|
Post by trencrom on Jan 17, 2008 7:50:27 GMT -5
After reviewing this case again I have some further comments to add.
First, I really think we need additional primary source information, if that can be found, to establish what the correct pedigree is. I would be tempted at this point to put the visitations aside and just work on what 16th century records we have or can find, and judge the quality of the later visitation information by what then emerges.
The deed I would really like to see, if it has survived, is the one by John Tregithowe that set up the arrangement in the first place. Was it a fine? Does it spell out the relationships between all of the parties?
Second, presumably the property or properties in question are identified in the suit papers and so it might be worth looking for other references to these lands, which in turn might shed some light on the pedigrees.
Third, I can confirm that Wolsey was Archbishop of York as well as Cardinal and was appointed as Chancellor from 1515. Where then did the reference to Thomas Cromwell come from? Is it in the online summaries of the docs concerned, or in the actual text of the same? That is important in ascertaining the chronology of the folk named therein.
Fourth, as I have only seen what has been posted here, I cannot judge what comments in the records about Udon being said to be "but a stranger" might mean for the pedigree. Could you elaborate on that for us please Zenobia?
It does seem from the posted doc summaries that Udon is expressly identified as the daughter of John Tregithowe in the first suit, and not so identifed in the second. I am not persuaded however that there were two Udons. I can see why the conflicting information on Udon might suggest this, but there are problems with the resulting reconstruction.
Firstly, the terms of the benefits granted by John Tregithowe to Udon and to his daughter Isote sound identical in the summaries of the two suit docs that have been posted thus far. That to me is a very strong argument for saying that if an Udon receives identical benefits from the same man in each account, then it has to be the same Udon in each instance.
Secondly, Richard could not have had a claim on these rentals through his proposed grandmother Udon if they were the property of her son-in-law. As I read it, John Tregithowe entailed the land on his daughter Udon and simultaneously leased it to her sister. Where and why would his mother-in-law come into it?
We don't know that this property came to Tregithowe by his wife either. If it was his own inheritance, which is quite possible on present evidence, then his wife's relatives could have no claim whatsoever on it. And even if for the sake of argument it came to him via his wife, then it would have then been inherited by their children, and not by the mother-in-law, because it seems clear that John and his wife had both children and grandchildren and so did not lack any heirs of their bodies. John therefore would not have enfeoffed his mother-in-law with the property after his death ahead of his own descendants or for that matter ahead of his own wife, who may or who may not have been still living at that time. Richard could not therefore have claimed the land in his own right as proposed.
It seems clear therefore to me that there was only one Udon, although some of the information about her is clearly irreconcilable. Viz: the second suit implies that she died before her daughter Jane in 1504, while the first has her as joint petitioner with her husband in, say, 1515. If we have to choose between these two versions then we must choose the version of the first one accordingly because she is a party therein.
The description of Udon in the two posted suit doc summaries is also consistent with there having been two Richards. In the first she is called the daughter of John Tregithowe. No surprise there, she inherits the property by deed from her father and her property is hence also her husband's jure uxoris by law. But if Udon had previously married a Tregonwell -- as proposed in previous discussion here and subsequently indicated by the Tregeare pedigree that Zenobia has described -- then any claim by any offspring of her daughter Jane would come through the Tregonwell family. In other words, you could expect to find Udon called a Tregonwell in such a claim, because the claim derives through that family. By contrast you would not expect to find her so called in a claim involving her and another husband (whether an earlier or a later husband would not matter in this instance), because the Tregonwell connection would be of no relevance in that particular instance, unlike the other. In short, the way Udon is named differently in the two docs is not a problem.
Regarding the problem with the Tregeare pedigree showing that Udon and John Tregonwell had children who did not marry Roskruges, a couple of observations: 1) The deed of John Tregithowe may have specified who amongst Udon's heirs was to inherit the land after her death.
2) Zenobia is right when she says that there could be error in the Tregeare pedigree, but it may also be that it is not so much a case of error as incomplete (by our standards) information. Visitation pedigrees in other words do not always show all marriages or even all children to a nominated individual. The informant may simply not have known of the Roskruge offspring.
3) The marriage of the two Janes Tregonwell to Richard Adam and to Ralph Liffnye respectively may not have preceded a marriage by either one of these women to a Roskruge. It is quite correct to say that had one of these Janes later remarried to Roskruge it would have made Richard Roskruge a younger grandson of Udon's with (in Zenobia's words) 'doodleysquat" chances of inheriting the property in question. But why would a Roskruge marriage of a Jane need to have been a later marriage?? Why couldn't a Jane Tregonwell have married a Roskruge as her first husband instead? That scenario would certainly give Richard a better claim even if he did have half-brothers.
I will suggest the following as a tentative alternative pedigree (I did it initially as a chart but it did not come out when I "previwed" it:
Richard Roskruge, living 1515, marries firstly to Joan, sister of Pawlin, and secondly to Udon, living in 1515, the daughter of John Tregithowe d. 1504, whose other daughter Isote married Thomas Trevirgy senior and by him had a son Thomas Trevirgy junior. Isote died c. 1515.-8 Udon had a prior husband John Tregonwell by whom she has three daughters, Jane Jane and Amy. One of the Janes married firstly to Richard's son Thomas (I) Roskruge and by him has Richard (II) Roskruge. This Jane then married either of Richard Adam or Ralph Liffnye, her namesake sister marrying the other of these two.
Thomas (I) and Jane's son Richard (II) Roskruge, b.c. 1479, liv. 1539 married Elizabeth Trewoofe. Richard (II) and Elizabeth were then the parents of Thomas (II) Roskruge who married Jane Tripcony.
If -- and I will say if-- the above scenario proves to be correct then "Udon Maseley" as wife of Thomas (I) in the Roskruge visitation pedigree would therefore be either later confusion with his father Richard (I)'s wife Udon, or else is a first wife to Thomas who has been incorrectly credited as the mother of his son Richard (II).
Once Udon Roskruge, nee Tregithowe died, the claims of her husband on the rentals would lapse as well (because he had not acquired them before her death) and perhaps that is what precipitated the second lawsuit. If so, then Udon must have died around 1515-18. It is also possible, as has been suggested by John Tanner , that Isote died around this time and that too may have been a factor commencing the second lawuit as the second claim calls her deceased and is directed against her son and heir.
Getting late -- Will have to post later re the cousin marriage issue.
Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 17, 2008 17:38:13 GMT -5
I am beginning to wish that I had never got involved in this topic. I am now tempted to surrender to Trencrom's analysis, or just to retire from the fray. But I will stay with it for now.
I must confess that I never took seriously the idea that there were two different Richards bringing the two similar cases, with the implication that there was only one Udon. Especially as the Visitation says that there were two Udons. The idea of grandfather and grandson bringing simultaneous cases did not appeal. But having had a quick look at Trencrom's ideas I have to admit that he could be right and that my original ideas could be quite wrong.
I need to spend time staring at each alternative in detail, and hope that one or the other will be seen to have fewer problems. At the moment I find the arguments hard to grasp, and then to retain in my mind from one day to the next.
On a detailed point, the heading of both documents refers to 'Cardinal', so it has to be Wolsey.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jan 18, 2008 0:09:47 GMT -5
Hey John - thanks for joining.
Hopefully with enough discussion we can figure this one out.
There are parts of your theory that I like, and parts of Trencroms theory that I like, but as it is already late I will have to try and tackle this over the weekend when I am fresher.
Tomorrow I will post your translations of both deeds, so the matter will be somewhat clearer to study.
Z
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 18, 2008 3:58:21 GMT -5
I sent my last posting too late at night. The Roskruge Visitation of course only names one Udon. Sorry.
I now wonder whether 'Masley' in the Roskruge Visitation is an alternative rendering of the alias 'Owry' in the Tregeare one.
This is rather in haste, as I am just off to The National Archives, where among other things, I hope to copy the original documents of the Star Chamber case and the 1539 deposition. But the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to prefer Trencrom's version to my own. The relationships can be squeezed to fit either solution but the inheritances fit more smoothly with Trencrom's.
If I understand it correctly, this says that the first deposition was between Udon's interest in the property and her sister Isote's interest. Udon died, so did her daughter Jane, so her interest descended to Richard R junior. Isote also died and her interest descended to her son Thomas T. three deaths within 3-4 years. One problem with this is that the second suit appears to say that Jane died 1504, but also that she died after Udon did. We should look carefully at this.
Zenobia, I will post these transcriptions, as I have made a few corrections since I sent copies to you.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jan 18, 2008 7:46:34 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum, John, from me as well.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jan 18, 2008 7:47:37 GMT -5
On the subject of the prohibited degrees of marriage:
The marriage of the Richard Roskruge or Roskruges mentioned in the two suit documents would have taken place no later than the start of the sixteenth century, and probably earlier depending on what chronological arrangement we envisage for this family. Either way though, it is pre-Reformation, which means that marrriage law in England, and indeed in most of Europe generally, was governed by the decrees of the councils of the Catholic Church.
The original ruling, which was delivered some time in the first half of the eighth century, was that you could not marry someone who was related within seven degrees of kinship to you. (You could also not marry anyone related within certain degrees of affinity either, but I will sidestep that topic as it does not have any bearing on the current case.) What this meant was that you could not marry anyone who who shared a common ancestor seven generations (or less) back with you, unless you received a special dispensation to do so from the pope himself.
Any marriage within the prohibited degrees and without the necessary dispensation was not lawful. That made it pretty hard to find eligible spouses at a time when people did not have a lot of ability to travel afield to find them. I was following some discussion about this very topic on another forum recently and learnt that, as a consequence of the ruling, peasants could not find folk that they could lawfully marry from within their own village, and if they wed someone from outside then they were liable to stiff monetary fines because of the loss of income and labour etc that the lord of the other village would experience when someone from his lands relocated elsewhere . Many peasants therefore petitioned to have these fines remitted, and records about that have survived. I mention this to show how the rule affected all levels of society. Of course it also affected the higher levels, such as the nobility and royalty, and while they had more prospects of travel they were not going to marry out of their own social class either. Moresover it is debatable whether folk knew everyone who was related to them within seven degrees -- there would be a lot of descendants from all of your fifth-great-grandparents to keep track of! So we find quite a number of instances where people married and then found out afterwards that they were distant relations and so had to petition for a dispensation to make the marriage a licit one. In addition to that, it is suspected that there were many cases where folk married and then used the discovery of a very distant relationship as a way of getting out of the marriage without incurring the scandal of a divorce. In such cases the marriage would end by annulment instead and this would mean that the children of the union would continue to remain legitimate. The classic case here of course is the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII of France. When the marriage went sour, largely because Eleanor had failed to provide Louis with a male heir, all of a sudden a distant relationship within the seven degree prohibition was discovered and used as the justification for having the marriage annulled. Furthermore a second method of counting the generations had emerged by this stage, and so folk could claim they had used the other method when faced with allegations that they had married illegally.
Because of all these ongoing problems that the seven degree prohibition had caused, the Fourth Lateran Council in Rome in the year 1215 reduced the number of prohibited degrees to four. That decree remained in force, as far as Catholic countries were concerned, as I understand it until 1917. The new ruling of 1215 meant that third cousins or closer degrees than that could not marry, but that fourth and more distant cousins now could do so without the need for a dispensation. Once again, marriage within the four degrees of consanguinity could occur if a dispensation from the pope was obtained. Where the parties had differing degrees of descent from a common ancestor, the larger of the two figures was used to determine the status of the relationship. For example, if one party was four degrees removed from the common ancestor and the other party was five degrees so removed, it was a relationship in the fifth degree and hence any marriage between these parties was not prohibited.
These therefore would have been the rules at the time of the Roskruge marriage or marriages.
The rules were also enforced -- as others have pointed out elsewhere, Edward III needed a dispensation for his children to marry persons related to them in the third degree. Likewise in the following century folk such as the future Richard III and his brother the Duke of Clarence needed dispensations to marry in the third degree. The Church also enforced the obligation of such prominent folk to apply for dispensations as an example to the rest of medieval society.
Accorinfg to what I have read on the Net, Richard's 1991 biographer Michael Hicks apparently said that the dispensations were not easy to get. Richard and his brother were, incidentally motivated in their quest by the national politics of the day and by the desire to wed the coheiresses of the great fortune of Richard "the Kingmaker" Neville, Earl of Warwick, the leading English noble of their time.
A marriage of first cousins however is in the second degree. I am aware of dispensations being granted for the third degree and for the fourth degree in England, but have not come across any as yet for the second. I think also that in the case of first cousins the relationship between the parties would be known to all and sundry, and hence there would be zero chance of pretending ignorance of it. A marriage within prohibited degrees that was entered into knowingly would also be likely to be declared illegal by the religious authorities, and that would render the children of the union illegitimate, with all the loss of inheritance rights that that then entailed. For that reason I cannot believe that first cousins would try to wed without a dispensation. and given the degree of closeness in the relationship it would be unlikely to attract one even if the parties had the means to finance the making of a petition to Rome for one.
In the Iberian peninsula things were a bit different for whatever reason, and we see marriages within these degrees in the royal houses, as Zenobia has already mentioned. However other writers elsewhere have also pointed out that this practice was not paralleled in England, where it was in the words of one person "frowned on" and "relatively rare". Another writer -- Douglas Richardson -- has said that the prohibition was strictly followed in England and that he does not know of a single first cousin marriage for the entire medieval period in England. He added that he had heard of one reported instance in France but added that he would want to see the relevant dispensation before he accepted the relevant report as being correct.
I therefore have serious doubts about any proposed marriage of first cousins in Cornwall in the pre-Reformation period.
All this changed in England with the Reformation. In the time of Elizabeth I the law was changed and first cousins were thereafter permitted to marry without the need for a dispensation from the ecclesiastical authorities. In 1563 the Church of England produced a series of tables showing which kin one could not marry. These included nephews or nieces, and aunts or uncles (whether by blood or by marriage, it did not matter) as well as siblings-in-law.
First cousins were therefore not included in these prohibitions, and as has already been pointed out, there are numerous well-attested instances of first cousins marrying in Penwith in subsequent centuries.
Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 18, 2008 13:49:33 GMT -5
Here are my full transcriptions of the two Chancery cases. I do not guarantee absolute accuracy, but I hope that the obscurities are not crucial. In my original I used italics for bits that I had interpolated but I may not have put them all back. I will write separately about what I found at Kew today, but I doubt if it will have much influence on the immediate issue ============================================== C1/439/27 My photo number 101 To the most reverend father in God Thomas (Wolsey) Cardinal Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England Showeth and complaineth unto your good and gracious lordship your poor orator Richard Rescruke and Udon his wife daughter and one of the heirs of one John Tregithiowe that whereas the said John Tregethiowe was seised of and in the meases xx acres of land and xxx acres of pasture with their appurtenances situated and lying in Tregithiowe within the county of Cornwall in his demesne as of fee and so seised by his deed poll gave the premises with the appurtenances unto one Isote his daughter sister unto the said Udon and to the heirs of her body lawfully begotten yielding to him yearly for time of life five mazs and after his decease yielding and paying yearly unto the said Udon and the heirs of her body lawfully begotten 12s 10d good and lawful money of England at the Feast of St Philip and James and St Michael the Archangel by even portions by force of the which gift the said Isot was seised of and in the said meases and lands in her demesne as of fee tail and so seised took to husband one Thomas Trevirgy. And afterwards the said John Tregethiowe died that is to say in the 20th year of the reign of our late sovereign lord King Henry 7th (1504/5) sithence whose death your said orators have many and divers times required and desired the said Thomas and Isot to consent and pay unto them the said yearly rent being behind and sithence the decease of her said father which amounting to the sum of £12 16s in the Feast of St Michael the Archangel last past for 12 years then ended which to pay the said Thomas and Isote have all times refused and yet refuseth contrary to all right and good conscience and so by cause that the said deed of gift of the said tenement and of the said reservation of the said rent of 12s 10p is but a poll deed and not indented which deed resteth and ought ot rest in the keeping of the said Isote and her husband and the heirs of the body of the same Isote and albeit that there were a clause of distress reserved unto the said Udon and her said heirs in the said deed for faute of payment of the said rent at the said Feast yet your said orator be without remedy by the use of the common law to come to the said rent and arrearages of the same for by cause that your said orators is not privy to the said reservation. In consideration whereof that it may please your said lordship the premises to consider and to grant a writ of subpeona to be directed unto the said Thomas and Isote commanding them by the same to appear before the King in his chancery at a certain day and upon a certain pain by your said lordship to be limited there to answer unto the premises and show why he ought not to consent and pay yearly unto your said orator and his said heirs the said yearly rent of 12s 10d with the arrearages of the same. And on that to abide and obey all such directions and judgements as shall be thought by your said lordship most reasonable in the premises. And this for the love of God and in the way of charity ============================================== C1/439/28 My photo number 102 To the most reverend father in God Thomas (Wolsey) Cardinal Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England Showeth and complaineth unto your good and gracious lordship your poor orator Richard Rescrouge cousin and next heir of the body of one Udon Tregonwell that is to say son of Jane daughter of the said Udon, that whereas one John Tregitheowe was seised of and in three meases ..acres of land and ... acres of pasture and its appurtenances set and lying in Tregethyowe within the county of Cornwall in the demesne of fee and so possessed by the deed poll gave the premises with the appurtenances unto one Isott his daughter and to the heirs of her body lawfully begotten yielding to him yearly for time of his life 00 ... and after his decease yielding and paying yearly unto the said Udon and to the heirs of her body lawfully begotten 12s 10d of good and lawful money of England at the Feasts of Philip and James and Saint Michael the Archangel by even portions by force of which gift the aforesaid Isott was seised of and in the said meses and land in her demesne as of fee tail. And afterwards the said Udon died and afterwards the said Jane mod (mother??) to your said orator died that is to say in the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 20th year of the reign of our late sovereign Lord King Henry 7th (1504/5) and afterwards the said Isott died of the said estate of and in the said meses and land seised after whose death the said meses and land descended unto one Thomas Trevergy as son and heir of the same Isott by force whereof the same Thomas into the premises entered and thereof was and yet is seized in the demesne as of fee tail as by force of the said gift so it is good and gracious lord that your said orator sithince the decease of the said Udon and Jane hath often and many times required and desired the said Thomas to consent and pay unto him the sum of £12 16s being behind and to him due at the feast of St Michael the Archangel last past for 12 years next after the decease of the said Udon and Jane which to pay the said Thomas hath at all times refused and yet refuseth contrary to all right and good conscience. And forbearance that the said repudiation of the said rent of 12s 10d was made unto the said Udon being but a stranger unto the said John the donor. And also because then the said deed of gift of the said land and of the repudiation of the said rent of 12s 10d is but a post deed and not indented which deed resteth and ought to rest in the keeping of the said donor and Trevergy. And after that there were a clause of distress reserved unto the said Udon and her said heirs in the said deed for fault of payment of the said rent at the said Feasts yet is your said orator without remedy by the course of the common law to come to the said rent and the arrearage of the same. In consideration whereof that it may please your said lordship the premises to convey and to grant a writ of subpeona to be directed unto the said Thomas demanding him by the same to appear before the King in his Chancery at a certain day and upon a certain pain by your said lordship to be limited there to answer unto the premises and to show why he ought not to cotente and pay yearly unto your said orator and his said heirs the said yearly rent of 12s 10d with the aforesaid arrearages of the same. And on that to abide and obey all such directions and judgements as shall be thought by your said lordship most reasonable in the premises and this for the love of God and in the way of charity.
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 19, 2008 12:36:12 GMT -5
Here is another Chancery case. Is this Thomas one that we already know of, or is he from a different family? I will post several other Chancery etc cases hopefully over the next few days. ================================================================== C1/35/68 Thomas Rescreke v John Tresevell. My photo number 80 According to the catalogue, the date is 1465-1471 or 1480-1483 To the most reverent father in God the Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England Meekly beseecheth your good and gracious lordship your contynnett orator Thomas Rescreke son and heir of Stephyn Rescreke that where the said Stephyn being seised in and of a mease of 40 acres of land 8 acres of meadow and 24 acres of pasture with their appurtenances in Averley of great trust infeaffed on John Tresevell in and of the said mease with the appurtenances to have to him and his heirs for ever in his demesne as of fee to the use and behove of the said Stephyn and to his heirs and to the intent to refeoffe him or his heirs when he where thereto required. And after the said Stephen died after whose decease the said Thomas oft times and many hath required the said John to make him astate in and of the said mease with the appurtenances according to the intent aforesaid which to see the said John at all times hath refused and yet doth against all laws and good conscience. It will please therefore your gracious lordship, the premises considered, and that your orator hath no remedy by the common law of this land, to grant a writ subpeona to be directed to the said John commanding him by the same to appear afore the king in his chancery at a certain day and under a certain pain by your lordship to be limit and then and there such direction to be take as by your good lordship shall be thought most according to right and good conscience in that behalf. And this at the presence of God and in the way of charity.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 19, 2008 13:08:13 GMT -5
Welcome John Tanner from Ian Trewhella. I have to make this quick due to my connection dropping but have one comment to make as far as notes up until the early ones of January 18 this year. The references to Jane (d. 1504) and Jane (sometime later) spring to mind. There was a reference in one of the above notes to Udon having TWO daughters named JANE. May this bear some significance on the problem. Will try and read more but it is late now and I do not trust my connection. Hope this is of some help. Ian
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 19, 2008 13:36:32 GMT -5
Here is another one, the gist of which we already know. I have photographed all the documents in the case but will not transcribe the rest unless there is some good reason to do so. I did not spot any other references to Roskruge.
===================================================================
Extract from Court of Requests documents TNA reference REQ2/3/51 My photos Canon 38-44
Catalogue description: John Tredree of ‘St Garth’ v James Luke: lands in Polbelereck [Polbathic, in St Germans], Cornwall 5 mm. SMP 22 April 1539 - 21 April 1540
Richard Rescruke gentleman of the age of lx (60) years or thereabouts sworn and examined sayeth and deposeth that the said John Gervys was seised of the said lands and tenement in Polbeleryk as his inheritance and thereof took always the issues and p’setts and thereof died seised. And further this deponent sayeth that the said lands in Polbelerek is holden of him and that the said Jervys paid a relief to Thomas Reskruke father to this deponent after the death of Pers Luke. And that the said James Luke also paid relief to the said Thomas Rescruke after the death of the said John Jervys.
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 19, 2008 14:20:53 GMT -5
Hello again Ian/Cornish Terrier. It is a long time since we corresponded on Cornish matters. Recently I have been spending more time on my wife Lettice's Welsh ancestry.
I am temporarily keeping quiet on the main issue of Richard, Udon etc, hoping that others will do the hard thinking. I think that there have to be three different people involved called Joan or Jane. Two sisters, and one who is either their mother-in-law, or is 1st cousin once removed, depending on whose theory you prefer.
Quite why two sisters were both called Jane defeats me. Normally I would expect either that it indicates two different marriages, or that one of them died young. From what the Visitation tells us, neither applies in this case. So I am stuck.
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Jan 20, 2008 7:49:30 GMT -5
Hello John, I dont want to start looking into the nitty gritty of this tangle. For a start it looks way beyond me, and just reading it all sends me dizzy. However, certainly looks an interesting issue, and you're fortunate to have located these documents.
On the subject of two children having the same given name I have come across this in other families, and have come up with 2 scenarios where it seems logical. Firstly if Jane(1) was VERY poorly when the next daughter was born/baptised they may have decided to call her Jane as well on the basis that Jane (1) would not live long. Then Jane(1) pulls through and they have a problem!
A second option put to me sometime ago is the naming pattern of children, ie first daughter named after fathers mum, second daughter named after mums mum. What if both mums called Jane?
Good luck Mike
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 20, 2008 12:32:04 GMT -5
Thanks, Mike. I agree that these are further explanations. The first might apply in this case, but not the second: we are told that the mother was Udon and that the father's mother was Amy (hence the 3rd daughter Amy).
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 20, 2008 13:56:44 GMT -5
Here is another case fron TNA. At first I thought that it must relate to the family that we are trying to sort out, but then I wondered why Rescrowgie was said to be in St Kevern. So I looked at the modern map and found that there is a place called Roscrowgie about 3 miles SW of Roskruge Barton. Presumably the Rescrowgies were an earlier offshoot of the Roskruges, but we may never know. It is interesting that the place Roscrowgie is only 3/4 of a mile from Grugwith, where our Towednack Curnows may have come from. See one of the TNA cases that I have posted on the Kerrier: Trewhella/Curnow/Cock thread. There are also an answer and a replication, which I have not transcribed. I doubt whether they would tell us much. ======================================================================== TNA reference C2/Eliz/R2/39 My photos Canon 45-50 Catalogue entry: James Rescrowgye v Gilbert Rescrowgye and Richard Rescrowgye. For performance of an agreement. Certain messuages and lands in Rescrowgye in the parish of St Keveren, of which plaintiff and defendant Gilbert his brother obtained a lease from John Penrose and Norah his wife. Catalogue says just reign of Elizabeth, but two entries on documents say 1592. To the Queen’s most excellent majesty in her honourable court of Chancery In most humble wise complaining showeth unto your highness your poor subject James Roscrowgyeof St Keveren in your grace’ county of Cornwall husbandman that whereas about xxii years past your said subject together with one Gilbert Roscrowgie his brother in consideration of the sum of £20 of lawful money of England between them equall to be paid to one John Penrose of Tregethowe gent and Nora his wife for a fine for a lease of three lives to be had and enjoyed in meane between them of all the messuage lands and tenement in Rescrowgie within the said parish of St Keveren did agree together in secret between themselves to take the lease of the rented premises to your said subject and the said Gilbert Rescrowgie and Richard Rescrowgie son of the said Gilbert jointly. And further because your said subject should pay for his part the sum of £10 being the one half of the said fine and yet was to have but the third part of the premises by force of the lease. The said Richard and Gilbert did then also agree promise and conclude to and with your said subject that they the said Richard and Gilbert would enter into bond to Your said subject in so reasonable a sum of money as should be devised that your said subject and Nowell Roscrowgie his son should quietly occupy hold and enjoy the moiety and halfendale of all and singular the said premises in and by the said lease demised jointly with the said Gilbert and Richard his son during the continuance of the said lease. But so it is, may it please your most excellent majesty, that after the said agreement and p’mnse between the said parties the said lease being obtained and executed accordingly your said subject and the said Nowell his son have divers and sundry times and from time to time required the said Gilbert and Richard to enter into bond with your said subject for the occupying of the moiety of the said premises according to the said p’mise and agreement which to do they have always refused and yet do so as your said subject and his son notwithstanding the payment of one half of the fine are no way assured but are continually expulsed from the occupying and enjoying of the one half of the premises being clean contrary to the agreement faithful promise and assumption made by the said Gilbert and Richard to your said subject and contrary to al reason equity and conscience and to the utter undoing of your subject’s son having nothing else to plead himself withall. In tender consideration whereof and for that aswell the said lease is remaining in the hans of the said Gilbert and Richard Rescrowgie or some one of them as also for that the said agreement and p’msys was made in secret between the said parties without witnesses whereby your said subject by the strict course of the common law of this realm is altogether without remedy either for the occupying and assueptnne of the p'’isses according to the said agreement or the monies disbursed for the same. May it therefore please your highness of your accustomed goodness and clemency to grant unto your poor subject your most gracious writ of subpeona to be directed to the said Gilbert Rescrowgie and Richard Rescrowgie commanding them thereby at a certain day and place and under a certain pain there thereof to be limited and expressed personally to appear before his majestys honourable highness most honourable court of Chancery to answer the premises and therein to orrer to such order as the premises are to your highness seem best agreeable with equity and good conscience and your subject shall duly pray according to his bounden duty of his most prosperous long and ...............
|
|
|
Post by johntanner on Jan 23, 2008 13:52:22 GMT -5
This is as far as I have got with transcribing the Rescruke v Arundel case. So far as I can see it adds little useful to what we already knew. It seems remarkable that Thomas, being second cousin once removed, could have thought that he was Maud’s heir. It implies that various other people in the chain were already dead. But I do not understand how the inheritance system worked at the time. There are four documents: Thomas Rescruke’s complaint. Transcription below. Sir John Arundell’s answer. Difficult to read; I started to transcribe but gave up. List of interrogatories to Sir John. Not transcribed. Sir John’s answers. One extract below. Difficult to read. Unless anyone wants to know more, I will not transcribe this case further. ================================================================================ TNA reference STAC 2/29/94 Covering dates 22 April 1509 - 28 January 1547 Catalogue entry: PLAINTIFF Thomas Roscruke, DEFENDANT Sir John Arundel, PLACE OR SUBJECT Distraint for quit-rent of land in Newlyn, COUNTY Cornwall My photos numbers Canon 28-37 To the King our sovereign lord In most humble wise showeth and complaineth unto your most excellent majesty your poor and daily orator Thomas Roscruke of the parish of St Anthony within your county of Cornwall, that whereas one Maude Borncoys was seised in her demesne as of fee of and in two messuages 60 acres of land 15 acres of meadow 19 acres of pasture 40 acres of furze and heather with the appurtenances so lying and being in Trendreyne and Trewere within the parish of Newlyn in your said county of Cornwall. And the said Maude being so thereof seised by her deed indented bearing date the 30th day of May in the 23rd year of your gracious reign (1541/2) and granted all and singular the said messuage lands and tenements with their appurtenances in Trendreyne unto one Sir John Arundell Trerof knight by the name of John Arundell of Treryse of Treryse esquire, to have and to hold the said messuage and other the premises in Trendreyne unto the said Sir John Arundell and to his heirs for ever yielding and paying yearly therefore unto the said Maude and to her heirs 33 s 4d sterling at the feasts of the nativity, of St John the baptist, St Michael the Archangel, the birth of our lord god and of and after by even portions with a clause of distress also contained in the said deed indented for the same, if the same rent of 33s 4d or any part thereof were behind or unpaid to the said Maude and to her heirs as by the said deed indented amongst other things it appears more at large. And the said Maude also by an other deed indented bearing date the 12th October in the 22nd year of your grace’s reign (1540/41) gave and granted the said messuage lands and tenements with their appurtenances in Trewere by the name of all her messuages lands and tenements in Trewere within the said parish of Newlyn unto the said Sir John Arundell Treryse knight by the name of John Arundell of Treryse esquire, to have and to hold the said messuage and other the premises with their appurtenances in Trewere unto the said Sir John Arundell and to his heirs for ever yielding and paying yearly therefore unto the said Maude and to her heirs 4 s sterling at the said four several feasts by equal portions with a clause of distress also continued in the said last indenture of the said rent of 4 s or any part thereof were behind or unpaid as by the same last remembered indenture it also appeareth more at large. By force whereof the said Sir John Arundell entered into the premises and was thereof seised in his demesne as of fee according to the said two several grants and said the said feudal rents so as is aforesaid severally rescued unto the said Maude during all her life before whereof the said Maude was of the same several rents seised in her demesne as of fee and of such estate thereof died seised after whose decease the said feudal rents descended as of right. It ought to come and descend unto your said supplicant as cousin and next heir of the said Maude. That is to say son of Richard son of Thomas son of Johanne sister of Rowlyn father of Thomas father of the foresaid Maude. By force of whereof your said supplicant was peacably seised of the same feudal rents by the hands of the said Sir John Arundell by the space of two years. So it is nevertheless, most dread sovereign lord, that the said Sir John Arundell of a malicious mind conceived to impon’yse and to discharge your said supplicant of the said several rents without any just cause title or consideration hath not only abetted and procured one Rauff Dunston and Johan his wife to claim and demand the same rents as in the right of the said Johan untruly surmising that the same Johan was and is cousin and next heir unto the said Maude and by colo’ thereof paid the said several rents to the said Rauffe Dunston and Johan. And would in no wise pay the same or suffer the same to be paid unto your said supplicant whereupon forasmuch as 25 s of the said rent of 33 s 4d rescued out of the said messuages lands and tenements in Trendreyne aforesaid by the said deed indented dated the said 30th May in the said 23rd year of your gracious reign (1541/2) was behind and unpaid unto your supplicant. The same your supplicant did lawfully distrain two brasen pans of their goods and chattels of one Robert Hycke in a certain place called Trendreyne Hall parcel of the said lands and tenements and premises in Trendreyne aforesaid for the taking of which said goods and chattels aforesaid the said Robert Hyck by the procurement abetment and unlawful maintenance of the said Sir John Arundell sued a replevyn against your said supplicant supposing by the same that your said supplicant had wrongfully taken the said two brass pans at the said place called Trendryne Hall unto the which accou’ your said orator appeared and avowed the taking of the said distress for the said 25 s parcel of the said rent of 33s 4d in the said place as p’r’c’ll of the said lands and tenements in Tredreyne charged with the said rent of 33s 4d. And in the same avowry conveyed him self heir unto the said Maude for the said rent. Whereupon the said Robert Hyck pleaded in barr of the said avowry and confessed the said gift made of the premises in Trendreyn aforesaid by the said Maude to the said Sir John Arundell and the rescuation of the said rent of 33s 4d to the same Maud and to her heirs upon the same gift. But the said Robert Hyck by the untrue p’curement suggestion and unlawful maintenance of the said Sir John Arundell further alleged in his said bar of the said avowry that the said rent of 33s 4d after the decease of the said Maude defended and ought to defend unto the said Johan the wife of the said Rauffe Dunston as cousin and next heir of the said Maude and untruly denied that your said supplicant was the next heir of the said Maude. And forasmuch as the said Sir John Arundell hath not only unlawfully maintained the said Robert Hyck in the said replevyn against your said supplicant and given divers and sundry force of moiety of his own p’p’rt goods to the counsel learned of the said Robert Hyck in the said replevyn and daily doth maintain. And ayde as well the said Robert Hyck as the said Rauffe Dunston and Johan against your said supplicant in the pretended title of the said Rauffe and Johan to the said rent of 33s 4d but also doth continually pay the said rent to the said Rauffe Dunston and Johan his wife to the disherison of your said supplicant being a very poor man and having very few friends within the said court is not neither shall be able to try his good and lawful title to the said rent of 33s 4d against the said Rauffe and Johan neither yet to procede upon the said avowry against the said Robert Hyck nor yet to have any remedy against the said Sir John Arundell nor to have him condignly punished for the said unlawful maintenance by the order of the common laws of your realm unless your majesty’s most benign goodness and assistance be extended unto your said orator in this behalf. In tender consideration whereas it may please your highness of your most noble and abundant grace to grant so the your gracious writ of subpeona to be directed unto the said Sir John Arundell commanding him thereby at a certain day and under a certain pain there to be limited personally to appear before your highness and your most honourable council in your Star Chamber at Westminster then and there to answer to the premises and to abide such order and final determination therein as by your grace and your most honourable council shall be thought consonant to right and good conscience. And your said orator and supplicant shall daily pray to God for your most noble and royal estate long to endure with increase of all honour. _______________________________ Scribbled notes on back of one of the sheets. All very difficult to read.Trus anno 38° (1556/7) ..tysyed by Hugh Costaren and John Brown commissioners in the matter between Robt (sic) Rescruke and John Arundell of Treryse knight , brought in by John Tripconey?? of Newlyn?? ............................................... Coram consellis ......... (could not read the rest, in Latin)_________________________________________ Extract from examination of Sir John ArundellItem to the 10th he sayth that the said Robert Hycke ......... in the same interrogatory at the time of the death of the same Maud was and and sithence hath been and yet is tenant at will unto this deponent of the said premises in Trendreyn and further sayth that after he was perfectly knollen and cond’ not be inst’ly denied by the same complainant and that the said Jane was cousin and right heir unto the said Maud that is to say daughter of Richard son of Sucholas son of Jekyn son of Rowlyn father of Thomas father of the said Maud, which Maud died without issue. And after that the said Raffe Dunston and Jane his wife had distrained the same premises in Trendreyn for the said rent of 33s 4d and after that the said respondent had paid the said rent of 33s 4d unto the said Raffe and Jane that is to say unto the same Johan as unto the next cousin and heir of the same Maud the same complainant distrained the same premises in Trendreyne by two pans of the said Robert Hick. And so because the same respondent sold not gave his said lands charged by the said complainant not being next heir unto the said Maud for a ............... them caused the said Robert Hick being his tenant at will because the said pans were his to sue unto Richard Chamond esquire then .... of Cornwall for to have a replevyn awer did unto him against the said complainant for the taking of the same pans which replevyn was alleged and granted by the said juries. And the said two pans delined unto the said Robert Hick by the same replevyn. And the same complainant not thereby contented but sundry times after which distrained the same land only for discord and for no inst trouble by the goods and chattels of the same
|
|