My basic list of heads of Mallory lineages differs very little from what I interpret as P.J.C. Field's modifications of S.V. Mallory Smith's earlier published work. Where I might have something to add is in the frills that make it more in the nature of a gentry history of medieval England rather than a more narrowly focused genealogical work. I have uncovered more names of spouses, children, closely allied families, property transfers, court cases, etc. and have been able to create a tentative chronology of the various heads of households covering roughly a five hundred year period. Even though it is being constantly fine-tuned and subject to change, this chronology could be useful later in helping place people in different lineages, should more Mallory DNA variations appear than hitherto, a matter which, from my own experience with other DNA projects, is highly likely as project numbers increase.
I would first like to deal with the Mallorys of Kirkby Mallory as this is the senior branch of the Mallory family and whose heads of household I will deal with generation by generation.
The first of this line is Anschetil who, considering medieval Mallory mating habits and average generation length lengths, would have been born around 1075. He could, of course, have been born much earlier, but he is unlikely to have been born early enough to have come over with William I on the conquest, though he was certainly Norman French in origin.
The likely original Norman French pronunciation of Anschetil was "Ahn-skeh-teel", a pronunciation which did not survive long the move to England where the middle "s" was soon dropped. However, exotic as it might appear to someone now, Anketil was a quite common medieval name for men in England. I thought this would be pretty much a Mallory thing and its very rarity could help identify individuals connected with the Mallorys. Its very commonness makes it useless as a tool for analysis. In my research, I find it constantly popping up in the least expected places throughout the 12th to the 15th centuries, even as a family name. In the 15th century it stops appearing, but doesn't disappear, as it now rather frequently begins to appear quite often in what was formerly a name unused in England, Anthony, having been gradually hyper-corrected with a knowledge of Latin and French, first from Anketil to an intermediary Anketin to a final Anthony.
As for Anschetil's family name, throughout the medieval period right up to the very end of the 16th century, the most common way to spell Mallory was Mallore. The pronunciation, however, was meant to be tri-syllabic, exactly the same as the modern pronunciation for Mallory, though probably slightly flatter as it would be if pronounced by a native speaker of French today. This, too, was not a strictly Mallory thing. I have noticed the same phenomenon in the names of other medieval families such as Burle for what later became Burley, etc.
Of course, many other spellings for Mallory exist. I could easily generate 20 different spellings, all of which I have seen used at one time or the other in medieval texts. Two spellings, though, deserve special notice. One is Maleore, a spelling which I have only found in texts having their origin in Yorkshire and the other Molore which I have only found in Leicestershire. I’m not sure if a geographic bias to spelling could be demonstrated for these or other spelling variations, but, if it could, that, too, might become a possible future tool for analysis.
Whether Anschetil ever possessed Kirkby Mallory or not is unknown. My assumption, though, is that he shared fully in his descendants exceptionally frequent propensity to marry heiresses and to hive off estates coming as a result of such marriages to younger sons. The chances are that he married the heiress to Kirkby Mallory, and that it was through this presumed heiress that Kirkby Mallory became the first Mallory lordship in England, the one that identified its possessor as the feudal overlord of all other Mallory branches.
Robert would have been born roughly around 1100. Though it cannot be proven directly, I am fairly sure this Robert married the heiress which brought the family their Tachebrook Mallory and Walton on the Wolds properties in Leicestershire. He, too, probably followed the impossible-to-document family tradition of always marrying an heiress and using such lands to later set up a younger son as the head of a new branch family. In fact, compared with other gentry families, Mallory heads of households proved to be, generation after generation, unusually generous with their younger sons, though to prevent property from being alienated out of family hands should there be a failure in producing heirs, they were also careful to keep the reversion of such estates firmly tied to the senior line. Robert’s wife may have been a Turville or closely related to the Turvilles, as this family at times claimed feudal superiors of the Mallorys with regard to properties at Walton on the Wolds and continued, themselves, to hold certain lands there. It is also possible that this presumed heiress who married Robert Mallory was perhaps a granddaughter or great granddaughter of Ralph Carnot (Carnot being interpreted as an attempt at trying to express “of Chartes” in the medieval Latin of the Doomsday Book), someone who possessed Tachebrook Mallory and quite a few other Leicestershire properties as a subtenant when the Doomsday Book survey was taken in 1086 and, by my calculations, would have been more than old enough to have participated in the invasion of England by William the Conqueror.
Here, as elsewhere, I am basing my estimate of average generation length on a roughly calculated average that came out to be around 25 years for medieval English Mallorys,though for some Mallory branches it sometimes goes a bit lower and in others it tends to get a bit higher. Average generation length, incidentally, is something which I have found to be different according families. For instance, with my own male line ancestral line (the Cottons of Cotton Edmund's of Cheshire) the average generation length has been 31 years and this has continued to be the case for over 700 years. This is connected with the typical Cotton of Cotton Edmund's basic life strategy which has, generation after generation, been to take one's time in searching for a woman to mate with in an unconscious effort to find someone stable enough and capable enough to hold things together should disaster ever hit. The ordinary medieval Mallory life strategy was to mate, whenever possible, a woman with substantial resources (=land) that could eventually be brought into the family; and, then producing a family as quickly as possible, charge forward full speed in their attack on life, irregardless of the consequences, something which makes for endlessly fascinating history.
Richard was born roughly in around 1125 and his younger brother Anketil II born roughly in around 1130. Anketil was given Tachbrook Mallory and Walton as a feudal subtenant of his older brother, indicating, when taken together with future Mallory actions in such situations, that they both had the same mother, otherwise the Tachbrook Mallory and Walton on the Wolds properties would have been inherited independently of Kirkby Mallory’s overlordship. I will deal with the chronology of this Anketil's line later, a line for which I am finding information and family connections to be rather more detailed than I would have expected.
Richard continued family tradition by marrying an heiress Agnes de Novo Mercato (also, Novo Foro, and sometimes appearing in modern works as Neufmarch or Newmarket, depending on whether one prefers French or English). Agnes was the daughter of William de Novo Mercato and had two sisters, Helisanta and Geva, neither of whom had children, thus leaving her as the eventual sole heir. She brought Welton in Bedforshire, and a future claim to properties in Billesley in Warwickshire.
Richard appears to have died roughly around 1175.
The oldest son was of Richard Mallory and Agnes de Novo Mercato was *Sir William Mallore, knight.
(*In the English middle ages, priests were also addressed as Sir so-and-so, exactly in the same manner as a knight would be, thus necessitating the suffixing of the term "knight" to names appearing in official documents, if the person concerned was indeed a knight. Otherwise, the assumption would have been it was a priest being referred to. This distinction, as will be seen later, can be quite useful in distinguishing individuals and in tracking individual histories.)
The second son of the above-mentioned couple was Sir Simon Mallore, knight. I have found interlinking court cases proving his parentage. The evidence goes beyond being circumstantial. Being a second son with a mother who brought additional estates to the family, family tradition was followed and his mother's inheritance of Welton was entailed on him as a feudal subtenant of his older brother Richard. I will deal with his line in a separate posting.
The third and fourth brothers were Luke and Ralph, who became tenants of small pieces of land in Kirkby Mallory large enough for them to support themselves, but did not become a lord of a manor as William or Simon did. Whether the third or fourth brothers married or had descendants is unknown, though Ralph having been given less land later than Luke probably did not.
Sir William was born roughly around 1150 and died in 1216 give or take a year. He married a woman by the name of Alice. She, too, appears to have been an heiress, though of what family I have not yet been able to find enough information about which to form a conjecture, apparently bringing the main line property and claims to property that come up in court cases that involve her future widowed daughter-in-law Cecilia Segrave in dower claims versus a local abbey.
Richard is the only known child of Sir William and Alice. He was born about 1175 and died in 1220 (not in 1217 as appears in the Dictionary of National Biography), when the last record of him alive appears and when his widow begins three years of court cases to win full dower rights.
Richard's wife was Cecilia Segrave, the younger (probably youngest) sister of Stephen Segrave, an extremely powerful person in England during the first half of the reign of Henry III. In particular, his role in Leicestershire was prominent, as this is where the original Segrave properties were and this is where he tried hardest to acquire more. There is no direct documentary proof of this marriage, but property inheritance by future generations of the Lords of the Manor of Kyrkby Mallory of lands which could have come into their hands only through her act as proof in stead. In addition to other more circumstantial evidence, this makes it certain she was the same woman who later married Gilbert Mallory of Walton on the Wold and Tachbrook Mallory. This, in turn, when considering all her children's ages, etc. means her birth could not have taken place not much before 1188 and that she did not live much beyond the last mention of her in 1281. She would have had her first child, Thomas of Generation-6, about 1203 when she was perhaps 15 or 16 at the most and her last child not very much later than 1230 when she would have been in her early 40s. Her second husband, Gilbert, was at most only two years older than her oldest son by her first marriage. What was going on? There was something in it for everyone, except her oldest son by her first husband. Gilbert got a rich wife with a powerful brother. Under English law his wife's property was his as long as she lived. Under church law he was literally considered by the church as the father of his wife's children by her first husband, thus outranking them, even though her oldest son was almost the same age and technically his feudal overlord. For Cecilia, she got a young husband and considering her feistiness and the extraordinarily long life she lived, she probably needed a younger second husband rather than an older on. As she was independently wealthy by medieval standards and church law forbid her from being forced to be remarried, her second husband was clearly 100% her choice. For Stephen Segrave, it gave him a pliant young brother-in-law with a respectable amount of land and, at no extra cost, it tied yet another branch of the Mallory family to him during years in which his power was often challenged. And, as the case turned out, it was Cecilia who survived everyone.
Richard and Cecilia's oldest son was Thomas Mallory and this is fully documentable. I would place Anketil Mallory of Octon here and also a Robert Mallory who became a priest and, under Segrave influence, was given a church appointment, thus, to use the medieval term, he acquired a living. Anketil Mallory of Octon will be dealt with in a separate posting.
Thomas was asked to be a witness in a court case that involved a grand aunt by marriage (Alice de Holewell of Welton) in 1218 and was still apparently a minor with regard to his own inheritance in 1222, which, in consideration of the common law of the time, means his likely year of birth was 1203. He died roughly around 1246. He was probably married to Christiana Segrave around 1224, who, at the time of her marriage, was not the heiress of her father, Henry Segrave, but did later become the sole heir on the death of her brother Geoffrey and thereby became the heir of her mother Isolda Euermue, who was the co-heir of her father William Euermue.
Christiana's father Henry is mentioned in P.J.C. Field's work as a brother of the Justiciar of England, Cecilia Segrave's older brother Stephen. This is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. Primarily though, if she had been Stephen Segrave's niece, Christiana would have also been the niece of Thomas's mother, Cecilia. The church was far stricter in the 12th and 13th centuries in its definition of incest and permission, even for royalty, was almost never given for first cousins to marry. Even second cousins had difficulty getting church approval. Christiana could have conceivably been a second cousin, but was more likely to have been a third cousin or a fourth cousin of her husband, if there were an actual family relationship, which I tend to believe there was. The information provided by the Segrave Chartulary (which I have read both in the British Library manuscript copy and in its printed version) would, in fact, indicate it could have been possible for Christiana's father Henry to have been related to Stephen and Cecilia Segrave, but, unlike other Segraves mentioned, it does not provide any direct clue as how to Henry Segrave might be affiliated. Christiana, as mentioned before, was the sole heir of a very minor branch of the Segrave family and a co-heir of the Euermue (also, Evermo) family. She did not bring an inheritance large enough to set up a new branch when she married Richard of Kirkby Mallory, but she did bring enough to make the match respectable and is to be found as a widow involved in court cases regarding lands she held as a result of this inheritance.
Thomas and Christiana had three sons, Richard (the oldest), Ralph (the second) and Henry (the youngest). The first two, in succession, inherited the Kirkby Mallory manor. Henry probably did not which is most likely why so few records concerning him survive and why (for a Mallory) his estimated age at starting a family is quite late.
Richard, being the oldest son, inherited Kirkby Mallory first. He would have been born around 1225, held Kirkby Mallory in 1246, and was dead by 1261. He certainly married, otherwise he wouldn't have been allowed to inherit the family estates, but to whom is unknown. If he had any children, they must have passed away young.
Ralph Mallory of Kirkby Mallory only appears on a record in the Chancery of the Jews as having borrowed money from a Jewish man two times in 1261. It does not seem likely he would have been able to borrow without collateral, thus my assumption that he was the lord of Kirkby Mallory from 1261 after Richard.
The third son Henry first appears only once as a witness to a charter in 1254, but was the only one of many witnesses of that charter of the Earl of Leicester without any honorific attached to his name indicating he was neither a knight nor a feudal lord, meaning he certainly would not have possessed the manor of Kirkby Mallory at the time of the charter’s signing. He was probably born around 1230 and could have passed away anywhere from around 1261 to around 1275. His wife's name was Matilda. He was, in all likelihood, not in the position to attract a major heiress, so it is unlikely Matilda brought the main line any significant properties as other wives traditionally had. They had a son Thomas who may have been born as late as 1260 and who inherited Kirkby Mallory. There was also possibly a second son Robert.Thomas and his presumed brother Robert probably would not have been born later than 1261, as in this year Henry’s wife Matilda is involved a legal case, something that would have been unlikely to happen if Henry were still alive, as he would have held a life interest in his wife’s property and thus involved in the case, if she were his wife.
Sir Thomas Mallory (or Mallore as he and most Mallorys appear in the records of the time) was the first lord of Kirkby Mallory to be knighted in four generations. Not only that, he was made a knight of the Bath at the installation of the future Edward II as Prince of Wales and was in the same company of men knighted as the last Lord la Zouche of the first creation, a man who was descended through his mother from King Henry II of England and through his father's mother from King David I of Scotland. Other records also indicate that Sir Thomas was moving in circles rather above the station in life he had been born to. How did this happen?
Over a century ago, a classic study of a Yorkshire abbey included in an appendix a brief outline of the Hutton Conyers/Studley Royal Mallorys. It is there stated that the progenitor of this line, Sir Christopher Mallory was the son of a Sir Thomas Mallory and a daughter of a Baron la Zouche. While considering it unlikely, I thought all leads should be followed, so I first looked at the barons la Zouche of the second creation, the barons la Zouche of Haryngworth. Chronologically, this proved impossible in all directions if we assume a la Zouche of Harringworth to have married the only known Sir Thomas Mallory (the Sir Thomas Mallory mentioned here as Lord of Kirkby Mallory) old enough to have been Sir Christopher's father.
I then looked at the barons la Zouche of the first creation and found that it would have been chronologically possible for only the second to the last baron of this creation to have had such a daughter, the last baron (the one who became a knight of the Order of the Bath on the same day as Sir Thomas) being of the same generation as Sir Thomas and most likely some years younger. Once I accepted the possibility that Sir Thomas had married a sister perhaps five or six years older than the last baron, I started looking for evidence to prove or, what I thought more likely, disprove things one way or another. Decisive proof has not been uncovered, but, until now, every new bit of circumstantial evidence that I have discovered confirms this hypothesis, gradually increasing its likelihood. We may now not only consider this marriage to have merely been possible, but to have been probable. Nevertheless, it cannot be called proven and perhaps will prove, in the end, impossible to prove to a point it could be ever be accepted by the College of Arms.
If Thomas's father had died before becoming Lord of Kirkby Mallory, Thomas would have been in the custody of his Uncle Ralph who, judging from the fact that Thomas names his oldest surviving son Ralph, was the likely main father figure of Thomas's life. If so, it would have been the elder Ralph who would would have made arrangements with Lord la Zouche (or, if Lord la Zouche had died, with his heirs) for Thomas to have married what might have been Lord la Zouche's oldest child, someone who would have been born around 1268, thus anywhere from eight to fifteen years younger than Thomas.
The life strategy of the la Zouche's, like that of many other upperclass familys, appears to have been to give younger sons a good education and to use family influence to get them started, but then to more or less abandon them to make it on their own. Daughters were given nothing at all after their marriage settlement, except the important right of their children being considered extended family. Only if there were no sons, did the position of daughters change and then quite radically. The second to the last lord la Zouche had two sons who gave every promise of living to adulthood and the Mallorys of Kirkby Mallory, if Ralph Mallory did, indeed, arrange such a marriage for his nephew must have paid for the honor, even if the payment were indirect. The arrangements of such a marriage, indeed any marriage, have unfortunately not survived.
A stronger case exists for yet another daughter (probably the youngest) of the second to the last Baron la Zouche of the first creation marrying Henry de Boketon, the ancestor of the Greene family into which the Mallorys later intermarry. This family's relative social position was at the time no better than that of the Kirkby Mallory branch of the Mallory family and strengthens the argument that the baron la Zouche (or, if dead, which very well might have been the case, their guardian) of that generation was not particularly worried whom his daughters married as long as it was a family that had property and he didn't have to part with any significant family possessions to pay for the marriage.
However, at the death of the second to the last Lord la Zouche of the first creation, his two sons Alan (the elder) and Roger (the younger), being minors, were taken to live at the court where their education proceeded under the general oversight of King Edward I, himself, who was a second cousin of the boys' grandmother. The man chosen to look after the boys' education on a day to day basis was a certain William Mallory who appears to have been of Walton and Tachbrook Mallory, being the youngest half brother of Sir Thomas Mallory's grandfather, the Thomas Mallory of generation six who was the oldest son of Cecilia Seagrave by her first husband. William Mallory would have been a little more than 50 at the time of his employment by Edward I to look after the two la Zouche teenage boys.
Things do not end here. Another Mallory, perhaps William's son, is employed by Edward I as one of the caretakers of the king's falcons. The connections then tighten. The wife of the last baron la Zouche is a daughter of the Baron Segrave and a third cousin of Sir Thomas. Sir Thomas and the last baron la Zouche are not only knighted at the same time, but also become companions in arms in the wars of King Edward II. Furthermore, around 1303, the la Zouche connections allowed the then heir of the Mallorys of Walton and Tachbrook Mallory to make a profitable marriage with the widow of a junior branch of the soon to become barons la Zouche of Haryngworth.
The last baron la Zouche of the first creation died in 1314 with three daughters as co-heirs, two of whom married. However, the la Zouche connection was not broken. If anything, it became dramatically stronger in succeeding generations, both among the descendants of the two co-heirs, as well as among the new barons la Zouche of Haryngworth (the barons la Zouche of the second creation). That, though, will be touched on later.
Sir Thomas Mallory of generation-8, thus, was probably born around 1260, was probably married to a daughter of Roger, baron la Zouche, and died around 1317, not so many years after his companion in arms and associate, Alan, the last baron la Zouche. His wife's name is not known and, unfortunately, no record has been found which would even make it possible to take an educated guess.
In Japanese, the number nine is sometimes avoided because it has the same sound as the first element of the word meaning painful, tedious, work. Indeed, this particular generation has been that for me, both for the relative abundance of the surviving records and because they are so uninformative as to actual relationships.
Sir Thomas had two children whose identification as such we can be certain of. One is his oldest surviving child, Ralph, and the other is what would have been a second son, Robert. He may have had a third son, Roger, who appears to chronologically correct and a fourth son, Henry, but I have not checked this man's wife's family to the extent that I can categorically state he would fit better as a son of Sir Thomas or as a grandson, being a second son of Ralph. Considering what happens latter in Mallory history, Sir Christopher Mallory fits best either as the youngest son of Sir Thomas Mallory or, if not there, as the oldest son of Sir Thomas's second son, Robert Mallory. The first alternative, though, is, considering the present state of available knowledge, the better one.
Ralph Mallory was born roughly around 1288 which might indicate that, if his mother were a la Zouche, the marriage took place perhaps a year or so after her presumed father had died and that perhaps the woman's guardian was anxious to get rid of the responsibility of taking care of a nubile teenager. Like his father, Ralph was knighted, but unlike his father he was also a member of parliament as a county representative. His wife's name was Margaret. They appear to have had two children who survived, Anketil and Margery, who were certainly brother and sister. There may been another son by the name of Ralph who is made mention of as possessing Kirkby Mallory in the year it is given away by Sir Ralph Mallory’s presumed son Anketil, but more about that later. Also, the Henry mentioned under generation-8 appeared with Anketil as an executor of Sir Ralph's will and this may indicate that he, too, was a son of Sir Ralph and not a brother. There must have been other children of Sir Ralph’s who didn't survive, as will be clear later. Sir Ralph died in 1339 when Anketil Mallory succeeded to the lordship of the manor of Kirkby Mallory. This particular Anketil (there are, unfortunately, others to complicate the picture) was, in his own way, one of the most charmingly extraordinary eccentrics of the 14th century, so it with particular regret that I have not yet found any records that actually state Sir Ralph (or anyone, for that matter) was his father, though the chronology makes it virtually impossible for him not to have been. He will be covered further on as a part of my coverage of the next generation.
Sir Ralph's younger brother Robert made as good a marriage as could be expected for a younger son when there were no knew estates being brought in by an heiress mother large enough to justify hiving off to start new junior branches of the main line possessing their own manors. He married Ala Brocket, the daughter of Thomas Brocket and, if the Papworth St Agnes Mallorys descend from this marriage, either the daughter of Sir William Papworth I of Papworth St. Agnes or, if not him, the only child of his next full brother or, if not this, the only child, of his only full sister. It is easier to think of this unnamed woman as Sir William Papworth's child. Ala's mother was not an heiress at the time of her marriage or during her lifetime. Ala, herself, was different. She was the heiress of Thomas Brocket who was the heir of a certain Thomas Marshal who held fairly considerable lands as a free tenant of Kirkby Mallory and an otherwise unknown Broket heiress who apparently held a much smaller property in Kirkby Mallory. It would have been in honor of this otherwise unknown Broket heiress that her son took the mother's name and means she would have been a second wife of her husband who, at least with regard to Kirkby Mallory, had far more substantial possessions. Thomas Broket's ancestry on his father side can be traced with a fair degree of certainty to around 1200, if considered on its own, but, in terms of chronology and propinquity, would fit in quite nicely as a junior branch of the Marshal family that produced the Earls of Pembroke. Time being at a premium, though, I have not had a chance to assess fully the probability of this, so it must remain a very tentative statement.
There is proof positive that Robert and Ala had two sons, John and Robert, jr. who will be covered in the next generation. There was a second Anketil Mallory who was an exact contemporary of the Anketil Mallory who was the lord of Kirkby Mallory. He fits in best as a son of Robert Mallory and Ala Brocket, but this can not be proven by documentary evidence, even though circumstantial evidence points in this direction, as there is a highly significant overlap in associates that can be proven to be his in Leicestershire and the known associates of the Mallorys of Kirkby Mallory and the Marshal’s of Kirkby Mallory. This second Anketil will be covered under the next generation, also.
Robert, himself was born roughly around 1295 and died before 1345. His wife Ala was born around 1300 and died after 1345.
Henry who may either fit here as the son of Sir Thomas or, in the next generation, as a second surviving son of Sir Ralph married well and, in his wife's right, was the lord of a small manor in Leicestershire, though he does not appear to have left any male descendants. Henry appears to have been knighted but I hesitate to offer even rough dates of birth and death.
Lastly, Sir Christopher Mallory should probably be placed here as the youngest surviving child of Sir Thomas Mallory and the daughter of the baron la Zouche, being born around 1310. His career appears to be closely tied to that of the second Anketil Mallory, however, whom I will provisionally consider as Anketil son of Robert, and their descendants seem to have maintained relations for some generations afterwards, so we cannot automatically preclude that the two were brothers. What is absolutely clear, though, is that neither ever had a claim to the lordship of Kirkby Mallory, as neither took legal proceedings to stop its alienation from Mallory hands in 1461 had they been legal heirs which is something English common law would have permitted them to do had they been heirs. I will, therefore, considering the obvious la Zouche connection they had in common, discuss Sir Christopher's rise from obscurity along with that of Anketil son of Robert when discussing the chronology of the next generation.
The Anketil Mallory who inherited Kirkby Mallory in 1339 cannot be a brother of Sir Ralph Mallory because it appears he lived till 1404. Neither can he be the same person as his exact contemporary of the same name, because this Anketil was a priest, whereas the other became one of the king's knights at the beginning of the reign of King Richard II. At the time of his becoming lord of the manor, Anketil the son of Ralph was the parson of the Church of Thurleston in co. Leicester and, even after becoming lord of the manor in 1339, he remained parson of this church until 1361. Being a priest, though, meant that, even though he was not a knight, he was addressed as Sir Anketil, priests being given the same prefix of courtesy as knights during the middle ages. For precisely this reason, in official documents, if a person were a knight, this word was uniformly suffixed to a person's name. Thus the lord of Kirkby Mallory only once appears in an official document with such an honorific suffixed and that is certainly by mistake. Anketil's name, as lord of the manor at which the legal document had been drawn up, happened to come first in a list that included a real knight being listed immediately after him, so the word "knights" was suffixed, most likely in error, at the end of the second person's name to refer to both of them. In no other instance, is the word knight to be found suffixed to his name and there are many instances in which this unusual man left his trace.
Anketil the priest must have been born a younger son, otherwise he would not have been given an education or sent to study at Oxford University. Apparently, he fell in love with higher education and developed a life-long passion for furthering its advance. His unknown older brother would have been born roughly around 1310 and Anketil the priest around 1315. The older brother must have lived till the mid to late 1330s for Anketil to have made it undisturbed into the priesthood. He did become a priest, though, was assigned a church in Leicestershire, and then suddenly found himself in the position of also being the lord of a manor at the center of a sizable network of feudal obligations.
In 1347, Anketil the priest, probably as a marriage settlement on his sister, deeded her the Segrave inheritance which would have been brought to the Mallorys by Cecilia de Segrave almost 150 years before and perhaps some of that her brought by daughter-in-law Christiana de Segrave 20 years afterwards. In 1351, he used his position as patron of the church of Kirkby Mallory to make Robert Mallory, most likely his Uncle Robert's son, parson. In 1353, the position is again open and he uses his position to appoint a young university graduate (most likely Oxford) who is said to have later made a name for himself as a cleric.
By 1361, when many if not most of those Anketil had been close to as a young man had passed away due to the Black Death of 1349 and latter less severe recurrences of the plague, and, considering the general violence of the times in which he lived, he too had reached an age at which considered it prudent to make a final settlement of his estates. Thinking of his own mortality and apparently not feeling particularly close to any of his ultimate heirs (neices, probably, which would have meant partitioning the family estates), he did something unheard of. In 1361, except for a certain number of estates not feudally dependent on Kirkby Mallory, he deeded Kirkby Mallory and all property rights associated with this manor to the Abbey of St. Mary de Pratis of Leicestershire, in return for which they were required to fund forever two scholars of their order (one of whom was to be a chaplain) to do university study at Oxford University and, if not at Oxford, then at Cambridge. The Abbey was overwhelmed with the offer and several bishops involved themselves in implementing the terms of his endowment. This was literally one of the first, if not the first time, in English history that an endowment fund was created by a private person to fund a university scholarship. Out of gratitude, and considering his for-the-time-in-which-he-lived advanced age of perhaps 55 or 56, the abbey arranged for a transfer of the parson of the church of Kirkby Mallory and installed Anketil the priest as the new parson. He surprised everyone, but probably himself most by living till 1404 when the Abbey was finally able to appoint Anketil's successor. As for Kirkby Mallory, itself, it appears that the Abbey, by what sort of tenure is impossible to say, set up yet another Ralph Mallory to manage the manor for them. Even a government survey of 1428 mentions Kirkby Mallory as having been lately held of him and that homage for it was due his heirs. This could mean many things. It could refer to the old Anketil, himself, which I think it might. Or it might refer to an otherwise unknown Anketil son of Ralph. What is clear, though, is that by 1428, the senior most line of Kirkby Mallory had daughtered out, though in exactly what manner is not at all clear. Perhaps the property assigned to Anketil the priest’s sister Margery might mean that his presumed brother Ralph was not expected to have children or it might have been meant as part of a marriage settlement and that the Ralph Mallory who appears only once in 1461 did have descendants, but that the survivors were female only.
His uncle Robert's children or the children of any sibling of the preceding generation’s Sir Ralph, even if Kirkby Mallory had not been turned into a university scholarship endowment, certainly not in direct line of inheritance to Kirkby Mallory in 1361 and probably at no time afterwards. In any case and as mentioned before, there is no record of them having ever voiced any opposition legally to the actions taken. More importantly, perhaps, they didn't need to worry about an inheritance. The la Zouche connection had already kicked in yet again to save the day.
Robert and Ala certainly had a son John who was born around 1318 and was apparently the successor to Robert's lands in Kirkby Mallory. Anketil could very well have been a second son born around, let's say, 1321, though there is no proof to that effect. Robert, jr. was probably a third son, born roughly around 1325 and is most likely the one Anketil the priest made the rector of the church of Kirkby Mallory in 1351. It is likely that both Anketil and Robert both were intended for the church and that Anketil the priest sent them both to Oxford to be properly trained for that purpose. Anketil the possible son of Robert clearly profited by his education as he was later to be described by the Archbishop William la Zouche as being lettered, meaning he had a thorough knowledge of Latin and an understanding of philosophy, something that could only come to people as a part of training for either the priesthood, law, or medicine. Anketil's future life, though, shows that he did not appreciate the idea of becoming a priest and that he had no particular interest in either law or medicine. Soon enough found a way out of higher education through the help of William la Zouche, the priest mentioned immediately above, who was also one of the most extraordinary government finance officials and most successful generals of his time. To understand the connections, though, we must retrogress a bit.
The la Zouche's of Haryngworth had made a series of very advantageous marriages to rich heiresses and had become barons, too, upon the title of the barons la Zouche going into abeyance among co-heiresses. The future Archbishop was a second son of the first baron la Zouche of Haryngworth and was born around 1300. The third brother's name was Roger. The two brothers were very close, but their names were exactly the same as two of their first cousins. When their cousins' lands were forfeited upon becoming outlaws, the lands reverted to the baron la Zouche of Haryngworth as next heir who then gave these lands to his third son of the same name as the dispossessed la Zouche, a fact which has been the source of confusion for historians for the last 600 years. It took many hours of tedious searching to find the contemporary documents which clarified things, but I did and this is why what is being written here is different from what you will probably read elsewhere.
The second son was educated for the priesthood, but showed excellent financial management skills. He did undergraduate and then graduate study at the university, then entered the king's service where he was attached to the king's chancery, rising fairly rapidly.
By 1339 William la Zouche had already been the equivalent to the King's finance minister and was made the dean of St. Peter's, York, which meant he was acting as the king's agent in the management of northern England. He arranged in that same year for Nicholas de la Beche, knight, to "give" (this word should hardly ever be taken literally in a medieval text) him one third of the huge manor of Sudborough. The "gift" consisted 12 pieces of building land, 2 mills, 4 carucates of land (anywhere from 240 to 720 acres, depending on local circumstances), 20 acres of meadow, 1000 acres of pasture, 100 acres of wood and £6 per annum in rents (roughly £60,000 per annum in present day currency). Significantly, one of the witnesses is John Mallore. This was probably the John Mallore who was the son of Julia who was William's aunt by marriage (her first husband was the before-mentioned Roger la Zouche whose sons became outlawed). Julia's second husband had been Reginald Mallory of Walton and Tachbrook Mallory. The only other likely possibility would have been John, the son of the Robert Mallory who was the brother of Sir Ralph Mallory, but though a bit less likely can not be automatically discounted.
In 1342 William la Zouche was elected, against the king's wishes, Archbishop of York, and, though for a time quite angry, eventually the king accepted that things could not be changed. Anketil was, if my assumption that he was a son of the above-mentioned Robert is correct, a second cousin once removed of the Archbishop, his father being a second cousin. He apparently abandoned his studies, whatever they were, and attached himself to the Archbishop's court, as did, it appears, Christopher whom I assume to be the son of Sir Thomas and brother of Robert. Being away from his family power base in Leicestershire, even a second cousin (Christopher) or a second cousin once removed (Anketil), would have appeared much more closely related and, therefore, reliable than they would have in normal circumstances. Sir Christopher was soon found a rich Yorkshire heiress to marry, something inconceivable had he not had the Archbishop's sponsorship as heirs and heiresses of family fortunes at that time were not allowed to marry for love. They were required to marry for either family benefit or for the benefit of their guardian, if their father were dead. Christopher, not bringing any property into his marriage, had to have brought in something more profitable than money which, realistically could have only one thing, the Archbishop's good will. For Anketil who was probably a bit more than 20 years younger than the Archbishop and who pleased the Archbishop greatly because he was highly educated, the Archbishop had other things in mind. He gave him his sister (most certainly his youngest sister Thomasina who would have been born in the early 1320s, though the sister immediately above her in age Isabella cannot be completely ruled out). He is also said to have deeded the young man his Sudborough property around 1345, calling him his "brother" in the document concerned. However, this does not explain everything. Other Mallorys are also involved in Sudborough in the 1350s and 1360s, including a John Mallory and a William Mallory. I have not yet had a chance to locate the original documents (if they still exist) and transcribe them. As Sir Thomas Mallory of Papworth St Agnes (the man who is at the core of my study in England) was the great grandson of the Anketil whom the Archbishop married his sister to and as he only inherited 50 acres of the Sudborough estate, much more must have gone on concerning the original acquisition the Archbishop made than has managed to reach printed secondary sources. The originals, without question, must be found and carefully analyzed to gain a better understanding of both the genealogical and wider historical issues involved.
Anketil, the assumed son of Robert, was, thus probably born around 1321. He probably married around 1345 Thomasina la Zouche, probably the youngest child out of 10 children of the first Baron la Zouche of Haryngworth, but certainly the youngest daughter and Sudborough can be seen as part of that marriage settlement. He may have participated in a war against Scotland the Archbishop organized, paid for, and successfully generalled on behalf of King Edward III. By the time the Archbishop himself died in 1352. Anketil had two known children, a son generally known either as Anketin or Antony in the official record and a daughter, Ala, who Sudborough property transactions would indicate had married Thomas Green around 1360 (a child marriage as, judging from the fact that her oldest surviving son was born around 1370, it was unlikely she would not have been very much older than 12 in that year). Through this marriage she was the ancestress of the Catherine Parr, the sixth and last queen of Henry VIII. Anketil does not appear to have been a particularly good property manager as he used his Sudborough properties disadvantageously in 1358 to pay off a debt and by 1360 he is willing to give up at least part (if not all) of his property holdings in Sudborough to Thomas Green. Whatever his reasons for acting as he did, Anketil soon entered the household of the Prince of Wales who had, assuming Sir Thomas of Kirkby Mallory's marriage with the daughter of Baron la Zouche is correct, conveniently married the widow of Anketil’s second cousin, Lord Holland, and had become the stepfather of Lord Holland’s children. The Black Death had decimated England in 1349, meaning that, even though he was only a second cousin of the father of the Prince of Wales's two stepsons, that, plus his somewhat distant royal descent (again, assuming Anketil was Robert Mallory's son and Robert was the son of a daughter of Lord la Zouche), was enough for him to be considered as closely allied to the royal family. This assumption is strengthened since, when Richard II ascended the throne in 1377, Anketil was almost immediately knighted becoming one of the king's knights, probably in recognition of his relationship with the king's half-brothers. Moreover, his daughter Ala’s father-in-law, Sir Henry Green, was Lord Chief Justice of England, while Ala’s husband and her husband’s brother both played important roles at court and in government, though it was Ala’s husband’s brother who was Richard II's favorite. Significantly, if the la Zouche connection of Ala’s father-in-law can also be accepted, he was not only Anketil’s second cousin, but, like Anketil, a second cousin of the king’s brothers, as well as being distantly connected to the King, himself, by the blood royal of England and Scotland. One year later, in 1378, Sir Anketil's son, Anketin, marries Alice de Driby, the widowed lady Basset of Sapcote, one of the richest women in England, a woman who had been helping Lady Wake, the grand aunt of the future Henry IV, raise the future king and his two sisters at her chief seat, Castle Bytham, which her husband Lord Basset had given her for life before his death. The relations thus established in earliest childhood between the future king, Alice's daughter by Lord Basset and her daughter's husband Lord Grey of Codnor (a child marriage on both parts) were, in the coming century, to affect strongly not only the history of the children Alice was to bear Anketin Mallory century but also to have a profound effect on English history as a whole. Sir Anketil was given various pensions by the government of Richard II for no particular reason other than people liked him and certainly not because of his son’s marriage. In 1384 he passed away. His pensions are passed on to others gradually with the process lasting until 1390, thus giving the impression that he lived longer than he did.
After all the difficulties and unsatisfactory complications of generation-10, generation-11 comes as a relief. Ala Mallory, having already been dealt with briefly and not of central importance to a simple chronology can be dealt with very briefly. She was probably born around 1348, but could have been born as late as 1353 if she were married in 1360, as the age of consent for a marriage arranged by one's parents was seven years in the English middle ages and the Black Death of 1349 scared many parents of the last of half of the 14th century into marrying off their children, especially if it were an heiress, at extremely early ages for even the middle ages when taken as a whole. Ala’s oldest son was born in 1370 which means she must have lived some years later for her to have born a younger son to whom part or all of her Sudborough property would descend and also means that the daughter of Sir John Mablethorpe cannot be the ancestress of the Green's Norton family in spite of that having been the assumption of the father of Catherine Parr who was married to a co-heiress of theGreen estates. The Greene’s did possess Mablethorpe which had originally been owned by the Mablethorpes, but the Parrs entered into their marriage alliance with the Greenes approximately 150 years after Ala’s own marriage and it can be shown that the Greenes had not possessed the Manor of Mablethorp at any time during the 14th century when it was held by another family. The only explanation is that it was an early 15th century purchase, a fact that had been forgotten after almost 100 years of tenure.
Anketin was probably born around the same time as his wife Alice de Driby, both of whom seem to have been born very roughly around 1345. He was her third and last husband. She was probably his only wife, as his father seems to have been too improvident for him to have made an advantageous marriage before Richard II came to the throne and medieval Mallory men all seemed to implicitly believe in living as full a life as possible but, before doing so, to marry as rich as possible. The couple married without permission from the king and had to pay a £100 fine. In present day currency that represents approximately £100,000. That they were able to pay this fine off within a year shows that Alice was both wealthy and an excellent financial manager, something medieval Mallory men don't seem to have been particularly good at. Anketin was knighted by 1382 and entrusted by the King's government with an active role in the government of Lincolnshire. As the property his wife inherited from her father and mother was all in Leicestershire, he established a business relationship with William Palmer, a Leicestershire lawyer and businessman who was the father of Thomas Palmer, a man who was to play a very prominent role in the lives of Anketin's son, William and his grandson Thomas.
Sir Anketin and Alice had four children who survived to adulthood, each of whom has left numerous descendants, including Thomas who was the expected heir of Alice, William for whom Sir Anketin arranged that his father's second cousin (my assumption explained as above) Sir William Papworth leave his properties of Papworth St. Agnes, Shelton, etc., Beatrice who was the wife of a fairly important 15th century general Sir John Bagot of Staffordshire and Margery who married Sir Robert Moton of Peckleton in Leicestershire the head of a family that had been close to not only the Mallorys of Kirkby Mallory from at least the end of the 12th century, but also for equally long periods of time with the Marshals of Kirkby Mallory and the Bassets of Sapcote. When Anketin died in 1393, his only property consisted of his personal effects. He willed his best suit of armour to his oldest son Thomas and his second best suit of armour to his other remaining son William. He requested his wife to pay any debts he might have and asked her to bury him in a chapel they had both been involved in the building of. Alice never married again. In her will she set aside money to have prayers said for the souls of herself and her three husbands, Sir Robert Tuchet, Ralph Lord Basset of Sapcote and William Mallory. However, she requested to be buried as closely as possible to William. What probably started off as a fairly typical medieval Mallory quest for a rich heiress became a love story, a romance transcended the grave.
In addition to the four children Alice de Driby had by Sir Anketin, she also had a daughter by her second husband, Elizabeth Basset, who has already been mentioned in passing. Elizabeth was married to one of King Henry IV’s most trusted generals and whom he treated with the same honor as a family member, Richard Grey, the Baron Grey of Codnor, the general Henry IV used to retake Wales from Owen Glendower and later to pacify it. Elizabeth was the oldest of her mother’s children and seems to have take a quasi-maternal interest in her youngest brother William Mallory and his children. Time and again, what happens in their subsequent histories can be most economically explained if assume Elizabeth had been working in the background. That, though, should become clearer as things unfold in their proper order.
Sir Thomas was not yet a teenager when his father Sir Anketin passed away. Around the age of 18 his mother arranged for his being knighted and his early marriage to a woman whose name has not yet been satisfactorily identified. This made him legally of age even though he was not yet 21. He had one daughter Elizabeth (would Lady Grey of Codnor have been the Godmother?) who survived to live to adulthood and, as Alice de Driby's primary heir, was to marry respectably and reproduce. She has numerous descendants alive today.
Sir William had been the object of an entail made by Sir William de Papworth of Papworth St. Agnes while his father was alive. Sir William de Papworth's next legal heir was, after Sir Anketin, Sir Anketin's son Thomas. Following a Mallory tradition going back to the separation of Walton from Kirkby Mallory, then Welton from Kirkby Mallory, then generation after generation arranging that younger sons had at least some property on which to live if the were no new manor available to be assigned, Sir Anketin persuaded his cousin to entail his manor to Anketin's son, William, rather than on his oldest son Thomas who would have been Sir William de Papworth’s next heir after Sir Anketin, himself. It would appear that young William Mallory, if not the elderly (for the times!) Sir William Papworth's godson, must have at least been his namesake.
When Sir Anketin died, William Mallory was only six years old and his only inheritance was his father's second best suit of armour. Alice de Driby would have had control over her sons as her second husband (Lord Basset of Sapcote, the father of their daughter, Elizabeth, Lady Grey of Codnor) had been her feudal overlord and she then came to possess his properties for life as his widow under the terms of their marriage settlement. In feudal terms, her oldest son was her heir only, his father having been landless, and she was her own immediate feudal superior. Unlike most women of her age, she was in a position both to maintain her independence and to profit from it. In practice, she would have shared custody of her second son William with Sir William de Papworth and his marriage would have been a matter for William and Alice de Papworth (Sir William de Papworth's second wife) to decide.
In 1408, Sir William de Papworth made a final settlement on William Mallory which also means he would have been married to a woman of William and Alice de Papworth's choice and probably a near relation of Alice de Papworth's (perhaps a neice). Unfortunately, we do not know Alice de Papworth's maiden name and have no way of identifying, even tentatively, what family William Mallory's first wife belonged to. They had at least one daughter Margaret who would have been born within a year or two of their marriage, say 1410. There may have been other children, but no record of them exists. Possibly Anne Mallory could be a child of this marriage, though it is equally possible she could be a child of William Mallory's second marriage or even his third one. In 1412 his mother died leaving him a portion of her movable property. In 1414, Sir William de Papworth passed away and in 1416 his wife Alice. In 1418 at the age of 32 he left England to fight in the French Wars. As he had not done that when he was younger, this might possibly indicate yet another death, that of his wife, and a desire to escape for awhile painful memories. For reasons that will be clear later, his daughter Margaret probably went into the care of his half-sister, the Lady Grey of Codnor.
Sometime by around mid-1421 he remarried Margaret a newly widowed Shropshire woman whose husband had been Robert Corbet of Corbet Moreton, a former member of parliament as a county representative. Margaret was certainly a daughter of John Burley, a prominent Shropshire lawyer and politician, who, together with William Mallory's brother-in-law, the Lord Grey of Codnor, and the crown prince, the future Henry V, had been prominent in the prosecution of the Welsh wars at the beginning of Henry IV's reign.
Nowhere is Margaret being John Burley’s daughter actually stated in documents of any age. However, during the first year of Henry IV's reign, John Burley was granted the marriage of Robert Corbet but not the wardship of the child's of his property which remained with Robert Corbet's immediate feudal overlord.
In the feudal system of the time, two rights could be possessed separately with regard to minors, the right of wardship of a minor's property and the right of marriage. The right of marriage meant that, in order to receive possession of one's property, one had to marry the person chosen for him or her by the person who held that right. To put this in different words, if a person were stubborn, a person could easily come of age, yet still not gain possession of one's property.
Significantly, John Burley later put out the money to buy the right of wardship to Robert Corbet's property, thus possessing both rights. Since the possession of the net profits of the property one held wardship over could be quite profitable, this right, also, vis-a-vis minors was a commodity which could be sometimes bought and sold at quite high prices, but normally not by itself a person could be sue for fiscal irresponsibility when the heir arrived of age. The right of marriage, thus, trumped the right of wardship of a minor’s property. We can thus assume that what happened was that Robert Corbet agreed to marry the person John Burley had in mind for him and that this person was quite special to John, so special it prompted him to pay for the right to the wardship of the property, too, so that he could keep it well protected for this object of his affections. This female who was to be Robert Corbet’s wife can most economically be assumed as his daughter.
Around 1414 Robert Corbet uses the help of John Burley's son William Burley to make a life grant of the Corbet Manor of Shawbury to Margaret as her dower. Robert Corbet was of age, married, in full possession of his properties, manifestly in love with his wife, and quickly producing a quite large family. Like his presumed father-in-law who passed away in 1415 he became a member of parliament as a county representative and seems on his way to rise higher. Then, by early 1421 he passes away and Margaret is a widow at a time when William Mallory has returned from France and is looking for a second wife.
It is here we can see the influence of Lady Grey of Codnor, William Mallory's half-sister, for her now dead husband had been a distant relative of Lord Grey of Ruthin (a west country peer) who was the brother-in-law of John Burley who was the husband of his sister. During the Welsh wars at the beginning of the century the three men had cooperated with each other closely in the prosecution of the war. Moreover, Lord Grey of Ruthin had properties in Huntingdonshire quite close to where William Mallory also had properties. She was ideally placed to know a rich young widow of a family closely allied to hers was available for marriage and that she had a younger brother with property and of equal social status who could fill that role. Also, there would have been other contacts between Lady Grey of Codnor's son who now sat in the House of Lords and John Burley’s son, William Burley, who regularly sat in the House of Commons as a county representative from Shropshire. For like William Mallory, William Burley would have been accustomed from childhood to the presence of peers and dealing with them, as in the house of Lords, was a baron who was his mother's brother, another who was her first cousin, and two earls and a duke who were her second cousins. In any case, news travelled from Shropshire in Western England to Cambridgeshire in the east very fast and two well-connected individuals, each having children yet also having more than enough money to support their own independence in style, married each other of their own free will. The only child which can be proven to be of this marriage is the future Thomas Mallory of Papworth St. Agnes, esq. who was born December 6, 1425. However, I have reason to believe there was yet another child by the name of Robert who later became the Lieutenant of the Constable of the Tower of London, even though others, notably P.J.C. Field, whose work I admire, thinks this Robert might be the son of Sir Thomas Mallory of Newbold Revel.
It appears that in 1425 William's daughter Margaret, who would have been around 14 or 15 years of age, was married to a young lawyer from a respected Leicestershire family with good prospects. His name was Thomas Palmer, the oldest surviving son of William Palmer, a man associated with William's father Sir Anketin and with his mother Alice de Driby in various business dealings. Margaret bore her husband twin daughters who survived both their parents and she died by 1429 when Thomas Palmer made a marriage settlement on yet another young wife of good family, though in the popular religion of the times and according to the actual doctrines of the church, his relationship as a "son" of Sir William Mallory and a "nephew" of Lady Grey of Codnor remained unchanged.
In 1430, perhaps affected by his daughter's death and needing yet another escape from painful memories, Sir William Mallory returned to fight in the French wars. In 1434 he was involved in a court case being accused, with help of his second stepson the future Sir Roger Corbet, of vandalizing another's property in Cambridgeshire. In the mid-1340s his oldest stepson, having married an apparently distant cousin by the name of Ancareta Burley, took possession of those properties of his father not held by his mother in dower and, probably through the influence of William Burley, became a member of parliament one time before passing away. In 1439 Sir William Mallory's wife Margaret also passed away and, not used to living without a wife, Sir William soon remarried to a woman named Margery. Nothing is known about this woman other than she outlived him and is assigned her dower in 1445. She had probably passed away, though, when her stepson Thomas Mallory came in full possession of his properties in 1451, as there is no record of properties she held in dower coming to him, something which would happened if she had lived that long since her dower lands would have been part of those lands her husband had held directly of the king and subject to fairly careful record keeping by the treasury.
Thomas Mallory, esq. can be shown to have never been knighted unless it occured immediately before his death and were not generally known to either the government or his own children. However, he was extraordinarily well-connected, much more so than the reputed author of “Le Morte Darthur”, Sir Thomas Mallory of Newbold Revel. Through his mother and father together he was related closely enough to, according to the way people thought in medieval England, be considered extended family by perhaps as many as 10 members of the House of Lords. He also had extensive family connections in the House of Commons. His mother's presumed father had been a long-serving member and had his stepfather and his two half-brothers had been members, too. In addition, his mother's presumed brother had been and was to be Speaker of the House of Commons. His father's foster father, Sir William de Papworth had been a member of parliament and one of Sir William de Papworth's closest associates was yet another Speaker of the House of Commons. Not only that, but his brother-in-law, Thomas Palmer also was yet another long-serving member, as was his wife’s mother’s brother. From 1449 to 1451, Thomas Mallory himself became a known member of two parliaments.
Between 1445 and 1451, there is, however, a story to be told. Being still 19, his wardship and marriage rights were bought by Lionel Louth, a man not much older than Thomas, himself, who possessed the Manor of Sawtry Beaumes in Huntingdonshire. The Louths were a new family to Huntingdonshire, but married well and were well established. There is reason to believe Thomas had been educated for some years at the nearby Sawtry Abbey from the time his mother passed away. There is even a possibility he and Lionel were friends. They, by virtue of the Papworths, the Beaumes family, and the le Moignes, had many connections with each other in a historic sense. For whatever reason, Lionel soon surrendered his property wardship and marriage rights to the treasury, not only over Thomas but, according to the terms of the original grant, over Thomas's successors should Thomas die early, thus possibly indicating Thomas may have had younger full brothers or sisters at the time. This surrender by Lionel most likely represents the purchase of these rights to Thomas Mallory's former brother-in-law Thomas Palmer. One senses here, too, the influence of the now soon to pass away Lady Grey of Codnor, Thomas Mallory's aunt, as in her will she leaves Thomas Palmer, her former nephew by marriage a small pension as a token of her gratitude for past services.
I have so far been unable to find the personal name of Thomas Mallory's wife, though her family name, approximate age, etc., is all abundantly clear. She was the child, probably oldest child, of Thomas Palmer's dead younger half-brother, John Palmer and his wife, Elizabeth Kinnesman whose brother (or, less possibly, her father) had been a member of the House of Commons. Thomas Mallory's Palmer wife would have been born around 1435, as her own father had been born around 1410 and she was married and a mother of her own first surviving child, John, in 1452.
There were problems, though, in 1445, Thomas's future wife had to first reach puberty, something which in the middle ages was normally a couple of years later than in modern times due to differences in diet. Thomas's future wife would not have really been ready to be his wife in anything else than name until around 1449 or 1450 when she would have been 14 to 15 years old. There was no reason to hurry, so no one hurried. Thomas did what he wanted to, people who had his best interests in mind managed his property for him, and he, apparently, was satisfied enough not to cause trouble.
In 1449, it was time to get married, but troubles arose. He couldn't take possession of his property because the records that the treasury was supposed to have received after his father's death apparently had never been sent and no longer existed. In response, Thomas two times in succession became a member of parliament, not as a county representative but as a borough representative which was easily achieved with the help of young friends of his in the treasury and with at least the tacit approval, first of the Duke of Buckingham and then of then of the Duke of York, the father of the future Edward IV. The Duke of York, in particular was connected with both William Buley, Thomas's presumed uncle, and with Thomas Palmer his former brother-in-law. Both men were men the Duke of York wanted to tie more strongly to his own party. Thomas made a name for himself of sorts and proved helpful to a number of people including Baron Dudley, who was closely allied with the Duke of Buckingham, and with the Baron Cromwell who was equally closely connected to the Duke of York. He also helped his young friends in the Treasury.
In the meantime he obtained the marriage and wardship rights of an heiress of the Swinnerton family of Staffordshire. He soon disposed of both these rights in a way that could have brought him no permanent financial benefit and this demands an explanation. He, himself, being young and single, could have arranged for himself the marriage of this young and rich landed feudal heiress had he wished and this was something of a tradition with Mallorys, something Thomas Palmer was sure to have picked up on immediately. I would suspect that Thomas Mallory thought his former brother-in-law and/or future mother-in-law were delaying his marriage to Thomas Palmer's niece on purpose and that Thomas Mallory, with his hormones in control of his emotions, wanted to hurry things as much as possible. Having the wardship of a rich heiress forced everyone's hand. He then went to Shropshire to get the equivalent of a birth certificate (actually a group of written statements made by people certifying as to how they knew he was born when he was born). He got treasury permission to get control of his lands, he got the wife he wanted (even though she was not an heiress!) which was Thomas Palmer’s niece, and he promptly married the rich heiress of the Swinnerton family off to the next male-line representative of the same family of an appropriate age to marry her. No one lost face by the way Thomas handled things which meant he continued his business dealings with his very capable former brother-in-law and uncle by marriage, Thomas Palmer, and he had made permanent friends in Staffordshire.
In the 1450s and 1460s most of the records listing the members of the House of Commons have been lost. My hunch is that Thomas served in parliament during this troubled period, too, because he was too well connected not to. There is no proof, though.
From 1461 immediately after Edward IV came to power to sometime after 1464 and before 1470, Robert Mallory was the Lieutenant of the Constable of the Tower of London and was appointed before the Constable, himself, (the Earl of Worcester who had been studying abroad in Italy) was able to reach England to take up his position. Different people have different theories as to whom this Robert Mallory might have been. Mine is that he was Thomas Mallory's younger brother and the son of Sir William Mallory and Margaret Burley, not because any hard documentary evidence is available that could prove anything one way or another but because it would economically explain so many other things that happen later.
The man who was somewhat later to take up the position of Constable of the Tower of London, the Earl of Worcester, was a man closely related to the king through his mother. The Earl of Worcester's father, however, had originally been a commoner whose main properties were in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire who had been connected with Sir William de Papworth. In fact, the Earl of Worcester's main property in Cambridgeshire bordered on Thomas's. If Robert were William and Margaret's younger son, he would have known the Earl all his life, as would Thomas.
In 1462 there was a campaign Edward IV leads against a Lancastrian invasion in the north from Scotland. A list of the king's companions survives. Under the heading of knights it has a very mixed list of prominent men, some of who were knights, others of whom demonstrably were not. The list distinguishes between the two by using the honorific "Sir" before the name of a man who was a knight, but adds no honorific before other men's names in that section. A "Thomas Malery" with no honorific appears. I assume that the writer of the list knew far better than we do who was and was not a knight and that the Thomas Mallory being referred to was the Thomas Mallory of Papworth St. Agnes. P.J.C. Fields essentially assumes that the writer didn't have that much knowledge and that everyone was a knight; and in his analysis of the list has changed people's names when necessary to give everyone a knighthood. Other writers have interpreted the list opportunistically in other ways. Until I have seen a proper analysis of the list done by someone with no ideological bias to influence the outcome, I prefer to take the list's author at his word and assume the Thomas Mallory referred to was not a knight and that the only Thomas Mallory of a prominence equal to the other individuals lumped together as knights was Thomas Mallory of Papworth St. Agnes.
In 1464 the King married Elizabeth Woodvile and in 1465 had a coronation ceremony for her at which Thomas's half-brother Roger Corbet was made a knight, meaning that not only his half-brother, but that his half-brother's wife, the beautiful and extremely rich Elizabeth Hopton, came with him. My assumption is that Robert Mallory, Roger's presumed half-brother was still Lieutenant of the Tower of London which was where he would have found them accommodation since, besides being a prison, it also functioned throughout the middle ages as a royal palace. It was here that the Earl of Worcester would have been most likely to have met Thomas's sister-in-law and, it is clear she made an indelible impression on his mind.
It should be noted that Thomas was also given the opportunity of being a knight, but that he did not see this as an opportunity. He took out a distraint of knighthood in this same year of 1465, which, in modern English, means he paid a fine (something like a rather hefty traffic fine) not to be made a knight. And I think he was quite right in his judgment. There was already a distant relative of his, a Sir Thomas Mallory, knight, of Newbold Revel who had spent a large part of his life in trouble with the law and in and out of jail. Especially if the man was a brilliant writer, I'm sure Thomas of Papworth had no intention of further enhancing people's confusion about who was who, something which must have already been an irritation to him during his own lifetime.
In 1465 the former Lancastrian king, Henry VI, was imprisoned and, if Robert Mallory was still lieutenant of the Tower of London, Robert would have been the ex-king's jailer. From 1464 to 1470 there is no record of who the Lieutenant of the Tower was, but I am inclined to believe that Robert was still in that position until probably as late as 1467 and was responsible for the humane treatment the king received in his first year or so of imprisonment. In 1466 Robert took out a general pardon. On this point, like P.J.C. Field, I believe Robert, realizing what a dangerous thing it was to try to keep two kings’ favor, took the easy way out and resigned his position. He would have taken advantage of the fact that the Constable of the Tower was being given a new position as the king's Lord Lieutenant of Ireland which, for all practical purposes, made him the king's vice-roi, even though the king's brother had the equivalent of that position in name, though not much caring to exercise authority so far from England.
In 1467 Sir Roger Corbet passed away. This happened as the Earl of Worcester was preparing to leave England for Ireland. He suddenly made a detour, went to Shropshire, wooed the new widow who like himself was around 40 years of age, married her then and there, and, presenting the king with an accomplished fact, begging his forgiveness for doing so without his permission, permission being something he was supposed to have had to acquire the hand of a widowed feudal female landowner of Elizabeth Hopton's position.
According to the religious teaching of the times, in-laws were not distinguished from blood relatives. The Earl had married Thomas's sister when he married Elizabeth Hopton. The reality, however, was that people often made emotional distinctions just as they would now. However, the relationship with the new Countess remained a good one for Thomas Mallory, the evidence being that she was responsible for raising his son Anthony and perhaps his other younger children after Thomas and his wife both passed away in 1469.
The Earl of Worcester and his countess perhaps unexpectedly had a son, Edward, in 1469, something the Earl had most likely long given up hope of. Their happiness, though, was broken up that same year in a most brutal fashion.
The Earl of Warwick, being dissatisfied, made a coup d'etat, capturing the king, and trying to rule through him. Various men on his hit list were killed immediately, including the queen's father and one of her brothers. Others escaped, including the Earl of Worcester and another near neighbor of both the Earl of Worcester and Thomas Mallory, Lord Scales, the Queen's oldest brother.
Thomas Mallory was worried about dying when he wrote his will, but the will does not complain about bodily pain or sickness. He may very well have been on a hit list and knew it. Whether he died naturally or was killed, his fears were justified because he did pass away within a month after his will was written at the age of 44, leaving behind 10 motherless children, including a baby who was still nursing.
He left marriage portions to his daughters. His second son Robert he put under the guardianship of the Abbot of Sawtry, Sawtry having been closely connected with his Papworth ancestors since its foundation and carefully nurtured by the 12th century Earls of Huntingdon (also Kings of Scotland), individuals who were also ancestors of his (assuming either the la Zouche or the Burley connection is correct), though he himself may have been unaware of it. He wanted his third son William to become a businessman in the City of London and wanted Anthony and his other children to get a proper education so that they could become clergymen if they wanted to.
Edward IV was soon able to stage a counter coup and regained power for about a year. However, Warwick gathered a force in France, invaded England, and succeeded in overthrowing Edward IV and bringing Henry VI back into power. This time the Earl of Worcester was captured and soon executed, though the King was safely able to escape. The Queen, heavily pregnant with the future Edward V, sought asylum in Westminster Abbey which was granted by the Abbot and respected by the new government.
Suddenly Robert Mallory was showered with small favors by the new government during the short period it was in power. This can most economically be explained if he were Henry VI's jailer, the one who had treated him humanely during his first year in prison, whereas his successor hadn't been equally as kind.
Just as suddenly as the new government came to power, it lost power yet again when Edward IV returned to overthrow it. Robert Mallory was careful to take advantage of a general pardon and, though he was accused by the Queen's mother of being one of those responsible for her husband's death and the death of one of her sons in 1469 and even though it would have been easy to do so, he was never brought to court. Obviously, a preliminary investigation of sorts must have confirmed that he had nothing to do with the lurid acts he was accused of. However, he also was never again given an official government position, possibly because his former patron, the cultured and extremely well educated Earl of Worcester was no longer alive and also more probably because he, himself, was fed up with it all.
My theory is that it was probably this Robert who was the ancestor of the Mallorys who had property in Saddington at the end of the 15th century (but, apparently, never the actual lordship of the manor) and who possess other properties in the 16th century. At first, I was inclined to affiliate them with either the Mallorys of Newbold Revel or even of Welton or Litchborough. However, for the same reasons given by S. V. Mallory Smith, I would assign them an origin closer to the main line. Having this Robert, the presumed younger son of Sir William Mallory and Margaret Burley, as their ancestor would be an economical way of presenting things. Further research, though, might reveal that some other affiliation would be more attractive.
Also, there is a possibility that this Robert might be the grandfather (or great grandfather) of Sir Richard Mallory, the Lord Mayor of London of 1564-1565, in stead of Thomas Mallory of Papworth St. Agnes. A lot would depend on the nature of Noble Collection mentioned by S. V. Mallory Smith in her history of the Mallorys, a work which I have not yet been able to identify. Also, much would depend on how a certain Mallory (Richard?) and his wife were in 1532 in possession of a soon-to-expire 60-year lease of the Manor of Harlowebury in Essex, a manor being leased to them by the Abbot of St. Edmundsbury. I am trying to find answers, but progress is always frustratingly slow.
Thomas Mallory of Papworth St. Agnes's heir was John Mallory born in 1452. As he was a minor and his wardship and marriage rights were in the king's hands, the king sold them to two London businessmen, one of whom later became Lord Mayor of London. John died within a year of his father and his brother Robert, the one his father had put under the guardianship of the Abbot of Sawtry, became the heir of Papworth St. Agnes and thus the new ward of the London businessmen. He had to have gotten married to a woman chosen for him to have possession of his estates for which there is record he did gain possession, so it is likely that Robert married either a daughter or neice of one of the men his wardship and marriage rights had been sold to. He did not have any children who survived, because his brother Anthony, the fourth son of Thomas, inherited the family estates in 1492.
The third brother (in this I agree with S. V. Mallory Smith rather than P.J.C. Field) was William. As Mallory Smith suggests, he might have been the William Mallory, esq. who was the third husband of Elizabeth Bruyn, the mother of Charles Brandon, husband of King Henry VIII's sister Mary and Duke of Suffolk. Another possibility might be that this particular William Mallory was the son of Robert Mallory the Lieutenant of the Constable of the Tower of London and the man I have presumed to be the younger son of Sir William Mallory and Margaret Burley. In any case, assuming this William Mallory to have been a member of the Papworth St. Agnes family would help to more economically explain part of why Sir Richard Mallory of London was later to have the astonishing access to the centers of power which he did toward the end of the reign of Edward VI.
Anthony Mallory, Sir William's father, was born in 1466. As a fourth son and a small child when his father died in 1469, he was taken by his father's Thomas Mallory's sister-in-law to Shropshire to be raised on one her estates. Anthony's aunt, as she would have been considered according to the thought processes of people living in medieval England, married firstly Thomas Mallory’s half-brother Sir Roger Corbet and secondly John Tiptoft, the first Earl of Worcester and patron of Robert Mallory. For her third husband, the very wealthy Elizabeth was given in marriage by the king, but with her consent, to Sir William Stanley and, thereby, became the sister-in-law of Margaret Beaufort, the mother of the future King Henry VII. At the Battle of Bosworth where Richard III was overthrown and where Henry VII became king, it was Sir William Stanley, whose actions literally saved the day for Henry VII and made him king. In gratitude, Sir William was made Lord Chancellor of England by the new king.
Sir William, too, according to the thought processes of people of the time and their modes of speech, was Anthony's uncle, though, of course, Sir William Stanley would not have felt particularly close to the boy or his brothers. Nevertheless, Anthony grew up extremely well-connected and with access to the royal family, itself, through the King's mother Margaret Beaufort who knew him and trusted his managerial abilities, using him to manage property she held in Cambridgeshire to fund an educational project of hers. After Anthony became lord of the manor of Papworth St. Agnes, he was often used by the governments of Henry VII and Henry VIII to manage local government affairs in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. He must have been married sometime in the 1490s after the death of his older brother Robert, but to whom is still a mystery. When he married his second wife sometime after her first husband passed away around 1510, a widow by the name of Alice Lane (her maiden name probably being Farrington), however, he fell completely under her spell and, in the end, left all his property to her with an extaordinary set of remainders in place that will be explained a bit further on.
There is no record of his first marriage, but this can be inferred by the fact that his son William's will much later in the century makes mention of a sister that was not mentioned in either Anthony's will or that of his widow, Alice. Likewise, that Anthony was married twice can be inferred from a special patent he received from Henry VIII in 1526, allowing him to devise his properties to whomever he might wish as long as his son Henry would eventually inherit them and Henry's sons after him, providing he had any sons to inherit. Two years late he acts on the authority given to him by the king's patent and gives everything to his wife for her life, putting Henry first in line according to the terms of Henry VIII's patent, but then unconditionally putting William second in line, then unconditionally putting his daughter Audrey next in line after William. Only then does he provide for the eventual possibility that his right heirs might succeed to his properties which could be interpreted to mean either daughters of Henry or other children Anthony may have had by a former wife. If there had been no other children who had a better or equal rights, it would have been unnecessary to go to all this trouble, as English common law would have made things work almost exactly as Anthony provided for.
Even if there had been any number of former wives or children by former wives, Alice would have automatically received one third of Anthony's properties for life just by right of dower as she continued to hold one third of her first husband's properties. That would have been more than enough to take care of her financial needs in style. Henry would then have automatically inherited two third's of his father's estates and, if he had no children, it would have automatically gone to William, then failing William to Audry anyway. The simple answer is that Henry was likely not to have been Alice's son, but that common law preference for an oldest son's rights meant that he could not be disinherited property that was to his by right of feudal tenure without his own consent. In this point, Alice had no choice but to accede to a provision for his eventual inheritance. Nevertheless, she could and did get a limitation that if he did not have any son, his daughter would not receive anything. She could also provide for herself for life denying Henry possession of the family properties until her death and she could provide for her own children to the exclusion of any others of Anthony who were not hers, all of which she did.
Anthony passed away in 1539 mentioning in his will as children his sons Henry and William and his daughter Audrey only. If my memory serves me, Alice passed away in 1545 mentioning in her will as children by Anthony her son William and her daughter Audrey. She also mentions her children by her first husband, members of the Farrington family, and her daughter Audrey's children. William is her successor to the manor Papworth St. Agnes and related properties.
Based on the unusual provisions of the royal patent and Anthony's implementation of it, we can assume that Henry had married in 1528 and, therefore, the need to exercise the rights in the patent to keep the unexpected from perhaps making them inapplicable later. From this, we can assume Henry was born around 1506 or 1507. If he had any children who survived, they were daughters and no trace of them remain in the record. He was still alive in 1539, but dead before his father's wife Alice passes away in 1545.
William, according to his mother's inquisition post mortem, was her heir and born around 1519. From 1534 he was an apprentice of Richard Mallory, mercer and citizen of London, the Lord Mayor of London from 1564 to 1565. Richard may have been William's older half-brother who, being younger than Henry, but not Alice's child, was effectively disinherited. He may have also been a cousin. Without a chance to evaluate the Noble Collection mentioned by S. V. Mallory Smith or finding out more about the manor of Harlowbury in Essex it would be difficult to pin things down further. Printed sources do record Richard as being the son of Anthony and it would fit chronologically, but the earliest of the printed sources is from a 19th century expanded second edition of a book which, when originally published two hundred years before, did not mention anything about Richard's parentage. Better proof, obviously, is necessary.
However, as S. V. Mallory Smith, has demonstrated, Sir Richard Mallory had to be closely related to Anthony's son Sir William and that, if they were not brothers, they would have been first cousins. I would expand on that by saying if not brothers, then first cousins, or first cousins once removed. As Anthony Mallory produced his known children so late in life, it is entirely possible Richard Mallory, if a cousin of William, could have been one generation further along and still have been old enough for William to have been his apprentice. The possibilities of descent for Richard, though, are few. Either he was Anthony's son or the son or grandson of one of Anthony's three younger brothers Edward, Christopher, or John (assuming any of them survived) or as a grandson or great grandson of Robert Mallory the presumed brother of Anthony Mallory's father Thomas.
Having digressed with regard to Sir Richard Mallory's origins, I would like to return to Sir William Mallory who was either his cousin or his half-brother. William who, as was mentioned above, was made an apprentice to Richard Mallory in 1535. He had an active career, both in London as a mercer from 1542 and in Cambridgeshire as the lord of the manor of Papworth St. Agnes. He was not as successful in his business dealings as Sir Richard, but was never a failure and was elected to represent London in parliament. He was also entrusted with various positions in the government of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. He was also careful to maintain his contacts and a letter of his to William Cecil, Lord Burleigh, who was Queen Elizabeth's most important minister of state, survives. No matter what the family relationship was between Sir William and Sir Richard, they treated each other as if they were brothers in the traditional Mallory sense of the word which meant looking out after each other and trying to be helpful whenever possible. Not only that, but good relations continued into the next generation as well.
Richard Mallory was already a mercer in 1534 and had been involved in a land transfer in 1531 with the man he was apprenticed to. Because of the nature of the land deal, he would have had to have been of age in 1531, meaning he was born by 1510 at the latest, meaning it was chronologically close to impossible for him to have been a son of Anthony’s second wife Alice as her first husband didn’t die until 1509 and, had he been her son, he would have been her first son, which would make what happened later even stranger. Richard was knighted by Elizabeth I when he became Lord Mayor of London. He is universally said to have been married first to Anne Smith by whom he had 17 children. London parish records make it clear there were three still births. The names of the remaining 14 children can be found either in his will or in the parish records of the London churches he and his wife used. I have so far found no contemporary source, though, identifying his wife's name, though I have no doubt it is correct. Circumstantial evidence points at her being a sister of Sir Clement Smythe who, due to the fact he married Dorothy the sister of Jane Seymour the mother of King Edward VI, was to play an important role in the treasury during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. The year he passes away Richard Mallory and his wife name their son born that year Clement and they name their next daughter Dorothy. Toward the end of Edward VI's reign, the treasury ran out of money three months before the end of the fiscal year. Richard Mallory went to the rescue, helping to arrange a loan among his fellow merchants in the City of London that provided the government with enough money to tide it over for the rest of the financial year. Just before Edward VI dies, after much thought, the boy king decided to overturn his father's will which, if Edward were to die childless, settled the English throne on first his oldest daughter Mary and her heirs, failing on which his second daughter Elizabeth and her heirs, failing which on the heirs of his second sister Charles Brandon's wife. Richard Mallory, in spite of the fact that his only titles were simply those of mercer and citizen of London, was called in his capacity as the King’s councilor, along with the high and the mighty of the court, by the King to witness the above-mentioned deed and provide for the succession to the throne of Charles Brandon's granddaughter the Lady Jane Grey. If the William Mallory who was the third husband of Charles Brandon's mother was a Mallory of Papworth St. Agnes, either by being Thomas's child or the child of his presumed brother Robert and Richard closely connected to this man, even as a nephew, it might explain why he was summoned. Just as through Sir Clement Smythe he may have had an indirect connection with the King, he may have had a similar, if not closer, connection with the intended future Queen, the Lady Jane Grey. It might also explain part of the reason for his extraordinary economic success, having died possessed of Tottenham Manor which is not very far of a walk from where I live and is now a very impressive bit of real estate with no evidence of the manor itself surviving whatsoever, though old maps show its existence to be real. He also possessed property in other counties, though I have not made a full and accurate inventory so I prefer to be vague on this point for the time being. He was not only a mercer (cloth dealer) but a mercer who was a member of the company of "merchant adventurers", which meant that he was actively involved with foreign trade that is said to have included dealings with both the middle east and far east. Soon after his wife died in childbirth with her 17th child, Sir Richard married Elizabeth Pakington, the step-daughter of Sir Michael Dormer, a former Lord Mayor of London and a great granddaughter of an illegitimate sister of King Edward IV's wife, thus a third cousin of Queen Elizabeth I who treated Elizabeth Pakington's family, especially its male members, whom she found stimulating to be around, as extended family. Richard and Elizabeth had a son who died as a small child and a daughter who was well provided for financially but was still not married close to 40 years after her father's death in 1566. His will gives the impression that, having lived life magnificently, he had no regrets and, considering himself old, was ready to die, even though he could not have been any older than I, myself, am at present.
With this, I shall stop my consideration of the main line, though both Sir William and Sir Richard had numerous descendants and, with proper research, both could surely be taken up to the prsent. That, however, is someone else's work. The center of my research continues to be Thomas Mallory (1425 - 1469) of Papworth St. Agnes and I do not feel it advisable to carry the serious part of my research further than his grandchildren. To do so would divert attention from what my university is paying me to do which is to produce quality research in published form about a topic that would be recognized as academic by the academic world. I will continue writing up the chronology of the medieval branch lines and uploading them to this site and to the Mallory forum of genforum.com, as this research forms a part of my original research plan.
Before concluding this section completely, I need one more time to express my gratitude to S.V. Mallory Smith for her pioneering work on Mallory history. Without it, it is inconceivable that any scholar over the last twenty years could have made significant progress in untangling the intricacies of medieval Mallory history. Although some of the details of her work have become superseded, there is still much left that is timeless. Moreover, her methodology is impeccable, as is her sure sense of where the problems lie. I, too, am, in my own way, walking in her footsteps.
Like always, I will go ahead and upload this now, certain that I have made numerous mistakes only a Japanese with attention deficit syndrome could make, as that is what, in spite of having been born and raised in the United States, I have, over the years, become and what I now am. Nevertheless, there is much in what I have written that is worth reading, so I would hope people will bear with my mistakes of omission and commission with regard to the English language.