Richard Mallory I or II of Kirkby-Mallory

This article formerly appeared as a knol and argues for the possibility of there being only one and not two Richard Mallorys of Kirkby-Mallory in the mid-12th century and the possibility that he was a younger half-brother of Anketil Mallory rather than an older brother. This fits into an argument made elsewhere that the father of the two brothers may have been a Robert Mallory who may, in turn, have been the son of Geoffrey Mallory of Botley.

---

In the 12^th century, the earliest Mallory to appear in the records of the time is a Richard Mallory who was in the service of Robert Beaumont II, the Earl of Leicester. According to a well-written article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which has proven to be an invaluable jumping off point for further research, he is stated to have appeared as a witness to various charters of Robert de Beaumont II, Earl of Leicester in the 1130s and 40s. Though I do not doubt that this is most probably so, I have not yet been able to locate any published charter earlier than 1150 to which the full name of this particular Richard Mallory appears. It was, however, as one would expect, a charter of Robert de Beaumont II. Although the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography indicates the likelihood of two Richards, father and son, I feel this might be subject to different interpretation.

Specifically, one should first look at Agnes de Neufmarche (Novo Mercato) who confirms a grant of land made by Richard Mallory in Welton in an undated charter (Ancient Deeds, no. 7070). In this confirmation, mention is made of William Mallory being Richard’s son and heir. Agnes’s confirmation could have only been necessary if she were Richard’s wife and he held Welton by right of marriage through her. That she was the mother of a son Simon and was the daughter of William de Neufmarche is spelled out in yet another 13^th century document concerning a descendant of Simon. William de Neufmarche may be identified with the William who in the mid to late 1150s appears in a charter of Robert de Beaumont II together with Richard Mallory (see Calendar of Documents, France, vol. I, pp. 376-7).

That Agnes was also the mother of William Mallory, in addition to Simon, who inherited her manor of Welton can be inferred with certainty from the fact that the Mallory lords of Kirkby Mallory, who can be shown to be the descendants of William Mallory, continued to be the feudal overlords of the Mallory lords of Welton until the last Mallory lord of Kirkby Mallory gave Kirkby Mallory to the Abbey of St. Mary de Pratis of Leicester (see the Register of St. Mary de Pratis, Nichols, vol. iv, p. 762). That Agnes did not die until the mid-1170s is evident from the sudden appearance of William, Simon, and Ralph Mallory in the Pipe Rolls in the years 1174 to 1176. That Richard, the father, was still alive can be abundantly shown in the Pipe Rolls until William suddenly appears where Richard would have been expected in 1193.

William and Simon Mallory appear to have had at least two further brothers, Ralph, and Luke. That this Ralph Mallory could have been a brother of William can be shown by a grant of a small piece of land in around 1222-6 to Ralph Mallory of Kirkby Mallory, son of Richard, by Thomas Mareschal of Kirkby Mallory (See Commission on Historical Documents, Hastings, vol i, p. 52). That he must have been a younger son can be presumed by the fact that he inherited the lordship of none of the family manors, either through his father or mother. That Agnes de Neufmarche was also his mother can be presumed, if one assumes that he is the Ralph Mallory who witnessed a charter of Robert de Beaumont III, the Earl of Leicester sometime during the years 1168 to 1170 when Agnes and her husband Richard would have been both alive.

Yet another brother of William Mallory, Luke, can be shown to have existed through a grant of Richard Mallory II (son of William Mallory, grandson of Richard Mallory I) to his uncle Luke Mallory in from the reign of King John or early in the reign of Henry III (see Hastings, vol i, p. 52). Unlike Ralph, though likely to have also been a son of Agnes de Neufmarche, there is not enough evidence to presume this to be the case with any assurance of absolute certainty.

If one accepts that Agnes and Richard Mallory’s son, Ralph, would have had to have been of an age appropriate to have been a witness of a Beaumont charter in the years 1168 to 1170 and also that it is he who appears in the Pipe Rolls in 1174-5, the latest reasonable year for Ralph’s birth would have been in 1149. Assuming no other siblings in between and an ordinary average of two years space each between his birth and those of his two older brothers, it is unlikely for the second brother, Simon, to have been born after 1147 or the oldest brother, William, to have been born after 1145. This, in turn, would make it rather unlikely for Richard to have been born later than 1123.

Of course, Richard Mallory of the Pipe Rolls could have been born much earlier than 1123. The question is how much earlier. If one continues to assume an average two year spacing between children and assumes the possibility of a daughter having been the eldest child, another having been born between William and Simon and yet another between Simon and Ralph, then six years could be added to his probable age. If we assume that he began reproducing at 25 rather than 22, which, even in the middle ages, would have been a bit more common, then we could easily assume him to be another three years older. If we assumed Ralph to have been a bit more established than a still landless 21 year old would have been when it would seem he witnessed Robert de Beaumont III’s charter and add another three or four years to his age and pass this on to his father’s age, then Richard Mallory could easily be assumed to be as much as 13 years older than our latest reasonable date of birth estimate of 1123 would indicate. Thus, we can estimate, even if quite roughly, that the Richard Mallory who was the husband of Agnes de Neufmarche was likely to have been born sometime between 1110 and 1123. A birth at the earlier end of this range would leave him old enough to have been a witness of the charters of Robert de Beaumont II in the 1130s.

One additional possible piece of evidence which, though less reliably applicable than what has so far been presented, is, nevertheless, suggestive. It comes from two 12th century charters from the Crusader controlled Holy Land dating to 1158 and 1164 which have a Ralph Mallory (Mellore in 1158 & Maulore in 1164) as a witness (see Revue de l'Orient Latin, edited by Melchior Vogue and Charles Henri Auguste Schefer, vol. 11, 1907, p. 181). If we make the somewhat dangerous assumption that both charters are witnessed by the third son of Richard Mallory and Agnes de Neufmarche, then we would expect Ralph to have been born no later than 1137 and his oldest brother William no later than 1135, but possibly as early as 1131. This, in turn, would generate a likely birth year for Richard of somewhere between 1110 and 1114.

No evidence is conclusive, but taken together, a birth year of 1112, give or take two years, would appear to represent a working hypothesis as to his age. This argument, of course, would assume that the charter evidence is applicable to one Richard Mallory and not two and would also assume that the Ralph Mallory of 1158 was Richard's third son. It would have the advantage of making it unnecessary to assume that a special relationship for Richard Mallory with Robert de Beaumont II would have formed the basis for an equally close relationship between any of Richard's children and Robert de Beaumont III after Richard’s probable death in either 1192 or 1193 when he may well have been around 80 years of age.

As for Agnes de Neufmarche, if we assume her third son Ralph to have been the witness of a deed in the Holy Land in 1158, then it would be hard to imagine her as being born later than 1120. It would, likewise, be unlikely that she was much older than her husband for whom 1110 would seem to be a likely earliest birth year. The tendency for men to marry younger women would indicate the reasonableness of a presumption of her being somewhat younger. Taking a birth year, thus, of 1115, give or take five years, as a working hypothesis would appear to be reasonable, though if her third son, Ralph, were not to be identified with the Ralph of the Holy Land, then 1120 give or take 10 years might better express what it is possible to say regarding her possible birth year. As mentioned above, she seems to have passed away around 1175, when Welton would have passed to her second son, Simon, under the overlordship of his brother William.

That Richard Mallory possessed Kirkby Mallory in his own right is clear from the fact that the Neufmarche family is never recorded as having held lands there and that his eldest son and heir was in direct possession of this manor rather than Welton which, as is mentioned above, came to the Mallorys by the marriage of Richard to Agnes de Neufmarche. That Kirkby Mallory came to Richard Mallory by inheritance rather than as a gift would seem to be a logical explanation as it would seem that he possessed in his own right a range of lands in both Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, but not in Warwickshire. Concerning the manor, itself, in the Doomsday Book, 2.5 carucates of land in Kirkby Mallory was listed as being held of the king directly by Hugh de Grentemaisnel and one carucate being held by the same Hugh of the abbot of Coventry St Mary who held of the king. In the early years of the 12^th century, Robert de Beaumont I, Earl of Leicester, came into possession of the Grentemaisnel lands. Whether Kirkby Mallory was already a Mallory possession at this time or not is impossible to know, though it cannot have been so before the Doomsday Book in 1086 and is unlikely to have come into Mallory hands through a grant to Richard, himself, but rather to his father, who it will be argued elsewhere may have been a somewhat nebulous Robert Mallore.

Concerning Richard's family, he is normally considered to have been the older brother of Anketil Mallory who fought for the Earl of Leicester against Henry II in 1174. This is because Richard's name appears before that of Anketil’s in the one charter where the two names appear together as brothers (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust MS DR10/192) and which dates to the early third quarter of the 12th century. Also, based on an unsubstantiated family tree appearing in Nichols Leicestershire, the assumption was made that Richard and his descendants were the feudal overlords of Walton-on-the-Wold, a manor possessed by Anketil and his descendants. In fact, the most reliable evidence regarding feudal over-lordship by Richard and his descendants (the records of St Mary de Pratis of Leicester) is conspicuous by the total absence of any properties possessed by Anketil’s line (Botley, Walton-on-the-Wold, and Tachebrook-Mallory). As Botley, for reasons argued elsewhere, appears to have come into Mallory hands before either Kirkby Mallory or Welton did to Richard and certainly before Anketil or his descendants acquired their other major possessions, it would seem that it may very well have been Anketill who was the elder brother and not Richard.

There is other less direct evidence in support of Anketil's seniority. If one accepts the Robert Mallory mentioned in 1155-60 as a son of Anketil Mallory on a grant to the nuns of Nuneaton as being the older known son of Richard Mallory’s brother Anketil (the other being Henry, the relationships between the two brothers and the fatherbeing attested in the Pipe Rolls), then Robert Mallory would have been born before 1138 at the latest and Anketil Mallory before 1116. This is seven years earlier than the latest probable birth year of Richard Mallory, which, though not proving seniority, is suggestive.

One suggestion might be that the father of Anketil and Richard Mallory married twice in the first two decades of the 12^th century and that, while Anketil, being the elder, inherited Botley from his father, Richard inherited Kirkby Mallory from his mother, who would have been this particular Mallory’s second wife. This hypothetical lady, in terms of chronology, would appear to have been married to Richard's father around 1110, and might have done so at the instance of the first (from 1107) of the Beaumont earls of Leicester. Barring the availability of previously unexplored early records, however, all one can safely say is that even the best theoretical reconstruction is no more than that and subject to fairly radical reworking with each new bit of evidence uncovered.

The first Mallory lord of Kirkby Mallory, Robert or Richard?

Towards identifying the ancestor of the Leicestershire Mallorys

It has been argued that there are two 12th century Leicestershire Richard Mallorys, of whom the first is probably the father of the second. This knoll will argue that, while the possibility of two Richard Mallorys (father and son) remains, there is also a possibility that there was only one Richard Mallory and that before him there may have been a Robert Mallory who could have been his father.

---

The purpose of this small article is to argue for a tentative identification of an individual for whom there would appear to be a chronological need. It does not pretend to certainty, but is written with the hope that it might open debate and further other future research by this writer and others.

There would appear to be a one-generation chronological gap between the 12th century Anketil Mallory whose descendants possessed Botley for several hundred years and Geoffrey Mallory of Botley who, for reasons argued elsewhere, could have acquired that manor from Robert de Stadford (Stafford/Toeni/etc.) as early as 1087 or 1088. A relationship other than that of direct ancestor would, of course, not be precluded, but, if Geoffrey Mallory of Botley also possessed other manors in Dorset and possibly Somerset from William de Moyon, then his being a direct ancestor of Anketil Mallory would appear rather more likely than an indirect relationship, such as that of an uncle or cousin.

One reason for assuming the existence of a missing generation is because the terms of the grant by Robert de Stadford to Geoffrey Mallory allow Geoffrey to dispose of Botley to any individual he might wish. This would imply that Botley was meant for someone other than Geoffrey's "right" heir (i.e., his oldest son or next male heir by right of primogeniture). It could also imply that the individual for whom it was intended was already born, a second son by either the same wife or by different wives (or another male family member for whom the rule of primogeniture would not apply). If such were the case, we would expect this second son to have been born, at latest, by 1088. Whatever his age or relationship with Geoffrey Mallory, what is certain is that Anketil and Richard Mallory were brothers (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Archive Catalogue DR10/192) and that the descendants of Anketil inherited Botley from Geoffrey, whereas Richard, himself, can be shown, at one time or another, to have held independently of his wife Kirkby Mallory, as well as property in Swinford, the City of Leicester, and Nuneaton. (Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, Illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. I, A.D. 918-1206, Edited by J. Horace Round, pp. 376, 377). In addition to these properties, Richard came to hold considerable properties through his wife. As for Anketil, the manors of Tachebrook Mallory and Walton-on-the-Wold can be shown to have come to him by other means than inheritance and at a later time than Richard came into possession of his various above-mentioned properties.

This would lead one to expect that at least some of these properties came to Richard by means of inheritance, even though Botley did not. The logical explanation would be that Anketil was Richard's older brother by a first wife of his father and that Richard, himself, was the son of a second wife who was the heiress of at least some of the properties mentioned above.

It has been argued elsewhere that Richard's year of birth may be hypothesized as having been 1012 give or take two or three years. He seems to have passed away between around 1192, whereas Anketil passed away around 1184 or 1185. As for Anketil, a later rather than earlier year of birth would represent a more reasonable assumption, considering that Anketil played an active role supporting the revolution of the young King Henry against his father, Henry II, in 1174. Anketil would, thus, have been unlikely to have been born much earlier than 1110 and perhaps as late as 1113 or 1114.

Though it is not necessary to assume that the Richard Mallory appearing in the various charters of the 1150s and 1160s was the father of the Richard appearing in the Pipe Rolls, the father of this Richard and Anketil may very well have been another Richard Mallory, if we assume that the Richard Mallory appearing in the Northamptonshire Survey as holding lands in Welton and Ashby St Ledger in Fawsley Hundred (Hundredum of Aylewoldeslewas an individual living around 1120 (See Prosopography of persons occurring in English documents, 1066-1166, Volume 1, p. 102, by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan). Although the survey is a composite, apparently first drafted in the reign of King Henry I and then edited in that of Henry II, it can be assumed that the portion dealing with Fawsley Hundred is from the reign of Henry I because both Richard Mallory (Maulore) and William de Neufmarche (Nouo Foro - the father of Agnes, Richard Mallory's wife) are mentioned at a time when Pagan Peverel would seem to have still been alive. Pagan appears in charters of the time definitely as late as 1129 and possibly as late as 1133, but would not appear to have lived many years longer. As internal evidence would suggest that the initial composition was around 1120, if this Richard Mallory's name is to be dated to this time, then he could not have been the same Richard Mallory appearing in the Pipe Rolls toward the end of the 12th century and could, in terms of chronology, have been the father of Richard and Anketil Mallory.

That an earlier Richard Mallory was the father of a second of the same name, however, cannot yet be considered as proven beyond doubt. One piece of evidence comes from a series of court cases initiated in the early 1220s by Cecilia, the sister of Stephen Segrave and the widow of Richard Mallory II (a grandson of the Richard Mallory dealt with above). As a part of her court settlement, she was granted a messuage (a piece of land of indeterminant size with a building, very often a house, on it) that Robert Mallory had held in Kirkby Mallory. Cecilia can be shown to have had a younger son by the name of Robert who was still a minor. Likewise, in the 12th century, Anketil Mallory's oldest son can be shown to have had the name of Robert. Anketil's son would have had no share in the Kirkby Mallory properties and Cecilia's son, Robert, being both a minor and a younger son, would not have been in a position to undertake such a project. One could hypothesize that the messuage referred to the piece of land on which the manor house was built and that the Robert who held it may well have been the first Mallory to possess Kirkby Mallory.

Another piece of evidence comes from Nichols Leicestershire, vol. 4, p. 761, where mention is made of a Robert Mallory having enfeoffed the Hospital of St David in Northamptonshire with five virgates of land in Kirkby Mallory and likewise having enfeoffed the Knights Hospitaller of St John of Jerusalem with four virgates. Nichols assumes that both actions took place in the 13th century rather than the 12th, but he depended on tertiary sources of information in reaching his conclusions. Not being in a situation where I can easily gather or evaluate source material, I am not prepared to take a final position, but do think this is one area of historical research which, like many others, will, if subjected to appropriate investigation, indicate a need for reevaluation of source material. As it stands, I do not consider it impossible that one or both incidents refers to a Robert Mallory living in the 12th century rather than the 13th and feel that both actions would fit with the times an early 12th century Robert Mallory could have experienced.

In conclusion and in lieu of better evidence which I hope will be eventually forthcoming, I would see Geoffrey Mallory of Todber and Botley as the first known Mallory in England and arriving at sometime or other time during the reign of William the Conqueror. I would see Robert or Richard Mallory (the first Mallory of Kirkby Mallory) as a younger son of Geoffrey and as the father of two sons, Richard and Anketil, of whom Anketil would have been the older.

On the probable common identity of the Geoffrey Mallorys of Todber and Botley

This is a discussion of the possible identification of Geoffrey Mallory of Todber (1086) with the Geoffrey Mallory who was granted the manor of Botley by Robert Stafford (an ancestor of the Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham). It will be argued elsewhere that he could have been the father of a certain Robert Mallory and, through him, a grandfather of Anketil (Botley, Walton-on-the-Wolde, and Tachebrook Mallory) and Richard Mallory (Kirkby Mallory) who appear with varying degrees of frequency in the records of the mid to last half of the 12th century.

---

The first mention of any Mallory in England is Geoffrey Mallory (Goisfrid Malloret) who appears in the Exeter Doomsday of 1086 as the lord of Todber in co. Dorset, a tenant of William de Moyon. The Exeter Doomsday, as it exists at present, is a partial set of returns for southwestern England which gives more detailed information than can be seen in the more famous chancery Doomsday which covers all of England and is what people are referring to when they use the term Doomsday Book. The Exeter Doomsday seems to have been one of several compilations from which the more complete chancery Doomsday Book was extracted. The possessions of Geoffrey in Todber consisted of one pack-horse, 8 beasts (cattle), 12 pigs, 100 sheep, a mill valued at 10 shillings per year, land in demesne for two ploughs, 12 acres of meadow, and woodland ½ league in length and one furlong in width. The total value of Todber (Todberia) was 4£, having increased in value from 3£ in the time of King Edward. (VCH, A History of Dorset, vol. iii, p. 92)

Not only did Geoffrey Mallory possess Todber, but it would appear he also possessed the manor of Steepleton Iwerne (Werne), also of William de Moyon. Here, if the identification is correct, he had 6 villeins, 6 bordars, 2 serfs, one pack-horse, 6 beasts, 282 sheep, 1 ½ hides of land and two ploughs in demesne, and 8 furlongs of woodland and 10 furlongs of pasture in length, both woodland and pasture being 3 furlongs in width. This particular manor’s value was 4£, a value unchanged since the time of King Edward. (VCH, A History of Dorset, vol. iii, p. 94)

Possessing a recorded surname as early as the reign of King William I was quite unusual and almost completely ignored in the chancery copy of the Doomsday Book. Also, the possession of land under various lords and in various counties was a quite common matter. This particular Geoffrey Mallory can be shown, with absolute certainty, to have time of the lord of one manor and with great, though not absolute, certainty to have been a lord of another, both as a tenant of William de Moyon. He could have also possessed other manors at the time of the Doomsday Book in other counties and under other feudal overlords, as there were many feudal tenants throughout England at the time by the name of Geoffrey who cannot be identified by any particular surname, something which seems to have generally gone unrecorded, even when in existence.

The first mention of a Mallory possessing Botley is made in a charter of Robert de Stafford granting it to Geoffrey Mallory (Galfrido Mallore).¹ The charter is undated but considered by the Warwickshire County Record Office to be early or mid 12^th century. With regard to documents from the Conquest to after 1200, paleographical evidence is usually not enough to date a document with any hope of precision, due to the many cultural cross-currents between France and England during the period. The surest way to date documents of the period is by identifying people mentioned in the documents concerned or their witnesses. Here, the only individual for which there might be independent contemporary historical evidence is Robert de Stafford (Robert de Stadford). Unfortunately, there were three Robert de Staffords during the period of Anglo-Norman kingship, a grandfather (Robert I) who came with the Conqueror, a grandson (Robert II) who was active from toward the end of the reign of Henry I until toward the end of that of Henry II, and a greatgrandson (Robert III). Of the three Roberts, we can eliminate Robert III as being too late. If we wish to choose between Robert I and Robert II, we must seek out internal evidence within the aforementioned charter.

There is, fortunately, one phrase “omnibus baronibus suis Francis et Anglis” found in the charter which is of help. It is a phrase which is characteristically found in royal charters throughout the Anglo-Norman period and, to a much lesser extent, of charters granted by English Earls. In spite of a search of all the readily available published collections of Anglo-Norman charters of the Institute of Historical Research of the University of London and in the British Library, I have yet to find another example of the above-mentioned phrase being used among the charters of the nobility who were not at least an earl, though surviving non-royal charters for the reigns of William I and William II are rare, so no generalization about phraseology can be safely asserted until we reach the reign of Henry I, when we can see the phrase “omnibus hominibus suis” or one of the many variations thereof being put to common use among non-royal charters.

In fact, two surviving charters of Robert de Stafford II do survive, one dating as early as 1120-3 during the reign of Henry I. In the earlier charter, Robert II uses the phrase “omnibus hominibus” without the word “suis”, probably because his father Nicholas would still have been alive and the men referred to would have owed feudal loyalty to his father rather than himself. The second charter, which could have been granted practically anytime during the reigns of King Stephen or King Henry II, used the more exclusive phrase “omnibus hominibus suis” which would indicate it was being granted after the death of Robert II’s father Nicholas and that the men referred to owed loyalty only to him. Clearly, as in the case of other colleagues of the same rank, the use of the phrase “omnibus baronibus suis” does not appear to have been the usage of Robert II, thus eliminating him as a serious candidate for being the one who granted Geoffrey Mallory the manor of Botley. (See Publications of the Pipe Roll Society, The Basset Charters, edited by William T. Reedy, 1995, charter no.’s 10 and 12.)

On more purely linguistic grounds, too, one would expect the phrase “omnibus baronibus suis” to represent an earlier usage rather than a later one. Due to its uniqueness among non-royal charters of the lower nobility, it must have been used at a time when the phrase would have had the meaning of “all his men” rather than “all his barons”, a period which other charters would indicate could have lasted no later than the early years of the reign of Henry I. This, too, would indicate a grant made by Robert I rather than Robert II.

Likewise, the nature of the grant was important. The property was granted to Geoffrey Mallory, his heirs and assignees, meaning that this was the original grant, that this grant did not, of itself, represent an entailment, and that Geoffrey was free to assign the property to anyone he wished. This, too, would indicate an earlier rather than a later date, when land was more available for disposal rather than less so. Yet again, this would point to Robert de Stafford I being the granter.

If Robert I can be accepted as the likely granter, as internal evidence would indicate, then the dating of the document can be narrowed down fairly closely to a period from roughly 1086 to 1088. This is because, as of the compilation of the Doomsday Book, Botley would still not seem to be considered a separate manor from Ullenhall. However, Robert I is considered to have passed away around 1088. We are, therefore, likely to be looking at a grant probably made in the last year or two of his life.

Could this 11^th century Geoffrey Mallory (Galfrid Mallore) of Botley be the same individual as the Geoffrey Mallory (Goisfrid Malloret) of Todber and Steepleton Iwerne to be found in the Exeter Doomsday? That Malloret and Mallore, until the end of the 12^th century, were alternative spellings of the names of future individuals who must have held the manor of Botley is clear from the use of a symbol which signified the loss of two or more letters and which was used with the contracted form Mallor in the Pipe Rolls. That this can be taken as an abbreviated form of Malloret, rather than Mallore, can be assumed by the fact that individuals of this same family with the surname Malloret or, in one case, Malhoret, appears in various charters of the second half of the 12^th century, but also appear as Mallore in other charters. It would appear that for practically all of the 12^th century, the spelling Malloret was an accepted alternative to Mallore.

Although there is no absolute proof to identify the Lord of Todber as the same individual as the Lord of Botley, there is also no evidence that would preclude such an identification. Furthermore, considering the relatively small percentage of individuals possessing surnames at the time of the Doomsday Book and the years immediately after, and considering the later relative rarity of the Mallory surname, it seems rather more likely than less, that the same Geoffrey Mallory possessed land in the counties Dorset and Warwick and perhaps Somerset (also under a feoffment of William de Moyon).

By the terms of the grant by Robert de Stafford, Botley was granted to Geoffrey Mallory’s heirs and assigns, not to his right heirs. This would indicate that the original grant of Botley was made with the intent of passing it on to someone who would not have otherwise been in line to inherit it. Considering the mores of the time, this would, at least, indicate the possibility of a younger son, perhaps of a second marriage, already existing in 1087/8. As Anketil Mallory, the next Mallory with whom Botley can be identified, would, as will be argued elsewhere, probably have been born more than 20 years later, this would indicate an intervening generation.

It has been proposed by others that this individual might have been a Richard Mallory in the service of the Earls of Leicester from the 1130s through the 1150s and that he is different from a second Richard Mallory, also connected with the Earls of Leicester, who was a brother of the Anketil Mallory mentioned immediately above. I would propose that there also exists the alternative that we are dealing with only one Richard Mallory rather than two and that a certain Robert Mallory as the father of Anketil and Richard might represent another possibility. This will be discussed further elsewhere.

In any case, Geoffrey Mallory, if he were the lord of manors in Dorset, Somerset and Warwick, would have had more than one son inheriting his property. If this assumption holds, then his descendants in Dorset and Somerset would have soon daughtered out with a certain Laurence Mallory who seems to have resided in the southwest of England and who appears in the Pipe Rolls at the end of the 12th century perhaps being one of the last male representatives of this branch of the family. Botley would have gone to a different son. Under this scenario, the Dorset and Somerset properties would have descended through an older son. Be that as it may, the identification of the possessor of Todber with that of Botley would tend to strengthen the assumption that Anketil Mallory and his brother Richard would more likely have been the grandsons of Geoffrey than nephews or cousins, as the co. Dorset properties, in the course of the 12^th century, came into the possession of other families rather than returning to the direct possession of the Moyon overlords, something which would normally indicate the regular laws of lineal inheritance at work.

1. Warwickshire County Record Office, GREVILLE OF WARWICK CASTLE, Catalogue Ref. CR 1886
Creator(s): Greville family, Earls Brooke and Earls of Warwick
CONTENTS FORMERLY IN MUNIMENT ROOM, FIRST FLOOR.
FILE - Bottelea, (Warwickshire). Rob' de Stadf' omnibus baronibus suis Francis et Anglis salutem sciatis quia dedi et concessi Galfrido Mallore heredibus & assignatis suis dee serviciis in Bottelea terras & hommagia & servicia ? q'm de mee tenuit quare volo ut predictus Galfidus habeat et teneat ipse hered' et assignatis suis de me et heredibus meis per un' sperva per illa(m) bene et libere teneat t'i erl'i de bose' & Ric. Fravell', Ada de Broc. (Tag and seal missing) (measures 4 x 2.) (Summary: Rob't de Stadf(ord) to Geoff. Mallore: lands (etc) in Botley.) (HMC, Freer) - ref. CR1886/Cupboard4/Top Shelf/B5 - date: Not dated (early or mid 12th cent.)