Maude English Pedigree
The Maude English Pedigree, in my line anyway, is reasonably well documented back to the early 16th Century.
Most people researching the Maude line feel that the family started with the arrival in England of a soldier named Monte Alto. He was a member of William the Conqueror's group and arrived in 1066 and participated in the Battle of Hastings. Thought to be an Italian mercenary (adventurer) living in Normandy, he deported himself well, and was rewarded with land holdings in what is now Yorkshire. These facts are documented in many places. The name was Anglicized to Montault, Monaut, and finally Maud or Maude.
Here is a document passed on to me by my Mother ( Renee), which charts the family from the birth of Bryan Maude (1634-1688), to my great grandfather Arthur Hay Maude (1837-1919).
Here is some additional data from my own research.
Sheila Coe in the UK has done some excellent work, validating the history of the Maude family, and her psotings on the GenForum website make interesting reading. I have transcribed some of the relevant bits here:
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/178.html
I am currently working on trying to discover the true identity of John Maude of Stainland.The bases of these notes are the pedigrees in Foster’s Yorkshire Families and in Burke’s Commoners, which are
riddled with such ludicrous mistakes it is hard to fathom how they occurred.
1. The John Maude baptised 26.4.1614 who appears just to the right of the coat of arms, was not buried in 1686, aged 72. His will was made in 1643, and proved in London by John Wilson, 13.4.1654.An abstract of the will appears in YAS Record series Vol.9: Yorkshire wills proved in the time of the Commonwealth. Testator was John Maude of Wakefield, Gentleman. He left small amounts of money to a number of relatives, including My aunt Mrs Mary Gill, My aunt Edith, wife of Gervase Norton of Kettlethorpe, my mother,Mrs Sarah Maude, my aunt Margaret Maude, my sister Sarah Maude. Elizabeth Wilson als Maude, reputed daughter of ….Wilson,my cousin Mr Barnabas Otley, cousins John Allot, John Wilson, & John Scot.
To his grandmother Mrs Jane Maude, he left ‘my black combe’.The most important and informative bequest was ‘a messuage in Westgate to Benjamin Maude, youngest son of John Maude, late of Alverthorpe, my late father deceased.’
A note below the printed abstract says that John was buried at Wakefield 14.6 1647, and that the entry in Burke and Foster that he died in 1686 and buried in the High Choir at Wakefield, ‘must have been another John Maude.’ I looked up the entry in the MS transcript of Wakefield Par. Reg. (at YAS) and there was no mention of his being aged 72.
2. The Benjamin named in the will was baptised at Wakefield, 8.6.1640. The pedigrees state that John Maude of Alverthorpe was bur. 19.3.1634--in fact, the register makes plain that it was John Maude senior who was buried then. John Maude junior was married twice, first to Elizabeth, who died in 1618, and secondly to Sarah. The John who made the 1643 will calls her his mother: his real mother was Elizabeth, but as he was only 4 when she died it is easy to see that he thought of Sarah as his mother.
John of Alverthorpe junior evidently married young, and had two young wives by each of whom he had a large family.The Wakefield registers have not been printed, but there is an MS transcript covering the years 1613-1812, and also Bishops’ Transcripts for 1600-04. From these I gleaned the following baptisms to John Maude junior:
To Elizabeth: Sarah, 1600-13, Jeremy, 1602, Daniel, 1603 (Must have died as there is a later one),Robert 1604, Samuel, 1605, John 1614-47, Elizabeth, 1616.
To Sarah: Daniel, 1620, Grace, 1621, Sarah, 1622, Gideon,1625, Joshua, 1627, Maria, 1631, Benjamin, 1640.
It would seem that John Junior died between 1640, when Benjamin was baptised (unless it was a late baptism, which it could have been) and 1643 when his son calls him ‘my late father’. He does not appear to have left a will, or if so, then it was not proved at York.I did not even find an adm., which seems odd. I would think he must have been born circa 1580
3. We now come to John Maude, ‘senex’ of Alverthorpe Hall, who fortunately did leave a will, proved at York 1635. (vol.42, fol.461) I have not seen the original, but there is an MS transcript of abstracts of a number of Yorkshire Maudes’ wills, made by Radcliffe at YAS. (Radcliffe’s Yorkshire wills, MS 128. John Maude of Wakefield the elder made his will 21.1.1634/5. He says he was seized in fee simple of a messuage called Cliff in Westgate.The property was left in a complicated manner: to John Maude my grandchild, son & heir apparent of John my eldest son, with reversion to Daniel, younger son of my first son, then Gideon, another son of John, with reversion to Joshua, my grandchild, another son of John, lands at Alverthorpe to Barnabas my second son & Margaret his wife,for their lives, reversion to their eldest son, reversion to Brian, second son of Barnabas, reversion to 3rd son of Barnabas. Testator’s wife Jane.Elizabeth, dau. Of son John by his first wife. Sarah, wife of son John. Son-in-law William--it looks like Norlyn, gent. in the MS but other sources indicate it should be Yarburgh--and Elizabeth his wife, Gervase Norton Gent, my son-in-law & his wife, my daughter Mary Gill, widow, Edward Wilson, son of my daughter Rebecca, and Eliz. her daughter when of age. John, son of my brother Brian.
Executors were John Maude and ‘Francis Oley, Clerk, my brother-in-law.’ The Foster pedigree has misread these and gives the brother-in-law’s name as ‘Francis Cleck!’ I can’t find anything on Francis Oley: it could be Otley, or even Uttley I suppose.
4. We have now reached the mysterious John of Stainland.The pedigrees say he was buried 1.8.1616.The transcripts show the burial in August 1616 of a John Maude described as ‘agricol’. His will, made 1.8.1616, was proved at York. He describes himself as ‘husbandman and it is clear that he is not the father of John of Alverthorpe senior. His will gives tuition of his children (Un-named) to his wife Elizabeth. He names his brother Jeremie and his uncle Anthony Millner. The IGI shows John and Jeremie baptised at Halifax in 1570 and 1573,sons of a Robert Maude. Robert Maude married Grace Millner in 1565. It was surely their son John who was the husbandman buried in 1616. I note that Paver lists a licence for a marriage at Halifax in 1610 for a John Maude of Wakefield and Elizabeth Briggs of Halifax, and it seems likely that this was the John Maude, husbandman, who died in 1616. We must search further to find the true ‘John Maude of Stainland’.
5.Brian Maude of Stothill appears on the pedigrees as the brother of John Maude senex. It will be remembered that John senex mentioned ‘my brother Brian’ in his will. Stothill is actually in Cowling, in the parish of Kildwick, rather a long way from both Wakefield and Halifax. Brian’s will was made in 1631 and proved at York (42/338) I have used Radcliffe’s transcript.Brian names his wife Jane (he had married Jane Smith at Kildwick in 1589), his’natural’ brothers, John and Samuel. And his sister Sibilla. ‘Natural’ in this context is an odd word. I have seen it used to mean illegitimate children, and also to mean exactly the opposite, i.e.very much legitimate children. A Samuel Maude married Agnes Smith at Kildwick in 1620, but as this was 30 years after Brian’s marriage to a Smith, it seems unlikely to have been Brian’s brother.
6.JOHN MAUDE OF STAINLAND!
Brian son of John Maude of Stainland was baptised at Elland,April 1562. Sibilla, dau. of John Maude of Stainland was baptised at Elland 5.5.1566. John, son of John Maude of Elland, was baptised at Halifax,20.11.1559. I did not find a suitable Samuel baptism.
Stainland and Elland were both large townships within the parish of Halifax., and inhabitants were entitled to use Halifax parish church. However, Elland had an ancient parochial chapel, and Stainland was one of the townships it encompassed. The Elland registers covering 1559-1640 have been printed, and the Halifax registers for 1538-93, so we shall not be able to trace John of Stainland further back than this by means of registers. Other ways may eventually help. I imagine he would be born about 1535-40.
In 1583-4, John Maude was Constable of Stainland.(Wakefield Court Rolls, 1583-5. YAS) The same volume gives information which seems to indicate John’s first acquisition of land in Wakefield.At the great court held in Wakefield, 24.4.1584, under Alverthorpe, a land transaction is recorded between John Savile esq, and John Maude of Stainland. John Savile surrenders a selion of land, approx 1 and a half roods lying in a field called Humble Jumble field, to the use of John Maude of Stainland, his heirs etc.John Maude surrenders another selion in the same field. In other words, they seem to be consolidating their strip holdings to make a more convenient arrangement.
At the great court at Wakefield October 9 1584, John Maude is listed as a Free Tenant and yeoman and pays fourpence.
This volume is also notable to me as it contains the only references that I have found to the mysterious Brian Brome, whose daughter Alice John of Stainland is said to have married. He does not seem to have left a will, and the references here are not helpful, being concerned with land transactions in Stanley and Alverthorpe which do not at present seem erelvant. Brian’s wife’s name was Margaret.
At the court held at Wakefield,3.2.1609,under Alverthorpe, William Rodes of Wakefield and wife Anne, surrendered and quitclaimed to John Maude of Wakefield…lands etc of 28 acres in Alverthorpe which Maude had lately had by surrender of william Rodes, which the latter had by surrender of Edward Baynes and wife Anne, sister and co-heiress of Agnes Rodes deceased, late wife of Roger Rodes. [I note that a rebecca Maude married a Rychard Rodes at Wakefield 26.8.1600.]
Also at this court, Thomas Scoley and wife Jane surrendered a parcel of land and buildings at Le Cliff in Wakefield, to the use of John Maude, his heirs etc. It will be remembered that the Cliff is specifically mentioned in John Maude senior’s will. Unfortunately, this transaction seems to have been the subject of litigation, too complicated for me to follow, but detailed in the volume, and presumably resolved.
This brings to a close my current findings on John Maude of Stainland.The printed pedigrees say that he made surrenders of land in Wakefield parish in 1585 and 1592. Unfortunately, these years have not yet been printed. It would be possible to look at the original rolls, held ay YAS. But since these years are after he left Halifax, there seems little point.Any genealogical information regarding John’s ancestry is likely to be gleaned from earlier study of the rolls, or, since Elland and Stainland’s Lord of the manor was separate from that of Wakefield, perhaps in other rolls entirely.
Maudes of West Riddlesden and Hollinghall
My interest in John of Stainland was sparked by discovering the horrendous mistakes in showing his descent from Christopher of Hollinghall, and of Christopher’s from the West Riddlesden Maudes.I posted my findings, with sources and evidence quoted , on Genforum, onFebruary 6, March 12 and 27, 2010. I hope anyone interested in this family will find these of interest.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
===================================================================================================================
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/180.html
Maude originated from de Monte Alto, which became Anglicised via de Montalt,Montalt, Monhault,thence Maude.
A pre-Tudors branch went to Scotland, becoming Mowatt. Hope that helps.
Christopher Maude
===================================================================================================================
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/150.html
The Maude family: some mistaken identities.
The main source for my arguments is a scholarly article by W.Paley Baildon (WPB) printed in the Thoresby Society Transactions vol.24, published 1915-18.
WPB begins by saying that all the pedigrees of the family are hopelessly confused and contradictory, especially the Riddlesden branch . ‘Nearly all the authorities contradict each other, & several contradict themselves.’ He expresses surprise that this is so, & remarks that the fact that the family is represented in the peerage might presuppose that investigation would have led to a correct pedigree. He himself quotes many documents to prove his points.
1.The article includes a folding pedigree, showing that the progenitor of the Hollinhall branch was a William Maude, born about 1470. Suggests that he may have been a younger brother of Constantine Maude of W.Riddlesden, but points out that there were other Maudes in Ilkley from 1337-1474. This William does not appear in Flower’s Visitation under his own right, but he is shown in that of Clapham of Beamsley, as William married Joan or Jennet, daughter of William Clapham and his wife Joan. William is ‘William Mawde or Mountalta of Holling Hall.‘Their children are listed in Flower as William, Christopher, Anthony, John, and a daughter. (There must have been more than one daughter, as evidenced by William’s will, though unfortunately neither is named.)
2. This raises the question: why, since William had a perfectly good son of his own named Christopher, was it necessary to fabricate a descent for Christopher of Hollinghall from the W.Riddlesden branch?
3. Flower is not the only source for the existence of William’s son Christopher. William’s will was proved in 1510, and his executors were his sons William and Christopher. William seems to have died young, and left no will. Christopher bought various lands, including some at Brandon, parish of Harewood. In a deed of 1544 he is ‘Christopher Mawde of Holynhall’. At some stage he also bought the Rectory of Ilkley.
4. Another indication that Christopher of Hollinhall was not of the W.Riddlesden branch also comes from a note in Flower. Thomas of W.Riddlesden whose wife was Katherine Tempest did have a son named Christopher, but the note says that Brooke’s MS in the College of Arms shows that he was Christopher Maude of Monk Bretton who married Edith, dau of John Wilkinson of Ardsley (died 1599). Christopher’s sister Anne is shown as marrying Thomas Hall of Shibden, which fits with the main pedigree in Flower.
5.When his will was proved in 1561, Christopher was ‘of Woodhouse’ (adjacent to Hollinhall in Ilkley, which WPB says was at this time a hamlet or cluster of houses and not a single house ‘Hollin Hall’ which was built much later.)
We now come to the next controversial point, which is that Christopher’s eldest son John could not have been the John of Stainland shown on several printed pedigrees.
At the Inquisition post mortem held after Christopher’s death, which mentions the property at Brandon and the Rectory of Ilkley, it is stated that John is Christopher’s son and heir and aged 38. There is some indication that both Christopher and his wife Grace were married twice: John was born c. 1523, and the second child Arthur about 1536-- a long gap. Christopher also mentions ’My childer and hers’ and there are other clues in Grace’s will.
6.John Maude of Stainland is shown on the pedigrees to have married Alice dau of Brian Brome.
John Maude of Brandon, eldest son of Christopher of Hollinhall, Woodhouse etc., married Joan, dau of Thomas Cliff. They had 5 daughters. John ‘s will was proved 1562.An inquisition dated 1563 mentions the land at Brandon, & a pre-nuptial agreement with Joan Cliff and names John’ s heir as his brother Arthur.
7. There is much more to discuss, but I had better stop here, being unsure as to how to submit this. The main points I hope to have shown are that Christopher of Hollinhall was not son of Thomas & Katherine of W.Riddlesden, and that John of Stainland was not son of Christopher of Hollinhall.
===================================================================================================================
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/152.html
Evidences concerning John, son of Christopher Maude of Hollinghall.
1.Evidences are quoted in W Paley Baildon’s article on the Maudes published in 1919. Carl Tanner objects that this is nearly 100 years old, and says more recent work has been done since then. This is puzzling, since the suspect information concerning John of Staynland descending from Christopher of Hollinghall comes from even older sources, e.g Burke, and Joseph Foster’s Yorkshire Families. What are these more recent works?
2.The first evidence is in Flower’s Visitation of 1563/4, which shows that William Maude of Hollinhall had a son named Christopher.(Shown under the Clapham pedigree, not the Maude one).
3. William’s will, 22.12.1509,names his wife Joan and sons William and Christopher.
4. Christopher Maude of Hollinghall was involved in a land transaction with Christopher Clapham and other Claphams of Beamsley, his mother’s relatives. 20.2.1539/40. Ref: PRO Ancient deeds A12933.
5.1542. Christopher buys land in Brandon, pa.Harewood (Feet of Fines 34 Hen.VII) and in 1555 in Shadwell (FF 2 & 3 Philip & Mary)
6.Will of Christopher Maude of Woodhouse, 9.6.1561. Mentions sons John, Arthur & Francis, daus. Isabel & Grace, and wife Grace. Mentions a lease from Thomas Cromack which he gives to John as recompense for having to pay his siblings’ portions.
7. 16.10.1561.Inquisition held at Beverley after the death of Christopher Maude, gentleman. (Inq.post mortem Chancery series 2 Vol. 129 no. 93). Says John is son and heir, ‘aged 38 at the date hereof’[giving a birth date for John of c. 1523]. Says Christopher was ‘seized of the Rectory of Ilkley & the advowson of the parish church…and tithes…and also of a messuage called Brandon & 40 acres and [other property] in Shadwell.’
8. 9.10.1562, Will of John Mawd of Brandon, yeoman.Gives to ‘my loving friend
William Currer my lease of a tenement in Ilkley made to my father by Thomas Cromack.(see item 6 above). Names his children, Grace, Elizabeth, Alice Jane & Cicely, and ‘to John Cave, my brother ‘[I.e.brother-in-law, marr to his half-sister] ‘all my interest in a farmhold at Woodhouse, now in the occupation of Grace Mawd my mother.’
9.9.10.1563.Inquisition at York Castle after the death of John. (Inq post mortem Chancery, series 2, vol. 135 no.94) Mentions the Brandon and Shadwell property, and says that Joan, the widow is living at Brandon. Mentions a pre-nuptial agreement dated June 13 1554, before John’s marriage to Joan, dau. of Thomas Cliff of Skircoat. Says that Arthur Maude is his brother and next heir, aged 27 at the date of the inquisition.
10.Joan, the widow, remarried Thomas Foxcroft shortly after John’s death : 23.5.1563, James Foxcroft of Sowerby settles property to himself for life & then to his s & h. Thomas Foxcroft and Joan Maude, widow, dau of Thomas Cliff of Skircoat, soon to be his wife. (Yorkshire Deeds vol.1
Conclusion.
I think there is enough evidence here to show that John son of Christopher Maude of Hollinghall could not be John Maude pf Staynland. Since John of Staynland certainly existed and many lines descend from him it would seem pertinent to try to discover his true identity.
In a large folding pedigree in Foster’s Pedigrees, John of Staynland is said to have been buried 1st August 1616. The YAS Yorkshire will index lists a will of a John Mawde, pa. Wakefield, husbandman, proved October 2nd 1616, but made 1st August 1616. (Ref. Vol.34 Folio 199). This will should certainly be looked at. It is not uncommon to find death-bed wills, but it seems unlikely that a burial would take place on the same day as death.
===================================================================================================================
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/155.html
Maudes of West Riddlesden. 3
Having previously given some evidence to show that Christopher Maude of Hollinghall was not the father of John of Staynland, and that Christopher himself was the son of William Maude who married Johanna Clapham, I wish now to give further evidence showing that the Christopher who was son of Thomas Maude who married Katherine Tempest and who is said to be Christopher of Hollinghall,was an entirely different man. This evidence is provided in the Feet of Fines, luckily available to us via the Y.A.S. Record series.
First, however, it is necessary to look at another error in the printed pedigree (in Foster’s Yorkshire Families.I think). Here it is stated that Arthur Maude (brother of Christopher), died at Bingley in 1587, and that he was then ’a very old man’ In fact, the Bingley parish register shows that it was ‘Jane,wife of Arthur Mawde, gent.’ who was buried, 26.12.1587, and Arthur, old man or not, in 1592 remarried, and started another family, eventually dying in 1611.
At first it is natural to think that this marriage to Jane Henthorne, 27.9.1592, must be that of a different Arthur Maude, perhaps son of Arthur by Jane Eltoft, but further investigation shows this not to be the case.
Coming now to the Feet of Fines, we find a deed in 1594: Plaintiffs John Rawson and John Hirde; Deforciants Arthur Maude and Jane his wife: 5/6 of a message and stables and lands in Rawdon and Guiseley. A warrant against Christopher Maude, brother of Arthur, and his heirs ,and the heirs of Thomas Maude, deceased, his father.
In another deed, in 1597/8, Plaintiffs are George Rawden and others, Deforciants Arthur Mawde and Jane his wife: 10 messuages and lands in Yeadon, Rawdon and Guiseley. A warrant against Christopher, brother of Arthur, and his heirs, and against Thomas Maude, deceased father of Arthur and Christopher.
These deeds clearly belong to Arthur’s second marriage, since his first wife Jane died in 1587.Since his brother Christopher and their father Thomas are shown, proves that Arthur is the same man who married Jane Eltoft. Moreover, the deeds show that Christopher, son of Thomas Maude, could not be Christopher of Hollinghall, as the latter died in 1561.
The Keighley parish register shows tha baptism, 14.7.1593, of ‘Arthure, son of Arthure Mawde of West Riddlesden, a bastard.’ Since Arthur had married Jane Henthorne in September 1592, I think this child was probably conceived before the marriage, but not baptised until it was older, perhaps one or two years old, in any case, sufficient for someone to remark upon it. The fact that no mother’s name is given, as was usual in case of bastardy, and the father’s name was acknowledged, shows that the child was accepted and brought up within the family. He married in Skipton in 1611, and had 6 children, the first baptised Skipton, the others in Bingley, where Arthur is described as ‘of West Riddlesden’.He died in 1644.
Arthur had 5 children by Jane Henthorne: Thomas, son of Arthur of W.Riddlesden, gent. Baptised Keighley 20.10.1594, and Robert, 1597,Agnes, 1598, Dorothy, 1602, and Symon, 1604, all baptised Bingley. Of course, Arthur already had a daughter Agnes, by Jane Eltoft, who had married John Bairstow. One can only think she must have died and the second Agnes was named after her.
In his will, proved at York July 1611, Arthur left ‘two doublets and a pair of breeches and my best shoes.’ to his brother Christopher.He did not mention Arthur or Thomas, who presumably had been provided for, Thomas getting the house and Arthur surely something to set him up in marriage, 3 months before his father’s death.One part of his goods was for his wife Jane and 2 parts for the other children, tuition being granted to Jane.Agnes and Dorothy got a silver spoon each. And ‘To Thomas Tillotson, my son-in-law, one of my best kine.’ He must have married a daughter from the first marriage.
Arthur’s son Thomas, baptised in 1594, married Eleanor Ferrand at Ilkley in 1615. They had 3 children, Anne, 1616, Thomas 1617, and John, 1619. Eleanor died in 1619,(Uxor Thomas Mawde bur. 25.9.1619---the same day as her son John was baptised so she probably died in childbirth or as a result of it). Thomas married Elizabeth Longe in January 1621/2.
Thomas himself was buried at Bingley 3 January 1632/3: Thomas Maude of West Riddlesden, gent.
According to Burke’s Peerage, 1959 edition, this Thomas was the elder son of Christopher of Hollinghall (and brother of John of Staynland), and the Irish Maudes and Viscounts Hawarden descend from Thomas’s grandson. This is quite incorrect, as I hope I have shown above. The Viscounts Hawarden and the Irish Maudes did descend from the Hollinhall Maudes, but not in this way, however, this story must be gone into at another time.
Thomas’s daughter Anne married John Leach in 1634, and this is supposed to be how West Riddlesden became Leach property, even though Thomas had two sons. The first one, Thomas, did marry and have 6 children: 5 of these died as children, but one, also Thomas was baptised in 1644.Presumably he also died young. His father probably married Elizabeth Barcroft:
Paver’s Marriage Licences record that in 1637 a licence was taken out for a marriage between Thomas Maude and Elizabeth Barcroft, but that no marriage took place at Bingley and I haven’t been able to trace one elsewhere. However, it seems likely they did marry, for 'Elizabeth' is granted admin. of Thomas’s estate in 1658. The Bingley burial register is missing for 1653-63; it is only because of the date of admin. That we can place Thomas’s death, and his son Thomas’s death could equally well be in the same period, as could Thomas’s brother John.
===================================================================================================================
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/158.html
Dear Carl
I have just discovered a new source; Yorkshire Archaeological Journal Vol.24, 1917, with article by J. Comber and 3 folding pedigrees.This goes into the points I raised about Arthur Maude of West Riddlesden being married twice, and Christopher of W.Rid. not being Christopher of Hollinhall, but giving more info. about the Ilkley Maudes, and showing a different descent for the Viscounts Hawarden than the one shown by W.Paley Baildon in the Thoresby Society vol.24 which originally sparked my interest. These articles are very complex and need a lot of study, which I cannot give at present, as
I am going to have a knee replacement on April 6th, so will be out of action for a bit. I intend to pursue it as and when I can.
I don't know whether Burke is still being published, but as both my main sources showed descents for the Viscounts Hawarden which differed from those in the peerages, and which also differed from each other, and these sources came out in 1917 and 18,I am surprised the false information was still appearing in Burke as late as 1959.
Both my sources give a lot of documentary evidence to support their views,involving court cases etc. which take a lot of untangling.They are essential reading for anyone trying to sort out the tangle.I wonder if they are available on the internet?
Best wishes, Sheila Coe.
===================================================================================================================
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/173.html
Y.A.S. journals. It is not surprising they aren't available on internet, as the old ones are substantial bound volumes about 2 inches thick, but they should be available in good academic libraries. The modern ones are only about half an inch thick. I am a member of the YAS, but have stopped getting the journal as it is a cheaper subscription without it, and anything I really want to see is available in the library.
My knee is OK now, thanks, but have been busy doing other things so Maude research has lapsed. I do want to get back to it though. As you thought your own descent was from John of Staynland, and I think I have convinced you that his descent from the Maudes cannot have been from the Riddlesden/Hollinhall branches, would it not be a good idea to try to find out the true origins of John of Staynland? It is clear that he did exist, and was not a figment of a Victorian genealogist's imagination, as he had many descendants, in whose interests it would be to discover the truth.
Best wishes, Sheila.
===================================================================================================================
Ref: http://genforum.genealogy.com/maude/messages/154.html
Dear Carl
I appreciate that you may be too busy at present to absorb all that I've posted, but hope you will be able to do so in due course. I'm also disappointed that no one else has responded: I hoped to open up an interesting discussion.
I agree that it is puzzling that there are apparently 2 Clapham women married to Maudes of Hollinghall. Perhaps it was a slip of the pen on the part of the clerk, similar to your own slip of the pen in referring to 'Fowler', when you mean 'Flower'(!) Or possibly Jennet married William de Mountalta, then died, whereupon he married her sister Joanna. However, this is guesswork of course, and so inadmissible. The fact remains that a Maude of Hollinghall, by Flower's evidence, had a son named Christopher, by a female Clapham of Beamsley, and that William Maude of Hollinghall named his son Christopher in his will of 1509.
I hope you will be able to comment on more important evidence, however, in the shape of
1.The will of Christopher Maude of Woodhouse, 9.6.1561 bequeathing a lease from THOMAS CROMACK, to his son John, which lease is later is left by John to William Currer. (It is likely that this William Currer was John's brother-in-law, as 'loving friend' does not preclude this, but it's by no means certain, as there was another William Currer, of Ilkley, active at the time. I'm only mentioning this as you brought it up; it's not very important.)
2. The Inquisition post mortem after Christopher's death in 1561 gives his next heir as his son John, aged 38. This would give a birth date of c. 1523 for John. John of Staynland is said to have died 1616, so if he were Christopher's son he would then be 93, which seems unlikely. Moreover, the Inquisition lists land in BRANDON and SHADWELL which Christopher had previously bought: these are in the parish of Harewood, adjacent to Ilkley: there is no mention of land or property in Staynland, Wakefield or that neighbourhood.
3.In his will of 1562, John Mawd is of BRANDON, not STAYNLAND. He mentions the lease left from Thomas Cromack left to him by his father Christopher, and 'all my interest in a farmhold at Woodhouse, now in the occupation of Grace Mawd my mother'. Surely this is enough to show that John of Brandon was son of Christopher of Hollinghall and Woodhouse, and that John of Staynland was not?
4. Inquisition p.m. for John of Brandon 1563,giving Arthur Mawd as the next heir, again mentions the BRANDON & SHADWELL property, and also mentions a pre-nuptial agreement re John's marriage to Joan, dau of Thomas Cliff of Skircoat. John of Staynland, on the other hand, is said
to have married Alice,dau of Bryan Brome.
I agree with you that there is much more work to be done. Indeed I had hoped today to move on from these matters to discussing other errors in the printed pedigrees, beginning with one concerning the Viscounts Hawarden which appears in the 112th edition of 1959, but I must leave that for another time.
Best wishes, Sheila Coe.
John Stowell has trasncribed from Burke's Landed Gentry 1843, the following:
Ref: http://www.stowell.org.nz/sources/source61.html
The family of MAUDE was established in England by EUSTACE DE MONTE ALTO, surnamed the NORMAN HUNTER, one of the soldiers of the Conquest, in the immediate train of the Palatine Earl of Chester, the potent HUGH LUPUS, from whom , in requittal of his gallant services, Monte Alto obtained the lordships of Montalt and Hawarden, in the co. of Flint, places still designating a branch of his descendants, the noble house of Maude, Viscounts Hawarden and Barons of Montalt.
ANDOMAR, or AYLMER DE MONTALT, who founded the Yorkshire and only surviving line of the family, was great-great-grandson of Eustace, and youngest brother of Robert de Montalt, Baron de Montalt, by tenure temp. HENRY II., from whom derived the celebrated Robert de Montalt, who was summoned to parliament from 27th EDWARD I. to 13th Edward III., but d.s.p. Andomar de Montalt, accompanying in 1174 the expedition against WILLIAM the Lion, had the good fortune to make the Scottish monarch prisoner by surprise; and conveying the royal captive to HENRY II., then at Falaise, that prince granted to him, instead of his ancient ensigns,"a lion, gu.,(the lion of Scotland,)debruised by two bars, sa.," to denote captivity. His son and heir, ROBERT DE MONTALT, inherited West Riddlesden, and the other estates of his cousin, Richard de Montalt, son of Simon , second son of Ralph, 4th Baron de Montalt, grandson of EUSTACE, the Norman.
There is more at: http://www.stowell.org.nz/surnames/maude.html