John Hotchkiss

Personal and Family Information

John was born about 1305 in Shropshire, England, the son of Roger Hotchkiss and Margery.

His wife was Alice, who he married in ABT 1340. The place has not been found. Their two known children were William “Cydrych” (c1342->1408) and Roger (c1345-?).

Pedigree Chart (3 generations)

Events

Multimedia

JohnSonOf Ro...

SidburyMap

Notes

Note 1

!StyleName:Hotchkiss, John of Hawkeswood [~1307 - ]

!Note: Apparent Hawkeswood line.

!Source: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_194_11.shtml

CP 25/1/194/11, number 5.

Link: Image of document at AALT http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/CP25%281%29/CP_25_1_194/IMG_0007.htm

County: Shropshire.

Place: York.

Date: One week from St. Michael, 2 Edward III [6 October 1328].

Parties: Hugh, son of Warin de Neenton, and Joan, his wife, querents, by William Milsent, put in the place of Joan, and Thomas, the parson of the church of Neenton', deforciant.

Property: 2 messuages, 1 virgate and 3 nooks of land and a fourth part of 1 messuage in Neenton'.

Action: Plea of covenant.

Agreement: Hugh has acknowledged the tenements to be the right of Thomas, as those which Thomas has of his gift.

For this: Thomas has granted to Hugh and Joan the tenements and has rendered them to them in the court, to hold to Hugh and Joan and the heirs of their bodies, of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders [1] to Alice, daughter of the same Hugh, and the heirs of her body, [2] to John, son of Philip le Taillour, and the male heirs of his body, [3] to Richard, son of Walter le Taillour, and the male heirs of his body and [4] >>> to John, son of Roger Hawys, and his heirs. <<<

Standardised forms of names. [These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.]

Persons: Warin de Neenton, Hugh de Neenton, Joan de Neenton, William Millicent, Thomas, Alice de Neenton, Philip le Taylor, John le Taylor, Walter le Taylor, Richard le Taylor, Roger Hawes, John Hawes

Places: Neenton

Note: from image although partially in Latin, this actually reads:

>>> John fil Rogi Hochkys & his heirs. <<<

It does not say Hawys. What was read as a W is actually CHK.

John would be the 4th choice if Hugh and Joan had no living heirs of their body. These are usually related in other ways, like brothers, cousins, etc.

This means that Roger is likely to be a brother to Hugh or Joan. Hugh could be their son, but this Hugh’s father was Warin de Neenton,rather than John. That would leave things like son-in-law or nephew. Looking at the dates, Warren might be, Hugh le Mon de Hokswod’s brother, so that he was naming his grandchildren and his great-nephew. This might have been everyone in that generation at the time.

Note: There was a princess descended from the Welsh Powys who had Hawys [How wise] for a first name. She was having children in 1355. It later became a surname, but not related to Hotchkiss.

!Source: Wiltshire Social & Institutional Records 1123-1968 https://www.findmypast.com/transcript?id=WILTS%2FSOCIAL%2F0006873&tab=this

First name John

Notes See page 354. Mentioned in a case.

Last name Hodgkyns

Source 1327-1377 covered by transcription printed by The Index Library, Chadwick-Healey Ltd.

Year 1327-77

Archive reference TNA

Year as transcribed 1327-1377

Record set Wiltshire Social & Institutional Records 1123-1968

Record type Inquisition Post Mortem

Category Directories & Social History

Place -

Subcategory Social History

County Wiltshire

Collections from England, Great Britain

Country England

!Source: Wiltshire Social & Institutional Records 1123-1968 https://www.findmypast.com/transcript?id=WILTS%2FSOCIAL%2F0006870&tab=this

First name John

Notes See page 383. Mentioned in a case.

Last name Hobekyns

Source 1327-1377 covered by transcription printed by The Index Library, Chadwick-Healey Ltd.

Year 1327-77

Archive reference TNA

Year as transcribed 1327-1377

Record set Wiltshire Social & Institutional Records 1123-1968

Record type Inquisition Post Mortem

Category Directories & Social History

Place -

Subcategory Social History

County Wiltshire

Collections from England, Great Britain

Country England

!Source: The National Archives' catalogue https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4949896

E - Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of the Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations

Division within E - Records of the Treasury of the Receipt

E 40 - Exchequer: Treasury of Receipt: Ancient Deeds, Series A

Catalogue description Demise by John and Alice [-] to John de [-] . and [-], for the term of their lives, of...

Reference: E 40/11137

Description:

Demise by John and Alice [-] to John de [-] . and [-], for the term of their lives, of [-] . which [-] and Alice Hogekyn held of them in bondage [-] . which Henry le Cartere used to pay them, 9 [-] ., [-] . s. rent to be received from John Houden, 7s[-] ., [-] . from Robert Houwet, 3s. 3d[-] . from Sir Alan Talebot, knight, 10s[-], [-] 9d. from John Ketel; to hold all the said lands, tenements and rents [-] by service of a rose at Midsummer [-] . brok, Friday, Michaelmas, [-] Edward [-]

Note: Seal of arms, ]a chevron] effaced

Date: 1272-1483

Held by: The National Archives, Kew

Legal status: Public Record[s]

Closure status: Open Document, Open Description

NOTES: Alice and John Hogekyn [Hotchkiss] are referred to several times in different roles, although much of the text related to those roles is apparently lost.

The document says:

John & Alice grant property, which Alice held in bondage [i.e., land tied to obligations and restrictions inherited from the grantor],

to themselves as a couple such that they can receive rents to be paid to them by multiple tenants for life.

The service or symbolic rent, harkening back to similar de Baskerville documents, is a rose at Midsummer. The portion of the date still legible is “Friday after Michaelmas in the reign of King Edward.” Which Edward is lost to the text. The possibilities end up being Edward II: 1307–1327 and Edward III: 1327–1377.

Typical restrictions referred to as “in bondage”:

1. must stay in family line.

2. cannot sublet.

3. cannot collect rents independently.

4. must perform services.

This is a huge upgrade in status.

So the story becomes:

1. Alice brought land into the marriage.

2. Land remained legally restricted.

3. Couple negotiates with overlord.

4. New charter converts it to a life estate.

5. They now act as landlords collecting rents.

Both husband and wife appear because the right originates in her and medieval law required: the wife must publicly consent to any change affecting her marriage land, otherwise she could later invalidate it.

Thus, she must be named — not decorative, legally mandatory. This is a clean legal translation of the deed.

A married couple holding restricted marriage land obtained a charter transforming it into a life tenancy allowing them to receive rents from subtenants.

The key chronological anchor is Sir Alan Talebot.

The only identifiable Alan Talbot active as a landholding knight within this span is Alan Talbot of Swannington, recorded:

holding a knight’s fee in 1311 [4 Edward II]

receiving royal privilege in 1312 [5 Edward II]

As a tenant-by-knight-service, he would reasonably appear in rent records from early adulthood into later life, placing the deed most plausibly in the early-to-mid 14th century [approximately 1311–1350].

Within the early 14th century timeframe the Hotchkiss surname exists only in the first generation after its emergence:

Roger Hotchkiss [b. ~1280]

John Hotchkiss [b. ~1312]

Hugh Hotchkiss [b. ~1314]

No other individuals using the surname are known in this period.

Since our John is born about 1312, that means we now narrow the timeframe for the deed to be after 1332.