An update of further evidence regarding the earliest Mallory lords of Botley

I am now in a position to reconsider the matter of  Gilbert Mallory (son of Henry, younger son of Anketil, the presumed son of Robert, presumed son of Geoffrey) being the Lord of Botley. He appears in connection with this manor twice, once in 1226 and another time in 1232, when he would have been approximately 25 and 31 years old, respectively. As this manor does not seem to have figured in among the properties his guardians managed in his minority or which were part of his son John's inheritance in that individual's minority during the 1240s, I feel the first presumption must be that the properties were Gilbert's in the right of his wife, Cecilia Segrave, rather than his own and this is born out by her assigning this manor on her own authority and without reference to her heir, John, to another son, William in the early 1280s when she, herself, would have been in her early eighties. There are various scenarios possible, but it is best, when knowledge is lacking, to work with the simplest scenario available. In this case, the simplest scenario is that Botley, unlike Tachebrook (which would seem to have been her widow's dower) was hers by right of inheritance. 
However, the first lord of Botley, as has been discussed elsewhere, was Geoffrey Mallory and the grant would appear to have been made in the reign of William I. Cecilia was, therefore, likely to have been distantly related to her husband Gilbert Mallory. For her marriage to have been allowed under church law, there had to be at least four generations back to a common ancestor for either herself or her husband. If Botley, indeed, were an inheritance of Cecilia, it would have had to have come to her through her mother, who would have already been dead by 1225. Cecilia's mother, in turn, would have been the daughter of a Mallory heiress and a grand daughter of a presumed eldest son (name unconfirmed, but possibly Geoffrey) of Robert Mallory, the presumed son of the first post-Norman Conquest Mallory lord of Botley, Geoffrey Mallory. 
There is much the argument concerning Botley's descent to Cecilia that will have to remain inferred and will depend heavily on what might be best termed "theoretical genealogy", where the prosopography, the law, and the social customs of an era are viewed in terms of what might be considered somewhat loosely as a form of network theory. This is a very different form of genealogy from what might be termed "absolute genealogy" where nothing appears which cannot be justified by verifiable data. The results of theoretical genealogy neither form part of the realm of fiction or myth. They are built on clearly stated hypotheses and, as logically conceived theoretical constructs, retain great meaning as a tool for eliminating impossibilities and for directing the course of future research. 
In this case, one would expect that, as a result of possessing a theoretically valid historical construct of the descent of Botley, we will also be in a far better position than before to understand the descent of other properties of the first Geoffrey Mallory in southwest England, something which has so far not been possible. When I will be able to turn my attention to this, however, will be something I cannot now predict. Possibly, if things go well, there might be a certain amount of time available this year in August or possibly next year in March. I can only hope that it will be sooner than later.

Preliminary findings regarding the ancestry of Sir Thomas Mallory of Newbold Revel

Newbold Revel was brought to the Mallory family by the marriage, probably in 1332, of a certain Stephen Mallory with the heiress of the Revel family. This line has already been tentatively established by the ground-breaking research of P.J.C. Field. An examination of the notes I took in 2007 during a year of intensive research at the Institute of Historical Research of the University of London, the British Library, and the National Archives at Kew have enabled to confirm this lineage with rather more certainty than has been possible to date and to confirm my dating of the likely birth years of the earliest Mallorys. Instead of merely being a likely hypothesis, the following line of descent may now be categorized as "unlikely not to have been the case". New evidence could change things, though the likelihood of dramatic change should now be considered rather small, indeed, with the least certainty being in the first two generations. 

The lineage may be summarized as: Geoffrey Mallory, born before 1060. Robert Mallory born circa 1085. Richard Mallory born circa 1110. Simon Mallory born circa 1135. Sedgwyn Mallory born circa 1160. Simon Mallory born circa 1185. Richard Mallory born circa 1210. Simon Mallory born circa 1235. Roger Mallory born circa 1260. Simon Mallory born circa 1285. Stephen Mallory born circa 1310 and probably married in 1332. 

It is not entirely certain as to how many generations there are between Stephen Mallory and Sir Thomas Mallory of Newbold Revel, the knight often considered by contemporary literary historians to be the writer of very famous "Le Morte d'Arthur" (the story of King Arthur), largely because there is still no truly convincing academic consensus as to the estimated year of his birth, though, if the Mallory generation average continued to have held true in the case of his lineage, one would expect him to be the fourth generation after the above-mentioned Stephen Mallory and born circa 1410. The best fit would be a lineage also put forth as a possibility by P.J.C. Field (though only as one possibility and without estimated dates of birth), being John born circa 1335, Nicholas born circa 1360, John born circa 1385, and Thomas born circa 1410. I cannot, however, present the lineage after Stephen with the same certainty as the lineage before, only suggest that this should represent a first line of research for those interested in these individuals. 

Again, though I have every intention of eventually producing a work about the above lineage of academically acceptable standards discussing the above in detail with a thorough examination of the sources, I am not yet in a position to do so and do not expect to be able to begin writing what would be a full-scale book until after this school year ends for me in March of next year. In the mean time, I hope the above might prove useful to those who might be interested in the problems involved in properly identifying this particular gentry lineage. 


Please note that I am writing primarily for the benefit of the non-expert and have, therefore, choses to normalize my spellings, as the medieval spellings of Mallory are numerous. A common spelling during the time of Sir Thomas of Newbold Revel was Malory, but there were many others as well, before, during, and after the life of that particular knight. For this reason, I have chosen to normalize according to the most common modern spelling which is Mallory. Likewise, "Le Morte d'Arthur" is a normalization to modern spelling conventions of "Le Morte Darthur".