<< Back to Ahnentafel list

Lucy Risley

fl 1331

Father Hugh Risley ?
Mother Lucy de Morley
Husband Roger de Massy ?
Children Goditha, Richard


Practically nothing is known about Lucy. She was named by her daughter Goditha in a number of pleas over inheritence (1)(2)(3), which show that her mother was also called Lucy. Her father was possibly called Hugh Risley (4).

She is believed to have married Roger de Massy (5), sometime before 1331 (6). Besides their daughter Goditha, they probably also had a son Richard (7).


Brief details of her children:



Sources:

  1. "Collections for a History of Staffordshire", Vol 13, 1892. p184 (Extracts from the pleas rolls):
    DE BANCO. MICH, 7 Ric II
    Derb. The record of an assize was returned into Court which had been taken at Derby on the Monday after the Feast of St. James the Apostle, 7 Ric. II [July 1383], in which Philip de Okoiire (Okeover), Chivaler, claimed the manor of Caldelowe against Goditha, formerly wife of Ralph de Stathum, and others. Goditha answered as tenant, and stated that one Elizabeth, daughter and heir of John de la Launde, "was formerly seised of the tenements and had married one Richard, son of Richard Foljaumpe, and afterwards a Fine was levied in 3 E. III between Joan, formerly wife of John de la Launde, complainant, and the said Richard, son of Richard Foljaumpe, and Elizabeth, deforciants of the manor of Caldelowe and of other lands and tenements, by which Joan acknowledged the said tenements to be the right of Elizabeth, for which the said Richard and Elizabeth granted them to Joan for her life, with reversion to the said Richard and Elizabeth and to the heirs of Elizabeth. And she produced the Fine in Court, and she stated that the said Richard and Elizabeth continued in seisin of the tenements for a long time after the date of the Fine, and at length Richard died, and after his death Elizabeth continued in seisin of them, and died leaving no issue, and after her death the said Goditha and one Peter Peyntour entered as cousins and heirs of Elizabeth, viz., Goditha as daughter of Lucy, daughter of Lucy, daughter of Joan, sister of John, father of the said Elizabeth, and Peter as son of Joan, son of Matilda, another sister of the said John, father of Elizabeth, and she stated that Philip was kinsman of the said Elizabeth more remotely, viz., as son of Thomas, son of Roger, son of John, son of Hugh, father of Lucy, the mother of John, father of the said Elizabeth. And the said Philip, without admitting that such a Fine had been levied, stated that long before Elizabeth held anything in the manor, one Hugh de Okoure, his ancestor, and whose heir he was, viz., father of John, father of Roger, father of Thomas, father of the said Philip, was seised of the manor in demesne as of fee, and gave it to one William de la Launde, Knight, and to Lucy, his wife, and to the heirs male of their bodies, and from the said William and Lucy the manor descended to one William as son and heir, and from this William, who died leaving no male issue, the manor descended to one John as brother and heir, and from this John, who died leaving no male issue, the right reverted to the said Philip, as kinsman and heir of the said Hugh, and after the death of John, Elizabeth had intruded herself into the manor, and Philip being under age had then entered, and was seised of it until the said Goditha and the other defendants had disseised him.
    And Goditha stated she knew nothing of the gift of the manor by the said Hugh, but that the Fine had been levied as above stated, in the third year of King Edward III, and this Fine was a Fine upon surrender,
    "finis super redditionem," and was levied before the Statute by which the non-claim, of such a Fine was restrained, "per quod non clamewm cujuscunque talis finis restringitur." And at the date of the Fine, Roger, the ancestor of Philip, was of full age, and out pf prison, and within the four seas; and the said Roger had not put in his claim to the manor within a year of the levying of the Fine, and therefore Philip was precluded from the present assize. After some further pleadings a day was given to the parties at Westminster on the Wednesday after a month from Michaelmas,* on which day the suit was adjourned to the Morrow of All Souls, and from that date to the Morrow of St. Martin, and from that date to the Octaves of St. Hillary, in statu quo nuno. A postscript states that on that date Philip did not appear and the suit was dismissed. m. 393.
    * As it involved a question of law, the decision was left to the Judges in Bank
  2. "Collections for a History of Staffordshire", Vol 13, 1892. p188 (Extracts from the pleas rolls):
    DE BANCO. EASTER, 7 Ric II
    Derb. William de Skypwyth and William de Burgh, Justices of Assize in co Derby, tra=nsmitted the record and process of an assize of novel disseisin taken before them on the Monday the feast of St James the Apostle, 8 Ric II, in these words:-
    An assize, etc, if Goditha, formerly wife of Ralph de Stathum, and others named, had unjustly disseised Philip de Okore (Okeover), Chivali, of the manor of Caldelowe, and a messuage and an acre of land in Caldelowe and Snellesron.
    In this suit Goditha repeated her plea as in the former assize, claiming by virtue of a Fine levied on the Quindene of St Michael, 3 E III, between Joan, formerly wife of John de Launde, complainant, and Richard, son of Richard Foljambe, and Elizabeth, his wife, daughter and heir of John de la Launde, and claiming to be nearer of blood to the said Elizabeth than Philip, and she gave these pedigrees:-
                                      Lucy = William de la Launde
           ________________________________|_______________________________
          |                                |                               |
    John de la Launde                     Joan                          Matilda
          |                                |                               |
      Elizabeth = Richard Foljambe        Lucy                            Joan
                                           |                               |
                                          Lucy                       Peter Peyntour
                                           |
                                        Goditha
    
                       Hugh de Okeover
        _____________________|____________________
       |                                          |
     John                                       Lucy = Wiliam de la Launde
       |                                  ___________|____________
       |                                 |                        |
     Roger                            William                   John
       |                               ob sp                      |
    Thomas                                                    Elizabeth
       |
    Philip, the plaintiff
    
    Philip repeated his plea as in the former trial, but added that at the time the said Goditha stated that the Fine was levied, and for all the rest of his lifetime, Roger his ancestor was in Scotland, and not within the four seas of Enland, and that he died in Scotland. Goditha replied that at the time the Fine was levied Roger was within the four seas, becuase he wasat Mynsterton in co. Leicester, which she was prepared to prove. Philip repeated that on the date of the Fine and for a year and a day afterwards, the said Roger was in Scotland, and died there, which he was prepared to prove*. A day was therefore given to the parties in Banco on the Tuesday after three weeks from St Michael, on which day both Goditha and Philip appeared in person, and because the plea could not be determined in co. Derby a day was given to the parties on the Thursday at a month from St Michael, on which day Goditha and Philip appeared in person, and stated that they were prepared to maintain their pleas as given above, and prayed that a jury might be summoned from co Leicester; and the Sheriff was ordered to summon a jury for the Octaves of St Hillary. A postscript shows that no jury had been empanelled up to the morrow of the Ascension. m334.
    * Philip was certainly wrong in his date, for Roger had Letters of Protection whilst in Scotland in 9 E III. It may be assumed, however, that he died or was killed in Scotland (Scotch Roll of 9 Ed III)
  3. "Pedigrees from the plea rolls collected from the pleadings in the various courts of law AD 1200 to 1500", Wrottesley, p268, reads :
    De Banco. Easter, 11 Hen 4 [1410], m 337
    Derb:- Goditha, late wife of Ralph de Stathum, sued Henry Coton, Clerk, to give up to her a pyx containing deeds which she claimed as heir of Hugh de Morley.
          Hugh de Morley of Morley
                     |
                  Richard
                     |
                   Lucy
                     |
                   Lucy
                     |
                  Goditha
    
    The pyx had com into Henry Coton's hands after the death of one Katrine Verdon, 20 Rich 2.
  4. I have been unable to confirm her father's identity as Hugh de Risley - see his page for details.
  5. Her husband's identity is not certain. See his page for details.
  6. "Descriptive catalogue of Derbyshire charters", Jeayes, no 976 reads:
    Lease from Roger de Massy de Morley and Lucy his wife to Pagan le Draper de Derby for six years of a toft, with belongings, lying in the Briggegate at Derby, called Morleyhallyerd; rent 5s silver yearly. Witn: Simon de Cestr, tunc ballivus de Derby, etc. Dat Derby, T Vig of Ann of BV Mary [24 Mar] 1331 (Add. 5239)
  7. "Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, Edward 1II, Vol XII", 1905, page 266 contains an entry dated January 20 1348 which includes :
    "Exemplification, at the request of John Cokayn, William son of John de Lymester, Thomas, his brother, Adam de Beleby, Richard son of Roger le Massy, John, groom of John Cokatn, and William son of William le Spenser, of the tenor of a record and process before Nicholas de Longeford, Giles de Meignill, Richard de la Pol, John de Rocheford, Robert de Assheburn and Henry de la Pole, late justices assigned to enquire of the death of William Sautcheverell at Derby, as follows:-
      ...
    John Cokayn, William son of John de Lymester, Thomas his brother, Adam de Beleby, Richard son of Roger le Massy, John, groom of John Cokayn, and William son of William le Spenser, are brought before the justices by the sheriff and severally plead not guilty and put them selves on the country. Therefore Thomas de Bekeryng, sheriff of Derby, is charged to summon a jury to the vicinage of Derby at Assheburn, on Saturday, before 8 September, and in the meantime the said John Cokayn and others are committed to his custody.
    At which day, before the said Giles de Meygnil, Richard de la Pole and Robert de Assheburn, justices, the jury find them not guilty and they are acquitted. ..."



Notes:


Home