The Ferrers and de Lathom Families, Including Lines of Marriage Leading to Henry I, King of England, Aethelred “The Unready”, King of England and Malcolm II, King of Scotland, Including the Families of de Braose, de Quincy, de Muscegros, Galloway and McDonald

The Ferrers family are direct ancestors of Michael Gregory. Arthur Glegge, Michael Gregory’s 14 th great-grandfather, married Eleanor Massey whose great grandfather, Thomas Venables, married Cicely Stanley. The great-great grandfather of Cicely was Sir John de Stanley who married Isabella Lathom (b. 1304), daughter of Sir John Lathom (b. 1329). Thomas’ father was also called Thomas and he was born around 1300 in Lathom. He married Elizabeth Ferrers born in 1308 in Charterley Castle,

Staffordshire. The Lathom family can be traced back a further nine generations to Dunning de Lathom born in 1031 [see attached Lathom pedigree].

From Eleanor, the de Ferrers family has been identified over 10 further generations back to Adam Wallincourt, father of Walcheline de Ferrers, the latter who was born in Tutbury in 1010. Walcheline was killed by Hugh de Montford in the civil wars in Normandy during the minority of Duke William (later William the Conqueror). The son of Walcheline was Henry and he is, of course, the direct ancestor of Michael Gregory.

Henry was the founder of Tutbury Priory. He was born in 1036 and died in 1088 in Tutbury Castle (opposite, left photogaph shows the ruins of Tutbury Castle, North Wall, today). Around 1161, he married Bertha Roberts (L’Angle), daughter of Engenulphde. Bertha was born around 1010. She died in Dourley, Derbyshire. Henry is widely believed to have fought at the Battle of Hastings, 1068, as his name appears on various versions of the Abbey Battle Roll, although it is impossible to be certain. He was a Domesday Commissioner in 1086 and held some 210 Lordships and manors at the time of the Survey, mostly in Derbyshire, but also in 14 other Counties, by gift of William the Conqueror. He was buried at Tutbury Priory.

The son of Henry was Robert de Ferrers. He was born in 1062 and lived in Derbyshire. He died in Charterley Castle in 1139. His wife was Hawise de Vitry who he married ca 1087 while living in Brittany, France. She was the daughter of

Andre de Vitre and Agnes de Mortaigne. In 1138, Robert was created Earl of Derby for his services to King Stephen at the Battle of Northallerton (known as the Battle of the Standard). He died in the following year, 1139. He also had a sister named Hawise, born around 1063 in Ferriere-St Hilare, France.

The Battle of the Standard took place near modern-day Northallerton, Yorkshire, England on August 22, 1138. During the conflict, a Scottish Army under King David of Scotland advanced south towards York, and met the Anglo-Norman defenders in an unusual encounter. The Battle of Standard is generally considered a defeat of the Scots, who were drawn into an English war

1

as a result of their King's landholding and feudal ties. Within one year of his humiliating defeat however, King David managed to gain mastery over much of northern England and in the process, earned the respect and admiration of Europe1.

Since the reign of Malcolm Canmore (1058 - 1093) and perhaps even as far back as the Battle of Nechtansmere in 685 AD, the Scots (peoples who lived in what is now Scotland) had been in dispute with their southern neighbors over territory in Northumbria. The land had passed between the northern and southern rivals many times, with no apparent resolution of the problem. During the reign of King David I (1124 - 1153) of Scotland, nothing had changed, and in fact events took place that only served to aggravate the seriousness of the disagreement.

At the time, England was controlled by France, and had been since the Norman invasion in 1066. This was quickly followed by the defeat of Scotland in 1072 by William the Conqueror who was quickly gaining enough power to dispute his subservience by France. But the matter was never really settled before William's death and for the next century at least. In fact, for the next 500 years, France considered itself the rightful ruler of England.

In 1106, Henry I of England, son of William the Conqueror, invaded Normandy and became the new Duke of Normandy again under French sovereignty. His was a powerful reign, and few wished to dispute his power. King David of Scotland was related to Henry I through marriage, as his sister was the wife of Henry. With the death of Henry in the 1130's, David's niece Matilda or Maud became the rightful heir to the throne of England.

But the Norman feudal Barons were not very enthused with the idea of having a female ruler. Naturally another claimant to the throne came forward, that being Stephen of Blois, cousin of Maud and grandson of William the Conqueror. The battle for power that ensued weakened the Norman power in England considerably and left the door open for King David of Scotland to not only increase his territory but also possibly take England for Scotland.

David promptly started raiding into Northumbria while amassing his forces for an invasion. The harassment, while logical in further weakening the Norman power in England, only served to alienate several very powerful Norman lords in the area. These men, Robert de Brus, Walter l'Espec, and many others would have naturally fallen into line in David's cause to protect the rights of his niece. Instead, they now became allies of the enemy, Prince Stephen.

In 1136, with his army formed, King David of Scotland made several forays into what was considered Northern England. After fighting in 1136, Scotland was given the rights to Northumbria, which were to pass to King David's son Henry. Matters quickly deteriorated however, and by 1138, the two sides were at war again. Stephen promptly met the first two invasions of 1138 with more formidable armies. King David was forced to retreat on these two previous attempts when faced with an obviously superior foe. A countering army did not meet his third attempt, which took place in the late summer of 1138.

It seems as though Stephen, although greatly assisted in his efforts to gain complete control of the Kingdom by David's raids, still did not have sufficient support. During the late summer of 1138, Stephen was himself putting down revolts by nobles in southern England. With his own forces occupied, Stephen could not meet David on this third attempt at invasion.

King David's army laid siege to Wark, and quickly noticed they were largely unopposed in the field. Pressing the advantage, David moved south with a large portion of his army, while leaving a force to continue the reduction of the city. The Scots reached the border of Yorkshire unopposed in the middle of August. The inhabitants of York, greatly alarmed, immediately requested the help of Stephen, who responded by sending a small force of Norman knights to their aid, led by Bernard de Balliol. At this point, it seems as though Archbishop Thurston of York took charge of the matter. He called a military meeting and his words, along with the arrival of the Norman knights seemed to greatly encourage the inhabitants of the area.

The forces of the local feudal barons, the Norman knights, and the city militias of York, Beverly, and Repon took to the field to meet the invading army. The Archbishop, too old to put on armor and take the field, had a wagon affixed with a communal box on a mast, which had the standards of the patron saints of the three cities attached. This became the Standard, which gives the battle its name.

The armies met at Cutton Mor, just north of the city of Northallerton, Northumbria. The 'English' or Norman force took ground on a small hillock to the south, while the Scots advanced and formed up on another just to the north. Of note is the size and composition of the forces; the Scots outnumbered the Norman army, but the Norman force had a larger number of archers and knights, and therefore the forces were about equal in strength.

From this point, variations in the story make it impossible to determine the exact events of the battle, but the following is clear. King David was pressured into leading with forces inappropriate for the battle by old traditions. Instead of countering the set up of the opposing army and placing strength against strength, he was forced to allow the Highlanders of Gallway to lead the attack. These men although fierce, were wasted against the superior front of dismounted knights and archers whom they attacked. This situation was further aggravated when King David's son attacked with the mounted Scottish Knights. The force broke through the Norman line, but instead of turning to attack the back of the Norman front, they continued on against the bulk of the Norman Knights who were protecting the standard.

1 King David is also a direct ancestor of Michael Gregory. See: Gregory, M.P., (2007), “The Ancient Kings of Scotland”, Personal Family History Report.

2

After two hours, the battle was largely decided. Neither side had gained a serious advantage, nor would further battle change the result. The Scots turned and retired from the battlefield. The Norman side claimed victory, as they prevented further intrusion and the sacking of York. The Scots could do the same, as they returned to their siege of Wark and eventually took the city without further opposition.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that King David passed up a great opportunity at the Battle of the Standard. The results of his previous incursions, in which he showed a lack of vision or leadership, alienated the Norman lords, who should have rallied to his cause. Had David seen the opportunity and maintained strict control of his forces, he could have invaded and taken England with a much larger force, while supporting his nieces' claim of rule. It would then have been a simple matter to install her in power, subservient to his rule. Despite his strategic errors at the Battle of the Standard, David's rule was successful in the long run. By 1139, he managed to gain control of the Earldom of Northumberland from Stephen and, with the Scottish possession of Cumbria, he became master of northern England - not bad for someone who had been roundly defeated only one year before. In contrast, Prince Stephen seems much more astute, as in the following year he ceded Northumbria to Scotland outright and placated King David. This allowed Stephen to consolidate his power and eliminate the only true threat to his Kingdom, the Scots. Thus the battle became a victory for both sides, but the Normans won the war.

Robert’s son was also named Robert. He was born in 1090 in Derbyshire and died in 1151 in Merevale. He married Margaret Peveral about 1135 while living in Nottinghamshire. Her father was William “The Younger” Peveral and her mother Avice de Lancaster (see Peveral and Lancaster Pedigrees below). Robert founded the Abbeys of Merevale in Warwickshire and Darley, near Derby. He was buried in Merevale Abbey.

William, the 3rd Earl of Derby, was the son of Robert. He was born about 1140 and lived in Oakham, Rutlandshire. He was killed in the Crusades, in the Siege of Acre in Palestine in 1190. He married Sibilla de Braose ca 1173 while living in Sussex. She was the daughter of William II de Braose (see Gloucester pedigree below) and Bertha de Gloucester (see Neufmarche pedigree below). William had a second wife: Goda de Toni, who was born in 1140 in Edington, Derbyshire. She was the daughter of Robert Toni. In 1173, William had rebelled against King Henry II and was imprisoned at Caen.

3

Illustrations above: Top is a map of Tutbury Castle in medieval times; below is a print of Tutbury castle in the 18 th Century.The 3rd Earl fought alongside Richard “The Lionheart” in the Holy Crusades and died in the Siege of Acre. The Siege and capture of Acre is described in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi2 and reproduced below:

The capture of Cyprus was an unexpected byproduct of Richard's Crusade and the island was later to prove of great value to the Latin states in the East. At the moment, however, there was urgent need of Richard's presence with his army and his fleet in the Holy Land itself. Since 1189 the city of Acre had been under siege by the knights and soldiers remaining in the Latin Kingdom. The capture of Acre was to mark, it was hoped, the first stage in a Latin reconquest of the Holy Land. The siege, however, had not gone well and after a year and a half of fighting the city still held out. The explanation of the prolonged resistanceof Acre and its garrison lay, in part, in the physical situation of the town. Lying on the coast below Tyre, possessed of an excellent harbor and strong fortifications, Acre was virtually impregnable so long as its defenders had control of the sea, over which food, materials, and reinforcements could be brought to the town. Furthermore, Saladin had moved his field army to the vicinity of the city shortly after the siege of Acre had begun, so that the besiegers bad both to deal with the garrison of the town and with a field army which continually harassed them and hampered their communications and their supply routes. The arrival of the French fleet and army in April 1191 had somewhat relieved the situation. The speedy arrival of the English forces was now urgently desired. Accordingly, after pacifying Cyprus, Richard hurried to Acre.

At dawn the anchors were raised and the sails were hoisted. King Richard had not gone far when . . . Scandelion appeared. Then, after he had passed by Casal Imbert, the highest towers of the city of Acre appeared in the distance. Little by little the other defensive works of the town came into view.

Acre was hemmed in on all sides, besieged by an infinite multitude of people, people from every Christian nation under heaven, people chosen from all the Christians, people well fitted for war and unremitting labor. The people had now besieged Acre for a very long time and they had been troubled by many afflictions, by constant labors, by shortages of food, and by many adversities, as has in part been pointed out above. There appeared beyond them, furthermore, an innumerable army of Turks, who covered the mountains and valleys, bills, and plains. Here and there they fixed their tents, made of various patterns of flowing colors.

They also saw the pavilions of Saladin and the tents of his brother, Saif ad Din, and of Taki ad Din, the steward of paganism. The latter superintended the sea and the fort, and he frequently set up assaults and serious attacks against the Christians. King Richard seemed to be sizing up all their armies. When he put into port, the King of France and the magnates, commanders, and great men of the armies there marched out to him. They received him with joy and exultation, for they had very much desired his arrival.

2 Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, ed William Stubbs, Rolls Series, (London: Longmans, 1864), III, 1, 5, 13, 17-18 (pp.210-11, 214-17, 224-26, 231-34), translated by James Brundage, “The Crusades: A Documentary History”, Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1962, 175-81. The text can also be found in LaMonte, J.L., [Ed.], (1941), “The Crusade of Richard the Lionhearted”, Columbia University Press: New York.

4

The King of France, loathing so much delay in making an attack, signified to King Richard that the time was now opportune for making an assault and for having the criers order the army to move forward to attack. King Richard informed him, however, that he was not yet able to undertake this project, both because he was grievously sick and because of the absence (due to adverse winds) of some of his men. They hoped that the latter would arrive with the next fleet of ships and would bring material for building siege machinery.

The King of France, however, was unwilling to give up his project. He ordered the criers to announce throughout the army that an assault was to be made. On the Monday next after the feast of St. John the Baptist [July 1, 1191, but probably the Monday before the feast is meant - i.e. June 17] the French King had his engines set up and ordered his men to be armed. You could see there an incomprehensible multitude of armed men, outfitted respect ably with weapons. There were so many shining coats of mail, so many glittering helmets, so many noble horses neighing, so many white coloured mantles, so many select knights, so many assistants of great probity and daring, so many banners of various kinds that never bad so many appeared to be reckoned tip. When the men stationed at the barricades had organized their defenses, because of the threat of an attack by Saladin and the outer Turkish army, the armed men approached the city walls and delivered a terrific assault, firing stones and missiles without interruption from their balistas and engines. But, when they perceived that they were surrounded, the Turks made such a tumult with their shouting and the sounding of their trumpets that their yells must have reached the stars, for the air resounded with a clamor such as follows a lightning flash. Some of them were appointed by the officers to strike upon the timbrels and pots, to beat the drums, and in other diverse ways to make noise and send up smoke from the fires to let Saladin and the outer army know that, as arranged, they were supposed to come to the help of the town. When they had seen and heard all this, the outer Turks at tacked in groups. The Turks assembled all kinds of material in order to cover the barricades so that they could more easily cross Survey over to attack our men, but they were unable to carry this into effect. Geoffrey of Lusignan, an exceptionally worthy knight, resisted them and very quickly drove them out of the barricades which they had occupied above us. Wielding a twoedged sword with his hand he killed more than ten of them and none whom he struck escaped alive. He captured many alive. He bore himself with such agility and perseverance that everyone said that no one, since the time of those famous knights Roland and Oliver, had been so deserving of praise. He recovered one of the barricades, though with great labor and travail, because of the great multitude of Turks who were fighting doggedly against him. They fought a dual contest for a long time. The violent battle was joined and an insufferable conflict ensued. The contending parties clashed horribly and with great clamor. Those who were fighting against the city, after leveling the barricades, made a hot assault outside the city walls, but they were forced to retreat and to give up the attack altogether. They were unable both to attack the city and, at the same time, to keep up their defense in the face of an attack by the Turks outside the town. Many of the Franks were killed there by the spears, by the missiles and stones of the balistas, and by the spreading of Greek fire. There was great mourning among the people, with wailing and lamentation. . . . After the French had laid down their arms, the Turks vilely reproached our men, taunting them with the fact that the Franks were unable to finish what they had begun. They furthermore shot Greek fire and, little by little, destroyed the engines as well as the other implements of war which the French king had had made with such tender care.

On this account the French king was so overcome with wrath and rage that, so it is said, he fell into a fit of melancholy and, in his confusion and desolation he would not even mount a horse. King Richard had not yet fully recovered from his illness. He was anxious to be doing things and he was free especially to attend to the capture of the city. He saw to it therefore that the city was attacked by his men so that, perchance, by divine grace the deed might be accomplished in accord with his vow. He had a latticework shed (commonly called a "cercleia") made. It was made solid with many joints, and when it had painstakingly been put together, he ordered it to be taken to the trench outside the city walls. When his most experienced balistarii were in position, he had himself carried out on a silken litter, so that the Saracens might be awed by his presence and also so that he could encourage his men for the fight. His balista, with which he was experienced, was then put into action and many were killed by the missiles

5

and spears which he fired. His miners also made an underground passage to the tower at which his siege engines were firing. The miners sought out the foundations of the tower and hacked out part of it. They filled up the hole with timbers which they set afire. Then the repeated hits of the stone missiles suddenly knocked the tower to bits.

The King pondered the difficulties of proceeding in this enterprise and the great bellicosity of his opponents. He decided that, since in the business world work makes progress through excellence, he might more readily attract the spirits of the young by posting a reward than by giving orders through the commanders. Who, indeed, is not attracted by the scent of money?

The King ordered the criers to proclaim that anyone who removed a stone from the wall next to the aforesaid tower would receive two pieces of gold from the King. Later he promised three gold pieces and then four, so that however many stones anyone removed, he received a payment of four gold pieces for each. Then you could see the young men rush forward and the courageous followers swarm to the wall. When the stones were taken out they would go on eagerly, greedy for praise as well as for payment. Even in the midst of the enemy's missiles they worked on bravely at tearing down the wall. Many of them were wounded, however, and were put out of action. Others, in fear of death, stayed away from danger. But some of them manfully pushed the Turks back from the wall and some of these men were protected neither by shields nor weapons. The wall was extremely high and immoderately thick. The men, however, inspired with courage, overcame danger and removed a great many stones from the massive wall.

Saladin concluded that further delay would be dangerous. He therefore agreed to the requests of the besieged men [to allow them to surrender]. He was persuaded to take this course especially by his emirs, satraps, and powerful friends, some of whom were parents, relatives, and friends of the besieged. . . . He also recalled the wives of the besieged men and the sorrows of their families whom they had not seen now for the three years during which the siege had continued. They said, further, that he would only be losing a city, rather than such upright people. (The images above and below show the Siege, and are available to view at the British Library online).

Saladin's princes persuaded him on these and similar scores and, lest their last state be worse than the first, he agreed that they should make peace on the best terms they could get. It was therefore provided and declared that they would agree to the better peace terms. When the messengers [from the garrison of the town] announced the decision of Saladin and his counsellors, the besieged men were overjoyed. The principal men among them came out to our Kings. Through an interpreter they offered to give up the city of Acre, free and clear, and to give up the Holy Cross and two hundred of the Christians whom they held captive and to surrender fifty men.

When our people found these terms unacceptable, the Muslims offered two thousand noble Christians and five hundred lesser captives, whom Saladin would seek out throughout his domains. The Turks were to leave the city, each man taking with him nothing except his clothing.

They were to leave behind their weapons, food, and everything else. As ransom for their captives, moreover, they were to give two hundred thousand Saracen talents to the two Kings. To assure faithful performance of these terms they were to give as hostages the more noble and important Turks who were to be found in the city.

Our Kings conferred with their wiser men and with each other over whether they should allow these terms to be granted. The universal decision on the matter was that the offer was to be received and the conditions accepted. Oaths were taken and the agreement was put into writing as security. Then, when the hostages had been handed over, the Turks left the city empty-handed.

6

On the Friday next after the feast of the translation of St. Benedict, [The feast is July 11, the Friday next would be July 12] the hostages, that is, the wealthier and more noble emirs, were delivered and accepted. It was arranged that the Holy Cross was to be delivered at the end of the month; also, the captives who were being sought out were to be delivered at the same time. When these arrangements for the city's surrender were made known by rumor (since they affected everyone) the ignorant mob was inflamed with anger. The wiser men, however, were filled with a not unmerited joy, because they had obtained expeditiously and without danger the aim which they had previously been unable to obtain for such a long time.

It was then announced by the criers that it was forbidden for anyone, by word or deed, to revile the Turks with insults or to injure the conquered men. Nor was anyone to hurl missiles at the wrecked walls or at the Turks whom they might happen to see atop the fortifications. On this critical day the probity of these Turks was admirable, as was their great bravery, for they were most vigorous in military enterprises, distinguished in their magnificence. Now, as they crossed over their high walls on their way out of the city, they were regarded by the deeply curious eyes of the Christians, who admired them especially as soldiers and who recalled their memories. Their appearance, as they emerged almost emptyhanded from the city was, nonetheless, amazing in its gracefulness and dignity. They were unconquered by their adversities. Although extreme necessity had just vanquished them, reducing them almost to beggary, the defeated men who emerged were not broken up by gnawing worry nor dejected by the loss of their possessions. Their constancy had not disappeared; rather, in their spirited appearance they seemed victorious. Their lying, superstitious cult, however, had perverted their powers as men. Their miserable error was corrupted into idolatry.

When all the Turks had left the city, the Christians, on the orders of the two Kings, opened the gates and freely entered the city, joyfully dancing and exulting at the top of their voices. They glorified the Lord and gave thanks, for God had showed his great mercy to them and he had visited and worked redemption for his people. The banners and manifold flags of the Kings were run up atop the walls and towers. The city was equally divided by the two Kings. They also made a proportionally equal distribution of the supplies of arms and of food. The captives of the highest degree of nobility were divided between them by lot.... The King of France, moreover, for his part had the noble palace of the Templars with all its appurtenances. King Richard got the royal palace, to which he sent his queens with the children and their servants. Thus each of the Kings peacefully secured his position. The army was housed throughout the city. After the prolonged daybyday agonies of the siege, they now quietly refreshed themselves in much desired peace. On the night following our entry, Saladin and his army, out of fear of our people, left the place where they had camped and occupied a mountain further away.

The 4th Earl was also called William. He was born in 1168 and died in 1247. His wife was Lady Agnes of Chester, the daughter of Hugh of Keveliok, de Meschines, Earl of Chester. William’s mother was Bertrade de Montfort, daughter of Simon IV de Montfort, Comte de Evreaux (b. 1135).

William had a son – another William - who was Michael Gregory’s ancestor. This William became the 5th Earl of Derby and he was born around 1200. He died in 1254 in Evington and was buried in Merevale Abbey. He accompanied the King of England to France in 1230. He married Sybil, the 3rd daughter of William (The Marshal), Earl of Pembroke, in 1219, by whom he had seven daughters, but no sons. Secondly, he married Margaret around 1238. She was the first daughter and co-heir of Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester3. William was invested with the Earldom of Westmorland in 1247.

Robert, William’s son, was infamous. He was the 6th and last Earl of Derby of this line. He rebelled against King Henry III during the Baron’s War. Robert was defeated at Chesterfield and taken prisoner while helpless with gout. He was conveyed to Windsor Castle where he was imprisoned and died in 1279. Apparently, he is said before his capture to have gone to ground in a church, hiding behind some wool bales stored there for a big wool fair. However, he was spotted by a girl whose lover had been on his side and had been killed. She gave him away to the King’s troops who arrested him. In 1266, his lands were forfeited to the King’s son Edmund Crouchback, and his Earldom effectively forfeited. He could have recovered his lands

Drawing of William, the 4th Earl Ferrers and, presumably, the Earldom, by payment of £50,000, but was unable to raise the money. His son, John, in 1298 tried to borrow the money but was forbidden by the King. Robert had initially married Mary, the King’s niece and daughter of Hugue, Count of La Marche and Angoulême. There was no male issue from this marriage.

His second wife, and Michael Gregory’s ancestor was Alianore Bohun, daughter of Sir Humphrey de Bohun of Kimbolton, son of Humphrey, Earl of Hereford and Essex. Robert died in 1279 and was probably buried at the Priory of St Thomas at Stafford. The Baron’s War (1264-67) was the period of civil strife during the 56 year reign (1216-1272) of King Henry III when Simon de

3 Roger de Quincy (see Pedigree below) married Helen Galloway (Pedigree also outlined below) and Helen’s ancestry can be traced to Malcolm MacKenneth, King of Scotland, Henry 1, King of England and Aethelred “The Unready”, King of England.

7

Montford supplanted the King. England was in chaos through poor financial management, weak governance and reliance upon Europeans within the King’s Court. When the King wanted more money to finance his continental ambitions, the condition laid down by the Barons was that the King should share some of his power with them. In 1258 they issued the Provisions of Oxford, limitations on royal power which were reluctantly accepted by the King. When he changed his mind the Barons rose up under Simon de Montfort, the King’s brother-in-law. The war began with the Battle of Lewes which de Montfort won, taking the King and his son, Prince Edward, captive. Fourteen months later the tables were turned: the Prince escaped and Simon de Montfort was routed and killed at the Battle of Evesham.

Robert de Ferrers was a young Baron who might have been de Montfort’s main supporter. In fact, he was a firebrand, self-serving and a loose cannon with a power base in the west and north Midlands. His patch was extended from Derby, Tutbury and the Peak and looked towards Chester. De Montfort expected him to be there to support him at Lewes, but de Ferrers failed to turn up. Though at this stage nominally a Montfortian, his main loyalty seems to have been himself. His guiding agenda seems to have been continuing his long-standing feud with the King’s son, Prince Edward – both of them laid claim to lands in the north Midlands.

With Lewes won, Robert de Ferrers rampaged through the territories the now captured Prince Edward had disputed with him. His army headed for Chester, an important city and port and key gateway to Wales. The city had begun to strengthen its defences before the Battle of Lewes. Abbey houses had been knocked down and a defensive ditch begun, although they were then left unfinished.

As news came through that Simon de Montfort had taken over, there was presumably no need to defend the city against Robert de Ferrers. He may well have simply been let in. There is no positive evidence to suggest Robert de Ferrers had to fight his way in. Simon de Montfort now regarded Robert de Ferrers as something of a liability. When he summoned the spokemen from the Shires to London for a parley at the Parliament, he had clear plans for de Ferrers: he simply arrested him and put him in the Tower of London. De Montfort himself had territorial ambitions in the north Midlands on behalf of his son. De Ferrers was not released until just before the Battle of Evesham, when the status quo was restored. For some inexplicable reason, de Ferrers went on the rampage again. This time he was captured by Prince Edward’s men as described above, at Chesterfield following a skirmish. Of course, ultimately, the King won against the Barons in 1267. By then, Robert was a disgraced prisoner.

Robert’s ancestor, Henry de Ferrers had built a castle near Derby known as Duffield Castle. It was apparently a hugh building with keep walls 16 feet thick. It was destroyed and razed by Royalist forces in about 1266 as final revenge for the actions of Robert de Ferrers.

John de Ferrers was the son of Robert. He was born in 1271 and died in Gascony in 1312. He married Hawise de Muscegros (see attached pedigree of Hawise de Muscegros) who was born 12 December 1276, the daughter of Robert de Muscegros. It is

thought that Sir John was poisoned to death by his wife.

His daughter, of course, was Eleanor Ferrers who married into the Lathom family, ancestors of Michael Gregory. Sir John was created Baron of Ferrers. The Lathom family have been traced back to 1031 when Dunning de Lathom was born (see attached pedigree). More research is possible on this line, and

on the line of Dunning’s wife, Margaret de Essex (b. Feb 1032), and on his son’s wife, Helga de Illustration of Lathom, where the medieval Lathom family lived Kevelioc (b. 1074).

8

Date of Report: 27 March 2007

9

The Line of Descent From Adam Wallincourt to Michael Gregory, Through the De Ferrers Line

Adam Wallincourt = [---?---]

Walcheline de Ferrers = Mahaut Durbury b. ca 1010 (Tutbury) b. ca 1025d. ca 1060 (Killed inthe Normandy civil wars) Engenulphe L’Angle = [---?---] Richerde Ruivalloy de Vitre = Guegan de la Vicaire

b. 1010 (L’Angle, b. ca 1010 b. ca 1013 (Normandy) b. ca 1017 (France)France)

Henry de Ferrers = Bertha Roberts (L’Angle) Andre Seigneur de Vitre = Agnes de Mortaigneb. ca 1036 (Ferrieres, b. ca 1040 (Gastenois, Normandy) b. ca 1054 (Vitre, France) b. ca 1054 (Mortaigne,Normandy) Normandy)Bur. 1088 (TutburyCastle, Staff’s.)

Robert Ferrers = Hawise de Vitre William Ferrers Armice = Nigel de AlbiniEarl of Derby b. ca 1069 (Vitre, Normandy) Engenulphe de Ferrers b. ca 1063b. ca 1062 (Ferrers)d. ca 1139 (Charterley)

William “The Younger” Peveral = Avice de Lancaster

Robert de Ferrers = Margaret Peveral Matilda Bertrande de Ferrers Ifolde = Stephen de BeauchampEarl of Derby b. ca 1141 b. ca 1090 (Derbyshire) (Nottingham) Geoffrey Neufmarche = Ada Huglevilled. ca 1151 (Merevale) b. ca 1018 b. ca 1030

(Neufmarche) (St Valery en Caux)

Walter FitzWalter Pitres = Emma Balloon Bernard Neufmarche = Nest Verch Osbornb. ca 1065 (Gloucester) b. ca 1070 (Neufmarche) b. ca 1075 (Hert’s)d. bef 1129 (Llantony d. 1093 (Aberhonwy)Abbey

See de Braose Pedigree Maud Miles FitzWalter de Gloucester = Sybil Neufmarch b. ca 1081 (Clifford b. ca 1092 b. ca 1090

Castle, Hert’s)

William de Braose = Bertha Gloucester Margaret Lucyb. 1100 (Brecknock) b. 1130 (Gloucester) b. ca 1126 b. ca 1142

d. ca 1204

William de Ferrers = Sybil de Braose, dau of William de Gloucester Bertha3rd Earl of Derby William de Braose Lord of Gower b. 1151 (Bramber)b. ca 1150 (Oakham) b. ca 1150 (Bramber, Sussex) b. 1153 (Bramber)d. Bef 1130 (killed inbattle at the Siege of = (2) Godi de Toni Acre, Palestine)

William de Ferrers = Agnes Chester dau of Agatha Isabel Milicent = Roger Mortimer4th Earl of Derby Hugh de Meschines, b. 1168 b. 1172b. ca 1170 (Ferrers) Earl of Chesterd. 22 Sep 1247 b. 1174 (Tutbury)

a

10

Genealogy ChartNo 21

a

See Quincy Pedigree

William de Ferrers = Margaret de Quincy Bertha Sybil5th Earl of Derby b. ca 1218 (Winchester) b. ca 1200 b. 25 Jul 1216 (Derby)b. ca 1193 (Ferrers)d. 24 Mar 1254 (Evington, Leic’s)bur. Merevale Abbey

= (2) Sibyl Marshal

See Bohun Family Pedigree

Robert de Ferrers6th (and last) Earl = Ailanore de Bohun Joan Sir William Ferrers Agnes Isabel Maudof Derby b. 1241 (Kimbolton) b. ca 1238 1st Baron of Groby b. ca 1222 b. ca 1226 b. ca 1228b. ca 1239 (Derby)d. ca 1278Bur. St Thomas PrioryStaff’s

John de Ferrers = Hawise de Muscegros dau of See Pedigree ofb. 20 Jun 1271 Robert de Muscegros Hawise de Muscegros(Charterley Castle, b. 21 Dec 1276 (Charlton)Staff’s)d. 1312 (Gascony:apparently poisonedby his wife)

Thomas de Lathom = Eleanor de Ferrersb. ca 1300 (Lathom) b. ca 1308 (Charterley Castle, Staff’s)

See Lathom Family Pedigree

Thomas Lathom = Joan Venablesb. 1329 (Lathom) b. ca 1341 (Kinderton) See Venables Family History Report

See Stanley Family History Report

Sir John Stanley = Isabella Lathomb. 1350 (Storeton) b. ca 1364 (Lathom)d. 6 Jan 1413 d. 26 Oct 1414 (Liverpool)(Ardel, Ireland)Ld Lieut of IrelandBur Burscough Priory,Ancestor of the Earls Of Derby

Sir John II Stanley = Isabel Harringtonb. 1386d. 1427

11

b

b

Thomas Stanley = Joan Goushill See Goushill Familyb. Latham, Lanc’s b. Haveringham, Notts. History Report

m. ca 1401

John Stanley = Elizabeth Weeverb. Weever

Thomas Venables = Cicely Stanleyb. 1469, Golborne b. Weever, Cheshired. 1513 Battle of Flodden Field

William Venables = Ellen Cottonb. Kinderton b. Kinderton

John Massey = Catherine Venables See Venables Family b. ca 1496, Puddington b. ca 1498, Puddington History Reportd. 15 July 1551, m. ca 1496, PuddingtonBurton-in-Wirral,Cheshire

Arthur Glegge = Eleanor Masseyb. ca 1522, Puddington, Cheshirem. 23 Nov 1538 in Burton-in-Wirral,Cheshired. Gayton

See Gregory Pedigree: Glegg(e), Thomas, Blake and Gregory Families

12

Edward Glegg of Grange, Margaret Glegg of Gayton, their descendants to Arthur Glegg, who Married Eleanor Massey (Reproduced from Ormerod’s History of Cheshire, p.492)

ARTHUR GLEGGE of Gayton = ELEANOR, daughter esq, finally heir to his nephew of John Massy of William Glegg, living [13 Puddington, esq Hen. 8, and] 1566

THOMAS GLEGG, second ELIZABETH, eldest WILLIAM GLEGG = MARY, daughter and coheiress KATHERINE GLEGG.Son, bur. At Heswall, daughter, o.s.p. of Gayton, esq. of Edward Plankeney, of ELIZABETH, wife of JohnJan 18, 1616 [MARGERY] wife bur. At Heswall, Chester, buried at Prescot, Aldersey, alderman of theEDWARD GLEGG, third of Peter Bold of Dec 6 1629 co. Lancaster, May 12, 1597. City of Chester.Son Upton, gent ELEANOR GLEGG.

MARY GLEGG, ELIZABETH GLEGG, baptized EDWARD GLEGG of Gayton, = ISABELLA, dau of Robert JOHN GLEGG, 2d son, bapt atBaptized at at Heswall, Sep 14, 1576. esq. bapt. At Heswall, Aug. Mainwaring of Merton Heswall, Jul 14, 1575, bur. There, JanHeswall, July JANE GLEGG, baptized at 1, 1568, and there buried, Sands, bur at Heswall, 4, 1619, represented on a brass plate 30, 1570 Heswall, Feb 21, 1581 Feb 29 [sic], 1623 Feb. 17, 1623 now affixed to the east wall of the

chancel, 1816.

JOHN GLEGG, second EDWARD GLEGG, bap- WILLIAM GLEGG = CICELY, dau of Robert Sephton, MARGARET, wife of ELIZABETH, wifeson, bapt. At White- tized at Heswall, of Gayton, esq. of Mollington, eldest sister and Ralph Morgell of of ValentineGate, Jul 24, 1591. Nov 30, 1593 bapt. At White- coheiress of Thomas Sephton of Moston Hall, esq. Whitmore ofGEORGE GLEGG, bap- ARTHUR GLEGG, bap- gate, Jan 29, Mollington, baptized at Back- baptized at Hes- Thurstanton,tized at Heswall, tized at Heswall, 1589-90, bur. at ford, Mar. 3, 1593, died at wall, Oct. 28, 1587, married at Hes-Sep 29, 1592 Apr. 1, 1600 Heswall, Oct. Thurstanston, buried at died Oct 12, 1627, wall, May 1646.

24, 1656. Heswall, Ap. 3, 1662. bur. at Backford.

BARTHOLOMEW GLEGG, ARTHUR GLEGG, KATHERINE = EDWARD GLEGG = ELIZABETH, ELIZABETH, bapt. At ANNE, wife of …..Eldest son and heir apparent baptized Jan 10, daughter of of Gayton, esq. daughter of Heswall, Feb. 16, 1614. Rose, co. Derb.Born 1611, baptized at 1628, buried at Hes- sir Henry 2d son and heir, Edward ANNE, bapt at Heswall gent. Bap. Jan 24Heswall, Aug 28, bur May wall , Jan 25, 1629. Delves of baptized at Pickford, Aug 19, 1629 obs inf 162923, 1612. CHARLES GLEGG, Doddington; Heswall, Aug. citizen of bapt. At Heswall, Nov. MARY, bap. atJOHN GLEGG, married baptized at Heswall, bart. Married 24, 1615, mar- London, 9, 1620. Heswall, Dec. 2,….., dau of ….. Mandrake, Jan 28, 1631. July 22, ried 3rdly, at o.s.p. CICELY, wife of Thos. 1632, ob. inf.citizen of London, died in WILLIAM GLEGG, 1650, buried Heswall, Sep. 1649. Browne of Upton, gent. HANNAH, bap atIreland, s.p. baptized at Heswall, at Heswall, 20, 1671, Judith 1st wife. Bap. At Heswall, May 23, Heswall, Jan 1,RALPH GLEGG, baptized Oct 10, 1633. Aug. 1666. Hughes of Dis- 1624, bur. at the same 1634, ob. inf.At Heswall, Jan 28, 1621, ROBERT GLEGG, 2d wife. serth; died May place, Oct. 1661. MARGERY, bapBuried Mar 3, 1621. married ……, dau of 26, 1687, buried ANNE, bapt. At Hes- at Heswall, Sep

Sir …. Sherlock, died Jun. 1, at wall, Aug. 19, 1629, 13, 1635, bur in Ireland, s.p. Heswall. Ob. infans. there Oct 12 1635

HESTER ROGER = MARTHA, ANNE, only = EDWARD GLEGG = MARGARET, dau. HANNAH GLEGG. GLEGG. daughter daughter of of Caldey William Glegg GLEGG, bur.

of …. Roger Grange, esq. of Gayton, esq by at West Moss, Lowndes of aged 42 at the Cicely, daughter Kirkby

Obiit Sept. Overton Visitation of to Robert Sephton Aug. 22, 1697 co. Cest. 1664, born 1622, of Mollington, 1663. Obiit June married Anne, [gent., not] A daughter, 5, 1675 dau. of … esq., sister and co- and four aged 51 Thelwall, esq. heir to Thomas younger years. 3d. wife, who Sephton. 1st wife sons

died s.p.

HANNAH, only daugh. = JOHN GLEGG of JANE, daughter of John Scorer = EDWARD GLEGG of Irby, WILLIAM GLEGG of = ?…. MARGARETObiit Sept 19, 1729, Tranmore, gent. Of Westminster, gent. Buried esq. 2d son, obiit Dec Grange, esq. son dau of GLEGGBur. At West Kirby, 3d son, living at Thurstanston, Mar 7, 1720 15, 1703, a aetat. 45; and heir, aged 11 …. a aet. 41 Had iss. 1703 a aet 46 buried at Thurstanston years 1664.

PRUDENCE, ROGER, died ANNE, wife of the JOHN GLEGG of = FRANCES, eldest dau EDWARD GLEGG of = ELIZ, dau MARGARET,SILENCE, unmarried Rev John Urmson Irby, esq. Eldest of Henry Birkenhead Caldey Grange, esq. and heiress wife of …Died young Decem. 7, of Neston, ob. Feb. son and heir, ob. Of Backford, and co- obiit Aug 4, 1714, of John Becket,

1777 6, 1769, aged 61 May 14, 1768 heiress of her uncle aged 33 years, buried Kent of buried at Vide Backford Thomas Birkenhead at West Kirby Tranmore Haselwall,

1715

GLEGGS of DEBORAH, 2d dau. And coheiress = WILLIAM GLEGG of Grange, esq EDWARD GLEGG, JOHN GLEGG = MARY, dau ABIGAIL,Backford of Henry Birkenhead of Backford baptized at West Kirby, Dec 28, baptized at West of Grange, esq. … Carr of bapt. 1708

Esq re-married to Lt Colonel 1704, died Dec 21, 1739, without Kirby, July 1706, born 1712, ob. Liverpool SILENCE Charles Crosbie, o.s.p. surviving issue o.s.p. April 23, 1749 ob. Feb 28, bapt. 1710

1758, aet 39

FRANCES, daugh. of = WILLIAM GLEGG, esq. only son = SIDNEY, dau of … MARY. MARGARET, obiit CATHERINE,

13

Thomas Jennings, and heir, who sold the estate Lloyd, living at Parkgate, FRANCES. Nov. 2, 1749 obiit, March 1746 1st wife 1814

The Glegge Family (Ancestors of Michael Gregory)

Sidney Lloyd = William Glegge = Frances Jenningsb. 1752/53 b. ca 1750m. 1774 d. 1785d. 27 Mar 1822bur NestonAdmon. 1822

Emilyb. 1775d. 20 Feb 1843 (Cheshire)

Thomas Glegge = Catherine Davies Francis Glegge Frances William [-?-] [-?-]b. ca 1775 dau of Wm Davies d. By 1851?Mariner (1800) (Ropemaker) Mariner (1806) b. 1777 (St John’s Liverpool) d. 4 Feb 1818 m. Nov 1793

d. 4 Nov 1859 Living at Elm Terrace Tranmere (1851) Proprietor of Houses

Thomas Glegge = Mary Miller Mary Glegge = Humphrey Thomas Williamb. 1800 (Liverpool) b. 1808 (Liverpool) b. 22 May 1806 b. 1 Jan 1807 b. 12 July 1803Master Mariner Living 5 Osborne m. 3 Jan 1828 m. 3 Jan 1828 d. By 1836?d. 18 Aug 1848 Terrace Liverpool d. 7 Jan 1885 d. 13 Jan 1877

(1851)

William Glegge Emily Thomas Glegge Thomas = Eliza Catherine Georgeb. 1838 (Liverpool) b. 1834 (Liverpool) architect b. 9 Sep 1826Living at 5 Osborne Living at 5 Osborne b. 11 Jun 1829 m. 25 Sep 1851Terrace, Liverpool (1851) Terrace, Liverpool Tranmere, Cheshire Walton on the Hill

(1851) d. 18 Nov 1881 LancashireTranmere (age 52)

See Below

14

Line of Descent from Thomas Glegge Thomas to Michael Gregory

THOMAS GLEGGE THOMAS = ELISA CATHERINE GEORGE b. 11 Jun 1829 b. 9 Sep 1828 Architect m. 25 Sep 1851

Walton-on-the-HillLancashire

RALPH ABRAHAM BLAKE = MARY CATHERINE THOMAS GEORGE THOMAS HENRY THOMAS ELIZAShopkeeper b. 30 Oct 1853 Tranmere b. 1 Nov 1855 Tranmere GLEGGE THOMAS b. 14 Apr 1865b. 1854 bp. 13 Jul 1854 ALFRED THOMAS b. 1 Nov 1855 (Tranmere) MARTHA EMILY

St Nicholas’ Church, Liverpool b. ca 1856 Tranmere b. ca 1862 m. 11 May 1878 TYSILIO THOMAS WILLIAM ARTHUR THOMAS Tranmere

b. ca 1857-60 b. 20 Jan 1871 WILLIAM ARTHUR Tranmere

See Blake Family History THOMAS WALTER AUBREY THOMAS = MAUD PARISReport and Genealogy Chart b. ca 1858 b. 14 Dec 1863 b. ca 1868 (Chester) No 8 Architect (1881) d. 30 Nov 1945

d. aged 75 (?) in 1934

FREDERICK JOHN HALL GREGORY = ANNIE BLAKE b. 29 Oct 1884 b. 8 Apr 1886 in Mold, Clwyd Glen Parva Barracks, Leicester m. 5 Nov 1906 St James RC DORRIT M EDWARD THOMAS

Church, Colchester b. ca 1890 (Neston) b. ca 1892 (Neston)HUMPHREY THOMAS OLIVER G THOMASb. ca 1897 (Neston) b. ca 1895 (Neston)LOUISA E THOMAS WALTER G THOMASb. ca 1888 (Neston) b. ca 1887 (Birkenhead)

FREDERICK WILLIAM GREGORY = MARGARET MARY O’NEILL WINSOME WINIFRED C THOMASColchester m. 26 December 1929, St Chad’s Church, b. ca 1890 b. ca 1894 (Neston)b. 25 Dec 1906 Colchester Cheetham Hill, Manchester AUBREY GLEGGE THOMASd. 1 March 1975 Blackburn d. 10 July 1989 in Wigan b. after 1881 b. after 1881

See O’Neill Family History Report and Genealogy Chart No 3

MALCOLM PETER GREGORY = BERNADETTE CAFFREYb. 26 February 1935 b. 13 April 1934, BlackburnHayfield, Manchester m. 21 July 1956, St Peter’s RC Church, See Caffrey Family History Report and Genealogy Chart No 2Blackburn d. 2001 Blackburnd. 2001 Blackburn

MICHAEL PETER GREGORY See Gregory Family History Report and Genealogy Chart No 1

15

Lathom Family Pedigree Leading to Thomas Latham, Husband of Eleanor Ferrers

Dunning de Lathom = Margaret de Essexb. ca 1031 b. Feb 1032d. 12 Oct 1092 d. 6 Aug 1073

Siward FitzDunning = Helga de Kevelioc De Lathom b. 1074 (Kevelioc)b. 4 Jul 1073d. 9 Jan 1094

Henry FitzSiward de = Alice WoodwardLathom b. 4 Apr 1094 (Battersea, Wandsworth)b. 27 Apr 1093 (Lathom)

Richard FitzRobert = Alice NelsonDe Lathom b. ca 1180b. ca 1172 (Dalton,Lanc’s)

Robert de Lathom = Amicia Alfretonb. ca 1198 b. ca 1200 (Lancaster)(Lathom)

Sir Robert de Lathom = [---?---] Adam de Millom = [---?---]b. ca 1226 (Lathom) b. ca 1228 (Millom)

Robert de Lathom = Joan de Millomb. ca 1254 (Lathom) b. ca 1256 (Millom, Cumberland)d. ca 1290

Sir Thomas de Lathom = Katherine de Knowsley, dau of Sir Thomas de Knowsleigh (b. ca 1228)b. ca 1280 (Lathom) b. ca 1282 (Knowsley)d. ca 1324

Thomas de Lathom = Eleanor Ferrers See Ferrers Pedigree (above)b. ca 1300 b. ca 1305 (Charterley Castle)

16

De Braose Pedigree4

William I de Braose = Agnes St Clairb. ca 1049 (Brienze, b. ca 1054 (Barnstaple)Normandy)

Sir Philip de Braose = Aenor de Totnesb. Bef 1073 (Bamber) b. ca 1084 (Barnstaple)d. ca 1135 (Holy Land,Palestine)

William de Braose = Bertha Gloucester Maudb. ca 1100 (Brecknock) b. 1130 Gloucester) b. ca 1105 (Bamber, Sussex)

See De Ferrers Pedigree above

4 For a fuller pedigree, see: Gregory, M.P., (2007), “The de Braose Family, Medieval Barons”, Personal Family History Report.

17

Pedigree of Margaret de Quincy

Simon, = Maud Ives de Grentesmesnil = Felicia de GauntEarl of Huntington b. ca 1064 (Calvados, b. ca 1070 (Leicester)

Normandy)

Saher de Quincy = Mathilde (Maud) St Liz of Tonbridge Hugh Grentemesnil = Alice Beaumontb. ca 1100 (Daventry) Baron of Hinckley b. ca 1105 (Beaumont,

Sur-Oisle, Normandy)See Beaumont Family History Report

Robert de Quincy = Orabella Leuchars Alice Robert Beaumont = Petronille GrentemesnilLord of Buckside b. ca 1133 (Leuchars, b. ca 1140 (Bushby, 3rd Earl of Leicester b. ca 1134 (Leicester)b. ca 1127 (Long Scotland) Billesdon, Leicestershire) b. ca 1121 Buckley) m. 1162 (Beaumont, d. 29 Sep 1197 Normandy)(Holland, Lancaster) d. 31 Aug 1190A Crusader (Durazzo, Provence,

West Albania)

Saher IV de Quincy = Margaret FitzPernal Beaumont1st Earl of Winchester b. ca 1156 (Leicester)b. ca 1153 (Winchester)d. 3 Nov 1219 (Damietta,Egypt) See Pedigree of Helen GallowayBur. Acre, Palestine

Roger de Quincy = Helen Galloway Hawise = Hugh de Vere Robert de Quincy = Elen Verch Llewellyn2nd Earl of Winchester b. ca 1200 (Carrick, Scotland) b. ca 1195 Lord of Ware dau of Llewellyn apb. ca 1200 (Winchester) m. ca 1228 (Winchester) The Great, Prince ofd. 25 April 1264 North Wales(Braelkey, Scotland)Accompanied his father On the 5th Crusade (1219)

William de Ferrers = Margaret de Quincy Elizabeth Helen5th Earl of Derby b. ca 1218 (Winchester) b. ca 1220 b. ca 1222b. ca 1193 (Ferrers) m. ca 1238 (Winchester) (Winchester)d. 24 Mch 1254(Evington, Leic)bur Merevale Abbey

See Ferrers Family Pedigree

18

Pedigree of Hawise de Muscegros

Robert Malet = [---?---] William II FitzHugh Malbank = Alda de Beauchamp

William Malet I = [---?---] Ralph Picot = [---?---] Thomas Bassett I = Alice de Dunstanvilleb. ca 1169 Sheriff of Kent

b. ca 1100

Gilbert Malet = Alice Picot Thomas Bassett II = Philippa Malbankd.ca1194

Sir William Malet II = Alice Bassett = William, Lord of Currey-Malletb. bef 1178 d. ca 1263d. ca 1216

Sir Robert de Muscegros = Hawise Malet Sir William Avenal = [---?---]b. ca 1210

Sir John de Muscegros = Cicely Avenalb. 10 Aug 1232d. 8 May 1275

Sir Robert de Muscegros = Agnes de Ferrers

Sir John de Ferrers = Hawise de Muscegrosb. 21 Dec 1276 (Charlton)d. ca 1340Cousin of her husband

See Ferrers Pedigree

19

Pedigree of Helen Galloway

Eadwulf Bamborough = [---?---]b. ca 0860

Ealdred Bamborough = [---?---] See “The Kings of Scotland” b. ca 0885 (Northumbria) Personal Family History Report

Oswulf of = [---?---]Northumberlandb. ca 0910d. ca 0965

Malcolm II MacKenneth = [---?---] Waltheof of = [---?---] King Aethelred = [---?---]King of Scotland Northumberland “The Unready”b. 0932 b. ca 0935 King of England

b. ca 0968 (Wessex)

Mormaer of Athole = Bethoc of Scotland Uchtred I, Earl = Aelfgifub. ca 0975 (Atholl) b. ca 0984 (Atholl) of Northumbria Princess of England

d. ca 1045 b. 0961 (Northumbria) b. 0997 (Wessex)

Malldred Allerdale = Princess Aeldgyth King William I = MathildeLord of Allerdale b. ca 1020 (Northumbria) (“The Conqueror”) of FlandersRegent of Strathclyde b. 1028 (Falaise, France) b. ca 1031b. ca 1015 d. 9 Sep 1087 d. 2 Nov 1083d. ca 1045

Dolfin Maldred = [---?---] Gospatric Henry I, King of England = Concubine [---?---]Prince of Scotland b. ca 1040 b. 21 Feb 1068 (Selby, York’s)b. ca 1043 d. 1 Dec 1135 (St Denis-

le-Fermout)

Fergus McDonald = Elizabeth, Princess of England FitzMaldred UchtredLord Galloway b. ca 1095 (Talby, York’s) Lord of Rabyb. ca 1096 m. Holroyd Abbey, Edinburgh b. ca 1080

Uchtred, Lord Galloway = Gunnild Dunbarb. ca 1118 (Carrick) b. ca 1126 (Dunbar)d. 22 Sep 1174

Roland Galloway = Elena de Morville Evab. ca 1164 (Galloway) b. ca 1165 (Kirkoswald) b. ca 1144 (Galloway)d. Dec 1200 (Northant’s)

Alan FitzRoland Galloway = Helen L’IsleLord of Galloway b. ca 1174 (Galloway)Constable of Scotlandb. ca 1180 (Galloway)bur Dundren Abbey,Kirkcudbrightshire)

Roger de Quincy = Helen Galloway2nd Earl of Winchester b. ca 1200 (Carrick, Scotland)b. ca 1200 (Winchester)d. 25 Apr 1264(Brackley, Scotland)

See de Quincy Pedigree

20