Skip to main content

Full text of "Raleghana"

See other formats 


RALEGHANA. 

Part  III. 

KEMARKS   ON 

THE  ANCESTRY  OF   SIR  WALTER  RALEGH. 

BY 

T.  N.  BRUSHFIELD,  M.D.,  F.S.A. 

(Read  at  Totiies,  August,  1900.) 


[Reprinted  from  the  Transactions  of  the  Devonshire  Association  for  the  Advance- 
ment of  Science,  Literature,  and  Art.     1900. — xxxii.  pp.  309-340.] 


D'O 


-RALEGH- 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY    OF 

NORTH    CAROLINA 


EALEGHANA. 

Part  III. 
REMARKS   ON   THE   ANCESTRY   OF  SIR  AV ALTER  RALEGH. 

BY    T.    N.    BRUSHFIELD,    M.D.,    F.S.A. 
(Read  at  Totnes,  August,  1900.) 


[Reprinted  from  the  Transactions  of  the  Devonshire  Association  for  the  Advance- 
mcnt  of  Science,  Literature,  and  Art.     1900. — xxxii,  pp.  309-340.] 


Genealogy,  especially  when  associated  with  heraldry,  has 
always  proved  to  be  a  fascinatiog  pursuit  to  those  who  are 
desirous  of  tracing  the  descent  of  any  one,  "  from  an  ancestor 
or  ancestors,  by  enumeration  of  the  intermediate  persons."^ 

In  the  case  of  royal  or  noble  families  the  formation  of  a 
pedigree  is  a  tolerably  easy  matter,  when  compared  with  the 
investigations  of  those  who  may  be  said  to  occupy  the  border- 
land between  the  nobility  and  the  great  middle  class ;  and 
the  attempt  so  frequently  made  by  genealogers  (to  use  a 
word  of  old  Fuller's)  to  trace  members  of  the  latter  up  to 
some  noble  or  well-known  name,  has  led  to  the  commission 

^  Brief  References. 

1.  Edwards  =Life  of  Sir    W.   PMlegh,  E.  Edwards  (1868, 

2  vols.). 

2.  Chichester  volume  =  History  of  the  Chichester  Family,  Sir  A.  P.  B. 

Chichester,  Bart.  (1871). 

3.  Sir  W.  R.  Drake  =  Devonshire  Notes  and  Notelets  (n.d.). 

4.  D.  A.  =  Transactions  of  the  Devonshire  Association. 

5.  Pole  =  Devonshire  Collections,  Sir  "\V.  Pole  (1791). 

6.  Prince  =  Worthies  of  Devon,  Rev.  J.  Prince  (1701). 

7.  Risdon  N.-B.  —Note- Book  of  T.  Fdsdon,  ed.  Dallas  and  Porter 

(1897). 

8.  Oldys  =  Life  of  Sir  W.  Ralegh  in  Works  (1829,  Vol.  I. ). 

9.  Vivian  =  Visitations  of  Devon,  Lt.-Col.  Vivian  (1895). 

10.  Q.  C.  MS.  =  Queen's  College,  Oxfmrl,  MS. 

11.  Wyrley  =  Ralegh  Pedigree,  by  W.  Wyrley,  Bodl.  Lib. 

MS.  Rawl.  (B.  88). 

12.  Holland  I.,  II.,  and  III.  =  Ralegh  Pedigrees,  by  Joseph  Holland,  in  Harl. 

MS.  (1500). 
The  separate  Visitations  of  Devon  of  1531,  1564,  1620,  are  quoted  as  the 
Visitations  of  their  respective  years. 


Z  EALEGHANA. 

of  many  mistakes.  Under  such  circumstances  genealogy,  or 
the  art  of  pedigree-making,  has,  to  a  considerable  extent, 
partaken  of  the  character  of  a  romance.  The  omission  of 
some  names,  the  introduction  of  others,  the  transference  of 
names  from  one  branch  of  the  family  to  another,  intermingled 
with  occasional  pure  guesswork,  have,  singly  or  combined, 
led  to,  or  assisted  in,  the  construction  of  many  pedigrees. 

These  thoughts  have  been  forcibly  impressed  on  the  mind 
of  the  writer,  in  his  endeavour  to  investigate  the  ancestry  of 
Sir  Walter  Ealegh,  owing  to  the  circumstance  of  these 
objectionable  elements  (not  the  sole  ones)  being  present  in 
so  many  of  the  accepted  authorities  on  the  subject.  Euskin 
asserted,  "  It  is  not  easy  to  be  accurate  in  an  account  of 
anything,  however  simple."  How  much  more  difficult,  then, 
to  construct  a  pedigree,  where  facts,  tradition,  imagination, 
and  carelessness  (if  nothing  worse),  are  so  much  interwoven 
to  produce  a  continuous  line  of  descent ! 

It  is  not  encouraging  at  the  onset  of  an  inquiry  into  the 
pedigree  of  Sir  Walter  Ealegh  to  learn  the  result  of  the 
attempts  of  two  authorities  in  this  direction.  Sir  W.  R 
Drake  declares,  "  The  evidences  of  the  early  history  of  this 
[Ealegh]  family  are  unsatisfactory  and  insufficient  to  sub- 
stantiate a  continuous  pedigree"  (312);  and,  according  to 
Edwards,  "the  numerous  Ealegh  pedigrees  .  .  .  disagree  among 
themselves "  (i.  5).  Nevertheless,  although  it  may  not  be 
possible  to  frame  a  complete  one,  much  may  be  done  to  facilitate 
the  labours  of  future  investigators  by  pointing  out  errors, 
although  such  may  at  the  present  time  be  irremediable ;  by 
rectifying  others  as  far  as  may  be  practicable ;  by  recording 
any  additional  facts  bearing  on  the  subject ;  and  by  drawing 
attention  to  sources  of  information  that  hitherto  do  not 
appear  to  have  been  utilised.  At  the  same  time,  to  state  the 
reasons  for  selecting  one  line  of  descent  in  preference  to 
another,  and  especially  to  consider  some  of  the  alliances, 
more  particularly  of  the  later  members,  it  is  necessary  to 
state  briefly  the  sources  of  information  respecting  the  Ealeghs. 

The  first  and  principal  consists  of  the  heralds'  Visitations 
of  the  county  (the  Visitations  throughout  England  commenced 
in  1528-9,  and  ceased  about  1687),  and  two  of  these,  viz. 
of  1564  and  1620,  are  well  known;  the  former,  edited  by 
E.  T.  Colby,  having  been  published  in  1881,  and  the  latter, 
by  the  Harleian  Society  and  under  the  same  editor,  in 
1872.  The  former  embodied  the  Visitation  made  in  1513  by 
Thomas  Benolte,  Eouge  Croix.  The  printed  volume  of  1620, 
taken  from  Hnrl.  MSS.  1163  and  1164,  does  not  contain  a 


EALEGHANA.  3 

record  of  the  Ealeghs,  but  this  is  supplied  in  Harl.  MS.  1080, 
of  which  a  facsimile  is  given  in  Edwards'  work  (i.  8);^ 

The  next  in  importance  are  single  pedigrees,  whole  or 
fragmentary,  made  by  heralds  and  others.  Of  these  the 
most  valuable  are  by  W.  Wyrley,  Kouge  Croix,  1604-18 
{BodL  Lih.  MS.  Raivl  B.  88j ;  by  W.  Harvey,  Clarencieux, 
and  others  (in  several  of  the  Harl.  MSS.) ;  by  John  Holland, 
Portcullis  {Bodl.  Lib.  MS.  Raiul.  B.  314);  and  by  Joseph 
Holland  (Hart.  MS.  1500),  which  appears  to  have  been  over- 
looked by  genealogists,  and  as  will  presently  be  shown,  is  of 
especial  value  in  the  present  inquiry.^ 

Then  follow  extracts  from,  or  reference  to,  contemporary 
documents,  and  these,  as  confirming  dates,  etc.,  of  the  various 
lives,  are  of  especial  importance.  This  applies  more  particu- 
larly to  MS.  152,  in  Queen's  College,  Oxford,  which  belonged 
originally  to  Sir  W.  Pole,  and  was  thought  to  have  been 
destroyed  during  the  Civil  War  (Pole,  Intro.,  xi.).  It  contains 
over  seventy  entries,  and  confirms  all  the  extracts  on  (with 
one  exception)  the  draft  copy  of  Holland  I.  and  II. 

Heralds'  note-books  have  yielded  some  useful  details,  the 
principal  being  that  of  Ptalph  Brooke,  York  Herald,  1592,  in 
Harl.  MS.  1567,  to  which  Sir  W.  Pt.  Drake  accords  an  amount 
of  praise  that  is  scarcely  deserved.  It  consists  for  the  most 
part  of  single  entries  relating  to  this  family,  which  show  no 
connection  with  each  other,  and  are  limited  to  little  over  two 
folio  pages.  Although  arranged  under  various  reigns,  the 
date  of  some  of  the  entries  does  not  follow  this  arrangement. 
About  two-fifths  are  noted  to  have  been  obtained  "  of  ]\P 
Borton  of  Barnestable,  1587."  (Probably  Clement  Burton, 
who  died  November  12th,  1593,  and  "was  sometime  servante 
and  secretaire  to  the  old  S''  John  Chechester  K^ "  ("  Wyot's 
Journal,"  in  Chanter's  Lit.  Hist,  of  Barnstaple,  99).  The 
only  portion  containing  a  series  of  successive  lives  (from 
certain  notes  of  "  Nicholas  Adams  of  Devon  gent.")  consists 
of  "a  descent  from  Hugh  of  Ptalegh  to  Thomasia,"  etc.,  of 
which  this  is  a  full  transcript : — 

"Hughe  of  Ralegh  had  issue  W^^  and  W™  had  issue  W™  which 
maried  to  W*^  Peverell  and  they  had  issue  Peter  who  had  issue 
W^"  who  ma  :  Joan  do  :  &  heire  of  John  Stockhay  and  they  had 
issue  John  who  ma :  Joan  sometyme  wyfe  .  .  .   Gwye  de  Bryan 

2  It  was  "  almost  all  written  and  tricked  by  the  hand  of  Mr.  John  Withie 
the  Painter- Stainer,"  from  the  Visitation  "made  &  taken  by  Henry  St. 
George  Esq'''^  Richmond  Herald." 

=*  According  to  Sim's  Manual  (1856),  164,  there  is  a  copy  of  Cooke's 
Visitation  of  Devonshire  in  1572  in  Gains  Gollege,  Gambridgej'^MS.  537,  but 
it  contains  nothing  of  importance  relating  to  the  Ralegh  family. 


^ 


4  KALEGHANA. 

who  had  issue   Thorn,   who  had  issue   Thomazin  do  :   and  heire 
Maried  to  Chechester." 

This  descent  of  Brooke's,  so  Sir  W.  E.  Drake  affirms, 
"  was  in  substance  followed  by  the  Heralds  who  compiled 
the  return  made  to  the  College  of  Arms  of  the  result  of  the 
Visitation  of  Devon  in  1620"  (313);  but  these  particulars 
are  nearly  the  same  as  those  included  in  the  Visitation  of 
1564,  when  Brooke  was  barely  ten  years  old.  The  manner 
in  which  the  latter  gathered  the  materials  for  his  Note-Book 
seems  to  have  been  on  a  par  with  the  mode  adopted  by 
Aubrey  for  his  Lives  of  Eminent  Meii.  Other  useful 
information  has  been  obtained  from  Bishops'  Eegisters,  his- 
torical works  like  Pole's  Devonshire,  Parish  Eegisters,  etc. 
All  these  sources  were  utilised  by  Colonel  Vivian,  in  his 
Visitations  of  Devonshire,  but  his  praiseworthy  attempt  to 
harmonise  the  irreconcilable  accounts  of  the  Ealegh  family 
cannot  be  deemed  a  successful  one. 

It  would  naturally  be  thought  that  the  Visitations  of  1564 
and  of  1620  could  be  relied  upon  for  accuracy,  but  unfortunately 
this  is  not  the  case,  and  as  will  be  shown  presently  they 
differ  widely  from  each  other.  The  severe  comments  passed 
on  the  records  of  Visitations  generally  by  writers  on  the 
subject  apply  with  equal  force  to  those  of  the  Ealeghs. 
Thus,  writing  in  1780,  J.  Edmondson  remarks,  "had  the 
Visitors  themselves  received  an  education,  and  possessed 
abilities  suitable  to  the  task  assigned  them  ;  or  had  they 
constantly  discharged  their  duty  with  assiduity  and  that 
scrupulous  and  accurate  investigation  which  was  necessary 
to  substantiate  the  inquisitions  taken  before  them,"  good 
would  have  resulted.'^  "  There  was  a  time,"  affirmed  the 
well-known  genealogist,  J.  G.  Nichols,  "  when  the  reputation 
of  the  heralds'  Visitations  stood  so  high  tliat  their  evidence 
was  thought  to  be  perfectly  undeniable,  and  as  claiming  to 
be  received  in  courts  of  law  on  a  par  with  that  of  Parish 
Eegisters.^  Experience  has  now  taught  a  very  different 
lesson ;  and  it  so  happens  that  the  few  genealogical  inquiries, 
which  were  suggested  to  us  on  perusing  Mr.  Peacock's  recent 
book  of  the  Yorkshire  Eecusants  of  1604,  exposed  to  our 
observation  several  serious  errors  in  this  very  Visitation."^ 

■*  Book  of  Heraldry,  158,  quoted  in  Moule's  Bihl.  Herald  (1822),  434. 

*  "The  original  Visitation  books  are  allowed  to  be  good  evidence  of 
pedigree  in  a  court  of  justice  ". — H.  S.  Grazebrook,  Heraldry  of  Worcestershire 
(1873),  i.,  Intro,  xxi. 

^  Herald  and  Genealogist,  March,  1873,  55.  Cf.  Intro,  to  Visitation  of 
Somerset,  vij.  ;  N.  and  Q.,  5th  S.  xi.  433. 


RALEGH  AN  A.  O 

When,  especially  during  the  Visitations  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  '-the  influence  of  heralds  was  waning,  and  their 
visits  seem  to  have  been  regarded  by  many  as  inquisitorial," 
the  task  of  obtaining  information  being  thereby  rendered 
more  difficult,  heralds  probably  filled  up  some  of  the  gaps 
from  their  respective  note-books.  Doubtless,  hearsay  evidence, 
confusion  owing  to  different  branches  of  the  same  family, 
the  frequent  recurrence  of  some  particular  Christian  names, 
and  much  carelessness,  all  contributed  to  increase  the  number 
of  errors. 

But  notwithstanding  all  their  faults,  the  Visitation  records, 
etc.,  are  of  the  greatest  value  in  all  genealogical  inquiries, 
although  we  cannot,  at  the  present  day,  accept  their  various 
statements  until  they  have  undergone  the  ordeal  of  careful 
investigation. 

Although  the  origin  of  the  Kalegh  family  is  outside  the 
immediate  subject  of  this  paper,  a  brief  passing  notice  may 
be  made  to  it.  By  a  general  consensus  of  opinion  its  surname 
was  derived  from  the  small  manor  of  Ralegh,  in  the  parish 
of  Pilton,  near  Barnstaple ;  and  this  is  further  indicated  by 
all  the  early  members  being  designated  de  Ralegh.  Its  re- 
corded genealogy  resembles  that  of  many  others,  in  differing 
materially  in  numbers,  order  of  sequence,  marriages,  etc., 
of  the  various  members,  according  to  the  person  who  framed 
it ;  so  that  the  endeavour  to  make  out  a  satisfactory  and 
continuous  pedigree  is  almost  hopeless. 

This  is  perhaps  a  fitting  place  to  draw  attention  to  a 
remarkable  statement  made  by  John  Hooker,  the  Exeter 
Chamberlain,  assigning  a  royal  origin  to  both  of  the  parents 
of  Sir  Walter  Ralegh.  (Owing  to  its  interest  it  is  printed 
in  full  in  the  Appendix.) 

While  there  is  fair  reason  to  believe  the  Raleghs  date  back 
to  a  period  before  the  Conquest,''  there  is  no  satisfactory 
evidence  of  their  existence  prior  to  the  time  of  Hugh  de 
Ralegh,  who,  according  to  the  Pipe  Rolls,  was  Sheriff  of  the 
county  for  six  years  (1160-7),  in  the  reign  of  Henry  11.^ 
Some  authorities  have,  however,  asserted  the  contrary,  and 
it  is  necessary  to  consider  their  statements. 

I.  In  his    Heraldic   &c.   Miscellanies   W.   Wyrley   reports 

7  "Very  few  families  can  trace  themselves  to  that  much-songht-for  starting- 
point,  the  Norman  Conquest.  Indeed,  for  the  majority  of  English  families, 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  may  be  fixed  u|)on  as  the  extreme  limit 
of  antiquity,  to  which  they  can  hope  to  attain." — W,  P.  W.  Phillimore, 
How  to  Write  the  History  of  a  Family  (1888),  3. 

«  Trans.  D.  A.,  xxix.  453-509;  Pole,  91,  According  to  Fdsdon's  N.-B.  (85) 
he  was  Sheriff  for  seven  years. 

B 


b  RALEGHANA. 

nine  descents  to  "  Wimundus  Ealeigh,"  who  is  known  to 
have  died  in  1258 ;  even  allowing  four  lives  to  each  century, 
the  earliest  goes  back  to  the  Saxon  period.  His  statement 
is  considerably  discounted  by  the  circumstance  of  the  first 
three  members  being  each  noted  as  "  Petrus,"  of  whom  no 
mention  can  be  found  elsewhere. 

II.  The  Note-Book  of  Ralph  Brooke,  in  Rarl.  MS.  1567 
contains  this  paragraph  : — 

"Rich  of  Raleghe  and  Hewghe  of  Ralegh  lord  successiuely 
of  Cloysto  in  Cornewall  I  suppose  long  before  y®  Conq:  these 
are  they  w^^  are  mentioned  in  y^  peece  of  Evidence  I  haue  sent 
youe." 

The  nature  of  the  evidence  is  unknown.  Sir  W.  R.  Drake 
affirms,  "  that  the  Raleghs  existed  at  an  early  period  (certainly 
previous  to  Henry  I.)  is  clear.  The  apparently  most  reliable 
information  was  that  collected  in  1587  by  Ralph  Brooke" 
(312) ;  but  the  sole  evidence  cited  by  him  in  support  of  this 
assertion  is  that  of  the  above  paragraph. 

III.  There  is  an  "  account  of  the  family  of  Raleigh,  of 
Raleigh,"  in  the  History  of  the  Family  of  Chichester,  by  Sir 
A.  P.  B.  Chichester  (1871),  from  which  this  transcript  is 
taken : — 

'•'  From  '  Domesday  Book '  we  learn  that  Walter  held  divers 
lands  in  Ralega  or  Raleigh,  in  the  county  of  Devon,  in  the  time 
of  King  Edward  the  Confessor,  and  King  Harold.  Beatrix,  his 
widow,  was  seised  of  four  carucates  of  land  in  Ralegh,  and  of 
divers  other  lands  in  various  parts  of  England ;  and  amongst  the 
enrolments  of  ancient  charters  there  is  one  by  which  she  gave 
lands  to  the  Abbey  of  Battle,  in  Sussex,  for  masses  to  be  said 
for  ever  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  Walter,  her  late  husband, 
slain  at  the  battle  of  Hastings,  on  the  side  of  King  Harold. 
{^Cartae  Antiquae.)^' 

It  is  difficult  to  verify  a  quotation  from  such  a  reference ; 
suffice  it  to  say  that  the  Calendars  at  the  Record  Office  and 
many  printed  works  on  the  subject  have  been  consulted, 
without  discovering  any  indication  of  one.  However,  it  has 
been  accepted  as  though  correct  by  Colonel  Vivian,  who 
commences  his  pedigree  of  "Raleigh  of  Eardell "  in  this 
manner : — 


RALEGHANA. 


Walter   de    Ralegh,    slain    at   tlie^Beat  ix  da.  of      .  seized  of  4  carucates 

l.ittle  of  HastincT s  of  land  m  Raleigh,  gave  lands  to  the 

battle  ot  wasting..  ^^^^^^^  ^^   ^^^^^^^^  ^^^,   ^^^^  ^,^^^^^^  ^^ 

the  soul  of  her  late  husband. 


Walter  de  Ralegh  of  Pilton,  Devon. 


Walter  de  Ralegh,  temp.  Will.  2  and: 
Hen.  I. 


Sir  Hugh  de  Ralegh,   Kt.,  Sheriff  of 
Devon  7-14  Hen.  II."  etc. 

However  plausible  all  this  may  appear  at  first  sight,  the 
whole  of  these  statements  relating  to  the  first  Walter  are 
probably  erroneous.  Under  the  heading  of  the  "  Land  of  the 
Bishop  of  Coutances,"  the  Devonshire  Domesday  (Exchequer) 
has  this  section : — 

"RadeHe  ("Radeleia"  in  the  Exeter  copy)  tenebat  Brictric 
tempore  regis  Eduuardi  et  geldabat  pro  dimidia  hida.  Terra  est 
iiii  carucis.  In  dominio  est  i  caruca  et  iiii  serui  et  mi  bordarn 
cum  i  caruca.  Ibi  ii  acr^  prati  et  v  acrae  pasturse  et  xxx  acr<« 
silu£e.     Olim  et  modo  ualet  xxx  solidos"  (edit.  D.A.  153). 

A  facsimile  of  the  original  entry,  with  its  various  con- 
tractions, forms  a  portion  of  the  frontispiece  to  the  Chichester 
volume,  with  this  explanation :  "  Lands  held  at  Raleigh  in 
Devon  by  Beatrix,"  so  that  the  opening  words 

are  rendered  as  "  Raleigh  tenebat  Beatrix." 

Whether  Radelie  was  intended  for  Ralegh  is  questionable, 
and  yet  "Thomas  de  Radeleghe,"  under  date  1259,  is  noted 
in    Bp.    Bronesconibcs    Register^    and    as    "  Radlech "     and 

9  Ed.  H.-Randolph,  119,  233;  spelt  ''Kadelegh"  in  error  by  Dr.  Oliver 
("Curiosus"j  in  a  letter  dated  February  24th,  1854. 

B  2 


8  RALEGHAXA. 

"  Eadlegh  "  in  Feudal  Aids^  in  1428,  and  this  rendering  was 
favoured  by  the  late  Mr.  K.  N.  Worth,  in  his  "  Identification 
of  the  Domesday  Manors  of  Devon." '^  On  the  other  hand, 
the  manor  of  Ealegh  was  a  very  small  one,  and  it  would 
be  singular  if  it  were  named  in  the  Domesday  volume,  and 
Pilton,  the  parish  in  which  it  was  situated,  not  be  alluded  to. 
Although  Thomas  de  Kadeleghe  appears  in  i/p.  Broneseomhes 
Register,  the  fact  of  four  members  entered  as  "  Raleghe,"  and 
one  as  "  Eale,"  in  the  same  work  rather  tends  to  show  that 
the  former  belonged  to  a  different  family.  Moreover,  it  is 
noteworthy  that  four  manors  in  Domesday  Book  are  named 
"  Bradelie,"  and  one  "  Eodelie." 

Whatever  may  be  the  doubt  about  "  Eadelie,"  there  can  be 
none  as  to  the  second  word  being  Brictric,  a  male,  and  not 
Beatrix,  a  female.  Brictric  held  many  manors  in  Devon, 
and  probably,  had  the  Exeter  copy  of  the  Domesday  record 
been  consulted,  where  his  name  is  given  as  "  Bristricus,"  or 
"  Bristitius,"  the  mistake  would  not  have  occurred.  No 
evidence  has  been  advanced  to  prove  that  a  Walter  de 
Ealegh  lived  in  the  year  1066,  or  was  slain  at  the  battle 
of  Hastings,  or  that  his  wife  gave  lands  to  Battle  Abbey  for 
the  repose  of  his  soul,  especially  as  he  is  said  to  have 
fought  on  the  Anglo-Saxon  side. 

The  whole  statement  is  evidently  based  on  a  misreading 
of  the  Domesday  text,  and  under  present  circumstances  must 
be  deemed  a  myth. 

The  second  and  third  Walter  in  Vivian's  list  have  not 
been  found  in  any  other  pedigree. 

We  pass  on  to  the  Visitation  of  the  county,  which  took 
place  in  1564  (the  earliest  was  made  by  T.  Benolte,  in  1531, 
but  it  contained  only  the  later  members  of  the  Ealegh 
family),  and  the  following  direct  line  of  descent  to  Sir 
Walter  is  taken  from  it,  for  the  sake  of  comparison  with 
other  lists  in  another  part  of  this  paper. 

1  i.  (1899),  445,  466,  467,  4S8. 

2  Trans.  D.A.,  xxv.  153. 


RALEGHANA. 


RALEGH  PEDIGREE.  {A)^ 

1.  S""  Hugh  Rawley  Knight  Lorcl= 
of  Rawley  in  the  county  of 
Devon  temp  K.  Stephen 


2.  William  Rawley  brother  &  heire^ 
to  S""  Simond 


I 
3.  Petter  Rawley 


I 
4.   S^  William  Rawley  K' 


5.   S"-  William  Rawley  K' 


6.   S""  John  Rawley  K 


S--  William  Rawley  K^ 


S""  Henrey  Rawley  K  2  sonne 


9.  S""  John  Rawley  Knight 


10.   Roger  Rawley 


I 
11.  S'  John  Rawley  Knight 


12.  Walter  Rawley  of  Fardell 


13.  Walter  Rawley  of  Fardell 


14.   Walter  Rawley 


=Margarett  da.  to  S-"  Phillipe  Dabeney  K* 
— Joane  da.  to  S""  John  Stokhaye  K* 
Lora  d.  &  coh.  to  S""  Hughe  Peverell  K^ 
Joanne  da.  to  S""  Henrey  Tracey  K' 


=  Anne  da.  to  S""  John  Pomerey  Knight 


Margarett  da.  to  S''  Walter  Botreulx 
Knight  (2nd  wife.) 


:Agnes    da.    &    co    heire    to    S""   RafFe 
Lamborne  Knight 


Elizabeth    da.  to  S""  Richard  Chedel- 
wood  K' 


Mary  da.  &  coheire  to  S'^  John  Bygbery 
K' 


Katheren  da.  to. . .  Prowze  of  devonshr. 
Alice  da.  to  Walter  Carmino  (1st  wife.) 
=]\Iarcrarett 


15.   Wymond  Rawley  of  Fardell        ^Elizabeth  da.  to  S''  Richard  Edgecombe 

'      K^ 


16.  Walter  Rawley  of  Fardell  =Katharen   da.  to  S'  Philip  Champno 

wedow  to  Otes  Gilbt 


I 
17.   (Sir)  Walter  Rawley  4  son. 

3  Transcribed  from  Harl.  MS.  1091,  fo.  83.  Printed  in  the  Visitation  of  1564  by  F.  T. 
Colby,  in  1881.  For  the  sake  of  convenient  reference  the  pedigrees  quoted  at  length  in 
this  paper  are  lettered  A  onwards. 


10  RALEGHANA. 

"  Sir  Hugh  Eawley,"  the  first  in  the  foregoing  list,  was 
evidently  a  leading  man  of  his  time.  As  already  noticed, 
he  was  Sheriff  of  the  county  from  1160  to  1167.  He 
"  held  3  knights'  fees  of  the  Honor  of  Barnstaple,  and  half 
a  knight's  fee  of  Kobert,  Duke  of  Normandy"'^  (Vivian). 
According  to  R.  Brooke,  he  was  Lord  "  of  Cloysto  in  Corne- 
wall,"  and  of  "  Portlocke  in  Som^'setshire."^  Collinson,  in 
his  account  of  Porlock,  does  not  mention  Hugh's  name  in 
connection  with  it.^  Beyond  his  being  alive  in  the  time  of 
King  Stephen,  as  stated  in  the  Visitation,  and  that  he  had  a 
son,  Simon,  who  died  without  issue,  we  know  nothing  more 
of  him.  In  the  Chiclirster  volume  he  is  asserted  to  have  had 
three  sons,  Walter,  Hugh,  and  Adam.  Attention  may  here 
be  called  to  the  circumstance  that  this  Sir  Hugh  (another  of 
the  same  name  is  recorded  a  century  later)  is  unmentioned 
in  any  pedigree  of  the  family,  excepting  in  that  contained  in 
the  Visitation  of  1564. 

Of  the  next  two  members  to  Sir  Hugh  we  possess  but 
little  information ;  but  the  alliances  of  the  three  which 
follow,  with  the  Stockhay,  Peverell,  and  Tracy  families,  agree 
with  the  entries  in  W.  Wyrley's  list.  Of  these  the  first  two 
are  recorded  in  the  Hist,  of  the  Chichester  Family  (17,  18),  and 
by  E.  Brooke,  but  by  the  latter  are  reversed  in  order.  Most 
probably  they  belong  to  the  direct  descent  from  Sir  Hugh  to 
Thomasina,  the  daughter  and  heiress  of  Sir  John  Ralegh, 
who  married  John  Chichester  about  the  year  1385  (Sir  W.  R. 
Drake,  234) ;  and  so  noted  by  Vivian.  In  the  Visitation  of 
1564  the  line  of  descent  is  somewhat  different,  and  from  the 
next  member  to  the  Tracy  alliance  (No.  7)  two  branches 
proceed,  one  terminating  in  the  heiress  Thomasina,  while 
the  second  continues  by  members,  whose  alliances  are  not 
mentioned  in  any  other  pedigree,  until  we  arrive  at  Walter 
Ralegh,  the  grandfather  of  Sir  Walter. 

The  circumstance  of  the  descent  of  the  Raleghs  being  so 
utterly  different  in  this  Visitation  from  that  in  the  Visitation 
of  1620,  and  varying  so  greatly  from  all  the  pedigrees  framed 
at  a  later  period,  we  feel  compelled  to  pass  the  earlier 
Visitation  by,  in  order  to  examine  the  reports  of  other 
authorities. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  Harl.  MS.  1500  for 

■*  Vide  facsimile  of  deed,  taken  from  the  Black  Book  of  the  Exchequer^ 
1174,  in  Chichester  volume,  facing  15. 

5  Harl.  MS.  1567.  He  adds,  "This  Hughe  d'Ralegh  was  484  years 
paste."     How  he  calculated  the  number  of  years  we  do  not  know. 

^  Hist,  of  Somerset,  ii.  36,  37. , 


RALEGHANA.  11 

containing  information  on  this  subject,  which  has  been 
apparently  overlooked  by  authorities.  (It  is  unmentioned 
in  the  printed  Visitations  of  1564:  and  1620,  and  is  only 
briefly  alluded  to  by  Edwards,  i.  8.)  It  consists  of  three 
unfinished  pedigrees  of  the  predecessors  of  Sir  Walter,  and 
was  compiled  by  Joseph  Holland,  "  a  native  of  Devonshire," 
who  is  termed,  by  the  Kev.  M.  Noble,  "an  excellent  herald, 
genealogist,  and  antiquary,  who  was  of  the  Inner  Temple, 
living  in  1617."  John  Holland,  Portcullis,  was  either  his 
son  or  a  near  relation.'' 

Of  these,  No.  I.  includes  two  series  of  descents  from  the 
early  part  of  the  thirteenth  century  down  respectively  to 
one  (in  the  direct  line  to  Sir  W.  K.)  ending  in  1378,  and  the 
other  (terminating  in  the  Whalesborough  alliance)  in  1484. 
No.  II.  shows  the  first  line  to  1378,  four  descents  being 
added,  and  terminating  in  Sir  Walter.  No.  III.  is  one  in 
skeleton  form,  also  direct  to  Sir  Walter.  For  the  purposes 
of  this  paper  these  are  called  severally  Holland  I.,  IL,  and 
III.  (fos.  157-60). 

The  copies  on  I.  and  II.  are  in  duplicate,  and  on  separate 
folios  ;  but  one  is  evidently  a  draft,  and  contains  several 
extracts  from  documents,  and  tricks  of  arms,  wanting  in  the 
other,  which,  on  the  other  hand,  has  a  single  documentary 
extract  not  in  the  draft.  This  last  extract  contains  a  notice 
of  one  of  the  lialeghs  not  in  the  direct  line  to  Sir  Walter. 
Of  it  Holland  remarks,  "  I  had  this  note  out  of  the  booke  of 
the  Cathedral  church  of  Exon,  23  Decembris  1602."  The 
Eev.  Canon  Edmonds  has  identified  the  extract  as  being  in 
a  work  yet  preserved  in  the  Chapter  Library.  Each  copy  is 
thus  headed: — 

"  This  genealogye  of  the  Right  honorable  S^  Walter  Kalegh 
knight,  lord  warden  of  the  Stannery,  lieutenant  generall  of  the 
province  of  Cornwall,  Captayne  of  her  Ma*y^^  Guarde,  and 
Gouernor  of  the  Isle  of  Gernsey,  is  heere  drawne  by  such 
auncient  Euedence  as  doth  remayne  in  the  possession  of  his 
Lordship  at  this  daye,  Anno  dfii  1601." 

From  several  points  of  view  this  genealogy  is  of  much 
value  in  the  present  inquiry.  First,  for  having  been  (cer- 
tainly in  part)  drawn  up  from  evidences  in  the  possession  of 
Sir  Walter  himself.  Secondly,  for  containing  quotations  from 
various  deeds  in  verification  of  the  descents  to  Eichard  II. 
Thirdly,  for  the  regnal  year  being  appended  to  nearly  all 
the  entries  down  to  the  same  period.      And  fourthly,  for 

7  Hist,  of  the  College  of  Arms  (1805),  252. 


12 


RALEGHANA. 


showing  that  four  of  the  manors  possessed  by  the  early 
members  (and  how  two  of  the  number  came  into  their 
hands)  remained  in  the  continuous  possession  of  the  direct 
line  to  Sir  Walter,  or  to  his  father. 

The  following  pedigree  is  transcribed  from  Holland  11. , 
w^hich  includes  that  of  I.  minus  the  branches,  but  with  the 
addition  of  the  first  "  Wimundus,"  not  contained  in  the 
latter : — 

KALEGH   PEDIGREE. 

Holland  II.     (B)  {Harl.  MS.  1500.) 

1.   Wimundus     de     Ralega     tern  pore = 
regis  Johannis.  I 


2.  "Wymondiis  de  Ralegh  diis  de  Net-  =  Constantia,  filia  et  hers  Roberti  de 


telcombe  and  Boleham  and  of  y« 
landes  in  Wales  ("dominus  de 
Coliton,temp  regis  H.  3"  Draft) 


Chilton. 


3.  Hugo  Ralegh  miles  de  Bolleham  et: 
Smalridge    1  E.     I.     14  E.  18 


4.  Johannes    Ralegh    miles    dns    de^Joanna  filia  et  heres  Willi  Newton 
Furdell  in  iure  vxoris  31  E.  I.       I       de  Furdell    31  E.  I. 


I 
5.  Petrus  de  Ralegh  miles  de  Wiek-=Margeria  filia  Joliis  Dawney,  militis. 
combe  ("  Widecombe,"  in  draft) 
et  Furdell  14  E.  III.    17  E.  III. 


I 
6.  Johes  de  Ralegh  chiu  41   E.   III.=Matildis  de   Ferris  filia  Willmi  de 


("miles    filius    et    heres    Petri 
Ralegh,"  in  Draft) 


Ferrys 


7.  Johes  de  Furthell  miles  1  R.  II.      =Elizabetha  filia  Johis  de  Copleston 

senioris 


i.   Walterus  de  Ralegh  armiger  =Margareta    filia  Willmi    de    Cham- 

pernon 


9.   Wimundus  de  Ralegh  armiger         =Elizabetha  filia  Ricardi  Edgecombe 

I      militis 


10.  Walterus  de  Ralegh  armiger  =KatharinafiliarhilippiChamperuon, 

militis,  2  vxor 


11.   (Sir)  Walterus  l^ilegh  miles  dns  de 
Coliton  Ralegh. 


RALEGH  AN  A.  13 

Of  the  first  named  "  Wimundus  de  Ealega"  (1),  reported 
to  be  living  in  the  time  of  King  John,  the  only  probable 
reference  to  him  is  in   the    following  transcript   from  the 

Queefis  College  MS. : — 

"  Sciant,  etc ,  quod  ego  AValkelinus  de  Canethono  dedi,  etc., 
Wymondo  de  Raleghe  et  heredibus  suis,  pro  quinque  marcis 
argenti  quas  idem  AYymundus  michi  dedit  in  mea  magna 
necessitate  vnam  virgatam  terre  in  Schenes.  Ad  maiorem,  vero, 
securitateni  huius  donacionis  liberaiii  dicto  Wymundo  de  Raleghe 
cartam  quam  habui  de  Michaele  Belet  in  plena  Curia,  Londoniis, 
coram  Justiciariis  Domini  Regis  de  Banco.  Hijs  testibus — 
Domino  AViilelmo,  Comite  Arundelhe,  Martino  de  BatteshuUe, 
Alano  Basset,  Radulpho  Harang,  Stephano  de  Segrave,  Johanne 
de  Gestelings,  Symone  de  Insula,  tunc  Justiciariis  Domini  Regis 
de  Banco." 

"Johannes,  Dei  gracia  Rex  AngHe,  etc.  Sciatis  me  red  [di] 
disse  Magistro  Michaeli  Belet  et  heredibus  suis  officium  suum  de 
Pincernaria  nostra,  etc.  Habendum,  etc.,  ita  libere  sicut  Michael, 
pater  suus,  officium  illud  melius  tenuit,  Concessi  eciam  eidem 
Michaeli  omnes  terras  que  fuere  Hervie  Belet,  avi  sui.  Datum 
xxv"  die  mensis  Augusti,  Anno  Regni  nostri  septimo"  (fos.  206^, 
207).*^ 

Each  extract  contains  the  name  of  Michael  Belet ;  but 
while  the  second  has  the  regnal  year,  7  John,  the  other  is 
undated.  As,  however,  the  former  includes  the  name  of 
Simon  de  Insula  among  the  witnesses  (he  was  known  to 
have  been  living  during  the  reign  of  that  king,  vide  Eoss's 
Lives  of  the  Judges),  taken  in  connection  with  his  association 
with  M.  Belet,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  Wimundus  I.  is 
referred  to. 

Of  the  second  Wymond  (2)  we  have  plenty  of  evidence, 
and  he  holds  a  highly  important  position  in  the  history  of 
the  family.^ 

We  read  in  Pole's  work,  "  In  the  14  yeere  [1229-30]  of 
Kinge  Henry  3,  S"^  Wimond  Ralegh,  K^  a  young  sonne,  out 
of  y^  howse  of  Netelcombe,  in  Somersetshire,  had  his 
dwelliuge  in  this  place  [Smalridge] "  (119),  and  adds,  "  w^^ 
was  the  first  y*  came  into  Devonshire"  (321).     According 

^  This  has  been  kindly  examined  and  extended  by  the  Rev.  F.  C. 
Hingeston-Randolph,  who,  with  respect  to  the  word  "Pincernaria,"  states, 
"  William  de  Albini,  father  of  the  first  Earl,  held  the  Office  of  Pincernaria 
Regis.  He  is  commonly  styled  '  Pincerna  Regis.'"  Du  Cange  defines  the 
office  as  "  qui  vinum  convivis  miscet,"  a  cup-bearer. 

^  In  the  printed  Visitation  of  ]564  Wymond  II.  is  entered  as  "Wymond 
Rawley  of  Wymond,"  as  though  the  latter  were  a  place-name.  A  reference 
to  the  original  MS.  shows  the  proper  entry  to  be  "  Wymond  Rawley  son  of 
Wymond." 


14  RALEGHANA. 

to  Collinson,  the  manor  of  Xettlecombe  was  given  to  Hugh 
de  Ralegh  in  the  time  of  Henry  II.\  who  subsequently 
conveyed  it  to  his  nephew. 

But  although,  as  already  shown,  Wymond  was  certainly 
not  the  first  of  his  family  who  canoe  into  this  county,  it  is 
quite  possible  that  if  Hugh  had  no  heir  living  (and  his  history 
favours  this  view),  his  manorial  property  in  this  county  and 
in  Somersetshire  may  have  passed  to  one  of  the  Nettle- 
combe  Ealeghs.  Following  the  Holland  I.  pedigree,  Wymond 
had  possession  of  Nettlecombe,  which  subsequently  passed  to 
the  Somerset  branch,  and  terminated  in  the  heiress  marrying 
John  Trevilian.  Certain  is  it  that  we  hear  no  more  of  the 
Nettlecombe  manor  as  belonging  to  the  Devonshire  family 
after  the  time  of  the  second  Wymond.  The  matter  is  of 
importance  in  'showing  the  probable  connection  of  the  latter 
with  Sir  Hugh. 

Respecting  Smallridge,  Hooker  affirms — on  what  authority 
is  not  known — it  belonged  to  the  Raleghs  "before  the  Xorman 
Conquest."-  But  at  the  time  of  the  Domesday  record  (ed. 
D.  A.  1080)  it  belonged  to  Radulf  de  Pomerei,  and  is  therein 
called  "Esmarige,"  and  "  Smaridge."  According  to  Pulman, 
it  is  still  termed  "  at  the  present  day,  by  the  common  people, 
*  Smarridge.' "  ^ 

He  married  Constantia,  "  filia  et  heres "  of  Robert  de 
Chilton,  but  the  year  in  which  it  took  place  is  unknown.  It 
must,  however,  have  been  prior  to  1242,  as  in  that  year 
"  Lucy  who  was  the  wife  of  Gervase  Jonweys  [the  name 
appears  as  *  Joes '  in  another  entry]  prays  against  Wymund 
de  Ralegh  and  Constance  his  wile  the  third  part  of  lOJ 
ferlings  of  land  and  one  messuage  with  the  appurtenances  in 
Coleton."  ■*  This  is  repeated  in  the  following  year.^  Wyrley 
states  she  was  the  daughter  of  "  Colleton, '  and  Vivian  of 
"  Peter  de  Chelton  of  Colleton,"  and  that  she  was  the  wife 
of  the  first  Wymond,  but  this  is  certainly  an  error.  Pole 
(162)  affirms  the  father  gave  the  manor  of  Colaton  Ralegh 
to  his  daughter  at  the  time  of  her  marriage ;  and  this  is 
confirmed  by  the  following  extract  from  a  document,  written 
on  the  draft  copy  of  the  Holland  pedigree : — 

"  Sciant  presentes  &  futura  quod  ego  Robertus  de  Chilton  dedi 

^  Hist,  of  Somerset^  iii.  536. 

-  Other  assertions  of  his  relating  to  their  early  history  will  he  found  in 
his  "Synop.  Chor.,"  quoted  in  Prince's  Worthies  (1701),  530.  Cf.  Edwards, 
i.  5,  6. 

3  Book  of  the  Axe  (1875),  574. 

-*  Curia  Regis  Roll,  26  Hen.  III.  (1241-2),  Mich. 

5  Ibid.,  Trin.  27  Hen.  III.  ni.  1. 


RALEGH  AN  A.  15 

Wymundo  de  Ralegh,  totam  terrain  meam  quani  habui  in  manerio 
de  Coleton  in  liberum  maritagium  cum  Constantia  filia  mea  hiis 
testibus"  etc.  (Q.  C.  MS,  fo.  63). 

In  the  same  document  he  is  designated  "dominus  de 
Coliton."  The  manor  remained  in  possession  of  the  Kaleghs 
until  the  commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century,  when, 
according  to  Pole  (162, 163),  Sir  Walter  sold  it,  and  Dr.  Oliver 
adds,  "to  the  Marty ns  of  Exeter."^  But,  as  pointed  out  by 
Edwards,  it  was  "  forfeited  to  the  Crown  by  Sir  Walter's 
attainder,"  and  was  granted  to  Sir  A.  Brett  and  others  "in 
trust  for  Lady  Ralegh  and  her  children"  (i.  12).  It  was 
subsequently  acquired  by  the  Duke  family,  and  tinally,  by 
purchase,  became  merged  in  the  Rolle  estates. 

As  germane  to  the  history  of  this  manor,  another  reference 
to  it  is  quoted  from  the  Holland  document : — 

"  Sciant  presentes  &  futuri  quod  ego  Radus  ["  Walterus "  in 
Q.  C.  MS.]  Spirham  concessi  Wimundo  de  Ralega  quod  aqua  de 
Coliton  habeat  liberum  cursum  suum  ad  waterlecas  sicut  antiquus 
solebat  &c.  hiis  testibus  dno  Symone  de  Ralegh  cum  aliq." 
(Q.  a  MS.  fo.  63). 

This  power  over  the  water-course  continued  in  possession 
of  the  Raleghs  to  the  time  of  Sir  Walter's  father,  who,  in 
1557-8,  "executed  a  feoffment  of  '  Colaton  Moor  and  the 
Water-leazes '  to  Sir  Robert  Dennys  of  Bicton."^ 

Wymond  held  only  a  portion  of  Colaton,  as  we  find  this 
entry    in    the    "  Exchequer    Lay    Subsidy,    Devon,"    95/2 
(P.R.O.)  :— 
"  Wymund  de  Ralegh   | 

Abb  de  Donekvill  et  >  tenunt  in  Coleton  ...duas  partes  1  feodis." 

Rads  de  Springham    j 

And  Pole  mentions,  "  Thabbey  of  Dunkeswell  had  alsoe  a 
manner  in  this  parish"  (163). 

Holland  records  him  to  have  been  lord  of  Bolham,  and, 
according  to  Pole,  he  was  the  first  to  hold  it : — 

"Bolham  hath  contynewed  in  the  name  &  famyly  of  Ralegh, 
from  S^  Wymond  de  Ralegh,  in  Kinge  Henry  3  tyme,  unto  S'^ 
Carew  Ralegh,  whoe  lately  hath  sold  it"  (215). 

The  foundation  stones  of  the  conventual  church  of 
Newenham  Abbey  w^ere  laid  on  September  13th,  1254,  the 
fifth  being  placed  by  "  Sir  Wymond  de  Ralegh."  ^     This  was 

^  Ecc.  Antiq.,  iii.  94  ;  Prince,  531  ;  and  Oldys,  i.  11. 

^  Edwards,  i.  12,  from  the  Bicton  Muniments. 

^  Hist,  of  Newenham  Abbey,  J.  Davidson  (1843),  34. 


16  RALEGHANA. 

four  years  before  his  death,  which  is  thus  recorded  by  Pole : 
"  Wimond  .  .  .  died  in  y^  eve  of  the  feast  of  S^  Michael 
Tharchangell  [Sept.  29],  anno  diii  1258"  (119). 

This  is  corroborated  by  the  transcript  of  another  extract 
from  a  Curia  Regis  Eollp  which  is  of  additional  interest  for 
proving  he  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Hugh ;  that  his  wife, 
Constantia,  had  predeceased  him,  and  that  he  had  married  a 
second  wife  who  had  survived  him.  It  also  demonstrates 
Vivian  to  be  in  error  in  attributing  the  marriage  of 
Constantia  to  the  first    Wymond  : — 

"  Alice  who  was  the  wife  of  Wiinund  de  Radleg  prays  against 
Hugh  son  of  AVimund  the  S*"*^  part  of  the  manor  of  Coleton,  and 
against  the  said  Hugh  whom  AVarin  de  Radleg  called  to  warranty 
the  S'''^  part  of  the  manor  of  Bolenham. 

"  The  said  Hugh  says  she  ought  not  to  have  her  dower  therein 
because  the  said  manor  of  Coleton  was  the  right  and  marriage  of 
Constance  mother  of  the  said  Hugh  and  first  wife  of  the  said 
Wimund,  and  that  the  said  AVimund  when  he  married  the  said 
Constance  had  no  right  in  the  said  manor. 

"The  said  Wimund  and  Constance  had  issue  the  said  Hugh." 

[Judgment  not  given.] 

His  second  wife  is  un mentioned  in  every  pedigree. 

Before  passing  to  the  successor  of  Wymond  XL,  a  few 
words  may  be  devoted  to  his  brother  (according  to  Holland 
L),  the  only  member  of  the  family  to  be  noticed  in  this 
paper  who  was  not  in  the  direct  line  of  Sir  Walter's 
predecessors.  William  de  Ralegh,  one  of  the  leading  men  of 
his  era,  is  described  by  Holland  as  "  Justiciarius  Domini 
Regis,  14  Hen.  III."  and  this  appears  in  T.  Risdons  N.-B.  as 
the  date  of  his  circuit  (187).  In  the  latter  work  he  is 
depicted  as  "a  man  excellently  lerned  in  the  lawes  of  this 
Realme,  and  was  first  a  judge,  and  after  promoted  by  King 
Henry  III.  unto  the  Bisshoprick  of  Norwich  "  (134).  In  the 
Q.  C.  0.  M.S.  circ.  1602  he  is  thus  noted:  "  Wittm  de 
Ralegh  was  a  Justice  of  the  Comon  pleas  in  the  14.  of  king 
H.  3.  and  was  aft  ward  Bisshop  of  Norwich."  ^  Godwin 
reports  of  him  that  while  "  a  Cannon  of  Paules,"  he  was 
made  Bishop  of  Norwich  in  1239,  and  in  1243  was  translated 
to  Winchester.     He  died  in  1259.- 

This  dual  capacity  is  the  view  taken  of  him  in  Foss's 
Judges  of  England  (1870),  545;  by  Prince,  516;  and  in  the 

9  Easter,  44  Hen.  III.  (1259-60)  n.  165.  fo.  211^. 

1  Fo.  206  ;  of.  Pole,  86. 

2  Bishops  of  England  (1601),  174,  345. 


RALEGH  AN  A.  17 

Did.  of  Nat.  Biog.  (xlvii.  238).  There  is  a  good  summary  of 
his  life  in  each  of  these  works. 

It  was  far  from  unconmion  at  that  period  for  an  ecclesiastic 
to  be  also  a  soldier  or  a  lawyer ;  and  we  possess  an  excellent 
example  of  this  combination  in  the  case  of  the  Devonian, 
Henry  de  Bracton,  who  was  not  only  Eector  of  Bideford  and 
Chancellor  of  Exeter  Cathedral,  but  also  an  eminent  jurist, 
and  the  author  of  a  standard  work  on  English  laws  and 
customs.'^ 

After  these  remarks  one  reads  with  some  surprise  that 
Colonel  Vivian  regards  William  the  Judge  to  be  a  different 
person  from  William  the  Bishop.  He  adopts  the  entry  in 
the  Visitation  of  1564,  of  William  Kawley  (the  husband 
of  Joan,  daughter  of  Sir  J.  Stockhay),*  to  which  he  adds, 
"  Judge  of  the  King's  Bench."  Then,  in  another  branch  of 
the  family,  and  one  descent  below  the  Judge,  he  places 
William  the  Bishop,  brother  of  Wymond  II.  The  suggestion 
of  two  individuals  being  represented  in  place  of  one  was 
apparently  derived  from  the  Hist,  of  the  Chichester  Family 
(16,  17).  That  Wymond  II.  and  William  were  contempo- 
raries is  evident  from  the  following  note  on  Holland's  draft 
copy  :— 

"Johannes  Belet  [son  of  Michael  Belet?]  concess  it  Wimondo 
de  Kalegh  terram  suam  de  Scenes,  testiens  Wiltmo  de  Ralegh 
Justic.  dne  Regis  &  Rado  de  Ralegh.  14  H.  III."  (Q.  C.  0.  M.S. 
fo.  63.) 

Hugh  (3)  could  not  have  been  a  minor  at  the  time  of  his 
father's  death  in  1258,  otherwise  it  would  have  beea  noted 
in  the  document  quoted  above,  relating  to  the  proceedings 
instituted  by  his  father's  widow.  What  alliance  he  formed 
is  not  stated,  and  the  only  matter  of  importance  connected 
with  him  is  that  he  is  the  first  of  the  Raleghs  associated 
with  the  manor  of  Withycombe  (the  Withycombe-Ealegh 
of  later  years),  and  thus  noted  in  Feudal  Aids :  "  1303. 
Hugo  de  Ralegh  tenet  in  Clamvill  et  Wydecomb  quartem 
partem  j.  f."  (i.  364.)  There  is  a  little  obscurity  in  this 
holding  of  Hugh.  "  Widecome "  was  one  of  the  manors 
belonging  to  and  held  by  Walter  de  Clavile  at  the  time 
of  the  Domesday  record,  and  Pole  states :  "  Withecomb 
Clavil  aunciently,  now  Wythecomb  Ralegh  .  .  .  from  the 
owners  thereof"  (155).     Clamvill,  or  rather  Clavile,  is  not 

3  Trans.  D.  A.,  xxv.  33. 

^  Most  probably  the  William  de  Ralegh  who  held  Arlington,  27  Henry 
III.  (1243).  {Exet.  Dioc.  Arch.  Soc,  iii.  2nd.  S.  489.) 


18  RALEGH  AXA. 

a  place-name.     On  referring  it  to  tlie  Eev.  O.  J.  Reichel,  he 
thought  that  most  probably  the  "  et "  was  redundant. 

It  continued  in  the  possession  of  the  lialegh  family  until 
the  time  of  ISir  Carew  Ralegh,  brother  of  Sir  Walter,  who 
sold  it  to  the  son  of  his  step-brother,  George. 

The  latest  dates  we  have  of  him  are  in  1303,  in  Feudal 
Aids,  i.  366,  and  as  living  in  the  first  year  of  Edward  II. 
(1307-8)  {Eisdon  JV-B.  165),  on  each  occasion  as  of 
Smallridge. 

John  de  Ralegh  (4),  the  son  of  Hugh,  according  to  Pole 
(321),  succeeded  him.  With  one  exception,  heralds  agree 
in  the  statement  of  his  marriage  with  Joan,  daughter  and 
heiress  of  William  Newton,  of  Fardell,  which  manor  he 
obtained  "in  jure  vxoris."  Holland  adds  the  regnal  year, 
31  E.  I.  (1302-3),  to  his  name,  and  as  his  father  was  living 
at  that  time  most  probably  it  represents  the  year  of  the 
son's  marriage.  The  exception  alluded  to  consists  of  the 
Visitation  of  1564,  which  omits  all  reference  to  this 
alliance.  Fardell  remained  in  the  family  until  it  was 
sold  by  Sir  Carew  Ralegh  to  Walter  Hele,  of  Cornwood. 
Previous  to  this  marriage  "this  famyly  of  Ralegh  dwelled 
at  Smalerigge,  in  the  parish  of  Axminster."^  According  to 
Mr.  C.  Spence,  Fardell  was  "  one  of  the  principal  residences 
of  the  illustrious  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,"  where  he  pictures  him 
to  have  "  passed  many  of  his  youthful  and  happiest  days."^ 
This  is  somewhat  imaginative,  as  his  father  had  left  Fardell 
many  years  prior  to  the  birth  of  Sir  Walter,  and  there  is 
no  record  of  the  latter  having  visited  the  old  family  resi- 
dence. 

In  1316  he  is  noted  in  Feudal  Aids  as  lord  of  the  "villa 
de  Boleham  cum  Honesham  et  Evedon"  (i.  382). 

John  was  followed  by  Peter  de  Ralegh  (5),  who  married 
Margeria,  daughter  of  John  Dawney  (Holland).  In  the 
Visitation  of  1620  she  is  named  Mary,  and  is  termed  an 
heiress.7  He  is  referred  to  in  the  Holland  draft  copy  under 
the  date  1340-1  :— 

"Pateat  uniiiersis  me  Johem  de  Raghle  Vie.  Devon  recepisse 
mandatum  Dili  Regis  in  hec  verba.  Questus  est  nobis  The. 
fiitchet,  quod  Petrus  de  Rale  chr  et  Johes  Kale  de  Nettelcombe 
iniuste  et  sine  iuditio  dissesiuerunt  eum  de  libero  tenemento  sue 
in  Axminster.  datum  14  E.  III."  (Q.  C.  MS.  fo.  63^) 

5  Pole,  321. 

6  Exet.  Dioc.  Arch.  Soc.  iv.  (1853),  156,  160. 

7  As  showing  the  variation  in  names  as  recorded  by  heralds,  Wyrley  has 
the  entry  :  "  Maria  filia  et  coheres  Darcy." 


RALEGH  AXA.  19 

This  reference  is  of  special  interest  for  including  the 
names  of  members  belonging  to  three  different  branches  of 
the  family :  1,  John  Ralegh  de  Charneys,  who  was  Sheriff 
of  the  County  14  and  15  Edw.  III.  (1340-2);  2,  Peter  de 
Kalegh,  in  the  direct  line  to  the  Elizabethan  Sir  Walter :  and 
o,  John  de  Ivalegh,  of  the  Nettlecombe  branch. 

The  earliest  record  of  him  is  dated  7  E.  III.  (1333-4),8 
and  the  latest,  23  E.  III.  (1349-50).^  E.  Brooke  mentions 
"Peter  d'  Ealegh  an«  sexto,"  temp.  Edw.  II.  (1312-3), 
evidently  an  error  for  Edward.  III.  (1332-3). 

The  present  example  is  one  showing  the  confusion  that 
arises  in  many  pedigrees  owing  to  the  similarity  of  the 
Christian  names.  In  the  Visitation  of  1564  "Peter 
Rawley "  is  stated  to  have  married  "  Margaret,  d.  of  Sir 
Phil.  Da(u)beney,  Knt."  Now,  according  to  the  Chichester 
volume  (15,  16),  "Sir  Peter  de  Raleigh  .  .  .  married  Matilda, 
sister  and  heiress  to  Johnde  Braybroc,"  and  this  is  proved  to 
he  correct  by  a  Curia  Bcgis  Boll  of  1229-30,^  respecting  the 
right  of  "  Peter  de  Ralegh  for  himself  and  Matilda  his  wife," 
to  land  in  de  Braybroc,  that  belonged  to  her  and  her  family 
before  her.  In  the  Visitation  quoted,  "  Sir  Hugh  Rawley " 
was  living  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  there 
was  only  one  descent  from  him  to  "  Peter  Rawley  "  living  in 
1229-30;  but  the  Peter  whose  wife  was  the  daughter  of 
Dawney  belonged  to  the  fourteenth  century  !  The  proba- 
bility is  that  the  herald  in  error  assigned  the  wife  of  the 
second  Peter  to  the  first,  as  recorded  in  the  Visitation. 

Of  John  de  Ralegh  (6),  the  son  and  heir  of  Peter,  who 
married  the  daughter  of  W.  Ferrers,  there  is  but  little  to 
note.  In  the  Q.  C.  MS.  he  is  entered  as  "filius  et  her.  Petri 
de  Ralegh,"  in  16  Edw.  III.  (1342-3),  and  this  probably 
marks  the  time  of  his  succession  to  the  family  estates.  In 
the  same  MS.  his  name  appears  in  a  deed  of  37  Edw.  III. 
(1363-4)  as  "Johe  Ralee  de  Smaleridge."  Under  the  last- 
quoted  title  his  name  is  included  among  the  knights  of  the 
county  in  40  Edw.  III.  (1366-7)/^ 

His  successor,  John  Ralegh  (7),  is  said  by  Holland  to 
have  married  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  John  Coplestone,^ 

8  Risdon  N.-B.  168. 

J*  Q.  C.  MS.  fo.  189. 

^  P.  R.  O.  Trin.  14  Hen.  3,  no.  106,  fo.  15. 

2  Risdon  K.-B.  169. 

"^  Pole  affirms  this  Jolm  to  have  married  a  daughter  of  Sir  Walter 
Carmyno,  there  being  six  (perhaps  seven)  descendants  to  Sir  Walter  ;  but 
in  the  Visitation  of  1564  she  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  wife  of  Walter 
(13  in  A  list),  who  is  much  lower  down  in  the  ])edigree  ;  and,  for  a  second 


20  RALEGHANA. 

and  this  is  also  affirmed  by  Wyrley,  and  in  the  Visitafdoji 
of  1620;  but  Pole  (321)  states  she  was  the  wife  of  Walter, 
who  succeeded  him.  He  is  thus  reported  by  Eisdon  K.-B. 
170:  "John  Ealegh,  of  Smaleridg  and  Fardell,  knight, 
1  Richard  II."  (1377-8).  Under  the  same  date  his  name 
appears  in  the  following  deed:  — 

"  Indentura  facta  apud  fferdell  1  R.  2.  inter  Johannem  Rale 
militem  Dorainum  de  iferdehill  ex  parte  vna  et  Johannem  Bereford 
ex  altera  dictus  Johannes  Rale  dimisit  Johanni  Bereford  totam 
terrain  de  Molderit  in  Manerio  sue  de  fferdell  etc."  With  seal  of 
"  Johannis  de  Ralegh."    {Q.  C.  MS.  fo.  206.) 

He  is  referred  to  in  Bishop  Stafford's  Register : — 

"Ralegh,  John,  of  Fardell,  i,  302, — [^Breve  Regium]  pro  re- 
cipiendo  sacramentum  Escetoris  in  Comitatibus  Devonie  et  Cor- 
nubie  ['Ralee,'  MS.],  8  Nov.,  1409;  ii.  332."    (Ed.  H.-Randolph.) 

The  following  evidently  refers  to  his  widow : — 

Fardell.  "To  Elizabeth  relict  of  John  Ralegh  there,  Bishop 
Lacy  granted  a  license  for  a  Chapel,  19  August,  1422."^ 

This  is  of  interest,  as  the  old  chapel  is  still  preserved  at 
Fardell,  but  is  utilised  as  a  barn. 

It  is  fairly  certain  that  the  pedigree  thus  far  was  framed 
on  the  independent  investigations  of  Joseph  Holland,  acting 
under  the  directions  of  Sir  W.  Ralegh;  and  while  differing 
materially  from  that  in  the  Visitation  of  1564,  those  issued 
subsequently  to  it,  in  1602,  bear  a  great  similarity  to  it.  Its 
especial  value,  and  in  what  it  differs  from  other  lists,  are 
points  which  have  already  been  dwelt  upon.  Unfortunately, 
this  portion  terminates  before  the  conclusion  of  the  fourteenth 
century.  The  names  of  four  other  members  follow  in  the 
foregoing  list  (8-11),  but  for  these  additions  Holland  was 
not  responsible.  To  use  his  own  words  :  "  I  had  great  parte 
of  this  discent  out  of  an  old  written  pedegree."  It  will 
be  more  profitable  to  consider  the  latter  after  an  examination 
of  the  next  table.  This  consists  of  four  lines  of  descents 
from  various  authorities,  arranged  so  as  to  be  compared  with 
each  other,  and  are  as  far  as  possible  placed  in  chronological 
order. 

one,  a  daughter  of  "  Jenkin  de  Pont  (?)  of  Genoa."  (So  also  in  Harl.  MS. 
889.)  Neither  of  these  female  names  is  noted  in  the  Visitation  of  1620, 
nor  in  that  of  Vivian  ;  nor  does  the  latter  author's  Visitation  of  Cornwall 
mention  the  alliance  in  the  Carminow  pedigree.  (Of  this  second  marriage 
vide  extract  from  Benolte's  Visitation  of  1531,  post.) 

^  Dr.  Oliver,  Ecc.  Antiq.  of  Devon,  iii.  94,  probahly  taken  from  Bishop 
Lacy's  Register. 


RALEGHANA.  21 

The  first  column  (C)  is  taken  from  Holland  III.,  and 
probably  owing  to  its  position  on  the  dorso  of  I.  and  II.  it 
has  escaped  the  notice  of  genealogists.  Although  in  skeleton 
form,  it  is  of  some  consequence  in  our  present  inquiry.  A 
portion  of  the  heading  has  been  torn  off,  but  the  remainder 
runs  thus : — 

" .  .  .  .  Discent  folowinge  vnto  Wymond 

is  taken  out  of  an  old  written 

.  .  .  egree  remayninge 

amongst  his  lordships  evedence  of 

Coliton  Ralegh." 

As  confirmatory  of  its  association  with  Sir  Walter,  although 
his  father  married  three  times,  the  name  of  his  mother  is  alone 
enumerated.  It  gives  the  direct  line  of  descent  from 
Wymund  I.  to  Sir  Walter,  a  period  of  rather  more  than 
three  hundred  years,  with  the  alliances  of  the  last  three 
members.  Compared  with  the  previous  list  (B)  it  contains 
two  extra  lives  (8  and  9),  in  continuation  of  Holland's  own 
portion. 

These  are  also  included  in  Pole's  list  (E),  which  also 
contains  an  extra  life  (9),  not  found  in  the  others.  It  may 
have  been  excluded  from  the  latter  owing  to  the  estate 
passing  to  the  brother  (10)  for  lack  of  issue  (possibly  12  or 
13  in  the  Visikition  of  1564  may  be  similar  instances).  On 
the  other  hand,  they  are  not  given  in  the  (D)  and  (F) 
columns,  the  number  being  made  up  in  each  of  these  by  the 
addition  of  two  other  names  higher  in  the  pedigree. 

There  is  a  curious  blunder  in  the  MS.  of  the  Wyrley 
pedigree,  where  the  son  of  Hugh  is  thus  entered :  "  Johanes 
filius  et  heres  Willmi  Newton."  A  reference  to  the  adjoining 
lists  proves  that,  by  inadvertence,  the  name  of  his  wife's 
father  is  mentioned,  but  that  of  his  wife  is  omitted. 

Each  column  of  the  table  showing  the  same  number  of 
lives,  13 — with  the  possible  exception  in  (E) — an  average 
of  about  four  lives  in  each  century,  is  a  matter  of  much 
importance  in  the  selection  of  one  pedigree  in  preference  to 
another;  but  the  succession  of  individual  members  is 
another  point  of  equal  value  to  be  considered  in  making 
such  a  selection.  For  example,  Holland  II.  may  be  assumed 
to  be  correct  as  far  as,  and  inclusive  of,  John  Ralegh  (7), 
who  was  living  in  1377-8.  *' Wimundus"  (9),  in  the  same 
list,  and  the  next  descent  but  one,  died  in  1515.  That  is  to 
say,  about  a  century  must  have  elapsed  between  these  two, 
during   which   only   one    life    is   recorded   in    Holland    II., 

c 


22 


RALEGHAXA. 


(C) 


Holland  III.,  Pedigree. 
Harl.  MS.  1500  (1602). 


1.   AVymond  Raley. 


2.  WymoEd  de 


3.  Hugo  miles. 


John. 


5.  Peter  R. 


6.  John  R. 


7.  John. 


\.  Walter. 


9.  John. 


10.   Walter=Edgcomh. 


11.  Wvmond=Grenville. 


Vl.  Walter=Chapnon. 


13.  Sir  W.  R. 


{^) 


W.  Wyrley,  Rouge  Croix  (1604-1618). 
Bodl.  Lib.  MS.  Eawl.  B.  88. 


2.   Wimundus  Raleigh    =filia     et     heres 
Roberti  Collitou. 


3.   Hugo  Raleigh  2  filius. 
miles 


4.  Johanes    filius    et=[d.     of]     WiHnii 
heres  I     Newton. 


5.   Hen  vie  us    Raleigh=I.  filia  Bemond. 
miles 


).  Johanes    Raleigh=Elizabeth     d.     — 
miles  Benet. 


7.  Petrus  Raleigh  miles=Maria   d.   &  co-h. 
I     Darcy. 


5.  Johanes  Rauleigh=Matildis       fill; 
miles  I     Willmi  fFerrers. 


).  Johanes  Raleigh         =filia  Copston. 


10.  Wal  terns  Raleigh       =filia       Philip  pi 
Champernon. 


11.  Wimunai 


:filia  Edgcomb. 


12.  Walterus  Raleigh       =filia      Ricliardi 
I     Edgcomb. 


13.   (Sir)  Walterus  Raleigh 
miles. 


There  is  a  Ralegh  pedigree  in  the  Bodl.  Lib.  in  MS.  RnwI.  B.  314 
(Liber  C.  fo.  99)  "fact  per  Holland"  (John  Holland,  Portcullis,  temp. 
Elizabeth  and  James  L,  as  indicated  in  another  part  of  the  MS.).  Except- 
ing in  the  omission  of  Hugh  (3),  it  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Visitation 
of  1620. 


RALEGHANA. 


(E) 


SiiW.  Poi;E,  Hist,  of  Devonshire  (between 
3  604-35),  pp.  119,321,322. 


S""  Wimond  Ralegh: 
Rt  died  1258 


iCoiistance  d. 
of  Robert  de 
ChiltoD. 


S'  Hugh  de  Ralegh= 


4.  S''  John  Raleo;li  =Jone,  d.  &  h. 
of  Will'-^m 
Newton  o  t 
Fardell. 


I 
5.  S--  Peter 


I 
S--  John 


S--  John 


=d.  of  S--  Walter 
Carniyno. 


8.  Walter  Ralegh  ^Elizabeth,  d. 
of  JohnCople- 
ston. 


Walter     Raleghr 
ob.  s.p. 


10. 


John      Ralegh 
(brother) 


I 
11.   Walter 


I 
12.  Wimond 


13.  Walter 


=d.of  JohnHach 
of  Woollegh. 


.d.  of  S-- Richard 
Edgcorab. 


Jane,  d.  of  S"" 
Thomas  Gren- 
vill. 


Jvaterin,  d.  of 
S-^  Phillip 
Champernon 
2  wief. 


14.   S--  Walter. 


(F) 


Visitation  of  Devon,  1620.    Edwards' 
Life  of  Sir  W.  R.  (i.  8). 


S""  Hugh  Rawleigli= 
of  I 


John  Rawleigh        =  —  d.  of  Wittm 
Newton. 


S""  Henry  Raw]eigh=Isabell     d,     of 
Beaumond. 


S''  John  Rawleio'h   =Elizab.     d.    of 
Baniuile. 


7.  S""  Peter  Rawleigh 


S''  John  Rawleigh   — Matildis  d.    of 
W™  Ferrers 


I 
9.  John  Rawleigh 


10. 


11. 


Walter  Rawleigh  of; 
Fardell  in  Deuon 


:Mary  d.    &   h. 
of  Dawuey. 


_   _   a.    of    — 
Coplestone. 


Katherin  d.  of 
W"  Chaniper- 
none. 


Wymund  Rawleigh=Eliz.  d.  of  S'' 
Rich.  Edge- 
combe of 
Cuttell. 


12.  Walter  Rawleigh  of=Katherin  d.  of 


Fardell  in  Deuon 


Rich.  Cham- 
peruoone  3 
wife. 


I 
13.   S"-  Walter  Rawleigh  K'. 


C  2 


24  EALEGHANA. 

Wyrley's  pedigree,  and  the  Visitation  of  1564.     It  is,  there- 
fore,  evident  there  must  be  some  omissions  in  the   latter 
authorities.     This  hiatus  is  tilled  up  in  Holland  ILL  (C)  by 
Walter  and  John  (8,  9),  and  also  by  Pole  (E).     Of  these 
added  members  we  know  but  little,  excepting  a  reference 
to  the  latter  (John),  in  a  deed  of  1428,  as  "Johannes  Kalegh."^ 
It    would    naturally    be    thought    that    the    number    of 
differences  and  mistakes  in  heralds'  Visitations,  note-books, 
etc.,  would  lessen  as  time  proceeded,  but,  unfortunately,  such 
is  not  the  case,  especially  with  respect  to  the  alliances ;  and 
it  is  remarkable  that  some  of  the  greatest  deviations  are  met 
with  immediately  prior  to  the  institution  of  parish  registers. 
This  is   certainly  the  practical  result  of   the  investigation 
into  the  genealogy  of  the  Kalegh  family.     It  is  necessary 
to   point   out  some  of  these  variations,  prior   to   the  con- 
sideration of   the    remaining    members   of    the   family,  who 
were  successively  Walter,  Wymond,  Walter,  Sir  Walter;  in 
which  order  the  names    appear  in   the    Visitation  of   1564, 
"  taken  by  William  Haruey  Clarentieulx  Esq''  .  .  .  begoone  at 
Excester  the  xxj*^  of  Julii  in  the  6  yeare  of  Queene  Elizabeth.'*^ 
On  examining  three  other  reports  in  the  same  collection  of 
MSS.  of  this   Visitation,  and  by  the  same  herald,  we  find 
(omitting  Sir  W.  Kalegh)  the  following  alterations :    In  MS. 
5871  the  names  in  succession  are  Walter,  Adam,  Walter ;  all 
three  were  originally  "Walter,"  but  the  second  one  was  erased, 
and  "Adam"  substituted.    Moreover,  "Elizabeth,"  as  the  wife 
of  the  latter,  has  also  been  erased,  and  "  Weymott"  replaces 
it.     In  MS.  889  the  substituted  names  are  given,  the  original 
ones  not  being  mentioned.   So  that  in  these  two  instances  the 
name  of  the  younger  brother,  Adam  (called  "  sonne  &  heire  "), 
supplants   that  of    the  elder  one,  and  the   Christian   name 
of  the  latter  (Wymond),  in  a  form  slightly  altered,  has  been 
transferred  to  the  wife. 

The  three  in  3IS.  1399  are  given  as  William,  Walter, 
Weymonde,  the  last  being  termed  "  oldest  sonne  and  heire 
to  Weymonde,"  and  to  him  are  assis^ned  the  three  wives  of 
Sir  Walter's  father,  who,  in  MS.  Raivl.  B.  81,  fo.  26^  is 
designated  "  Walter  Ealeigh  of  ffordell  ats  Weymond." 

In  Westcote's  Devon  (535,  536),  in  a  "Ralegh  Pedigree," 
extracted  from  the  Records  of  the  College  of  Arms  by  George 
Harrison,  Windsor  herald,   1774,^  and   in   Harl.  MS.  3288 

5  Feudal  Aids,  i.  224. 

^  Recorded  in  Harl.  MS.  1091,  and  printed  in  extenso,  ed.  by  F.  T.  Colby, 
in  1881. 

7  Misc.  Geneal.  el  Her.  II.  (1869),  155-7. 


RALEGHANA.  25 


Walter  is  the  name  of  all  three,  there  being  added  in  the 
last,  "potius  Way niondham." 

Kevertino-  to  Holland  III.  we  arrive  at   Walter  (10),  ot 
whom  we   know   but  little.      In  the   Q.   C.  MS.   152   he  is 
recorded  as  a  witness  in  each  of  two  deeds  of  14o2  and  14bi 
respectively;  and  as  one  of  the  administrators  ot  the  ettects 
of  '•  Willm  BonviU  knight  Lo :  of  Chuton  nowe  dead,    m  a 
deed   of    U52,  authorismg  Joan,   his   widow,  to   levy   two 
hundred  marks  upon  the  lands  of  the  deceased  (tos.  12,  17 
^;»0^)      He  died  in  1486,  and  although  we  possess  the  names 
of  his  children,  heralds  differ  greatly  as  to  that  of  his  wite, 
or  if  married  more  than  once.     Her  name  is  unmentioned  in 
Benolte's    Visitation  of  1531,  but  in  that  of  1564  Harvey 
records  her  Christian  name,  Margaret,  but  omits  her  maiden 
one       In  the  printed  volume  of  the  latter,  m  the  Hatche 
pedic^ree,  she  is  noted  as  a  daughter  of  John  Hatche.     Pole 
(32 n  states  she  was  the  wife  of  Walter's  predecessor,  John 
(10  in  (E)  list),  and  these  are  the  only  notices  of  her  alliance 
with  a  Ealegh  that  have  yet  been  found. 

Several   authorities  declare  that  Walter   (10)    married   a 

Champernowne,  but  if  so  it  is  remarkable  that  her  Christian 

name  and  that  of  her  father  vary  in  each  report  :— 

In  Holland  II.— 8  in  (B)-as  Margaret,  d.  of  William  C. 

„  Wyrley's  list  (D)  „  d-  of  Phi^\PP  C-      ^ 

„    Visitation  of  1620—10  in  (F)  as  Katherin,  d.  of  Wilham  0. 

No  such  alliance  is  included  in  the  Champernowne  pedigree, 
nor  have  inquiries  thrown  any  light  upon  it.  It  is  singular 
that  the  last  of  the  three  above  noted  bore  the  same  Christian 
name  as  Sir  Walter's  mother ;  and  as  in  each  instance  Walter 
was  that  of  the  husband,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  similarity 
led  to  what  is  probably  an  error.  Or  it  may  have  been  due 
to  the  circumstance  that  Katherine  Ealegh  was  the  daughter 
of  Katherine  Carew,  who  married  Sir  FhilijJ  Champernowne. 
Iq  his  III.  list  Holland  substitutes  as  Walter's  wife  a  daughter 
of  Sir  R.  Edgcombe,  and  Polwhele  adopts  the  same  view. 

Wymond  Ralegh  (11)  was  a  minor  at  the  time  of  his 
father's  death,  as  we  know  from  the  following  :— 

"Dec.  20,  1486.  Grant  to  Richard  Eggecombe,  Knt.,  controller 
of  the  king's  household,  of  the  custody  and  marriage  of  Wymond 
Ralegh,  son  and  heir  of  Walter  Ralegh,  and  also  of  all  lands  and 
possessions  lately  pertaining  to  the  said  Walter,  to  hold  during 
the  minority  of  the  said  heir,  or  as  long  as  the  said  lands  and 
possessions  shall  remain  in  the  king's  hands.     L.  B,"^ 

s  Materials  for  a  History  of  the  Reign  of  Henry  VII.,  ed.  by  Rev.  W. 
Campbell  (Rolls  S.),  II.  (1877),  78. 


2G  RALEGH  AN  A. 

The  circumstance  of  this  wardship  seems  to  indicate  either 
that  his  mother  was  an  Edgcombe,  or  that  he  married  one 
of  that  family,  and  most  of  the  authorities  favour  the  latter 
view. 

There  is,  however,  very  strong  testimony  in  favour  of  his 
wife  having  been  a  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  Grenville,  as 
asserted  by  Holland  III.  (11  in  (C)) ;  by  Polwhele  (II.  219) ; 
and  in  the  History  of  the  Granville  Family,^  where  we  glean 
some  important  particulars  relating  to  her.  "  The  daughter, 
Jane,  was  married  three  times.  The  order  of  her  marriage 
differs  in  various  accounts,  but  as  she  was  unmarried  at  the 
time  of  her  father's  will  of  March,  1514,  and  one  of  her 
husbands,  Wymond  Ealeigh,  was  certainly  dead  14th  July, 
1515,  he  must  clearly  have  been  her  first  husband."^ 

It  is  fairly  evident  that  Jane  Granville  married  Wymond 
Ealegh,  and  that  Elizabeth  Edgcombe  was  either  his  wife  or 
that  of  his  father — most  probably  of  the  latter.  If  of  the 
former,  she  must  have  been  his  first  wife,  as  Jane  survived 
him. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  Vivian,  in  his  Visitations  of  Devon, 
affirms  Wymond  to  have  married  Katherine  Champernowne ; 
whereas,  in  his  corresponding  work  of  Cormvall,  he  states : 
"Jane  Granville  mar.  to  Ealeigh  2  to  Battin"  (191).  This 
accords  with  the  quotation  from  the  Eev.  E.  Granville's 
work  noticed  above,  in  which  is  also  recorded  her  third 
marriage  with  "  John  Tregagle,  of  Trevorden,  in  St.  Breock." 
Her  first  marriage  receives  confirmation  from  the  Ealegh 
arms  impaling  those  of  Granville  (three  rests  or  clarions) 
being  carved  on  a  bench-end  in  East  Budleigh  Church,  and 
executed  during  the  lifetime  and  under  the  auspices  of 
Wymond's  son,  Walter.^ 

The  reign  of  Henry  VII.  was  an  evil  one  to  the  Ealeghs.  In 
what  manner  we  are  not  acquainted,  but  Wymond  fell  under 
the  displeasure  of  that  King,  and  in  the  "  History  of  the 
Court  of  Star  Chamber  "  we  learn  he  was  heavily  fined : — 

"21  Hen.  VII.  1505  For  the  pdon  of  Wymond  Eawley,  for 
misprisions  &  other  offenses,  700  marks."^ 

It  was,  most  probably,  this  that  led  to  the  sale  of  his 
Smallridge  property,  as  already  noted. 

The  following  paragraph  in  Risdon  N.-B.  requires  to  be 
noticed : — 

^  By  the  Rev.  R.  Granville  (1892),  in  sheet  pedigree. 

1  Ihid.,  68. 

2  Trans.  D.  A.,  xxiv.  224,  236. 

3  ArchaeoL,  xxv.  391,  quotod  from  Lansd.  MS.  160,  fo.  311. 


Arms  of  Ralegh  impaling  Granville. 
Carved  on  a  Bench-end  in  East  Budleigh  Church. 


RALEGH  AN  A.  27 

"  Wymondus  Ealegh  obiit  seisitus  de  terris  in  comitatu  Devonie, 
et  Walterus  Ralegh  est  filius  et  heres,  18  Henrici  YIII." 
(1526-7)> 

This  date  is  certainly  wrong,  and  should  be  8  Hen.  VIII., 
as  Wymond  is  proved  to  have  died  in  1515,  a  commission 
having  been  issued  in  that  year  "to  make  inquisition  p.m.  in 
respect  of  Wimond  Raleygh."^ 

Walter  Ealegh  (12),  a  minor  when  his  father  died,  became 
of  age  either  in  1516  or  151S.^  He  married  three  times: 
1st,  Joan,  daughter  of  John  Drake,  of  Exmouth  ;  2nd,  Mary, 
a  daughter  of  —  Darrell,  of  London  ;  3rd,  Katherine,  daughter 
of  Sir  P.  Champernowne,  of  Modbury,  and  widow  of  Otho 
Gilbert. 

The  following  curious  error  is  attributed  to  the  Rev.  T. 
Wilkinson : — 

"Raleigh  maryd  Cath.  da.  of  S""  Philp  Champernoun  &  had 
Carewe  Raleigh  w^^  had  SMYalter  Raleigh^'  (MS.  Raid.  B.  81, 
fo.  26^). 

In  the  printed  Visitation  of  1564  all  Walter's  children 
are  erroneously  assigned  to  his  third  wife.  (It  is  not  so  in 
the  original  MS.) 

The  mistake  in  the  name  of  the  first  wife  in  Vivian's 
Visitations  has  been  already  noticed.^  Of  the  second  some 
authorities  seem  to  ignore  her,  by  affirming  that  Walter  had 
only  two  wives,  the  third  being  termed  by  them  the  second ;  ^ 
while  some  assert  she  had  no  issue,^  or  do  not  mention  any  ;i 
others  report  she  had  a  daughter,  Mary,  who  was  married  on 
"  13  Oct.  1563  at  St.  Mary  Arches  [Exeter],  to  Hugh  Snedall 
of  Exeter";  but  according  to  Oldys,  "of  Hilling,  in  Cornwall."- 
That  Katherine,  daughter  of  Sir  P.  Champernowne,  was 
Walter's  third  wife  is  the  opinion  generally  accepted  as 
correct. 

The  exceptions  to  the  foregoing  statements  must  not  be 
passed  over  without  notice.  In  Wyrley's  list  (D)  both  the 
grandfather  and  the  father  of  Sir  Walter  are  entered  as 
having   married  members  of  the  Edgcombe  family.      This 

■*  326.  The  same  date  is  given  in  a  Ralegh  pedigree  by  W.  Harvey, 
Clarencienx,  in  Q.  C.  MS.  Ixxiv.  fo.  110. 

5  Quoted  from  Cal.  S.  P.,  in  Trans.  D.A.,  xv.  164. 

6  Ibid.,  164.  ''  Ibid.,  xxviii.  279. 

8  Pole  (321);  Le  Neve's  Knights  (HarL  Soc.  1873),  73;  Holland  II., 
Harrison  pedigree  of  1774. 

^  Visitation  of  1564.  ^  Visitation  of  1620. 

2  i.  10.  Cf.  MS.  FmwI.  B.  81,  fo.  26^;  Westcote's  X't^iJO?^,  536. 


28  RALEGH  AX  A. 

may  be  true  with  respect  to  the  former,  but  the  latter  is 
certainly  an  error. 

In  his  pedigree  of  the  Drake  family  Vivian  notes,  "Alice 
[Joan],  2  wife  of  Walter,  father  of  Sir  Walter  Ealegh." 
This,  except  as  to  the  name  "  Alice,"  is  corrected  in  the 
Ealegh  pedigree, 

Benolte,  in  his  Visitation  of  1531,  reports  the  first  wife 
of  Walter  to  have  been  "  Jone — d.  to  John  Darke  [Drake]," 
and  then  adds,  "  the  foresaid  Walter  mai^  to  his  second  wiffe 
Elizabeth  d.  to  Jameken  de  Pant  of  the  Toune  of  Jenua 
father  to  dyuers  marchantes  of  those  partes  of  Jenua."^ 
Edwards  accepts  this  in  preference  to  "the  common  state- 
ment .  .  .  that  AValter's  second  wife  was  named  Darell,"  and 
supplements  it  by  recording  her  father  to  have  been  "Giacomo 
de  Ponte,  a  merchant  of  Genoa,  who  had  Letters  Patent  of 
Denization  from  King  Henry  the  Seventh  in  1508"  (i.  12,  13). 
Now  Otho  Gilbert,  the  first  husband  of  Katherine  Ohamper- 
nowne,  died  on  February  18th,  1546-7,  and  her  marriage 
with  Walter  lialegh  most  probably  took  place  in  1548,  as 
her  first  son,  Carew,  Sir  Walter's  elder  brother,  was  born  in 
1549.  As  far,  therefore,  as  dates  are  concerned,  AVyrley 
cannot  be  acquitted  of  carelessness,  as  his  list  of  the  Raleghs 
was  made  during  the  lifetime  of  Katherine.  On  the  other 
hand,  Benolte's  Visitation  was  framed  some  years  prior  to 
Walter's  third  marriage ;  but  on  what  grounds,  and  alone  of 
all  heralds  before  or  after  him,  he  claimed  the  daughter  of 
"  Jameken  de  Pant,"  as  Walter's  second  wife,  whose  intro- 
duction into  the  Pialegh  family  is  dated  back  by  those 
genealogists  who  mention  her  as  belonging  to  the  fourteenth 
century,  and  why  Edwards  alone  of  all  late  writers  should, 
rely  upon  Benolte's  information  as  trustworthy,  is  one  of 
those  genealogical  puzzles  not  easy  of  solution. 

The  name  of  AValter,  with  that  of  John  Drake  (his  father- 
in-law  ?),  appear  in  a  deed  of  1534-5,  in  Q.  C.  MS.  152,  fo. 
192\ 

Walter  was  the  first  of  his  family  to  disassociate  himself 
entirely  from  the  estates  held  for  such  a  long  period  by  his 
progenitors,  by  leaving  Fardell  to  be  occupied  by  his  eldest 
son,  George,  and  retiring  to  Hayes  Barton,  a  small  manor 
house,  situated  on  the  verge  of  Woodbury  Common,  and  in 
the  parish  of  East  Budleigh.  He  also  gave  up  certain  rights 
in  the  Colaton  property^  to  which  attention  has  already  been 
directed.     Probably  all  this  was  owing  to  his  means  of  living 

3  MS.  Ashmol.  763,  fo.  37  ;  Addit.  MS.  14,315,  fo.  67. 


RALEGH  AN  A.  29 

having  been  considerably  reduced,  or  from  a  continuation  of 
the  troubles  incident  to  his  father's  misfortunes. 

It  is  not  intended  to  pursue  the  inquiry  into  the  genealogy 
of  the  Raleghs  beyond  that  of  Sir  Walter's  father,  but  those 
who  desire  to  do  so  will  find  a  continuation  in  the  Harrison 
pedigree,  printed  in  Misc.  Gcnecdoy.  d  Herald.,  ii.  155-7,  and 
in  a  separate  form. 

On  reviewing  the  foregoing  statements  it  can  be  readily 
understood  how  difficult  it  is  to  construct  a  direct  line  of 
descent,  from  the  first  Sir  Hugh  down  to  Sir  Walter,  that 
will  be  considered  satisfactory,  however  continuous  it  may 
seem  to  be. 

A  comparison  of  the  respective  Visitations  of  1564  and 
1620  shows  them  to  be  entirely  dissimilar,  until  they  unite 
in  Walter,  the  third  in  ascent  from  Sir  Walter,  to  which  they 
appear  to  approach  by  two  distinct  branches.  The  earlier 
line  is  unlike  that  in  any  other  pedigree ;  whereas  the  one  of 
later  date  is  to  a  considerable  extent  corroborated  by  the 
researches  of  contemporary  genealogists.  Of  these  two  the 
preference  must  therefore  be  given  to  that  of  1620,  especially 
when  in  addition  the  following  points  are  taken  into  con- 
sideration. Of  the  Ralegh  pedigree  in  the  Visitation  of 
1620  Edwards  remarks,  "it  was  drawn  two  years  after  the 
death  of  the  statesman  whose  descent  it  traces,  and  can 
incur  no  suspicion  of  partaking  in  the  putative  heraldic 
flattery  of  living  greatness " ;  hence  from  this  he  drew  the 
inference,  "  the  Ralegh  descent  can  be  conclusively  traced 
from  the  reign  of  King  John  "  (i.  5,  8).  It  shows,  however, 
only  a  slight  variation  from  the  others  exhibited  in  the  table 
(C-F),  and  whatever  credit  may  be  attached  to  it  may  be 
fairly  attributed  to  the  independent  investigations  of  Joseph 
Holland,  undertaken  on  behalf  of  Sir  Walter  many  years 
prior  to  any  of  the  others.  He  was  the  first  to  show  that 
the  Bolham,  Smallridge,  Colaton,  and  Fardell  properties 
continued  for  many  generations  in  the  possession  of  Sir 
Walter's  ancestors,  down  to  his  own  period,  or  to  that  of  his 
immediate  predecessors,  and  also  how  the  two  last-mentioned 
estates  came  into  his  family  by  marriage.  The  importance 
of  the  result  of  his  examination  of  documents,  etc.,  in 
elucidating  the  successive  names  of  the  earlier  members  of 
the  family,  has  been  already  dwelt  upon. 

Taking  it  as  a  whole,  the  Holland  III.  list  appears  to  be 
the  one  more  likely  to  be  correct  than  any  other  (that  of 
Pole  is  almost  a  duplicate  of  it).  It  includes  the  first  seven 
members  in  Holland  II,  that  were  especially  investigated, 


30  RALEGHANA. 

while  Nos.  10  to  12  (the  immediate  predecessors  of  Sir 
Walter)  are  identical  with  the  majority  of  the  lists.  The 
weak  place  lies  between  these  two  sets  of  numbers,  as  already 
noted,  and  Holland  has  supplied  the  names  of  Walter  and 
John  (8,  9)  to  occupy  the  deficiency.  These  have  been 
accepted  by  Pole,  whose  residence  in  the  county  would 
afford  him  better  opportunities  of  making  inquiries  into 
the  history  of  families  than  heralds  would  be  able  to  effect 
during  their  temporary  sojourn,  when  engaged  in  the  labours 
of  a  Visitation.  This  deficiency  has  not  been  rectified  in 
some  lists  {e.g.  D  and  F). 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  to  be  unable  to  praise  the  account 
of  the  Ealeghs  in  the  Visitations  of  Devon  of  Colonel  Vivian, 
although  it  is  certain  he  spared  neither  time,  labour,  nor 
expense  in  his  efforts  at  correctness  and  completeness. 
While  endeavouring  to  include  many  heterogeneous  materials, 
he  embodied  some  without  making  a  strict  investigation  as 
to  their  trustworthiness. 

A  few  words  in  conclusion  respecting  the  progressive  history 
of  this  great  family.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  the 
Ealeghs  to  have  been  a  purely  Devonshire  one,  and  to  have 
had  their  origin  in  a  small  manor  of  their  name  in  the  parish 
of  Pilton,  probably  prior  to  the  Conquest.  It  was  one  of 
considerable  importance  during  the  twelfth  and  two  following 
centuries,  in  which  period  seven  of  its  members  were  sheriffs 
of  the  county — two  of  the  number  for  six  years  each — at  a 
time  when  the  duties  of  the  office  were  of  an  onerous 
character,  and  needed  the  services  of  men  of  ability  to 
perform  them.  They  also  held  important  positions  injthe 
ecclesiastical  world,  and  several  livings  were  in  their  gift.  On 
these  points  the  bishops'  Begisters  and  Risdons  Note-Booh 
bear  ample  testimony. 

'*In  the  reign  of  Edw.  3,"  remarks  Prince,  "there  were 
living  at  once  in  this  County,  no  less  than  five  Knights," 
whom  he  thus  enumerates  :  "  Sir  Thomas  Pialegh  of  Ealegh, 
Sir  John  Ealegh  of  Smalridge,  (Son  of)  Sir  Peter  Ealegh  of 
Fardel,  Sir  John  Ealegh  of  Charles,  and  Sir  John  Ealegh  of 
Beandport  isie)''  (517).  Pole  also  records  five,  two  of  them 
not  included  in  Prince's  list  (119) ;  and  in  his  "Alphabet  of 
the  Amies  of  the  Gentlemen  of  Devonshire,  as  well  of  those 
in  beinge,  as  of  those  which  have  bine,"  he  gives  particulars 
of  the  coats  of  arms  of  seven  members  of  different  branches 
of  the  family. 

Various  offshoots  of  the  Ealeghs  migrated  from  the  parent 
stock   in   Pilton   parish   to    Somerset,    Cornwall,    Warwick, 


EALEGHANA.  31 

Northampton,  and  South  Wales ;   of   these  the  first-named 
was  the  principal. 

After  the  fourteenth  century  we  hear  little  about  them 
until  the  era  of  Sir  Walter,  but  after  his  death  they  seem  to 
have  gradually  fallen  into  a  state  of  decadence,  and  it  is 
thought  that  at  the  present  time  neither  of  the  former 
strongholds  of  this  family,  to  wit,  Devonshire  and  Somerset- 
shire, contains  a  single  representative  in  the  direct  line  from 
Sir  Walter  who  bears  the  illustrious  name  of  Ralegh. 


APPENDIX. 

From  the  "Epistle  Dedicatorie"  to  Sir  W.  Ralegh,  written  by  John  Hooker, 
and  prefixed  to  the  History  of  Ireland,  in  Holinshed's  Chronicles,  vi. 
(1808),  105,  106. 

"There  were  sundrie  of  your  ancestors  by  the  name  of  Ealeigh, 
who  were  of  great  account  &  nobilitie,  and  alied  as  well  to  the 
Courtneis  earls  of  Deuon,  as  to  other  houses  of  great  honour  & 
nobilitie,  &  in  sundrie  succeeding  descents  were  honoured  with 
the  degree  of  knighthood.  One  of  these  being  your  ancestor,  in 
the  directest  line,  was  named  sir  lohn  de  Raleigh,  who  then 
dwelled  in  the  house  of  Purdell  in  Deuon,  an  ancient  house  of 
your  ancestors,  and  of  their  ancient  inheritance  :  and  which  at 
these  presents  is  in  the  possession  of  your  eldest  brother.  This 
knight  maried  the  daughter  and  heire  to  sir  Roger  D'amerei,  or 
de  Amerei,  whome  our  English  chronicles  doo  name  lord  de 
Amerei,  who  was  a  noble  man  and  of  great  linage,  and  descended 
of  the  earls  de  Amerei  in  Britaine,  and  alied  to  the  earls  of 
Montfort  in  the  same  duchie  and  prouince.  This  man  being  come 
ouer  into  England,  did  serue  in  the  court,  and  by  the  good 
pleasure  of  God  and  the  good  liking  of  the  king  he  maried  the 
ladie  Elisabeth,  the  third  sister  and  coheire  to  the  noble  Gilbert 
earle  of  Clare  and  of  Glocester,  who  was  slaine  in  the  battell  of 
Banokesborough  in  Scotland,  and  in  the  time  of  king  Edward  the 
second.  This  earle  died  sans  issue,  he  being  the  sonne  and  the 
said  Elisabeth  the  daughter  to  Gilbert  de  Clare  earle  of  Glocester, 
by  his  wife  the  ladie  lane  de  Acres  or  Aeon,  daughter  to  king 
Edward  the  first.  This  Gilbert  descended  of  Robert  earle.  of 
Glocester,  sonne  to  king  Henrie  the  first,  and  of  his  wife  the 
ladie  Mawd,  daughter  and  heire  to  Robert  Eitzh anion,  lord  of 
Astrouill  in  Normandie,  coosen  to  the  Conqueror,  knight  of  the 
priuie  chamber  to  king  William  Rufus,  and  lord  of  the  lordship 
of  Glamorgan  in  Wales.  So  that  your  ancestor  sir  lohn  de 
Raleigh  maried  the  daughter  of  de  Amerie,  De  Amerie  of  Clare, 
Clare  of  Edward  the  first,  and  which  Clare  by  his  father 
descended  of  king  Henrie  the  first.  And  in  like  manner  by  your 
mother  you  maie  be  deriued  out  of  the  same  house.     These  all 


32  RALEGHANA. 

were  men  of  good  honour  and  nobilitie,  and  whose  vertues  are 
highly  recorded  sparsim  in  the  chronicles  of  England ;  some 
greatly  commended  for  their  wisedomes  and  deepe  judgements  in 
matters  of  counsell,  some  likewise  much  praised  for  their  prowesse 
&  valiantnesse  in  martiall  affaires,  and  manie  of  them  honored 
for  both. 

"Exon.  Octob.  12.  1586.  lohn  Hooker." 

Pole  affirmed  it  to  apply  to  "another  howse  of  Ralegh  .  .  . 
whose  dwellinge  seemeth  to  be  in  Cornwall "  (119). 

The  asserted  relationship  with  Royalty  through  the  Clare  family 
is  noted  (somewhat  differently  in  each)  in  M.S.  Raid.  B.  88  and 
314,  and  as  occurring  immediately  prior  to  Wymond  Ralegh  II.