Skip to main content

Full text of "Raleghana"

See other formats


Part III. 





(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.] 







Part III. 

(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 


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. 


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 


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. 



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. 


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 

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. 



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 

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 : — 


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 


" 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. 



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

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

3. Petter Rawley 

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 

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 

Katheren da. to. . . Prowze of devonshr. 
Alice da. to Walter Carmino (1st wife.) 

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 

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. 


" 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 

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. , 


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. 



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 : — 


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) 


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. 

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

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

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


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


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


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. 


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^, 

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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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.) 


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 

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- 

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." 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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., 





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

1. AVymond Raley. 

2. WymoEd de 

3. Hugo miles. 


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. 

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

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

). 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 

11. Wimunai 

:filia Edgcomb. 

12. Walterus Raleigh =filia Ricliardi 
I Edgcomb. 

13. (Sir) Walterus Raleigh 

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. 



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 

S' Hugh de Ralegh= 

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

5. S-- Peter 

S-- John 

S-- John 

=d. of S-- Walter 

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

Walter Raleghr 
ob. s.p. 


John Ralegh 

11. Walter 

12. Wimond 

13. Walter 

=d.of JohnHach 
of Woollegh. 

.d. of S-- Richard 

Jane, d. of S"" 
Thomas Gren- 

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

14. S-- Walter. 


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

S"" Hugh Rawleigli= 
of I 

John Rawleigh = — d. of Wittm 

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

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

7. S"" Peter Rawleigh 

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

9. John Rawleigh 



Walter Rawleigh of; 
Fardell in Deuon 

:Mary d. & h. 
of Dawuey. 

_ _ a. of — 

Katherin d. of 
W" Chaniper- 

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

12. Walter Rawleigh of=Katherin d. of 

Fardell in Deuon 

Rich. Cham- 
peruoone 3 

13. S"- Walter Rawleigh K'. 

C 2 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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. 


" Wymondus Ealegh obiit seisitus de terris in comitatu Devonie, 
et Walterus Ralegh est filius et heres, 18 Henrici YIII." 

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 

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 

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. 


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. 

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. 


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, 


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, 


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. 


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 


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.