Richard fitzRoy, Baron of Chilham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_FitzRoy

https://www.thepeerage.com/p10492.htm

Richard FitzRoy, Baron of Chilham
M, #104918, b. before 1216, d. from 1245 to 1246

Richard FitzRoy, Baron of Chilham was born illegitimately before 1216.
He was the son of John I 'Lackland', King of England and Adela de Warenne.
He married Rose de Douvres, daughter of Foubert de Douvres and Isabel de Briwere.
He died from 1245 to 1246.
He was also known as Richard de Warenne.
He was also known as Richard de Chilham.
He gained the title of Baron of Chilham.

Children of Richard Fitzroy, Baron of Chilham and Rose de Douvres
Isabel FitzRoy d. 7 Jul 1276
Richard de Douvres d. 1247
Lorette Fitzroy

https://web.archive.org/web/20150913154940/http://www.kentarchaeolo...

Rose of Dover (d.1261), Richard of Chilham, and an inheritance in Kent
- Richard Cassidy

Visitors to the ruins of Lesnes Abbey may notice a plaque on a wall:
The burial place of the heart of Roesia of Dover, great great grand-daughter
of the founder of this abbey, Richard de Lucy.

The discovery of the heart in 1939, during excavations at the abbey, and
its re-interment in 1952, were recorded in this journal.
Rose’s life, her struggles to hold on to her inheritance, and her difficulties with her feckless
husband, the royal bastard Richard of Chilham, are not only a little-known
chapter in the history of an important Kent estate; they also illuminate the
problems of an heiress in the thirteenth century, who lost control of her
lands to her husband, and the unusual measures which the king took to
protect Rose from her husband’s financial difficulties. In addition, it may
be useful to try to disentangle the confusion about Richard, who was also
known as Richard son of the king, Richard de Warenne and Richard of
Dover (leading writers like Hasted to think that Rose had several husbands
named Richard, while Dugdale confused Richard with his half-brother,
Richard of Cornwall). There is a further problem of distinguishing Richard
from his son and grandson, both called Richard of Dover.
Fortunately, Rose of Dover’s ancestry is fairly clear, linking her to two
families who were significant landowners in Kent (Fig. 1).
As the plaque at Lesnes says, the abbey there was founded in 1178 by
Richard deLucy, who was Henry II’s Justiciar. Richard de Lucy had accumulated
estates in many parts of the country, and near the end of his life he gave
part of his manor of Lesnes to endow the abbey. The Justiciar’s oldest
son died before him. That son’s two sons died young, so the Justiciar’s
grand-daughters Rose and Maud de Lucy became the heirs to the Lucy
inheritance. Rose married into a baronial family. Her husband John of
Dover was another heir, with family estates, mostly in Kent and Essex,
known as the barony of Chilham, or the lands of Fulbert of Dover. They
made up fourteen or fifteen knights’ fees, with the service of providing
castle ward at Dover castle.

John died about 1198, leaving Rose as a widow, now known as Rose
of Dover (the first). Rose and her son Fulbert became wards of William
Brewer, the long-serving administrator, notorious as one of King John’s
evil counsellors. Fulbert was married to Brewer’s daughter Isabel, and
Brewer appears to have helped himself to part of the Lucy inheritance.
Rose maintained the Lucy family connection to Lesnes abbey, with a
gift of more land in Lesnes. The machinations of William Brewer have
already been discussed at length by Sidney Painter and Ralph Turner, so
we can move on to the second Rose of Dover, only child of Fulbert and
Isabel, and thus heiress to both Lucy and Dover inheritances.
This Rose is the heiress who married Richard, the illegitimate son
of King John. Richard’s mother was a daughter of the earl of Surrey,
possibly Isabel de Warenne. His parentage was openly acknowledged –
he is sometimes known in the official records as Richard son of the King.
His arms, shown in thirteenth-century rolls of arms, make his Plantagenet
ancestry fairly plain: they were the royal arms, but with two rather than
three lions. His seal combines these arms with the inscription ‘Seal of
Richard de Warenne’, drawing attention to both parents.
Rose and Richard were married by 1214, when King John gave to
Richard all the land which belonged hereditarily to his wife, which was
in the custody of William Brewer. Brewer was ordered to hand over
Rose’s property. As Rose’s husband, Richard was given possession of
the castle of Chilham, the seat of the barony which Rose had inherited
from Fulbert of Dover. From then on, he was often referred to as Richard
of Chilham.

In 1215, Richard was knighted, and he was shortly to be caught up in
the civil war, fighting for his father King John, then for his half-brother
Henry III, against Louis of France and his baronial supporters. King John
appointed Richard constable of Wallingford, commanding an important
stronghold. Richard’s great moment as a military leader came in August
1217, when he was one of the commanders of the fleet which defeated
a French invasion force off Sandwich. According to the chronicler
Wendover, Richard personally beheaded the French commander, Eustace the Monk.

This battle effectively ended the French threat to Henry’s minority
government. Richard then began his brief official career, as sheriff of
Berkshire and keeper of the honour of Wallingford. As sheriff, he appears
to have left the work to his deputy, Henry de Scaccario, that is, Henry
of the Exchequer. Each year, from 1218 to 1221, when the sheriff was
supposed to present his accounts for the year, it was Henry who came to
the Exchequer on Richard’s behalf. And when the sheriff was meant to
bring cash to the Treasury, it was Henry who did so, saying that Richard
was on the king’s service, or simply that Richard was in Kent or in
Scotland.

In April 1220, Richard announced that he was going overseas.
He joined the fifth crusade, and got as far as Egypt. This had its advantages: a
court case against him was deferred because of his status as a crusader.
And, characteristically, while on crusade he borrowed 20 marks from an
Italian cardinal at Damietta, and didn’t pay it back – his brother the king
repaid the loan for him, several years later.
As constable of Wallingford during King Henry’s minority, Richard
was presumably host to his half-brother, who spent long periods in
Wallingford castle with his tutor. Despite this, there are few signs of a
close family connection in later years. Richard is described in the records
as the king’s brother, but was evidently not part of the royal household;
he never crops up on the royal charter witness lists, and never receives the
gifts of venison and timber which were distributed to Henry’s favourites.
In 1221, he was paid £40 to retain him in the king’s service, and in 1222
he received a gift of 20 marks. The former nurse of the king’s sister,
Isabel, appointed Richard as her attorney, to collect a payment from the
sheriff of Essex. Otherwise, there is little sign of Richard being involved
in the affairs of the royal family. After his early career as a sheriff, he was
also little involved in administrative roles. He was one of the collectors of
the fifteenth for Kent in 1225, but he played very little part in public and
political affairs for the following 20 years. For most of that time, almost
the only traces of Richard and Rose concern debts and lawsuits.
Richard’s debts to the king began with the scutage of 1217, a tax of
2 marks per fee on the 14 fees of the barony of Chilham. This debt
keeps cropping up throughout the 1220s, with other debts being added to
it. Richard persistently fails to come when summoned, and threats keep
being made against him: Richard’s land is to be taken into the king’s hand;
he is to be distrained; he can have the land back if he agrees to pay by
instalments; and so on. He was also building up debts to moneylenders,
and he owed money to William Scissor (William the tailor) which was to
be recovered by distraint of lands and chattels – perhaps an early example
of the aristocratic tradition of not bothering to pay your tailor’s bills.
At that point, the king stepped in, in Rose’s interest. In September 1227,
he ordered the sheriff of Kent not to let Richard waste, sell or damage the
manor of Northwood, which was assigned to Rose for her maintenance.
Richard was not to be allowed to lay hands on the manor or interfere
with it in any way; from which it seems probable that Richard had been
proposing to do precisely that. It is also worth noting that the order is
phrased like the writ of prohibition of waste. This writ is often directed
to guardians and to women holding dower, to prevent them wasting
property. It is unusual for such instructions to apply to a husband – court
records of around this period do not seem to show any other examples.
Meanwhile, Richard and Rose were involved in a long-running lawsuit,
trying to establish Rose’s right to the manor of Lesnes, against Robert Fitz
Walter and Richard de Montfichet. The case went through many stages
from 1219 until the eyre, reaching Kent in September 1227, heard the
long and tangled tale, and decided that it should be settled by a duel.
Each side nominated its champions – hired thugs, in reality – to meet at
the next session of the eyre, in Essex late in October. Evidently, Richard
and Rose won. The agreements between the litigants survive in the feet
of fines: after the duel, Robert FitzWalter recognized Rose’s right to the
land, and quitclaimed to Richard and Rose, and to Rose’s heirs, for which
Richard and Rose gave him 60 marks (£40).
In fact, Richard and Rose had to borrow the money. The liberate roll
shows a writ to pay Richard £40 on 15 November 1227. And on 30 November
Richard came to the court, which had then reached Hertford,
and paid over the money. So Richard and Rose had gained the manor,
but increased their debts. In March 1228, the fine roll set out the terms for
Rose to repay the £40 which the king had lent to Richard, and committed
the manor of Lesnes to Rose.
Their problems promptly began again. The very next day, the sheriffs
of Kent and Essex were ordered to take into the king’s hand Richard
and Rose’s manors of Warden (perhaps Warden in Sheppey, or maybe
Wenden, in Saffron Walden, Essex) and Chingford (Essex). In fact,
one Robert of Westminster was already holding Chingford, which he had
taken from Richard as a pledge – presumably, security against a debt.
Similarly, Rose’s manor of Wenden, Essex, was left in possession of
Henry FitzAucher, who had seisin of the manor, so that he could answer
to Benedict Crispin, the moneylender, for a debt which Richard owed
against that manor.
It would seem that Rose made little progress in repaying the money
Richard had borrowed, for in May 1229 the sheriffs were told to take into
the king’s hand all her manors except Lesnes, which she was to keep for
her maintenance.
At this point, Richard joined Henry III’s forces sailing for Brittany.
This was a sound move, as it put into abeyance at least two pending
court cases against him, and he was granted respite from his debts.
But the relief could only be short-lived. In 1231, the Kent accounts show
that Richard owed the king debts of £37, and Richard and Rose owed 10
marks for a loan from the Treasury – perhaps the remainder of the loan to
settle the Lesnes case. Yet again, they were to be distrained.
Richard meanwhile seems again to have been planning to abuse his
position as an heiress’s husband. In July 1232 the sheriff of Essex was told
to proclaim that no-one should buy the lands and woods which Richard
held from Rose’s inheritance, or take them as gift or security, without the
king’s permission. An order to Richard forbade the sale, gift or pledging
of lands, on pain of forfeiture.42
And so it went on, with Richard’s debts continuing to mount, despite
all the part-payments and seizures of land and threats of distraint.

There is nothing else to report until 1238, when Richard and Rose’s son appears
in the records, as ‘Richard son of Richard de Warenne son of king John’
(Fig. 2); Richard junior had been given a wardship by his father, which
he sold for 100 marks to Bertram de Criell, then sheriff of Kent.
In 1242 Richard junior began a military career, receiving an annual fee of 50
marks from the king and joining King Henry’s expedition to Gascony.
The family was suddenly back in favour. In April 1242, the Justices of
the Jews and the sheriffs of Essex and Kent were told not to distrain Rose,
on account of any money which Richard had borrowed from the Jews,
because her manors of Wenden and Chingford in Essex and Northwood
and Lesnes in Kent had been assigned to Rose for her sustenance, in
the king’s presence.46 And the king apparently advanced Richard more
money – 20 marks to buy equipment, as he was going by the king’s order
with two knights and 12 serjeants to expel the king’s enemies from Lundy
Island. Lundy, in the Bristol Channel, had become the refuge of William
Marsh, or de Marisco, outlaw, pirate and suspect in a case of attempted
regicide. He had been lurking there for years. At the end of May 1242,
the records say that Richard of Chilham was sent to deal with this outlaw.
It is possible that Richard was recalled to active service, and returned
to the swashbuckling activities of his youth, but it seems more likely
that the references to Richard of Chilham actually mean his son, just
beginning a career as a military commander. In any event, the expedition
was a success; the island was taken, and the pirate gang captured. In
June, the bailiffs of Bristol gave Richard 40s. for taking the pirates back
to London. And in London, William Marsh was dragged through the
streets and hanged.

It can hardly be a coincidence that in January 1243 Richard senior was
granted a pardon for £100 of a debt he owed to Benedict Crispin, the
moneylender. It is worth noting that this order was issued at Bordeaux,
where Richard junior was serving with the king – in fact, just a few days
before, another entry on the fine roll had ordered payment of his fee for
Easter term to ‘our beloved and faithful Richard of Dover’.
In 1244 Richard junior was granted two deer, as a gift from the king, and in 1245
he was pardoned a 20 mark amercement imposed by the forest eyre,
both signs that he at least was in royal favour. Also about this time, the
survey of fees held by military service showed that Richard and Rose still
had extensive interests in Kent. They had just over 16 fees, with only 2¼
held in demesne.
Of course, they were by no means out of their usual financial morass.
They had pledged the income from two manors in order to pay back
£200 to the people who had guaranteed their debt to Crispin. They had
leased the manor of Ringwould, but not given seisin to the tenant. The
ensuing court case led to yet another distraint in 1245, with the sheriff of
Kent being told to take in hand all their lands and chattels.
And so their troubles continued.
There are also a number of surviving feet of fines which look as if they
might be records of vifgage, as described by Paul Brand – property was
handed over for a fixed term, in return for a cash payment in advance, and
little or no rent to be paid during the term. For example, land in Chingford
was leased to William of York for a consideration of £180, with nothing
to pay for 15 years. And Lesnes itself was let for 16 years in return for
1,000 marks (£667).
Meanwhile, Richard’s debt to the Exchequer continued to grow, quite
spectacularly, with an amercement of £100 for taking a whale without
permission. This seems to have happened shortly before his death in
1246. In June 1246, Rose did homage for all the lands which Richard
had held in chief from Rose’s inheritance. In November, the Exchequer
had still not caught up with all Richard’s debts; the Kent account recorded:
‘Richard of Chilham owes £28 12d. for three debts. The sheriff is ordered
to make money from his chattels, as much as necessary, and pay to the
Exchequer in part-payment of the debt’.
Richard’s death was followed in 1247 by that of their son, Richard of
Dover. He had been building a successful career in royal service, first in
Gascony, then in command of castles on the Welsh border. These deaths
in quick succession may explain why Matthew Paris, writing some time
later, recorded both their deaths in his list for 1245.

As a widow, Rose was at last in control of her own lands, even if many
had been mortgaged and produced no income, and she was still burdened
by the debts which Richard had accumulated. The sheriff of Kent was
ordered to carry out inquiries into how much land Richard had held and
what goods he owned on the day he died, but to leave Rose in peace.
There are a few pieces of evidence for Rose now taking a more active
role, after years in which she appears in the records only as Richard’s
wife. There is a deed from 1248, in which she requests the Prior of Holy
Trinity London to pay £10 to a merchant of Douai, from the money which
the prior owes to Rose. In the same year, she acknowledged a debt
of 50 marks to an Exchequer official, John de Neville, in a transaction
concerning the sale of grain. Also in 1248, she granted the manor of
Lutton, Northants., to William Marmion and his wife Loretta, who was
Rose’s daughter. The annual rent was to be a pair of gilded spurs, or 6d.

In 1250, Rose paid a fine of 100 marks, so that she could marry whomever
she pleased. She married again, to William of Wilton, a fairly prominent
judge, and for some years Rose again appears only as a wife: in 1256, for
example, William and Rose were granted a weekly market and annual
fair at their manor of Lesnes; in the same year, William and Rose were
granted respite from payment of Richard of Chilham’s debts, which still
hung over them. William of Wilton was to die in 1264 at the battle of
Lewes, fighting on the king’s side. Rose was already dead by then; the
wardship of her lands and heir was granted to Queen Eleanor early in
1261. The heir was Richard of Dover II, Rose’s grandson. There is an
extent of Rose’s property in Kent, among the Inquisitions Post Mortem.
It was probably drawn up in 1264 or 1265, and says that Richard was
then just 21.

The extent values the Kent properties alone at £181 a year (Chilham,
£48; Northwood, £21 9d.; Kingston, £18; Ringwould, £32; Lesnes, £52;
a mill at Dover, £10), plus the advowsons of five churches in Kent. This
is quite a considerable sum, given that the average value of an early
thirteenth-century barony has been calculated as about £200 a year,
while a man would need £10-20 a year to support himself as a knight.
This figure also helps to put into context the debts which Richard had
accumulated – he owed the king more than a year’s income from Rose’s
estates in Kent. The extent points out that Richard and Rose had also held
the manor of Chingford in Essex, but the valuers did not know what that
was worth. Other property in Lutton (Northants.), and Wenden (Essex)
has also been mentioned above, so the total value of the estate must have
been somewhat greater than £181 a year.

Richard the grandson died without issue in 1266, and the next heir
was Isabel of Dover, his sister. She was married to David, Earl of Atholl,
and the barony of Chilham then passed into his hands. Unfortunately, the
estate was still burdened with Richard’s debts. Matters finally came to a
head in 1270, in a case before the Exchequer of Pleas. David, Earl of
Atholl denied responsibility for Richard of Chilham’s debts to the king,
totalling £212, and for Richard of Dover I’s rather smaller debts. His
case was that he and his wife had not inherited any lands which belonged
to Richard of Chilham, Isabel’s grandfather (because the lands had
belonged to Rose); nor had they inherited any property from Richard of
Dover, Isabel’s father, because he had died in Rose’s lifetime (and thus
never come into possession of the barony). The Barons of the Exchequer
accepted this second argument, but on the major debt they were clear that
Atholl had to pay.

Their reasoning demonstrates the contemporary legal view of a
husband’s power over his wife’s property. They said that the debts were
attached to the holding; Richard had done homage to the king for the
holding; he and Rose had had children, so that, if he had outlived her, he
would have continued to occupy the holding for his lifetime; and if he
had enfeoffed somebody with part of the barony, his heirs would have
had to stand by that arrangement. The heirs to the property had to repay
the debts from the property, even if it had belonged to the wife rather than
the husband.

That judgment sums up the practical implications of the legal theory
about the husband’s powers over his wife’s property. These powers
affected not just the wife, but also her heirs. Richard and Rose are unusual
because the king stepped in several times to protect Rose’s property from
waste or sale, and to reserve part of her estates for her support. This did
not prevent Richard running up debts to the Exchequer, which sometimes
resulted in lands being seized, and to moneylenders, who occupied the
manors he had put up as security.

Many authors have written about the legal theory. Briefly, if a
woman inherited an estate held in chief, the king would give the heiress
in marriage, with her land. Her husband would then do homage. The
husband was entitled to possession and profits of her estate, during their
joint lives. Seisin was held jointly, in principle; but as the wife could
not take legal action as an independent person, the benefit of joint seisin
belonged to the husband alone: ‘He may occupy the lands and exclude her
from possession, he may demise them, and recover, receive and squander
the rents of them, in spite of her protest’.

While the marriage lasted, the husband could do whatever he liked with
the property. If the wife outlived him, she could then attempt to undo
transactions he had made without her consent – there was a writ, cui in
vita, specifically for this purpose – but she had to prove that she had not
been consulted, and could not contradict her husband during his lifetime.
If they had children, and he outlived her, then he retained possession of her
estate for the rest of his life. Such was the theory, and such circumstances
must have arisen quite often. The demographic probability was that about
a quarter of all inheritances should have gone to women, but ‘the right of
the heiress was less to enjoy property than to transmit it’.

Rose’s life exemplifies many aspects of the problems of the heiress.
William Brewer used his role as guardian, with the privilege of his position
at the court of King John, to divert part of the Lucy inheritance to his own
family. Rose did not recover her property from Brewer; when she married,
it was transferred to her husband, who then had an unassailable right to
use her property as he wished. Richard incurred debts to the king and to
moneylenders, which led to manors being seized and chattels distrained.
It would seem that it was only through the most unusual intervention
of the king, her brother-in-law, that Rose was allowed to keep some of
her manors for her own maintenance, and Richard was prevented from
wasting or selling her property. As a widow, Rose could run her own
affairs, but had to pay a fine in order to remarry freely. She was at last
able to transmit to her grand-children the properties in Kent listed in the
survey carried out after her death, but the estate was heavily burdened by
the debts run up by Richard, which were still outstanding some 25 years
after his death.

acknowledgements
This article is an expanded version of a paper presented at the International
Medieval Congress, Leeds, on 14 July 2009. The author would like
to thank: Professor David Carpenter, his supervisor at King’s College
London; Ms Christine Voth, who first noticed the story of Richard and
Rose in the fine rolls; and Mr Douglas Richardson, for his advice on
genealogical matters; the author alone is responsible for any mistakes
introduced by his simplification of a very complex family tree.

Richard FitzRoy was the illegitimate son of King John of England.

See "My Lines"

( http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cousin/html/p207.htm#i23356 )

from Compiler: R. B. Stewart, Evans, GA

( http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cousin/html/index.htm )

From Medlands:

King John had one illegitimate son by Mistress (1):

6. RICHARD FitzJohn or Fitzroy (-[1245/46]). The Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester names "Sir Richard fiz le rei…Ion" and "the erles daughter of Wareine" his mother[524]. King John granted "terram…Roes de Dover uxorem suam…castro illo de Chilleha" to "Ric filio nostro" by order dated 11 Jul 1214[525]. "William Briwere" was ordered to deliver to "Richard the king´s son all the lands which fell to Rose his wife hereditarily"[526]. He was a captain in King John's army during the baronial revolt. He fought the invasion of Louis de France in 1217[527]. Lord of Chilham, Kent, de iure uxoris. Henry III King of England granted exemptions to "Ricardo filio Regis" in respect of "castrum suum de Chileham" dated 21 Jun 1217[528]. Bracton notes a claim, dated 1227, by "Ricardus filius Reg et Roysia uxor eius" against "Robertum filium Walteri" for land "in Lesnes" of which "Roysia de Douera avia ipsius Roysie" was seised[529]. Henry III King of England granted "to Richard de Dovor his cousin…the custody of the lands which belonged to Geoffrey de Costentyn in Ireland" by charter dated 11 Jun 1244[530]. Matthew of Paris records the deaths of "Ricardi filii Rogeri [maybe error for "Regii"] de Chilham, Ricardi de Dover filii eius" among those who died in 1245[531]. m (before 11 Jul 1214) as her first husband, ROHESE de Dover, daughter and heiress of FULBERT de Dover of Chilham, Kent & his wife Isabel Briwere ([1204/05]-[1264/65]). King John granted "terram…Roes de Dover uxorem suam…castro illo de Chilleha" to "Ric filio nostro" by order dated 11 Jul 1214[532]. Bracton records a claim, dated 1230, by "Matillis de Lucy, Ricardus filius Reginaldi [error for "Regis", probably incorrectly extended to Reginaldi from Regi?] et Roysa uxor eius" against "Robertum Yellestede" concerning "terre…in Neutona", which records the claimants´ ancestry "Galfrido…filio et heredi suo…et de predicto Galfrido…Herberto…filio et heredi suo et de predicto Herberto Matillidi et Royse sororibus" and "de predicta Roysa…Foberto filio suo et de predicto Foberto isti Royse…filie et heredi suo"[533]. She married secondly (after 14 Jul 1250) William de Wilton. The Pipe Rolls record in 1258 that "Willelmus de Wilton" married "Roesiam de Douor que fuit uxor Ricardi de Chileham"[534]. A writ following the death of "Richard de Dovor and Rose his wife" names "Richard son of Richard de Dovor, aged 21 on the eve of the Purification" as heir[535]. Richard & his wife had three children:

i) RICHARD of Chilham (1 Feb [1246/47]-[1265/66]). A writ following the death of "Richard de Dovor and Rose his wife" names "Richard son of Richard de Dovor, aged 21 on the eve of the Purification next" as heir[538]. Lord of Chilham. m as her first husband, JOAN de Grey, daughter of SIMON de Grey & his wife ---. She married secondly as his second wife, Gilbert de Pecche.

ii) ISABEL of Chilham (after 1245-18 Mar 1292). The primary source which confirms her parentage and two marriages has not yet been identified. She was heiress of her brother at Chilham. "Alexander de Balliol and Isabella his wife…going to Scotland" appointed attorneys for their affairs in England[539]. Leland quotes a manuscript which records the death "XV Kal Apr…apud Chilham" in 1292 of "Domina Isabella de Dovora comitissa de Assele" and her burial "Cantuar: in ecclesia Christi"[540]. A charter dated 1 May 1292 ordered the valuation of the assets of "the late Isabella countess of Athol to her husband Alexander de Balliol"[541]. m firstly (before 1265) as his second wife, DAVID of Strathbogie Earl of Atholl, son of JOHN of Strathbogie Earl of Atholl & his wife Ada Hastings Ctss of Atholl (-Carthage 6 Aug 1270). He died while on Crusade in Tunisia. m secondly (shortly after 7 Nov 1270) Sir ALEXANDER Balliol of Cavers, co Roxburgh, son of Sir HENRY Balliol & his wife Lora [Lauretta] de Valoignes (-[19 Apr 1310/Jun 1311]). Lord of Chilham, by right of his wife.

b) ISABEL (-7 Jul [1276/77], bur Abbey of St Augustine, Bristol). The Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester names "Sir Richard fiz le rei…Ion" and "the erles daughter of Wareine" his mother, adding that "Sire Morisse of Berkeleye" married his daughter[542]. The primary source which confirms her name has not yet been identified. King Henry III granted her certain manors 10 Aug 1264 "out of compassion for the poverty of his niece"[543]. m (before 12 Jul 1247) MAURICE de Berkeley "the Resolute" feudal Lord of Berkeley, son of THOMAS Lord of Berkeley & his wife Joan de Somery (1218-4 Apr 1281, bur Bristol St Augustine).

c) LORETTE (-after 1248). In the Complete Peerage, she is described as the daughter of "Royce, daughter and heiress of Robert of Dover" who granted the manor of Luddington in 1248 to her daughter and son-in-law[544]. An assize of last presentation brought by the king in 1261 against "William Marmion and Lauretta" shows that "Lauretta was the daughter of Richard FitzRoy"[545]. m (1248) WILLIAM Marmion, son of ROBERT Marmion & his wife Avice de Tanfield (-27 Jul 1275).]

Mistress 1 of John "Lackland" King of England): --- de Warenne, daughter of HAMELIN d'Anjou Earl of Surrey & his wife Isabelle de Warenne . According to Given-Wilson & Curteis[493], one of the mistresses of King John was the "sister of William de Warenne" but the authors do not specify which sister she was. The Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester names "Sir Richard fiz le rei…Ion" and "the erles daughter of Wareine" his mother[494].

Citations

1. G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume I, page 305. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.

2. Brian Tompsett, Royal Genealogical Data, online, http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/genealogy/royal/. Hereinafter cited as Royal Genealogical Data.
https://www.clio-online.de/webresource/id/webresource-11956?languag...

3. Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume I, page 146.

4. Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy (London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 71. Hereinafter cited as Britain's Royal Family.

5. Peter W. Hammond, editor, The Complete Peerage or a History of the House of Lords and All its Members From the Earliest Times, Volume XIV: Addenda & Corrigenda (Stroud, Gloucestershire, U.K.: Sutton Publishing, 1998), page 46. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage, Volume XIV.

6. Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2004), page 748. Hereinafter cited as Plantagenet Ancestry.

7.Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume II, page 127.

sources: http://thepeerage.com/p10492.htm

References

Given-Wilson & Curtis. The Royal Bastards of Medieval England, 1995
https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Bastards-Medieval-England/dp/156619962X

Richardson, Douglas, Plantagenet Ancestry, Baltimore, 2004, p.48, ISBN 0-8063-1750-7
https://www.amazon.com/Plantagenet-Ancestry-Colonial-Medieval-Famil...

https://web.archive.org/web/20150913154940/http://www.kentarchaeolo...