On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, . . . . However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent.

Actually, it doesn't. Alice de Cheney _was_ the Maminot heiress:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/say.shtml

taf

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>

Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445

taf

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 6:08:32 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > Anyone care to translate the following ...?
> >
> > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> >
> > Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
> >
> >
> > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> >
> > Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> > Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
> >
> Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book:
> https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445
>
> taf

This chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before the turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 10:21:56 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 6:08:32 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > > Anyone care to translate the following ...?
> > >
> > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > >
> > > Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
> > >
> > >
> > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > >
> > > Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> > > Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
> > >
> > Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book:
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445
> >
> > taf
> This chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before the turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover

Who was Alice de Vere? Could she have remarried to a de Clare after 1214?

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 10:30:37 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 10:21:56 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 6:08:32 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > > > Anyone care to translate the following ...?
> > > >
> > > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > > >
> > > > Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > > >
> > > > Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> > > > Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
> > > >
> > > Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book:
> > > https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445
> > >
> > > taf
> > This chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before the turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover
> Who was Alice de Vere? Could she have remarried to a de Clare after 1214?

[1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Plea_Rolls_of_the_Excheq/40xAAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22alice+de+vere%22+say&pg=PA63&printsec=frontcover

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:21:56 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> This chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before the turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover

A further demonstration of what a lot of people fail to appreciate. The 2nd edition of CP is not a monolyth, it is a group project, with different contributors expanding on the original framework laid out by Cokayne, produced spanning 4 decades. As such, it shouldn't surprise that there are instances of internal disagreement, just as with ODNB, HOP, etc. The correction page I mentioned refers directly to this conflicting information between the chart accompanying the Essex article and the Say article.

taf

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:44:58 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> [1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
>

Ancient Deeds 6:307 #C6150 (no date, because of that would be too helpful)
"Grant by John Purchaz of Rikelinges to Dame Amice de Sey late the wife of Sir Geoffrey de Sey, for her service and for 40s., which she has given him beforehand, of 1½ acres of his grove in the town of Rikelinges ; rent, ld. at Easter. Witnesses :—Sir Fulk de Bath, knight, John de Pinchpol, Robert Flambard, and others (named).

And later,

Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
"Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."

taf

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:44:58 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
>
> > [1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
> >
> Ancient Deeds 6:307 #C6150 (no date, because of that would be too helpful)
> "Grant by John Purchaz of Rikelinges to Dame Amice de Sey late the wife of Sir Geoffrey de Sey, for her service and for 40s., which she has given him beforehand, of 1½ acres of his grove in the town of Rikelinges ; rent, ld. at Easter. Witnesses :—Sir Fulk de Bath, knight, John de Pinchpol, Robert Flambard, and others (named).
>
> And later,
>
> Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
> "Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
>
> taf

from _Curia Regis Rolls_ ...

Michaelmas term, 34-35 Henry III (1250)

1739 Surrey'. Willelmus de Sey et Sibilla uxor ejus pecierunt die Jovis proxima post festum sancti Martini terram suam per plevinam que capta fuit in manum domini regis per defaltam quam fecerunt versus Gladusam de Mortuo Mari; et habent.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Curia_Regis_Rolls_Preserved_in_the_Publi/DnC22L4R6gsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+sey%22+surrey&pg=PA300&printsec=frontcover

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:44:58 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> [1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
>

TNA E 210/369
Bond by Geoffrey de Say, brother of William de Say, to Aaron son of Abraham, the Jew, for 30l. a moiety to be paid at the quinzaine of Michaelmas next, and the other moiety at the same term next following: 14 October, 30 Hen III (1246)

In spite of interacting with the same counterpart, these Geoffreys are different, uncle and nephew. The former is the one I called Geoffrey IIB. the latter is certainly brother of the WIlliam who married Sibyl and Mary, and thus a younger son of Geoffrey IIA.

taf

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
> "Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
>

TNA C 146/10501
"Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:06:43 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
>
> > Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
> > "Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St.. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
> >
> TNA C 146/10501
> "Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]

Continuing along this line, Farrer wrote the following in his Feudal Cambridgeshire, which extracted, unfortunately without citation, a swath of feudal records and presented them parish by parish, year by year.

Chilford Hundred
Castle Camps and Shudy Camps with Bartlow, Nosterfield and Olmstead
1279 . . . Matilda de Crec, daughter of Geoffrey de Say, holds a messuage in Nosterfeld of the honor of Richmond in free marriage by the gift of the said Geoffrey, and his mother had that tenement by the gift of Robert de Ver, her brother, now 60 years past; the nuns of Hengham have 12 a. by the gift of Alice de Say, sister of Robert de Ver, earl of Oxford, 50 years past, in alms of her marriage.

We next turn to Denham Parish Registers, 1539-1850, With Historical Notes and Notices, pp. 180-1
[translation from reports of commissioners appointed in the first year of Edward I:

They say [i.e. the local jury] that John de Say miles hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred, so that they cannot do their duty in the villa of Denham ; and they say that said John and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and ill-treated John Mauveisin, bailiff of the Hundred, who came to levy the king's due from the said John in the villa of Denham. II. 173
.. . .
They say that Peter de Walpole very often (sepissime) hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred so that they cannot do their duty, by beating and ill-treating them. And the bailiffs of Badmundesfeld, the bailiffs of Lydgate, and the bailiffs of the Earl of Gloucester do not allow the bailiffs of the Hundred to do their duty as they ought and are wont to in certain estates (feodis) belonging to them. And so does John de Say in the villa of Denham. Also they say that said John de Say and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and illtreated John Mauveysin bailiff of the Hundred, who came to collect what was due to the king in the villa of Denham. II. 196.
.. . .
And from Feet of Fines.
1287. 15th year of Edward I. Margaret de Criollys versus John son of Geoffrey de Say of the manor of Denham.

This is all going to take a while . . . .

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 4:50:56 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:06:43 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> >
> > > Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
> > > "Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
> > >
> > TNA C 146/10501
> > "Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]
> Continuing along this line, Farrer wrote the following in his Feudal Cambridgeshire, which extracted, unfortunately without citation, a swath of feudal records and presented them parish by parish, year by year.
>
> Chilford Hundred
> Castle Camps and Shudy Camps with Bartlow, Nosterfield and Olmstead
> 1279 . . . Matilda de Crec, daughter of Geoffrey de Say, holds a messuage in Nosterfeld of the honor of Richmond in free marriage by the gift of the said Geoffrey, and his mother had that tenement by the gift of Robert de Ver, her brother, now 60 years past; the nuns of Hengham have 12 a. by the gift of Alice de Say, sister of Robert de Ver, earl of Oxford, 50 years past, in alms of her marriage.
>
> We next turn to Denham Parish Registers, 1539-1850, With Historical Notes and Notices, pp. 180-1
> [translation from reports of commissioners appointed in the first year of Edward I:
>
> They say [i.e. the local jury] that John de Say miles hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred, so that they cannot do their duty in the villa of Denham ; and they say that said John and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and ill-treated John Mauveisin, bailiff of the Hundred, who came to levy the king's due from the said John in the villa of Denham. II. 173
> . . .
> They say that Peter de Walpole very often (sepissime) hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred so that they cannot do their duty, by beating and ill-treating them. And the bailiffs of Badmundesfeld, the bailiffs of Lydgate, and the bailiffs of the Earl of Gloucester do not allow the bailiffs of the Hundred to do their duty as they ought and are wont to in certain estates (feodis) belonging to them. And so does John de Say in the villa of Denham. Also they say that said John de Say and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and illtreated John Mauveysin bailiff of the Hundred, who came to collect what was due to the king in the villa of Denham. II. 196.
> . . .
> And from Feet of Fines.
> 1287. 15th year of Edward I. Margaret de Criollys versus John son of Geoffrey de Say of the manor of Denham.
>
>
> This is all going to take a while . . . .

Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.

As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?

_Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:

[1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age; notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover

Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:

"In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands, with what other possession they had by gift of Aliva, their grandmother, or any other.' "

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover

I think the elder John Marescall or Marshal was the Earl of Pembroke.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:13:09 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 4:50:56 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:06:43 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
> > > > "Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
> > > >
> > > TNA C 146/10501
> > > "Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]
> > Continuing along this line, Farrer wrote the following in his Feudal Cambridgeshire, which extracted, unfortunately without citation, a swath of feudal records and presented them parish by parish, year by year.
> >
> > Chilford Hundred
> > Castle Camps and Shudy Camps with Bartlow, Nosterfield and Olmstead
> > 1279 . . . Matilda de Crec, daughter of Geoffrey de Say, holds a messuage in Nosterfeld of the honor of Richmond in free marriage by the gift of the said Geoffrey, and his mother had that tenement by the gift of Robert de Ver, her brother, now 60 years past; the nuns of Hengham have 12 a. by the gift of Alice de Say, sister of Robert de Ver, earl of Oxford, 50 years past, in alms of her marriage.
> >
> > We next turn to Denham Parish Registers, 1539-1850, With Historical Notes and Notices, pp. 180-1
> > [translation from reports of commissioners appointed in the first year of Edward I:
> >
> > They say [i.e. the local jury] that John de Say miles hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred, so that they cannot do their duty in the villa of Denham ; and they say that said John and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and ill-treated John Mauveisin, bailiff of the Hundred, who came to levy the king's due from the said John in the villa of Denham. II. 173
> > . . .
> > They say that Peter de Walpole very often (sepissime) hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred so that they cannot do their duty, by beating and ill-treating them. And the bailiffs of Badmundesfeld, the bailiffs of Lydgate, and the bailiffs of the Earl of Gloucester do not allow the bailiffs of the Hundred to do their duty as they ought and are wont to in certain estates (feodis) belonging to them. And so does John de Say in the villa of Denham. Also they say that said John de Say and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and illtreated John Mauveysin bailiff of the Hundred, who came to collect what was due to the king in the villa of Denham. II. 196.
> > . . .
> > And from Feet of Fines.
> > 1287. 15th year of Edward I. Margaret de Criollys versus John son of Geoffrey de Say of the manor of Denham.
> >
> >
> > This is all going to take a while . . . .
> Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.
>
> As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
>
> _Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
>
> [1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age; notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
>
> Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
>
> "In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands, with what other possession they had by gift of Aliva, their grandmother, or any other.' "
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
>
> I think the elder John Marescall or Marshal was the Earl of Pembroke.

No, I guess these were Lord Marshal(l), not Pembroke, though related to Pembroke.

Looking further through the Pyel cartulary, there is only one other de Say female named, specifically "Alice, the donor's sister," i.e., William de Say's sister, mentioned in F 585, p. 298, a 1265 charter of William de Say to William Ford, or De Forde, of meadow in Edmonton "to be held in free marriage with Alice, the donor's sister." Assuming Ford or "de Forde" is the same as "de la Forde," there are quite a few mentions of this family in connection with the Says.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:13:09 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.

Not sure that they are - that is where I started my ongoing search, as they were easier to identify (more diverse names, straightforward spellings of places)
..
> As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
>
> _Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
>
> [1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age; notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
>
> Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
>
> "In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands, with what other possession they had by gift of Aliva, their grandmother, or any other.' "
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
>

From CIPM:
48 Hen III, Aline le Marscale was aged 60+ or 90+, sister and heiress of Isabel de Cressi
53 Hen III, ipm Aline Marescall, heir John, son of Sir William le Marescall, aged 12
55 Hen III, inquest determining if Alice la Maresshale had enfeoffed her deceased daughter Alice de Carhou. John, son of Sir WIlliam le Mareschal is her heir
11 Edw I, ipm John le Marscal, heir William his son, aged 5 on Feast of St Michael, 10 Edw I; or aged 5 on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the Autumn, 10 Edw. I.
26 Edw I, proof of age of William, son and heir of Jn, aged 21 on 6th day before feast of St Michael, 26 Ed I, born at Denham; godfather was a Walter de Say, godmother Petronilla de Say; Lady Amice de Say, "with whom the heir's mother was in company" at Denham at the time of his birth

This gives us John, ca. 1257-in or bef.1283, which puts him in the same generation as William, son of William de Say, so if this is the family from which Sibyl derived, she would be of the same generation as Sir William, father of John. Aline, if 90+, would have been born in the 1170s(+/-), or if 60+, in the 1200 decade, more or less, so at least two and maybe three generations before John.

Carthew, in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley, discusses this descent.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71

See also CP, under Marshall. As presented there, teh line wuld involve long chronology, with a man active in 1197 (as an apparent adult, hence born in or bef. 1176) being grandfather of a man born 81 years later in 1257. This long chronology makes it very hard to deduce where Sibyl would go, assuming she even belonged to this line (which does seem to have been the case).

taf

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:47:50 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:13:09 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
>
> > Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.
> Not sure that they are - that is where I started my ongoing search, as they were easier to identify (more diverse names, straightforward spellings of places)
> .
> > As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
> >
> > _Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
> >
> > [1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age; notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
> >
> > "In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands, with what other possession they had by gift of Aliva, their grandmother, or any other.' "
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
> >
> From CIPM:
> 48 Hen III, Aline le Marscale was aged 60+ or 90+, sister and heiress of Isabel de Cressi
> 53 Hen III, ipm Aline Marescall, heir John, son of Sir William le Marescall, aged 12
> 55 Hen III, inquest determining if Alice la Maresshale had enfeoffed her deceased daughter Alice de Carhou. John, son of Sir WIlliam le Mareschal is her heir
> 11 Edw I, ipm John le Marscal, heir William his son, aged 5 on Feast of St Michael, 10 Edw I; or aged 5 on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the Autumn, 10 Edw. I.
> 26 Edw I, proof of age of William, son and heir of Jn, aged 21 on 6th day before feast of St Michael, 26 Ed I, born at Denham; godfather was a Walter de Say, godmother Petronilla de Say; Lady Amice de Say, "with whom the heir's mother was in company" at Denham at the time of his birth
>
> This gives us John, ca. 1257-in or bef.1283, which puts him in the same generation as William, son of William de Say, so if this is the family from which Sibyl derived, she would be of the same generation as Sir William, father of John. Aline, if 90+, would have been born in the 1170s(+/-), or if 60+, in the 1200 decade, more or less, so at least two and maybe three generations before John.
>
> Carthew, in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley, discusses this descent.
> https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71
>
> See also CP, under Marshall. As presented there, teh line wuld involve long chronology, with a man active in 1197 (as an apparent adult, hence born in or bef. 1176) being grandfather of a man born 81 years later in 1257. This long chronology makes it very hard to deduce where Sibyl would go, assuming she even belonged to this line (which does seem to have been the case).
>
> taf

Surr':-Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=333&q1=%22de%20say%22

Surr'.—Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria de la Ferte uxor ejus per attornatum suum ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=340&q1=%22de%20say%22

K’nt.-—Isabella de Hotot per atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus Galfridum de Say; ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=465&q1=%22de%20say%22

Surr'.—Dies datus est Gaufrido de Say; et Margerie uxori ejus per atornatum suum ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=486&q1=%22de%20say%22

Surr'.-Galfridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus per atornatum Margerie ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=577&q1=%22de%20say%22

.... warantum Margeriam de Say;: ... warantum predictam Margeriam.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=580&q1=%22de%20say%22

Also mention of Gileberto de Say and wife Matilda, and maybe others.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:59:26 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:47:50 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:13:09 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.
> > Not sure that they are - that is where I started my ongoing search, as they were easier to identify (more diverse names, straightforward spellings of places)
> > .
> > > As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
> > >
> > > _Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
> > >
> > > [1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age; notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > > Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
> > >
> > > "In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands, with what other possession they had by gift of Aliva, their grandmother, or any other.' "
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > From CIPM:
> > 48 Hen III, Aline le Marscale was aged 60+ or 90+, sister and heiress of Isabel de Cressi
> > 53 Hen III, ipm Aline Marescall, heir John, son of Sir William le Marescall, aged 12
> > 55 Hen III, inquest determining if Alice la Maresshale had enfeoffed her deceased daughter Alice de Carhou. John, son of Sir WIlliam le Mareschal is her heir
> > 11 Edw I, ipm John le Marscal, heir William his son, aged 5 on Feast of St Michael, 10 Edw I; or aged 5 on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the Autumn, 10 Edw. I.
> > 26 Edw I, proof of age of William, son and heir of Jn, aged 21 on 6th day before feast of St Michael, 26 Ed I, born at Denham; godfather was a Walter de Say, godmother Petronilla de Say; Lady Amice de Say, "with whom the heir's mother was in company" at Denham at the time of his birth
> >
> > This gives us John, ca. 1257-in or bef.1283, which puts him in the same generation as William, son of William de Say, so if this is the family from which Sibyl derived, she would be of the same generation as Sir William, father of John. Aline, if 90+, would have been born in the 1170s(+/-), or if 60+, in the 1200 decade, more or less, so at least two and maybe three generations before John.
> >
> > Carthew, in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley, discusses this descent.
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71
> >
> > See also CP, under Marshall. As presented there, teh line wuld involve long chronology, with a man active in 1197 (as an apparent adult, hence born in or bef. 1176) being grandfather of a man born 81 years later in 1257. This long chronology makes it very hard to deduce where Sibyl would go, assuming she even belonged to this line (which does seem to have been the case).
> >
> > taf
> Surr':-Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus ...
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=333&q1=%22de%20say%22
>
> Surr'.—Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria de la Ferte uxor ejus per attornatum suum ...
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=340&q1=%22de%20say%22
>
> K’nt.-—Isabella de Hotot per atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus Galfridum de Say; ...
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=465&q1=%22de%20say%22
>
> Surr'.—Dies datus est Gaufrido de Say; et Margerie uxori ejus per atornatum suum ...
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=486&q1=%22de%20say%22
>
> Surr'.-Galfridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus per atornatum Margerie ...
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=577&q1=%22de%20say%22
>
> ... warantum Margeriam de Say;: ... warantum predictam Margeriam.
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=580&q1=%22de%20say%22
>
> Also mention of Gileberto de Say and wife Matilda, and maybe others.

Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" .... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover

This is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 6:59:26 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Surr':-Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus ...
> Surr'.—Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria de la Ferte uxor ejus per attornatum suum ...
> K’nt.-—Isabella de Hotot per atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus Galfridum de Say; ...
> Surr'.—Dies datus est Gaufrido de Say; et Margerie uxori ejus per atornatum suum ...
> Surr'.-Galfridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus per atornatum Margerie ...
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=577&q1=%22de%20say%22
> ... warantum Margeriam de Say;: ... warantum predictam Margeriam.

All of these seem to fall in 1225 and 1226, which is useful in narrowing down the timeframe of when this apparently-brief union was a going concern.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
>
> > Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover
> This is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.
Okay, so there was a son Geoffrey in addition to the William b. ca. 1252/3.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 10:50:43 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> >
> > > Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover
> > This is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.
> Okay, so there was a son Geoffrey in addition to the William b. ca. 1252/3.

There does seem to have been, but that was not my intent here. This was a mistake on my part - I meant to identify this Geoffrey as the future first Lord Say, son of William, son of the William who married Sibyl and Mary, but somehow ended up typing something completely different.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 2:27:18 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 10:50:43 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover
> > > This is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.
> > Okay, so there was a son Geoffrey in addition to the William b. ca. 1252/3.
> There does seem to have been, but that was not my intent here. This was a mistake on my part - I meant to identify this Geoffrey as the future first Lord Say, son of William, son of the William who married Sibyl and Mary, but somehow ended up typing something completely different.

Okay, makes sense.

Picking back up after a hiatus:

Cal. Charter Rolls, 2: 52
30 Jan. 1265 Grant, at the instance of R. de Veer, earl of Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say, and his heirs, of free warren in all his demesne lands in Danhan, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex.

Cal. Genealogicum 2: 517
24 Edw I
ALEXANDER DE CHENY alias CHEYNY. Ing. p. m.
Derb'. Willielmus filius prædicti Alexandri de Cheyny propinquior hæres ejus est et de ætate viginti duorum annoruin.
Hertford'. Willielmus de Say, nuper defunctus, viginti annis elapsis feoffavit dictum Alexandrum et Agnetem uxorem ejus de manerio de Patrikesburn'.
[Vide Rot. Fin., 24 Edw. I. m. 9. et m. 5.]

2:531
25 Edw I
WILLIELMUS DE HAMELTON'. Extenta terrarum quas dictus Willielmus tenet in custodia sua, de hæreditate Galfridi filii et hæredis Willielmi de Say, quem Johannes de Say vocat ad warantum versus Elizabetham quæ fuit uxor Willielmi de Say de terra quam eadem Elizabetha clamat in dotem versus eum. Hereford'

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.

Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ...

"Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc. .... [undated]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover

There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:01:41 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
>
> taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.

Not me.

> Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ....
>
> "Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc. .... [undated]
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover
>
> There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.

Without a date, I don't even know where to start with this one. There were other Say lines out there and I have been intentionally excluding the ones I know not to be relevant to this descent.

taf

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 3:23:26 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:01:41 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > > 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.
> Not me.

Maybe it was DR.

> > Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ....
> >
> > "Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc.. ... [undated]
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.
> Without a date, I don't even know where to start with this one. There were other Say lines out there and I have been intentionally excluding the ones I know not to be relevant to this descent.
>
> taf

Here's was the VCH Hampshire says on the whole descent--same time period, but I don't see overlap with the other de Says:

William de Stoteville, the founder of the hermitage of St. Leonard. Stratfieldsaye, a possession of the abbey of St. Mary Vallemont, in Normandy, was the lord of the manor towards the close of the 12th century, and in answer to his petition Joscelin, Bishop of Salisbury, and Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, between 1193 and 1205, confirmed the grant made by him to Godard and his successors at the Hermitage. (fn. 12) Alice wife of Ellis de Boeles is called the heiress of Stratfield in the charter whereby she confirmed to Godard the hermit and the brethren of that place the gifts made by her father William de Stoteville, (fn. 13) but whether she succeeded William directly or followed Robert de Stoteville, whose gifts to the abbey of St. Mary Vallemont were confirmed by his relict Leonia, (fn. 14) is uncertain. It seems probable, however, that her father gave Stratfield to her in free marriage, for the manor was subsequently held of the Stotevilles. Thus John de Stoteville is given as the overlord in the Testa de Nevill, (fn. 15) and Robert de Stoteville as overlord (fn. 16) had the custody of the lands and heir of the deceased lord of the manor at the beginning of the reign of Edward I. (fn. 17) Alice married as her second husband Robert de Say, and in conjunction with him granted land at Stratfield to the monks of Stratfield. (fn. 18) The land of Robert de Say at Stratfield is mentioned in a charter of 1227 disafforesting certain parts of Berkshire, (fn. 19) but the exact date of his death is uncertain. He was apparently succeeded by Sir William de Say, in whose life-time the name of the manor was changed from Stratfield Stoteville to Stratfieldsaye. Thus in 1260–1 William, as "William de Say of Stratfieldsaye," released the abbey of St. Mary Vallemont and the hermitage of St. Leonard from the obligation of paying suit at his court, (fn. 20) whereas some time previously he had granted a piece of land at Stratfield Stoteville to the church of St. Leonard, and the monks there. (fn. 21) William at his death left a widow Sybil and a son Robert, (fn. 22) who died at the beginning of the reign of Edward I, leaving a widow Emma and an infant son Thomas. (fn. 23) In 1278 Sybil de Say was successful in recovering the third part of the manor as her dower from Robert de Stoteville, (fn. 24) but Emma de Say refused to give up her son to his custody, and therefore went dowerless. (fn. 25) Thomas de Say presented a rector to the church of Stratfieldsaye during the episcopacy of John of Pontoise (fn. 26) (1282–1304), and in 1312 the manor was settled on him and his wife Isabel in fee tail, with contingent remainder to John Bluet the lord of Silchester and his heirs. (fn. 27) Thomas, as Sir Thomas de Say, presented to the church between 1323 and 1333, (fn. 28) and died leaving as his heir his daughter Sybil. (fn. 29) His widow Isabel subsequently married John Wace, (fn. 30) who as lord of the manor presented to the church during the episcopacy of Adam Orlton (fn. 31) (1333–45). Even after the death of Isabel John seems to have retained the manor. Thus he obtained licence from William Edendon, Bishop of Winchester (1346–66), to hear mass in the oratory of his house in the parish of Stratfieldsaye, (fn. 32) and in 1346 it was stated that John Wace and Margaret his wife were holding three-quarters of a knight's fee in Stratfieldsaye formerly belonging to Thomas de Say. (fn.. 33) It was probably on this account that Edward III in 1347 commanded the fine of 1312 to be inspected, (fn. 34) and soon afterwards no doubt John Wace surrendered the manor to Sybil, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas de Say. The name of Sybil's husband is unknown, (fn. 35) but before 1370 the manor had passed into the Dabridgecourt family (fn. 36) by the marriage of her only daughter and heir Elizabeth with Sir Nicholas Dabridgecourt. (fn. 37) Sir Nicholas died on 20 May 1400, (fn. 38) and on the death of his widow four years later the manor passed to his son Sir John Dabridgecourt, (fn. 39) who died on 18 August 1418, leaving a son and heir John.