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".

The Lord Mayor of London Sir Richard Mallory's Papworth St Agnes ancestry now a certainty

I am running behind on my publishing schedule. I am responsible this year for an unusually large number of doctor's and master's level graduate students and it takes up too much time for me to get my own research materials into an academically acceptable format for publication. It will be perhapsseveral more years before I can get my next book on early medieval Mallory history published. In the mean time, I thought I should share a new discovery. It has been commonly asserted that Sir Richard Mallory, the Lord Mayor of the City of London for 1565 was the son of Anthony Mallory of Papworth St Agnes. Unfortunately, commonly asserted and being proven to an acceptable level of uncertainty are two different things. In search for other material, however, I have come across what, when combined with other sources, constitutes such proof. Sir Richard actually is the son of Anthony Mallory by either a first or second wife. It would seem he had an older brother, Henry, who may or may not have been a half brother. In any case, Sir Richard was at least nine years older than his younger half brother, Sir William Mallory who, by special permission of Henry VIII was designated as the eventual heir of Papworth St Agnes. Relations between the two brothers and between their children, however, appear to have remained cordial. Sir Richard's male line descendants appear to have died out by about 1620. His daughters, however, left numerous descendants. Of the two lines I am the most familiar with, the oldest, Julian, was the mother of a somewhat well known early 17th century individual called Lionel Sharpe. A younger daughter, Elizabeth, married William Cotton of Staffordshire, leaving numerous descendants in both England and America.

Sir Anthony was the son of Thomas Mallory (1425-1469) of Papworth St Agnes and of a Palmer woman who was a member of a locally important gentry family of that name in Northamptonshire and Rutland, providing important members of parliament from her immediate family group. Thomas Mallory was the son of Sir William Mallory and Margaret Burley, the sister of William Burley, the speaker of the House of Commons. Sir William was the second son of Sir Anketil (also known as Anketin and Antoine) Mallory and Alice de Driby. Anketil's father was John and his grandfather Roger according to county visitations of the College of Arms, although a detailed examination of contemporary evidence would indicate that, though Anketil's father would have been a John's father would have been an earlier Anketil and John's mother the daughter of Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe. John's wife and the later Anketil's mother would have been a member of the Papworth family of Papworth St Agnes and probably a sister of the last Papworth lord, Sir William Papworth. The great-grandfather of Anketil Mallory is variously described as either Thomas or William, depending on the genealogy being cited. All genealogies point to Kirkby Mallory as a point of origin, though contemporary evidence would seem to point rather more strongly to Walton-on-the-Wold..

On the other hand, Alice de Driby's immediate ancestry is more clearly documentable. Her father was John de Driby, the son of Thomas de Driby, and her mother Amie, was the illegitimate daughter of Piers Gaveston, the Earl of Cornwall and also the lover of Edward II. Piers was murdered when Amie would have been quite young. Nevertheless, she, too, was able to make her fortune in royal service, in her case that of Philippa, the wife of Edward III. Though currently unprovable, Amie's mother might possibly have been an earlier Alice de Driby (and somewhat distant relation of the above-mentioned Thomas de Driby) who eventually became the heiress of the extensive de Driby family properties in Lincolnshire and through legitimate descent, the ancestress of the Lords Cromwell. A book on these individuals is planned for sometime in the future when I will not have as many graduate students to take care of. In the mean time, I hope this abstract of what I have uncovered will be found of use.

"Disambiguating Leuric", a new book, and corrections to "Post Norman Conquest Mallorys"

This is to introduce a book I published in November of last year with lulu.com, a book called "Disambiguating Leuric" and also to alert potential readers of "Post Norman Conquest Mallorys" to the fact that research done for "Disambiguating Leuric" proved to me that certain matters were not properly addressed in "Post Norman Conquest Mallorys", something which means that a revised edition will be issued later this year.

I started "Disambiguating Leuric" on the assumption that a daughter or granddaughter of that man had married Robert Mallory, the first lord of Kirkby Mallory and had brought with her to the descendants of this marriage a certain property existing that lay partly in Welton and partly in what is now called Thrupp Grounds, two small neighboring hamlets in Northamptonshire. Further research eventually convinced me that I had misinterpreted available evidence and that the property, if an inheritance, as I still believe it is, would have come by marriage to a female relative of Leuric's neighbor, Vlmar (Woolmer in modern English). Unlike Leuric, extensive research has so far failed to uncover further certain information on his family background, though I have managed to turn up a certain amount of information likely to apply to him personally. 

I also have uncovered further information about the Novomercato family, which will necessitate a rewriting of that chapter of "Post Norman Conquest Mallorys". It would seem that the second William de Novomercato would have been the brother and not the father of Richard Mallorys wife. More information that would seem to apply to this woman's two sisters has also been uncovered. 

As for Leuric, my new book identifies certain relationships and supplements previous work done by British scholars whose work I admire greatly. Briefly summarizing the extensive evidence presented in my new book, it would seem that Leuric was the son of Leuuin (an abbot and later a bishop) who was the brother of Alwin, the father of Turchil, who was William the Conqueror's sheriff of Warwickshire and the ancestor the Arden family, from which William Shakespeare's mother, Mary Arden was descended. Leuric and his family will be more carefully examined in another book I am planning for publication perhaps next year.

In addition to the above-mentioned publication plans, I am currently working on a book about how to better interpret the available tax surveys covering Northamptonshire. This will look at the Northamptonshire Geld Roll, the Domesday Book chapter dealing with Northamptonshire, and the 12th century Northamptonshire Survey. A fairly useful result I have found an elegant proof for is that the "hide", the basic land unit used in medieval England from the Anglo-Saxon period onward was originally, at least with regard for Northamptonshire, 200 medieval English acres. This is different from other estimates of 100 and 120 acres. Due to the fairly complicated nature of the research being undertaken, I cannot put a precise date on publication, but hope it might be sometime this year, because the research would have value in many different fields.

When the above works are finished, I plan to write the next volume dealing with the prosopography of the Mallory family, carrying it at least through the reign of Henry III and, if space allows, through that of Edward I.

Post Norman Conquest Mallorys -- The First Three Generations

I just published a book dedicated to S.V. Mallory Smith, a lady I admire greatly for her pioneering work on medieval Mallory history. It covers the first three generations of Mallorys after the Norman Conquest, as well as uncovering a connection with England's Anglo-Saxon past and providing an outline of the history of the Novomercato family of Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, and Warwickshire, a family whose properties were inherited by the Mallorys in the 12th century by virtue of direct descent. The book in entitled "Post Norman Conquest Mallorys" and subtitled "The First Three Generations". It's URL is:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/hikaru-kitabayashi/post-norman-conquest-mallorys/hardcover/product-21231781.html

It is 213 pages and probably too densely written for the average reader. Nevertheless, for those (probably almost all) who are interested in Mallory family history, but uninterested in reading through a closely argued academic work that depends on largely Latin documents, I would like to summarize my conclusions here. The first Mallory in England was a Geoffrey, who seems to have had his origin in Bessin in Normandy, and possessed property in Dorset, Somerset, and Warwick. He would have been old enough to have participated in the conquest, though whether he did or not must remain an open question. He seems to have lived to perhaps around 1120, give or take perhaps five years. Before he died he seem to have assigned Botley, a Warwickshire property of his to his grandson Anketil, the younger son of his younger son Robert. Robert, himself, was most likely born in the mid-1080s. This Robert would have entered into the service of the first Beaumont earl of Leicester by around 1110, at the latest, would seem to have been granted Kyrkby Mallory by the first earl, was married to the heiress of the family of an Englishman by the name of Leofric, and had a first son Richard around 1110 and a second son Anketil around 1114. Richard married Agnes de Novomercato around 1130 and had at least two and possibly three or four sons (William, Simon, and, probably, Ralph, but with less certainty Luke) in the 1130s. Anketil seems to have married in the mid-1130s with his oldest son Robert being born within this time frame. Anketil's second surviving son was a Henry who would have been born as much as 12 years after his older brother Robert. Another substantially well off Mallory from the time period dating to the second half of the 12th century was a certain Laurence Mallory of Bristol who seems to have been an adherent of the earl of Gloucester. Laurence would surely have been a descendant of Geoffrey by an older son, but his exact affiliation with the other Mallorys of his era will probably never be known. Another finding of importance is the the Mallory descendants of Anketil obtained their properties independently from those of Richard and, consequently, never owed homage to the descendants of Richard for the right to hold property.

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.