Elizabeth Criol Cr19

Criol

Robert de Criol b Criel-sur-Mer Normandy France, og døde ett. 1086 i Ashburnham Sussex England.

345. i. Bertram de Criol b 1085, Ashburnham Sussex

Bertram de Criol b 1110, Ashburnham Sussex d. 1160

807. i. John de Criol b 1150, Ashburnham Sussex England; d. ett. 1194, Sarre Kent m Margery b 1150 England.

1167. ii. CECILIA de Criol b 1170, Sarre Kent m had Simon

1166. i. Bertram de Criol b 1180, Sarre Kent d ett. 1258.

1586. i. Nicholas de Criol b 1225, Croxton Kerrial Leicestershire d by 02.07.1273, Chesterton Cambridgeshire England.

Cr23. Nicholas de Criol
m Joan Auberville

Cr22. Nicholas de Criol b c 1260 d 12 Oct 1303 Cherry Hinton Cambridge
m 10 Feb 1272? Margery Pecche b 1260 Kent d 31 Mar 1319 she m1 John de Clifford

Cr21. Nicholas Criol b 29 Dec 1282 Sarre Kent d by 18 Jul 1329
m Rosia

Cr20. John Criol b 29 Sep 1407 Walmere Kent d 5 Jan 1376 Dartford Kent
m Lettice x b 1310

Cr19-1 Editha Kiriel d by 16 May 1383 Canterbury Kent m John Brokhull

-1 William Brokhull d aft 26 Nov 1397

-1-1 Nicholas Brokhull b Aldynton Thurham Kent d there aft 27 May 1461 m Katherine Wood

-1-1-1 William Brokhull b by 1440 Aldynton Thurham Kent

-1-1-1-1 John Brokhull d 2 Nov 1510 Aldynton

-1-1-1-1-1 Edward Brokhull b c 1489 Aldynton d by Sep 1557 Aldington>

-1-1-1-1-1-1 Marion Brokhull b Aldington d 1604 Ash Kent m?1 y St Vincent m? Thomas Harflete

-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 Henry Harflete b c 1552 d c 10 Jul 1608 Ash Kent m 9 Jul 1577 St Nicholas Ash Kent Mary Slaughter b 1560 dau of George Slaughter

-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 Martha Harflete b by 27 Jun 1585 Ash Kent m 7 Nov 1608 Ash Kent John Halsnode Halsnode

Cr19-3 John Kyriel b c 1350 Wastenhanger und Wilmer Kent d by 28 May 1427 Sarre Court Isle of Thanet Kent m 1377 Alice Botetourt b c 1360 d by 1407 dau of John Botetourt b 1318 d 1385 m2 c Apr 1372 Joyce Zouche

-1 Joan/Johanne Kyriel d by 1407 m John Wykes

-1-1 Agnes Wykes d unm
-1-2 Joyce Wykes m Hugh Stanley

Cr19. Nicholas de Criol b 1325 Stockbury Hollingbourn Kent d 23 Sep 1379
m Elizabeth Trussell b 1327 dau of

+1 Warin Trussell b c 1310 Merston Northampton m1 x Stafford m2 by 1341 Maud St Philibert

Cr18. Elizabeth Criol b c 1350 d:
Married: Sir William Eychingham Ec19 d 1388

and had issue:
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.
for descebdants on the Etchingham line see that file, where updates will be recorded. Hence the latter three must be read with a question mark.

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/criol.shtml
Criol Pedigree:
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
                                    Poynings family
1446                            Robert de Poynings
1446                            Henry, Lord Percy, Earl of Northumberland
                                    Percy family
1537                            The Crown

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~folkestonefamilies/hasted.htm
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.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/myjacobfamily/decrevequerpedigree.html

_ _ _ _ _
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/month/june_2006.html:
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 to Chester.²⁰ 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.

Footnotes

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.

Change the two party system
so people against something like abortion
but for something like environmental protection never again get bigger and badder storms
and two bankrupting wars instead.

Criol

C 60/21, Fine Roll 8 Henry III (28 October 1223 - 27 October 1224), membrane 9.

73

74

75

76

Change the two party systemso people against something like abortion but for something like environmental protection never again get bigger and badder storms and two bankrupting wars instead.

Criol

C 60/21, Fine Roll 8 Henry III (28 October 1223 - 27 October 1224), membrane 9.

73

74

75

76

Change the two party system
so people against something like abortion
but for something like environmental protection never again get bigger and badder storms
and two bankrupting wars instead.