Roscruge tangle...

[Zenobia]

I recently purchased two documents from the PRO in hopes of expanding my Roscruge ancestry. Although the documents should be clear cut, they are actually quite contradictory, so am posting them here for some feedback.

The documents are from The Chancery Court, Six Clerks Office, and are dated 1515-1518 based on the fact that both are addressed to Thomas Cromwell, while he was Chancellor.

Here is a summary of the two documents:

C 1/439/27

Not dated; addressed to Thomas Cromwell, Archbp. of York and Chancellor of England

Petitioners: Richard Rescruke and Udon his wife, one of the daughters and heirs of John Tregithiowe of Tregithiowe in Cornwall.

Summary: That John was seized in his demesne of certain lands and that he gave them by deed poll to Isote his daughter (and to the heirs of her body etc) for the use of the said Udon to pay a rental (amount and times specified) yearly to him and after his death to the said Udon and the heirs of her body. That Isote took to husband one Thomas Trevirgy. That John Tregithiowe died in the twenty year of (our late) sovereign lord Henry vij (ie: 1504). And that the said Thomas Trevirgy and Isote refused to pay the rent to Udon etc.

C 1/439/28

Not dated; addressed to Thomas Cromwell, Archbp. of York and Chancellor of England

Petitioners: Richard Rescrouge, cosin (sic) and next heir of the body of Udon Tregonwell, that is, son of Jane, daughter of the said Udon.

Summary: That John Tregitheowe was seized in his demesne of certain lands and that he gave them by deed poll to Isote his daughter, yielding to him yearly (amount and times specified) and after his death to the said Udon and the heirs of her body. That Isote was seized of the lands and the said Udon died and afterward Jane mother of the orator at the feast of St. Michael Archangel in the xx year of (or late) sovereign Lord Henry vij (1504). And the said Isote died and the lands descended unto one Thomas Trevergy, son and heir of the said Isote. And that the said Thomas refuses to pay etc…

Now, there are some obvious problems (or at least anomalies) with these documents.

1. Although they are supposedly written within a three year period in 1515-1518 (and would have to be written after April 1509 since Henry VII is referred to as ‘late’) the first suit is brought by the grandfather, while the second suit in this short time period is now brought by the grandson.

2. In the first suit, John Tregitheowe dies in 1504, but in the second suit Jane dies in that year, Udon and John having already died previously (so Udon is bringing the first suit 10+ years after her own death?)

3. Udon was obviously Udon Rescruke in the first suit, by the second she is called Udon Tregonwell.

4. In the second suit, Richard, although a Rescrouge, is claiming ancestry through his mother, not through the Roscruge line, causing all sorts of potential ancestral convolutions….

A few notes to help with this problem.

There is a pedigree of Roscruge in Vivian’s Visitations, signed by Anthony Roscruge. Obviously any generation earlier than Anthony’s father (or possibly grandfather) would have to be backed by primary sources (but I have been fortunate with that as you will see below).

The pedigree is as follows:

1. Anthony Roscruge (age 47 in 1620)

2. John Roscruge m. Ellinor Chenoweth

3. Thomas Roscruge m. Jane Tripcony

4. Richard Roscruge m. da. of _____ Treowe (Elizabeth Trewoof)

5. Thomas Roskruge m. Udon Maseley

So far, the only thing in this pedigree that I have not been able to prove using original and transcribed primary sources (Wills, IPMs, Henderson’s etc.) is the name of the last Thomas’ wife.

Number 4 above, Richard Roscruge, would be the man bringing the second suit in court.

This Richard was born ca. 1479/80, as he gives his age as 60 in a deposition taken in 1539. In the same deposition he also states that his father was Thomas Roscruge.

Furthermore, Henderson’s Cornish Manuscripts shows a suit in the Star Chamber (undated, but temp. Hen. VIII) by Thomas, son of the above Richard, in which the ancestry was shown thus:

Thomas, son of Richard, son of Thomas, son of Johanne (this Johanne was female and the dispute revolved around some lands seized by one of the granddaughters of her brother Rawlin). Johanne’s surname cannot be surmised, since it is unknown whether the granddaughter of Rawlin was married or unmarried (she was a Brencoys) and further, Joahnne’s husband’s name is not given.


So, dating problems aside, I can reach only three possible conclusions regarding the two Chancery suits which I have summarized first above.

1. Richard (2nd petitioner) was the grandson of Richard (1st petitioner) by Johanne, and afterward the elder Richard married Udon, d/o John Tregitheowe, who had a daughter Jane by a former marriage (perhaps Tregonwell? Perhaps Maseley?) and then Jane married her stepbrother Thomas Roscruge (very medieval – let’s keep all the land in the family!)

2. Richard (2nd petitioner) was son of an unnamed Roscruge who was somehow related to Richard (1st petitioner) (possibly a brother, or uncle?) and Jane was the daughter of Udon by Richard (1st petitioner) and the marriage of Jane to Richard (2nd petitioner’s) father was a cousin marriage of some degree

3. The whole suit was a lot of kaka, made up by Richard (2nd petitioner), who was looking to get some money he was not entitled to….

(It is further interesting to note that both of the Chancery suits are signed by the same witnesses!)

I have sent a copy of this via email to Douglas Richardson, author of Plantagenet Ancestry and medieval documents expert. Will keep you all posted, but in the meantime, would love some of your analysis!

[Cornish Terrier]

Thankyou - I already had a headache!
Will try and read through this a couple of times over the coming days to see if I can surmise anything more from it.
Have now read through it two or three times but ......

[marktrengove]

My, what a convoluted problem!

If it wasn't for the fact that I have a BIG DOWNER on Thomas Cromwell (I didn't realise he was Archbishop of York too!), I might sympathise with the size of headache reading this stuff will have caused him. Mind you, compared with the headache he felt when his noddle rolled into the basket on the scaffold it must have been a minor irritation!

I go with your third analysis - a load of kaka!

Welcome to the club for those who spend money at the UK National Archives and end up all confused! I am an honorary member!

[Cornish Terrier]

Mark - I agree with you about the confusing part of all this and I just, while thinking about it, had another thought that I maybe should post on one of our other threads.

Zenobia has mentioned something here that revolves around 'prospective beneficiaries' using their Mother's maiden name. (I think I have read this correctly. )

That then brings in to play another theory about the 'Alias Names' we have spoken about in recent times on this site.

I might make a note of that in the appropriate place in a moment.

However, the other thing here regards Thomas Cromwell.

My reading of all of this (and I am not going to search through my books just now) suggests there must have been two Thomas Cromwells.

The earlier documents (1515-1518) referred to are directed to Thomas Cromwell who was then Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England.

I believe the Thomas Cromwell you are thinking about would have been the man involved in the downfall of King Charles in the mid-1600's whereafter we had the 'Restoration'.

Messy times back in those days.

[Zenobia]

marktrengove said:

My, what a convoluted problem!

I go with your third analysis - a load of kaka!

Welcome to the club for those who spend money at the UK National Archives and end up all confused! I am an honorary member!

Yes, the first document has the whole aura of being 'made up', but if you and I can see that then obviously Cromwell could too, especially as the documents were recorded one after the other... I mean, I can imagine the scenario:

Tom to his clerk: "I see we have a petition today from Richard Roscouge...wasn't he just in here yesterday?"

Clerk: "No, that was his grandfather - looks like a couple of generations passed away overnight...."

So that leaves me wondering just how these lawsuits were catalogued and filed. Was there actually an earlier unrecorded lawsuit by Richard and Udon, which the family kept a copy of, and at some point ca. 1516 the grandson Richard, now having problems with the Trevirgies again, brought out the old suit, copied it (badly) and represented it along with his suit?

I mean, a blatant forgery would have just been so obvious in this case. And the witnesses were prominent: a Flamock, a Killigrew and a Penrose.

[Zenobia]

ianjtrewhella said:

Mark - I agree with you about the confusing part of all this and I just, while thinking about it, had another thought that I maybe should post on one of our other threads.

Zenobia has mentioned something here that revolves around 'prospective beneficiaries' using their Mother's maiden name. (I think I have read this correctly. )

That then brings in to play another theory about the 'Alias Names' we have spoken about in recent times on this site.

I might make a note of that in the appropriate place in a moment.

Nope, no one was using the mother's maiden name. Sorry if it looked like that.

Richard Roskruge (the 2nd petitioner) was a son of Thomas Roscruge, but according to the docs, the inheritance in question came thru his mother Jane. Apparently Udon left only one child: her daughter Jane, and Richard was either the only or eldest son of Jane, so was entitled to the rental as her right heir.

Udon's maiden name was Trevitheowe.

Jane's maiden name is unknown, but could either be Roscruge (if scenario 2 in my original post applied) or Tregonwell or Masely or other (if scenario 1 applied).

Udon was called Tregonwell in the second petition, probably because she had remarried a Tregonwell after the death of her Roscruge husband (or had a previous marriage to a Tregonwell, it was not uncommon for medieval widows to use whichever name they felt was most important).

(Okay, this is post medieval, but close)

However, the other thing here regards Thomas Cromwell.

My reading of all of this (and I am not going to search through my books just now) suggests there must have been two Thomas Cromwells.

The earlier documents (1515-1518) referred to are directed to Thomas Cromwell who was then Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England.

I believe the Thomas Cromwell you are thinking about would have been the man involved in the downfall of King Charles in the mid-1600's whereafter we had the 'Restoration'.

That was Oliver Cromwell.

Thomas was Henry VIII's right-hand man, and a right bastard. He ended up with his head rolling...

Messy times back in those days.

You have that one right!

[Cornish Terrier]

Blast and Goldarn'it - you dun got me agin!

Now I think about it I was going to send a similar Cromwell response recently but decided against it because I then realised it was Oliver in the latter part of the scenario.

Events of the last day or so may have clouded my mind so I apologise to all readers for any confusion here.

However, it is worth thinking about the possibility that some of the 'alias' references we have been talking about may, in fact, been to do with other than Property.

Just food for thought.

As for the main part of this - I will try and look over it again.
First need to look after other queries and work through the current work drama.

[Zenobia]

Don't feel bad, Ollie and Thomas were both villians, so easy enough to mix up! ;D

[Cornish Terrier]

Ollie probably had the wrong partner.

Crikey - wasn't there some bloke in Africa that had the same problem.

I think they were both missing a Stanley.

NYUK, NYUK, NYUK!

[marktrengove]

As far as I'm aware, Tommy and Olly were not even related, but certainly both b*st*rds.

As a man of Cornish ancestry, I'm obviously a King's man and no great lover of that wart-faced Parliamentarian. But as a card-carrying RC, I have even less love for the man who was largely behind the destruction of the monasteries in this fair land.

All rather off Zenobia's little problem, but fun to get off one's chest all the same!

[Cornish Terrier]

Mark - I get the impression you missed my point.

That is - the point regarding 'OLLIE and STANLEY'

Forget that old 'dodger' TOMMY Cromwell - he should probably have been right 'in the GUN' from the start.

Thought I would try to inject a little wry humour into things every now and then.

I think I do know what you mean but we can discuss these things more at a later date.

Must retire now.

[trencrom]

Zenobia,
I have had a quick look at this and it is a puzzling case.

My first reaction was to say that Richard (II) was the grandson of Richard (I) and Udon, but if the intervening generation is female how can he have the same surname as his maternal grandfather?
If he took his mother's surname (not totally unheard of in medieval times) then his father coiuld not have been a Roskruge, which may create problems once the visitation record is added to the picture.
The idea of a marriage between cousins in the intervening generation also occurred to me, and would eliminate that problem, BUT then I wondered about the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriages. I don't see therefore how he (Richard's father) could be too closely related to his wife's family.

Is Johanna wife of Thomas likely to be the Jane who was daughter of Udon, or can we rule that out?

The other point is that the Richard R who was aged 60 in 1539 would have therefore been 25 in 1504 when John Tregithowe, GREAT-grandfather of the second claimant died. Are we therefore talking about two different men?

Since the land was given to Udon and the heirs of her body, I would take it that the second claimant has to be her biological grandson, otherwise how can he have a claim?

Also, is the visitation wrong in attributing an Udon (not a name I can recall seeing before) to Thomas?

Presumably the first claimant was acting in the right of his wife. However if there is only a short time interval apparent between the two claims I do not see how Udon could have subsequently married a Tregonwell, as Richard (II) had Udon predeceasing Jane and the latter dying in 1504.

I think we need more evidence to determine the pedigree at this point.

Have you checked the DCRS abstracts for IPMs for Devon and Cornwall, for all the relevant surnames? These have been filmed by LDS and go beyond the dates of the IPMs published thus far by HMSO.

I would also check feet of fines records (if available for this time frame) for any references.

Did they have land in Trigg Hundred? If so a check of Sir John Maclean's book "Trigg Minor" (the short version of its title) may uncover something, as he had material on the history and pedigrees of many families that lived elsewhere in Cornwall but which were also associated with that area. This work (or at least part of it) has also been filmed by LDS.

Finally, although not primary sources, do the early Cornish antiquarians (e.g. Carew, Hals, Tonkin) mention these folk at all?

[Zenobia]

trencrom said:

Zenobia,
I have had a quick look at this and it is a puzzling case.

My first reaction was to say that Richard (II) was the grandson of Richard (I) and Udon, but if the intervening generation is female how can he have the same surname as his maternal grandfather?
If he took his mother's surname (not totally unheard of in medieval times) then his father coiuld not have been a Roskruge, which may create problems once the visitation record is added to the picture.
The idea of a marriage between cousins in the intervening generation also occurred to me, and would eliminate that problem, BUT then I wondered about the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriages. I don't see therefore how he (Richard's father) could be too closely related to his wife's family.

Well, Richard's father was definitely a Thomas Roscruge, as he states such in the 1539 deposition; also, the Star Chamber lawsuit shows his father as Thomas.

Dunno how well the consanguinity laws were followed in that time period - I know by the 1800s I had first cousins marrying each other...

Is Johanna wife of Thomas likely to be the Jane who was daughter of Udon, or can we rule that out?

I think we can rule her out, as that Johan had a brother Rawlin (according to the Star Chamber lawsuit), so no child of Johan could have been the 'next heir' of Udon as long as the brother had descendants living (which he still did at that time).

The other point is that the Richard R who was aged 60 in 1539 would have therefore been 25 in 1504 when John Tregithowe, GREAT-grandfather of the second claimant died. Are we therefore talking about two different men?

Well, the whole timeline is a mess, no matter who the petitioner turns out to be. It almost had to be this Richard, unless there was a cadet branch that I don't know about...

Since the land was given to Udon and the heirs of her body, I would take it that the second claimant has to be her biological grandson, otherwise how can he have a claim?

Correct.

Also, is the visitation wrong in attributing an Udon (not a name I can recall seeing before) to Thomas?

Well, 'Udon Masely' is the only name in the pedigree which is not proven from other primary sources. It may be wrong and should therefore be Jane (d/o Udon), but in this case, the only thing I can come up with is that Udon was the second wife of Richard (I), and her daughter Jane married her stepson.

That would give us the following:

1. Richard Roskruke I m1) Johan m2) Udon Tregitherowe

2. Thomas Roskruke (by m1) m. Jane (Masely? Tregonwell?) d/o of Udon by a first husband.

3. Richard Roscruge II

Presumably the first claimant was acting in the right of his wife. However if there is only a short time interval apparent between the two claims I do not see how Udon could have subsequently married a Tregonwell, as Richard (II) had Udon predeceasing Jane and the latter dying in 1504.

Yes, as I pointed out, the timeline is a mess. If the scenario I just showed above is correct, then it is possible that Udon married a Tregonwell, and had Jane, then married Richard Roskruke I as her second husband. In the second petition then, Richard II would be calling his maternal grandmother a Tregonwell, as that would be the maiden name of his mother Jane. Dunno where the Masely comes in...

If the lawsuit was not spurious, then this is the only way I can make it work...

I think we need more evidence to determine the pedigree at this point.

Have you checked the DCRS abstracts for IPMs for Devon and Cornwall, for all the relevant surnames? These have been filmed by LDS and go beyond the dates of the IPMs published thus far by HMSO.

Yes, I have all the LDS films of the IPMs and there is nothing for Roskruge or any of the pertinant names. (The 2 Roskruge IMPs that I have are quoted in Henderson).

I would also check feet of fines records (if available for this time frame) for any references.

The only Roscruge in the Feet of Fines is a Thomas in the mid 1300s with a wife Annora (who appears to be a second wife). This Thomas appears in a couple of deeds in Henderson involving a James and a Richard Roskruge. If you want, I can abstract these in a separate thread - let me know. They would seem to involve a generation just prior to Richard I.

Did they have land in Trigg Hundred? If so a check of Sir John Maclean's book "Trigg Minor" (the short version of its title) may uncover something, as he had material on the history and pedigrees of many families that lived elsewhere in Cornwall but which were also associated with that area. This work (or at least part of it) has also been filmed by LDS.

I don't think so, but I will put it on my list to check out anyway!

Finally, although not primary sources, do the early Cornish antiquarians (e.g. Carew, Hals, Tonkin) mention these folk at all?

I don't think I have access to these sources...

Hey, thanks for giving me another opportunity to spell Roskruge a dozen different ways - I would have made a great 1500s clerk! ;D

[Zenobia]

A couple of other thoughts...

If the lawsuits are genuine, then the first document HAS to be of an earlier date. My guess would be that the basic text of the suit (or some sort of copy) was retained in the Roskruge family, and when the problem with the Trevirgy heirs cropped up again in the 1510s, Richard II resurrected his grandfather's suit, had it rewritten (badly) and resubmitted it along with his own suit. That would explain the same witnesses on both suits and would explain also the short time period and why they were filed together.

Any thoughts?

[trencrom]

Zenobia, a few more thoughts on this matter:

The addressee being Thomas Cromwel as chancellor has me wondering about the dates 1515-8 for these suits. Wasn't Thomas Cromwell only chancellor of England in the latter 1530s?

Although not certain, given that this part of the pedigree is pre-Reformation I would assume that the medieval laws pertaining to consanguinity were still applicable.

Re my earlier post: I was assuming that Udon was still alive at the time of Richard (I)'s claim. However Richard (II)'s claim that Jane died in 1504, and that Udon predeceased her, would appear to contradict this. I am now wondering whether Richard (I) would have had any entitlements to the rentals once his wife had died.