Warren [Hill] de Neenton

Personal and Family Information

Warren was born about 1257 in Shropshire, England, the son of John Hawkins [Hotchkiss], de Northwod, de Hoxwode, de Flegh, de Hawkinge but his mother is unknown.

He died after 1328. The place is not known.

His wife was Joan, who he married in ABT 1277. The place has not been found. Their six known children were Hugh (c1278->1328), Thomas (c1280-?), Philip (c1284-?), Walter (c1286-?), Thomas (c1288->1346) and Henry (c1290-?).

Pedigree Chart (3 generations)

Events

Multimedia

JohnTalbot G...

Notes

Note 1

!Stylename: [Hill], Warren de Neenton [~1257->1328]

!Note: This set of entries may be stretching things, but it is my contention that these gifts of land are only given to close relatives.

!Note: On the Hill / Hull name.

This probably started with Hawkswood. The common scribal abbreviation would be Hauks or even Hask. If the scribe used a long “s” or “ſ”, which can look a lot like an “l” and minimized the “k” flourish, and as also happened a lot, barely wrote the “a”, these can end up looking exactly like Hill or Hull. At some point they likely looked at the written name and decided to use it. Of course the manor may have been on a slight hill as well.

!Note: How the Early Hawkins Inheritance Likely Worked

John and his son William held land from Hawkeswood, Shropshire to Hawkinge, Kent and in between.

They gained more land through service at Dover Castle.

Dover Castle assigned them Hawkinge, apparently so they could prepare it for the church.

Nash was part of Hawkinge but stayed with the family.

Their land included properties in Warwickshire and Hereford and Wiltshire and Kent and apparently Huntingdonshire.

A. Children of John. In 1303 John and William went to Shropshire to clear up their interest in Hawkeswood and other land in and near Shropshire.

1. William was John's main heir aside from the following.

2. John and William sold their portion of Hawkeswood and other Shropshire land to Hugh le Mon who was also John's son and the father of the Hotchkiss line.

3. Warren who was also John's son, and father of the Hill line, was likely setup with his feoffment of nearby Neenton. The later lifetime lease in 1328 only confirmed this arrangement. <<<<

4. Simon, John's younger son, received land in Huntingdonshire.

B. Children of William

1. Also on that 1303 trip, John, Williams 2nd son, born about 1272, was apparently put in charge of land in Warwickshire and nearby counties.

2. Thomas was sent into royal service while still young.

3. Sir Andrew, as the first born, would be the main heir.

4. Stephen stayed with Andrew and later received York land himself. He likely received other lands which he passed to his own sons.

C. Children of Andrew from his first wife. Andrew's first wife likely brought York land into the family.

1. Nicholas received the main York land.

2. Henry received land in Nottinghamshire and in Norfolk.

3. Andrew II also received York land.

4. Roger came of age after Joan married Andrew. Andrew held Devon land through Joan and shared part of it with Roger.

5. Alexander received small pieces of land in Kent.

D. Children of John from his second wife Joan, who most likely brought lans from Devon and Cornwall with her dowry.

The Nash Estate became the family home after Hawkinge Manor was given to the church.

After Andrew died in 1321 Joan held Nash for her life, and was thus called Joan of Nash.

She apparently had the ability to distribute portions of the remaining property to her children as they came of age.

1. When Joan died Nash and the remaining lands, mostly in Kent and nearby counties, passed to her first son John I of Nash.

2. Margery was given a small York estate at age 2 1/2. Stephen was her guardian and added more land to her share when he died.

4. When Joan died the rest of the Devon land went to Sir Richard, alias Hankeford. He likely also received more in knight's service.

!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.

The fine demonstrates that the Hochkys line was already integrated into the Neenton descent by 1328, almost certainly as collateral kin to Hugh son of Warin.

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.

Note: Roger Mortimer ]1287–1330] was the powerful Marcher lord who became the lover of Queen Isabella

and ruled England in her name after deposing Edward II. He was created Earl of March in 1328—the

same year Hugh de Neenton’s land settlement was made “to hold of the chief lords forever,” i.e.

under Mortimer’s lordship. Just two years later, Mortimer was overthrown by the young Edward III,

condemned without trial, and hanged at Tyburn. His vast estates were forfeited to the Crown.

Effect on Neenton: With Mortimer’s fall, the Neenton lands passed from his overlordship into the

direct control of the Crown, so the de Neenton family’s tenure continued but their “chief lord”

changed from Mortimer to the king.

Note: Warren was already “de Neenton” before the fine and had thus been living there for some time.

!Source: TRANSACTIONS OF THE SHROPSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY. ESTABLISHED 1877.

https://archive.org/stream/transactionsofsh36shro/transactionsofsh36shro_djvu.txt

Note: [This text was ocr and has been somewhat corrected where obvious].

Neenton] [Sidbury]

[NeenTON and Sidbury.37 — Neenton, a manor of half a hide, was held by

Ralph de Mortimer under Earl Roger, and a tenant, Roger, held under Ralph.

Its Saxon lord bad been a franklin, Azor. 1 here were tw o ox-teams in demesne,

ami two serfs, two villeins and two bordars had one team, and there was land

sufficient to employ two more. The annual value in Saxon times had been 17s .

and it was the same in lord. A/or seems to have also held Pmwarton and

other estates. The tithes of Xcxen'ton, or rather two thirds of them, were

granted about 1 1 ;S to the Abbey of Shrewsbury, or to its dependent cell at

Morviile. before the middle of tiie 13th century, Neenton and Sidbury had

devolved together to |oan, wife of Ralph d' Arraz, and the manors were held for

several generations by a succession of Ralphs.

Kyton iii. 55 una 00.

152 THE SHROPSHIRE LAY SUBSI V ROLL OF 1^27.

Sidbukv [Sidbury]. — This manor was south of some more important places, and

Middleton lay between. Possibly t lie Manor of Chetton gave it its name, or it

may have been the " bury " south of the castle of Aethelfleda, the Lady of

Merc a. In 10S6 it was held by Ralph de Mortimer under Larl Roger as one

hide. There were two ox-teams in demesne, and six serfs, six villeins, and three

bordars with two team.-, and there was land for two teams moie. Under V\ iga,

a franklin, its Saxon lord, it had been worth Jos. annutlly, afterwards it was

waste, but in 1086 was worth 18s. A Sir Hugh de Sudberi [Sidbury]] occurs in I2CO, who

probably took his name from Sidbury. In 1205 he accused Robert de ]iinos,

the then lord of Burwarton, of unjustly seizing his hounds, but withdrew the

cause. Before 124 ] Sidbury became the property of Ralph d' Arrnz, who in

1255 held it as a hide and half of land. He also held Neenton as half a hide.

Sir Ralph constantly occurs on matters of business connected with the county

till about 1279. In 129? it was probably a second Ralph who appears a juror,

and who was summoned to attend at London on July 7, 1297, with horse and

arms for foreign service. In 1 3 1 6 , Ralph us Arraz is given as hud of Sidbury,

but Neenton is not mentioned. In 1321, Adam d'Arraz was patron of the

Church ol Neenton, and he appears among the followers of Roger Mortimer that

year. He was living in 1345, when he and his wife Andrea occur. Robert

d'Arraz occurs in connection with Sidbury and Neenton in 1424, but the 1 urslow

family are said to have been seated at Sidbury at the close of the 14th century,

and they held the estate till the middle of the 17th century, when it passed by

marriage to the Cress wells.

The Manor of Neenton was held in 1453 de John Earl of Shrewsbury, and

later by one of the Hill family.

Hugh, son of W'arin, occurs in a deed of 1328 relating to lands at Neenton.

Gregory and William de Hokeswode took their name from a place near

Stottesden. In 1303, Hugh de Mou of Hokeswood had a grant of land at

Chorley bounded by the mill of Sidbury, and the lands of Baldwin and John de

Baskerville and others.

Adam de Arraz

Gregor' de

Hokeswode

Nich'o atte Grene

Will'o fil' Henr'

Regin* til' Alani

Henr' Wyllies

Will'o Mylsand

kob'to Hobalt

Joh'o Shake!

!Source: https://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesshro15eytogoog/antiquitiesshro15eytogoog_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesshro15eytogoog/antiquitiesshro15eytogoog_djvu.txt

[This is a rather poor OCR rading of the text. I have corrected where I can that which is obvious.]

NEENTON.

65

farther particulars under that Manor .^ I do not understand that

any share of Eudon Savage remained in his family.

Before 1269^ William de St. George seems to have been suc-

ceeded at Eudon by Adam de St. George, who attests a Charter of

the said Robert Corbet, as already stated.^ Adam de St. George

was not at this time a Knight, but appears as such, attesting a

grant to his Suzerain, Roger de Mortimer, who died in 1282.

Again, in 1296, Sir Adam de St. George attests a Charter at

Cleobury Mortimer, wherein Edmund Lord Mortimer was Grantee.^

To Adam succeeded John de St. Geo]^, who, in February 1305,

was found by Inquest to be holding a knight's fee in Eudon of the

Barony of Edmund de Mortimer, then lately deceased; nor is any

other Tenant in the Manor mentioned.^

Another change seems soon to have followed, for the Feodary of

1316, called the Nomina ViUarum, gives Henry de Eudon as sole

Lord of Eudon Jory.^

I imagine that the real name of this Henry was St. George, for

that £Eunily certainly held the Manor at a later period; and left

with it its distinctive name of Eudon George, as a substitute for

the older name of Eudon Savage.

NEENTON.

''The same Ralph holds

Newentone, and Roger of him. Azor held it and was a free man. Here is half a hide. In

demesne are two ox-teams, and there are ii Serfs, ii Villains,

and II Boors, with i team, and still there might be ii more teams

here« In time of King Edward the value was 17«. , and is so still.'' ^

Such is the Domesday notice of a place whose real Saxon name

NEENTON.

was probably NeoJ>ene-tun or New-town. Asor,

the Saxon owner^ was^ I suppose, the same whom we have noticed

as Lord of Burwarton, and of whom we shall again hear in places

more remote.

Of Roger, the Domesday Tenant of Neenton, I can say nothing

positively. Probably it was he or his immediate Successor who,

being entitled Lord of Neuton, is mentioned about 1138 as having

granted two-thirds of his Tithes to Shrewsbury Abbey, or to the

Church of St. Gregory at Morville.^

In 1180, we hear of one William who is put in charge for an

imbladement in Neenton, viz., 6d. for one acre of oats. He, I doubt

not, was Father of that Roger Fitz Wlliam of Newenton of whom

we hear as deceased in 1221 ; and apparently without issue, for

Stephen de Lodhal then sued Henry de Femlawe, the Tenant, for

three virgates in Newenton, which Stephen claimed in right of his

wife Margery, sister of the said Roger Fitz William. The Tenant not

appearing at Shrewsbury Assizes , the case was adjourned

to Warwick,^ where, on January 14, 1222, the Tenant appeared,

and called Oeoffirey de Ledwich to warranty.^ A further adjourn-

ment to Westminster, and the loss of a Record, prevent our tracing

the result.

My impression is that, within twenty years of this time, both

Neenton and Sidbury devolved to an heir female, viz., Joan or

Jane, wife of Ralph d^Arraz.

Hence, or from some other cause, we find that about 1240,

Ralph d^Arraz is entered as holding two knights^ fees in Sidbury

and Nenton under Mortimer of Wigmore.'

This Ralph d'Arraz, as I learn from a deed a littie later, was a

Knight. He transmitted both Neenton and Sidbury to his descend-

ants ; but I cannot distinctiy mark the early stages of this succes-

sion, inasmuch as the same Christian name, Ralph, was common

to several generations. To prove that Neenton came to the first

Ralph with his wife Joan, the following fine, levied 25th Nov.

1248, must suffice : —

Thereby John de BoUinton, Tenant, surrendered to said Ralph

NEENTON. 67

and Joan^ Plaintifis^ half a virgate in Newton^ whereof there had

been suit of mort d'ancestre. John surrendered it as the right of

Joan^ and moreover he gave up a virgate-and-half, being all the

land which he held under the Plaintiffs^ to hold to Ralph and Joan

and the heirs of Joan. For this he received 30 merks.^

On December 26, 1250, I find Ralph d'Araz and Joan his wife

giving the King one merk for a writ of " Pone usque Westminster/'®

This doubtless was a preliminary removal of the suit, which was on

trial soon after, wherein Joan claimed against the Lord of Glazeley

a considerable estate at Wadley. The particulars of the case, as

of another suit wherein Ralph d' Arraz was Defendant, have been

already given.* In 1254, Ralph d'Arraz was specially exempted

from a fine of 100 merks, which was assessable on the County in

general.^

In 1255, Neenton is entered as a Manor of half a hide , which Ralph d'Arraz held of Roger de

Mortimer '' for service of one knight, pertaining to Wygmore.'* It

owed suit to the Hundred of Stottesdon, but not to the County. It

paid the Sheriff 2d. for Stretward, and ^d, for Motfee}^

At the Salop Assizes, January 1256, Sir Ralph d'Arraz appears

as a Knight and Juror, also as Defendant in a cause already recited,

which concerned a purchase he had made in Neen Savage.^^

On June 16, 1259, he was one of the Knights who adjudicated

on an important Inquest as to the immunities of Wenlock Priory.

In the same year he was, as a Coroner of the County, amerced 20^.

" for many transgressions.^^ ^^

From this period till Sept. 1272, Ralph d'Arraz, Knight, often

occurs. as a witness; and at the Assizes then held, the same person,

or a second of the same name, appears as a Knight and Juror, and

as being, or having been, one of the King^s Coroners in Shropshire.

Again in 1274, Ralph d'Arraz was a Justice for gaol-delivery at

Shrewsbury. From this time for twenty years, the name is con-

stantly occurring in matters of general rather than local import.

But in Nov.* 1279, Joan de Neuton, Lady of Neuton, presented to

the Church of Neuton '^^ a circumstance which se£ms to indicate

58

NEENTON.

the previous death of the first Ralph d^Arraz^ and the survival of

his Widow^ the heiress of Neenton^ whose age at this period will

have been very great. In 1292^ Ralph d^Arraz sat on the Jury

which was empanelled to try many causes of Quo Waranto in this

County.^^ As holding £20. of lands and upwards in Shropshire^ he

was included in a general summons to attend at London on July 7^

1297^ prepared with horse and arms for foreign service.^*

An account of the Fees of Edmimd de Mortimer deceased^ which

was taken at Shrewsbury Feb. 10^ 1305^ records Ralph d'Arraz

as holding " Sondbury and Neuton ^^ by service of two Iftiights.^^

The Feodary of March 1316 omits all mention of Neenton, but^

as printed^ gives Ralph Barraz as Lord of Sutbury.^^

Li 1320-1^ Adam d^Araz presented to the Church of rNeenton;

and in 1321^ I have notice of Adam d^Arraz among the followers

of Roger Lord Mortimer of Wigmore.^* He, I presume, was the

same person who with Andrea his wife, in 1348, appears to have

made a settlement of the Manor of Sidbury.^

Of Under-tenants in this Manor I have no particulars, farther

than is implied above, or may be gathered from a Fine levied in

1328, whereto Hugh, son of Warine de Neenton, Johanna his wife,

and Thomas, Parson of the Church of Neinton, are parties.^^

THE CHURCH.

When, before the year 1138, the Lord of Neenton gave two

parts of his tithes to Shrewsbury Abbey, the third part was probably

reserved in anticipation of a future, rather than in consideration

for an existing parochial CUurch.

In 1291, the Church of Neuton, in Stottesden Deanery, was

valued at £5. 6«. 8 J., but this was exclusive of a portion of 16^.

which the Abbot of Shrewsbury retained therein,^^ which portion,

I doubt not, was in commutation of tithes surrendered at the time

of the Churches foundation.

In 1341, the gross value of Neenton Church is consistently laid

at £6. 28, Sd. The Parish was however taxed only 31^. to the

Ninth for' these reasons. —

It possessed no sheep or lambs ; a carucate of land lay untitled ;

Tenants had quitted under pressure of poverty ; and small tithes.

NEENTON.

59

offerings^ glebe land^ and other profits^ exclusiyely ecclesiastical^

which made up the Church Taxation^ could not be reckoned in

estimating the Ninth?^

In 1534, the Rectory of Nyenton

was valued at £5. 10^. %d., less 6^. M. for procurations and 6<f.

for Synodals. The Abbot of Shrewsbury's Pension would seem to

have been discontinued.^

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

William, Parson of this Church, occurs in a deed sans date, but

which passed before 1246.

Nicholas, *' Parson of the Church of Neenton," occurs in

November 1253, when he was prosecuting a suit before the Queen

and Council against Roger de Sulbiry , Clerk,

William Atterlegh, and Reginald Yywyneton, who had entered his

house vi et armis, insulted him, and wounded his folks.^

John d^Araz, Rector, has license to be absent one year for sake

of study ; the license dated Sept. 27, 1278.

Sir Richard de Tedestile, Priest, was admitted Nov. 12, 1279,

on presentation of Dame Joan de Neuton, Lady of Neuton. He

doubtless was that '^ Richard, Rector of Nenton,^^ who attests a

deed between 1283 and 1300, already quoted.^^

Ralph d^Arraz, Clerk, son of Sir Ralph d'Arraz, Knight, was

admitted Oct. 29, 1294, and the Benefice commended to Master

William de Stokky, Priest, '' according to the form of the Council

of Lyons.''

Thomas de Glesleye, Subdeacon, was admitted January 19,

1320-1, at presentation of Adam d'Arraz. He was already Incum-

bent of Sidbury, and is that Thomas, Parson of Neinton, who has

occurred above in 1 328.

Sir William lb Forcer, Priest, was admitted August 1, 1349,

at presentation of Ralph d'Arraz.

Thomas de Farnecot, Priest, was admitted December 9, 1361,

at presentation of " Ralph d'Araz, Lord of Neenton." ^

Hen. Ill, m. 15. The case was adjourned ;

and an Essoign Boll of Trinity Term,

1254, shows it still unsettled, but gives

the parties intelligibly, but differently, as

Nicholas de Nenton, Reginald de Nenton,

and William de Sudbury.

60 SIDBURY.

Anciently written Sudbury^ i.e. South -boiotigh^ was perhaps so

named with relation to Middleton^ or to the somewhat distant^ but

more important^ Manor of Chetton. It is described in Domesday

thus: —

The same Ralph holds {of the Earl) Sudborie.

Wiga held it and was a free man. Here

is I hide geldable. In demesne are ii ox-teams^ and

VI Serfs, VI Villains, and lu Boors, with ii teams; and ii other

teams more might be here. In time of King Edward, the Manor

was worth 20«. , and afterwards was waste. Now it is

worth 18*.^

The first whom I can name as likely to have been Mortimer's

Feoffee here, was Hugh de Sudberi, who appears in Easter Term,

1200, as one of four Knights selected to choose a Jury, which was

to try a cause of Grand Assize touching lands in Nordley Re^.'

This Sir Hugh de Sudburi appears as a Knight and Juror at the

County Assizes of October 1203 : when also he accused Robert de

Girros of unjustly seizing his hounds, but withdrew the cause, for

which he seems to have been amerced half a merk, viz., pro faho

clamore, as the Record has it.^

At the Forest Assizes, March, 1209, Hugh de Suthbery, appa-

rently a Regarder of Morf and Shirlot Forests, was ameirced two

merks.

One Roger de Subiri, who, from his position in a testing clause

already given,* was a person of importance, may have been Hugh's

successor. I find no other mention of him than this, which was of

date about 1227.

How Sidbury became before 1240 the property of Ralph d'Arraz,

and thenceforth associated with Neenton, I cannot conjecture.

The previous Lords of each Manor seem to have been distinct,

otherwise I should have concluded both to have been the inherit-

ance of Joan Lady of Neenton. Neither can I account for Sidbury

being, by half a hide, a larger Manor in the thirteenth Century than

SIDBURY.

61

ht Domesday ; but I notice a coorespondent diminuation of the

neighbouring Manor of Overton.,

In 1255^ Sidbury is said to contain a hide and

a half of land. Ralph d'Arraz was Lord thereof^ and held it im-

mediately of Roger de Mortimer for service of one knight^ pertain-

ing to Wygemore. The Manor did suit to the Hundred^ but not

to the County^ and paid the Sheriff 2d, for Stretward, and 4^ where indeed a subsequent interest of D'Arraz has been

already pointed out.^

Again^ in the same year ^ Ralph d'Arraz and William de

Lastres were defendants in another suit of novel disseizin in North-

wood, where Nichdas de Chorleye was Plaintiff.*

I have said under Neenton whatever else was to be said of this

Manor or its Lords.

It remains here to speak of —

THE CHURCH.

The earliest written notice of this Church belongs to the year

1291, when Pope Nichos Taxation values the Church of " Sudbury^'

in Stottesden Deanery, at £6. 6s. Sd.^^

The Parochial Taxation of 1341 quotes this assessment of the

Church, but rates the Parish only at 21s, to the Ninth, because

there were neither sheep nor lambs therein, because four carucates

of land lay imtilled, and 13 Tenants had quitted under stress of

poverty. Moreover, the Church Taxation involved the value of

62 SIDBUBY.

glebe-land, offerings, and small tithes, which had no reference to

the Ninth then levied.^^

In 1534, the Valor of this Rectory is put at iS4. \7s. Od., less 6s, Sd, for Pro-

curations, and Is, for Synodals.^'

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

Ralph de Elmebbuo, Deacon, admitted April 7, 1291 ; Patron,

Ralph d'Arraz, Lord of Sidbury.

John, son of Sir Adam de Almerugg, Knt., admitted Oct. 29,

1294, but commendam given to Sir William de Grene, Yicar of

Stottesden, '^ according to the form enjoined by the Constitution

of liyons/^

Thomas de Gleselete, Acolyte, admitted February 15, 1316.

Patron, Ralph d^Arraz. In 1321, he was presented to Neenton.

Sir Richard Judas, admitted Feb. 23, 1342.

Richard de Bradeford, admitted June 13, 1342.

Sir John Marttn, Priest, admitted April 10, 1354. Patron,

Andrew d^Arraz.

Hugh Are, Chaplain, admitted Oct. 29, 1369. Patron, Philip

de Wychton. " Sir Hugh, Rector of Sidbury," resigned in 1385,

exchanging preferments with —

Philip de Eenles, perpetual Chaplain of the Chantry of St.

Catherine in Hereford Cathedral, who was admitted here on May 3,

his Patron being John D'Aras, Lord of Sidbury. "Sir Philip de

Eenentles " died in 1392, when, on April 7,

Sir John de Addemor was admitted, the " Noble Man, John

Darras," being Patron. Sir John was still Rector in 1398.^*

END OF BASCHVRCR RUNDEED, DETACHED.

!Source: Listed buildings in Neenton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listed_buildings_in_Neenton

Listed buildings in Neenton - Neenton is a civil parish in Shropshire, England. It contains seven listed buildings that are recorded in the National Heritage List for England. Of these, one is at Grade II*, the middle of the three grades, and the others are at Grade II, the lowest grade. The parish contains the village of Neenton and the surrounding countryside, and the listed buildings consist of a church, houses, farmhouses, and a farm building. Buildings Name and location Photograph Date Notes Grade Bank Farm House 52.48994°N 2.53111°W — 16th century ]probable] The farmhouse was later extended. The earliest part is timber framed, the later parts are in brick and stone, and the roof is tiled. There are two storeys, a front of three bays, and a rendered wing on the left. Some windows are casements, and others are modern.[2] II Brook Cottage 52.48918°N 2.53300°W — Late 16th century ]probable] The house has since been extended. It is timber framed with brick infill and has a slate roof. There are two storeys, three bays, and a modern extension on the right. The windows are casements, and inside is much exposed timber framing.[3] II Churchyard Farmhouse 52.48600°N 2.53580°W Late 16th or early 17th century The farmhouse has since been altered. It is timber framed with brick, and some wattle and daub, infill, parts have been rebuilt in stone with some brick, parts are rendered, and the roof is tiled. There are two storey and cellars, it originally had an L-shaped plan consisting of a two-bay hall range and a three-bay cross-wing, and later the kitchen extension was added in the angle. There is one original mullioned window, the others being modern replacements. Inside the house are the remains of wall paintings.[4][5] II* Barn, Newhouse Farm 52.48968°N 2.53286°W — 17th century ]probable] A barn with a cowhouse and loft added in the 18th century. The older part is timber framed with weatherboarding on a stone plinth, the rebuilding and the extension are in limestone, and it has a tile roof. The barn has three bays, and the cowhouse and loft have two. External steps lead up to the upper doorway, and elsewhere are windows, and more doors, including a loading door.[6] II >>> Hall Farm House <<< 52.48799°N 2.53490°W — 18th century The farmhouse is in stone with a tile roof. It has two storeys, an L-shaped plan, and a front of four bays. The windows are casements.[7] II Wrickton Manor 52.47150°N 2.52618°W — Late 18th century A brick house that has a tile roof with coped gables. There are two storeys and an attic, and the house consists of two parallel ranges with a front of three bays. The doorway has a blind fanlight and a pediment and the windows are sashes.[8] II All Saints Church 52.48626°N 2.53572°W 1870–71 The church was designed by A. W. Blomfield in Gothic Revival style. It is built in red sandstone with a tile roof, and consists of a nave, a south porch, a lower chancel, and a north organ chamber. At the west end are buttresses and a gabled bellcote.[4][9]

!Source: Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/195/20 https://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_195_20.shtml

CP 25/1/195/20, number 32.

Link: Image of document at AALT

County: Shropshire.

Place: Westminster.

Date: One week from Holy Trinity, 13 Henry [IV] [5 June 1412].

Parties: John Talbot, lord of Fournyuall', querent, and Henry Seyntgeorge and Burgia, his wife, deforciants.

Property: The manors of Nienton' and Suddebury and the advowsons of the churches of Nienton' and Suddebury.

Action: Plea of covenant.

Agreement: Henry and Burgia have acknowledged the manors and advowsons to be the right of John, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Burgia to him and his heirs for ever.

Warranty: Warranty.

For this: John has given them 300 marks of silver.

Standardised forms of names.

Persons: John Talbot, lord of Furnivalle, Henry Saint George, Burgia Saint George

Places: Neenton, Sidbury

Image: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25%281%29/CP25_1_195_20/IMG_0189.htm

!Note: Burgia d’Arraz

– Wife of Henry Saint George.

– Alive and married in 1412, when she and her husband conveyed Neenton and Sidbury with their advowsons to John Talbot, Lord Furnival .

– Likely daughter and heiress of Robert d’Arraz , who occurs in connection with Neenton and Sidbury in 1424.

– Her marriage and conveyance mark the end of the d’Arraz line’s control of Neenton/Sidbury and their transfer into Saint George/Talbot hands.

!Note: John d’Arraz , landowner, soldier, politician, lord of Neenton. His death was recorded as suicide, though given his extreme age, likely later disputes over the manors around 1424, and Burgia Saint George’s claim, some suspicion of inheritance intrigue is possible.

!Note: Likely d’Arraz line:

Ralph d'Arraz abt 1220 - 1316, m. abt 1240

Andrew d'Arraz abt 1265 - aft 1354

Ralph d’Arraz II 1290 - 1361 [given incorrectly as 1461, when son John was 7] m. Joan le Forcer [daughter of Thomas le Forcer; her siblings were Burga, Elizabeth, and Roger]

Adam abt 1300-abt 1380, likely brother of Ralph II, holding properties for John until he came of age abt 1375. Adam d’Arraz accompanied Mortimer to Ireland in April 1317

John d'Arraz 1354–1408 m. abt. 1387 Joan Corbet, widow of Robert de Harley of Willey and daughter of Sir Robert Corbet of Moreton Corbet and Elizabeth le Strange of Blackmere.

Possible son Roger? Died by suspicious “suicide.”

Robert d’Arraz abt 1355 – aft 1424, occurs in connection with Sidbury and Neenton in 1424

Burgia [d’Arraz] St. George abt 1390–?, wife of Henry St. George; in 1412 she and her husband sold Neenton and Sidbury with their advowsons to John Talbot, Lord Furnival, for 300 marks, following John d’Arraz’s suspicious “suicide.” This marked the end of the d’Arraz tenure.

!Source: Neenton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neenton

The Register of Neenton

Neenton, in the Domesday Book is called Newentone and also states that Lord Rowton is the principal landowner, and lord of the manor and patron of the advowson. The first Register extends from 1558 to 1663 and consists of 22 parchment pages, size about 22 inches by 6 1/2 inches, in a parchment cover. The second register extends from 1664 to 1721, which consists of 11 leaves of parchment, 13 inches by 5 1/2 inches, in a parchment cover. The third Register is a small thick quarto volume, measuring about 8 inches by 6 inches, and more than one inch thick.[11]

,…,

Notable people

John Darras ]c.1355-1408], landowner, soldier, politician, was lord of Neenton manor. His death by suicide was reportedly here.

!Source: John Cornwall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cornwall_

Member of Parliament, 1407

Cornwall was knight of the shire for Shropshire again in 1407, returned alongside David Holbache, a man of Welsh origins, a close aide and lawyer to Arundel.[72]

Keeper of Morfe and Shirlett

Cornwall's friend, John Darras hanged himself at his own manor of Neenton in 1408, the first notice of the suicide being a commission from the king, issued on 30 March, to four Shropshire gentry to investigate possible concealment of the deceased's goods.[73] Darras had been keeper of Morfe and Shirlett, areas of Royal forest on either side of the Severn in Shropshire, a post his he held in recognition of his military service in the Welsh campaigns.[74] Soon after his suicide, on 2 April, the king conferred the office on Cornwall, described as a "king's knight."[75] The grant made clear the value of the appointment, "with all wages, fees, profits and commodities as John Darras, deceased, had while he lived." This was a rectification of previous confusion, as the keepership seems to have been promised to one Nicholas Gerard. Cornwall seems to have been a trusted man at this point, as on 5 April he and Burley were among those commissioned to investigate a murder in Shropshire.[76] Such judicial tasks continued, with Cornwall delivering writs and making arrests for the king.[77]

However, Cornwall proved himself overbearing and vexatious in office. In March 1410 the king ordered Arundel and his legal team, John Burley, David Holbache and Thomas Young, with the addition of Lord Furnival, one of Arundel's rivals, to investigate breaches of customary manorial and grazing rights at Worfield in Morff Forest,[78] made by Arundel's brother-in-law, William de Beauchamp, 1st Baron Bergavenny. Beauchamp's complaint did not cite Cornwall by name but mentioned only "certain evildoers." He alleged he had been hindered in his view of frankpledge and in holding his biannual court leet and that both he and his tenants were not able freely to enjoy their customary common pasture, both within and without the royal forest. It was reckless of Cornwall to challenge a man so powerful on his own account and so closely connected to Arundel. However, there had been similar complaints from William Ferrers, 5th Baron Ferrers of Groby. Clearly Cornwall was not deterred by aristocratic and royal concern, as Joan Beauchamp, Arundel's sister made an almost identical complain about Cornwall in late 1411 or early 1412, after she was widowed,[79] and the same team was once again commissioned to investigate. The following year the king received a complaint from John Marshall, Dean of his royal free chapel at Bridgnorth, this time naming Cornwall clearly as the culprit.[80] Marshall alleged that he and the king's tenants at Claverley were being forced to pay an annual fine to access their time-honoured common grazing for sheep, pigs and other animals. Even before sending in Arundel's lawyers to investigate, the king secured Cornwall's resignation and on 13 February 1413 installed Roger Willey, Darras's old business partner, as keeper of Morfe and Shirlett in his place.[81]

Murder charge and death

In April 1413 a group of Midlands gentry, led by William Lichfield, Cornwall's son-in-law, made mainprise of £100 for him at Westminster and he undertook, under a pain of £500, to do no harm to anyone. This was a prelude to a case tried at Court of King's Bench at Shrewsbury in Trinity term. Henry V was present in person,[82] along with William Hankford, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, in response to complaints about the prevalence of bad governance and murder in Shropshire made at the Fire and Faggot Parliament in Leicester, earlier that year.[68] The business was dominated by the aftermath of large-scale violence between the Arundel affinity and the followers of Lord Furnival in 1413. However, Cornwall was accused of procuring Henry Cornwall of Catsley, possibly his own illegitimate son,[1] to commit a murder and of harbouring him after the event.[83] Henry seems to have had a reputation for violence, as he was also accused of a serious assault on a cleric in 1412. The murder had taken place in August 1413 at Sir John Cornwall's own manorial court in Kinlet, emphasising the likelihood of his complicity.

Before the case against him could proceed further, Cornwall died on the Thursday after the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul,[22] which was 3 July 1414.[84]

Note: I think between the lines, Cornwall was told to investigate the death but was killed himself.

!Source: NEENTON REGISTER https://www.melocki.org.uk/salop/Neenton.html

In Edward the Confessor's time Azor a freeman held Neenton. At the Conquest it came to Earl Roger de Montgomery, under whom the manor was held by Roger de Mortemer. One Roger held it of the latter, and ultimately it passed [with Sidbury] to an heir female, Joan the wife of Ralph d'Arraz, in whose descendants it continued many years. It afterwards belonged to the Lysters, from whom it came to Lord Rowton.

!Source: Charter: Documents of Early England Data Set 00140284 https://www.monasterium.net/mom/DEEDS/00140284/charter

1257-06-10 284. Record of the plea heard before the king of the abbot of Beaulieu against Thomas Pillay, touching the dispute between Thomas and William le Tenterer over a messuage in Faringdon: Thomas claimed that the abbot had enfeoffed his uncle, Ralph de Arraz, to hold the messuage by the free service of 2d. a year and had given him seisin in the manor court and that Ralph had died thus seised; the abbot claimed that Ralph had been enfeoffed as a customary tenant. 10 June 1257 PLACITA CORAM DOMINO REGE IN OCTAV' SANCTE TRINIT' ANNO XLI. ]Court RecordFARINGDON, BERKSHIRE ]ENGLAND]] Givers: Beaulieu Abbey Receivers: Thomas Pillay.

Image: Results of hearing. [same address, not attqached]

Translation:

Therefore it is ordered to the sheriff that he cause [a jury] to come before the lord king three weeks after the feast of St. Michael…

Note:The “xvi et cetera” is just the standard clerk’s shorthand — it’s referencing the jury writ ]“venire facias”] and the fact that sixteen men ]or a set number] must be summoned “and others” ]et cetera] from outside the manor to avoid bias.

Date context: June 1257 — right about the same time Joan [Ralph’s wife] was tied to Neenton and Sidbury in Shropshire. So Ralph was clearly active and recognizable in national legal disputes.

Legal weight: This shows that Ralph d’Arraz wasn’t just a minor local name in Shropshire. He shows up in Berkshire court rolls, enough that his tenancy was debated in front of the king. That bolsters the idea that the d’Arraz family were tenants-in-chief or close to it, replacing Mortimer’s role in Neenton/Sidbury.

!Source: EYTON's ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. BY THE REV. R. W. EYTON, RECTOR OF RYTON.

Non omnia grandior setas Quae fugiannis habet. VOL. I.

https://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol01.html

Ralph d’Arraz and Joan ]fl. 1251–1274] – Named together in fines and concords [Glazeley, Wadeley] and as witnesses to Corbet charters at Chetton. Joan clearly held inheritance rights, making them central to the transfer of Neenton and Sidbury.

-

Eyton ]Morville section, c. 1138] tells us:

Salop Abbey ]Shrewsbury Abbey] was confirmed in its rights over Morville’s dependent chapels.

Among the tithes confirmed were two-thirds of the tithes of the lords of Henley, Neenton, and Upton.

That makes Neenton one of the earliest recorded tithe contributors, showing that by the 1130s it was already a recognized manor with obligations to the Abbey.

So — long before Ralph d’Arraz or Joan, Neenton was already tied into the Abbey’s network of income, a detail that later helps explain why the Abbey crops up in local disputes.

!Source: EYTON's ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE.

BY THE REV. R. W. EYTON, RECTOR OF RYTON. Non omnia grandior setas Quae fugiannis habet. VOL. IV.

https://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol04.html

Summary ]Newton & Northwood]:

By the 1250s–1270s, Neenton’s neighbors Newton and Northwood were held under the Baskervilles, with Ralph d’Arraz repeatedly appearing as a witness, juror, or litigant. He shows up in:

1256–62: Eyton records him as party to suits with Hugh de Baskerville over land and water rights in Northwood.

1266–70: Named in multiple dower and land disputes ]with Isabella de Northwood, Nicholas de Cherley, Hugh de Plessetis].

1290s–1310s: Still present as a knightly witness in charters alongside the Baskervilles, Glazeleys, and Hokeswodes.

Why it matters: Ralph wasn’t just lord of Neenton/Sidbury; he was embedded in the whole Baskerville orbit around Stottesden — Newton, Northwood, Chetton. His constant presence in witness lists and lawsuits shows he was one of the Marcher “fixers” of his day, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Mortimers, Burnells, and Glazeleys.

!Source: EYTON's ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. BY THE REV. R. W. EYTON, RECTOR OF RYTON Non omnia grandior setas Quae fugiannis habet. VOL. III.

https://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol03.html

THE CHURCH.

The earliest written notice of this Church belongs to the year 1291, when Pope Nicholas'

Taxation values the Church of "Sudbury" in Stottesden Deanery, at £5. 6s. 8d. [10]

The Parochial Taxation of 1341 quotes this assessment of the Church, but rates the Parish

only at 21s. to the Ninth, because there were neither sheep nor lambs therein, because four

carucates of land lay unfilled, and 13 Tenants had quitted under stress of poverty. Moreover,

the Church Taxation involved the value of

62 SIDBURY.

glebe-land, offerings, and small tithes, which had no reference to the Ninth then levied. [11]

In 1534, the Valor of this Rectory ]of which Richard Charnocke was then Incumbent] is put at

£4. 17s. 0d., less 6s. 8d. for Procurations, and 1s. for Synodals. [12]

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

RALPH DE ELMEBRUG, Deacon, admitted April 7, 1291; >>> Patron, Ralph d'Arraz, Lord of Sidbury <<<.

JOHN, son of Sir Adam de ALMERUGG, Knt., admitted Oct. 29, 1294, but commendam given to

Sir William de Grene, Vicar of Stottesden, "according to the form enjoined by the Constitution of Lyons".

THOMAS DE GLESELEYE, Acolyte, admitted February 15, 1316. >>> Patron, Ralph d'Arraz. <<< In 1321, he was

presented to Neenton.

SIR RICHARD JUDAS, admitted Feb. 23, 1342.

RICHARD DE BRADEFORD, admitted June 13, 1342.

SIR JOHN MARTYN, Priest, admitted April 10, 1354. >>> Patron, Andrew d'Arraz<<< .

HUGH ARE, Chaplain, admitted Oct. 29, 1369. Patron, Philip de Wychton. "Sir Hugh, Rector of Sidbury",

resigned in 1385, exchanging preferments with-

PHILIP DE KENLES, perpetual Chaplain of the Chantry of St. Catherine in Hereford Cathedral, who was admitted

here on May 3, >>> his Patron being John D'Aras, <<< Lord of Sidbury. "Sir Philip de Kenentles" died in 1392,

when, on April 7,

SIR JOHN DE ADDEMOR was admitted, the "Noble Man, >>> John Darras <<<", being Patron. Sir John was still Rector

in 1398. [13]

END OF BASCHURCH HUNDRED, DETACHED.

Notes: d’Arraz Patronships:

Ralph d'Arraz 1291- 1316

Andrew d'Arraz 1354 - 1362

John d'Arraz abt. 1355–1408

!Source: THE FAMILY OF TALBOT, LORDS TALBOT SND EARLS OF SHREWSBURY 1N THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, by A. J. POLARD, 1968

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/34502953/488666_vol1.pdf

…By a deed of 8 August 1452 he [John, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury] settled Ashfield, Loughton, Middlehope, Neenton and Overton on Lewis [Talbot, his younger son] and his heirs, with the remainder to Humphrey. Lewis died without issue before 1460 and so these lands passed to his brother, who already had… [other Shropshire manors]… But in 1496 Humphrey himself died without issue and all ten properties returned to the senior branch of the family.

Note: Neenton under the Talbots

– In 1412, Burgia [d’Arraz] St. George and her husband Henry St. George sold Neenton and Sidbury with their advowsons to John Talbot, Lord Furnival .

– By deed of 8 Aug. 1452, John Talbot settled Neenton on his younger son Lewis Talbot, with remainder to his brother Humphrey.

– Lewis died without issue before 1460; Humphrey likewise died childless in 1496.

– All the properties, including Neenton, reverted to the senior Talbot line, cementing the manor within the Shrewsbury inheritance.

!Source: EYTON's ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. BY THE REV. R. W. EYTON, RECTOR OF RYTON Non omnia grandior setas Quae fugiannis habet. VOL. III.

https://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol03.html

The Wigmore Barons [main line]

Ralph de Mortimer [abt 1065 - d. after 1104]

– The Domesday baron of Wigmore.

– Father of Hugh.

Hugh de Mortimer [abt 1115 - d. 1185]

– Son of Ralph. Fierce Marcher lord, founded Wigmore Abbey.

– Father of Roger.

Roger de Mortimer, 3rd Baron of Wigmore [abt 1150 - d. 1214]

– Son of Hugh. Holder of Chelmarsh and Sidbury.

– Granted Chelmarsh to his half-brother Hugh.

– Father of Ralph.

Ralph de Mortimer [abt 1190 - d. 1246]

– Son of Roger. Married Gladys Ddu, daughter of Llywelyn the Great.

– Still lord over Sidbury and Neenton fees.

– Father of Roger [1231–1282] and Hugh of Chelmarsh.

– Likely father of Joan, wife of Ralph d’Arraz [through whom Neenton and Sidbury passed to the d’Arraz family], as ownership changed hands before 1240, from Ralph de Mortimer to Ralph d’Arraz.

Roger de Mortimer [1231–1282], 5th Baron of Wigmore

– Son of Ralph and Gladys.

– Father of Edmund [1251–1304].

Edmund de Mortimer [1251–1304]

– Son of Roger [1231–1282].

– Sued by the Crown under Quo Warranto in 1292 for overreaching on Sidbury, Neenton, and others. Lost the case.

Roger Mortimer [1287–1330], 1st Earl of March

– Great-grandson of Ralph [d.1246].

– Famous for his affair with Queen Isabella; executed at Tyburn in 1330.

– His son Edmund restored the family fortunes, and the main line continued into the later Earls of March.

The Chelmarsh Branch [cadet line]

Hugh of Chelmarsh [abt 1192 - d. after 1227, killed in a Worcester tournament] uncle of Roger [1231-1282]

– Younger son of Roger [abt 1150 - d.1214], brother of Ralph [abt 1190–1246].

– Held Chelmarsh and Sidbury. Died without heirs, so Sidbury reverted to the Wigmore line from 1282 to 1292.

Descendants at Chelmarsh [13th–14th c.]

– Produced sheriffs, MPs, and knights.

– Kept Chelmarsh while the d’Arraz family held Neenton/Sidbury.

– Outlasted the scandal of cousin Roger [the Isabella affair].

– Male line ended in 1403 when Hugh of Chelmarsh fell at Shrewsbury, leaving only daughters.

!Source: EYTON's ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. BY THE REV. R. W. EYTON, RECTOR OF RYTON Non omnia grandior setas Quae fugiannis habet. VOL. III.

https://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol03.html

56 NEENTON.

,,,. My impression is that, within twenty years of this time, both Neenton and Sidbury devolved to an heir female, viz., Joan or Jane, wife of Ralph d'Arraz.

Hence, or from some other cause, we find that about 1240, Ralph d'Arraz is entered as holding two knights' fees in Sodburi and Nenton under Mortimer of Wigmore. [6]

This Ralph d'Arraz, as I learn from a deed a little later, was a Knight. He transmitted both Neenton and Sidbury to his descendants; but I cannot distinctly mark the early stages of this succession, inasmuch as the same Christian name, Ralph, was common to several generations. To prove that Neenton came to the first Ralph with his wife Joan, the following fine, levied 25th Nov. 1248, must suffice:-

Thereby John de Bollinton, Tenant, surrendered to said Ralph

NEENTON. 57

and Joan, Plaintiffs, half a virgate in Newton, whereof there had been suit of mort d'ancestre. John surrendered it as the right of Joan, and moreover he gave up a virgate-and-half, being all the land which he held under the Plaintiffs, to hold to Ralph and Joan and the heirs of Joan. For this he received 30 merks. [7]

On December 26, 1250, I find Ralph d'Araz and Joan his wife giving the King one merk for a writ of "Pone usque Westminster". [8] This doubtless was a preliminary removal of the suit, which was on trial soon after, wherein Joan claimed against the Lord of Glazeley a considerable estate at Wadley. The particulars of the case, as of another suit wherein Ralph d'Arraz was Defendant, have been already given. [9] In 1254, Ralph d'Arraz was specially exempted from a fine of 100 merks, which was assessable on the County in general. [10]

In 1255, Neynton is entered as a Manor of half a hide , which Ralph d'Arraz held of Roger de Mortimer "for service of one knight, pertaining to Wygmore". It owed suit to the Hundred of Stottesdon, but not to the County. It paid the Sheriff 2d. for Stretward, and 4d. for Motfee. [11]

At the Salop Assizes, January 1256, Sir Ralph d'Arraz appears as a Knight and Juror, also as Defendant in a cause already recited, which concerned a purchase he had made in Neen Savage. [12]

On June 16, 1259, he was one of the Knights who adjudicated on an important Inquest as to the immunities of Wenlock Priory. In the same year he was, as a Coroner of the County, amerced 20s. "for many transgressions". [13]

From this period till Sept. 1272, Ralph d'Arraz, Knight, often occurs as a witness; and at the Assizes then held, the same person, or a second of the same name, appears as a Knight and Juror, and as being, or having been, one of the King's Coroners in Shropshire.

Again in 1274, Ralph d'Arraz was a Justice for gaol-delivery at Shrewsbury. From this time for twenty years, the name is constantly occurring in matters of general rather than local import. But in Nov. 1279, Joan de Neuton, Lady of Neuton, presented to the Church of Neuton; [14] a circumstance which seems to indicate

58 NEENTON.

the previous death of the first Ralph d'Arras, and the survival of his Widow, the heiress of Neenton, whose age at this period will have been very great. In 1292, Ralph d'Arraz sat on the Jury which was empanelled to try many causes of Quo Waranto in this County. [15] As holding £20. of lands and upwards in Shropshire, he was included in a general summons to attend at London on July 7, 1297, prepared with horse and arms for foreign service. [16]

An account of the Fees of Edmund de Mortimer deceased, which was taken at Shrewsbury Feb. 10, 1305, records Ralph d'Arraz as holding "Sondbury and Neuton" by service of two knights. [17] The Feodary of March 1316 omits all mention of Neenton, but, as printed, gives Ralph Barraz as Lord of Sutbury. [18]

In 1320-1, Adam d'Araz presented to the Church of Neenton; and in 1321, I have notice of Adam d'Arraz among the followers of Roger Lord Mortimer of Wigmore. [19] He, I presume, was the same person who with Andrea his wife, in 1348, appears to have made a settlement of the Manor of Sidbury. [20]

OF UNDER-TENANTS in this Manor I have no particulars, further than is implied above, or may be gathered from a Fine levied in 1328, whereto Hugh, son of Warine de Neinton, Johanna his wife, and Thomas, Parson of the Church of Neinton, are parties. [21]

!Source: EYTON's ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. BY THE REV. R. W. EYTON, RECTOR OF RYTON Non omnia grandior setas Quae fugiannis habet. VOL. III.

https://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol03.html

56 NEENTON.

My impression is that, within twenty years of this time, both Neenton and Sidbury devolved to an heir female, viz., Joan or Jane, wife of Ralph d'Arraz.,,,.

Hence, or from some other cause, we find that about 1240, Ralph d'Arraz is entered as holding two knights' fees in Sodburi and Nenton under Mortimer of Wigmore. [6],,,.

This Ralph d'Arraz, as I learn from a deed a little later, was a Knight. >>> He transmitted both Neenton and Sidbury to his descendants; <<< but I cannot distinctly mark the early stages of this succession, in as much as the same Christian name, Ralph, was common to several generations. To prove that Neenton came to the first Ralph with his wife Joan, the following fine, levied 25th Nov. 1248, must suffice:-

Thereby John de Bollinton, Tenant, surrendered to said Ralph

NEENTON. 57

and Joan, Plaintiffs, half a virgate in Newton, whereof there had been suit of mort d'ancestre. John surrendered it as the right of Joan, and moreover he gave up a virgate-and-half, being all the land which he held under the Plaintiffs, to hold to Ralph and Joan and the heirs of Joan. For this he received 30 merks. [7]

On December 26, 1250, I find Ralph d'Araz and Joan his wife giving the King one merk for a writ of "Pone usque Westminster". [8] This doubtless was a preliminary removal of the suit, which was on trial soon after, wherein Joan claimed against the Lord of Glazeley a considerable estate at Wadley. The particulars of the case, as of another suit wherein Ralph d'Arraz was Defendant, have been already given. [9] In 1254, Ralph d'Arraz was specially exempted from a fine of 100 merks, which was assessable on the County in general. [10]

NEENTON. 59

offerings, glebe land, and other profits, exclusively ecclesiastical, which made up the Church Taxation, could not be reckoned in estimating the Ninth. [23]

In 1534, the Rectory of Nyenton was valued at £5. 10s. 8d., less 6s. 8d. for procurations and 6d. for Synodals. The Abbot of Shrewsbury's Pension would seem to have been discontinued. [24]

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

WILLIAM, Parson of this Church, occurs in a deed sans date, but which passed before 1246. [25]

NICHOLAS, "Parson of the Church of Nekyncton", occurs in November 1253, when he was prosecuting a suit before the Queen and Council against Roger de Sulbiry , Clerk, William Atterlegh, and Reginald Yywyneton, who had entered his house vi et armis, insulted him, and wounded his folks. [26]

JOHN D'ARAZ, Rector, has license to be absent one year for sake of study; the license dated Sept. 27, 1278.

SIR RICHARD DE TEDESTILE, Priest, was admitted Nov. 12, 1279, on presentation of Dame Joan de Neuton, Lady of Neuton. He doubtless was that "Richard, Rector of Nenton", who attests a deed between 1288 and 1300, already quoted. [27]

RALPH D'ARRAZ, Clerk, son of Sir Ralph d'Arraz, Knight, was admitted Oct. 29, 1294, and the Benefice commended to Master William de Stokky, Priest, "according to the form of the Council of Lyons".

THOMAS DE GLESLEYE, Subdeacon, was admitted January 19, 1320-1, at presentation of Adam d'Arraz. He was already Incumbent of Sidbury, and is that Thomas, Parson of Neinton, who has occurred above in 1328.

SIR WILLIAM LE FORCER, Priest, was admitted August 1, 1349, at presentation of Ralph d'Arraz.

THOMAS DE FARNECOT, Priest, was admitted December 9, 1361, at presentation of "Ralph d'Araz, Lord of Neenton". [28]

!Source: HISTORY, GAZETTEER, AND DIRECTORY OF SHROPSHIRE, BY SAMUEL BAGSHAW, 1851 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/62250/62250-0.txt

THE HUNDRED OF STOTTESDEN.

The hundred of Stottesden is bounded on the north by the Wenlock

franchise, on the south by the hundred of Overs and the county of

Worcestershire, on the east by the liberty of Bridgnorth and the county

of Staffordshire, and on the west by the Wenlock franchise and the

hundreds of Munslow and Overs. Farlow is a detached part of the hundred

of Herefordshire, bounded by this hundred and an isolated part of Overs.

The minerals found in this hundred are coal, ironstone, and limestone.

On the western verge of the hundred is a range of hills, some of which

rise to a considerable altitude; there are also considerable inequalities

of surface, and bold swells in most parts of the hundred. The soil is

various; the land which lies over the limestone is mixed with a

calcareous gravel, and mostly fertile; the soil over the freestone

produces good turnips and barley. The population in 1821, exclusive of

the borough of Bridgnorth, was 12,160; and in 1841 there were 12,282

inhabitants, and 2,426 inhabited houses. At the latter period the

liberty of the borough of Bridgnorth contained 1,231 inhabited houses,

and a population of 6,198 souls. This hundred is divided into the

Chelmarsh and Cleobury divisions.

The Chelmarsh division contains the parishes of Acton Round, Alveley,

Astley Abbotts, Billingley, Chelmarsh, Chetton, Cleobury North, Deuxhill,

Glazeley, Higley, Middleton Scriven, Morville, Neenton, Oldbury,

Quatford, Quatt, Rudge Sheinton, Sidbury, Tasley, and Upton Cressett.

The Cleobury division contains Aston Botterell, Burwarton, Cainham,

Cleobury, Mortimer, Coreley, Dowles, Hope Baggot, Hopton Wafers, Kinlet,

Neen Savage, Stottesden, Wheathill and Farlow chapelry…,

NEENTON

is a parish and township in the Chelmarsh division of the Stottesden

hundred, situated on the western bank of the River Rea, near the foot of

the Brown Clee Hill, and six and a half miles south-west from Bridgnorth.

The parish contains 1,000 acres of land, and is intersected by the Ludlow

and Bridgnorth turnpike road. The land has mostly a strong soil,

tolerably productive. In 1801 there were 120 inhabitants; 1831, 130; and

in 1841, 29 houses and a population of 144 souls. The principal

landowners are Henry Lyster, Esq.; John Minton, Esq.; Rev. J. F. Benwell,

and Mr. T. Edwards; besides whom there are several smaller freeholders.

THE CHURCH is an inconsiderable structure of brick, consisting of nave

and chancel, with a turret in which are two bells. The living is a

vicarage, rated in the king’s book at £5. 3s. 6½d., now returned at £196:

patron and incumbent, Rev. John Frederick Benwell. The Vicarage is a

neat brick residence, situated a short distance from the church.

DIRECTORY.—James Amiss, wheelwright; Rev. John Frederick Benwell, The

Vicarage; William Childs, farmer, The Park; Richard Cleeton, wheelwright

and beerhouse keeper; Richard Dodd, farmer, The Hay; George Edwards,

butcher; George Edwards, farmer; Edward Hall, farmer, The Hall; John

Hodnett, tailor and vict., New Inn; William Massey, farmer, The Bank;

John Medlicott, farmer.

!Source: The Career of Roger Mortimer, first earl of March [c.1287-1330] By Paul Richard Dryburgh

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/34486135/DX220713.pdf

Such familial loyalty was, therefore, by no means isolated to this case. Indeed, one of the most

important constituent elements involved in the development of Roger Mortimer's clientele was the

exploitation of exactly those associations built up across generations and within families. Ralph and

Adam Darras, successive lords of Sudbury and Neenton in the liberty of Cleobtuy 37, as well as

Grimbald and Aymer Pauncefoot, owners of Bentley Pauncefoot and other estates in

Herefordshire and Cambridgeshire, appear as witnesses to Roger's charters. 39 Adam Darras

accompanied Mortimer to Ireland in April 1317 4°, whilst he and Aymer Pauncefoot were pardoned as

Mortimer adherents in August-September 1321. 41 Far more prominent were members of the Hakelut

family, several of whose members held land on the marches.42 Both Peter and Edmund joined

Mortimer's mission to Ireland in the spring of 131743, Edmund even becoming Irish escheator in April

1318.44 Both men were pardoned for the pursuit of the Despensers in 1321 too. 45 Military competence

and personal loyalty were two virtues a family could cultivate. Administration was another. Hugh

Hakelut, a five-time witness, is named as Mortimer's steward of Maelienydd in June 1314.4

!Note: It is likely that Adam was Ralph’s brother, placed in charge until Ralph’s son John was of age.

!Source: Shropshire Transactions Vol. 44 part 1 https://shropshirearchaeologyhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/shropshire-transactions-vol.-44-part-1.pdf

SHROPSHIRE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

BY HENRY I, WEYMAN, F.S.A.

.

1393 Jany. Sir WIlLIaM HUGgErORD and JoHN DARRAS .

82. JOHN DARRAS .

John Darras who was Sheriff of Shropshire in I402 was a member of a family long connected with Sidbury and https://shropshirearchaeologyhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/shropshire-transactions-vol.-44-part-1.pdf. No arms are assigned to this member in Blakeway's Sheriffs but in the Armorial Bearings of Shropshire Families by Mr.

George Morris* it is stated that John Darras bore in I395 "argent on a cross sable 5 mullets or." Mr. Darras doubtless owned Willey in right of his wife who was Johanna daughter of Sir Robert Corbet and widow of Robert de Harley of Willey. John Darras presented to the Rectory of Sidbury in 1385 and again in 1392, being described on the first

occasion as "

"Lord of Sidbury " and on the second as " Nobilis

vir John Darras**" He also presented to Neenton in I399.

This member was probably the son of Andrew Darras who was Patron in 1354. John Darras seems to have committed suicide by hanging himself in or before I408 as in that year a Commission was issued to enquire whether " very

"many goods which belonged to John Darras who lately

" feloniously hung himself and which belonged to the crown by

" forfeiture " had not been concealed.†

Sh. Ar. Tr. VI, 402.

* Sh. Ar. Tr. 4 Ser., Ill. 122.

† Rotulus Viagi Henry IV.

Note: Earlier historians identified John as son of Andrew Darras, recorded patron in 1354. Later evidence shows John’s father was Ralph II d’Arraz , who married Joan le Forcer; Andrew was Ralph’s father.

!Source: Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England [PASE]

https://pase.ac.uk/domesday/person/40690/ Subtenant in 1086

Shire, Phil. ref., Vill, DB Spelling, Holder 1066, Lord 1066, Tenant-in-Chief 1086, 1086 Subtenant, Fiscal Value, 1066 Value, 1086 Value, Conf., Show on Map

Shropshire, 4 11 8, Neenton, -, Azur 'of Shropshire’, -, Roger earl, Ralph de Mortimer, 0.50, 0.85, 0.85, -, Map

Note 2

!Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/John_Darras

John Darras

English soldier, politician and landowner From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Darras was an English soldier, politician and landowner, who fought in the Hundred Years' War and against the Glyndŵr Rising. A client of the FitzAlan Earls of Arundel, he served them in war and peace, helping consolidate their domination of his native county of Shropshire. He represented Shropshire twice in the House of Commons of England. He died by his own hand.

Relief map of Shropshire and surrounding counties to show estates held or claimed by John Darras and his wife, Joan Corbet . Estates disputed with the Mawddwys are shown in pink.

Quick facts Sir, Member of the English Parliament for Shropshire ...

Background and early life

Landowner

Holy Trinity church at Sidbury, Shropshire. The nave was already old by the time of Darras, as it was built in the 12th century, although the whole building underwent restoration in 1881.[12]

St Leonard's church at Ribbesford. The manor was the focus of early attempts by Darras to enlarge his holdings. There has been a small church on the site since about 1100. It was enlarged from the early 15th century, with modifications including the present nave.[13][14]

The inquisition following his father's death, taken at Bridgnorth on 19 March 1362, shows that the main estates Darras inherited from his father were the manors of Sidbury and Neenton, which were held of Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March.[7] in return for providing a hobelar for Wigmore Castle when there was war in the Welsh Marches. There were also a few other small, scattered holdings, notably a third of the manor of Linley, held of the Prior of Wenlock.[4] This was a small patrimony and Darras fought legal battles, sometimes backed by force, at several points in his life to extend his holdings, although with limited success.

In 1379,[15] and again in 1383,[16] Darras and his aunts Burga and Elizabeth contested ownership of the manors of Ribbesford and Rock, Worcestershire, which had been held by Sir Henry Ribbesford, also under the Mortimers of Wigmore.[2] They were opposed by John de Resunden, the husband of their distant relative, Iseult. They won their suit but for reasons unknown the estates were both[17] soon in the hands of Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick, one of the Lords Appellant, who was temporarily stripped of all his lands during Richard II's counter-coup of 1397.

A medieval monk, depicted on a gravestone at Rock. The church was monastic property.

Patronage of the churches on most of these estates, potentially a lucrative right, went to Darras. The rectory of Sidbury was in his gift and he is known to have made presentations to it. On 16 June 1386 Darras authorised an exchange of clergy, by which the local priest went to St Katherine's chapel in Hereford Cathedral and the former cathedral chaplain, Philip Kentles, became rector of Sidbury.[18] St Katherine's chapel served the Bishop's Palace,[19] so this exchange must have been of importance to John Gilbert, presumably earning Darras a modicum of episcopal favour. In April 1392 Darras appointed a successor after Philip's death.[20] At Neenton too Darras held and used the advowson, presenting Roger Murimore as incumbent of the church in November 1399.[21] Linley's church was a chapel of Holy Trinity Church in Much Wenlock,[22] which was in the hands of Wenlock Priory, the feudal overlord, leaving Darras with no control. However, while he had effective control of Ribbesford, the advowson must have been his to exercise, as it went with the manor.[23] In the case of Rock, however, the principal manor in the parish was not Rock itself but Alton,[17] and the advowson of the church went with it: although there had been challenges from the Ribbesford family, the advowson was held by the Abbey of Saint-Evroul in Normandy during the 14th century.[24]

As a substantial, if not grand, landowner, Darras was evidently enjoyed a degree of trust among the local landed gentry. He is known to have acted for others in land transactions, including Malcolm de la Mare,[1] Thomas Whitton and John Meisy.[25] His business associates tend to recur as personal and family allies throughout his known career.

More information Family tree to illustrate the Ribbesford property disputes ...

Marriage and family

Remains of the medieval keep at Moreton Corbet Castle, with the curtain wall curving around to the gatehouse, restored in the mid-16th century on the right. On the right are remains of the Elizabethan house. The Corbets of Moreton Corbet were themselves powerful allies but also, like Darras, found further security in the Arundel affinity.

Darras married Joan Corbet. The marriage took place before 1390. However, as Darras is not recorded as active on Joan's behalf in the Corbet property disputes of 1385, it must have been in the second half of the 1380s. Darras formally entered the Arundel affinity in 1387, which may coincide approximately with his marriage.

Joan Corbet was the daughter of Sir Robert Corbet of Moreton Corbet,[27] and Elizabeth Le Strange, daughter of Fulk, 1st Baron Strange of Blackmere.[28][29] The Corbets of Moreton Corbet had taken over as the senior line of Corbets in the region, as the Corbets at Caus Castle had petered out in 1347.[30] The Le Strange family were another important dynasty of Marcher Lords with many branches. The Blackmere barony was of fairly recent foundation. Elizabeth's father was called to parliament by Edward II and served him as Seneschal of Gascony,[31] the head of the administration of the remaining Plantagenet possessions in France. The title could be passed through both male and female, and the tortuous line of descent of the Le Stranges may have been one of the factors predisposing the Corbets towards reinforcing male primogeniture through dubious property transactions. From 1383 it passed via female descent and marriage to the Talbot family,[30] and was one of the many titles collected together by John Talbot, Baron Furnivall and later Earl of Shrewsbury.

Joan was the widow of Robert de Harley of Willey and had a daughter and heiress, Alice, who married Sir Hamo Peshall or Hamon Peshale. Joan brought a range of properties, acquired from her own family and her first husband, which must have greatly increased Darras's comfort and security while she was alive. She had a considerable amount of jointure property from her first marriage – in Shropshire at Harley, Gretton, Willey and Kenley, and in Worcestershire part of a manor at Hampton Lovett,[1] known as Over Hall.[32] Some of these properties passed to Roger Willey, a relative of Sir Robert Harley, in 1400,[1] presumably on Joan's death: Willey was a business associate of Darras.[33] The Hampton Lovett property, however, was destined for Alice, Joan and Robert Harley's daughter, who married Sir Hamo Peshall.[32]

Joan was almost certainly some years older than Darras. It is not clear whether they had children, although Darras may have left a son named Roger.[1] Joan seems to have died around the turn of the century, with her properties largely leaving his control, prompting Darras to an active and fairly successful search for further sources of income in the years following.

Joan's family, the Corbets of Moreton Corbet Castle were one of the rising gentry families, steadily increasing their estates and their influence.[30] However, they were not of the first rank, and both they and Darras were increasingly to seek advancement through the affinity of the FitzAlans, the Earls of Arundel, who were supreme both economically and politically in Shropshire as well being among the greatest magnates in England.

The Corbet property disputes

Richard II, who intervened in and profited from the Corbet property disputes.

Joan Corbet's brother, Sir Roger, was preoccupied with family disputes over property, many of which involved Joan. Darras inevitably took his wife's side, sometimes bringing him into disrepute with the king and his government.

Roger Corbet had two older brothers, Thomas and John, as well as a younger brother, John, and sisters, including Joan, who was possibly the eldest of the siblings.[27] Roger and Joan's parents, Robert and Elizabeth Corbet, had been concerned to keep the family estates together in a time of short life-spans and tortuous succession that affected many landowning families. As the eldest son, Thomas, predeceased his parents, the initial target had been to prevent the estates going to Elizabeth, his daughter, who had married Sir John Ipstones, a quarrelsome and sometimes violent man who served twice as MP for Staffordshire.[34] In the 1360s they initiated a complex series of property transactions, using the device of fine of lands, and intended to keep the bulk of the Corbet lands effectively in tail, favouring in particular Fulk and Roger.[35] The provisions of these fines were contested by Ipstones and Elizabeth from the outset.[34] However, after the death of Fulk in 1382, much worse followed. Some of the provisions were revealed as mutually-contradictory. Fulk's daughter and sole heiress, also Elizabeth, contested effective ownership of property that had been assigned for life, under a fine of 1363,[35][36] to Joan and her first husband, Sir Robert Harley of Willey,[37] who died around 1370,[1] with the remainder to Fulk and the heirs of his body. These lands at Yockleton, Shelve, Wentnor and Caus Forest, were all on the western side of Shropshire, close to the Welsh border and Joan and Harley leased them for the remainder of their lives to Sir Fulk for a rent of £60 a year.[38] However, in 1367, they levied a fine to ensure estates passed to Roger in the event of Fulk's death.[39] As Joan was still alive when Sir Fulk died in 1382, his daughter, Elizabeth, had a reasonable expectation of continuing to lease the lands under the fine of 1363. Joan, however, intended the lands to go immediately to her younger brother, Roger, according to the fine of 1367. She had reiterated the position after Harley's death in a new fine in 1376,[40] and this position was assumed by the inquisition post mortem following Sir Fulk's death.[41] There was a series of legal claims and counter-claims, with the Crown intervening to try to secure an escheat while the young Elizabeth was still a minor. However, Roger emerged victorious in 1385.[28]

When Elizabeth, Fulk's daughter attained the age of majority in 1390, the entire issue was re-opened. Elizabeth was now married to John Mawddwy or de la Pole, lord of Dinas Mawddwy, who vigorously pursued his wife's claim. Darras, now married to Joan, was just as vigorous in pursuing the interests of Joan and her brother, Roger. The king, Richard II was informed that "strife and debate" was threatening the peace in Shropshire. It seems that violence had broken out at the beginning of June.[28] It is unlikely that Darras, already an experienced fighting man, was uninvolved, as on 7 June 1390 he was the first of those ordered to appear before King Richard II and his Council in Chancery on 23 June, on pain of forfeiting 200 marks.[42] Writs in the same terms were issued to seven others, including Sir Roger Corbet and Malcolm de la Mare, Darras's business associate and recently MP for Herefordshire.[43] A further writ to the Sheriff ordered him to compel their attendance.[44] However, the arrangements for the court appearance were changed and on 22 June writs were issued, this time naming Joan as well as John Darras, ordering the quarrelling gentry to appear instead at the next Shrewsbury assizes before Sir Robert Charleton.[45] Charleton and Sir John Hill were authorised to take security for good behaviour from them and to familiarise themselves in advance with the complexities of the case.[46] The delay was accompanied by an order for Edward Acton, the Shropshire escheator personally to take the disputed estates into the king's hands, pending a resolution.[47] After further delays, which were very profitable to king who was pocketing the proceeds, an agreement was reached and on 25 April 1391 the escheator was ordered to cease meddling with the estates.[48] It seems they were assigned to the Mawddwys, and later to their daughter Elizabeth, who married Hugh Burgh, a future MP for Shropshire and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland. However, it is likely that Joan and Darras received the consolation of regular rent from them.[1] While losing the case was a blow to prestige, leasing was actually the preferred option among Shropshire landowners like the Corbets, who had been renting out demesne lands to secure a regular income in uncertain times.[49] It is also possible that there was a large sum for Joan and John Darras at the outset of the tenancy: the Recognizances preserved in the county archives show that in September 1391 John de Mowche undertook to pay John Darras 1000 marks at Easter 1392.[50]

More information Family tree to illustrate the Corbet property disputes ...

Political and military career

Death and aftermath

Darras hanged himself at Neenton, probably during March 1408. The evidence for the date is a commission from the king, issued on 30 March, to four Shropshire gentry to investigate possible concealment of the deceased's goods,[71] which as a suicide, escheated to the Crown. A formal order for the escheator to take his estates into the hands of the king was issued on 24 May.[72] His holdings would normally have reverted to their feudal overlords but the young Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March was the centre of plots against Henry IV and much of his property was temporarily or permanently forfeit.

Considerable confusion and disputes seem to have followed Darras's unusual and untimely death. At Sidbury the advowson was contested. On 6 July, as a new rector was needed at Sidbury, Henry St George acted as patron, presenting William Walkebache. On 11 August, however, John Talbot, 6th Baron Furnivall, also acting as patron and described as lord of Sidbury, presented Walter Lawrence.[73] Talbot, the young son of Richard, Lord Talbot, and Ankaret le Strange,[54] was to emerge as Arundel's main political rival in the county, prepared to fight force with force.[74] On 23 August Bishop Robert Mascall was issued with a writ prohibiting him from admitting anyone to Sidbury until the issue was decided.[75] The following April the bishop himself presented William Whitehead.[76] By August 1409 Whitehead had resigned and Talbot presented his nominee for a second time,[77] apparently triumphant in the struggle to take over Darras's lands and rights. The same pattern is shown at Linley, which probably fell into his hands, as his widow, Margaret Beauchamp, Countess of Shrewsbury, held half the manor as a jointure property after his death.[4]

Similar confusions arose over Darras's keepership of Morfe and Shirlet. Soon after Darras's death the king conferred the office on Sir John Cornwall, removing it from Nicholas Gerard, on the grounds that the office had not been vacant when Gerard acquired it,[78] although the story behind the recital of facts is mysterious. There were several Shrewsbury business men named Nicholas Gerard in the 14th century[79] and this seems to be the one served as MP in 1399[80] and bailiff in 1412.[81] Cornwall soon proved himself tyrannical in office. By March 1410 the king was ordering Arundel and his legal team, John Burley, David Holbache and Thomas Young,[82] together with Lord Furnival, to investigate breaches of customary manorial and grazing rights at Worfield in Morff Forest,[83] made by Arundel's brother-in-law, William de Beauchamp, 1st Baron Bergavenny. Cornwall was clearly quite reckless in his depredations, as there had been similar complaints from William Ferrers, 5th Baron Ferrers of Groby. Joan Beauchamp, Arundel's sister continued to complain about Cornwall into 1412, after she was widowed,[84] prompting a further commission of inquiry by the same team. The following year the king received similar complaints from John Marshall, Dean of the royal free chapel at Bridgnorth[85] It seems that, before sending in Arundel's lawyers to investigate, the king secured Cornwall's resignation and on 13 February 1413 installed Roger Willey, Darras's old business partner, as keeper in his place.[86]