip came of age round about 1220. Cases document his disputes or settlements with his father's widow Alice, his uncle Thomas's widow Rose, and with Forde Abbey about lands in North Devon. Philip no.2 had a kinsman William Beaumont, whose father had been called Joel.

Number two Philip lived until the 1240s or longer. I think he lived until about 1272, when a Richard de Beaumont succeeded. Descendants continued as Devon landowners for a couple of hundred years. 

Number three Philip was in one reference clearly stated to be the son of a Thomas Beaumont. 

From Curia Regis Rolls vol. 6 p.139, the date being 1211
The reference to Devon, an editorial error of some kind, has caused confusion!

This Philip was thus under age in 1211 and his father Thomas not very many years dead. The case came back in about 1223 or 1224.

The Foot of Fine, 1223/24 case, from AALT, part of 
PRO CP 25/1/187/3

It was now settled by Philip, whose main role in this was to "warrant" the gift made by Thomas. 

The name Philip de Beaumont appears twice on a list of knights in 1229!

From Patent Rolls 1225-1232 p.311
This is an order for protection for the men, lands etc of the named knights who were about to depart by the king’s orders ....  dated at Portsmouth, 19th October...... 

Published works on the Court System have now distinguished Philip no. 1 but - perhaps relying too much on the Victoria County History (on Pyrton) - have continued to assume Nos 2 and 3 to be a single individual. The VCH had attributed certain sources wrongly (citing information which relates only to Devon as authority on Philip No.3).

I do not know the origins of Philip no.1. Confusion has arisen due to a supposed connection with an earlier Norman de Bellomonte in the Warwick honour. I would not be surprised were Philip No. 1 in fact to be related to Nos. 2 and 3. But my mind is open!

It looks likely that Philip no. 2 must have been a descendant of a family that had been in Devon since Domesday Book, with origins in the Cotentin Peninsular of Normandy.

I suspect that Philip no. 3 may be somehow related to No. 2.  Philip No. 2's grandfather, Thomas (of Devon, apparently had a brother called Philip, who I think is a generation too old to be Philip No.1, but I suspect might be grandfather of Philip No.3.

A few sources on each:-

Philip No. 1. Curia Regis Rolls vol.5 pp.46-47, vol. 6 p.67 and p.231, and evidently after his death vol. 9 p.140, vol. 10 pp.210, 218, 279. Gaillard Lapsley, "Buzones," in English Historical Review, Volume XLVII, Issue CLXXXVI, April 1932, Pages 177–193. Robert C Palmer, The County Courts of Medieval England,  1150-1350, 2019. Palmer I think concluded that this was not Devon Philip but of course the question whether Devon & Pyrton Philips might be the same would not have been his concern.

Philip No. 2 (Devon). Curia Regis Rolls vol.10 pp.298-299 a 1222 case, the family structure given. In 1229 Cal. Pat. Rolls Henry III vol. 2, p.311. There are various published sources on the Devon Beaumonts but I do not think most of them are very sound before about 1300.

Philip No.3 (Pyrton). Curia Regis Rolls vol. 6 p.139 (in 1211 he is under age) and vol. 11 p.505 ..... In 1229 Cal. Pat. Rolls Henry III vol. 2, p.311.  Victoria County History (on Pyrton) has a good account but with errors and some wrong references.

There was yet another Philip Beaumont in the Cotentin in the early thirteenth century who, because of the separation of England from Normandy, cannot I think be no. 1, 2, or 3 but who might be related. If not, then the naming pattern gives a false lead.

EMB 18 November 2023

Beaumonts in the Cotentin - the name from the place?

The conventional thing in the past has been to identify the origin of the name Beaumont (applying to people from the Cotentin) with Beaumont-Hague, west of Cherbourg.

But I had noticed that many of the early Beaumont references (twelfth and early thirteenth centuries) were to a group of places east of Cherbourg, including Neville-sur-mer, Fermanville, and Cosqueville. I then spotted that there is a place called Beaumont in or near that group of places, where there is a substantial perhaps seventeenth century house called the Manoir de Beaumont.

From Beaumont-Hague to le Manoir de Beaumont is about forty kilometres whereas the other places associated with these Beaumonts are all within five or six kilometres of one another.

It did not seem to make entire sense to associate the east side people with Beaumont-Hague, but I now need to reconsider that.

The main reason for this is that I realised I had references which look entirely sound, to the effect that a certain Juhel de Bellomonte was patron of the church of Bello Monte (certainly here meaning Beaumont-Hague) in the mid-thirteenth century (this being from the Livre Noir, or Black Book, of the Diocese of Coutances).

Also from the Black Book Juhel de Bellomonte was patron of the church of Cosqueville, whilst a Guillaume (William) de Bellomonte was patron of the church of Fermanville. 

This makes Juhel - surely there cannot have been two of that name at the same time - to be a proprietor both west and east of Cherbourg. That removes the reason for thinking the origin must be east side, and leaves me thinking it could be either.

There may well be other Beaumont references (various first names) that can be confirmed as west side and I believe there are further references to the name Juhel (and certainly other names) that can be confirmed as east side.

It is said in several books etc that during the fourteenth century both Beaumont-Hague and the places east of Cherbourg were in the hands of people called d'Argouges, one of whom had married an heiress called Thomasse de Beaumont, in 1332.

Deciphering the genealogy may well be impossible, but suggestions might be along the lines that there were related families - cousins using the surname Beaumont - based both west and east of Cherbourg, and that by one or more inheritances it all came in the end to Thomasse and her husband.

Moreover I think that this family (in the wider sense) was divided by the separation of Normandy from England in 1204, and that there was at least one branch of it in England, as I have hinted before.

EMB 9-10 October 2023

Notes:

A parish by parish summary from the Livre Noir is printed in the Recueil des Historiens de la France vol. 23 (Paris, 1894) from page 493, with Beaumont-Hague at p.528 (Juhel), and Fermanville (Willelmus, Guillaume), and Cosqueville (Juhel) at p.531. 

There is an incorrect statement that Guillaume de Beaumont was patron of both Cosqueville and Fermanville in Louis Drouet's book Recherches Historiques sur les Vingt Communes du Canton de Saint-Pierre-Eglise, at p.253 repeated at p.278, citing the Livre Noir. That book is not concerned with west side places, though in passing, it does mention Beaumont-Hague as one of the places the family had lands (pages 280 and 409).

An article in Memoires de la Societe Nationale Academique de Cherbourg, 1871 (Pouilles Inedits de la Hague et de Carentan, collected & translated by M. de Pontaumont) contains the same information from the Livre Noir about Beaumont-Hague, and adds that the Livre Blanc (White Book) of c.1340 shows that the church was then held by the heirs of Juhel. That article is not concerned with Cosqueville etc.

An example which I came across just after writing the above, which seems to both reinforce the early association with Beaumont-Hague, and to suggest that a member of the family had opted to go to the English side, is a charter of king Philip Augustus dated 1207 in which he granted all of the land of Richard de Bello monte in Hague (Haiga) to a new holder (Cartulaire Normand no. 161).

Hannah's wedding at Colwick on 5 November 1728

Yesterday I visited the ruined church at Colwick, by the river Trent, just outside Nottingham. This was where, on 5 November 1728, Hannah Beaumont married Andrew Burnaby (Burneby in the Marriage Licence and Parish Register).

St.John's Colwick. 26 March 2022

Hannah of course was the youngest child of George, of Chaplethorpe. As is well known, her parents and grandparents all died in 1712 and 1713 when Hannah was nine or ten. Her oldest sister Jane married Abel Smith of Nottingham, the linen draper turned banker, and the Smiths took Hannah under their wing. In the Licence for the marriage she is described as of St.Peter's parish, Nottingham, which after all was where the Smiths lived.

Abel Smith had written on 29 June 1728 to Hannah's uncle, Thomas Beaumont at Chapelthorpe, saying that one Mr. Burnby, a young clergyman of Leics., was very Desirous to make his Address to sister Hannah, but that she is not willing to give him any further encouragement without advice of her Friends and in particular your Selfe to whom she has the greatest obligation. He has a general good character for a sober Honest Gentleman - (see Note).

I wonder if the family gathered at Colwick for a party. We'll never know. It was November 5th so a bonfire would have been appropriate.........

Colwick Hall - as rebuilt some years after Hannah's wedding.
The church is just out of shot to the left.

In due course Andrew Burnaby and Hannah had several children. It would be many years before the Beaumonts and Burnabys lost touch with one another. Hannah's nephew George Beaumont held the office of Vicar of Brampton (Huntingdonshire) from 1754 to 1756, surely thanks to Andrew Burnaby. Andrew was himself a clergyman, Rector of Asfordby, but I suspect Brampton was where he and Hannah lived.

And in the 1790s George Beaumont's son Richard would be involved in the affairs of Hannah and Andrew's daughter Anna Maria at Handsworth near Birmingham. Anna Maria had married Richard Walter of Birmingham, whose brother John was the Rector of Bingham and husband of Hannah's niece Susannah Beaumont.

• Thomas Beaumont of Chapelthorpe (d.1731)
• George Beaumont of Chapelthorpe (d.1712)
• Several incl 
• Jane (d.1743) (in 1713 married Abel Smith d.1756)
• George Beaumont of Darton (d.1735/6)
• incl
• Rev George Beaumont of Nottingham (d.1773)
• several incl
• Richard Beaumont of Birmingham (d.1828)
• Susannah Beaumont (in 1767 married Rev. John Walter, brother of Richard)
• Hannah Beaumont (in 1728 married Rev. Andrew Burnaby)
• several incl
• Anna Maria (d.1796 or 1797) (married Richard Walter (d.1788), brother of John)

(Note. Abel Smith was actually a co-trustee of Burnaby family property at that time, including Brampton (see eg Lincs REEVE 1/21/8), and estates in Huntingdonshire are referred to in his letter. He said Andrew Burnaby was young and in good health - in so many words, that Hannah might do a great deal worse.

Abel's letter must have been taken with other papers from Chapelthorpe to Darton, and thence eventually to Bretton, in which archive it was BEA/C3/B48/60). It is now in West Yorkshire Archives as WYW1849/1/12/316. It is not yet in the online catalogue, but the archivists kindly sent me a spreadsheet linking the old and new references (the name Burnaby was misread in the old catalogue). I have not seen this letter, but a transcript made by my late father when it was at Bretton is in this Archive Box 12/003).

EMB 27 March 2022

Inoculation against smallpox in the eighteenth century

I often wondered why both George and Frances Beaumont at Darton died in 1735 and early 1736 when he was under 40, and she only 31 or 32, and they were hardly living in poverty.

Then I read of an epidemic of smallpox at Nottingham, a place they must have visited. George had spent some of his youth there, in the household of his elder sister Jane, wife of the banker Abel Smith I. Indeed George's brother the clergyman Thomas settled in Nottingham, as did their sister Elizabeth, and the youngest sister remained with the Smiths until her marriage in 1728.

The epidemic that caused a lot of deaths in Nottingham was written about by Charles Deering in a work printed in 1736, An Account of an Improved Method of treating the Small Pocks, by C. Deering MD. 

Printed in Nottingham 1736

(Deering also refers to this outbreak in his History of Nottingham “Vetus et Nova” (based on work largely done c.1740)). 

This epidemic of smallpox hit Nottingham in 1736, between May and September. But there were deaths from it other parts of the country, a number being reported in 1735.

Quite recently I discovered a notice in a newspaper that made me think of this. A certain Mr Sutton was advertising in Manchester in December 1770 that he was offering inoculations by what he called "a new method." I think this was for smallpox. Mr Sutton said that in the years 67, 68, 69 and 70 he had inoculated over nine thousand patients, and he proceeded to give the names of some of them. The names included:

"Two children of [..blank..] Smith Esq., banker, Nottingham, [and] eight children of the Rev. Mr. Beaumont, at ditto." 

(Manchester Mercury & Harrop's General Advertiser, 18 December 1770).

Indeed my direct ancestor George, who was only little when his parents George & Frances of Darton died, who was Rector of St.Nicholas's in Nottingham from the end of 1766, and who was first cousin of the banker Abel Smith II, did have eight children at that time (his youngest was born only in 1772).

The notice doesn't say how the inoculations were administered, but they were not cheap - one to six guineas is what is said.

EMB 24 February 2022

William "the Monk" and the Beaumonts - an original charter

Please read this as a follow-up in particular to what I wrote on 10 March 2021 - https://beaumontarchives.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-twelfth-century-beaumonts-of-ne.html

I discovered what seems a significant charter for the history of our family (in the most extended sense), in Cornwall's archives - https://kresenkernow.org/SOAP/detail/608be59d-7882-48b5-aba8-088a98d522d3/?tH=%5B%22william%20the%20monk%22%5D

By this charter, William "the Monk" gives Néville-sur-mer priory fifteen shillings a year rent from a place called Estintonie. William's nephew Thomas de Bellomonte gives his consent and other members of his family are witnesses (1).

(1) Their names are rendered as "Belin" in the catalogue summary but I am confident of their identity as there is so much other context that fits.

Néville-sur-mer priory was a dependency of Montebourg abbey. The gift was known about from the Montebourg charters (2) and in a confirmation by Henry II (3), but the place was not identified.

(2) The Montebourg Cartulary is MS Lat. 10087 in the Bibliotheque Nationale Francaise... including:- (no.422 on page 139):- I William monachus for salvation of my soul and that of my father and mother and all my antecessors with the assent and consent of Thomas & Philip de Bello mo'te my nephews…  in the parish of Nigeville  …… chapel …. Mary Magdalene.. ……. ? tenth penny of ?manor  of Estintona ........

BN Fr. MS Lat.10087 no.422 (part)

 

BN Fr. MS Lat.10087 no.422 (part)

(3) 1174 x 1182 ........ Ex dono Willelmi Monachi, capellam Sancte Marie Magdalene de Nigelvilla, cum ecclesia ejusdem ville ...... et in Anglia, in manerio de Extintona, terram que reddit annuatim XV. solidos (University of Caen "Scripta" database, no.7250). 

It seems what Kresen Kernow (Cornwall's Archive Centre) has (their ref AR/1/828) is the actual charter, or a counterpart of it from the original time. The foundation of Néville priory was confirmed in a charter dated 1163. (4)

(4) No. 45 on pp.27-28 of the cartulary - charter of R. bishop of Coutances.

I am fairly sure it means Ilsington in Devon (not far off the A38 between Plymouth and Exeter), which was Lestintone in Domesday Book. The tenant in chief there then was Ralph Pagnell, but it must have passed into the Honour of Plympton, which was created by Henry I for Richard de Reviers (5), who was actually the patron of Montebourg Abbey. Richard was foremost amongst the "new men" Henry I brought from the Cotentin (6). It is no surprise that benefits should trickle down to middle-ranking players.

(5) see Sanders, English Baronies p.137.

(6) see eg Judith Green, The Government of England under Henry I, pp. 146-147.

Incidentally, one of the witnesses to the Cornwall charter is called Robertus villanus, and a man of that name also witnesses another charter of William "the monk" (Archives Manche H.2439). 

After the "Loss" of Normandy (1204) Montebourg Abbey might no longer have been able to collect the money from Ilsington or be the owner of the manor (7).

(7) As it lost Loders in Dorset (Digital Humanities Institute, Sheffield, Lands of the Normans database).

The family of Beaumont, the heirs of William "the Monk," might have been split, some on each side of the English channel. Not much later, Beaumonts are known to have been at Ilsington or at Ingsdon nearby. An example reference is that in about 1242 a Philip de Bellomonte was holding a knights fee in Ilsington of the Plympton honour. (8)

(8) Testa de Nevill p.182; Book of Fees p.790.

I visited Ilsington church in 1990 and took this photo of the coat of arms on the end of a bench. I had been told that this was the arms of the Beaumonts in question. I have no idea if that is true!! I am sceptical.

A share in Ilsington eventually came to the Arundell family, a fact which presumably explains how the document came into their archives, and thus how it has survived to this day!

This document is a useful discovery. My thanks to Jennie Hancock, archivist at Kresen Kernow.

EMB 10 November 2021

Chateau Gaillard - after the end of the siege

One of the very few dated early references we have is the information of 23 May 1205, which I will come to at the end, relating to William, the "First Yorkshire Beaumont," about whom I put some references on this blog on January 31, 2021.

It is clear from those that William was a retainer in some shape or form of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester, and it is clear from many other references that Roger commanded Chateau-Gaillard for king John until he had to surrender it on or about 6 March 1204 after a long siege.

From Achille Deville's book (Rouen, 1829)
on the castle and siege

The chronicle of William the Breton states that at the very end, when the French entered the castle, they took as prisoners forty knights, one hundred and twenty men at arms "and many others."

Another French chronicler, Rigord, says that there were thirty-six knights, four having been killed.

The commander, Roger, is the only one of the defenders mentioned by name in the French texts. He is identified as the Constable of Chester in some of the English texts and from other sources.

An unlikely version of the story is that the defenders charged out of the castle and killed many Frenchmen before being taken prisoner. More likely they were weak from lack of food, as there had been no supplies for months and indeed the whole objective of the French had been to starve them into submission.

As to what happened to these captives after their surrender, the French sources say little (note 1). Writers and translators north of the English channel adopt one of two extremes -  the captives were either held in chains, or they were held on parole or "free custody" in recognition of their bravery. 

The text from the monk of Waverley is Sicque præfatus Rogerus cum militibus sibi associatis vinculis enormiter mancipatus est.

That from Roger of Wendover is et Rogerus de Lasci cum suis omnibus in Franciam adductus, rege Francorum jubente, propter probitatem suam, quam in castri custodia fecerat, sub libera custodia detentus est. 

"Vinculis enormiter" is not "enormous chains." "Vinculis" means bonds but not necessarily physical restraint, whilst "enormiter" means out of the usual. I prefer something like "My word is my bond," the word of an officer and gentleman!

The concept of free custody then makes sense, and can be compared to the rule that a knight, when charged with a debt claim, was to be trusted not to abscond before the hearing (Dialogus de Scaccarii Part II Section XXI). Perhaps then the Waverley text has simply been misunderstood (Note 2).

Certainly, a ransom must have been paid. Six thousand marks is the figure given by one chronicler. The public records suggest less, but still a huge sum.

Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833), vol. 1 page 4b
August 7, 1204, at Northampton

My reading of this is that Robert fitzRoger (a well-known north of England baron) had pledged the £1000 but is now being released (his charter to be delivered to him) - perhaps the king has decided to meet the cost of Roger's "redemption."

Roger de Lacy was apparently back in England by October of 1204 since he witnessed an order issued at Lambeth on 13th of that month. Thereafter he is seen a good deal in the public records. An invasion into Normandy was planned, and I suspect Roger was asked to lead it. Extensive planning took place in the first half of 1205, including the country being ordered to supply one knight in ten (at the cost of the other nine).

Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833) vol. 1, page 29b
29 April 1205, from Windsor

A preliminary muster was to take place at Northampton in mid May, and the above shows essential supplies - wine! - being sent there. That is where and when the king issued this order to the sheriff of York:- 

".... qd resp'ctu hre facis Willo de Bello Mo'te de x marcas quas debet Judis Ebor et quiet' ee facias de usur illi debiti q'diu fuit ult mare cu' equis & armis in svicio nro p pceptu nrm”

..... to give respite to William de Beaumont for ten marks which he owes [debet - present tense] to the Jews at York and to free him from the interest on the same debt so long as he was [fuit - past tense] beyond the sea with horses and arms in our service by our command"

Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833), vol. 1, page 33b
23 May 1205, from Northampton

The order was to be carried out through none other than the Constable of Chester (the letter like a 9 there means "Con"), who was present that day, and who moreover, had the title of sheriff of York, and thus will have passed the order to his deputy!

What this proves is that William (note 3) had been serving overseas. It suggests that Roger was in some way interested. It does not prove that William had been one of Roger's companions in Normandy, or that it was intended he would go back there with him! But it hints towards one or both of those things, maybe.

The royal party proceeded south to Winchester and Portsmouth, and there is ample evidence that Roger Constable of Chester was involved, certain rewards and benefits being dished out to him as the military and naval plans were progressed. But in mid June the planned Normandy invasion was cancelled at the last minute (Note 4).

........

Lastly, as an open question, I wondered if there were any clues at all as to the identity of any of Roger's other companions in Chateau-Gaillard. I am afraid the answer is - nothing found. Two particular names strike me as possibles - Colin de Quatremares (also called Colin de Damelville), and Henry de Longchamp. Both these men witnessed the grant of land at Huddersfield by Roger to William (Dodsworth MS 133 f.114). Colin also received a grant of land at Huddersfield from Roger, whilst Henry was apparently with the 1205 Normandy expedition when it was called off (Note 5).

.......

Note 1. Except that one rather colourful account speaks of "the castellan," who had said he would only be dragged out by his feet, actually being in the pay of the French king afterwards, at doubled wages. This is from Ruville, quoting from Les Vraies Chroniques de Normandie depuis Robert le Diable jusqu'en 1212, c.15 copy fonds français, Bibliothèque Richelieu.

Note 2. Text attributed to Roger of Wendover, speaking of events of 1203, has certain prisoners at Compiegne detained in vinculis arctissimis. A little later in the same text, Roger and the other prisoners taken at Chateau Gaillard are treated very differently - sub libera custodia.

Note 3. Surely the WB who is the subject of this order is the Yorkshire one. There were a Norfolk father and son both of the same name but they had no connection with Roger, and there are numerous reasons for saying it does not refer to either of them.

Note 4. The plan had been a "pincer movement," landing both in Normandy and Poitou. It seems that ships had already put to sea, from Portsmouth, before the king accepted advice, and cancelled the Normandy expedition, which is no doubt the part Roger would have been involved in. Between about 13 and 19 June 1205 the royal party seems to have been at sea.  On 19 and 20 June at "Dertem'" (?Dartmouth in Devon), Roger was a senior witness (Rotuli Chartarum p.155) (but Chroniclers put the landing in Dorset).

Note 5. On 22 June 1205 Henry was let off some commitments he had earlier made (Rot.Lit. Cur.i.38), a classic way of recompensing someone for wasted expenses.

Sources

To give particular sources in the proper academic style would take up a lot of space. I have made use of the numerous chronicles in various French and English editions (thank you, Hathitrust), public records including Patent and Close Rolls, Deville's book on Chateau-Gaillard, Brossard de Ruville's book on "La Ville Andelis...," an excellent online translation of the Dialogue of the Exchequer from the Yale Avalon Law project, several biographies of king John, Powicke's "Loss of Normandy," Norgate's "England under Angevin Kings," the Thesis by Andrew Connell on the Constables of Chester, and so on.

Much information has been translated for me from French by Caroline.

EMB 26 September 2021

The first Whitley Charters (7) - the service

I think that as at c.1220-1230) Whitley was held in effect directly from the lord of Pontefract (John de Lacy), some by the father of the Dransfeld brothers, and some by Peter de Birthwaite, with no effective intermediate holder. And Whitley was not their only holding. Dransfield senior, and Peter, then die. Then-

A. Charter 1. William de Dransfeld grants the Whitley land he has inherited from his father to his [younger] brother Thomas

B. Lost Charter. Thomas de Dransfeld obtains a grant of Whitley land from the Birthwaite family

C. Charter 2. The Earl buys both these lots of Whitley land from Thomas

D. Charter 3. The Earl grants the land to John Muncebote / Mucenbot with permission to designate William de Beaumont as his heir

E. Charter 4. John Mucenbot / Muncebote confirms Beaumont as his heir.

Sub-infeudation

Although I think John de Lacy had been able to do away with the old middle interests (see previous note), he now begins to create new ones.

Each change of ownership that was not an inheritance, is not seen as a transfer, but as a grant of a junior interest (a new link in the chain). Some sort of additional service arises each time. It soon becomes unworkable. Imagine if each time people moved house, they were unable to sell the property, but could only let it.

New chains developed, so that within a couple of generations things must have become as unworkable as before, and the chief lords such as John de Lacy's descendants were soon finding they were unable to collect or enforce what they felt should be due to them such as wardships, escheats, and control  of marriages. 

So they got the law reformed in 1290 by a Statute known as Quia Emptores. Transfers were now allowed, and sub-infeudations banned. All the services would be due to the chief lord, rather than to middle men. This put the great lords much more back in control.

To return to the particular services in this case.

A. A pound of cumin to William de Dransfeld and his heirs

This is first reserved in charter no. 1 (WBD/IX/2) and repeated in charter no. 3 (WBD/IX/1) as due to William and his heirs, though actually in Dodsworth's transcript of William's own charter (MS 133 fo. 117v; WBD/IX/2) it is clearly half a pound of silver (half a pound of cumin in the Catalogue entry for WBD/IX/2). I don't know if the pound is by weight or value.

Cumin seems to me like a luxury item. I don't know if it was just a symbolic thing. But even today we still hear of a "peppercorn rent."

Dransfield Hill Farm (top of map below) is the name of an ancient farm near Whitley

Ordnance Survey 6 ins to the mile. Thanks to maps.nls.uk.

Thomas son of Hugh de Dransfeld had given Byland Abbey some property in Whitley between about 1206 and 1211 (Yorkshire Deeds, 6, no. 540 - in the BL Add Ch series that I mentioned in the previous note). In his own charter William gives Thomas as his father's name. I think William is the eldest son, granting the Whitley part of his inheritance to his brother. 

A family tree that I found online seems to have skipped a generation. For what it is worth I suggest:-

• 1. Hugh de D of Whitley (late c12); father of 
• 2. Thomas (donor to Byland); father of 
• 3. William (granted Whitley to his brother and moved to Bretton); and 
• 3. Thomas (acquired more land at Whitley and sold all to John de Lacy).

Over a hundred years later the Beaumonts' interest at Whitley was still held from the Dransfields (now of Bretton). This is proved by a statement in a "Rental" dated 1370 of the estates of John de Dronsfeld (the spelling is variable):

Brianne de Stapelton knight holds the manor of Whitlay‑beaumond by knight service and renders per annum one pound sterling and for castle ferm 10s.on the feast of St. Martin. 

(Sir Brian Stapleton  controlled the Beaumonts' estates at that time, due to their misdeeds and misfortunes)

(The text of it this Rental and some commentary was published in Old West Riding Magazine vol. 5 no.1 (Summer 1985) by John Addy and Elizabeth Gibson. The Rental was amongst the Bretton Hall / Allendale archives at the Yorks Arch Soc., part of reference BEA/C3/B31, and should now and in future have reference WYW/1849/xxx at West Yorkshire Archives. As at 17 July 2021 it was still not in the online catalogue.) 

(I do wonder if the pound sterling is an update of the pound of cumin, and if the ten shillings for castle farm is an update on one of the other older services). 

B. Ten shillings to the heirs of Peter de Birthwaite

This service is mentioned in Charter No. 2 (WBD/IX/3) but I think must have been reserved first in a now missing charter. Besides getting his brother's interest at Whitley, Thomas de Dransfeld also bought something there from the Birthwaites. He then sold the combined estate to the earl, who paid twenty marks to him according to Dodsworth's transcript of the charter.

My reading from Yorkshire source books such as EYC III is that Peter of Birthwaite had died in about 1230 leaving a daughter Juliana who married one John de Rockley. 

The money apparently continued to be paid from the Beaumonts to the Rockleys as Peter's heirs. This is suggested by the fact that an (assumed) descendant and heiress Alice, daughter of Peter de Rockley, is found in 1320, when certain service due to her was said to include the homage and service of Sir Robert de Beaumont for land held at Whitley.

From Cal. Close Rolls 1318-1323 p.220

The name of Birthwaite, Birkethwaite etc may have been confused by some writers with eg Birthwistle or Briestwistle.

C. White gloves at Easter

This is the particular service reserved by the Earl in charter no. 3 - the one granting Whitley to John Mucenbote.

White gloves is quite clearly what RHB read, and the latin text from Dodsworth, partly lost in a fold, looks like duas cirotecas albas. I understand that chirotecae means the liturgical silk gloves worn at Easter by Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals. The translation in the Archives Catalogue is "vestments" but I don't accept that. 

Rent of liturgical gloves is not that unusual.  It is more than a token since the gloves would be expensive. However to some extent as with the cumin, it must be symbolic.

D. The foreign service

This service is mentioned in several of the charters as being in addition to the service arising from the grant in question.

Foreign or "Forinsec" service means, I think, in this context, the service due to the chief lords (Pontefract). It might be defined as the service due to any lord further up the chain than the immediate one. It certainly does not mean just service outside of England. 

The Earl bought the land of which he was already the chief lord. Today, if a Landlord buys the interest of his Tenant, the lease will cancel itself, but this is clearly not how they saw it. When the Earl granted the property to John Mucenbote, the older services due to Dransfeld and Birthwaite had survived.

The "foreign service"was reserved or preserved (saved) expressly in Charter no. 1 when William de Dransfeld sold to his brother (Dodsworth MS 133 fo.117v)(catalogue summary DD/WBD/IX/2). 

I think the translations that say that the Earl acquits the land from some of these services are incorrect. The service is saved or preserved, so that the new holders have to do that as well as the service to the intermediate people.

It is not very clear what the Forinsec service exactly was, perhaps a fraction of a knights fee.

E. No service due to John Mucenbote's heirs

No additional service is due from William de Beaumont, to John Mucenbote's heirs. William is treated as John's heir. Whether or how he was related to John Mucenbote may never be known.

The local historian Mrs Frances Collins about 100 years ago, suggested that the rent being white gloves shows that the grantee was considered one of the family. This was a plank in her argument that William de Beaumont was related to Adam FitzSwain, as (on this basis) was John, who she made out to be Roger de Montbegon's son. This is just fanciful. Anyway the gloves are the reserved service in the grant by the Earl to John Mucenbote, not the grant by him to William Beaumont!

Is this the site of Whitley Hall?

A final question might be whether we can identify the exact property to which these charters refer. I certainly can't. There was a "capital messuage" - this was included in charter no. 2 (Thomas to the Earl) and the subsequent charters. I don't see mention of it in Charter no. 1 so I do not know if it was included in the Dransfield part, or the Birthwaite part, of the estate. Anyway, that would not be enough to identify where this "capital messuage" stood. 

Also, whatever was meant by Whitley, there is nothing to suggest that these charters comprised the whole of it.

EMB 26 July 2021