On Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 3:18:19 PM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Brendan ~
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
> VCH Bedfordshire, 3 (1912): 189-202 (sub Eaton Socon) yields yet
> another possibility regarding the identity of Sir Thomas Camoys'
> mother. According to this account, Sir Thomas Camoys (died 1421) made
> a settlement of the manor of Honydon or Camoy's in Eaton Socon,
> Bedfordshire in 1389. VCH Bedfordshire alleges that this manor was
> earlier passed by inheritance to a certain Margaret, wife of John [de]
> Camoys. However, the only known John de Camoys with a wife Margaret
> who seems to fit this description was Sir John de Camoys, died in 1298,
> whose wife was definitely Margaret de Gatesden, daughter of Sir John de
> Gatesden. I don't believe Margaret de Gatesden was the sister of
> William de Kirkeby.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> + + + + + + + + + +
> Source:: VCH Bedfordshire, 3 (1912): 189-202 (sub Eaton Socon)
> An estate in this parish known as HONYDON or CAMOYS MANOR was held of
> the barony of Eaton by knight service and suit of court. (fn. 119) The
> first tenant of whom mention has been found was William de Kirkeby,
> whose widow Christine held here in 1302-3. (fn. 120) His sister and
> co-heir Margaret, to whom this manor passed, married John Camoys,
> member of a well-known Sussex family, (fn. 121) whose descendant Sir
> Thomas Camoys, kt., in 1389 made a settlement of this manor on Robert
> Braybrook, Bishop of London, and others. (fn. 122) Sir Thomas died in
> 1421, when his grandson Hugh, son of Richard Camoys, succeeded to
> Honydon Manor, then worth £6, with 4s. 8d. rent of free tenants and
> tenants at will. (fn. 123) Hugh died in 1426, whilst a minor, and his
> sisters-Margaret wife of Ralph Rademilde and Eleanor wife of Roger
> Lewknor-became his heirs. (fn. 124) The manor thus became divided
> into moieties. Dealing first with that portion which passed to Margaret
> Rademilde, her husband Ralph, who outlived her, is found in possession
> of her share at his death in 1443. (fn. 125) No mention of Honydon is
> found in the inquisition taken as to the property of Robert son of
> Ralph Rademilde, who died in 1456, leaving a son William. (fn. 126)
> William Rademilde's name occurs as a commissioner of the peace for
> Sussex between the years 1476 and 1485 (fn. 127) ; but there is no
> evidence that he held the Honydon property, whose history at this date
> becomes confused. In 1476 Robert and John Spence were farming
> Honydon-then apparently in the hands of the Crown-for 106s. 8d.,
> (fn. 128) and in 1483 a commission was sent to the 'tenaunts of the
> manoir' to accept J. Whitloke as their lord and to content unto him
> their dues. (fn. 129) Camoys or Honydon Manor next appears as the
> property of Avery Michell, who in 1557 leased it for twenty-one years
> at a rent of £12 to Nicholas Fitz Hugh, who in 1570 brought an action
> against William Morgan, representing Avery. Nicholas complained that
> owing to his sickness whilst in Warwickshire there had been some delay
> in the payments of the rent, and his lease had been transferred to
> William Gery. (fn. 130) In 1577 John Michell alienated Honydon to
> Oliver Lord St. John, (fn. 131) who in the same year received the other
> moiety of the manor, whose history may here be conveniently traced.
> Eleanor Lewknor's moiety passed to her son Roger, whose two daughters
> each inherited one-fourth of the manor. Of these daughters one married
> Sir Arthur Poole. (fn. 132) Lady Joanna Poole suffered a recovery of
> Honydon in 1557, (fn. 133) and her fourth share appears to have passed
> to Thomas Foster and others, who in 1576 alienated it to Lord St. John.
> (fn. 134) Catherine second daughter of Roger Lewknor married John Mill,
> and her son Lewknor Mill (fn. 135) in 1577 also alienated her share to
> Oliver Lord St. John, (fn. 136) who had now acquired the complete
> manor. He did not long retain it, however, but alienated it in 1580 to
> Thomas Anscell. (fn. 137) About this time the manor was again broken
> up.
> Footnotes:
> 119 Feud. Aids, i, 15; Chan. Inq. p.m. 5 Hen. V, no. 25.
> 120 Feud. Aids, i, 15.
> 121 Roberts, Cal. Gen. ii, 622.
> 122 Close, 13 Ric. II, pt. ii, m. 12.
> 123 Chan. Inq. p.m. 5 Hen. V, no. 25, 26.
> 124 Ibid.
> 125 Ibid. 21 Hen. VI, no. 34.
> 126 Ibid. 35 Hen. VI, no. 15.
> 127 Cal. Pat. 1476-85, passim.
> 128 Mins. Accts. bdle. 1120, no. 4.
> 129 Harl. MS. 433.
> 130 Ct. of Req. bdle. 96, no. 43.
> 131 Com. Pleas D. Enr. Trin. 19 Eliz.; Recov. R. Trin. 1577.
> 132 Berry, Sussex Gen. 130. Her name is given here as Eleanor.
> 133 Recov. R. East. 1557.
> 134 Feet of F. Beds. East. 18 Eliz.
> 135 Berry, op. cit.
> 136 Feet of F. Beds. Trin. 19 Eliz.
> 137 Ibid. East. 22 Eliz.

Commenting on old post. Maybe this has already been covered by someone else.. The reference here to VCH cites Roberts, and I found that source here: https://archive.org/details/CalendariumGenealogicum.HenryIiiAndEdwardI.Volume2.1865/page/n173/mode/2up

It is an excerpt from an IPM, which we can see a more detailed English summary of here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol4/pp54-67

Unless I am reading it wrong, the Margaret who is the widow of John Camoys is NOT the same as the Margaret who is a sister and heir of William de Kirkeby. His sister is the wife of Walter de Osevill who is clearly alive. The Camoys widow on the other hand was holding land at Orewell by dowry and I am thinking it was therefore Camoys land.

This does not necessarily change any conclusions about the case which was being discussed, but it might also be relevant to other connections

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:56:59 AM UTC-7, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

> Commenting on old post. Maybe this has already been covered by someone else. The reference here to VCH cites Roberts, and I found that source here: https://archive.org/details/CalendariumGenealogicum.HenryIiiAndEdwardI.Volume2.1865/page/n173/mode/2up
>
> It is an excerpt from an IPM, which we can see a more detailed English summary of here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol4/pp54-67
>

For those who prefer a page-image format, and can view it,
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101023300583&view=1up&seq=102

> Unless I am reading it wrong, the Margaret who is the widow of John Camoys is NOT the same as the Margaret who is a sister and heir of William de Kirkeby. His sister is the wife of Walter de Osevill who is clearly alive. The Camoys widow on the other hand was holding land at Orewell by dowry and I am thinking it was therefore Camoys land.
>

I agree with your interpretation of the document, although there is some variability with regard to how the sister is referred: Margaret de Hotthorp, Margaret wife of Walter de Osevile, Margaret, wife of Walter de Dosevill, Margaret Dosevill, Walter Dosevill and Margaret his wife. Clearly the first is the outlier, perhaps reflecting memory of an earlier marriage. The identification of the Camoys widow with the Kirkeby sister appears to trace back, at least, to Herbert C Andrews (1911), "A Thirteenth-Century Social Scandal", The Antiquary, 47:262-4, the historical description of which seems to require substantial revision in light of this more likely reading of the ipm.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TdprtVo3bG0C&pg=PA263&lpg=PA262

taf