The Descent of the Cottons of Cotton Edmunds from 1275 to the Present as Proven by Documentary Evidence and DNA Analysis

31 May to 7 June of 2020

Documentary evidence has previously been available to connect the 13th century lords of the manor of Cotton Edmunds to various British gentry families, including the Cottons of Crakemarsh. Additionally, the descent of various Cotton families in America could be documented beyond doubt up to the point of Walter Cotton's arrival in Virginia in the second half of the 17th century. DNA evidence has suggested a possible connection, but without documentary evidence, the proof of connection could not be considered complete. Research efforts over the last week, from 31 May to 7 June 2020, have enabled the uncovering and confirming of the necessary evidence connecting the two.

Research began in America in the 1990s on the origins of what later became known as Cotton/Cotten Family 4 of the Cotton/Cotten DNA Project. This research resulted quite quickly in the identification of Walter Cotton, a certain 17th century immigrant from England as being the common ancestor of a now very large American Cotton lineage. The discovery was due to the discovery of a very early 18th century will of a certain Thomas Cotton of Virginia, describing his wife Mary Hyde Cotton as being a loving wife and a William Cotton and yet another Thomas Cotton as “cousins” and specifying that this second Thomas Cotton was the son of Walter Cotton without describing Walter Cotton's relationship with himself. Frustratingly, no documentary evidence concerning the exact nature of the relationship between the presumably older Thomas Cotton and Walter Cotton could be found even after extensive research into the matter was done at the Family History Library of the Church of the Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City, nor later at the Institute of Historical Research of the University of London. Indeed, the wording of the will raised more questions than it answered as to the exact nature of these relationships. 

In addition, the issue was further confused by previous generations of genealogists identifying these people as belonging to the John Cotton of Bertie County (usually known for the sake of the convenience of genealogists as John “Bertie” Cotton to distinguish him from other John Cottons), North Carolina. It was, in the late 1900s, assumed by most family historians that Thomas and Walter Cotton were somehow or other members of John "Bertie" Cotton's immediate family, either as his children or the children of the supposed father, yet another John Cotton.

A DNA project initiated in 2003, in spite of the primitive nature of genetically based DNA research at the time, very quickly showed that the descendants of William and Thomas, the two men mentioned as "cousins" in the will of Thomas Cotton of Virginia were, genetically speaking, a completely different different Cotton family from that of John “Bertie” Cotton. It also established that the older cousin William (the husband of Mary Hyde Cotton's granddaughter, Mary Smith) and the younger cousin Thomas Cotton (the husband of Mary Hyde Cotton's youngest daughter Jane Hyde) had to have been brothers. An assumption was then made that the older Thomas Cotton of Virginia and his cousin Thomas's father Walter were brothers and that the two young men were, in fact, his nephews.

This was justified by the fact that the word "cousin" was being used as it commonly had been in England in previous centuries to indicate any relative other than one's children, direct ancestors, or the siblings of oneself or one's direct ancestors. Thus, during the middle ages, even a grandchild was often referred to as a cousin in legal documents. Though this no longer seems to have been the case with regard to grandchildren during the 18^th century and though the use of nephew and neice begins to appear in 17^th century documents, in the early 18^th century it would seem that its use as a way of referring to the children of one's siblings still remained as a possible use of the word. 

A search was then made of English parish records which soon yielded two brothers of more or less the right age, Walter and Thomas, being born to a certain William Cotton of Wolverhampton. On the basis of this, an identification was made with the brothers Walter and Thomas Cotton of Wolverhampton as very likely being Walter and Thomas of Virginia. Though this later proved to be a problematic identification, it should be noted that many thousands of dollars were spent on researching the matter for a more positive identification. Nevertheless, positive documentary evidence never appeared that could directly substantiate this identification.

Eventually, research uncovered in Staffordshire records an additional two sets of contemporaneous Thomas/Walter Cotton sets of brothers, all being born in the same general area of that county and all being close in age to each other. Besides the Thomas and Walter of Wolverhampton, another set was Thomas and Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh in Uttoxeter and a third set was Thomas and Walter of Fulfen in Burntwood (near Lichfield). Nevertheless, by the time these two other sets of brothers by the names of Thomas and Walter Cotton were discovered, Thomas and Walter of Wolverhampton, having been uploaded to the internet, had acquired an aura of orthodoxy and were already widely accepted by genealogists and family historians.

Research also uncovered a problem as to the Wolverhampton identification with regard to Walter of Virginia. The ca. 1701 and 1702 Virginia militia muster rolls provide evidence that Walter Cotton of Wolverhampton would have been too young to have been Walter Cotton of Virginia and that another Walter Cotton would make a better fit chronologically. In the muster roles of 1701 Walter does not appear, while in those of 1702 Walter Cotton is mentioned as being too old to serve in the militia. According to the then English common law which was applicable to Virginia at that time, men were liable for militia duty from the ages of 16 to 60, meaning that Walter had to be 60 or older in 1702 and so could not have been born later than 1642. The Cottons of Wolverhampton in the mid-17th century appear to have been Church of England adherents which encouraged infant baptism, due to the high infant mortality rate of the times and out of a desire to ensure that no matter how soon after birth a baby died, it, having been christened, would have a place as a christian in heaven. Some groups of non-conformists did not believe in this practice and christened children having reached the age of reason outside of the Church of England in their own churches, thus resulting in their births not being included in parish church records maintained by law since 1535. There is every reason to believe that Walter of Wolverhampton was christened probably within a week or so of birth, as Wolverhampton was an important regional urban center and travel time to church would not have limited opportunities for baptism. If so and if he were still alive, Walter Cotton of Wolverhampton would have been 59 years old and, thus, liable for militia duty in 1702 and Thomas of Wolverhampton would have been 55. This, in turn, threw doubt on the initial assumption identifying Thomas and Walter of Wolverhampton with Thomas and Walter of Virginia, and suggested that perhaps the two Virginians were not brothers, but cousins in the modern sense of the word. As various possibilities existed, the matter remained unresolved.

After many years, being retired and having free time, I initiated in late May of this year (2020) a search into the Cottons of Alkingtons, a gentry family whose members include Sir Allen Cotton, the Lord Mayor of London is 1625 to 1626, believing that I might be able to establish a link between this family and that of the John “Bertie” Cotton family of North Carolina previously referred to above. In doing so, a critical piece of information regarding the identification of the first Thomas Cotton of Virginia was uncovered in a search done on 31 May 2020 by means of the familysearch.org website. Instead of uncovering information I was looking for with regard to the Alkington Cottons, what caught my eye was a record of the marriage of Thomas Cotton and Susannah Haewood on 8 November 1664 in Uttoxeter, the parish of the Crakemarsh Cottons. Presumably, this is the same as the Susannah Haywood who was christened on 2 February 1650 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England and listed as the daughter of John Haywood. More importantly, as the Wolverhampton Cottons always used their parish church in Wolverhampton, this meant that the Thomas Cotton and Susannah Haywood getting married in Uttoxeter could be identified with Thomas Cotton of Virginia and his first wife Susannah who appears in the colonial records of Virginia, especially as the name Susannah was a rather rare one for the time. It also meant that Thomas Cotton of Virginia had to be the same Thomas Cotton who was christened on 19 May 1636 in Uttoxeter and was, thus, the son of William Cotton, esq. and an older brother of Walter Cotton who was christened in Uttoxeter on 14 November 1639, a man who would have been 60 or 61 when the muster list of 1702 was drawn up. This, in turn, lead to a quick unraveling of the relationships between the three Thomas and Walter sibling sets and showed that the Wolverhampton set had a second cousin relationship with the other two which had a first cousin relationship among themselves. It also firmly established beyond all doubt that Cotton/Cotten DNA project family 4 is to be identified with the family consisting of the descendants of the lords of the manor Cotton Edmunds in Cristleton near Chester in Cheshire, England, the medieval Cotton family from whom the Cottons of Crakemarsh in Uttoxeter were descended.

To better understand the nature of these relationships, we need to turn to the 1654 will of Thomas Cotton of Burntwood, where he names his kinsman Rowland Cotton of Crakemarsh (the oldest brother of Thomas and Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh) as his executor, establishing that the Cottons of Crakemarsh and Fulfen in Burntwood are of the same family. To get a clear understanding of the origin of the Burntwood Cotton family, we must go back to a certain Thomas Cotton who, because of transaction in 1612 by this person and his wife Frances, giving up future rights to the grandfather of Thomas and Walter of Crakemarsh for certain property in various places in Staffordshire, including Crakemarsh, it becomes clear that the Burntwood Cotton family clearly must descend from this Thomas Cotton and that he may be further identified as a Thomas Cotton appearing in a Staffordshire Visitation of the College of Arms as one of two younger sons (the other being Philip) of William Cotton and Elizabeth Malory and the brother of Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh, the father of William Cotton of Crakemarsh and the grandfather of Rowland, Thomas and Walter, individuals who have been previously mentioned above. However, it is also clear chronologically that the Thomas Cotton writing the will of 1654 cannot have been the Thomas Cotton of the land transactions, who would have been at least one generation older.

In fact, an online examination of Lichfield Parish record data by means of the familysearch.org website showed a Thomas Cotton whose spouse, Francis, is buried at Lichfield on 15 November 1619. A further examination of church records at Lichfield showed the birth of this family's children, being Thomas Cotton (christened 4 March 1606), William Cotton (christened 11 August 1614), Edward Cotton (christened 3 October 1615) and Susana (christened 1 February 1617). Another of this Thomas's children would be Humfry who was buried at Lichfield in 1618, possibly would have been a baby who died at birth. On 7 March 1654/5, the will of Thomas Cotton of Fulfin in Burntwood was proved by his widow Dorothy. The only marriage appearing in Church of England parish records between between a Thomas Cotton and a Dorothy during that period of the 17th century when a marriage would have had to have taken place in order to produce four sons by 1654 (including a son Walter who married Abigail Stringer in Lichfield on 22 January 1656) is in 1628 between Dorothy Russel of Churcheaton and Thomas Cotton of Whiston in Penkridge, but this couple have a family which can be documented in Penkridge and have children whose names do not match those of Thomas and Dorothy Cotton of Burntwood. The explanation is either that their marriage took place during a time when there is a gap in the records of the church they were married in or that they were non-conformist, something which would have led to no records surviving.

The oldest son mentioned in the will of 1654 of Thomas Cotton of Burntwood is a Walter Cotton who is certainly the Walter Cotton who marries Abigail Stringer on 22 January 1656, making a total of three Walter Cottons who had brothers by the name of Thomas and who were of the same generation living in the same English county (Staffordshire). The other two Walter Cottons known to have existed at that time in Staffordshire were Walter Cotton of Wolverhampton, born in 1643, and Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh, born in 1639. Neither would have been old enough to have been likely to have gotten married in 1656, thus making it certain that the concerned person can only be Walter Cotton of Burntwood. The oldest son of this couple, Edward, was christened in Marchington on 28 January 1658/9, but was buried at Lichfield on 31 March 1662. Furthermore, Abigail was buried at Lichfield on 28 January 1671/2 and then Thomas on 18 December 1676.

William, the proginator of the Wolverhampton Cottons is to be identified with the younger brother of the Thomas Cotton of Fulfen in Burntwood listed above as being christened on 4 March 1606. This William would have been the same William Cotton who married Anne Edge on 8 September 1633 in Trentham, Staffordshire. Though most certainly the Anne Edge christened in Uttoxeter on 25 June 1612 as the daughter of Sampson Edge, she belonged to a family which had family members living in Wolverhampton at this time and Wolverhampton became the parish of choice of this couple.

Concerning the children of Thomas Cotton of Burntwood and Dorothy, Abigael Stringer (the daughter of John Stringer and Marie, christened in Lichfield on 23 April 1636) can be shown as marrying their oldest son, Walter Cotton, gent. on 22 January 1656 at Lichfield. Walter and Abigael can also be shown as having a child by the name of Edward who was christened on 22 January 1658 in Marchington, Staffordshire (and not Lichfield). Nevertheless, two succeeding children Francis (30 July 1662) and Elizabeth (7 July 1664) were christened at Lichfield. However, there is record of the Thomas and Dorothy's son, William residing in Burntwood as a gentleman in 1664 and being listed as liable for a national hearth tax levied in 1666. There seems to be no other record of the fourth brother Humphrey, other than his father's will, but the third brother Thomas would have been the Thomas Cotton who became a resident of Marchington, where this Thomas Cotton who, on 10 September 1663, married Margrett Boulton (christened on 10 February 1643 at Dilhorne, Staffordshire, as the daughter of George and Mar(y)ia Boulton) and by whom he had several children who were christened in Marchington, a place where he may be presumed to have resided and where, from the times the times of this Thomas Cotton's great-great-grandfather Humphrey, the Cotton family had land interests.

As for Walter and Thomas Cotton, the sons of the first William Cotton of Wolverhampton, neither can be traced at present, though parish church records make it clear that another of William's sons, also named William remained in Wolverhampton and raised a family there.

The above discussion has implications for the ancestry of all the branch families of the Cottons of Cotton Edmunds that are included under the category of Family 4 on the excellently managed Cotton/Cotten DNA Project (http://www.skylinc.net/users/cottondna/family4.htm) website maintained by Michael Cotton. For this reason, I am now working on a family tree that, on a very preliminary basis, can be used to trace family relationships among these various branches. Anyone wishing to contact me regarding this work should do so at hkitabayashi@runbox.com. I will gladly provide information and exchange opinions regarding the current state of my research on this family tree.

The makings of a grand theory medieval Mallory genealogy

Due to very heavy obligations with work-related research, both for myself and my graduate school doctor's and master's program students, I have been unable for a long time to do new medieval Mallory family research. Instead, in my free time commuting back and forth by train to and from work, I have focused on the most elegant way to tie together the disparate strands of evidence into a workable theoretical whole. As my thoughts developed, I occasionally uploaded the current state of my thinking to help others in their research. I now would like to state the outlines of what I see as the beginnings of a comprehensive theory of English medieval Mallory research, which must also tie together research on the Segrave, Zouche, Cantilupe, Grene, Russel, Pappeworth and Palmer families.

One key figure is Thomas Mallory II (roughly 1245 to 1315) of Kirkby Mallory. He figures as the 
widowed father of a daughter in whose name he sues for land as her inheritance in 1274 or 75. (I am composing this from a sometimes faulty memory.) He appears later as the father of Ralph, his successor as lord of Kirkby Mallory and of Robert, the husband of Ala, who was a daughter of Thomas Brocket, through whom Robert was endowed with certain lands in Kirkby Mallory. The surviving historical record does not clarify whether Thomas II was the father or grandfather (through Ralph) of Ralph's successor, Anketil nor does it specify the relationship of either with Anketil's contemporary Henry Mallory. A College of Arms Visitation specifies that a certain Thomas Mallory who seems to be identifiable with Thomas Mallory II, by a daughter of Lord Zouche, had a son Christopher who married the heiress of Hutton Conyers. Another visitation specified that a Thomas Mallory who would fit chronologically with Thomas II was the son of William Mallory and the brother of Roger Mallory was the father of Ellen who was a co-heiress of her father and that he was older than his brother Roger. This Roger is then shown as the father of John who was the father of Anketil (married to Alice de Driby).

Another key figure in the puzzle is Anketil Mallory who, unlike Thomas Mallory II, appears to be more than one person. There is an Anketil Mallory (lord of Tachebrook Mallory) of the second half of the 12th century who played a rather spectacular role in a revolt by King Henry II's son against his father. Then there was another Anketil Mallory who best fits the picture chronologically as the first Anketil's grandson. This Anketil seems to have gone with the earl of Leicester on a crusade. There is yet a different Anketil Mallory who must be different from the crusader but is provably the first Anketil's grandson and who was a highly trusted servant and adviser to Henry III. Then there is another Anketil (son of John son of Gilbert) who is the grandson of the preceding Anketil's brother. Then there is the previously mentioned Anketil, the husband of Alice de Driby, who is said to be the son of John the son of Roger. In addition, there is another Anketil of Sudburgh who is listed as the brother of the Archbishop William la Zouche of York. This last Anketil has a brother William who seems to have no connection with the archbishop. Finally, there is the afore-mentioned Anketil Mallory who was the lord of Kirkby Mallory, but who is recorded as having lent a sizable sum of money to Anketil Mallory of Sudburgh. These two Anketils must be closely connected, but Anketil Mallory of Kirkby Mallory is a priest who gives Kirkby Mallory to the church rather to see it inherited by his natural heirs, but who also gives other property to individuals who also must be relatives but do not bear the Mallory name. The priest must be either a son or grandson of Thomas II of Kirkby Mallory and the Anketil Mallory of Sudburgh who is the "brother" of the Archbishop must belong to the Tachebrook Mallory line of Mallories for whom the male-line ancestry is quite separated indeed.

Another key figure is the Archbishop himself, who can rather conclusively be shown to be the son of Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthrorp and his wife Juliana. There is much evidence to indicate that the archbishop was devoted to his family and their interests. The archishop's oldest brother (with whom he remained close all his life) was a Roger. He also had brothers named John and Alan who disappear from the record and may have died when the archbishop was quite young. No sisters are recorded, but this does not precude their existence. Juliana remarried as his second wife Reginald Mallory who was the son of John Mallory and the brother of one of the Anketil Mallories mentioned above. She could very well have been the mother of the Anketil Mallory of Sudburgh and therefore a half-brother of the archbishop. In such a case, the lack of interest by the archbishop in Anketil's brother William could be explained by William having been a son of Reginald by his first wife Joan. The various relationships, however, can be alternatively explained by Juliana being the mother-in-law of Anketil of Sudburgh, with Anketil's wife having been a daughter of Juliana by her first husband, Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe. In such a case, Anketil and William would be identifiable with sons of those names of Reginald's father and, if so, due to the documentably long life of Anketil of Sudburgh, the sons of a later marriage than to the woman who would have been Reginald's mother. 

The archbishop's father Roger can be documented as being the son of a William la Zouche, but which William is a matter of debate. The two primary candidates would be William la Zouche of Black Torrington and the other being this man's uncle whom surviving records would indicate was the father of only one child a daughter whose descendants inherited his entire estate. Things are further complicated by precise relationship between the Zouches of Lubbesthorpe and those of the barons who descend from the older William's possibly youngest brother Eudon, the husband of the great heiress, Millicent de Monte Alto (nee Cantilupe). Lubbesthorpe, itself, was a possession of Millicent which she entrusted the care of to Roger of Lubbesthorpe's father and then deeded to Roger around the time of what would have been his marriage to Juliana, thus causing previous generations of scholars to speculate that Juliana would have been a close female relation of Millicent, possibly even a daughter, and that Lubbesthorpe constituted a dowry of sorts. Other relationships, however, remain conceivable.

The problem remains, though, of the mother of Christopher Mallory who must have had a close familial relationship with the archbishop as he was much favored by the archbishop and appears in his will. In any case, the Christopher Mallory previously mentioned, if a son of Thomas Mallory II of Kirkby Mallory, would fit best chronologically as the son of a late third marriage of Thomas to a sister of the Archbishop's father or, if not, as an unrecorded daughter of Eudon la Zouche and Millicent de Monte Alto. Thus, Ralph and Robert Mallory would have been sons of a second marriage and unconnected by blood ties with the archbishop, thus explaining his seeming lack of interest in them.

Concerning Anketil of Sudburgh who is described as the archbishop's brother, it is clear that he must have a blood connection with the Anketil Mallory who was the husband of Alice de Driby as this couple's descendants appeared to have considered lands in Sudburgh as their rightful inheritance. They also appear to have considered themselves as late as the early 17th century as the as co-heirs of Kirkby Mallory and its alienation an unfortunate whimsy of Anketil the priest.

The arguments tying these various strands together into a whole would take up a full book. The conclusions of one subset of this narrative, however, seems clear enough in my mind to justify the following theory. It is that Tomas Mallory II of Kirkby Mallory married a first time at a very early age and possibly had his first child, a daughter, at around the age of 20. His wife, an heiress, died early and he married a second time. By this marriage he had at least two children who survived him, being Ralph his heir and Robert, the husband of Ala, and with her the father of John. I assume that this wife died and that, after the age of 50 he married a sister of Roger of Lubbesthorpe or less probably a daughter of Eudon la Zouche and Millicent de Monte Alto. By the woman he had a son Christopher who would have been either a first cousin (or, less probably, a second cousin) of the archbishop. This woman might have also been the mother of Thomas's daughter Ellen Fenton.

Thomas Mallory II's daughter by his first wife would fit as a second wife to John Mallory of Tachebrook Mallory and Walton on the Wolde. She would have been the mother of Anketil Mallory of Sudbrugh and of William Mallory.

By his first wife, John would have been the father of Reginald Mallory whose second wife was the archbishop's mother Juliana. Anketil of Sudbrugh best fits if he were the husband of a daughter of Juliana by her first husband, Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe. In terms of the canon law of the time, this would have made Anketil the archbishop's brother and would provide an explanation for the favoritism shown him by the archbishop.

The relationship between Anketil the priest and Anketil of Sudbrugh can be best explained by assuming that a daughter of John Mallor of Tachebrook Mallory by his first wife and, thus, a full sister to Reginald and a half-sister to Anketil of Sudbrugh married her very distant cousin Ralph of Kirkby Mallory and became the parents of Anketil the priest and Henry. Henry seems to have later died during the Black Death at the end of the 1340s and in the 1360s Anketil the priest alienated Kirkby Mallory to the church. In this scenario, Anketil of Sudbrugh would have been both a first cousin as well as an uncle of Anketil the priest. The priest, though, would have been unconnected with the archbishop who seems to have done nothing to promote his career.

Anketil had a daughter Ala who married Thomas Grene. In his old age he found himself heavily in debt and turned over his interest in the lordship of one third of Kirkby Mallory to his daughter and her husband. A John Mallory appears who must have been Anketil's son as the descendants of the Anketil Mallory who married Alice de Driby keep up for many years a fight with the descendands of Ala Mallory over the rights to 50 acres of land in Sudbrugh which they claim by inheritance. Thus, Alice de Driby's husband was the son of John who was the son of the first Anketil Mallory of Sudbrugh, a man who was more probably the archbishop's brother-in-law and less probably his half-brother. The first Anketil Mallory of Sudbrugh, thus, appears to be the son of John Mallory of Tachebrook Mallory and a daughter of Thomas Mallory II of Kirkby Mallory. 

The mother of Alice de Driby's husband can now be seen as best fitting, if she were a sister of the last Pappeworth lord of Pappeworth St Agnes rather than a distant relation as I have elsewhere previously proposed.

Going back to Thomas Mallory II of Kirkby Mallory, according my new theory, his likely father-in-law by his third wife would have been a William la Zouche and his wife's brother a Roger, thus accounting for him having a father by the name of William and a brother Roger when his real father's name can be shown to have been a Henry. The alienation of Kirkby Mallory to the church can probably be seen as a function of the black death eliminating those heirs with whom Anketil the priest would have been comfortable with. 

Though I know that the above is far too complicated for the average reader to easily absorb and that much has been left out that should have been ideally included, my hope is that, should I be unable to provide for some unexpected reason to provide my research in published form, then at least the outlines of my conclusions might be of help to other researchers and might save them time in creating a better theory.

The implications of Henry and Stephen Segrave being brothers on Mallory genealogy

This is to report that I have found proof that Henry Segrave and Stephen Segrave were brothers, making Henry's daughter Christina, Stephen Segrave's neice. This has long been proposed by others but proof, corroborating such suppositions, has, to date, not been offered in print. As one Christina was the wife of the first Thomas Mallory of Kirkby Mallory (born around 1202) and as canon law would have prohibited a marriage of near relations, one may assume that Thomas Mallory, himself, was not a nephew by blood of Stephen Segrave, something which has also been proposed. 

Other Mallories connected with Stephen Segrave are Robert Mallory (probably born around 1205) and Gilbert Mallory (born around 1201) who was the husband of Stephen's sister, Cecilia, who could have been born no later than 1200 if the daughter of Stephen's father who passed away in 1199. If Cecilia were first married to Thomas Mallory's father Richard and secondly to Gilbert, she could not have been Thomas's mother, though, if born in 1190 or earlier could have been Robert's mother. Though considering that she lived into the early 1280s, it is more likely than less that she was either born in the last year of Stephen's father's life or was the daughter of Stephen's mother by a second husband. Also, a marriage with Richard (His widow is a Cecilia, who does not appear to be Thomas's mother), if it took place, would seem to fit with 1216 or 1217 at the beginning of the reign of Henry III.

In any case, it is highly unlikely that Robert Mallory was a brother of Cecilia's second husband, Gilbert (a second cousin of her presumed first husband), by another unidentified sister of Stephen as this would have effectively acted as a bar to marriage between the two.

The most likely assumption, based on an analysis of charter witness lists, would be that Robert was a brother of Christina's husband Thomas, but not a son of Cecilia. Though no direct proof is available, it would be easiest to see Thomas and Robert as both being the sons of Richard by a first wife who was the daughter of Thomas le Despencer and a sister of the first wife of Stephen Segrave. This, thus, would have allowed Robert Mallory to be designated as the nephew of Stepen Segrave, as well as allowing Thomas Mallory to marry Christina Segrave and both Richard and Gilbert Mallory to marry Cecilia.

This is a reiteration of a hypothesis mentioned in an earlier posting, but with the clear identification of Henry and Stephen Segrave as brothers, the hypothesis is now proven in part and strongly reinforced as a whole.

1 June 2015

Comments on the Archbishop William la Zouche of York

This posting does not pretend to give a comprehensive argument for the details of the life of William la Zouche, either before or after he became archbishop of York. It is merely is meant to give an outline of the tentative conclusions I have so far reached based on on-going research that has lasted, off and on, for eight years, in the hope that should I never be in a position to publish a polished version of my research, others might find a certain amount of stimulation and may be spared some of the long hours of academic struggle that will have gone into these few lines.

All previous studies of the archbishop's life depend heavily on his will as a means for establishing a framework to his life in which to include to mass of other surviving details from the contemporary written record of his time. One point of the published version of the will is quite curious and that is the phrase "parentes, consanguineos meos" which is normally translated as "parents, blood relations". I have come to the conclusion that this should be read as "parentes consanguineos meos" without the comma which almost certainly represents an editorial addition in the printed version and cannot have existed in the original 14th century Latin. As a phrase "parentes consanguineos" was a legal term which exists even today in the Portuguese legal code to indicate someone too closely related for a marriage to be legally binding. If we remember that the archbishop was a university trained specialist in canon law, then, considering the way church law was applied in his lifetime, we might just as easily interpret the passage concerned as meaning "individuals related to me within the degree  of 3rd cousin or less". The passage concerned, thus, cannot be taken as an indication that his parents were still alive, though for six out of the last seven years of my research, just like all of my predecessors, this is a position that I took, too.

On close examination, the archbishop's will shows a far greater partiality to his relatives than is apparent at first sight, as an examination of the executors of his will would show. Lord Neville of Raby, the first person mentioned as an executor, is the husband of an individual my current research indicates to have been a second cousin of the archbishop. In addition, he was a companion in war and can be shown to have been a political ally. Ralph la Zouche is specifically mentioned as being the archbishop's brother. Anketil Mallory is either a brother-in-law (more probably) or a half-brother (less probably). Christopher Mallory is either a first or a second cousin, depending on whether his mother was a much younger sister of the archbishop's father or a first cousin of that man. Robert Constable would have been directly ancestral to the man who was either contracted or already married to the archbishop's neice. This would lead one to expect that the other executors would also have some family connection, either direct or indirect, with the archbishop, too.

Another thing one should be careful about is not to confuse the archbishop or his brother Roger with two sons of the first baron William la Zouche of Harringworth. It is extremely easy to do as it would seem that both Williams became clerics and both Rogers were knights and lords of manors, though it would seem that the Roger who was the son of William la Zouche of Harringworth did not leave descendants. It is on the basis of this overlapping in naming and what I believe to be a mistaken reading of the archbishop's will that many people in the past (including myself) have assumed that the baron was the father of the archbishop, as he was old enough to be the archbishop's father, alive at the archbishop's death, and clearly the father of a William who was a cleric. Other contemporary evidence, however, makes it impossible to believe that this could be the case.

The archbishop and his brother Roger have to be the sons of the first Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe and Juliana (Tresgoz?). Moreover, William would appear to have been a youngest son, being born either shortly before or soon after his father's death, as he is nowhere mentioned in the property settlements made after the first Roger's death, whereas as various other sons are. One can assume, on this basis, that the archbishop was probably born around 1300 or 1301. Ecclesiastical preferment before the mid-1320s probably refers, not to him but to his cousin who was the son of the first baron la Zouche of Harringworth.

The archbishop's career was a brilliant one and he was undoubtedly a man of energy and, being highly educated, of talent. What should not be overlooked is that he was also well-connected in terms of family and that he placed importance on family interest in the management of his affairs, both as archbishop and before. Moreover, this was natural for a man of his times.

Concerning the archbishop's Mallory connections, Anketil Mallory is mentioned by a late 14th century memorandum of a complicated series of land transfers as being the brother of the archbishop which would not be impossible if we assume that this particular Anketil is the son of the archbishop's mother, Juliana, and her second husband Reginald Mallory. However, another document in the same collection refers to a William Mallory as being this Anketil's brother, though he is closely associated with Anketil, at no time does he appear in connection with the archbishop during the archbishop's life. Considering other matters that cannot be gone into here, it would be easier to assume that Anketil was the husband of a sister of the archbishop, thus making him a brother-in-law instead of a blood brother. On the other hand, William would have been a blood brother of Anketil, though not directly connected with the archbishop by blood or marriage.

Christopher Mallory, however, would appear to be a representative of a different branch of the Mallory family (Kirkby Mallory) from Anketil (Walton on the Wold). His connection can best be explained as a cousin (either first or second) but would have been well within the degree of blood relationship for the archbishop to have considered him as being closely related according to the definitions provided by canon law at the time.

I hope eventually to provide a fuller and much more coherent life of the archbishop in the future, but, even if I don't, a better understanding of the points raised above can help a future researcher do the same. I don't see anything brought up in this blog as being a final statement of fact, but rather as an attempt to stimulate research taking place in directions it may not have otherwise gone.

The implications of la Zouche chronology as it intersects with Mallory history: Juliana of Lubbesthorpe

Without accounting for the chronology of the la Zouche families of Ashby la Zouche, Harringworth, and Lubbesthorpe and their sometimes intricate intertwining range of relationships with the Mallorys, it is impossible to fully understand Mallory history from the last half of the 13th century through the first half of the 15th, whether it concerns the Mallory families of Kirkby Mallory, Walton on the Wold, Hutton Conyers, Sudborough, or Papworth St Agnes. In historical terms, however, the various branches of the la Zouche family consistently made more of an impact on England than did any branch of the medieval Mallory family. Nevertheless, there are many aspects of la Zouche chronology, especially before the mid-14th century which are confusing in the extreme and deserve careful attention. It is rather like encountering an immensely difficult example of sudoku, where one must process literally hundreds of possible numerical combinations before coming across hopefully the only one that can fully satisfy the various disparate bits of contemporary data that survive in the full glory of their disarray.

In connection with the book I have been working on now for the last eight years and which could take another eight before it is finished, I have been and will continue to do research on the la Zouche family, something which many others are also doing and from whose efforts I have benefited and continue to benefit. Recently, the online publication of the third edition of Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands by on the fmg.ac website has proven to be an invaluable tool, when combined with the extensive notes I took when I was on a year's sabbatical in London, and I feel I have been able to make a certain progress in dealing with this treacherously confusing historical territory.

In consideration of my age and the uncertainty of human fortune, I have decided to upload to this blog my observations as I come across them. This blog, however, is not meant to substitute for the series of books I eventually intend to publish when I no longer have to deal with PhD student dissertations or the still inadequate research skills of master's students. It is merely meant to point people in the direction of possibly fruitful research should I eventually prove incapable of completing in manuscript form what I have begun.

As for the connections between the la Zouche and the Mallory families, the key individuals to consider are Juliana (the widow of the first Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe and the second wife of Reginald Mallory of Walton on the Wold) and her son the Archbishop of York William la Zouche (certainly a close relative of the first Anketil Mallory of Sudborough and the first Christopher Mallory of Hutton Conyers, both Mallorys appearing in his will).

The connection to Lubbesthorpe by Juliana's husband, Roger, best makes sense, if we assume his birth in the mid to late 1240s. His father William la Zouche would have been born around 1220 and, on these grounds, best fits an identification with the William la Zouche who was the son of a Roger la Zouche and the brother of an Alan la Zouche of Ashby la Zouch. The key problem with this identification would be that King's Nympton, a manor given to William by his father, was inherited by William's daughter Joyce Mortimer of Richard's Castle, a woman whom it would make best sense to think of as having been born between 1250 and 1255. What is generally overlooked is that Joyce's descendants (and not the descendants of the son of Joyce's mother by her first husband) also inherited her mother's manor of Howbridge in Essex and that William was a second husband of Joyce's mother Maude and that Maude died well before her husband did, though under English law he continued to possess her manor until his death in 1270 in his capacity as the father of a child by her.  He may be expected to have had a third wife and to have possibly fathered other children after Maude's death. This hypothetical third wife may have been a woman by the name of Alice, though this name might also refer to a wife of the younger son (also a William) of William's older brother Alan. It will be argued in a future blog that a daughter of William by this third wife would have been a second or third wife of Thomas Mallory of Kirkby Mallory who was active in the last quarter of the 13th century.

If the above reconstruction is correct, one must account for an older son by a first wife being disinherited in favor of the daughter of a second. One must assume that, as was common during this era, one of the conditions imposed by Maude in her marriage contract was that William make legal arrangements preferring her descendants by him over those of any other marriage, past or future. For William, who would have been a younger son with far from extensive land-holdings, marrying Maude would have been an attractive proposition, as she would have been quite a bit richer than him with her own inheritance as an heiress and one third of the properties of her first husband as a widow's dower. Disinheriting his young son would not necessarily have been seen as being disadvantageous to the boy, himself, as access by William to the financial resources Maude would have brought to him for the duration of their marriage would have given him a feeling of being able to promote his son Roger's career in ways that could more than make up for the lack of a landed inheritance.

As it was, Eudon la Zouche would seem to have played a decisive role in Roger's advancement. Eudon is commonly referred to as Eon, Ivo, and occasionally as John, though every time he appears in records produced by the government of Henry III he is referred to as Eudon, exclusively, so this would seem to be the best name to call him by. Eudon would seem to have been the youngest surviving brother of Alan and William la Zouche mentioned above and to have been too young to have received property from his father Roger before that individual's death. A comparison with the dates of various life events of his supposed siblings would suggest that Eudon was born between 1230 and 1235. By 1268 when Eudon's assumed nephew Roger was first assigned Lubbesthorpe to manage by Millicent de Monte Alto, Eudon would seem to have already been married to the lady, a daughter of the baron of Abergavenny William de Cantelo and the former wife of John de Monte Alto. Millicent would have been born around 1247 and have been the child bride of her first husband who seems to have died before her marriage was consummated. At this point, Millicent would not yet have been the great landed heiress she became on the death of her brother several years later, but would have been in possession of lands (including Lubbesthorpe) granted to her and her husband by her father on the occasion of her first marriage. Millicent's marriage to Eudon, thus, has the makings of a love match of sorts between two individuals without any future prospects of greatness. As it was, the death of Millicent's brother without any children changed both their lives profoundly and for most of the last decade of his life, Eudon became a man of consequence in the affairs of England.

My best estimate is that Eudon would have been in his mid to late forties when he passed away in 1279 and his older brother William about 50 at his decease at the beginning of the decade. After Eudon's death, his presumed nephew Roger continued to managed Millicent's interests in Lubbesthorpe until, probably in connection with his marriage to Juliana sometime around 1290, she made him lord of the manor with her as his immediate overlord. Juliana must have clearly been a much younger relative of Millicent's, but cannot have been a daughter, as has sometimes been maintained and which I, myself, thought of as a likely possibility for quite a few years.

Juliana, herself, is unlikely to have been born before 1270 and probably not later than 1275. She could conceivably be a last child of Millicent's sister Joan, but this individual's children, daughters included, seem to be already otherwise accounted for, nor is there any compelling onomastic reason for assigning Joan such a daughter. Nevertheless, Juliana is a name appearing in Millicent's family, it being the name of Millicent's father's sister who married a Tresgoz. Juliana's husband was a son of Sybilla d'Ewias, an important heiress who was the closest living relative in her time to the last Anglo-Saxon King of England, Edward the Confessor, being a direct descendant of Edward's full sister rather than his half-brother, the ancestor of the future kings of Scotland and England. Sybilla's children by her first husband, though, were actually raised from their early childhood by her second husband, Roger Clifford. Millicent's aunt, Juliana de Cantelo, had two sons of whom only the name of the first is known, though the fact that a second son married and had at least one son who had come into possession of a modest amount of family property is something for which there is charter evidence.

If we take into account the onomastic traditions which were common at the time and evident among the families with which we are dealing (Cantelo, Tresgoz, Clifford, la Zouche, Mallory), then we see that a son was not generally named after his father, nor a daughter after her mother, but the oldest son or daughter was, in each case, very often named after a grandfather or a grandmother (normally through the father but also through the mother, especially if the mother were an heiress or the particular grandparent a person of importance). Thus, the naming of Roger la Zouche and Juliana's oldest son, Roger, might normally be expected to mean that he was being named in honor of Juliana's father and not of Roger, himself, or Roger's father, whom we known, from government created documentation in the time of Edward III, to have been a William.

There is, of course, no place in the written record where we can find her family name. However, onomastically and chronologically, assuming that Juliana was the daughter of a Roger Tresgoz who was a second son of a Juliana who was the sister of Millicent's father would fit perfectly, especially as the first Juliana can be shown to have lived at least until the mid-1280s and might very well have been instrumental in arranging the marriage of a granddaughter with limited marital prospects to a much older, securely well off, presumed nephew of Millicent's second husband, Eudon la Zouche.

After the second Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe's birth, Juliana and her husband went on to have at least four other sons during the last decade of the 13th century and presumably a certain number of unrecorded daughters. Presumably the youngest of these children, perhaps even posthumously born, was William la Zouche who later became Archbishop of York. It would seem rather than having been named for Roger's father, he was more likely to have been named for Roger's cousin, William la Zouche of Harringworth, the son of Eudon and Millicent and also Roger's immediate overlord. This William would, in turn, have been named for Millicent's father, as, when he was born, Millicent had already come into possession of half of her father and mother's lands as the co-heiress of her brother. A presumably older sister of William was already named for Millicent's mother.

On the death of the first Roger la Zouche, Juliana took immediate action to gain the guardianship of her son and his lands and then very shortly after married Reginald Mallory as his second wife. Significantly, Reginald would have been much closer in age to Juliana than her first husband and, although he eventually came to inherit Walton on the Wold, Tachebrook Mallory, and Botley, he would seem to have still been at the time of his marriage a favored younger son rather than the natural heir to his father's properties. As was the case with Millicent's second marriage, this also has the markings of a love match, at least on the part of Juliana, herself.

Whether Juliana had any children by Reginald is not clear. His heir, John, was Reginald's son by his first wife Joan. Nevertheless, the marriage can be shown to impact Mallory history for over 100 years, as will be discussed in other postings to this blog when I have time to write them..

On the origin of the Mallory family of Hutton Conyers and Studley Royal

According to a visitation of 1563, Christopher Mallory married Joan Conyers, the heiress of Hutton Conyers, and was, through her, the ancestor of the Mallorys of Hutton Conyers and Studley Royal. Christopher Mallory was recorded in the visitation as the son of a Sir Thomas Mallory and a daughter of "Lord Zouche". When Christopher Mallory first appears in 1347 together with William la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, the nephew of the Archbishop of York, he would have already been an adult, indicating a birth year not later than the mid-1320s.

Although one cannot expect that a visitation taking place 200 years after the fact and relying on family tradition to be entirely accurate in every respect, one cannot entirely discount it either. In fact, the Mallory coat of arms mentioned in the visitation do not perfectly match the contemporary arms of any late 13th century or early 14th century Mallory family to the extent that they have survived or have been otherwise recorded. One would not expect that the Zouche coat of arms mentioned (those of the only surviving Zouche baron in 1563) to be the same, though obviously one cannot not discount this as being impossible, either.

One would expect that Christopher Mallory would have been closely related to the William la Zouche, the Archbishop of York during most of the 1340s, especially as he is named as an executor of the Archbishop's will. If Sir Thomas Mallory (b. ca. 1242) were the father of Christopher, then we must assume Christopher to be a contemporary of the Archbishop and to have been born sometime in the first years of the first decade of the 14th century at the latest. If the coat of arms evidence is to be taken at face value, then one would expect that the mother of Christopher to have been a daughter of Eudo la Zouche, the husband of Millicent de Monte Alto (nee Cantelou), though not necessarily by Millicent who may have been a second wife. If the coat of arms evidence in the visitation is not to be taken at face value, another possibility as Christopher's mother would have been a sister of the Archbishop's father who would have also been closely connected to Eudo la Zouche (the Archbishop's father, Roger, was the son of a William who would have been the brother of Eudo). 

It will, in fact, be argued in the book I am working on that that the coat of arms evidence cannot be reliably used in this case and that Sir Thomas Mallory would have married as a second or third wife, the daughter of William la Zouche, a woman who would, as is indicated above, been the sister of the archbishop's father. It will also be argued that Christopher Mallory would have been either the youngest or close to the youngest of the children born to this marriage. Christopher Mallory would, thus, have been a first cousin of the Archbishop, thus explaining the archbishop making him an executor of his will.

A suggestion for further research on the origins of Peter Mallory of New Haven

This is not based on research, merely a suggestion for further research originally made by S. V. Mallory Smith, a scholar for whom I have the highest respect and whom I once had the privilege of meeting together with her husband at their home in Cambridge. On page 101 in her book, A History of the Mallory Family, she suggests that Peter might have been the son of a certain John Mallory, the putative, posthumous, son of Sir Chistopher Mallory of Studley Royal who passed away in 1555 by Mary, the daughter of Sir Christopher Danby and Elizabeth, the daughter of Lord Latimer. This John Mallory was said to have been dispossessed by his father's brother, William Mallory, though an attempt was made in 1578 to recover a third part of Sir Christopher Mallory's property.
My suggestion is that it might be worthwhile to go over these cases quite carefully. One might find that the Mallory of John Mallory was actually a legal fiction and that genetically speaking he might not have been of the same male-line Mallorys as other bearers of that name. It would appear, however, that chronologically speaking, if there is a connection between Peter Mallory of New Haven and John Mallory, it would have been that of a grandson rather than of a son, which could still account for the very different y-chromosome profiles of Peter Mallory of New Haven Mallory men (and their English counterparts) and other Mallory lineages.

When I met S. V. Mallory Smith some seven or eight years ago when I was on Sabbatical in England, she assured me at length that Peter Mallory of New Haven's ancestry represented at that time a genealogical black hole for which no genealogically acceptable answers had so far been forthcoming. She also assured me that this was of interest to her, as she herself had her origins in the same genealogical line as Peter Mallory of New Haven. She also expressed disappointment at people appropriating her work verbatim as their own and for others who have passed themselves off as her. 
Though this is not a research I intend to get involved in, it is nevertheless something worth pursuing, if for no other reason than out of respect for a great lady and impeccable scholar.