Question

Who is Margaret (Hetton-1)? If not the wife of Sir Robert de (Holand-85), should she be disconnected as his wife?   

Source: Royal Ancestry Vol. III, page 296

ELIZABETH _____. [footnote 13].

+ son and heir, of Robert and Maud (Zouche-64) de Holand (Holland-33), born about 1311-12. He married before 25 June 1343 ELIZABETH ______. They had four sons, Robert, Thomas, Gilbert (clerk), and John, Knt., and one possible daughter, Margaret.

+ In 1343 he and his wife, Elizabeth, settled the manor of Nether Kellet, Lancashire, the bailiwick of the wapentake of Lonsdale, and the bailiwicks of Cartmel and Fourneys, which Edmund de Neville, Knt. held for life, on themselves for life following the said Edmund's death, with reversion to Thomas, son of the said Robert de Holand.

Thank you for your help! :-)

Answer 1

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol8/pp139-140

The link says this manor descended like Upholland, I will look for that manor too. The foot note says the wife was named Elizabeth (no maiden name) "In 1343 Sir Robert de Holland and Elizabeth his wife held the manor of Nether Kellet, the bailiwick of Lonsdale  In 1355 this estate was given to Robert son of Robert de Holland and Joan his wife; "

FYI: an example of tenure by serjeanty not knight-service. That footnote confused me but I think what it means is Robert married multiple women and Joan was the mother of his son Robert, not Margaret (or Elizabeth).

Comments

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol4/pp91-97#fnn24 Upholland has a similar story footnote 24.

---

I'd read that to say Joan was the son's wife.

---

Royal Ancestry by Richardson says, 'they had four sons, Robert, Thomas, Gilbert (clerk), and John, Knt., and one possible daughter, Margaret.'  then he only lists three of the children, Robert de Holand [see next], and John Holand Knt., and Margaret De Holand (possible daughter).

---

Re: RJ, Robert's daughter Maud, 3rd Baroness Holand's mother was supposedly named Alice not Joan - I guess it depends which Robert refers to "his wife". 

Robert de Holand, 1st Lord Holand has a good approximation of the pedigree from Burke's Peerage, including supposed daughter Margaret, and also supports removing Margaret Hetton. 

---

Richardson notes ...
" In 1355 his father, Robert de Holand the elder, settled the manor of Nether Kellet, Lancashire and the bailiwick of the serjeantry of the wapentake of Lonsdale, Lancashire on Robert and his wife, Joan [sic]. At the same time a similar settlement was made of the manors of Wanborough, Wiltshire and Denford (in Kintbury), Berkshire, his wife's name being there recorded as Alice."

---

While mentioning Maud de Holand-34, her runaway daughter Philippa Lovel-44 has turned up safe and well with her brother, pretending to be his daughter. 

I don't think she wants to go home to her proper parents, her new mum is very nice.  But these things are necessary.

 

---

Hi RJ :-)

Being new to a lot of this history, I have much to learn. Of late I have been working on adding sources to the Holland's on WikiTree that I believe to be in my line. I found Margaret (Hetton-1) listed as wife to Sir Robert de (Holand-85). Richardson does not list her as a wife, hence the question.

Thank you RJ for your comments and any help with this question!

---

Apparently the Joan who married William Molyneux was the daughter of Robert de Holand of Euxton.  He had the same name as the 2nd baron and was born about the same time (11 in 1323), but they were 3rd cousins.

The Euxton branch descends from Thurstan's brother Adam and it isn't on WikiTree at all.  (Holand-74 seems to be three Williams, but none of them is William of Euxton.)

There's a confusing account here

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol6/pp17-23

and a better one here

https://archive.org/stream/lancashirehollan00holl#page/14/mode/2up

Which thinks Joan's mother was called Joan, so no progress on Margaret de Hetton.

 

---

Thank you, RJ, I have printed off your comment, with links, I will try to make good use of this information. I have submitted two or three possible relationship trails to MC and still looking to find a trail that has Hollands. 
I did find the one below, but have yet to go through it to see if it will stand up with sources. 

Thank you, RJ, appreciate your comments and help very much!.
 

I think Thurstan (Holand-67) is an ancestor, but I do not connect to him directly. He is to many generations out for me to connect to, I guess. Jane (Finch-126), my 12th great grandmother does. He is her 10th great grandfather. 

Hawte (Haute) (Wyatt-188)

1. Haute is the son of Jane (Finch) Wyatt 
2. Jane is the daughter of Thomas Finch [unknown confidence] 
3. Thomas is the son of William Finch [unknown confidence] 
4. William is the son of Alice (Belknap) Finch [unknown confidence] 
5. Alice is the daughter of Philip Belknap [unknown confidence] 
6. Philip is the son of Joan (Botiler) Boteler [unknown confidence] 
7. Joan is the daughter of Alice (Beauchamp) Boteler [confident] 
8. Alice is the daughter of Joan (Cherleton) Beauchamp (Cherleton-25)

9. Joan is the daughter of John (Cherleton-24) de Charlton

10. John (Charlton-245) 

11. Robert (Cherleton-20) married Elinor (Holland1425) 

12.  Thurstan (Holand-66)

13. Robert (Holand-67)

---

Wow, RJ, the first link you listed has plenty of Holland names! I have printed off the first of it, and will work to get them placed on a paper trail to learn who is who!

Thanks, RJ!

---

Well this is the cause of it, Wotton 1741

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2QUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA145

repeated by Kimber&Johnson 1771

https://archive.org/stream/baronetageofengl01wott#page/60/mode/2up

and Betham 1801

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2QUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA145

Burke's Extinct skips over these generations.

But it's obviously confused when it says "brother of Sir Thomas KG", because it also correctly says that daughter Joan was her father's heiress,  but the Robert who was brother of Sir Thomas KG was succeeded by his son.

Probably the cause of the confusion is that the Barons were made overlords of Euxton for a time, so the Hollands who were the squires owed their service to their cousins who were the barons.

 

---

THANK YOU, RJ!

Seems plain as day to me! First cousins are always your best friends! Throwing in a few Barons makes it a great mix!  

I happen to have a copy of 'The Lancashire Hollands,' so I will have this information at hand! And, Google is always a good read! :-)

Thank you so much! I will give this a go!

---

Footnote 230 has a list of Magna Carta gateways descended from Robert de Holland (1st Baron) and Maud la Zouche-64. 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA418

The Magna Carta trail is to Saher de Quincy, through Maud.

Probably most lines are through their daughters Maud Swinnerton, Elizabeth Fitzroger and Margaret la Warre. 

This section

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA253

traces all the descents through Elizabeth.

Footnote 245 here

[edit - bad link]

gives all the gateways descended through son Thomas, earl of Kent.

There are a couple of "probable" lines through son Robert and his "probable" daughter Margaret Lumley.

 

---

Sorry, last link should have been

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA1-PA395

 

---

Meanwhile, the Lovel situation is worse than I thought.  Lovel-128 has a houseful of kids and only one of them is his.  Somebody needs to have a word.

 

---

:-) This work will be Fun! Someone said 'Be Happy In Your Work!'
I will be happy for some time with all of the leads that you have listed here, RJ! Big smile, where to start? I will think of something!

Thank you so much, RJ! I will start now!

:-)!