John Malory (Mallore) - "Unknown" no longer!

Maybe we should open this up to a general discussion, though I doubt we'd get much more interest.

Whenever in doubt, follow the land records - they tend to be more accurate.

Be aware of conflation of names that *we* don't find similar, but *they* did (Anne/Hannah, Alice/Agnes/Anna, etc.)

The Newbold Revel line of Malorys is quite sketchily documented, even including land records. Much is taken for granted that may or may not be true - including their presumed connection to the "main" Leicester/Tachbrook/Kirkby/Papworth St. Agnes line. It was not known until quite recently that there were *two* completely unrelated (in the male line) Mal(l)ory families - and indeed Peter Mallory of New Haven might have been brushed off as "somebody's little accident" if he hadn't happened to be a semi-close match to George Mallorie (an approximate contemporary) of Kilham, East Yorkshire.

The match wasn't close enough for them to have been brothers, but some sort of cousinship with a common ancestor several more generations back remains a distinct possibility. And *that* means there was an undocumented line of Mal(l)orys on the loose.

Things that make one go "Hmmmm...."

We won't find out any more about Sir Thomas of Newbold Revel from the History of Parliament until they get the 15th century Pothole resolved. He's quite firmly Potholed along with a number of other persons of interest. :-(

Terry Jackson (Switzer)
27/8/2016 at 10:28 PM
As Mark seems unable to contact you two perhaps we should, as I first suggested move this to a discussion?

Can I leave it between the three of you? It's really not my field.

Thanks
Terry

Woodman Mark Lowes Dickinson, OBE
27/8/2016 at 8:38 PM
Dear Terry,

My apologies, but for some reason I can't get my computer to recognise Maven or Justin, so could I rely on you as post-box again?

With all respect to Maven for adding the profile and that of Sir Thomas in the first place, FJC Field's "Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory" was published in 1993, the same year as the relevant "History of Parliament" volume for John Mallory. I have no idea which book appeared first, but given publishers' schedules it would have been too late for the second book to cite the first. Nor does Field's later bio of Sir Thomas Malory in the DNB take issue with the ancestry of John Mallory in the HoP. (The editor would have eliminated this as irrelevant anyway). He does cite Dugdale in both books, and fair enough: Dugdale was a good genealogist and most of us would trust him unless there is an obvious reason that he might have got something wrong. I may be wrong, but I can't find any explicit rejection by Field of the HoP version.

The awkward fact remains that Sir John Mallory and his wife Alice Revel settled Newbold Revel on themselves in 1391, as part of a division of lands between three Revel sisters and co-heirs. The Dugdale version would have had the Malorys settled in Newbold Revel two generations earlier, would make Sir John marry a second cousin (which would need a papal dispensation) and give no reason why Newbold Revel should pass to John Mallory or Sir Thomas Malory.

P.S. I find it odd why Field should see a contradiction between the alleged chivalric ideals of the "Morte d'Arthur" and the less savoury elements of Sir Thomas Malory's career. It's not as if the "Morte d'Arthur" doesn't contain lots of violence, and a bit of adultery. We tend to see the "Morte d'Arthur" through the glaze of pre-Raphaelite paintings and Alfred, Lord Tennyson. It's like our natural reactions to Chaucer's "Knight's Tale", where we take "He was a verray parfit gentil knight" at face value, when any contemporary would have reacted with horrified laughter at the recognition of a satire on a ruthless, unchivalric,and unpatriotic mercenary.

Mark

Terry Jackson (Switzer)
17/8/2016 at 2:45 PM
Hi Mark
I really think you, Maven and Justin need to discuss this and decide what action to take. I don't feel knowledgable enough to take action without universal (or close to) agreement.

Terry

Maven B. Helms
17/8/2016 at 2:40 PM
Way back when all this started on Geni, it had Philippa Chetwynd married to "unknown Mallory" (should be only one L, by the way) - *I* was the one who identified him as the father of Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel - AND added Sir Thomas, who was shockingly missing.

I used Field as a guideline but didn't take everything he said as gospel.

Maven B. Helms
17/8/2016 at 2:37 PM
Be careful, because P.C. Field also did a lot of research on the Malorys, and much more recently, and he DOES NOT agree with these statements (he has his own fudge factors, as a matter of fact).

If anybody has been fudging at the Malorys to force them onto the Leicester/"main" Mallory branch, that might account for some of the discrepancies. Their origins *are* obscure, and there are reasons now (Peter Mallory of New Haven, George Mallorie of Kirkham) to think they *may not* have belonged to the main line.

Terry Jackson (Switzer)
16/8/2016 at 10:18 PM
Because I am not really familiar with this area and Justin mentioned in another message that Maven has been working a lot in this area I am sharing this message from Mark in case there is contention to what he is suggesting or a better way of executing what he suggests.

Please let me know what you think.

You'll see that I did suggest we make this a discussion but I get the impression Mark would just like to get it done.

Terry

Woodman Mark Lowes Dickinson, OBE
16/8/2016 at 9:59 PM
Dear Terry,

Since Dugdale in the 17th century obviously did not have access to documents available in c. 1947 (VCH) or 1993 (History of Parliament), and spread his efforts more widely, we obviously need to trust the later sources, since they also give references. What I think needs to be done, therefore, is:
(i) make John the son of his "great-grandfather". Change the first names of his "great-grandfather" and "great-grandmother", now his parents;
(ii) change their dates. His new father died c.1405.
(iii) change the dates of his new (maternal) grandfather. If his three sons died v.p., and his estates were divided among his three daughters and co-heirs in 1391, he cannot reasonably have been supposed to have died earlier than 1386.

What one does with the other Mallorys is a question. Presumably they existed. Personally I'd be ruthless and ditch them, or else perhaps (and speculatively) put them in as putative younger sons (or brothers) of Sir John, with a note to show this is speculation.

I would have done it without a discussion, but happy for you to go ahead.

Mark

Terry Jackson (Switzer)
16/8/2016 at 2:52 PM
Hi Mark
Thanks for this, although I am not completely sure what you are asking! I am not very up on this area so shared your message with Justin, former curator of the profile and on his advice would recommend we post a discussion but tag Mavin who has apparently done a lot of work in this area.

What do you think of this?

If there is something I can do to help please ask.

Terry

Woodman Mark Lowes Dickinson, OBE
15/8/2016 at 6:44 PM
Dear Terry,

Locked profile.

Sorting out the mess above him is more difficult because it is not sourced. But I think I have cracked it. If you look at his "great-grandfather", Sir "Stephen", married to "Margaret" Revell, you will see that there is a marked similarity to the relationship given in the history of parliament bio to John's parents. If you look up the Victoria County History of Warwickshire, Vol 6 (1947), page 175, there is a footnote saying that Dugdale (end of the seventeenth century) had wrongly given "Sir John" as "Sir Stephen" and "Alice" as "Margaret". Dugdale (presumably) has interposed a couple of additional generations and someone has made up birth and death dates to fit.In fact Sir John [Sir "Stephen"] Mallory died around 1405, and his father-in-law was knight of the shire in 1351. I would guess that he must have died only quite shortly before Sir John and Alice entailed the estate in 1391.

Mark

John Mallory, MP

All things considered, we now have a nasty little mess on our hands - again. (By the way, History of Parliament Online is in error in only giving John Malory *one* daughter - he had three.)

So if Sir Stephen wasn't the person who married the Revell heiress, who *did* he marry, are his dates correct, and is he really an ancestor of the Newbold Revel line?

Terry Jackson (Switzer)
Today at 8:21 PM
I have moved this to discussions as Mark raised it and is not getting these responses. It's important that the dialogue includes him rather than me - I don't have enough knowledge in this area.

Sorry.Can you please copy and paste this to the discussion Maven?

Thanks
Terry

Maven B. Helms
Today at 8:04 PM
VIctoria County History of Warwickshire is in agreement with Sir Thomas' grandfather (Sir John) acquiring Newbold Revel (and apparently some other properties from the Revel family) by marriage with Alice, a co-heiress of the Revel line.

"In 1086 Geoffrey de Wirce held 8 hides in FENNY NEWBOLD, (fn. 59) which probably included Stretton-under-Fosse, Easenhall, and Pailton. In 1276 it is described as a member of Wappenbury, (fn. 60) and it was presumably part of the 5 knights' fees held of Roger de Mowbray by Thomas de Wappenbury in 1166. (fn. 61) A later Thomas held 1 fee in Newbold apparently of the king in chief, in 1235. (fn. 62) At his death his estates passed to his three sisters. (fn. 63) Agnes was mother of Richard de Beyvill, to whom she conveyed her rights in 1261; (fn. 64) Joan was mother either of Hugh Revel or, more probably, of his wife Alice; the descendants of the third sister, Margaret, seem to have taken the name of Wappenbury. The main manor of Fenny Newbold came to Hugh Revel, whose son William had a grant of free warren in 1299, (fn. 65) as did his son John in 1327. (fn. 66) In 1316 William had made over to John in tail, with contingent remainder to his brother Robert, his estate here, consisting of 16 messuages, 11 virgates of land, with woodland, meadow, pasture, and a mill in Newbold, Easenhall, Stretton and Pailton. (fn. 67) This Sir John was a man of some local prominence and knight of the shire in 1351. (fn. 68) His three sons leaving no issue, his estates passed to his three daughters and the manor of NEWBOLD REVEL was assigned to Alice, who married Sir John Malory of Winwick, Northants. (fn. 69) In 1391 Sir John Malory and Alice settled the manor on themselves in tail. (fn. 70) It descended to Sir Thomas Malory, whose widow Elizabeth died in 1480 holding it of Richard, Duke of York, in right of his wife Anne, representative of the Mowbrays. (fn. 71) It then passed to Sir Thomas's grandson Nicholas, aged 13. Nicholas Malory died on 22 January 1513, having previously settled the reversion of the manor, which he held of Sir Maurice Berkeley, on his elder daughter Dorothy and her husband Edward Cave. (fn. 72) It seems, however, to have been divided between the two daughters of Nicholas, as Margery, the younger, with her second husband John Cope in 1537 sold their share to Thomas Pope. (fn. 73) He sold it in the following year to Sir William Whorwood, Solicitor-General, (fn. 74) who also bought the share of Dorothy from her and her second husband George Ashby." http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol6/pp173-181

This does nothing to resolve the question of whotheheck were Sir John's parents....

Note: the mentioned "Richard, Duke of York" was the younger of the two "Princes in the Tower", and a minor - so who was acting on his behalf? And what happened to the overlordship when little Anne (a literal child bride) died and Richard...disappeared?

How did Sir Maurice Berkeley get control of it?

If John Malory MP of Newbold Revel is the son, and not grandson, of Sir John Mallory, then Nicholas and Sir Robert Mallory need to be reverted to the position of "much older brothers by unknown first wife".

However, it should be noted that History of Parliament Online is again in error in claiming that Sir Thomas (ye Author) participated in the French campaign of 1415 - as PJC Field is at pains to disentangle.

If he were *that* old, his 1450s escapades would be bizarrely improbable, and his authorship questionable.

The Morte d'Arthur, as it stands, was probably not written by a man less than about thirty-five years of age - it has a maturity of outlook that is seldom found in men younger than that. Men of any age may take up the craft of writing, but it is highly unusual for a man pushing seventy to do so for the first time. So the dating of the completion of the work (1469-1470) brackets the age of the author: not born after c. 1435, and probably not before c. 1410. (Field, and others, place him between 1415-1420, suggesting that he was "at last, a son!" after three girls.)

Tagging Sir Thomas: Sir Thomas Malory, of Newbold Revel

There are problems with my comment above, one of which is that Sir Robert Mallory (Prior of Hospitallers in England) *most certainly was* of the Newbold Revel line - he used the revised "Revell" arms (with the ermine field as differenced by, probably, Sir John) as his personal seal. That places him squarely in blood relationship to Sir John, probably as (second or younger) son, possibly (but less likely) as younger brother.

In the year 1366-67, Sir John (had he been knighted yet?) sold off the family manor of Draughton, and bought some lands in Litchborough from a Mallory cousin, which he settled on himself, wife Agnes, and son Nicholas. (Field dithers a lot about a "second wife" named "Alice", but seems unaware that "Agnes" and "Alice" were often used interchangeably at this period.)

So as of 1366-67 he had a son named Nicholas, and he still had heir(s) enough in 1391 to find it worth entailing Newbold Revel on himself and his wife (here called "Alice"). But Nicholas seems never to have inherited - presumably he predeceased his father. It is Field's contention that Nicholas first produced two sons: John Malory MP, and John's brother Simon (John certainly did have a brother Simon, with whom he was involved in several legal transactions).

There have been other cases of inheritance going from grandfather to grandson because the son who should have inherited died off prematurely (this includes Richard II of England, by the way), so it's not an unreasonable idea.

I think I'm going to un-tweak the lines, other than connecting Alice "Agnes" Revell to her father.

The dating on Sir John Revell is dicey also - there may possibly have been two of him. If he was man grown and landholder by 1327, he would have had to be something like eighty years old in 1383. Not impossible, but it does complicate things.

In answer to "How did sir Maurice de Berkley get control of it?"
This is stated in the profile of Anne Mowbray:
Upon her death, her heirs normally would have been her cousins William, Viscount Berkeley and John, Lord Howard, but by an act of Parliament in January 1483 the rights were given to her husband Richard, with reversion to his descendants, and, failing that, to the descendants of his father King Edward. This action may be a motivation for Lord Howard's support of the accession of Richard III. He was created Duke of Norfolk and given his half of the Mowbray estates after Richard's coronation.

Cited as from Darryl Lundy's Peerage page on Anne Mowbray

I have been following the Mallory Family info for a few weeks and I know a bit more that you have missed. " Reverting to Gerard (III) de Alspath, we find that he had— apparently by his first wife—a son Gerard (IV), who assisted Roger Mortimer to escape from the Tower, for which he received a pardon in 1330. (fn. 77) He left a daughter Annore who married Gilbert de Crosseby, armourer. They recovered from Thomas le Chaloner in 1339 and from John de Segrave and Margaret in 1350 a considerable estate in Alspath, which Gerard (III) had sold, but which was really entailed. (fn. 78) Gilbert and Annore left three daughters, whose representatives in 1424 were suing Sir John Cockayn, John Malory of Newbold, and John Chetwynd for these lands, (fn. 79) but with what result does not appear.

In 1463 the title to the 'manor called GERARD SEYNTLUCE in Alspath' was disputed between Richard Clapham, the nature of whose claim is not stated, and John Shirwode, who claimed that the manor was settled by Osbert de Clynton on Gerard (III) de Alspath and Maud in tail and had descended to him as son of William Shirwode, son of Alice (fn. 80) daughter of William son of Gerard and Maud.

Note: Gerard de Seintliz was married to another daughter of Ivo de alspath. So was brother by law to Walter le Bret.

Osbert de Clinton is a descendant of Henry de Clinton who also gave land to henry Mallore in Harbury, Warks.

This John Malory of Newbold must descend from Henry de Mallore as these lands of dispute relate to those dealt with Alspathe lands. At Harbury ,warks, Henry Mallore c. 1200 given land in Harbury by Henry de Clinton and by Walter le Bret who married Alice ,eldest daughter of Ivo de Alspath. Thier son "James le Bret" names his grandfather as Ivo de Alspath and gifts land to the priory for the sins Ivo committed during the civil war.

Look for Harbury, Warks, you will find Anketin and Henry and Gilbert Mallore all there.
you should also consider that a particualr Thorp /Torp /Trop family frequently shows up in Mallore charters wherever Mallores held land. There is a reason for this .. their Ancestor was Robert de Thorp who had brother's Geoffrey and Elias in a charter dated 1130-1140 Coventry and Lichfield. Robert is possibly Robert Mallore and yes I believe i can identify the father of Robert de Thorp. Have you identified an early Geoffrey and Elias for the Mallore Family ?

The line goes very fuzzy above Stephen/Peter/Roger Mal(l)ory, 2nd half 13th century (ie 1250-1300). We're not entirely sure of anything above that point, due to generations of insistence that the Newbold Malorys *absolutely must* be descended from the Leicestershire Mallorys. - but Peter of New Haven and George of Kilham, Yorks, scribble a big question mark over the line (they were *absolutely not* descended from the Leicestershire Mallorys).

It would be nice if we finally got some reports on the Bermuda Mallorys, as they might clarify the picture - or muddy it still further.