Hi, everyone. Three questions:

1) Would the parties to a 16th-century marriage contract between landed families usually be the fathers of the bride and groom, if these fathers were living? For example, if the groom's father had died, would the groom himself likely be party to the contract on his family's end, or would an uncle, elder brother, or other older, experienced/responsible person take that role?

I think my Christopher FitzRandolph's uncle of the same name was the contract party on Fitz end -- 1514 -- and not Chris himself. Six or eight years later, Chris's father- in- law, Cuthbert Langton, sues Chris and wife, claiming sneaky, conniving dealing on Chris's part re: lands that didn't belong to him.

2) Were these kinds of suits pretty standard -- an aging parent charging that the young groom/couple were trying to overreach/take advantage? Or maybe Chris was just greedy and underhanded...-)

3) What role did foeffees have in preventing this sort of situation? Weren't they entrusted by bride's father with helping to manage lands cited in the marriage contract?

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:47 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> Hi, everyone. Three questions:
>
> 1) Would the parties to a 16th-century marriage contract between landed families usually be the fathers of the bride and groom, if these fathers were living? For example, if the groom's father had died, would the groom himself likely be party to the contract on his family's end, or would an uncle, elder brother, or other older, experienced/responsible person take that role?
>

The likely parties would be whoever legally controlled the person of the groom/bride and the family estates involved in the settlement - the father, grandfather, uncle, guardian, lawyer for mother, or an adult groom himself.

> I think my Christopher FitzRandolph's uncle of the same name was the contract party on Fitz end -- 1514 -- and not Chris himself. Six or eight years later, Chris's father- in- law, Cuthbert Langton, sues Chris and wife, claiming sneaky, conniving dealing on Chris's part re: lands that didn't belong to him.
>
> 2) Were these kinds of suits pretty standard -- an aging parent charging that the young groom/couple were trying to overreach/take advantage? Or maybe Chris was just greedy and underhanded...-)
>

Pretty routine.

> 3) What role did foeffees have in preventing this sort of situation? Weren't they entrusted by bride's father with helping to manage lands cited in the marriage contract?

Depends on the conditions of the feoffment. They would not prevent such situations, as a truly greedy and underhanded groom likely would try to get away with whatever he could, independent of a feoffment, but also bear in mind that a greedy and underhanded feoffee might likewise take advantage of his position and bring about such a situation rather than preventing it.

taf

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:21:02 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:47 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > Hi, everyone. Three questions:
> >
> > 1) Would the parties to a 16th-century marriage contract between landed families usually be the fathers of the bride and groom, if these fathers were living? For example, if the groom's father had died, would the groom himself likely be party to the contract on his family's end, or would an uncle, elder brother, or other older, experienced/responsible person take that role?
> >
> The likely parties would be whoever legally controlled the person of the groom/bride and the family estates involved in the settlement - the father, grandfather, uncle, guardian, lawyer for mother, or an adult groom himself..
> > I think my Christopher FitzRandolph's uncle of the same name was the contract party on Fitz end -- 1514 -- and not Chris himself. Six or eight years later, Chris's father- in- law, Cuthbert Langton, sues Chris and wife, claiming sneaky, conniving dealing on Chris's part re: lands that didn't belong to him.
> >
> > 2) Were these kinds of suits pretty standard -- an aging parent charging that the young groom/couple were trying to overreach/take advantage? Or maybe Chris was just greedy and underhanded...-)
> >
> Pretty routine.
> > 3) What role did foeffees have in preventing this sort of situation? Weren't they entrusted by bride's father with helping to manage lands cited in the marriage contract?
> Depends on the conditions of the feoffment. They would not prevent such situations, as a truly greedy and underhanded groom likely would try to get away with whatever he could, independent of a feoffment, but also bear in mind that a greedy and underhanded feoffee might likewise take advantage of his position and bring about such a situation rather than preventing it.
>
> taf
taf, thank you. This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had -- in any of various ways -- to manage or smooth over these problems? Any insight or historical examples very welcome. Thanks again, taf.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

> This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had -- in any of various ways -- to manage or smooth over these problems? Any insight or historical examples very welcome.

Pretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.

I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirs of the neighbors with corresponding land, and everyone lived happily ever after except for the husband of the 'kidnapped' woman. The whole thing was a legal fiction, a manipulation the legal system.

taf

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
>
> > This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had -- in any of various ways -- to manage or smooth over these problems? Any insight or historical examples very welcome.
> Pretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.
>
> I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirs of the neighbors with corresponding land, and everyone lived happily ever after except for the husband of the 'kidnapped' woman. The whole thing was a legal fiction, a manipulation the legal system.
>
> taf
taf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, Girl57 wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> >
> > > This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had -- in any of various ways -- to manage or smooth over these problems? Any insight or historical examples very welcome.
> > Pretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.
> >
> > I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirs of the neighbors with corresponding land, and everyone lived happily ever after except for the husband of the 'kidnapped' woman. The whole thing was a legal fiction, a manipulation the legal system.
> >
> > taf
> taf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.
taf and all, another question about foeffees named in a 16th-century marriage contract.

In my document -- Cuthbert Langton of Notts/Derby, 1516, agreeing with Kirkby-in-Ashfield parson Christopher FitzRandolph to the marriage of Cuthbert's daughter to parson's kinsman (also called Christopher FitzRandolph). Cuthbert was styled "gentleman," whereas a number of foeffees named are sirs/knights: Sir John Markham, John Zouch, John Willowby, Edward Willowby, Nicolas Strelley, etc. Several others were called "Esq.," including John FitzRandolph, who it's thought was the last surviving lord of Spennithorne, and cousin of the groom. These surnames are all well-known families of this era and place, research seems to show.

Question is, were these foeffees likely people that Cuthbert Langton knew well or perhaps was related to by marriage or descent through his mother? If not, how likely is it is that a gentleman would approach a number of men of higher social standing to be his foeffees? I'm still getting to know these customs and relationships.

The maiden surnames of the wives of Cuthbert Langton and his father John, and of Christopher FitzRandolph, the groom, don't seem to be known yet, and I'm wondering if this group of foeffees might hold some clues.

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, Girl57 wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had -- in any of various ways -- to manage or smooth over these problems? Any insight or historical examples very welcome.
> > > Pretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.
> > >
> > > I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father.. The resulting lawsuit was cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirs of the neighbors with corresponding land, and everyone lived happily ever after except for the husband of the 'kidnapped' woman. The whole thing was a legal fiction, a manipulation the legal system.
> > >
> > > taf
> > taf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.
> taf and all, another question about foeffees named in a 16th-century marriage contract.
>
> In my document -- Cuthbert Langton of Notts/Derby, 1516, agreeing with Kirkby-in-Ashfield parson Christopher FitzRandolph to the marriage of Cuthbert's daughter to parson's kinsman (also called Christopher FitzRandolph). Cuthbert was styled "gentleman," whereas a number of foeffees named are sirs/knights: Sir John Markham, John Zouch, John Willowby, Edward Willowby, Nicolas Strelley, etc. Several others were called "Esq.," including John FitzRandolph, who it's thought was the last surviving lord of Spennithorne, and cousin of the groom. These surnames are all well-known families of this era and place, research seems to show.
>
> Question is, were these foeffees likely people that Cuthbert Langton knew well or perhaps was related to by marriage or descent through his mother? If not, how likely is it is that a gentleman would approach a number of men of higher social standing to be his foeffees? I'm still getting to know these customs and relationships.
>
> The maiden surnames of the wives of Cuthbert Langton and his father John, and of Christopher FitzRandolph, the groom, don't seem to be known yet, and I'm wondering if this group of foeffees might hold some clues.

These feoffees are effectively trustees - people who were entrusted to look after the landed interest of the young couple, and the adults reaching the agreement would turn to a similar group of people as one might turn to today: relatives, a feudal overlord (boss), local gentry (respected people in the same social circle), mutual friends and/or attourneys. One cannot presume a relationship existed between any particular trustee and either party.

taf

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 3:41:07 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, Girl57 wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had -- in any of various ways -- to manage or smooth over these problems? Any insight or historical examples very welcome.
> > > > Pretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.
> > > >
> > > > I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirs of the neighbors with corresponding land, and everyone lived happily ever after except for the husband of the 'kidnapped' woman. The whole thing was a legal fiction, a manipulation the legal system.
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > taf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.
> > taf and all, another question about foeffees named in a 16th-century marriage contract.
> >
> > In my document -- Cuthbert Langton of Notts/Derby, 1516, agreeing with Kirkby-in-Ashfield parson Christopher FitzRandolph to the marriage of Cuthbert's daughter to parson's kinsman (also called Christopher FitzRandolph). Cuthbert was styled "gentleman," whereas a number of foeffees named are sirs/knights: Sir John Markham, John Zouch, John Willowby, Edward Willowby, Nicolas Strelley, etc. Several others were called "Esq.," including John FitzRandolph, who it's thought was the last surviving lord of Spennithorne, and cousin of the groom. These surnames are all well-known families of this era and place, research seems to show.
> >
> > Question is, were these foeffees likely people that Cuthbert Langton knew well or perhaps was related to by marriage or descent through his mother? If not, how likely is it is that a gentleman would approach a number of men of higher social standing to be his foeffees? I'm still getting to know these customs and relationships.
> >
> > The maiden surnames of the wives of Cuthbert Langton and his father John, and of Christopher FitzRandolph, the groom, don't seem to be known yet, and I'm wondering if this group of foeffees might hold some clues.
> These feoffees are effectively trustees - people who were entrusted to look after the landed interest of the young couple, and the adults reaching the agreement would turn to a similar group of people as one might turn to today: relatives, a feudal overlord (boss), local gentry (respected people in the same social circle), mutual friends and/or attourneys. One cannot presume a relationship existed between any particular trustee and either party..
>
> taf
taf, Thank you, as always, for good insight. With your comments in mind, I have a couple more questions, whenever you have time.

1) I've encountered the Willoughby name a number of times in connection with my Cuthbert Langton of early 16th-century Notts/Derby. Then yesterday, I found a suit involving Cuthbert's grandson -- a son of his daughter Benet. The son's name was also Benet, and his surname was Langton (not Burgh, the surname of his mother Benet's known husband...Not sure what's up with this....was the son illegitimate? Had the couple divorced? Both seem unlikely?) In any case, and related to the might-be-family question, the language reads:

"...Deed of sale: Edward Wylloughby Knt. and Benet Langton to Roland Babyngton; Location: Birchwood Derbyshire" (1536)

Does this wording mean that Wylloughby and Langton were selling jointly owned property? If so, could joint ownership indicate that they were of the same family OR that someone had enfoeffed Wylloughby to oversee land interests for Benet? (Was a foeffee ever, under any circumstances, considered a joint owner of land he'd been charged with managing or protecting for a younger party?) Or could the two men simply have been partners in a business deal (is this unlikely, given the apparent disparity in their ages/probable wealth levels)?

2) Cuthbert Langton is cited in various documents and works as being "of Middleton, Warwickshire" or as owning lands there. Yet I think his family had lived in Notts/Derby for generations, and IPMs I've seen for Cuthbert's father and grandfather refer only to Notts. If Cuthbert's father and grandfather had owned lands in Warwickshire, why were these not cited in IPMs (had they already been bequeathed or otherwise conveyed)? Or could Cuthbert have come into possession of Warwickshire lands on his own, through marriage, the will of a relative, etc.?

I ask question #2 because -- here's the family connection issue -- the Willoughbys' family seat was also in Notts, but Margaret Freville, the wife of Hugh Willoughby (d. 1448) had brought the manor of Middleton and other Warwickshire lands to their marriage. This got me wondering whether Cuthbert may have had a Willoughby wife, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 3:02:36 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

> 1) I've encountered the Willoughby name a number of times in connection with my Cuthbert Langton of early 16th-century Notts/Derby. Then yesterday, I found a suit involving Cuthbert's grandson -- a son of his daughter Benet.. The son's name was also Benet, and his surname was Langton (not Burgh, the surname of his mother Benet's known husband...Not sure what's up with this...was the son illegitimate? Had the couple divorced? Both seem unlikely?) In any case, and related to the might-be-family question, the language reads:
>
> "...Deed of sale: Edward Wylloughby Knt. and Benet Langton to Roland Babyngton; Location: Birchwood Derbyshire" (1536)
>
> Does this wording mean that Wylloughby and Langton were selling jointly owned property?

You can't really tell from the abstract. You also see phrasing like this when a man was acting on behalf of a woman or minor. The original would make their roles more clear.

> (Was a foeffee ever, under any circumstances, considered a joint owner of land he'd been
> charged with managing or protecting for a younger party?)

Depends on the nature of the enfeofment and its precise wording. Legally, the feoffee was sole 'owner', unless the feoffment involved only a share of the property. Though I don't recall ever seeing it, perhaps a scenario where the feoffeee was holding for a set duration of time before reversion might end up seeing both participate in a deed.

> Or could the two men simply have been partners in a business deal (is this unlikely, given the apparent disparity in their ages/probable wealth levels)?

Could be. (I can't address the age issue - I don't know how different they were, but I recall seeing at least one trust where a very young man was included along with more senior ones because the goal was to remove the land from the family's control for a long time, because the grantor's son was a fugitive from justice for a murder, and risked confiscation if the father died before the son was pardoned or himself died and the land could again safely be possessed by his heirs - remember when I said just about anythong you can imagine probably happened at one point or another.)

> 2) Cuthbert Langton is cited in various documents and works as being "of Middleton, Warwickshire" or as owning lands there. Yet I think his family had lived in Notts/Derby for generations, and IPMs I've seen for Cuthbert's father and grandfather refer only to Notts. If Cuthbert's father and grandfather had owned lands in Warwickshire, why were these not cited in IPMs (had they already been bequeathed or otherwise conveyed)?

Ipms were perfomed separately for each county, so it is not a question of the property not being included in their imps, but of there not being records of a separate ipms being performed in Warwickshire. I am not familiar enough with the process to answer definitively, but I would think if the land they held in the coulty was known not to have been held in chief of the king (which is what an ipm was intended to determine) then one may never have been held.

> Or could Cuthbert have come into possession of Warwickshire lands on his own, through marriage, the will of a relative, etc.?

or purchase (fine, private charter, etc.) Yes.

taf

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:49:44 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 3:02:36 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
>
> > 1) I've encountered the Willoughby name a number of times in connection with my Cuthbert Langton of early 16th-century Notts/Derby. Then yesterday, I found a suit involving Cuthbert's grandson -- a son of his daughter Benet. The son's name was also Benet, and his surname was Langton (not Burgh, the surname of his mother Benet's known husband...Not sure what's up with this...was the son illegitimate? Had the couple divorced? Both seem unlikely?) In any case, and related to the might-be-family question, the language reads:
> >
> > "...Deed of sale: Edward Wylloughby Knt. and Benet Langton to Roland Babyngton; Location: Birchwood Derbyshire" (1536)
> >
> > Does this wording mean that Wylloughby and Langton were selling jointly owned property?
> You can't really tell from the abstract. You also see phrasing like this when a man was acting on behalf of a woman or minor. The original would make their roles more clear.
> > (Was a foeffee ever, under any circumstances, considered a joint owner of land he'd been
> > charged with managing or protecting for a younger party?)
> Depends on the nature of the enfeofment and its precise wording. Legally, the feoffee was sole 'owner', unless the feoffment involved only a share of the property. Though I don't recall ever seeing it, perhaps a scenario where the feoffeee was holding for a set duration of time before reversion might end up seeing both participate in a deed.
> > Or could the two men simply have been partners in a business deal (is this unlikely, given the apparent disparity in their ages/probable wealth levels)?
> Could be. (I can't address the age issue - I don't know how different they were, but I recall seeing at least one trust where a very young man was included along with more senior ones because the goal was to remove the land from the family's control for a long time, because the grantor's son was a fugitive from justice for a murder, and risked confiscation if the father died before the son was pardoned or himself died and the land could again safely be possessed by his heirs - remember when I said just about anythong you can imagine probably happened at one point or another.)
> > 2) Cuthbert Langton is cited in various documents and works as being "of Middleton, Warwickshire" or as owning lands there. Yet I think his family had lived in Notts/Derby for generations, and IPMs I've seen for Cuthbert's father and grandfather refer only to Notts. If Cuthbert's father and grandfather had owned lands in Warwickshire, why were these not cited in IPMs (had they already been bequeathed or otherwise conveyed)?
> Ipms were perfomed separately for each county, so it is not a question of the property not being included in their imps, but of there not being records of a separate ipms being performed in Warwickshire. I am not familiar enough with the process to answer definitively, but I would think if the land they held in the coulty was known not to have been held in chief of the king (which is what an ipm was intended to determine) then one may never have been held.
> > Or could Cuthbert have come into possession of Warwickshire lands on his own, through marriage, the will of a relative, etc.?
> or purchase (fine, private charter, etc.) Yes.
>
> taf
taf, Thank you. All of your responses so helpful. I might be out of luck when it comes to sale of possibly jointly held property...Just noticed that abstract says the item is fragile and not suitable for production. Does Archives staff respond to bribes or begging? -: I'm going to do some exploring in Warwickshire and continue trying to decipher some other documents that are, thank goodness, in English. Will also dip my toe in the feet-of-fines water and start learning about these. It's fun to have a long to-do list.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 6:18:51 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

> taf, Thank you. All of your responses so helpful. I might be out of luck when it comes to sale of possibly jointly held property...Just noticed that abstract says the item is fragile and not suitable for production. Does Archives staff respond to bribes or begging? -: I'm going to do some exploring in Warwickshire and continue trying to decipher some other documents that are, thank goodness, in English. Will also dip my toe in the feet-of-fines water and start learning about these. It's fun to have a long to-do list.

If it says 'not suitable for production' rather than '. . . for reproduction', usually that means they won't bring it out for patrons, but it still _may_ be possible to obtain a digital image (or maybe not).

taf