I would normally try to research this a little more before posting, but since I am using Google Groups and have not yet successfully found my alternative way into Usenet, I figured I would post this before the deadline.

In the early 2000s there were a couple of threads noting that Blanche Arderne, who is given in a couple of pedigrees in the 1580 visitation of Cheshire as the Blanche who was married to William Stanley about 1403, does not readily fit into the usual Arderne pedigrees.

In a 2017 thread, there was some discussion of the marriage of William and Blanche's daughter Isabel, where it was noted that the visitation evidence was rather weak.

The wording of the papal dispensation for the marriage of William and Blanche’s daughter Isabel Stanley seems to be relevant:

Lateran Regesta 243: 1423-1424.
1424. 7 Kal. Sept. Frascati. (f. 240.)
To the bishop of Lichfield. Mandate to dispense Robert de Legh, donsel, and Isabel Stanley, daughter of William Stanley, knight, of his diocese, to contract and solemnize marriage notwithstanding an impediment of quasi-affinity (impedimentum publice honestatis justicie) arising from the fact that the said Robert, when in or about his fifth year, and the late Isabel Savage (related to the above Isabel Stanley in the second degree of kindred), when in her seventh year, contracted espousals, the said Isabel Savage dying after cohabiting for eight years with Robert (insimul cohabitaverat carnali copula inter eos non secuta). Oblate nobis.

I am thinking that Isabel Stanley’s mother Blanche was actually the Blanche Savage mentioned by Leycester (Ormerod/Helsby i p. 712) as a daughter of John Savage of Clifton (died 1386) and Margaret Daniel. This would would make the two Isabels first cousins and thus related in the second degree. Any thoughts?

Roderick Ward

I hope this, my first post from the eternal-september/Thunderbird route,
gets through.

I am making progress in convincing myself that Blanche, the wife of Sir
William Stanley (died c. 1420), was a Savage and not an Arderne. My
reasoning goes like this:

The dispensation seems to (almost) require that a parent of Isabel
Savage was a sibling of a parent of Isabel Stanley.

Isabel Savage’s father was, I assume, John Savage of Clifton (d. 1450)
son of John Savage (d. 1386) and Margaret Danyers. And Isabel’s mother
was Maud Swynnerton daughter of Robert de Swynnerton and Elizabeth Beke.
Isabel Stanley’s father was Sir William Stanley son of William de
Stanley (d. 1398) and Margery Hooton, and Isabel’s mother was Blanche.

Since Isabel Stanley’s father Sir William Stanley cannot have been a
sibling of either John Savage or Maud Swynnerton, her mother Blanche,
therefore, must have been.

Maud, who eventually inherited her father’s property, does not seem to
have had any sisters.

John Savage is known to have had at least two sisters, one of whom,
moreover, was named Blanche.

So Isabel Stanley’s mother was Blanche Savage. (The 1580 visitation
having her as Blanche Arderne must be wrong.)

I have another question related to this family. The Lancashire VCH
(3:sub Aughton) notes that Henry de Litherland “in 1361 gave a yearly
rent of £20 from his lands in Aughton to William de Stanley and Agnes
his wife, the widow of John de Lascelles. Eight years later William de
Stanley gave to Agnes de Beckington, formerly wife of Henry de
Litherland, lands in Wallasey, while Agnes gave to William lands she had
in Storeton in Wirral.” Is there a reason why this Agnes the widow of
John de Lascelles is not usually given (at least in the sources I have
so far seen) as a wife of the William de Stanley who died in 1398?

(Perhaps a second wife, Matilda, is the widow mentioned in the Calendar
of Patent Rolls:

1400, February 16, Westminster
Grant for life of the king's alms to Matilda Stanley, late the wife of
William Stanley, esquire, who has come to such poverty that she cannot
maintain her estate, of 2d. daily at the Exchequer. By p.s.)

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2/24/2024 10:18 AM, Roderick Ward wrote:
> I hope this, my first post from the eternal-september/Thunderbird route,
> gets through.

I haven't looked at these families in a long time, so this is primarily
meant just as a confirmation that your post got through, but I might as
well say something relevant to the topic while I am at it.

> John Savage is known to have had at least two sisters, one of whom,
> moreover, was named Blanche.

What is the basis for John having a sister Blanche?

> I have another question related to this family. The Lancashire VCH
> (3:sub Aughton) notes that Henry de Litherland  “in 1361 gave a yearly
> rent of £20 from his lands in Aughton to William de Stanley and Agnes
> his wife, the widow of John de Lascelles. Eight years later William de
> Stanley gave to Agnes de Beckington, formerly wife of Henry de
> Litherland, lands in Wallasey, while Agnes gave to William lands she had
> in Storeton in Wirral.”  Is there a reason why this Agnes the widow of
> John de Lascelles is not usually given (at least in the sources I have
> so far seen) as a wife of the William de Stanley who died in 1398?

Often if there was no inheritance or descendants, marriages tended to be
forgotten.

taf

On 2024-02-24 2:57 p.m., taf wrote:

> What is the basis for John having a sister Blanche?

Sir Peter Leycester, in the account of Clifton in his Historical
Antiquities (1673) p. 230, states:

The second Husband of Margaret Daneil, was this John Savage, descended
of the Savages of Steinesbie in Darbyshire; whom he married about 49
Edw. 3. and had Issue by her John Savage Son and Heir, Elizabeth, and
Blanch, all living 4 Hen. 4. Lib. C. fol. 290. d.

“Liber C” is a collection of deeds taken by Leycester from the originals.

Blanche is first attested in the Rylands Charters as the wife of William
de Stanley in 4 Hen. 4:

http://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb133-rych/rych/1347
GB 133 RYCH/1347
7 Feb 1403
Grant by William de Stanley, knight, to William, his son, and Blanche,
his wife, of land in 'le fflaskes' in the hundred of Macclesfield, in
Chorleton [Chorlton], and in le Meoles [Great Meols and Little Meols] in
the hundred of Wyrhall.

>> I have another question related to this family. The Lancashire VCH
>> (3:sub Aughton) notes that Henry de Litherland  “in 1361 gave a yearly
>> rent of £20 from his lands in Aughton to William de Stanley and Agnes
>> his wife, the widow of John de Lascelles. Eight years later William de
>> Stanley gave to Agnes de Beckington, formerly wife of Henry de
>> Litherland, lands in Wallasey, while Agnes gave to William lands she
>> had in Storeton in Wirral.”  Is there a reason why this Agnes the
>> widow of John de Lascelles is not usually given (at least in the
>> sources I have so far seen) as a wife of the William de Stanley who
>> died in 1398?
>
> Often if there was no inheritance or descendants, marriages tended to be
> forgotten.
>
> taf

This makes sense, but I think the wife of William de Stanley (died 1398)
is otherwise unknown, and his descendants were the Stanleys of Hooton.
Maybe the property she brought to the marriage was not significant?

Roderick Ward

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2/24/2024 2:41 PM, Roderick Ward wrote:
> On 2024-02-24 2:57 p.m., taf wrote:
>>> I have another question related to this family. The Lancashire VCH
>>> (3:sub Aughton) notes that Henry de Litherland  “in 1361 gave a
>>> yearly rent of £20 from his lands in Aughton to William de Stanley
>>> and Agnes his wife, the widow of John de Lascelles. Eight years later
>>> William de Stanley gave to Agnes de Beckington, formerly wife of
>>> Henry de Litherland, lands in Wallasey, while Agnes gave to William
>>> lands she had in Storeton in Wirral.”

FWIW, VCH Lancs article for Litherland reports that Einion ap Madoc ap
Bleddyn de Aughton had a daughter Margaret, wife of Henry de Litherland,
and also a son John who married Alice, daughter of Adam de Lascelles.

taf

On 2024-02-24 6:34 p.m., taf wrote:
FWIW, VCH Lancs article for Litherland reports that Einion ap Madoc ap
> Bleddyn de Aughton had a daughter Margaret, wife of Henry de Litherland,
> and also a son John who married Alice, daughter of Adam de Lascelles.
>
> taf

I think this is the account of the manor of Litherland in the article on
Aughton I cited. I was confused by this paragraph in the article:

About 1320 the next Henry de Litherland demised to Margaret his mother
for life all his lands in Aughton, except his field of Stockbridge, with
services, escheats, reliefs, &c., and the half of the wastes and waters.
(fn. 86) Henry's wife was Joan, and probably his son was the Henry de
Litherland who in 1361 gave a yearly rent of £20 from his lands in
Aughton to William de Stanley and Agnes his wife, the widow of John de
Lascelles. (fn. 87) Eight years later William de Stanley gave to Agnes
de Beckington, (fn. 88) formerly wife of Henry de Litherland, lands in
Wallasey, while Agnes gave to William lands she had in Storeton in
Wirral. (fn. 89) Henry—apparently the same—was living in 1371, when a
re-feoffment of his lands in Liscard was made to him; (fn. 90) and a
little later a settlement of his Cheshire lands was made upon John his
son, with remainders to his other children, Matthew and Katherine. (fn. 91)

Is it saying that Agnes de Beckington, formerly the wife of Henry de
Litherland, gave lands in 1370, but her husband was still alive in 1371?
Or is the 1371 Henry supposed to be father (or son) of the former
husband of Agnes?

RW

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2/24/2024 3:57 PM, Roderick Ward wrote:
> About 1320 the next Henry de Litherland demised to Margaret his mother
> for life all his lands in Aughton, except his field of Stockbridge, with
> services, escheats, reliefs, &c., and the half of the wastes and waters.
> (fn. 86) Henry's wife was Joan, and probably his son was the Henry de
> Litherland who in 1361 gave a yearly rent of £20 from his lands in
> Aughton to William de Stanley and Agnes his wife, the widow of John de
> Lascelles. (fn. 87) Eight years later William de Stanley gave to Agnes
> de Beckington, (fn. 88) formerly wife of Henry de Litherland, lands in
> Wallasey, while Agnes gave to William lands she had in Storeton in
> Wirral. (fn. 89) Henry—apparently the same—was living in 1371, when a
> re-feoffment of his lands in Liscard was made to him; (fn. 90) and a
> little later a settlement of his Cheshire lands was made upon John his
> son, with remainders to his other children, Matthew and Katherine. (fn. 91)
>
> Is it saying that Agnes de Beckington, formerly the wife of Henry de
> Litherland, gave lands in 1370, but her husband was still alive in 1371?
> Or is the 1371 Henry supposed to be father (or son) of the former
> husband of Agnes?

Looks like a scholarly or editorial lapse to me. Unless the 1371
document is referring to Henry retrospectively, then the Henry mentioned
in 1371 is not "apparently the same" as the man whose wife had remarried
by 1370. My guess would be that the 1371 Henry was the son and heir of
Agnes' husband.

taf

These entries from the Rylands Charters make my head hurt:

http://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb133-rych/rych/1845
GB 133 RYCH/1845
?7] Jan 1368
Quitclaim by William de Tranemul to John Lassels and Agnes, his mother,
wife of Henry de Lithurlond.

http://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb133-rych/rych/1491
GB 133 RYCH/1491
18 Oct 1369
Deed of exchange between William de Stanley and Agnes de Bechynton,
widow of Henry de Bykirstaht.

I think, together with the VCH information, they imply the situation is
an Agnes who married four times:
[1] to John Lassels, who died before 1361. Their son John was living in
1368.
[2] to William de Stanley, living in 1361, but who soon died. His
(their?) son William was involved in the 1369 exchange.
[3] to Henry de Litherland/Bykirstaht, living in 1368, dead in 1369.
[4] to a de Beckington/Bechinton.

The William de Stanley of the 1361 gift obviously can’t be the one who
died in 1398. Irvine in his article on the Stanleys has this William’s
father, also named William, dying in April 1360, but this is probably
incorrect, as Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls has a case where the elder
William is still living in 35 Edw III. So probably Agnes was married to
the elder William Stanley, whose wife is usually given as Alice Mascy.

Irvine’s article:
https://www.hslc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/105-4-Irvine.pdf

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2024-02-24 10:37 p.m., Roderick Ward wrote:
I checked Irvine’s reference for William’s April 1360 death date and it
actually looks pretty solid. I think maybe the case in Pedigrees from
the Plea Rolls is missing a generation. But now I don’t understand how
the Agnes evidence fits together. Maybe the 1361 date in the VCH for the
gift of the yearly rent is wrong? Or maybe I am just hopelessly muddled.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2/24/2024 7:37 PM, Roderick Ward wrote:
> These entries from the Rylands Charters make my head hurt:
>
> http://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb133-rych/rych/1845
> GB 133 RYCH/1845
> ?7] Jan 1368
> Quitclaim by William de Tranemul to John Lassels and Agnes, his mother,
> wife of Henry de Lithurlond.
>
> http://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb133-rych/rych/1491
> GB 133 RYCH/1491
> 18 Oct 1369
> Deed of exchange between William de Stanley and Agnes de Bechynton,
> widow of Henry de Bykirstaht.
>
> I think, together with the VCH information, they imply the situation is
> an Agnes who married four times:
> [1] to John Lassels, who died before 1361. Their son John was living in
> 1368.
> [2] to William de Stanley, living in 1361, but who soon died. His
> (their?) son William was involved in the 1369 exchange.
> [3] to Henry de Litherland/Bykirstaht, living in 1368, dead in 1369.
> [4] to a de Beckington/Bechinton.
>
> The William de Stanley of the 1361 gift obviously can’t be the one who
> died in 1398. Irvine in his article on the Stanleys has this William’s
> father, also named William, dying in April 1360, but this is probably
> incorrect, as Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls has a case where the elder
> William is still living in 35 Edw III. So probably Agnes was married to
> the elder William Stanley, whose wife is usually given as Alice Mascy.

And this brings us back to my explanation for why the collective memory
of the Stanleys might not have retained this marriage. Unless John de
Lascelles had died by the late 1340s, Agnes would not have been mother
of William de Stanley active in 1369. The wife usually given the elder
William may reflect the authentic Stanley ancestress, with the oft-wed
Agnes being just an inconsequential step-mother only briefly associated
with the family and conveying no genealogical/inheritance relationship
to the Stanley descent. The same would be the case for the Henry de
Litherland of 1371 - a seeming step-son of Agnes as son of her third
husband Henry, fl. Jan. 1368, d. by Oct. 1369.

taf

>
> And this brings us back to my explanation for why the collective memory
> of the Stanleys might not have retained this marriage. Unless John de
> Lascelles had died by the late 1340s, Agnes would not have been mother
> of William de Stanley active in 1369. The wife usually given the elder
> William may reflect the authentic Stanley ancestress, with the oft-wed
> Agnes being just an inconsequential step-mother only briefly associated
> with the family and conveying no genealogical/inheritance relationship
> to the Stanley descent. The same would be the case for the Henry de
> Litherland of 1371 - a seeming step-son of Agnes as son of her third
> husband Henry, fl. Jan. 1368, d. by Oct. 1369.
>
> taf

I think you may be right. In the Black Prince's Register, Dec. 1, 1361,
there is a list of people summoned to appear in person in the county
court of Chester regarding an ongoing dispute about a puture of food and
drink William de Stanley thought he was entitled to. Among these was
"John son and heir of John de Lasceles". I suppose since he is so
described, his father had fairly recently died.

RW

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2/24/2024 10:18 AM, Roderick Ward wrote:
>
> Isabel Stanley’s father was Sir William Stanley son of William de
> Stanley (d. 1398) and Margery Hooton, and Isabel’s mother was Blanche.

Looking at the Rylands collection documents, and those previously
mentioned in this discussion, the William de Stanley married to Blanche
seems not to have been the son of William de Stanley d. 1398, but rather
of his son Sir William (still living 1424). It is not entirely clear, as
there is ambiguous pronoun usage in some of the abstracts, but this is
how I match up the Ryland documents with 4 Williams:

1. William de Stanley [I], d. 1367-1368, [m.(1) Alice de Mascy per
traditional pedigrees] m.[2] by 1361 Agnes, widow John de Lascelles
1353: GB 133 RYCH/1821
1358: GB 133 RYCH/1489, as Wm 'the elder'
1361: GB 133 RYCH/1854, named as father of Wm son Wm
1362: GB 133 RYCH/1427 granting Stanley to son Wm
1366: GB 133 RYCH/1490 (quitclaim by Avilla wid Henry Sampson)
1367: GB 133 RYCH/1343 as Wm Stanley 'the elder', grant from Avilla dau
Philip de Bechinton)

2. William de Stanley [II], old enough for father to be 'the elder' in
1358, d. 1398, widow Matilda [not necessarily only wife]
1361: GB 133 RYCH/1854, as Wm son Wm
1362: GB 133 RYCH/1427 grant of Stanley from father Wm
1369: GB 133 RYCH/1491 (the exchange with Agnes de Bechynton)
1374: GB 133 RYCH/1713
[1381]: GB 133 RYCH/1442, as Wm 'the elder'
1382: GB 133 RYCH/1320, Wm 'the elder' and Wm his son
1383: GB 133 RYCH/1851
1385: GB 133 RYCH/1271, as Wm 'the elder'
1389: GB 133 RYCH/1414, as Wm 'the elder'
1396: GB 133 RYCH/1823, as Wm 'the elder' (receipt for dower, involving
Cecily de Bechinton)

3. William de Stanley [III], knt, fl. 1382 m. [1386 according to online
pedigrees] Margery de Hooton [online pedigrees place his death 1427/8]
1382: GB 133 RYCH/1320, Wm 'the elder' and Wm his son
1391: GB 133 RYCH/1800, Wm 'the younger' to Wm his son
1397: GB 133 RYCH/1346, Wm 'the younger'
1397: GB 133 RYCH/1390, Wm 'the younger' and Margery his wife
1398: GB 133 RYCH/1794 (not called 'the elder', so app. 'the younger'
after father's death)
[1399: GB 133 RYCH/1308, as Wm 'the younger' - this would be
anachronistic as his father was already dead, but seems too early to be
his own son acting as an adult, so perhaps just done out of habit]
1400: GB 133 RYCH/1273, not yet knt
1400: GB 133 RYCH/1795, not yet knt
1402: GB 133 RYCH/1379, knt, naming wife Margery and son Wm
1402: GB 133 RYCH/1794, knt
1403: GB 133 RYCH/1321, knt
1403: GB 133 RYCH/1347, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
1403: GB 133 RYCH/1416, knt, as father of Wm
1403: GB 133 RYCH/1801, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
1404: GB 133 RYCH/1354, knt, as father of Wm
1404: GB 133 RYCH/1356, knt, as father of Wm
1404: GB 133 RYCH/1396, knt
1404: GB 133 RYCH/1429, knt
1405: GB 133 RYCH/1296, knt, as father of Wm
1405: GB 133 RYCH/1297, knt
1405: GB 133 RYCH/1357, knt, as father of Wm
1405: GB 133 RYCH/1750, knt, as father of Wm
1406: GB 133 RYCH/1753, knt, and wife Margery
1406: GB 133 RYCH/1754, knt, and wife Margery dau. Wm de Hoton
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1599, knt, as father of Wm
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1600, knt, as father of Wm
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1601, knt, as father of Wm
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1602, knt, as father of Wm
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1603, knt, as father of Wm
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1824, knt, as father of Wm
1408: GB 133 RYCH/1582, knt
1410: GB 133 RYCH/1417, knt
1410: GB 133 RYCH/1826, knt
1410: GB 133 RYCH/1827, knt (to Tho de Bolde & wife Agnes dau Tho Lassells)
1410: GB 133 RYCH/1828, knt (exch w/ Tho Bolde & Agnes)
1411: GB 133 RYCH/1358, knt
1411: GB 133 RYCH/1443, knt
1411: GB 133 RYCH/1444, knt
1412: GB 133 RYCH/1604, knt
1415: GB 133 RYCH/1837, knt
1415: GB 133 RYCH/1838, knt and Edmund his son
1416: GB 133 RYCH/1707, knt

4. William de Stanley [IV], fl. 1391, dead v.p. 1424, m. by 1403 Blanche
1391: GB 133 RYCH/1800, Wm 'the younger' to Wm his son
1402: GB 133 RYCH/1379, as Wm son Wm, knt and Margery
1403: GB 133 RYCH/1347, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
1403: GB 133 RYCH/1416, as Wm son Wm, knt, along with wife Blanche
1403: GB 133 RYCH/1801, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
1404: GB 133 RYCH/1354, as Wm son Wm, knt
1404: GB 133 RYCH/1356, as Wm son Wm, knt
1405: GB 133 RYCH/1296, as Wm son Wm, knt
1405: GB 133 RYCH/1357, as Wm son Wm, knt
1405: GB 133 RYCH/1750, as Wm son Wm, knt
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1599, as Wm son Wm, knt
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1600, as Wm son Wm, knt
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1601, as Wm son Wm, knt
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1602, as Wm son Wm, knt
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1603, as Wm son Wm, knt
1407: GB 133 RYCH/1824, as Wm son Wm, knt
[? 1411: GB 133 RYCH/803 (not called knt, so app. son, not father)]
[? 1423(?): GB 133 RYCH/1674 (not called knt, so app. son, not father)]
1424: GB 133 RYCH/1802, Blanche, wid Wm son Wm knt, grants Stanley to
her son Wm (who would be William de Stanley [V])

I note that this reconstruction is one more generation than typically
found in the low-quality online pedigrees I am seeing, but I don't see
any way around it, based on the almost universally-consistent usage of
'the elder' vs 'the younger' and of Wm III as knt. William II was old
enough in 1358 for his father to need disambiguation, so born, say 1342
at the latest. We still see William 'the elder' in 1367, but by 1368 his
former wife Agnes had remarried (GB 133 RYCH/1845), and this need to
distinguish Williams disappears. William I had died. It returns in 1381
or 1382 when William II then begins to be called 'the elder' - his son
William III was born, say 1365 or earlier, and had a son of his own by
1391 (probably enough before to make a gift to him seemly). William III
loses his own distinguishing designator in 1398 (though with one
instance from 1399), just as a widow of a William is known, and in 1402
is knighted and appears thereafter as Wm knt. William IV then seems to
have married Blanche in or before 1403, and is always designated with
respect to his father Sir Wm, through to the time of William IV's death
by 1424, v.p., when his own son William V was old enough to receive his
mother's grant.

This reconstruction is based almost exclusively on the Rylands
documents, and I am sure can be filled out with content from other sources.

taf

By the way, I think the Black Prince’s Register also makes clear what is
wrong with the evidence from Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls. In 1361,
William de Stanley, the son and heir, produced before Prince Edward a
copy of a record of the eyre of the forest of Wyrhale, in which William
de Stanley the father set out his claims regarding his bailiwick. I
think Wrottesley in Pedigrees from the Pleas Rolls is presenting this
copy as live evidence. The Complete Peerage was misled by Wrottesley in
its account of the Stanleys (12A p. 247).

The 1361 date given in the VCH for Henry de Litherland’s gift to William
de Stanley and Agnes his wife is still giving me trouble, however. Could
the younger William de Stanley’s wife also be named Agnes? (The younger
William de Stanley was probably born about 1337, and had a son William
around 1361, who did not survive.)

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2/25/2024 8:36 AM, taf wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 10:18 AM, Roderick Ward wrote:
>>
>> Isabel Stanley’s father was Sir William Stanley son of William de
>> Stanley (d. 1398) and Margery Hooton, and Isabel’s mother was Blanche.
>
> Looking at the Rylands collection documents, and those previously
> mentioned in this discussion, the William de Stanley married to Blanche
> seems not to have been the son of William de Stanley d. 1398, but rather
> of his son Sir William (still living 1424). It is not entirely clear, as
> there is ambiguous pronoun usage in some of the abstracts, but this is
> how I match up the Ryland documents with 4 Williams:
>
> 1. William de Stanley [I], d. 1367-1368, [m.(1) Alice de Mascy per
> traditional pedigrees] m.[2] by 1361 Agnes, widow John de Lascelles
> 1353: GB 133 RYCH/1821
> 1358: GB 133 RYCH/1489, as Wm 'the elder'
> 1361: GB 133 RYCH/1854, named as father of Wm son Wm
> 1362: GB 133 RYCH/1427 granting Stanley to son Wm
> 1366: GB 133 RYCH/1490 (quitclaim by Avilla wid Henry Sampson)
> 1367: GB 133 RYCH/1343 as Wm Stanley 'the elder', grant from Avilla dau
> Philip de Bechinton)
>
>
> 2. William de Stanley [II], old enough for father to be 'the elder' in
> 1358, d. 1398, widow Matilda [not necessarily only wife]
> 1361: GB 133 RYCH/1854, as Wm son Wm
> 1362: GB 133 RYCH/1427 grant of Stanley from father Wm
> 1369: GB 133 RYCH/1491 (the exchange with Agnes de Bechynton)
> 1374: GB 133 RYCH/1713
> [1381]: GB 133 RYCH/1442, as Wm 'the elder'
> 1382: GB 133 RYCH/1320, Wm 'the elder' and Wm his son
> 1383: GB 133 RYCH/1851
> 1385: GB 133 RYCH/1271, as Wm 'the elder'
> 1389: GB 133 RYCH/1414, as Wm 'the elder'
> 1396: GB 133 RYCH/1823, as Wm 'the elder' (receipt for dower, involving
> Cecily de Bechinton)
>
> 3. William de Stanley [III], knt, fl. 1382 m. [1386 according to online
> pedigrees] Margery de Hooton [online pedigrees place his death 1427/8]
> 1382: GB 133 RYCH/1320, Wm 'the elder' and Wm his son
> 1391: GB 133 RYCH/1800, Wm 'the younger' to Wm his son
> 1397: GB 133 RYCH/1346, Wm 'the younger'
> 1397: GB 133 RYCH/1390, Wm 'the younger' and Margery his wife
> 1398: GB 133 RYCH/1794 (not called 'the elder', so app. 'the younger'
> after father's death)
> [1399: GB 133 RYCH/1308, as Wm 'the younger' - this would be
> anachronistic as his father was already dead, but seems too early to be
> his own son acting as an adult, so perhaps just done out of habit]
> 1400: GB 133 RYCH/1273, not yet knt
> 1400: GB 133 RYCH/1795, not yet knt
> 1402: GB 133 RYCH/1379, knt, naming wife Margery and son Wm
> 1402: GB 133 RYCH/1794, knt
> 1403: GB 133 RYCH/1321, knt
> 1403: GB 133 RYCH/1347, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
> 1403: GB 133 RYCH/1416, knt, as father of Wm
> 1403: GB 133 RYCH/1801, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
> 1404: GB 133 RYCH/1354, knt, as father of Wm
> 1404: GB 133 RYCH/1356, knt, as father of Wm
> 1404: GB 133 RYCH/1396, knt
> 1404: GB 133 RYCH/1429, knt
> 1405: GB 133 RYCH/1296, knt, as father of Wm
> 1405: GB 133 RYCH/1297, knt
> 1405: GB 133 RYCH/1357, knt, as father of Wm
> 1405: GB 133 RYCH/1750, knt, as father of Wm
> 1406: GB 133 RYCH/1753, knt, and wife Margery
> 1406: GB 133 RYCH/1754, knt, and wife Margery dau. Wm de Hoton
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1599, knt, as father of Wm
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1600, knt, as father of Wm
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1601, knt, as father of Wm
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1602, knt, as father of Wm
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1603, knt, as father of Wm
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1824, knt, as father of Wm
> 1408: GB 133 RYCH/1582, knt
> 1410: GB 133 RYCH/1417, knt
> 1410: GB 133 RYCH/1826, knt
> 1410: GB 133 RYCH/1827, knt (to Tho de Bolde & wife Agnes dau Tho Lassells)
> 1410: GB 133 RYCH/1828, knt (exch w/ Tho Bolde & Agnes)
> 1411: GB 133 RYCH/1358, knt
> 1411: GB 133 RYCH/1443, knt
> 1411: GB 133 RYCH/1444, knt
> 1412: GB 133 RYCH/1604, knt
> 1415: GB 133 RYCH/1837, knt
> 1415: GB 133 RYCH/1838, knt and Edmund his son
> 1416: GB 133 RYCH/1707, knt
>
> 4. William de Stanley [IV], fl. 1391, dead v.p. 1424, m. by 1403 Blanche
> 1391: GB 133 RYCH/1800, Wm 'the younger' to Wm his son
> 1402: GB 133 RYCH/1379, as Wm son Wm, knt and Margery
> 1403: GB 133 RYCH/1347, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
> 1403: GB 133 RYCH/1416, as Wm son Wm, knt, along with wife Blanche
> 1403: GB 133 RYCH/1801, Wm knt to son Wm and wife Blanche
> 1404: GB 133 RYCH/1354, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1404: GB 133 RYCH/1356, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1405: GB 133 RYCH/1296, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1405: GB 133 RYCH/1357, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1405: GB 133 RYCH/1750, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1599, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1600, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1601, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1602, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1603, as Wm son Wm, knt
> 1407: GB 133 RYCH/1824, as Wm son Wm, knt
> [? 1411: GB 133 RYCH/803 (not called knt, so app. son, not father)]
> [? 1423(?): GB 133 RYCH/1674 (not called knt, so app. son, not father)]
> 1424: GB 133 RYCH/1802, Blanche, wid Wm son Wm knt, grants Stanley to
> her son Wm (who would be William de Stanley [V])
>
> I note that this reconstruction is one more generation than typically
> found in the low-quality online pedigrees I am seeing, but I don't see
> any way around it, based on the almost universally-consistent usage of
> 'the elder' vs 'the younger' and of Wm III as knt. William II was old
> enough in 1358 for his father to need disambiguation, so born, say 1342
> at the latest. We still see William 'the elder' in 1367, but by 1368 his
> former wife Agnes had remarried (GB 133 RYCH/1845), and this need to
> distinguish Williams disappears. William I had died. It returns in 1381
> or 1382 when William II then begins to be called 'the elder' - his son
> William III was born, say 1365 or earlier, and had a son of his own by
> 1391 (probably enough before to make a gift to him seemly). William III
> loses his own distinguishing designator in 1398 (though with one
> instance from 1399), just as a widow of a William is known, and in 1402
> is knighted and appears thereafter as Wm knt. William IV then seems to
> have married Blanche in or before 1403, and is always designated with
> respect to his father Sir Wm, through to the time of William IV's death
> by 1424, v.p., when his own son William V was old enough to receive his
> mother's grant.
>
> This reconstruction is based almost exclusively on the Rylands
> documents, and I am sure can be filled out with content from other sources.

I put this together before seeing Roderick's note on William dying in
1360. If this is the case, then I am going to have to reevaluate the
earliest generations. Could there be yet another William?

taf

I think the dates go something like this (using your numbering):

William de Stanley [I] died April 1360 (see writ of diem clausit
extremum in the Black Prince’s Register, and the June 1360 account of
the ipm), [m.(1) Alice de Mascy per traditional pedigrees], ?? m.[2]
Agnes, widow of John de Lascelles.

William de Stanley [II] born c. 1337 (of age in his father’s 1360 ipm;
‘50 and more’ on 3 September 1386 when giving evidence in the
Scrope-Grosvenor trial; ‘60 and more’ in 1397 in a proof of age case for
William Venables of Kinderton – see Irvine pp. 57-8); died 18 June 1398
(ipm). Possibly m. Matilda (widow in CPR 1400). Son William born before
1362 and died before 1368. Son and heir William born c. 1368 (next).

William de Stanley [III] born c. 1368 (aged 30 and more in his father’s
ipm); died 2 February 1427/8 (ipm). Married Margery de Hoton. Marriage
agreement 1376 (Rylands Charter GB RYCH/1673).

William de Stanley [IV] probably died 1419 or 1420. (“William Stanley,
knight, deceased” 1420, July 20, in the CPR; William de Stanley [III] is
pretty consistently described as “William de Stanley, Kt, senior” in the
Recognizance Rolls after William de Stanley [III] was knighted at
Agincourt in 1415, until 1420 and later when he is simply described as
“William de Stanley, kt.”. Married Blanche [Savage, I claim] about 1403.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Addendum:
I guess there is no need to suppose that William de Stanley [II] had an
earlier son William who died young if we take the "50 years and more"
and "60 years and more" as being very vague, and William [III] was born
about 1361.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2024-02-25 1:14 p.m., Roderick Ward wrote:

>
> William de Stanley [IV] probably died 1419 or 1420. (“William Stanley,
> knight, deceased” 1420, July 20, in the CPR; William de Stanley [III] is
> pretty consistently described as “William de Stanley, Kt, senior” in the
> Recognizance Rolls after William de Stanley [III] was knighted at
> Agincourt in 1415, until 1420 and later when he is simply described as
> “William de Stanley, kt.”. Married Blanche [Savage, I claim] about 1403.

This should be "William de Stanley [IV] was knighted at Agincourt in
1415..."

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2024-02-25 1:20 p.m., Roderick Ward wrote:
> Addendum:
> I guess there is no need to suppose that William de Stanley [II] had an
> earlier son William who died young if we take the "50 years and more"
> and "60 years and more" as being very vague, and William [III] was born
> about 1361.
>
I should take a break. This should be the "30 years and more" in his
father's ipm.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2/25/2024 10:14 AM, Roderick Ward wrote:

> William de Stanley [II] born c. 1337 (of age in his father’s 1360 ipm;
> ‘50 and more’ on 3 September 1386 when giving evidence in the
> Scrope-Grosvenor trial; ‘60 and more’ in 1397 in a proof of age case for
> William Venables of Kinderton – see Irvine pp. 57-8); died 18 June 1398
> (ipm). Possibly m. Matilda (widow in CPR 1400). Son William born before
> 1362 and died before 1368. Son and heir William born c. 1368 (next).
>
> William de Stanley [III] born c. 1368 (aged 30 and more in his father’s
> ipm); died 2 February 1427/8 (ipm). Married Margery de Hoton. Marriage
> agreement 1376 (Rylands Charter GB RYCH/1673).

Tentatively accepting Irvine's assignments of documents to generations,
I see no reason for Irvine's two-sons-named-William scenario. If I am
reading it correctly, this is based solely on the heir of the elder
William being aged 30 and more in 1398, which leads him to put that
William's birth in 1368, and hence requires the son William in 1362 to
be a different child of the same name not subsequently seen. In my
experience with such ages for adult heirs, '30 and more' should just be
interpreted as 'an adult of middle age' rather than anything precise. I
have seen the same woman called '30 and more' and '50 and more' in ipms
from the same year. As such, barring evidence that directly contradicts
this conclusion, I see no reason for the William granted Stanley in 1362
to be viewed as distinct from the William who was son and heir in 1398
'aged 30 and more', and Occam would favor their unity.

(The same applies to the placement of William [II]'s birth ca. 1337,
based on two analogous decade-level approximations, but at least in this
case the decade spans are more or less consistent between the two.)

taf

On 2/25/2024 10:33 AM, Roderick Ward wrote:
> On 2024-02-25 1:20 p.m., Roderick Ward wrote:
>> Addendum:
>> I guess there is no need to suppose that William de Stanley [II] had
>> an earlier son William who died young if we take the "50 years and
>> more" and "60 years and more" as being very vague, and William [III]
>> was born about 1361.
>>
> I should take a break. This should be the "30 years and more" in his
> father's ipm.

We are in agreement on that then - again I started my explanation of the
same conclusion before yours made it to me.

taf

On 2/25/2024 5:17 AM, Roderick Ward wrote:
> On 2024-02-24 10:37 p.m., Roderick Ward wrote:
> I checked Irvine’s reference for William’s April 1360 death date and it
> actually looks pretty solid. I think maybe the case in Pedigrees from
> the Plea Rolls is missing a generation.
>

The error here is the editor's failure to read the record clearly. Dated
1 Dec 1361 (Black Prince's Register: Chester, 430), the document
describes how William, son and heir of William de Stanley, provided 'a
copy of the eyre of the forest of Wyrhale held before Sir John de
Makclesfeld and his followers", in which William de Stanlegh, forester
of Wyrhall, presented his hereditary right, essentially giving the same
pedigree that Wrottesley copies. In other words, the William, son of
William de Stanley, living in 1361 was (obviously) not the same as
William de Stanlegh, son of John, who presented his plea at some
unreported earlier date.

When was this testimony given? In 1347, the Black Prince appointed
Thomas de Ferrers and John de Macclesfield as justices in eyre,
regarding the forests of Cheshire. Macclesfield's plea roll for the eyre
bears the date of 6 November 1347, and includes dozens of pleas relating
to Wirrall forest. While there was a subsequent eyre for Wirrall in
1357, John de Macclesfield was not among those appointed to conduct it
(Willoughby, Stafford, Delves, Brunham). As such, the testimony
submitted by William son of William in 1361 seems to have been provided
by [his father] William son of John in 1347. The pedigree is not missing
a generation, per se, it is placed wrongly in time. The ending William
de Stanlegh should be described as "living 21 E 3" rather than 35 E 3.

taf

On 2/24/2024 6:15 PM, taf wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 3:57 PM, Roderick Ward wrote:
>> About 1320 the next Henry de Litherland demised to Margaret his mother
>> for life all his lands in Aughton, except his field of Stockbridge,
>> with services, escheats, reliefs, &c., and the half of the wastes and
>> waters. (fn. 86) Henry's wife was Joan, and probably his son was the
>> Henry de Litherland who in 1361 gave a yearly rent of £20 from his
>> lands in Aughton to William de Stanley and Agnes his wife, the widow
>> of John de Lascelles. (fn. 87) Eight years later William de Stanley
>> gave to Agnes de Beckington, (fn. 88) formerly wife of Henry de
>> Litherland, lands in Wallasey, while Agnes gave to William lands she
>> had in Storeton in Wirral. (fn. 89) Henry—apparently the same—was
>> living in 1371, when a re-feoffment of his lands in Liscard was made
>> to him; (fn. 90) and a little later a settlement of his Cheshire lands
>> was made upon John his son, with remainders to his other children,
>> Matthew and Katherine. (fn. 91)
>>
>> Is it saying that Agnes de Beckington, formerly the wife of Henry de
>> Litherland, gave lands in 1370, but her husband was still alive in
>> 1371? Or is the 1371 Henry supposed to be father (or son) of the
>> former husband of Agnes?
>
> Looks like a scholarly or editorial lapse to me. Unless the 1371
> document is referring to Henry retrospectively, then the Henry mentioned
> in 1371 is not "apparently the same" as the man whose wife had remarried
> by 1370. My guess would be that the 1371 Henry was the son and heir of
> Agnes' husband.

Here is a Litherland pedigree. The descent from Matthew de Becheton
through Henry de Becheton, Joan de Becheton, and two successive Henry de
Litherland to John de Litherland was given by the latter in 1421.

1. Henry de Litherland, fl. ca. 1320, son of Margaret, husband of Joan
de Becheton, daughter of Henry de Becheton (fl. 1295).

2. Henry de Litherland, d. 1369, m. 1) ?; m.2) Agnes, widow of Jn de
Lasselles and Wm de Stanley

3. Henry de Litherland, fl. 1371

4. John de Litherland, fl 1421, m. Alice, who demanded her dower from
Henry de Litherland in 1426.

taf

On 2024-02-24 2:57 p.m., taf wrote:

> What is the basis for John having a sister Blanche?

There is also this from Ormerod/Helsby (vol. 2, pp. 672-3):

[Piers de Legh's] wife Margaret long survived him, ... She had license
in 1402, Sep. 24, for the settlement of a moiety of the manor of
Gropenhale upon herself for life, with successive remainders in tail to
Peter son of Peter de Legh, and John Savage, and the sisters of the
latter, viz. Elizabeth and Blanche, with cross remainders, and Geoffrey
son of John de Mascy of Wymyncham, with final remainder to the right
heirs of the settlor.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 3/3/2024 12:33 PM, Roderick Ward wrote:
> On 2024-02-24 2:57 p.m., taf wrote:
>
>> What is the basis for John having a sister Blanche?
>
> There is also this from Ormerod/Helsby (vol. 2, pp. 672-3):
>
> [Piers de Legh's] wife Margaret long survived him, ... She had license
> in 1402, Sep. 24, for the settlement of a moiety of the manor of
> Gropenhale upon herself for life, with successive remainders in tail to
> Peter son of Peter de Legh, and John Savage, and the sisters of the
> latter, viz. Elizabeth and Blanche, with cross remainders, and Geoffrey
> son of John de Mascy of Wymyncham, with final remainder to the right
> heirs of the settlor.

At first I thought this could be the same document alluded to in
Ormerod/Helsby vol. 1 that you cited before, but that was dated to a
year after this.

The chronology of the proposed marriage works, more or less:

William Stanley the elder married in 1376 to Margery de Hoton, with
William the younger being eldest son.

John Savage is said to have married widow Margaret Daniers/Daniel about
1375/6 and he died about 1386, which brackets John, Elizabeth and
Blanche between those years, with Blanche seemingly the second daughter
and second or third child.

William Stanley and Blanche first act independently together in 1403.
This all fits together in a manner consistent with your hypothesis.

There is a corollary. The 1580 Cheshire visitation says that William,
son of 'Margery or Blanch" married Mary, daughter of John Savage. Were
this true and your hypothesis also correct, this would be a highly
unlikely first-cousin marriage. However, it would not surprise me at all
if the family had a memory of an ancestral Savage connection, and
mistakenly associated it with the wife of the wrong William.

Perhaps it was Mary, wife of Blanche's son, who was the Arderne, and
Blanche the Savage. This is looking for patterns in tea leaves, but I
note that the Arderne pedigree in the same visitation makes Blanche,
wife of William Stanley, the sister of Hugh Arderne, but also gives Hugh
a son Raph Arderne married to a daughter of Stanley of Hooton. Were this
the case, Raph would likewise be marrying his first cousin. However,
were we to hypothesize that the Savage and Arderne marriage became
reversed in the family memory, then Mary, wife of William Stanley of
Hooton would line up as sister of Raph, and this would be an example of
reciprocal sibling marriages between the two families, rather than
first-cousin marriages in the same generation of both families.

taf

> There is a corollary. The 1580 Cheshire visitation says that William,
> son of 'Margery or Blanch" married Mary, daughter of John Savage. Were
> this true and your hypothesis also correct, this would be a highly
> unlikely first-cousin marriage. However, it would not surprise me at all
> if the family had a memory of an ancestral Savage connection, and
> mistakenly associated it with the wife of the wrong William.
>
> Perhaps it was Mary, wife of Blanche's son, who was the Arderne, and
> Blanche the Savage. This is looking for patterns in tea leaves, but I
> note that the Arderne pedigree in the same visitation makes Blanche,
> wife of William Stanley, the sister of Hugh Arderne, but also gives Hugh
> a son Raph Arderne married to a daughter of Stanley of Hooton. Were this
> the case, Raph would likewise be marrying his first cousin. However,
> were we to hypothesize that the Savage and Arderne marriage became
> reversed in the family memory, then Mary, wife of William Stanley of
> Hooton would line up as sister of Raph, and this would be an example of
> reciprocal sibling marriages between the two families, rather than
> first-cousin marriages in the same generation of both families.
>
> taf

I think something like this is what happened. “Mary Savage” does not
appear in the Savage pedigree in the 1580 visitation, although there are
many other daughters in the supposed Mary’s generation given, with their
marriages. Ormerod (vol. 2, p. 413), when discussing the numerous
problems with the standard version of the marriages of the 15th century
Stanleys of Hooton, notes that it is “no impeachment” that Mary Savage
does not appear in Leycester’s pedigree of the Savages of Clifton, but
it certainly doesn’t help. Tim Thornton, in his ODNB article on the
Savages of Clifton, gives Sir John Savage (d. 1450) and Maud Swinnerton
five sons (John, William, Arnold, George, and Roger) and only three
daughters (Margaret, who married John Dutton; Maud, who married Sir
Thomas Booth; and the Isabel Savage who married Robert Legh). The
last-named Isabel, of course, is the one related in the 2nd degree to
Isabel Stanley, daughter of William and Blanche, according to the
dispensation.

I wonder if any good evidence exists that William Stanley married a Mary
Savage, apart from the 1580 visitation.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com