Hello again, my dear Medieval genealogists and historians
I am in quite a quandry regarding the supposed marriage of Richard de Puleston aka Pyvelesdon born abt 1275 in Emral, Flintshire, Wales with Angharad de Warenne b abt 1283. My interest is with the Warrene side of the equasion..

Many pedigrees have Angharad de Warenne as being a daughter of William de Warenne, the 7th Earl of Surrey and Joan de Vere, but this cannot be accurate as 1) William died in 1286 after having sired only 2 children, John and Alice and 2) Burke's Peerage lists Richard de Puleston's wife as Agnes, a daughter of either Sir William or Sir Griffith Warenne of Warrenhall, Solop. see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZfdRAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA816&lpg=PA816&dq=puleston+salop&source=bl&ots=AsKOQ9I2Eq&sig=4LIE_lW1jlT9U9a9GCGj-alXUX0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq-KbV16XZAhVHIsAKHT9JCRAQ6AEIXTAI#v=onepage&q=puleston%20salop&f=false
and 3) Action at Westminster by Richard Puleston 20 October 1314 lists Agnes as his wife see Feet of Fines CP 25/1/194/9, number 1 at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_194_9.shtml
Since Angharad de Warenne should probably be considered, instead, as Agnes de Warenne, my questions are: how does this Agnes Warenne tie into the Warenns of Shropshire and do these Shropshire Warrens directly relate to the Earls of Surrey at some earlier point in time? Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide.

Cheers,
Gail Peterson

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:16:06 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 2) Burke's Peerage lists Richard de Puleston's wife as Agnes, a daughter of either Sir
> William or Sir Griffith Warenne of Warrenhall, Solop.
> Since Angharad de Warenne should probably be considered, instead, as Agnes de
> Warenne, my questions are: how does this Agnes Warenne tie into the Warenns of
> Shropshire and do these Shropshire Warrens directly relate to the Earls of Surrey at
> some earlier point in time?

I am not familiar with any Warren family from Warrenhall, but the name Griffith de Warenne is found among the Shropshire Warrens of Ightfield. From memory:

The pedigree given the Warrens of Ightfield in the Visitation of Shropshire is completely untrustworthy, contradicted by the primary record, and their origin is not directly documented in the contemporary record. However, given the geographical proximity, they have been reasonably speculated to be a younger branch of the Warrens of Whitchurch (who are also found using the surnames Whitchurch and Blancminster). Again, there is dispute about their origin. Traditional genealogies make them a younger line of the first House of Warenne, branching in the generation before the marriage of the senior line's heiress to the Plantagenet scion. However, since properties held by the earliest proven ancestor of the Whitchurch line were held at the time of Domesday held by a nephew of the Warenne tenant in chief, it has been suggested that they instead descend from this man, with a branching from the brother of the Warenne involved in the Conquest.

taf

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:11:23 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:

> I am not familiar with any Warren family from Warrenhall, but the name Griffith de Warenne is found among the Shropshire Warrens of Ightfield. From memory:
>
> The pedigree given the Warrens of Ightfield in the Visitation of Shropshire is completely untrustworthy, contradicted by the primary record, and their origin is not directly documented in the contemporary record. However, given the geographical proximity, they have been reasonably speculated to be a younger branch of the Warrens of Whitchurch (who are also found using the surnames Whitchurch and Blancminster). Again, there is dispute about their origin. Traditional genealogies make them a younger line of the first House of Warenne, branching in the generation before the marriage of the senior line's heiress to the Plantagenet scion. However, since properties held by the earliest proven ancestor of the Whitchurch line were held at the time of Domesday held by a nephew of the Warenne tenant in chief, it has been suggested that they instead descend from this man, with a branching from the brother of the Warenne involved in the Conquest.
>
> taf

Todd, Thank you so much for your reply. These Warrens have my head spinning at times. After reading more of their accounting in the Antiquities of Shropshire by Robert Eyton it appears the Shropshire Warrens were tenants of the Warrenes of Surrey and like you mention were probably related through one of the siblings William de Warenne, the 1st Earl of Surrey. To date, I have been able to find only one such sibling, a Ranulf (or Rodulf) de Warenne III b abt 1049 who died in England some 20 years after the conquest, but very little else is known of him leaving a 200 year chasm between him and the first of the Shropshire Warrenes who were alive in the mid 1200s. While a fair amount has been written about William I of Surrey, likely due to his association with Gundrada and that controversy, almost nothing exists for the other branches of the family that followed him to England after the conquest. This is a gap that may not be breached within my remaining lifetime...

Again, thanks for your input--it is greatly appreciated.

BTW, although I have not yet viewed it, what is it that makes the Visitation of Shropshire such a questionable source?

Cheers,
Gail

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 10:06:17 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> BTW, although I have not yet viewed it, what is it that makes the Visitation of
> Shropshire such a questionable source?

There was a bit of a discussion of this here back in 1998. Basically, other than sharing the named John and Griffith, it bears no resemblance to the historical records, which primarily are represented in inquisitions post mortem and a plea roll pedigree. The marriages seem to be invented, and the branch point goes through someone who doesn't seem to have existed. Other than that . . . .

Here is the pedigree:
https://archive.org/details/visitationshrop01britgoog/page/n72/mode/1up?view=theater

That said, the Pulesdon pedigrees are all saying that 'Angharad' was an heiress. If this is really the case, then she wasn't daughter of the Ightfield senior line, though the name Griffith really is distinctive of this line, so maybe we are talking about a younger son?

If I recall correctly, there is a Pulesdon page in the Bartrum Collection of Welsh pedigrees. I would be interested to see what it says, as if it does mention this marriage, it likely represents one of the earliest mentions of it.

taf

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:41:18 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 10:06:17 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > BTW, although I have not yet viewed it, what is it that makes the Visitation of
> > Shropshire such a questionable source?
> There was a bit of a discussion of this here back in 1998. Basically, other than sharing the named John and Griffith, it bears no resemblance to the historical records, which primarily are represented in inquisitions post mortem and a plea roll pedigree. The marriages seem to be invented, and the branch point goes through someone who doesn't seem to have existed. Other than that . . . .
>
> Here is the pedigree:
> https://archive.org/details/visitationshrop01britgoog/page/n72/mode/1up?view=theater
>
> That said, the Pulesdon pedigrees are all saying that 'Angharad' was an heiress. If this is really the case, then she wasn't daughter of the Ightfield senior line, though the name Griffith really is distinctive of this line, so maybe we are talking about a younger son?
>
> If I recall correctly, there is a Pulesdon page in the Bartrum Collection of Welsh pedigrees. I would be interested to see what it says, as if it does mention this marriage, it likely represents one of the earliest mentions of it.
>
> taf
The Puleston pedigree in question from Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies is the first of a series of pedigrees for the family and is identified solely by the suname Puleston (the subsequent pedigrees for the family have letter suffixes).

Bartrum does not give a wife for the Richard Puleston to whom BP 1845 (referenced the earlier post) assigns a Warren wife. It say only that Richard was living in 1301. FWIW Bartrum does not give a wife to Richard's father Roger, to whom BP assigns a Clerk wife.

FWIW other collections of Welsh pedigrees (e.g., Dwnn's Visitations of Wales, and Griffith's Pedigrees and Anglesey and Carnarvonshire Pedigrees) do show the wives of Richard and Roger Puleston as shown in BP 1845 - although neither are specific as the name of the father of the Warren wife, calling him only Warren of Warrenhill, Shropshire.

BTW the link the Shropshire Vistation is to a pedigree of the Lutwich family. I can't find a pedigree for either the Pulestons or the Warrens of Ightfield in that visitation. Am I missing something?

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:57:02 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> BTW the link the Shropshire Vistation is to a pedigree of the Lutwich family. I
> can't find a pedigree for either the Pulestons or the Warrens of Ightfield in that
> visitation. Am I missing something?

Also on that page is Mainwaring of Ightfield, heirs of Warren of Ightfield, beginning with Hamlin Plantagenet, and progressing through the supposed pedigree of Warren of Ightfield down to its heiress who brought Ightfield to Mainwaring.

taf

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 6:51:34 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:57:02 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > BTW the link the Shropshire Vistation is to a pedigree of the Lutwich family. I
> > can't find a pedigree for either the Pulestons or the Warrens of Ightfield in that
> > visitation. Am I missing something?
> Also on that page is Mainwaring of Ightfield, heirs of Warren of Ightfield, beginning with Hamlin Plantagenet, and progressing through the supposed pedigree of Warren of Ightfield down to its heiress who brought Ightfield to Mainwaring.
>
> taf
Ah, yes - thanks!

The Warenne / Blancminster family is discussed in 'Early Yorkshire Charters', vol. 8, pp. 37-38:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pgjiZ8TuSVUC&pg=PA37

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:

> ...The marriages seem to be invented, and the branch point goes through someone who doesn't seem to have existed. Other than that . . . .
>
> Here is the pedigree:
> https://archive.org/details/visitationshrop01britgoog/page/n72/mode/1up?view=theater
>
> That said, the Pulesdon pedigrees are all saying that 'Angharad' was an heiress. If this is really the case, then she wasn't daughter of the Ightfield senior line, though the name Griffith really is distinctive of this line, so maybe we are talking about a younger son?
>
> If I recall correctly, there is a Pulesdon page in the Bartrum Collection of Welsh pedigrees. I would be interested to see what it says, as if it does mention this marriage, it likely represents one of the earliest mentions of it.
>
> taf

Oh, I see now. That line in the Visitation pertaining to a son of Hamelin named Jeffery is certainly a fabrication....

Angharad/Agnes was supposedly reared in an estate named Warren Hall in Shropshire located about 8 miles south west of Emral. This was built upon (I believe by the Pulesons) in the late16th to early 17th centuries and renamed Plas Warren Hall. It currently stands as a grade II protected building. I do not know if Angharad/Agnes was ever in possession of the site, but if she had, it would explain her being considered an heiress.

~Gail

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 3:11:18 AM UTC-4, William Acton wrote:
> The Warenne / Blancminster family is discussed in 'Early Yorkshire Charters', vol. 8, pp. 37-38:
>
> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pgjiZ8TuSVUC&pg=PA37

William, thanks. I had not seen this book listing before. It provides some very good clues for further research!

~Gail

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 4:14:19 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Oh, I see now. That line in the Visitation pertaining to a son of Hamelin named
> Jeffery is certainly a fabrication....

It is worth noting that this Warren pedigree in the published visitation, set off in italics and brackets, is not derived from the 1623 visitation but rather from a manuscript copy of the 1569 visitation that was in private hands. It cannot be certain this material was part of the original 1569 visitation rather that an addition to the manuscript copy.

taf

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:06:20 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:

> It is worth noting that this Warren pedigree in the published visitation, set off in italics and brackets, is not derived from the 1623 visitation but rather from a manuscript copy of the 1569 visitation that was in private hands. It cannot be certain this material was part of the original 1569 visitation rather that an addition to the manuscript copy.
>
> taf

That would certainly explain a lot. Thanks for the explaination.

So, based on sources cited above, I have this Whitchurch Warrene line probably originating from Ranulf de Warenne, the son of William, the 2nd Earl of Surrey through a yet unknown son (more research needed to fill this single-generation gap) to William Warenne of Whitchurch (aka de Albo Monasterio or Blancmister) to William or Griffin de Warenne, the father of Agnes/Angharad de Warenne who married Richard de Puleston of Emral. I will also research those who may have carried the names de Albo Monasterio and Blancmister instead of Warenne.

Thanks to everyone who provided more clues for me to research. The Warrens/de Warennes are my longest running unbroken genealogical line starting from my grandmother, Eunice Warren, who is a direct descendant of gateway ancestor Humphrey Warren, so learning of this family and all of its convolutions (and there are many) has been of great interest to me.

~Gail

Here are some primary documents:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081162&view=1up&seq=123&q1=griffin
Calendar of Patent Rolls
1283, 17 Dec
Simple protection, for two years, for Griffin de Warenna.

https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero01lond/page/198/mode/1up
Calendar of Fine Rolls, Edward I, p. 198
1284, 24 January
Order to the same to take into the king's hand the lands late of Griffin de Warenna, deceased, tenant in chief.
https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero01lond/page/234/mode/1up
p. 234
1287, 12 February
Grant, for a fine of 100s, to Isabel, late the wife of Griffin Warren, tenant in chief, that she may marry whomsoever she will in the king's feilty.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044021094677&view=1up&seq=223&skin=2021&q1=griffith
Bailiffs' accounts
Drakeslowe, feast St. Micheal, 24 Edw III
Griffith de Warrenna paid rent for lands in Overmestrch

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v10/body/Edward3vol10page0428.pdf
Cal. Pat. Rolls, Ed III, vol. 10, p. 428
1356, July 16 Westminster
Licence, for 10l, to be paid to the king by Griffin de Warenne, for him to enfeoff William de Botefield, clerk, and William de Ightefeld of the manor of Ightefeld (2 acres of land therein excepted), which is held of the king in chief and for them to grant the same to him for life, with remainders to Griffin son of John son of Griffin and Elizabeth, his wife, in tail, and to the right heirs of the said Griffin de Warenne. And the 10l have been paid in the Hanaper.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000095331645&view=1up&seq=150
Calendar of inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 3, p. 138
Writ to the sheriff of Shropshire, 2 March 33 Edward III [1359]
Inquisition, Thursday aft. Palm Sunday.
Griffin de Warenna holds in fee the manor of Ightfield, which is worth 20 marks yearly, and nothing else which can be extended at present.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044090397811&view=1up&seq=221&q1=griffin
Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, ser. 4, vol. 1, p. 177.
6 Jun 1361, Griffin de Warenna received licence for an oratory at Ightfield..
p. 218
23 Edward III
Griffin de Warrene served as witness for the ipm of John Lestrange.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867&view=1up&seq=227&q1=griffin
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 10 (Edward III)
Proof of age, John son and heir of John Lestraunge
Writ, 20 March, 28 Edward III; Proof of age, feast Corpus Cristi, 28 Edward III
Griffin de Warenne, aged 40 years and more, agrees and says that he married his wife Alice in the same year. [6 Edward III]

https://books.google.com/books?id=TVI4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA749
Ancient Deeds, vol. 5, p. 125
A. 11308 feoffment Sun. bef. Christmas, 48 Edw III witnessed by Griffin de Wareyn, lord of Hightfeld

https://books.google.com/books?id=NLkeDEI9qw4C&pg=PA496
Cal Patent Rolls, p. 496
1384, 10 July Griffin Wareyn named justice of the peace for Shropshire.

https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero10greauoft/page/70/mode/2up?q=wareyn
Cal Fine Rolls, p. 71
1384 Griffith Wareyn, collector of taxes
p. 159
1386 Griffith Wareyn, collector of taxes
p. 268
1388 Griffith Wareyn, collector of taxes

https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/170/mode/2up?q=ightfield
Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls, p. 170
Chester Plea Roll. No. 89. 9-10, Ric. 2, m. 29.
Cestria - Griffin, son of John de Warenne, sued Roger de Bulkylegh of Broxton and Margery, his wife, for land in Broxton, which Emma, formerly wife of Robert de Pulford, gave to Griffin de Warenne in marriage with Isabela, her daughter.

Griffin de Warenne=Isabell, temp. Ed. 2
John
Griffin
John
Griffin de Warrenne, the plaintiff.

https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero11greauoft/page/264/mode/2up?q=wareyn
Cal Fine Rolls, p. 264
1398 Griffith Wareyn, collector of taxes

https://books.google.com/books?id=eoDd6UG7_0oC&pg=PA74
1402 Griffin Wareyn, lord of Ightfield taxed

https://archive.org/details/calendaroffiner12greauoft/page/188/mode/2up?q=wareyn
1402 Griffin Wareyn named justice of the peace for Salop

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002116531n&view=1up&seq=419&skin=2021&q1=griffin
Calendars of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry IV, vol 1
Proof of age of Robert son and heir of Margaret Corbet, 18 March 1405
Griffin Wareyn, 46, had a son of the same age. (testifying that Robert was born 8 Dec. 1383)

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d01174085g&view=1up&seq=27&skin=2021&q1=griffin
Calendars of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry V, vol 1, p. 5
IMP of John, son and heir of Griffith Wareyn
Writ 8 June 1413
Inq. 19 June 1413
Held Ightfield in chief
died 4 Feb last, heir Griffin, son & heir aged 13 yrs and more

p. 37
28 June 1413
Griffin Wareyn held lands in Ightfield of Ankarat, wid Richard Talbot

p. 95
IPM Griffin Wareyn
Writ 18 Oct 1415
Inq 17 Dec 1415
Held Ightfield, died 5 October last, Margaret, daughter of John Wareyn is his sister and heir, aged 13 and more

p. 269
proof of age Margaret, daughter of John Wareyn
sister of Griffin, in custody of Philip de Egerton by grant of Roger de Acton, Knt.
bapt 11 June 1401

Taken together, we get the following pedigree:

1. Griffith, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (this assumes the Griffith named in the plea roll from the 1380s with wife Isabel is misdated as being in reign Edw II, when he was actually this man from Ed I)
2. John
3. Griffith, b. bef. 1325(?), fl. 1350s, 60s
4. John
5. Griffith, fl. 1380s, 90s
6. John, d. 4 Feb 1413
7a. Griffith, b. ca. 1399/1400
7b. Margaret, bap. 11 June 1401

(Note: the span from gen 1 to 3 is a bit long, but given that the '40 and more' of his age usually just means the person is a full adult, he could have been in his 60s, so I still think it likely the Isabel who was widow of Griffith in 1284 is the same as the Isabel who was great-great-grandmother of the plea pedigree.

taf

> So, based on sources cited above, I have this Whitchurch Warrene
> line probably originating from Ranulf de Warenne, the son of
> William, the 2nd Earl of Surrey through a yet unknown son

That was Eyton's conclusion in 1859, and Farrer was in agreement in 1925, but Clay in 1949 editing and expanding on Farrer, concluded that the branching was likely earlier. Domesday tenant 'Ranulph nepos' held Middleton, Suffolk of tenant in chief William de Warenne, and that property later was held by the Warenne's of Whitchurch. He speculates that 'Ranuph nepos' was nepos of William de Warenne, and that the Warennes of Whitchurch were his descendants.

Farrer, William; Clay, Charles Travis (1949). Early Yorkshire Charters: Volume 8, The Honour of Warenne. p. 37–38.

taf

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>
> Taken together, we get the following pedigree:
>
> 1. Griffith, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (this assumes the Griffith named in the plea roll from the 1380s with wife Isabel is misdated as being in reign Edw II, when he was actually this man from Ed I)
> 2. John
> 3. Griffith, b. bef. 1325(?), fl. 1350s, 60s
> 4. John
> 5. Griffith, fl. 1380s, 90s
> 6. John, d. 4 Feb 1413
> 7a. Griffith, b. ca. 1399/1400
> 7b. Margaret, bap. 11 June 1401

I missed one datum here. John gen.6 who died 1413 was born 1383.
taf

Here is a curious pedigree.

Hammeline Earl of Warren, o.b. 1202
Griffin Warren
John Warren
Griffin Warren
John Warren
George Warren

https://books.google.com/books?id=g6wKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA744

I see several possibilities here: 1) that this is an entirely authentic expression of the family we have been discussing, and George at the bottom is the brother of the Griffin active in the 1350s/60s; 2) that George is the brother of the Griffin active in the 1380s/00s, that the pedigree traced back accurately to the Griffin in the second generation, who would be the one who died in 1283/4, but then the compiler simply spliced Hamelin onto the top; 3) that the George at the bottom is some king of error for Griffin, the one who died in 1417, and again, Hamelin is just spliced on top; 4) that it is some kind of made-up chimera, arbitrarily placing Griffins and Johns from the Ightfield line above an unrelated George, and the same with Hamelin; 5) that the alternation of Griffin and John is entirely coincidental and this is a different family than we have been talking about. Hard to say which is most likely given how little information I have in hand about the source.

It is credited to Harl. MSS. 1411. Based ont he harleian catalogueThis is "A thin heraldic Book in large fol. wherein I find done by some good hand, . . . a Collection of Pedigrees & Descents of many Noble Families; mostly if not all, allied unto the House of Norfolk, . . ." Warren is not listed among the pedigrees, but it may appear within a pedigree. The volume ends with an index to all descents, which might help anyone interested in tracking it down.
https://archive.org/details/gri_33125008529436/page/n46/mode/1up

taf

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:52:53 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> >
> > Taken together, we get the following pedigree:
> >
> > 1. Griffith, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (this assumes the Griffith named in the plea roll from the 1380s with wife Isabel is misdated as being in reign Edw II, when he was actually this man from Ed I)
> > 2. John
> > 3. Griffith, b. bef. 1325(?), fl. 1350s, 60s
> > 4. John
> > 5. Griffith, fl. 1380s, 90s
> > 6. John, d. 4 Feb 1413
> > 7a. Griffith, b. ca. 1399/1400
> > 7b. Margaret, bap. 11 June 1401
> I missed one datum here. John gen.6 who died 1413 was born 1383.

Some more data from Eyton:
The Hundred Roll of 1255 reports that Griffin de Warren acquired Ightfield by exchange with Roger de Ightfield.

In 1263, Griffin, son of William de Blancmunster was called to warranty but was a no-show.

Griffin appears again in 1272.

Johannes filius son of Griffini de Ightefeld was holding Ightfield in 1284/5 (see Feudal Aids). The Assize roll of 1292 shows this John to have been a minor, having inherited from Griffin de Ithfel. Isabella de Ithfeld (the widow) also appears as wife of Warin de Grantvalour.

He had achieved his majority by 1310, and held Ightfield in 1316 and in the Subsidy Roll in 1327.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rfY9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA209

And some more about the first generation:
'Calendar of Such Entries in the Cheshire Domesday Roll . . .' in Ormerod's Parentalia, appendix p. 18
1274-1280
59. Memorial of Homage done in the Palatine Court by Griffin de Warren, for himself and Isabel his wife, to, and in recognition of their tenure of Stretton and Chidlowe from, Alienor, widow of Robert l'Estrange son and heir of William de Blanchminster, and of subsequent homage done to Robert de Pulford from whom these tenements were held by his feoffment of Isabella. (F. 35.)

60. Enrollment of Grant by Robert de Pulford, Rector of Codinton, to Isabel his sister, of all his land of Cisseley, to be held by said Isabel, and heirs of the bodies of her and Griffin de Warren. (F. 36.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rfY9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA209

Cal. Pat. Rolls, 9 Edward I
Ightfield (Salop); appointment of Radulph de Hengham and Reginald de Legh to take the assise of novel disseisin arraigned by Alice late wife of William de Saunford against Griffin de Ightefeld, touching a tenement in.
books.google.com/books?id=nmaBYEExD3sC&pg=PA124

0. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch alias Warenne
1. Griffith de Blancminster alias Ightfield alias Warenne, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)
2. John de Ightfield alias Warenne, b. 1272-1284, fl. 1327
3. Griffith de Warenne, b. well bef. 1325 (? ca. 1205), fl. 1350s, 60s
4. John b. say 1330
5. Griffith, b. bef. 1356, fl. 1380s, 90s
6. John Wareyn, b. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
7a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
7b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m. Mainwaring

taf

I have been mulling the chronology, and I think there is another generation in here. It is a bit of a stretch for someone acting as an adult in 1250 not to have had an heir until after 1272. Likewise, the granddaughters of this William de Whitchurch, daughters of his elder son, were all 30+ in 1280, making it likely they were of the generation of the Griffin who married Isabel, rather than of their son John b. 1272-1284.

Other changes: John gen.2 was still holding Ightfield in 1346 per Feudal Aids; John gen.4 was perhaps dead by 1356 when his father settled reversion on Ightfield on John's son Griffin (gen.5) and his wife Elizabeth - this was likely a marriage settlement, and a child marriage. I think it unlikely that this Elizabeth was mother of John gen.6, who wasn't born until 1383; not a change, but oddly, Margaret, gen.7b, is called Elizabeth by Feudal Aids, but this is certainly an error as she is Margaret on her burial memorial.

A. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch alias Warenne
0. Griffith de Blancminster alias Ightfield, fl. 1250
1. Griffith de Ightfield alias Warenne, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)
2. John de Ightfield alias Warenne, b. 1272-1284, fl. *1346*
3. Griffith de Warenne, b. well bef. 1325 (? ca. 1205), fl. 1350s, 60s
4. John b. say 1330
5. Griffith de Warenne alias Wareyn, b. bef. 1356, fl. 1380s, 90s, m. ca. 1356 to Elizabeth
6. John Wareyn, b. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
7a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
7b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m. Mainwaring

taf

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> I have been mulling the chronology, and I think there is another generation in here. It is a bit of a stretch for someone acting as an adult in 1250 not to have had an heir until after 1272. Likewise, the granddaughters of this William de Whitchurch, daughters of his elder son, were all 30+ in 1280, making it likely they were of the generation of the Griffin who married Isabel, rather than of their son John b. 1272-1284.
>
> Other changes: John gen.2 was still holding Ightfield in 1346 per Feudal Aids; John gen.4 was perhaps dead by 1356 when his father settled reversion on Ightfield on John's son Griffin (gen.5) and his wife Elizabeth - this was likely a marriage settlement, and a child marriage. I think it unlikely that this Elizabeth was mother of John gen.6, who wasn't born until 1383; not a change, but oddly, Margaret, gen.7b, is called Elizabeth by Feudal Aids, but this is certainly an error as she is Margaret on her burial memorial..
>
> A. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch alias Warenne
> 0. Griffith de Blancminster alias Ightfield, fl. 1250
> 1. Griffith de Ightfield alias Warenne, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)
> 2. John de Ightfield alias Warenne, b. 1272-1284, fl. *1346*
> 3. Griffith de Warenne, b. well bef. 1325 (? ca. 1205), fl. 1350s, 60s
> 4. John b. say 1330
> 5. Griffith de Warenne alias Wareyn, b. bef. 1356, fl. 1380s, 90s, m. ca. 1356 to Elizabeth
> 6. John Wareyn, b. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
> 7a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
> 7b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m. Mainwaring
>
> taf

I think Griffith de Warenne couldn't have been born much before 1305.

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 6:08:33 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think Griffith de Warenne couldn't have been born much before 1305.

Yes, my 1205 was a typo for 1305. His father was born as early as 1272, so he could have been born as early as, say 1290, but his father could have been as much as a dozen years younger. He is bookended on the other end by a grandson married by 1356. That is why I picked about 1305 - too bad that's not what I typed.

taf

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:22:02 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> I have been mulling the chronology, and I think there is another generation in here. It is a bit of a stretch for someone acting as an adult in 1250 not to have had an heir until after 1272. Likewise, the granddaughters of this William de Whitchurch, daughters of his elder son, were all 30+ in 1280, making it likely they were of the generation of the Griffin who married Isabel, rather than of their son John b. 1272-1284.
>
> Other changes: John gen.2 was still holding Ightfield in 1346 per Feudal Aids; John gen.4 was perhaps dead by 1356 when his father settled reversion on Ightfield on John's son Griffin (gen.5) and his wife Elizabeth - this was likely a marriage settlement, and a child marriage. I think it unlikely that this Elizabeth was mother of John gen.6, who wasn't born until 1383; not a change, but oddly, Margaret, gen.7b, is called Elizabeth by Feudal Aids, but this is certainly an error as she is Margaret on her burial memorial..
>
> A. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch alias Warenne
> 0. Griffith de Blancminster alias Ightfield, fl. 1250
> 1. Griffith de Ightfield alias Warenne, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)
> 2. John de Ightfield alias Warenne, b. 1272-1284, fl. *1346*
> 3. Griffith de Warenne, b. well bef. 1325 (? ca. 1205), fl. 1350s, 60s
> 4. John b. say 1330
> 5. Griffith de Warenne alias Wareyn, b. bef. 1356, fl. 1380s, 90s, m. ca. 1356 to Elizabeth
> 6. John Wareyn, b. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
> 7a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
> 7b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m. Mainwaring
>
> taf

Thank you so much for digging up those primary sources. Your effort was most monumental.

I also very much like this pedigree derived from those sources. I found on Wiki that William de Blancminster was married to Eva FitzWarin, a daughter of Fulk FitzWarin III, of Whittington, Shropshire, by his 1st wife, Maud, daughter and heir of Robert le Vavasour, and relict of Theobald Walter, 1st Chief Butler of Ireland. If this rendition is correct, then any familial association with the earls of Surrey is pure fancy unless WIlliam's Blanchminster's son Griffin married a Warrene who was associated with the Conqueror since FitzWarin descends from Warin de Metz of Lorraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulk_FitzWarin. Warin de Metz came to England during the reign of William the Conqueror, but neither he nor his son Fulk I were tenants-in-chief following the Conquest, as the family landholdings were obtained from later kings.

This has been a very interesting journey. Again, thank you!!

Cheers,
Gail

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:20:07 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I found on Wiki that William de Blancminster was married to Eva FitzWarin, a
> daughter of Fulk FitzWarin III, of Whittington, Shropshire, by his 1st wife, Maud,
> daughter and heir of Robert le Vavasour, and relict of Theobald Walter, 1st Chief
> Butler of Ireland. If this rendition is correct, then any familial association with
> the earls of Surrey is pure fancy unless WIlliam's Blanchminster's son Griffin
> married a Warrene who was associated with the Conqueror since FitzWarin
> descends from Warin de Metz of Lorraine.

This is the wrong William de Blancminster. The one who married Eva FitzWarin left four daughters and coheiresses. The first Griffin would have been his brother, son of the William of the previous generation. This father of William and Griffin was summoned in 1238 as William de Warenne de Albo Monasterio, so the use of the Warenne name in the Whitchurch holders predates the generation of the FitzWarin marriage.

I note that Eyton in his writeup of Whitchurch reports that William de Albo Monasterio appears in an Essex Feudary from 1241/6 as the lord of 'Mamged', with a lesser holder there being Griffin fitz William, presumably the Ightfield founder. He would not be a minor in this context (not being his father's heir) and that pushes the Ightfield founder at least a half-decade earlier, making it all the more likely there were two Griffins at the start of the Ightfield line.

taf

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:20:07 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If this rendition is correct, then any familial association with the earls of Surrey
> is pure fancy . . . .

Speaking of pure fancy, something occurred to me about the visitation pedigree.

At the critical top of the pedigree, it shows John de Warenne, son of the mythical Jeffrey, son of Hamlin Plantagenet, as having married the daughter of Gruffith Albaney. I have to think that Gruffith Albaney is a confused memory of Griffin de Albo Monasterio (Blancminster), the authentic Ightfield founder , who was actually male-line progenitor of the family. Note that this pedigree also appears to have invented a marriage with the Ightfield family, even though they actually acquired Ightfield by exchange. I have seen this in other fraudulent visitation pedigrees, false claims of possession by genealogical descent, as preferable to the actual possession by purchase.

taf

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> 5. Griffith de Warenne alias Wareyn, b. bef. 1356, fl. 1380s, 90s, m. ca. 1356 to Elizabeth
> 6. John Wareyn, b. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
> 7a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
> 7b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m. Mainwaring

From Ightfield church:
Here lyeth the good William Manwaring, (2d sonne of Hankin Manwaring) and Margaret his Wyff, daughter and heire to Griffin Warren, and Lady of Ightfeld, which William was a speciall benefactor to this Church. And he deceased the 6th of March 1497. On whose soule, &c.

Hic iacec Domina Margareta, Domina de Ightfeld, quae fuit uxor Willielmi Manwaring Arm. quae obiit 4 Julii Ano 1470.

https://books.google.com/books?id=WlSzbYWe3xEC&pg=RA1-PP3

taf

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> I have been mulling the chronology, and I think there is another generation in here. It is a bit of a stretch for someone acting as an adult in 1250 not to have had an heir until after 1272. Likewise, the granddaughters of this William de Whitchurch, daughters of his elder son, were all 30+ in 1280, making it likely they were of the generation of the Griffin who married Isabel, rather than of their son John b. 1272-1284.
>
> Other changes: John gen.2 was still holding Ightfield in 1346 per Feudal Aids; John gen.4 was perhaps dead by 1356 when his father settled reversion on Ightfield on John's son Griffin (gen.5) and his wife Elizabeth - this was likely a marriage settlement, and a child marriage. I think it unlikely that this Elizabeth was mother of John gen.6, who wasn't born until 1383; not a change, but oddly, Margaret, gen.7b, is called Elizabeth by Feudal Aids, but this is certainly an error as she is Margaret on her burial memorial..
>
> A. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch alias Warenne
> 0. Griffith de Blancminster alias Ightfield, fl. 1250
> 1. Griffith de Ightfield alias Warenne, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)

TNA SC 8/148/7392
"Gruffydd le Warran states that he holds the land of Ightfield in chief of the King, but that the Bailiffs of the Bishop of Chester and William de Calral wish to appropriate it and to deprive him of his inheritance. He cries mercy to the King and requests a letter to the Sheriff of Shropshire that if he is removed from this land he might swiftly be reinstated.
Dated on the guard to '? 1278-1283' without further explanation. However, this date would seem to accord with the hand."
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9209577

Since he is talking about "his inheritance", this seemingly supports that the Griffin claiming to hold Ightfield at this time was not the same Griffin who acquired it by exchange in 1250.

And while we are at it. There is a prosecution for debt against "Griffin, the son of John Wareyn" dated to 1348. This would suggest that the first John in the pedigree was still living at this date.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9690193

This son, Griffin, was active earlier, witnessing an indenture of Robert Corbet of Moreton Corbet in 1341.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/3930a843-b65d-45ca-9db9-2c852b40fdda

taf