sunny Sarasotato rent by the week or month
e-mail, German, French and Spanish also spoken, airport pick-up in Tampa or Sarasota on request.
List of pedigrees
Bland of Northern Neck Va.
Nicholas of Roundway
Hester of Fleming Co Ky
Author's DNA match comparisons
It is really something to sing and dance about.
Dig up those old bones and get them dancing!
Find your roots!
Get DNA tested too!
|Born: about 1340 to 65
Married: Sir William Eychingham (Ec19), who died 1388
|and had issue:
Hence the latter three must be read with a question mark.
(Ec18) Sir William Eychingham
(Ec18-2) Robert Eychingham
(Ec18-3) James Eychingham
(Ec18-4) Joan Eychingham m Sir Arnold Savage of Bobbing Court, Sheriff of Kent d 29.11.1410
In the Visitations brothers Robert and James are not included but Joan is, while in the Monograph on the Etchinghams found at the Guild Library, Joan is not included while Robert and James are.
NICHOLAS DE CRIOL, of Eynsford, Stockbury, Westenhanger, &c., Kent, and Croxton Kerrial, co. Leicester, s. and h. of Nicholas DE CRIOL, of Croxton, and of Cherry Hinton, co. Cambridge, sometime Warden of the Cinque Ports (who d. shortly before 2 July 1273), by his 1st wife, Joan, da. and h. of William D'AUBERVILLE, of Eynsford, &c., Kent ... He m., before 10 Feb. 1272/2, Margery, da. of Gilbert PECHE, of Westcliff, Kent. He d. 12 Oct. 1303. His widow's dower was ordered to be assigned, 1 Jan. 1303/4. Her will, directing her burial to be at the Friars Minor at Bedford, dat. 31 Mar. 1319 (Lincoln Reg.).
There has been some confusion between Margery, the wife of the Nicholas de Criol who died in 1303, and Margery, the second wife and later widow of his father Nicholas de Criol (d.1273). The will dated 1319 is certainly that of the elder of these Margerys - the stepmother, not the widow, of Nicholas de Criol (d.1303). The younger Margery had licence to remarry, 30 June 1304 [Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307, p.236; her late husband's name is mistranscribed as John in the printed calendar, but is clearly Nicholas in the original roll].
Margery, the widow of Nicholas de Criol (d.1273) is described as such in a number of documents before the death of the younger Nicholas de Criol in 1303. In 1284-6, Margery de Cryoyl late the wife of Nicholas de Cryoyl held the manor of [Cherry] Hinton, Cambridgeshire [Feudal Aids, vol. 1, p. 135]. By an undated charter, a Margery de Kyriel gave a croft in Hinton to Ralph de Hyntone [British Library, Harl. Ch. 52 G 1], and in 1301 a Margery de Kyriel, apparently using the same seal, quitclaimed the manor and advowson of Easton Neston, Northamptonshire, to Geoffrey de Braddene and Katherine his wife [British Library, Add. Ch. 21856]. According to Baker's History and antiquities of the county of Northampton [vol. 2, p. 139], Lady "Margaret", widow of Sir Nicholas de Criol, had been enfeoffed in the manor and advowson in 1300 [citing Madox, Formulare Anglicanum, p. 90 (1702)].
Extracts from the will of Margery de Criol, dated at Irchester [Northamptonshire] 21 March 1319, were printed with notes in Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, vol. 14, pp. 83, 84. Clearly the testator is the elder Margery, as she makes provision for the souls of her daughter Catherine de Braddene. Provision is also made for the souls of her son Bertram and her daughter Margaret Hereward (a Robert Hereward, also apparently deceased, is also mentioned). She also mentions Elizabeth, the wife of Sir John de Pabenham - both of whom are living.
The elder Margery seems to have been married previously to Peter de St Martin and (by 1260) Peter Dansey (who was living in 1266), and previously to have appeared as Margery de Clifford in 1254 [Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 192]. Although the name of the Bertram who appears in her will suggests that he was her son by Nicholas de Criol (whose father was called Bertram), it is not clear whether Nicholas or Peter Dansey was the father of her daughters Catherine, Margaret and Elizabeth.
Margery's parentage is not quite clear. She was presumably closely related to the Richard Clifford, son and heir of Sir John de Clifford, who in 1313 surrendered his rights in various lands to Margery de Crioll, widow of Sir Nicholas de Crioll, Elizabeth, wife of Sir John Pabenham the elder and Margery Hereward, daughter and heir of Margaret, late the wife of Sir Robert Hereward [Baker, History and antiquities of the county of Northampton, vol. 1, p. 713; cf VCH Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, pp. 192, 193 and VCH Northamptonshire, vol. 4, p. 21]. Richard de Clifford and his brother William, rector of Irchester from 1268, and later bishop of Emly, had in 1289 transferred lands in Irchester, possibly in trust for Margery [VCH Northamptonshire, vol. 4, p. 21]. Provision is made in Margery's will for one "brother Richard de Clifford". It is possible, though unproved, that the Richard, son of John de Clifford, who appears in 1313 was the Richard de Clifford who succeeded his father John as lord of Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire, by 1294 [VCH Gloucestershire, vol. 10, p. 144].
[The question of the two Margery de Criols was raised by MichaelAnne Guido in April, 2002. Mardi Carter pointed out the discussion of the Criols in the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society volume, where extracts from Margery's will were printed. Thanks for other contributions from Rosie Bevan, Tony Ingham and Doug Smith
? - 1294
Bertram de Crioll
1294 - Sir Richard de Rokesle
1369 Michael de Poynings
1446 Robert de Poynings
1446 Henry, Lord Percy, Earl of Northumberland
1537 The Crown
Thomas Chiche, who was the son of Thomas Chiche of Canterbury, who married Agnes, one of the two daughters of Sir Bertram de Criol, knight. He was the son of Sir John de Criol of Eastwell (died in 1266) and the grandson of Sir Bertram de Criol and Emma his wife (see Criol Pedigree). Sir Bertram de Criol married Eleanor, daughter of Hamo de Crevequer. He died in 1295 and she in 1301.
_ _ _ _ _
Bertram de Criol was High Sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire beginning Midsummer 1239
This article is concerned with a series of provisions made after the transfer of the shrievalty of Essex and Hertfordshire from Stephen of Seagrave to Richard de Argentan in January 1224 and recorded on the fine roll for that year.1 It will focus on two aspects in particular. First, it sheds light on how the Exchequer dealt with some of the complications arising from a change in sheriff at an unusual time during the financial year. Second, changes of sheriff were often politically-motivated, and the replacement of Seagrave by Argentan can be used as a window into the political crisis of Christmas 1223.
The four entries from the fine roll translated below provide important details about the mechanics of the hand-over of office from one sheriff to his successor, especially in relation to their accounting at the Exchequer. The financial year ran from Michaelmas to Michaelmas and the debt owed by the sheriff who served for a part of one year to the Exchequer was usually calculated simply by dividing the county farm by the proportion of the year served. This did not reflect the reality of the situation, however, since shrieval income did not fall in evenly over the year, but was concentrated around Easter and Michaelmas. The problem was especially acute in this case, firstly because Seagrave was only in office for the first three months of the financial year 1223-4, and secondly since the change of sheriff resulted from a political crisis. The fine roll entries that address the question of how Seagrave was to account for his time in office are dated 9 February 1224, whereas Seagrave had been replaced as sheriff on 23 January, more than two weeks previously. The most interesting of the four entries is the first. It sets out two possible methods of dividing the financial obligations of the office between the two sheriffs.2 One possibility was that Argentan would hand over a portion of the money that he had received from the various sources of shrieval income to Seagrave, sufficient to allow the latter to account for his time in office. The alternative was for Seagrave to render all the monies that he had collected to Argentan, who would then account for the whole year. The fine does not specify who was to decide which of the two approaches to adopt, and it is likely that the choice was left to Argentan and Seagrave. It seems as though the second option was preferred as Argentan accounted for the whole year at Michaelmas 1224.3
The remaining three entries also deal with various aspects of the transfer of office from Seagrave to Argentan. The second entry provides that Argentan should render to Seagrave all arrears owed to him from the counties for his period in office, in order that Seagrave could account for them at the Exchequer. It also contains a clause providing that, if it was decided that Seagrave should answer personally for the first quarter of the year 1223-1224, then Argentan should also render to him any arrears from that period. In the event, Argentan accounted for the whole year and this clause was not activated. The third and fourth entries relate to the custody of the manors of Writtle and Newport, which had been managed by the sheriff since the resumption of the royal demesne in 1222. This was an important issue since the combined value of these two manors was roughly equal to that of the farm of Essex and Hertfordshire after deductions.4 The provision for the stock and crops in the manors to be assessed by view of local men was standard practice, but the entry also specifies that copies of these records were to be kept by both Seagrave, the outgoing keeper, and his successor Argentan.
As well as these technical details, the fine is also of interest for its relationship to national politics. The following is a brief sketch of the outlines of politics nationally and in Essex during the minority of Henry III. On a national scale, the politics of the years between 1221 and 1224 were dominated by conflict between two factions within the minority government. On one side stood Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, in alliance with William Longsword, earl of Salisbury and uncle of the young king and William Marshal II, son of the former regent and the new earl of Pembroke. Their chief opponent was Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, joined by the English earls of Chester and Gloucester, the bulk of whose support was drawn from among the foreign captains employed by John, including Falkes de Bréauté.5 This opposition was mirrored within Essex. On one hand, de Burgh, as lord of the three honours of Rayleigh, Haughley and Hatfield Peverel, was the dominant force in south-east Essex.6 In addition, de Burgh had secured the support of most of the great magnates of northern Essex.7 On the other hand, the key local offices were all in the hands of men connected to des Roches. This was a legacy of the early concern of the minority government with security, especially in areas like Essex, which had been one of the rebel heartlands during the Magna Carta civil war.8 For example, Hertford castle was restored to Falkes de Bréauté, who had held it for the king during the civil war, and Colchester castle was entrusted to William de Sainte-Mère-Eglise, then bishop of London.9 However, the priorities of the government can be seen most clearly in the appointment of sheriffs.
The first sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire appointed by the minority government was no less a figure than the regent himself, William Marshal I, earl of Pembroke, possibly the only man with the reputation and respect to keep order amongst the former rebels. After his death, he was succeeded by his under-sheriff Walter de Verdun, who was also a knight of the royal household.10 A key change in government policy towards the localities came at Easter 1220, when the Essex knight Robert Mantell made fine to recover the shrievalty of Essex and Hertfordshire.11 This appointment was partly an attempt to move away from the military governors and to increase income from the shires, but it also had a wider significance, as Mantell was the first former rebel to serve as sheriff since the civil war.12 Of particular relevance given the situation in Essex, however, was the part played by de Burgh in Mantell’s appointment.13 Unfortunately for all concerned, Mantell’s tenure in office was a catastrophe. When he appeared before the exchequer on 3 November 1220, he was unable to provide an account for his time in office with the result that less money was raised from Essex and Hertfordshire in 1220 than in the previous year. Mantell was also amerced for not returning a judicial writ, and his under-sheriff Geoffrey de Roding admitted that he had failed to execute royal orders.14 Most seriously of all, Mantell and Roding were accused of conspiring with Henry fitz Aucher, an Essex landowner with connections to Salisbury and de Burgh, to falsify a judicial writ against a knight linked to Falkes de Bréauté.15 This offence came to light before the justices of the bench on 10 November and within a week Mantell had been removed from office. The man chosen to restore order to the shrievalty was Stephen of Seagrave, who proved a great success. In contrast to all his predecessors since 1217, he was not once in arrears on the county farm.16 Although primarily motivated by administrative necessity, there was a political subtext to Seagrave’s appointment, since his loyalties lay with the earl of Chester and des Roches, rather than with de Burgh.17 This may have been a blow to de Burgh’s interests in Essex, but, given Seagrave’s exemplary performance in office and de Burgh’s share of the responsibility for the Mantell debacle, it was politically impossible for him to replace Seagrave with a more congenial figure.
This only changed when the essential factional conflict
within the minority government finally erupted in late 1223.18
It has been thought that the immediate trigger for these events was de
Burgh’s attempt to appoint new sheriffs to Herefordshire and Gloucestershire,
which des Roches and his allies among the great castellans may have interpreted
(correctly) as the first step in the unravelling of their own local fiefdoms.
Perhaps even more significant was a change to the custody of the Tower
of London. It is not clear precisely when this occurred, since it is not
referred to in any of the surviving written records, but at some point
between Easter and Christmas 1223 Stephen of Seagrave was replaced as constable
by de Burgh himself.19
This may well have been the key element in precipitating the crisis and
it would explain why de Burgh’s opponents chose to mount an armed demonstration
against the Tower. When it did not fall they retreated to Waltham. The
chronicle account does not specify whether this refers to des Roches’ manor
of Bishops Waltham in Hampshire or to Waltham Holy Cross in Essex. The
latter seems more plausible, since from Waltham Holy Cross there is a clear
line of communication via de Bréauté’s midland powerbase
It is also possible that Seagrave, as sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire
and keeper of the royal manors of Writtle and Newport, was able to provide
supplies to des Roches and Chester. This in turn would explain why Seagrave
sold no corn or hay from Writtle in 1223.21
The two factions then gathered their supporters at rival Christmas courts.
It soon became clear that the balance of power favoured de Burgh and, through
the mediation of Stephen Langton and the bishops, des Roches and his allies
came to terms. Nationally, this confirmed de Burgh in control of the minority
government, and he began to put in place a series of reforms, including
a purge of local office. The significance of de Burgh’s victory for Essex
was that he was now able to replace Seagrave and de Bréauté
with his ally Argentan, thereby adding control of local office to the territorial
dominance that he and his allies already enjoyed within the county.
|1.||C 60/21, m. 9. These four entries are translated below. For the order to Seagrave to deliver the counties to Argentan, see PR, 1216-1225, p. 421.|
|2.||There were other methods that could be used. For example, Richard de Grey, sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire between Easter and Midsummer 1239, and Bertram de Criol, sheriff from Midsummer, answered jointly for the second half of the year (E 372/83 r.4 m.1), but the precise share of this debt owed by each seems to have been calculated from the account they submitted (E 389/172).|
|3.||Pipe Roll 1224, p. 99. It is also interesting to note that the sheriffs appointed by Hubert de Burgh held office on different terms from their predecessors, in that they also had to account for the profits of the county, that is for any issues received over and above the customary farm. In his account for the Exchequer year 1223-1224, Argentan only answered for profits for the last three-quarters of the year and not for the first quarter of the year, during which Seagrave was sheriff.|
|4.||The customary value of these two manors given in the terris datis section of the the county farm was £120 and £40 respectively, but analysis of the Pipe Roll accounts of these manors while under direct management suggest that they were slightly more valuable than this. Between 1224 and 1230, Writtle produced an average net income of £134 per annum and Newport £43. In contrast, the net value of the county farm of Essex and Hertfordshire after deductions was £188.|
|5.||For a good introduction to and explanation of this essential conflict, see D. A. Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III, esp. pp. 256-62.|
|6.||De Burgh had been granted the keeping of these honours by John on his appointment to the justiciarship in May 1215 (RLP, pp. 145, 153).|
|7.||The earls of Essex and Oxford, along with the barons Robert fitz Walter, Richard de Montfichet and Richard de Redvers all supported de Burgh. Only Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, supported des Roches.|
|8.||Nearly all of the magnates and around half of the gentry families of Essex joined the rebellion. These figures are taken from my doctoral thesis and I would be happy to provide more details on request.|
|9.||For de Bréauté and Hertford, see Pipe Roll 1218, pp. 66-8; For the appointment of Sainte-Mère-Eglise, see PR, 1216-1225, p. 167.|
|10.||The precise status of the regent is unclear. According to the patent rolls, John de Cornard was appointed as sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire in November 1217 and he was succeeded by Walter de Verdun in April 1218 (PR, 1216-1225, pp. 121, 146). This is contradicted by the Pipe Rolls, which show that Cornard accounted as under-sheriff to the regent between Christmas 1217 and Easter 1218, and that Verdun was under-sheriff from Easter 1218 until Easter 1219 before answering as sheriff in his own right between Easter and Michaelmas 1219 (Pipe Roll 1218, pp. 66-7; Pipe Roll 1219, p. 105). At this time, it was not uncommon for the under-sheriff to be described as the sheriff.|
|11.||C 60/12, m. 6; PR, 1216-1225, p. 231.|
|12.||For more information on the Mantell Family, see J. H. Round, ‘The Mantels of Little Maldon’, Essex Archaeological Transactions, New Series, 20 (1930-3), pp. 254-7. In theory, the Mantells held the shrievalty in hereditary fee farm, according to a grant of Henry II and confirmed by John (Rotuli Chartarum, p. 125), although in practice the terms on which they held varied.|
|13.||Mantell was a tenant of de Burgh’s honour of Hatfield Peverel, and de Burgh also reserved to himself the right to approve Mantell’s choice of under-sheriff (C 60/12, m. 6). The man chosen, Geoffrey de Rodings, had previously served as under-sheriff to Matthew Mantell in 1214 (Pipe Roll 1214, p. 1).|
|14.||Pipe Roll 1224, p. 101; Curia Regis Rolls, IX, p. 192.|
|15.||Curia Regis Rolls, IX, pp. 340-1. Further investigation uncovers a convoluted story. The abbot of Wardon had sued a writ of novel disseisin against Walter de Godarville, one of de Bréauté’s knights, and others concerning land in Hatfield (Herts). Hatfield lay within the liberty of the bishop of Ely, so Mantell passed the writ on to Rodings, his under-sheriff, to be delivered to the bailiff of the liberty of Ely. Rodings claimed that he was illiterate, even though he is described as a clerk in a contemporary charter (DL 25/1535), so he passed the writ on to fitz Aucher to be transcribed. At some point during this process an erasure was made on the writ. This was a serious offence. When alterations had to be made to royal documents, the practice was to rule through any mistakes and add interlinear or marginal corrections. This way any changes made to documents could be traced. This might have been an example of incompetence, but certain aspects suggest a more underhand explanation. First, the writ commissioning the justices to hear the assize was tested by Hubert de Burgh himself on behalf of fitz Aucher (PR 1216-1225, p. 263), who was also acting on behalf of the abbot as the latter’s attorney (Rotuli Litterarum Clausaurum, I, p. 438). This is unusual enough to imply some degree of collusion; especially since fitz Aucher’s son Thomas appears in 1223 holding land of the abbot of Wardon in Hatfield (Curia Regis Rolls, X, p.38). Furthermore, while Mantell’s fledgling administrative career ended abruptly in 1220, both fitz Aucher and Rodings continued to receive commissions and hold local office.|
|16.||During his time in office, the Exchequer carried out a thorough revision of all the accounts for Essex and Hertfordshire held since 1217 (Pipe Roll 1221, pp. xxviii-xxix).|
|17.||For Seagrave’s connections to Chester, see W. Farrer, Honors and Knights’ Fees, II, pp.71-2.|
|18.||For the best account of these events, see Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III, pp. 314-29.|
|19.||The very fact that no written order for Seagrave to surrender the Tower and deliver it to de Burgh was ever enrolled reveals the extremely controversial nature of the decision. There is likewise no enrolled record of the removal of the sheriffs of Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, which is only known from a later complaint made by Falkes de Bréauté and recorded in his querimonia (from the Barnwell chronicle printed in Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria, II, p. 261).|
|20.||Annales Monastici, III, pp. 83-4. De Burgh also appointed new sheriffs to Berkhamsted and Colchester castles, to improve their defences against enemy raids (PR, 1216-1225, p. 416). This would tend to support the identification of Waltham as Waltham Holy Cross.|
|21.||E 372/67, r. 3 m. 1.|
|22.||C 60/20, m. 6 Robert de Argentan.|
Elizabeth CRIOL7,97 was born about 1280 in , , England. Parents: Nicholas De CRIOL and Margery PECHE.
Spouse: John IV De PEBENHAM. John IV De PEBENHAM and Elizabeth CRIOL were married in . Children were: Thomas De PEBENHAM.
Joan De CRIOL7,97 was born in 1286 in Croxton, Leicestershire, England. Parents: Nicholas De CRIOL and Margery PECHE. Parents: .
John De CRIOL7,97 died after 1194. He was born in Surnt, Kent, England. Parents: Bertram De CRIOL and Emma De CREVEQUER.
Nicholas De CRIOL7,97,121 was born about 1224 in , , England. He died before 10 Feb 1271/72. Parents: Bertram De CRIOL and Emma De CREVEQUER. Parents: .
Spouse: Margery De CLIFFORD. Nicholas De CRIOL and Margery De CLIFFORD were married in <, England>.
Spouse: Joan D' AUBERVILLE. Nicholas De CRIOL and Joan D' AUBERVILLE
were married before 1258 in <, England>. Children were: Nicholas De
Nicholas De CRIOL7,97,121 was born about 1249 in , , England. He died before 19 Sep 1303. Parents: Nicholas De CRIOL and Joan D' AUBERVILLE.
Spouse: Margery PECHE. Nicholas De CRIOL and Margery PECHE were married on 10 Feb 1271/72 in <, England>. Children were: Bertram De CRIOL, Elizabeth CRIOL, Joan De CRIOL.
Bertram De CRIOL7,97 died before 1319. He was born in <, England>. Parents: Nicholas De CRIOL and Margery PECHE.
The Visitation of Huntingdon, 1613 pg 114 has multiple errors/
suppositions in the early Criol lineage which has created descents
that are not correct. The visitation has a Nicholas de Criol married
to Margery Clifford who had children Bertram, Agnes (m. Michael
Poynings, miles), Joanna (m. William Baude, militus), Elizabeth (m.
John Pabenham, militus), Katherine (m. Galfrid Braddene, militus),
Margaret (m. Robert Hereward, militus). On a separate branch,
visitation has a Nicholas de Criol (nephew to the previous Nicholas
through a younger brother also named Nicolas) married to Margery
Pecche having an only son, Nicholas who married Rosia.
The only thus-far found recorded marriage of a 'Nicholas de Criol' to
'Margery' is given in Patent Rolls, Henry III A D 1266-1272 which
lists the patent of marriage of Nicholas de Cryoll to Margery daughter
of Gilbert Peche (pg 623)
A copy of the translated will of Margery de Criol (more likely Pecche
the Pecche pedigree is conspicuously void of daughters and obviously incomplete) dated 1319
can be found in 'Early Lincoln Wills' and gives evidence that most, if
not all of the early lineage of the visitation is incorrect:
"Margerie de Crioll.
Dated at Irencester, Sat. after the Annunciation, 1319. [fo. 10].
To be buried in the Choir of the Friars Minors of Bedeford, on the
right of Bertram my son.
Masses for my soul, and the souls of Fr. Richard de Clifford, my son
Bertram, my daughters Katherine de Braddene and Margaret Hereward, &
Vestments &c. to my chapel of Corby; also iiij towayls p'le autel des
le une paire des armes de Leyourn.
v chaplains to celebrate in my chapel of St John at Lllyngston, v a
Irencestr', and v at Corby, in the chapel of Our Lady which I have
Bequest to the Chruches of Hynton, Croxton, Hostrynghangre,
Irencestre, Serres, & Farndisshe.
Fr. John de Clifford, lxs.
Sire Richard de Clifford, canon of Raveneston, xxc.
Gaborn de Crioll, kli.
To Lady margery le Valence, whatever in my wordrobe was her mother's;
also a piece of the true cross, and my Matyns de Notre Dame, which
were my sister Johan's.
Sir John de Pavenham, and Elizabeth my daughter his wife; Elizabeth
To Lady Margery de Say, a coffer at Irencester which belonged to Sir
Robert Hereward, and a pyne de Euere which belonged to Saint Thomas of
My niece Lady Johan de Playte.
To my nephew Sir Gilbert Petche, garments which Margaret de Wylughby
Several bequests to servants, &c.
The will of my dau. Margaret Hereward to be fulfilled.
A Reynald mom keu mon chival lemonner a mon charre.
To Elizabeth de Pavenham, a nun at Shaftesbyr, my pat' nost' of coral
and white pearls, which the Countess of Penbrok gave me.
My chaplains Simon xl souz & Wm. de Foxcote xls.
My little Book of Matyns and Common of the Saints to John Petche.
Executors: - Sire Gilbert Petche my nephew, Symon de Brunne, Sire
William de Foxcote, Gilbert de Crioll.
No probate annexed. [Early Lincoln Wills pp4-5]"
According to this will - it would seem that Margery Pecche was mother
to Bertram de Criol, Katherine (m. Galfrid Braddene), Margaret (m.
Robert Hereward/Howard) [who all predeceased her], and Elizabeth (m.
John Pabenham). Also, with mention of her nephew Gilbert Petche
(Pecche) there is no doubt that she is of the Pecche family and not
the Clifford family, though she made several bequests - to a Fr John
de Clifford and Richard de Clifford, canon - which seem to be
religious bequests and not familial. Apparently the "soul of Fr
Richard de Clifford" mentioned in this translation has been taken to
mean brother Richard de Clifford in the familial sense and not Brother
(Friar/Father) Richard de Clifford in the religious sense.
There has also been the supposition that Nicholas de Criol was firstly
married to a Margery Clifford then married to Margery Pecche. Adding
to the confusion of Margery Clifford/Pecche is an entry in the
VCH:Buckingham IV:191-197 "Lillingstone Lovell':
"William Clifford, tenant of lands in Lillingstone in 1131, (fn. 23)
was evidently an ancestor of Margery Clifford, who was holding under
Sir Hugh de Chanceporc in 1254. (fn. 24) Her first husband was Peter
de St. Martin, (fn. 25) but she was the wife of Peter Dansey in 1260,
when Lillingstone Manor was settled on them and their issue with
remainder to Margery's right heirs. (fn. 26) He was living in 1266
(fn. 27) and she in 1284. (fn. 28) Her heirs appear to have been
Margery Criol (Keriel), Elizabeth wife of John Pabenham, and Margery
daughter and heir of Robert and Margaret Hereward, (fn. 29) to whom
Richard son and heir of Sir John Clifford quitclaimed in 1313 his
rights in Lillingstone and elsewhere, a special point being made of
the lands held by Margery Criol it that date, (fn. 30) probably by
settlement on her marriage. She was the widow of Sir Nicholas Criol,
kt., (fn. 31) and was holding this manor in 1316. (fn. 32)"
(23) Gt. R. of the Pipe 31 Hen. I (Rec. Com.), 85.
(24) Hund. R. (Rec. Com.), ii, 44.
(25) Roberts, Cal. Gen. 331. She was holding dower in her first
husband's lands in Wiltshire in 1283, Patrick Chaworth having the
(26) Feet of F. Oxon. Hil. 44 Hen. III, no. 19. A clove gillyflower
was to be given at Easter to Richard Clifford and his heirs.
(27) Excerpta c Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), ii, 450. The king remitted
100s. exacted by the Exchequer for relief from lands once Peter de St.
(28) Feud. Aids, iv, 157.
(29)There were agreements between Margery Criol and John and Elizabeth
Pabenham in 1303 and 1304 respecting land in Hinwick (Beds.) (Cal.
Inq. p.m. [Edw. III], viii, 438).
(30) Coram Rege R. 214, m. 67.
(31) Cal. Inq. p.m. loc. cit.; Coram Rege R. 214, m. 67. She seems to
have been the second wife of Sir Nicholas Criol, who in 1302 confirmed
the gifts of his ancestor, William Aubervill, to Langdon Abbey, Kent
(Dugdale, Mon. vi, 897), and died in 1303 (Cal. Fine R. 1272–1307, p.
483). He had married in his minority in 1272 Margery daughter of
Gilbert Peche (Cal. Pat. 1266–72, p. 623).
(32) Feud. Aids, iv, 169."
The supposition in fn 31 would seem to be in error given fn 25 and
that in the Inquisition Post Mortem of Patrick de Chaworcis [Chaworth]
dated 7 July, 11 Edw. I.  the following entry occurs:
"WILTS. Extent, Saturday the eve of St James, 11 Edw. I.
Staundon. The manor (extent given) with the advowson of the chapel,
held of the king in chief, pertaining to the manor of Kenemarford.
Margery Dansey holds a third part of the said township in dower, by
reason of Peter Sancti Martini, sometime her husband and formerly lord
of that township, which is not extended above." [Cal. IPM Edward I.
No. 477, p288]
The language of the IPM would indicate that Margery Clifford (St
Martin, Dansey) was still living as Margery Dansey in 1283 which was
at least ten years after the patent of marriage of Nicholas de Criol
and Margery Pecche. Given that Margery Clifford was married to her
second husband Peter Dansey by 1260 which is approximately the time
that Nicholas de Criol (who was underage in 1277 according to CP III:
542) would have been either born or very young, that Nicholas de Criol
died in 1303 and that Margery Pecche died c 1319, it seems very
unlikely that a marriage between Nicholas de Criol and Margery
Clifford took place. Also, it seems unlikely that the Margery de Criol
of the will of 1319 is anyone other than Margery Pecche - (1)
according to VCH:Berks Margery (Pecche) de Criol, Elizabeth and John
Pabenham appear to be heirs of Margery Clifford c 1303 which is about
the time of Nicholas de Criol's death & (2) Margery Clifford would
have been of an advanced age (born c 1232-37 ? if she were holding
lands in 1254) were she to have lived to that time. (? Is it possible
Margery Clifford died sometime in the fall of 1283 when Isabel de
Chaworth was given dower of Staundon, Cal. Close Rolls Edw. I.
1279-1288 p 217.) The exchange of lands between the Clifford family
and the Criol descendants apparently occurred for some other reason
that has yet to become apparent.
Therefore the children of Nicholas de Criol (d 1303) and Margery
Pecche (d c 1319) would seem to be:
(1) Nicholas de Criol (d 1330) married Roesia (Vis. Huntingdon 114.
History of Walmer pp 45-47)
(2) Bertram de Criol (d bef 1319) mentioned in his mother's will
(3) Katherine de Criol (d bef 1319) married Sir Galfrid Bradenne
mentioned in her mother's will
(4) Margaret de Criol (d bef 1319) married Sir Robert Hereward (or
Howard) (d bef 1319) mentioned in her mother's will
(5) Elizabeth de Criol married bef 1303 Sir John Pabenham mentioned in
her mother's will
(6) Possibly Gilbert de Criol who is a witness to the will of Margery
(Pecche) de Criol and appears in a lawsuit with Nicholas de Criol and
Roesia concerning the Manor of Walmer 7 Edw. II.
For a discussion of the mother of Margery Pecche see a posting by
Douglas Richardson, 11 Dec 2008, subject: "Maud de Hastings, wife of
Gilbert Pecche, and her Family"
Jane Williams Flank