Everingham Family Research Records


.		Family RESEARCH The THWENG Family & related Everinghams The quote you give is unknown to me but Lucy was not heiress to the Kilton Castle estate, inheriting only her grandmothers de Brus inheritance whilst her grandfather Marmaduke de Thweng arranged for his second son to succeed him in the Thweng estates, on his death circa 1280-3, the Thweng estates stayed with a succession of his sons, all childless, until the last one, Thomas, died. He was in orders and the estates passed into the hands of his nephew, Marmaduke de Lumley, by descent from his sister, another Lucia de Thweng who was born at Kilton Castle roughly the same time as her cousin Lucia. On the marriage of Lucy and Robert it appears that they were enfeoffed of some of her property with the descent ,failing heirs of their bodies, to Robert de Everingham's right heirs. This included her half share of the de brus rights to the 'wapentake of langbaurgh'. (this is where I live by the way..I can see the surroundings of the castle from my window). I know that this was inherited, not by a son Reynold but by Robert's elder brother, Adam and his family, as he sold it to the de Faucomberg's, owners of the other half of the wapentake, through their share of the de brus inheritance. They lived in the area, descended from the eldest of the de brus co-heiresses, they inherited the main de Brus seat at Skelton Castle, I think that it must have had local prestige as it seems that holding it from the king cost 100 marks p.a. and that this is all it actually brought in p.a. When she was abducted by Meynill it may have been to arrange the matterof the inheritance of their illegitimate son, Nicholas de Meynill as she left Yarm to him in her will. This would not have been possible without the consent of the king as she held in chief. It can be assumed that the removal of this valuable port from the inheritance was not popular with the Everinghams. On her divorce from Latimer she had been forced to cede Danby to her ex husband as well as Sinnington Manor for the terms of his life, her son by Latimer to succeed afterwards, failing that, Lucy's right heirs. On her marriage to Bartholemew de Fanacourt in 1318-20 they were eventually jointly enfoeffed of her properties (complicated by his being a 'foreigner') and he was her residual legatee, on his death in the 1350's he was succeeded by his brother who lost the property through rebellion. She had outlived her two sons and her first husband. I have no idea where' Rokely' is at all. I don't know how much help this has been. I have a huge amount of data on Lucy and her family but obviously this does not in itself prove your information wrong. It is clear though that given the terms of enfoeffment and the fact that it was Lucys own property, then any putative son could not have succeeded until his mother died in 1346. The Complete Peerage supports this as being the situation as well. As the matter is peripheral for me I dont instantly know where any primary source quote is that could help but I will check and see what I have as references. Incidentally she had Robert de Everingham buried in Guisborough Priory and paid for prayers to be said for his soul, after his death in the Scottish wars after just three years of marriage. She inherited, like the wapentake, the half patronage of Guisborough Priory. From her own will she was clearly not really religious minded and there are no bequests for the same service for herself but she did arrange to be buried beside him, despite having been married to Bartholomew for nearly 30 years. Regards, Helen There are a lot of partial stories about Lucy that are wrong but you can usually see why they are wrong, as they have only found one husband for example, if you are just tracing the Latimer line then the rest of her eventful life might pass you by. Re-reading my email below I noticed something else significant......if you refer to where I mentioned that she arranges to leave Yarm to her and Meynell's illegitimate son I should have mentioned that this was in the event that they, Robert and Lucy, had no 'issue' which I suppose is another piece of evidence for the non-existence of a child as her son Nicholas de Meynill's daughter did inherit Yarm. I was concentrating on the Everingham connection because I am trying to make sense of what happened to her property. I dont know that it is greatly significant I am just trying to get all the fact straight and here it is difficult as primary sources seem to be contradictory as I have patent and close roll evidence that her property went to Fanacourts brother after his death then he lost it through rebellion. It was then later granted to Peter de Routhe but then the Everynghams are involved again ( Ref 41 Ed 111 1367 May 16 Westminster membrane 19 calendar of patent rolls) There are lots of other references in the Ed111 rolls there to Everynghams if you want to look it up on http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls/ It also sounds as though they should have inherited from Lucy from the following; "Close Rolls Ed ll 1316 May 18 Westminster To Robert de Cliderhon, escheator beyond Trent. Order to deliver to Lucy, late the wife of Robert de Everyngham, tenant-in-chief, the manors of Brotton and Kirkeburne, ten marks of yearly rent in Skynnergreve and a moiety of the bailiwick of the wapentake of Langebergh, as it appears by inquisition that she and her husband were jointly enfeoffed, thereof by Henry de Bretteville, with remainder, in default of issue, to the right heirs of the said Robert, and the manor of Jarum , whereof she was jointly enfeoffed by the said Henry, with remainder, in default of issue, to Nicholas de Meynill, her son, it appearing by the inquisition that she peacefully continued her joint-seisin thereof until her husband's death, and that they are held of the king in chief by knight service; the king having taken her fealty for the same" This suggests strongly to me that there was no child as Nicholas is mentioned by name and the subject of Roberts eventual heir is not treated in the same way. What I dont understand here is why it is to be inherited by Robert's heirs in default of issue and not Lucys, I dont know if this is just a mistake made here or whether it was a condition of the marriage as it wasnt usual. Regards, Helen BACK TO RESEARCH PAGE (c)2006 Everingham Family History Archives.