Hello,

i have been looking for some time through various online sites, and this group in relation to the Sandfords of Isle of Rossall, and their ancestors, but would like to confirm if anybody had found evidence on the identity of one Alice, said to be 'le Boteler,' wife of Nicholas de Sandford.

From :

A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry; Or, Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland Etc Volume 2 By John Burke · 1837 p. 666

It seems she married Nicholas, who died by 1415, and was sheriff of Shropshire.

They are said to be the parents of at least three sons, one being Richard, the heir, and another one Nicholas of the Lea. The second son is named Griffin.

But how did he get a Welsh name? Was his mother half Welsh?

Burke makes Alice daughter of the first baron of Wemme, which does not look correct in terms of chronology.

J Sardina

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:

> But how did he get a Welsh name? Was his mother half Welsh?

The name Griffin/Griffith had been bouncing around the Shropshire gentry for some time, since at least the mid-13th century in Warenne of Ightfield, so it cannot be taken as an indication of a recent marriage to a Welsh woman..

> Burke makes Alice daughter of the first baron of Wemme, which does not look correct in terms of chronology.

The last Lord Boteler of Wem died in 1369, leaving a sole daughter and heiress who would have been Nicholas' approximate contemporary but is known not to have been his wife. This pretty much makes it impossible for Burke to be correct. There are thus three possibilities, all of which are seen as common errors in Burke and the traditional pedigrees it drew from. 1) There was an authentic Boteler of Wem descent, but the pedigree has stripped out intervening families through which the descent passed. 2) There was an authentic Boteler marriage, to some other Boteler family (or at least some other branch of this Boteler family, but with an occupationally-based surname it can't be assumed they belonged to the same family), and the pedigree maker has replaced this with the more desirable connection to the peerage family. 3) It is simply completely made up. As is commonly the case, the only way through this, if at all, is with documents.

taf

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 8:25:09 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:
>
> > But how did he get a Welsh name? Was his mother half Welsh?
> The name Griffin/Griffith had been bouncing around the Shropshire gentry for some time, since at least the mid-13th century in Warenne of Ightfield, so it cannot be taken as an indication of a recent marriage to a Welsh woman.
> > Burke makes Alice daughter of the first baron of Wemme, which does not look correct in terms of chronology.
> The last Lord Boteler of Wem died in 1369, leaving a sole daughter and heiress who would have been Nicholas' approximate contemporary but is known not to have been his wife. This pretty much makes it impossible for Burke to be correct. There are thus three possibilities, all of which are seen as common errors in Burke and the traditional pedigrees it drew from. 1) There was an authentic Boteler of Wem descent, but the pedigree has stripped out intervening families through which the descent passed. 2) There was an authentic Boteler marriage, to some other Boteler family (or at least some other branch of this Boteler family, but with an occupationally-based surname it can't be assumed they belonged to the same family), and the pedigree maker has replaced this with the more desirable connection to the peerage family. 3) It is simply completely made up. As is commonly the case, the only way through this, if at all, is with documents.
>
> taf

Hello,

Thanks for responding. It seems that over time different genealogists have tried "fixing" the connection but apparently nobody has found proof that it did exist and exactly to which family it refers. I would not be surprised that some old pedigree chart did have something to the effect, but the details are not known and perhaps there was an effort to make her fit into the most desirable family.

The Sandford of the Isle seem to have many old documents going back to the 14th century and in one of them there is a grant in which a few witnesses are named. From the description copied from the online site, it seems there was one William le Boteler, and if I am interpreting it correctly, he was a knight, living in 1348, but it is unclear if he was in any way related to the rest of the people mentioned, and I have no idea how it relates to the Sandfords.

Reference: 465/14
Title: Grant
Description:
At the Manor of Red/Castle.

James de Audeleye to John de Wottenhull, clerk, of half an acre of land with appurtenances in Marchumleye and common of pasture for his animals in the demesne of the said vill; to hold to him and his heirs of the chief lords of the fee, for the services due and accustomed, forever.

Rent: Every year at the feast of St. Michael, 3d for every service.

Warranty against all people

James also grants and gives licence to John to acquire a certain piece of land with the appurtenances in Prees called Sydenalemor from Roger Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and to enclose the piece and hold the enclosure for ever according to the grant and feoffment made by the Bishop to John without impedement of James or his heirs or tenants, notwithstanding that James and his tenants may have common of pasture in the aforesaid piece.

Witnesses: William le Boteler, Laurence de Lodelowe, knights, John de Laken, John de la Hyde, Robert le Say.

No seal or tag.

Endorsement: Docketed: ?Audeley, Sydnell mor.

Later hand - Marchamley 16 Oct 22 Edw III

Date: 16 October 22 Edward III (1348)
Held by: Shropshire Archives, not available at The National Archives
Language: English

J. Sardina

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Sardina wrote:
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 8:25:09 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:
> >
> > > But how did he get a Welsh name? Was his mother half Welsh?
> > The name Griffin/Griffith had been bouncing around the Shropshire gentry for some time, since at least the mid-13th century in Warenne of Ightfield, so it cannot be taken as an indication of a recent marriage to a Welsh woman.
> > > Burke makes Alice daughter of the first baron of Wemme, which does not look correct in terms of chronology.
> > The last Lord Boteler of Wem died in 1369, leaving a sole daughter and heiress who would have been Nicholas' approximate contemporary but is known not to have been his wife. This pretty much makes it impossible for Burke to be correct. There are thus three possibilities, all of which are seen as common errors in Burke and the traditional pedigrees it drew from. 1) There was an authentic Boteler of Wem descent, but the pedigree has stripped out intervening families through which the descent passed. 2) There was an authentic Boteler marriage, to some other Boteler family (or at least some other branch of this Boteler family, but with an occupationally-based surname it can't be assumed they belonged to the same family), and the pedigree maker has replaced this with the more desirable connection to the peerage family. 3) It is simply completely made up. As is commonly the case, the only way through this, if at all, is with documents.
> >
> > taf
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for responding. It seems that over time different genealogists have tried "fixing" the connection but apparently nobody has found proof that it did exist and exactly to which family it refers. I would not be surprised that some old pedigree chart did have something to the effect, but the details are not known and perhaps there was an effort to make her fit into the most desirable family.
>
> The Sandford of the Isle seem to have many old documents going back to the 14th century and in one of them there is a grant in which a few witnesses are named. From the description copied from the online site, it seems there was one William le Boteler, and if I am interpreting it correctly, he was a knight, living in 1348, but it is unclear if he was in any way related to the rest of the people mentioned, and I have no idea how it relates to the Sandfords.
>
> Reference: 465/14
> Title: Grant
> Description:
> At the Manor of Red/Castle.
>
>
> James de Audeleye to John de Wottenhull, clerk, of half an acre of land with appurtenances in Marchumleye and common of pasture for his animals in the demesne of the said vill; to hold to him and his heirs of the chief lords of the fee, for the services due and accustomed, forever.
>
>
> Rent: Every year at the feast of St. Michael, 3d for every service.
>
>
> Warranty against all people
>
>
> James also grants and gives licence to John to acquire a certain piece of land with the appurtenances in Prees called Sydenalemor from Roger Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and to enclose the piece and hold the enclosure for ever according to the grant and feoffment made by the Bishop to John without impedement of James or his heirs or tenants, notwithstanding that James and his tenants may have common of pasture in the aforesaid piece.
>
>
> Witnesses: William le Boteler, Laurence de Lodelowe, knights, John de Laken, John de la Hyde, Robert le Say.
>
>
> No seal or tag.
>
>
> Endorsement: Docketed: ?Audeley, Sydnell mor.
>
>
> Later hand - Marchamley 16 Oct 22 Edw III
>
> Date: 16 October 22 Edward III (1348)
> Held by: Shropshire Archives, not available at The National Archives
> Language: English
>
> J. Sardina

Apparently, there was a pedigree chart consulted by Eyton that may include the generation of the Sandford who is said to have married a Boteler.

In Volume 9, on page 235, when discussing earlier generations of the Sandford, he wrote:

"The Heraldic Pedigrees make Agnes, wife of that Richard de Sanford who died in 1327, to have been Sister of Robert de Say of Moreton. Such a match is quite consistent with chronology."

Unfortunately, his study stops short of the generation of interest.

On page 238, the author made the following statement,

The Writ of Diem clausit, on the death of Richard de Sondford, bears date October 17, 1347. By Inquest, taken at Newport on November 10 following, it was found that the deceased had held the hamlet of Sondford, in capite, for half a knight's-fee. Of three Mills which appertained to his estate, he had only enjoyed two- thirds, the remaining third constituting the dower of his mother, Agnes, who was still alive.

The deceased had died in foreign parts (obviously in the service above alluded to), on Wednesday, September 26, previous. [7] His son and heir, Nicholas, was 18 years of age on September 29, 1347. [8]

The notes are as follows:
[7] Two days before the truce which followed the famous capitulation of Calais.
[8] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. III., No. 36.

I would think that suggest Nicholas' wife might have been of similar age, or younger.

J. Sardina

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:50:53 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:

> Apparently, there was a pedigree chart consulted by Eyton that may include the generation of the Sandford who is said to have married a Boteler.
>
> In Volume 9, on page 235, when discussing earlier generations of the Sandford, he wrote:
>
> "The Heraldic Pedigrees make Agnes, wife of that Richard de Sanford who died in 1327, to have been Sister of Robert de Say of Moreton. Such a match is quite consistent with chronology."
>

For what it's worth, there seems to have been long-term interactions among these two families. The published Shropshire visitation includes Sandford family documents, and two, both undated but seeming to be from generations apart, show interactions with Say of Moreton.

taf

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:20:10 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:50:53 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:
>
> > Apparently, there was a pedigree chart consulted by Eyton that may include the generation of the Sandford who is said to have married a Boteler.
> >
> > In Volume 9, on page 235, when discussing earlier generations of the Sandford, he wrote:
> >
> > "The Heraldic Pedigrees make Agnes, wife of that Richard de Sanford who died in 1327, to have been Sister of Robert de Say of Moreton. Such a match is quite consistent with chronology."
> >
> For what it's worth, there seems to have been long-term interactions among these two families. The published Shropshire visitation includes Sandford family documents, and two, both undated but seeming to be from generations apart, show interactions with Say of Moreton.
>
> taf

Thanks for the summary.

Yes, I have been trying to get a handle on these families, for the 13th and 14th centuries. I have not been able to find definite information on these de Say lines to be able to follow them back to earlier generations, or to understand their allegiances with other families like Sandfords. Eyton and others do mention them.

J. Sardina

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:43:46 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:
>
> Yes, I have been trying to get a handle on these families, for the 13th and 14th centuries.
> I have not been able to find definite information on these de Say lines to be able to follow
> them back to earlier generations, or to understand their allegiances with other families like
> Sandfords. Eyton and others do mention them.

Though Eyton's account is not explicit, the Robert whose sister marriad Sandford falls directly in line, generation wise, with the descent he is describing:

A.Hugh fl. 1221-1249
A1. Hugh fl. 1249-1255
A2. Robert fl. 1249-1292
A2a. Hugh fl.1290-1318

then Robert fl. 1324-1339

https://books.google.com/books?id=QV9NAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA131
https://books.google.com/books?id=rfY9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA260

While it is always possible for there to have been a missing generation, him first appearing 34 years after the last Hugh is just about right for a father-son relationship.

That seems good enough for a tentative reconstruction (bearing in mind that a lot of medieval gentry pedigrees are based on nothing more than such successive holding rather than explicit documented relationships).

taf