Lucy de Morley (12730951)

Lucy de Morley

died after 1347

Father	Richard de Morley
Mother	Joan de la Launde
1st Husband	Hugh Risley ?
2nd Husband	William de Moston
Children	Lucy

Lucy was the daughter of Richard de Morley ⁽¹⁾ and Joan de la Launde ⁽²⁾⁽³⁾.

She is believed to have married Hugh de Risley ⁽⁴⁾, with whom she had a daughter Lucy ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾⁽³⁾.

Following Hugh's death, she remarried, before 1323 ⁽⁶⁾, to William de Moston ⁽⁸⁾⁽⁹⁾. He died in or before 1346 ⁽⁷⁾. The following year, she endorsed a fine for her cousin Elizabeth Foljambe, who was selling land in Alsop ⁽⁵⁾.

Brief details of her children:

Lucy has her own page.

Sources:

"Pedigrees from the plea rolls collected from the pleadings in the various courts of law AD 1200 to 1500", Wrottesley, p268, reads :
De Banco. Easter, 11 Hen 4 [1410], m 337
Derb:- Goditha, late wife of Ralph de Stathum, sued Henry Coton, Clerk, to give up to her a pyx containing deeds which she claimed as heir of Hugh de Morley.
Hugh de Morley of Morley | Richard | Lucy | Lucy | Goditha
The pyx had com into Henry Coton's hands after the death of one Katrine Verdon, 20 Rich 2.
"Collections for a History of Staffordshire", Vol 13, 1892. p184 (Extracts from the pleas rolls):
DE BANCO. MICH, 7 Ric II
Derb. The record of an assize was returned into Court which had been taken at Derby on the Monday after the Feast of St. James the Apostle, 7 Ric. II [July 1383], in which Philip de Okoiire (Okeover), Chivaler, claimed the manor of Caldelowe against Goditha, formerly wife of Ralph de Stathum, and others. Goditha answered as tenant, and stated that one Elizabeth, daughter and heir of John de la Launde, "was formerly seised of the tenements and had married one Richard, son of Richard Foljaumpe, and afterwards a Fine was levied in 3 E. III between Joan, formerly wife of John de la Launde, complainant, and the said Richard, son of Richard Foljaumpe, and Elizabeth, deforciants of the manor of Caldelowe and of other lands and tenements, by which Joan acknowledged the said tenements to be the right of Elizabeth, for which the said Richard and Elizabeth granted them to Joan for her life, with reversion to the said Richard and Elizabeth and to the heirs of Elizabeth. And she produced the Fine in Court, and she stated that the said Richard and Elizabeth continued in seisin of the tenements for a long time after the date of the Fine, and at length Richard died, and after his death Elizabeth continued in seisin of them, and died leaving no issue, and after her death the said Goditha and one Peter Peyntour entered as cousins and heirs of Elizabeth, viz., Goditha as daughter of Lucy, daughter of Lucy, daughter of Joan, sister of John, father of the said Elizabeth, and Peter as son of Joan, son of Matilda, another sister of the said John, father of Elizabeth, and she stated that Philip was kinsman of the said Elizabeth more remotely, viz., as son of Thomas, son of Roger, son of John, son of Hugh, father of Lucy, the mother of John, father of the said Elizabeth. And the said Philip, without admitting that such a Fine had been levied, stated that long before Elizabeth held anything in the manor, one Hugh de Okoure, his ancestor, and whose heir he was, viz., father of John, father of Roger, father of Thomas, father of the said Philip, was seised of the manor in demesne as of fee, and gave it to one William de la Launde, Knight, and to Lucy, his wife, and to the heirs male of their bodies, and from the said William and Lucy the manor descended to one William as son and heir, and from this William, who died leaving no male issue, the manor descended to one John as brother and heir, and from this John, who died leaving no male issue, the right reverted to the said Philip, as kinsman and heir of the said Hugh, and after the death of John, Elizabeth had intruded herself into the manor, and Philip being under age had then entered, and was seised of it until the said Goditha and the other defendants had disseised him.
And Goditha stated she knew nothing of the gift of the manor by the said Hugh, but that the Fine had been levied as above stated, in the third year of King Edward III, and this Fine was a Fine upon surrender, "finis super redditionem," and was levied before the Statute by which the non-claim, of such a Fine was restrained, "per quod non clamewm cujuscunque talis finis restringitur." And at the date of the Fine, Roger, the ancestor of Philip, was of full age, and out pf prison, and within the four seas; and the said Roger had not put in his claim to the manor within a year of the levying of the Fine, and therefore Philip was precluded from the present assize. After some further pleadings a day was given to the parties at Westminster on the Wednesday after a month from Michaelmas,* on which day the suit was adjourned to the Morrow of All Souls, and from that date to the Morrow of St. Martin, and from that date to the Octaves of St. Hillary, in statu quo nuno. A postscript states that on that date Philip did not appear and the suit was dismissed. m. 393.
^* As it involved a question of law, the decision was left to the Judges in Bank
"Collections for a History of Staffordshire", Vol 13, 1892. p188 (Extracts from the pleas rolls):
DE BANCO. EASTER, 7 Ric II
Derb. William de Skypwyth and William de Burgh, Justices of Assize in co Derby, tra=nsmitted the record and process of an assize of novel disseisin taken before them on the Monday the feast of St James the Apostle, 8 Ric II, in these words:-
An assize, etc, if Goditha, formerly wife of Ralph de Stathum, and others named, had unjustly disseised Philip de Okore (Okeover), Chivali, of the manor of Caldelowe, and a messuage and an acre of land in Caldelowe and Snellesron.
In this suit Goditha repeated her plea as in the former assize, claiming by virtue of a Fine levied on the Quindene of St Michael, 3 E III, between Joan, formerly wife of John de Launde, complainant, and Richard, son of Richard Foljambe, and Elizabeth, his wife, daughter and heir of John de la Launde, and claiming to be nearer of blood to the said Elizabeth than Philip, and she gave these pedigrees:-

Lucy = William de la Launde ________________________________|_______________________________ | | | John de la Launde Joan Matilda | | | Elizabeth = Richard Foljambe Lucy Joan | | Lucy Peter Peyntour | Goditha Hugh de Okeover _____________________|____________________ | | John Lucy = Wiliam de la Launde | ___________|____________ | | | Roger William John | ob sp | Thomas Elizabeth | Philip, the plaintiff
Philip repeated his plea as in the former trial, but added that at the time the said Goditha stated that the Fine was levied, and for all the rest of his lifetime, Roger his ancestor was in Scotland, and not within the four seas of Enland, and that he died in Scotland. Goditha replied that at the time the Fine was levied Roger was within the four seas, becuase he wasat Mynsterton in co. Leicester, which she was prepared to prove. Philip repeated that on the date of the Fine and for a year and a day afterwards, the said Roger was in Scotland, and died there, which he was prepared to prove^*. A day was therefore given to the parties in Banco on the Tuesday after three weeks from St Michael, on which day both Goditha and Philip appeared in person, and because the plea could not be determined in co. Derby a day was given to the parties on the Thursday at a month from St Michael, on which day Goditha and Philip appeared in person, and stated that they were prepared to maintain their pleas as given above, and prayed that a jury might be summoned from co Leicester; and the Sheriff was ordered to summon a jury for the Octaves of St Hillary. A postscript shows that no jury had been empanelled up to the morrow of the Ascension. m334.
^* Philip was certainly wrong in his date, for Roger had Letters of Protection whilst in Scotland in 9 E III. It may be assumed, however, that he died or was killed in Scotland (Scotch Roll of 9 Ed III)
I have been unable to confirm her husband's identity as Hugh de Risley - see his page for details.
"Derbyshire Feet of Fines 1323-1546", Derbyshire Record Society, 1985. Entry no 836 reads:
Westminster. Easter three weeks 1347, Quindene of Trinity 1347. Plaintiff: John de Dronfield, chaplain. Deforciant: Richard Foljambe and Elizabeth his wife. Concerning 1 messuage, 1 mill, 120a land and 20a meadow in Alsop and Idrichehay. Richard and Elizabeth rendered these to John to hold to himself and his heirs of the chief lord etc forever and they warranted for themselves and the heirs of Elizabeth. John gave 100 marks of silver. Endorsed: Lucy de Morleye and Simon Tichet, clerk, laid their claims
"Victoria History of the County of Lancaster", Volume 4, sub Moston, states :
Richard de Moston seems to have been son of Richard de Moston of Moston in the parish of Manchester. (fn. 13) By Alice his wife he had issue William, who in 1323, describing himself as 'dominus de Morleys,' conveyed all his lands in Poulton and Woolston to Robert his brother. - citing Raines MSS. xxxviii, 409, n. 1.
"Victoria History of the County of Lancaster", Volume 3, sub Poulton with Fearnhead, states :
In the same year (1346) Lucy widow of William de Moston claimed dower in the manor against John son of Hugh de Moston and Margaret his wife; De Banco R. 347, m. 296 d.
"Thoroton's History of Nottinghamshire", Throsby, 1797, Vol 1, pages 97 & 98, sub Barton, gives a pedigree of the Sachaverell family, which, besides the main Sachaverell line, also shows the descent of Joan Stathum, wife of John Sachaverell, who brought the manor of Morley to the family, from a claimed common ancestor, Edmund lord of Morley. The pedigree is simply asserted with no accompanying notes, and is not even referred to in the text. However, this descent of Joan is, as far as my own research has lead me to conclude, accurate - incredibly so in fact, considering that the few other sparce anippets on the descent of the manor of Morley, that appear elsewhere, invariably cover only a small number of generations in comparison to this one, yet all contain multiple errors.
Having said that, there are a few claims made in this pedigree that I cannot confirm (and I can't even be certain what is being claimed about the children of Edmund, the progenitor!), but at the same time have no evidence to cast any doubt on them. Given the correctness of the complete descent, I consider them due of worthy consideration.
```
Ricardus de Morley.-Joana fil. Willielmi. & una cohaer.
                   |Johannis de la Launde, milit
   ________________|
  |
Lucia-Hugo de Russelep-Willielmus de Moston. marit. secundus.
  ___|
 |
Lucia-Rogerus de Masci de Sale Com.Cestr.
  ___|
 |
Goditha ob 3.H.5.-Radulfus de Stathum ob 3.R.2
```

"Derbyshire in 1327-8: being a Lay Subsidy Roll" published in the Derbyshire Archaeological Society Journal Volume 30, entires on p69 reads:

MORLEYE.
Wills de Moston	vi^li xiij^s iiij^d	vi^s viij^d
Laur de Okoure	lx^s	iij^s
Thom de Macy	xx^s	xij^d
Thom de Burg	l^s	ij^s vj
Henr del Holt	xx^s	xij^d
Johes del Mersh	xxxiij^s iiij^d	xx^d
Wills fil Wills	liij^s iiij^d	ij^s viij^d
Rad fil Alic	xxx^s	xviij^d
Summa bonorum	xx^li	xx^s

Notes:

Home