The Lancasters of Sockbridge in Westmorland

Please note that the following are notes, and might be wrong! Please contact me with advice and questions.

This webpage is one of a series, which outgrew the original single page that was started as part of the Lancaster DNA project. Others include:

Notes on Lancaster related surnames
Notes on Satterthwaite and related surnames
The Lancasters of Westmorland including the Barons of Kendal
The Lancasters of Howgill, Rydal, Loughrigg etc.
The Lancasters of Rainhill


The founder of the Sockbridge Lancasters is often said to have been Christopher Lancaster who married Joana de Lowther (see below). He is in turn said to have been a son of Roger de Lancaster, Sherriff of Lancaster, and Keeper of the King's Forest North of the Trent. This is however incorrect, and Roger was not his father. Below shows the correct descent based upon the article by Rev. F. W. Ragg of 1910 as well as other references where mentioned.

An important reference for Ragg and all students of this subject is the oldest known pedigree of the family which he found, which is apparently this one.

Founding Charters

The three main land possessions which this family held, over a very long period, where the manors (and this can mean moieties of manors) of Sockbridge, Hartsop (in Patterdale) and Strickland Roger (in Kendal). They also held other lands such as parts of Sleagill (in Morland), and Strickland Ketel over the long term. Here are some of the charters which mark the start of this dynasty, the grants to Gilbert de Lancaster, all as transcribed by Reverend Ragg in articles in the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (CWAAS). His proposed modern spellings are in normal curved parentheses, while mine are in square brackets:

Grant by William de Lancaster II of half of Sockbridge, with damaged sections guessed at as per Ragg...

Know all who are and all who are to come that I William de Lancastre have given and granted and by this my charter have confirmed to Gilbert my son half of the manor of Sockbridge, namely of that Socabrec which Huchtred (son of Ketel) held of my father in the part where Likmasike and Forellsike (or Sorelsike) descend to the Eamont; to be held by him and his heirs freely and undisturbedly in honorable tenure and in its integrity in woodland and cleared land, in earth and water, in meadow and in pasture and in all its liberties, in fee and inheritance, of me and my heirs, for his free service, he giving to me and my heirs two shillings yearly - not to include the King's forensic services:- namely twelve pence at Pentecost and twelve pence at the feast of St Martin.

Witness: Helewisa my wife, Helesius de Stivetone, William de Lancastre, Gervase de Ainecurt, Horm the steward, Anselm son of Michael (le Fleming) [...] William the chaplain, Uctred son of Osulf.

Grant of Henry son of Norman de Redeman of half of Sockbridge:

Know all those living as well as those to come that I, Henry son of Norman de Redeman, have given and granted and by this my charter have confirmed to Gilbert de Lancaster the whole of my moiety of Sockbridge with all its belongings for his homage and service, to be held by him and my heirs in fee and heredity as secure freehold, in woodland and cleared land, in roads and paths, in meadows and pastures and all its parts, he rendering to me yearly certain spurs for me and my heirs in lieu of all service saving forensic service.

As witness these: Adam the dean of Lancaster, Gervase de Eyncurt, Adam Gernet, Roger son of Adam, Herbert de Ellel, Patrick de Berwick, Gamel the forester, Edulf the reeve and many others.

[Ragg in his Early Barton points out that "even in the reign of James I the Inq. p. mortem of 15 Oct 17 Jame I (1619 AD) given in 'Records of Kendale,' shows us that Edward Lancaster held the manor of Sockbred and land in Tirell of the heirs of Matthew Redman by service of a pair of spurs". As mentioned above, this moiety of the manor had been held by Uchtred son of Ketel.
The moiety of Sockbridge not held by Gilbert was held by the D'Aincourts, and was sometimes referred to as Little Sockbridge. It seems to have included some part of Tirrell and perhaps all of Winder. It was also apparently originally the property of someone called Waltheof.]

Agreement made by William son of Godefrid and Gilbert de Lancaster concerning Barton Mill...

This is an agreement made between William, son of Godefrid and his heirs and Gilbert de Lancaster and his heirs: that is to say that the aforesaid William and his heirs have conveyed and quitclaimed to the aforesaid Gilbert de Lancaster and his heirs the third part of the mill of Barton with the multure (dues) and the suit and all its belongings, except the land which remains to the aforesaid William and his heirs, that namely which lies close to the aforenamed mill. And be it understood that the aforesaid Gilbert and his heirs shall hold this aforesaid third part of the mill of Barton in perpetuity for the goods (? farm stock) which the same Gilbert gave to the aforesaid William at the beginning of this agreement and for 20 acres of land which the same Gilbert gave to the same William. Also be understood that the aforesaid Gilbert and his heirs shall possess this third part of the mill of Barton free and quit of all service, and that the afore-mentioned William and his heirs will warrant this third part of the said mill as long as they can warrant it to themselves, and the aforesaid Gilbert and his heirs will warrant these 20 acres aforesaid to the aforesaid William and his heirs shall be able to warrant to the aforesaid Gilbert and his heirs the third part of the aforesaid mill. Also the aforesaid Gilbert and his heirs shall discharge the third part of the "farm" of the said mill, namely 8s. yearly half at Palm Sunday and half at the octaves of St Peter and St Paul (July 6). Moreover the aforesaid Gilbert and his heirs shall provide for the aforesaid mill what belongs to the third part of its whole expenses. Also the aforesaid Gilbert to the aforesaid William one toft in Sockbridge or in Tirril and the common of pasture with all his freeholders in Sockbridge.

As witness these: Henry de Redeman, Anselm de Furness, Adam Gernet, Richard de Barbon, Gilbert his brother, Gamel the forester, Richard de Burc, William son of Ketel, Richard son of Alard, William de Thrimby and many others.

Grant by William Lancaster II of Hartsop...

Know all living and to come that I William, son of William de Lancaster, have given and granted and by this my charter confirmed to Gilbert my son the manor of Hartsop with its belongings and common of pasture according to these bounds:- beginning at the great Kirkstone road the boundary ascends to the head of Caudale and descends, and then ascends to Fresswald [Perhaps Threshthwaite? Or Froswick?] below Aidesdale [I believe this is the dale of Hayeswater, once known as Ayles water. See further below.], and then to Thomas Knott (The Knott), and descends to Rost dode (Rest dod) by Martindale forest and thence descends a sike to the middle of Angletarn and descends a beck to the waters called Hee: and it ascends below Robshow Cross and thence top the head of Roukin by Deepdale head and to the head of Dovecrag and thence to the head of Woffecove? and thence it descends to the great Kirkstone road. This aforesaid land I have given to him and his heirs of me and my heirs in undisturbed possession as freehold, in woodland and cleared land, meadows and pastures and with all its liberties, he paying yearly two shillings in lieu of all service: namely 12d. at Pentecost and 12d. at the feast of St Martin.

Witnesses, Walter abbot of Furness, Norman Redman, Gervase Eyncurt, Robert Mustell, Walter Tailbois.

[Aidesdale is an important problem here, which will be discussed further below, but several of the places mentioned retain their names today and still define the bounds of Hartsop. Even more notably, Nicholson and Burn say that Aisdale is one mile from Hartsop and the place where Haiswater is. I have not identified Hee, Robshaw Cross and Roukin, but their position is clear enough. They are likely to be Goldrill Beck, Hartsop above How, and Hart Crag. Woffecove must be one of the recesses in the cliffs on Red Screes, such as Snow Cove, or the one between Raven Crag and Kilshaw Chimney, or perhaps most likely the one between Middle Dodd and Red Screes. The modern definition of Hartsop is very similar to the above, if not identical.]

Grant by William de Lancaster II of half of Sockbridge, land in Patterdale (approximately Hartsop)...

William son of William de Lancaster grants and confirms to his son Gilbert a moiety of Sockbridge with its belongings and common of pasture as held by the tenants at Barton; also he grants him land in Patricksdale (Patterdale) namely that which is between Duppedale [Deepdale] and Aiclesdale as the flow of water from Aiclesdale goes into the duct of Glentreske, and from the duct of Glentreske as far as the duct of Brudescarth [This must be Brothers Water] and from that duct to Kirkstain (Kirkstone) and up to the head of Hartsop and to the head of Sengelstain and then to the head of Charleresdale: this grant is for his homage and service in freehold. The dues besides forensic service to be 2s. yearly, payable in equal portions at Whitsuntide and St. Martin's day.

Testibus Waltero Abbate Furnes: Normanno dapifero, Michaele Flem[ing] de Furn[ess], Anselmo filio ejusdem, Grimbaldo de Helhale, Gervasio de Haincurt, Ricardo fil. Alardi, Johe. clerico.

[Roughly Hartsop is being described as everything between Deepdale in the west and Aiclesdale in the east. It is helpful to consider that the "ducts", where the waters flow to, have to be in the north towards Patterdale hamlet, and the "heads" where they flow from, have to be mainly in the south. Here we see that concerning Aiclesdale, which must be the same as Aidesdale above, it has waters which flow to "Glentreske" (a lost name, but possibly equivalent to Threshthwaite Glen.) and then to Brothers water, once known as Broad Water. Sengelstain and Charlersdale do not easily correspond to any modern name but the lesser dales of Hartsop today are Dovedale and Caiston Glen on the Deepdale (western) side of the road to Kirkstone (with High Hartsop Dodd between them); and Caudale and Thresthwaite Glen (which holds Pasture Beck) on the eastern side towards Hayeswater (with Hartsop Dodd between them).
Concerning the above definitions of Hartsop, it is interesting to compare to the definitions of Martindale, as possessed in the 1200s by Lord Roger de Lancastre of Rydal, because it was defined as bordering on the forest of Gilbert de Lancaster. Several charters are contained in Ragg (1910). The main one defines the boundary as starting at a point on the "Brethstrett" (the Roman "High Street"). In the grant of Martindale to Roger de Lancaster of Rydal, there are two mentions of a summit on the Roman High Street which defines the boundary point splitting Fusedale, Martindale and the ridge of "Knotcanane". I think Ragg is right to suggest that this must be the ridge which includes Steel Knotts, which make the summit probably Gowk Hill and Wether Hill. (Albert Wainwright describes this ridge as beginning at Gowk Hill, which he in turns describes as an extension of Wether Hill, which is on the Roman High Street.) I think the grant did not intend to say that Gilbert's forest goes as far as Wether Hill, but only to another part of the High Street nearby The Knott.]

Confirmation by Helewise de Lancaster, legitimate heir of William de Lancaster II of her father's grant to Gilbert de Lancaster...

Know all, those present as well as those to come, that I Helewis daughter of William de Lancaster [II] have granted and by this my present charter have confirmed to Gilbert my brother all the lands which my father gave him; viz. Slegille with its belongings and Sockebroc and Tyrerghe [Tirrell] with their belongings and the whole land of Patrickdale [Patterdale] as secure freehold held by the same liberties and services and with the same boundaries as the charters of my father, which he has, attest.

As witness these: Henry the steward, Robert de Pinkeni, James le Fleming, William de Arundel, Gervase de Aencurt, Vivien son of Viel, Mathew Gernet, Gamel the forester, Ralf de Kellet, Roger de Croft, Richard the cleric, and many others.

[Slegille is probably Sleagill in the ancient parish of Morland, which was a apparently anciently considered to be part of nearby Newby.]

Grant by Gilbert, son of Roger fitz Reinfrid, husband of Helewise...

Know those living as well as those to come that I Gilbert son of Roger sons of Raifrai have given and granted and by this my present charter have confirmed to Gilbert de Lancaster all my part of Aitlerdale and all my land of l'Haukesite [The apostrophe and the "H" are apparently inserted by Ragg who believes this is Hawkshead]. The aforenamed lands I have given to him and to his heirs to be held from me and of my heirs for homage and service in secure freehold and honourable tenure in woodland, cleared land, field and meadow and in all other liberties belonging; he giving to me and to my heirs a "sore" sparrow hawk or 12d. on the assumption of St. Mary, for all service so far as pertains to me.

As witness these: Richard son of Roger, Ralf de Arundel, William de Arundel, Lambert de Bussai, Henry de Redeman, Ralf de Bethum, Roger de Burton, Geoffrey de Preston, and many others.

[Ragg and his contemporaries found the place names in this document quite mysterious and Ragg was pleased to be able to suggest Hawkshead for Laukesite. This would be remarkable, but must perhaps be considered very speculative. Based upon this he suggested that Aitlerdale must be have something to do with Elterwater near Hawkshead. However he appears to have missed the similarity to Aiclesdale and Aidesdale mentioned above.]

Grant by Uchtred son of Ketel, of land in Strickland Ketel...

Know those living as well as those to come that I Uchtred son of Ketell have given and granted and by this my present charter have confirmed to Gilbert de Lancaster and his heirs the fourth part of all the land which William de Lancaster gave to my father Ketell in Stirkland; in lands and tenements in woodland and cleared land in meadows and fields and pastures, in road and way in water and pasturage and in all liberties, for his homage and service; he paying yearly 6 pence; viz 3d. at Easter and 3d. at Michaelmas - saving forensic service.

As witness these: Richard Mustel, Richard son of Helsi, William son of Ketell, Robert de Morvill, Adam de Asctuait, Bernard son of Ketell, and many others.

[Ragg notes the family of Ketel's importance here and proposes that this is the Ketel after whom Strickland Ketel was named. They may be related to the Lancasters, who named Ketel son of Eldred as one of their ancestors. It is also notable that Gilbert received one moiety of Sockbridge from Uchtred also.
In later documents collected by Ragg concerning Martindale in the 1200s, it is mentioned that Robert son of Uchtred used to have a shieling somewhere in the lands of Roger de Lancastre of Rydal, who held Martindale, and land between there and Barton church. Rights to such a shieling were later successfully claimed by the de Tirrell family.]

Concerning Strickland Roger, under this heading Farrer and Curwen give the following entries in their "Records relating to the Barony of Kendal":, for the years 1186–1200:


Generation 1.

1. Gilbert de Lancaster (approx 1150-1220). The founder of the Lancasters of Sockbridge was an illegitimate son of William de Lancaster II (died 1184). The well-known family of William de Lancaster II is described more on another webpage. His grandfather was William de Lancastre I and his wife Gundred. The great grandfather was named Gilbert, not yet known as Lancaster, but possibly known as a Tailbois, and his wife was Godith. Godith, or perhaps Gilbert, was a sibling to Ketel fitz Eldred, ancestor of the Curwens. (This is apparent because Ketel is named as an uncle, avunculus, to William de Lancastre I on several occasions in old documents.)

Reverend Ragg had to admit error in 1910 and accept that William de Lancaster II, Baron of Kendal, had an illegitimate son to whom he left significant rights, with his wife Hawise de Stuteville standing as a witness. Late in his father's life Gilbert was enfeoffed of the main moiety of the manor of Sockbridge and Tirrell, the manor in Patterdale which came to be called Hartsop, and Slegill. Gilbert was older than Hawise de Stuteville, who was the mother of William de Lancaster's legitimate heir, Gilbert's half sister, Hawise de Lancaster, who married Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, and passed the Lancaster name on to her son William de Lancaster III.

Gilbert appears on many charters of his father named clearly as his son. He is certainly not a son-in-law as Ragg had previously thought: Apparently some historians have assumed that “Gilbert de Lancaster” mentioned in many other records during all these years was in fact Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, using the name which his son and father-in-law certainly used. But this ignores the fact that the two Gilberts often appear together in these charters. In 1208 Gilbert de Lancaster even represented Gibert Fitz Reinfrid and his wife in a legal case. In fact, it is doubtful to me that Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid ever used the name “de Lancaster” in his own lifetime.

For Ragg the clinching evidence which made him realize his error in his Charter III, also reproduced above. Helewise, the legitimate daughter of William II, confirms her father's grants to Gilbert her brother. It could indeed not be much more clear.

Gilbert's wife was Sapience as shown by Ragg in an un-dated charter made after the death of her husband (Ragg's Charter V). In the charter, Sapience, as a free widow leases her own third portion of Staynerhead to "Sir Gilbert de Lancaster". Ragg interprets this to be Gilbert fitz Reinfrid, and uses this fact to estimate that Gilbert died about 1220. In fact I think Ragg was probably once again making the same error which also led to the above mentioned error that he admitted to. I can think of no clear cases of Gilbert fitz Reinfrid being referred to with the de Lancastre surname, and if they exist they are rare. Surely she must be referring to the next Sir Gilbert of Sockbridge, discussed below. The tone of the document must therefore raise doubts about whether the second Gilbert is Sapience's son.

Apart from Sockbridge, as mentioned above, in 1180–1200 "Uchtred son of Ketel granted to Gilbert de Lancastre a 4th part of the land in Stirkeland which William de Lancastre had given to Ketel the grantor's father, to hold for 6d. yearly." According to Ragg's interpretation, Gilbert FitzReinfrid also gave Gilbert de Lancaster possession of Hawkshead (though by 1196 Fitz Reinfrid's claims on this area had been overcome by Furness Abbey), according to a charter found by Ragg (his Charter IV).

We know very little about this period at all, but we know at least one son...

  1. Gilbert de Lancastre "junior"

  2. William de Lancastre? SPECULATION BY ME

  3. Walter de Lancastre? SPECULATION BY ME

2. Jordan de Lancaster, though less well-known (Ragg apparently missed him), also appeared in charters, sometimes explicitly Gilbert's brother and/or William's son.
He seems to have also have been provided for by his extended family (including his step mother, Hawise de Stuteville, with whom he apparently went to the important castle of Knaresburgh in Yorkshire, a seat of her family and also for a while of her new husband, the famous Hugh de Morville, apparently one of the murderers of Thomas a Becket). I have speculated about this less known Lancaster in an article in Foundations Vol. 2, No. 4, July 2007.

3. Isabel de Lancaster who was wife to Ivo de Veteripont is a possible sister of Gilbert and Jordan.
Ragg suggests that this Isabel might be a daughter of William de Lancaster I, in his de Veteripont paper. This is presumably because her age seems to make it impossible for her to be a daughter of Helewise de Stuteville (she died by 1227 but is estimated by some to be born about 1160). However, given that it seems certain the William de Lancaster II had illegitimate children before his marriage later in life, he could also be the father. Perhaps her mother's identity is hinted at by the fact that she brought three possessions to her marriage, Blencarn, Ainstable and Waverton, which in her era were all subject to various claims and disputes b
y members of the de Thursby family.
(My thanks to Pat Junkin for helping me understand who this Isabel might be.)


Generation 2.

1.1. Gilbert de Lancastre "junior" (approx 1180-1265). This is the next in the main line of the Sockbridge Lancasters after the first Gilbert de Lancaster. We do not have definite proof that he was a son, and as mentioned above we can at least doubt that Gilbert junior is the son of the first Gilbert's widow Sapience. But it is at least clear that Gilbert junior is heir, and it is clear that...

  1. This Gilbert appears along with the older Gilbert as a witness on a charter of Gilbert Fitz Reinfred concerning land in Stavely, named as "Gilberto de Lancastre, juniore" (the younger) around 1189-1201 (See XXV, page 317), and...

  2. During the incidents surrounding the “Magna Carta”, in 1216, when Gilbert FitzReinfrid, heir of William de Lancaster II, was asked to provide hostages in order to have his son William de Lancaster III released from custody by King John, one suggestion was “the son of Gilbert de Lancastre”. So there was a son, who had some importance and was therefore presumably heir presumptive.

One piece of evidence I do not consider relevant: In 1246, at the passing of William de Lancaster III, son of Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, two Gilberts are present, at least one being a de Lancaster. The constable of Kirkby Kendal with grant in Quitewelle (Whitwell) is identified by Farrer as a Lancaster, but this seems doubtful to me. Possibly Farrer is suggesting this because another charter (See XIX, page 231) mentions Gilberto de Loncastra senescallo de Kendala, but this is dated 1197 or 1198, a generation earlier than 1246. This could be Gilbert or his father, but it is not evidence of two Gilbert de Lancastres in 1246.

So it seems highly likely that this heir would also be the same man who appeared in the charter together with his father.

Gilbert's wife was Christiana, through whom Ragg believes that the Sockbridge line acquired their property in Hertsop. (However, he apparently forgot the evidence that Gilbert's father already possessed it, see the charters above.) His more general point however, that she seems to have some rights of her own in Barton, is likely to be correct. Ragg seems to think she might be from the family with three stags heads in their arms, which arms are found in Barton church on their own, but also found combined with Lancaster arms in Sockbridge Hall, Hartsop Hall, and in the church. Nicholson and Burn suggest that these arms might be related to those of the Bartons of Great Ormside, who seem to have come from Barton. The Huttons of Penrith also had similar arms. I see no evidence for the suggestion that there was ever a surname "Hartsop".

Perhaps not fully consistent, on p.401 Ragg also suggests that Gilbert's wife might have been the illegitimate daughter of William de Stuteville, concerning whom Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid paid the king two palfreys in 1212 in order to control her marriage.

In 1246 at the death of William de Lancaster III, Gilbert was present. Gilbert and an apparent kinsman named Walter appear to be linked with Patterdale, holding lands which were granted to William's half brother Roger:

200 acres of land of his demesne in Patterdale worth 4l. yearly, and of one Mill worth 60s., and of herbage and pannage worth 14s. yearly, and of the farm of free tenants to the value of 18s. 10d.
The said Roger has the service of Gilbert de Lancastre, who holds by knight's service by the tenth part of one knight's fee.
And the service of Walter de Lancastre, who holds by knight's service, by the tenth part of one knight's fee.

Concerning this wording, Gilbert must have held Hartsop, which is counted as part of Patterdale for many purposes, but I am not confident that all Walter and Gilbert's lands under Roger were necesarily all in Patterdale. 

Gilbert and Christiana, along with other residents of Barton, were involved in several legal cases against their relative and overlord, Lord Roger de Lancaster “de Rydal”, the illegitimate son of Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, and half brother of William de Lancastre III. The first was in 1255-56. (Ragg cites Assize roll 979, & Westmorland Feet of Fines 40 H III.) In this case it seems that 1/20 of a knight's fee was actually for Hartsop (but it was then increased to become 1/10). So the implication is that Gilbert already in 1246 had held some other land under Roger, apart from Hartsop, worth 1/20th of a knight's fee?

And later, after Gilbert's demise, in the 1270s (Assize Roll 980: 1278/79) Christiana, now a widow, and their son Roger, had more legal conflict with Lord Roger. Some of the debate was concerning grazing rights in Roger's block of lands of Martindale, Fusedale and Swarthfell, and another specific case was concerning the Sockbridge family's mill in Barton. (But there must have been a mill from very early times. See Ragg charter VI.) This record makes it clear that Gilbert "junior" had been responsible for erecting this mill, and that a third of the income was part of Christiana's widow's portion.

Ragg notes that another entry in Assize Roll 980 emphasizes the service owed was socage, not cornage, shows that Roger was still under-age in the period of that roll. I think we can also equate this Gilbert with “Sir Gilbert de Lancastre” mentioned in a charter concerning Hugh of Sockbridge in about 1255-70.

This period continues to be hazy, but again we know of at least one son...

  1. Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

  2. John de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY REV. RAGG.

  3. Gilbert de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME.

1.2. Walter de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME. In 1246, as mentioned above, a Walter de Lancastre was a tenant of William de Lancastre III mentioned in the same record of testament as Gilbert de Lancastre. The document mentions all the dales of western Barton as being held by either Roger de Lancastre or Gilbert de Lancastre, except Glenridding and Deepdale. And a Walter of about this generation was the ancestor, it seems, of the Lancasters of Howgill castle who held Glenridding and Deepdale for many generations. See the webpage about this family. But it should be noted that concerning Walter, although we have such evidence that he is a close relative, we have no specific evidence about the relationship. (So for example he might be a grandson of Jordan de Lancastre mentioned above.)

1.3. William de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME. In 1246 a William son of Gilbert de Lancaster withdrew a claim against William de Lancaster, presumably William de Lancaster III, Baron of Kendal, regarding a tenement in Stannerley in Furness; Assize R. 404, m. 12. This is all very tenuous because the places and people involved could equally point to Lancasters from Lancashire.


Generation 3.

1.1.1. Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge (approx 1260-1290). As mentioned above, that Roger was son and heir of Gilbert is clear from legal records. Roger was underage when his father died sometime before 1277. But Roger had himself died by 1291 at the latest.
His widow Isabella paid 33 pound 2 shillings for custody of his heir Gilbert (Ragg refers to Assize roll 986), and one of the people who vouchsafed this was Walter de Lancastre. In the same roll Matthew de Redman paid a larger amount for the right to dispose of their son Gilbert's marriage. It appears as if Roger died not long before his homonymous overlord Roger de Lancastre of Rydal.

I notice a case in 1281: a Roger de Lancastre touching possessions in Stirkeland Ketel and Kirkeby in Kendale.

Ragg calculates the value of his possessions as follows, by comparing different documents:

Lancastres of Sockbridge:
value of their service in several inquisitions of their lords

William de Lancastre III (1246)
Peter de Brus (1279)
William de Ros (1310)

TOTAL

1/10. Gilbert de Lancastre
Ragg thinks this only included Sockbridge and Tirrell, but I am not sure why.

1/4. Roger son of Gilbert de Lancastre.
Sockbridge and Slegill.

1/3. Gilbert de Lancaster III
Sockbridge, Tirrell, Slegill, Strickland Roger, Banandesdale

Sockbridge and Tirrell

Ragg thinks 1/10.
I wonder why it should not be 1/20.

Ragg thinks 1/10.
(1/20? See previous.)

Ragg thinks 1/10.
(1/20? See previous.)

Hartsop

Ragg thinks 0.
I wonder why it would not be 1/20.

1/10
Documents show it had been 1/20, but increased by Roger to 1/10.

1/10

Slegill

 

1/20
Calculated by subtraction, by Ragg. (If Sockbridge and Tirrell was only 1/20, then the answer should have been 1/10.)

1/20
(1/10? See previous.)

Strickland Roger and Banandesdale

 

 

1/12
(calculated by subtraction by Ragg)

Once again, several sons can be suggested, this time the evidence allows us to feel more confident about asserting more than just the main heir.

  1. Gilbert de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

  2. Phillip de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY REV. RAGG.

  3. John de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME.

1.1.2? John de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY REV. RAGG. Ragg cites a 1318 document where a younger Gilbert de Lancaster discussed below, husband of Alice L'Engleys mentions John, son of Gilbert de Lancaster, in contrast to the "right heirs" of Gilbert de Lancaster, by whom is presumably meant the petitioner himself. Hence Ragg concludes that this John was uncle to Gilbert who was making the petition.

I wonder why Ragg did not suggest that this might simply have been an illegitimate son of the this later Gilbert.

1.1.3? Gilbert de Lancaster. I very tentatively note a Gilbert in the period implied:

In Poulton John son of William de Parles in and about 1277 granted common of pasture to Gilbert de Lancaster, between the pool of Bare and the field of Halleberg, and between the sand of Kent and the bounds of Torrisholme, and these grants were confirmed by Alan son of John de Parles; Kuerden MSS. iii, P 8. John le Gentyl was in possession in 1285, when he was called upon to defend his right to a tenement in Poulton claimed by Gilbert de Lancaster; Assize R. 1271, m. 12. This claim occurs again in 1301; ibid. 419, m. 9.

This is closer to Lancaster itself, and so it might be an entirely different family, or a distant relative. See the webpage dedicated to the Barons of Kendal for examples.


Generation 4.

1.1.1.1. Gilbert de Lancastre of Sockbridge (approx 1285-1345). Under-age in 1291. Inactive after 1335. As mentioned briefly above, Gilbert is first recorded as an underage heir in 1291 when his father died and his mother had to pay to keep custody of him. Ragg identified Gilbert from two other very clear documents: the post mortem inquisition of William de Ros in 1309 mentions Gilbert as a son of Isabella and Roger; and a 1310 grant describes him as Gilbert de Lancaster, son of Roger de Lancaster of Sokebred (Sockbridge). His wife was Alice L'Engleys.

Apart from Sockbridge he held Tirril and Slegill. He also held the hamlets of Strickland Roger and Bannisdale in 1310. (See Ragg's analysis above.)
In 1318 he made a complaint that William Langleys and his brothers carried away goods at Sockbridge (Patent Rolls). This is interesting because it appears that at about this same time he married William's daughter
Alice Lengleys. A final concord and charter describes the estate as the manors of Sockbred and Hertesop, a messuage and carucate of land and 3000 acres of pasture in Stirkland Ketil.
A
John son of Gilbert de Lancastre stood to inherit if Gilbert and Alice had no heirs (Ragg suggests he might be an uncle; I wonder if John might be a son of the present Gilbert to another wife, or perhaps illegitimate.) By 1330 Gilbert's son Christopher was the clear leading heir. He was granted “a messuage and 60 a. land in Sokebred (Sockbridge) in Barton and all his lands and tenements in Skelmesergh, Stirkeland Roger, Fatherbank (in Staveley), and in Sleddale in the vill of Stirkeland Ketil; also the reversion of his lands and tenements in Whynfell which Robert de Lancastre holds by the grantor's demise for the term of his life”. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=49290, http://edenlinks.rootsweb.com/1gp/RECORDS/FAR/SROGER.HTM, and http://edenlinks.rootsweb.com/1gp/RECORDS/FAR/BANN.HTM. Ragg says that in 1334 this was followed by gifts in Thorp and Tirergh (Tirril), 1/3 of the profits of Barton Mill, and the services of his tenants in Slegil, Sokebred, and Tirergh.
Gilbert is mentioned in a commission by parliamentary writ in 1325, and 1326.
There is a letter of protection, January 24, 1320, for Gilbert de Lancastre, who was involved in the fighting with Scotland at the time, along with Walter de Stirkland, John de Rosegill, William de Veteri Ponte, John de Hurteworth, John de Stapleton, Robert le Brun, and Thomas de Hethwait, all with Andrew de Hartcla. [C 71/10, m. 1]. Another protection is mentioned in the patent rolls of 1322.

There is a special patent roll entry in 1335 which gives Gilbert exemption for life "from being put on assizes, juries, or recognisances, and from appointment as mayor, sheriff, coroner, escheator, or other bailiff or minister of the king, against his will."
The last grant of Gilbert to his son is from 1334, but he seems to appear in other documents later, for example as a witness to a grant in 1339. By 1357 Christopher was making grants to his own son, also named Gilbert.

This time we know of several sons, as already indicated...

  1. Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge.

  2. Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

  3. Robert de Lancaster.

  4. John de Lancaster son of Gilbert? SPECULATION BY ME

1.1.1.2. Phillip de Lancaster, son of Roger de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY REV. RAGG. He was mentioned in the 1318 documents (Ragg charter XII) involving the transfer of rights from Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge to his heir Gilbert. See below.

I am not confident about this assertion as the relationship is not named. He plays the role of a trusted person such as any trusted relative might have played. (He was appointed to receive seisin by the interim feofee John de Haverington, but was obviously not the heir. This is probably not something another son would normally be assigned to hold for his brother the heir.) I can also not ignore that there is evidence that there was another Roger de Lancaster in Westmorland at this time, son to a Thomas de Lancaster, and a local to the area of Kendal.

1.1.1.3. John de Lancaster son of Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge. SPECULATION BY ME. He was involved in a case brought by Walter de Strickland in 1312.

S.H. Lee Washington cited it in his article on the The Early History of the Stricklands of Sizergh:

...on a Westmoreland De Banco Roll of 1312, where the entire d'Eyncourt descent is appended during the course of some proceedings between Sir Walter de Strickland and John, son of Sir Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge. This valuable entry states that in the Easter Term of the year 1312 "John son of Roger de Lancaster was summoned to answer Walter de Stirkeland regarding common of pasture in the vill of Barton. And the said Walter, by Adam de Burton, his attorney, claimed common of pasture. in two thousand acres of moor and pasture and three hundred acres of wood in Barton for all manner of cattle throughout the year, of which his ancestor Gervase [d'Eyncourt] was seised in the time of King Henry, grandfather of the King [Edward III]...".

What should be checked about this entry is whether it really says "of Sockbridge". Normally a John son of Roger in Barton in this period would refer to John de Lancaster of Grisedale, and there are various such examples (just some examples from Assize Roll 987 for 1292: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.). For another example there also the John mentioned in a 1292 case where he claimed a right to have a market at Pooley Bridge, based on a right accorded to William de Lancaster in 1214. The records specify that he was rejected because he could not show he was the heir. That he would dare try to prove it and then fail seems good evidence would match the Sockbridge family's credentials as descendants of an illegitimate son, but this also applies to John of Grisedale.

This John probably also participated in the wars with Scotland. A letter of protection exists covering John son of Roger de Lancaster, made April 24 1314. [C71/6, m. 3, 1716].

I also see evidence for a son of this John, also named John...

  1. John de Lancaster son of John? SPECULATION BY ME


Generation 5.

The children of Gilbert de Lancaster of Sockbridge (the third of that name).

It seems that Gilbert ended up splitting the major manors between two sons, but as it happened, they all ended up in the hands of one of them, late in life. It might be thought that Roger, who married well, was the main heir who just happened to die young, but I think otherwise.

1.1.1.1.1. Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge (approx 1315-1386). This is the first Christopher in the family, and he was long remembered, it seems, in the family. The family tree explained so far above is not well known, but all old accounts of the family recognized Christopher as the family leader of his time, and also that he married Joanne, the daughter of Hugh de Lowther of Lowther Castle. Less well known is that he probably married late, and Joanne was probably not the mother of his children. As shown by Ragg, his first wife appears to have been named Margaret.
Christopher's parentage is commonly given incorrectly, with his father being impossibly equated to Roger de Lancaster of Rydal who lived 100 years earlier, probably because it was known he was involved in the inheritance discussions of a Roger (his brother). But the records of Strickland Roger make it clear that he was the son of a Gilbert, and records for Strickland Ketel make it clear he was the brother of Roger. See http://edenlinks.rootsweb.com/1gp/RECORDS/FAR/SROGER.HTM.
Christopher, already married, was enfeoffed of land in the 1300s, long before his brother died, so it
may be that he was always intended to be the main heir.

Christopher had sons at least, the most important heirs were apparently to his first (but less known) wife Margaret...

  1. Gilbert de Lancaster.

  2. William de Lancaster.

  3. John de Lancaster.

...and possibly to another mother, perhaps not Joana Lowther...

  1. John de Lancaster, son of Isabel de Wyndesore.

  2. Thomas de Lancaster, son of Isabel de Wyndesore.

1.1.1.1.2. Roger de Lancaster (of Sockbridge) (approx 1315-1353). Authors who are aware of him appear to assume he was the elder brother, but this seems to be based on trying to recover some meaning for the old family trees which say that Christopher was the son of someone named Roger, which is demonstrably wrong. It might also be influenced by the fact that he married well, and hence held important lands with his wife, who was a distant relative. In any case he held important parts of the Lancaster holdings in his generation. He might have been the eldest legitimate son but he (and then apparently his son) died young.

He and his brother Christopher held a moiety each of the manors of Sockbridge and Kirkby Kendal. Roger also the pasture called Bannisdale in Strickland, and various other lands in the area. He died about 1353, whereupon his son Alexander was only 16 years old (according to Ragg's reading). The several subsequent inquests named him as a son of Gilbert de Lancastre on 3 occasions, but the son of Thomas on another. Several exact-looking but different death dates are also given! Alexander apparently did not live long enough to inherit, because in 1369, when we come to a later inquest of his death, and his wife Margaret's death, the next heir is now named as “Joan, wife of William le Taillour, aged 30, presumably a daughter. She came of age in 1370. Christopher de Lancaster of Sockbridge seems to have been a close relative and apparently seized his lands for a while after his wife and male heir died. See http://edenlinks.rootsweb.com/1gp/RECORDS/FAR/BANN.HTM. His wife’s name was Margaret, and Ragg found that evidence that she was Margaret de Ros in that she mentions Thomas de Ros in a 1365 grant as her brother. She had also died by by 1369. This means that she one of the most important heirs of William de Lancaster III, a distant cousin from the most important line of de Lancasters, the Barons of Kendal. In 1369 it is said that Cristofer de Lancastre took possession of all the lands and tenements except the two parts of pasture in Banandesdales from which the profits went to the king.

The inquisitions tell us that he possessed

From the documents after his death, we know his children, or at least his direct heirs...

  1. Alexander de Lancaster.

  2. Joan, wife of William le Taillour.

1.1.1.1.1. Robert de Lancaster (of Whinfell)."1335 Gilbert de Lancaster demises to his son, Robert de Lancastre, for life, his lands and tenements in Whynfell in Kendale, with reversion to Christopher the grantor's son". This Robert was also mentioned as being in line for Asby in a concord of Sir William Lengleys and Elena his wife in 1329 - in other words his mother's family.

1.1.1.1.4. John de Lancaster son of Gilbert. SPECULATION BY ME. As mentioned above Gilbert de Lancaster, father to this generation, mentioned a John son of Gilbert as the heir should none of his other heirs live.

Although Ragg does not interpret it this way (he thinks he might be an uncle, see above), this seems to me to be a style most commonly used for illegitimate sons. Probably we will never know.

1.1.1.1.5. Richard Lancaster is named as "second sonne" in a pedigree made in Sockbridge in 1575. I suspect the family was remembering Robert?


The proposed son of John de Lancaster, son of Roger de Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.4.1. John, son of John de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY ME. Like his seeming father, he was involved in a case brought by Walter de Strickland for suit of his mills in Barton in 1323/4 (from Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls in "Antiquary" 1890, XXI, p.101). Gilbert de Lancaster and Adam de Carleton were also on the side of John. A John de Lancaster also appeared in Strickland Ketel in 1342.

However, because he is called a knight, and he seems to have a connection to Grasmere, we must wonder whether, despite the connection to Strickland Ketel, he may be the more well-known Sir John de Lancaster, son of Roger de Lancaster of Rydal, who was a member of parliament. See the webpage for this family.


Generation 6.

The children of Christopher de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.1.1. Gilbert de Lancaster (approx 1335-1380). Died before his father, who died not long before 1387. He already had children in 1371, when grants were being made by his father in order to establish his future possessions of Sockbridge, Strickland Roger, Hartsop, and land in Barton (11 messuages 63 acres of land and meadow adjacent to the same messuages, 60 acres and 1 rood of land and 1 acre of meadow of the demesne, with their belongings).

A 1357 indenture mention Gilbert's wife as Elizabeth, but a later charter from the 1370 Feet of Fines we see Gilbert son of Christopher with his wife Margaret, making a concord with William de Hoton in Foresta. Ragg suggests that Margaret was therefore a de Hoton.
In 1358, a Gilbert appears in patent rolls as one of many people who attacked one Patrick de Blande in Ewcross. This might not be the one from Sockbridge.
It is understood from old pedigrees that Gilbert died before his father. Also, a document in the hands of David Hall shows that Christopher had recently died in 1387. Christopher's widow Joane made a document in that year to grant her dower and life interest in the manors of Hartsop and Sockbridge to Christopher's "heir and kinsman" of William de Lancaster.

Although he died before his father, he had legitimate children who became the main heirs. And like his father he may have had a child apart from his legitimate ones...

  1. John de Lancaster.

  2. William de Lancaster.

  3. Thomas Gibonson (Gilbert's son)? SPECULATION BY RAGG.

1.1.1.1.1.2. William de Lancaster. Second in line for Hartsop, Sockbridge and Strickland Roger. I once proposed this man might be William de Lancaster of Hartsop of the 1400s, but he is clearly too old. In and around 1371 William was mentioned in the documents made by his father concerning inheritance for his children. In one, William is specified to "received seisin of the manor of Hertsop with its belongings". However, as explained above, the heir of Christopher in his three major manors, including Hartsop, according to his widow's statements was named William but was a kinsman (cosyn or consanguinius), not described a son.

1.1.1.1.1.3. John de Lancaster. Third in line for Hartsop, Sockbridge and Strickland Roger in 1371. SPECULATING: I believe this John can be equated to John de Lancaster of Brampton.

The publication, Records relating the Barony of Kendal (Farrer and Curwen eds), both concerning Strickland Roger, and concerning Kirkby Kendal, lead me to suggest that this man became John de Lancaster of Brampton, probably the founder of the Lancasters of Brampton. The earliest clear mention of the "of Brampton" name I have found so far is in the Calendar of Fine Rolls for 1388, where he was commissioned to collect some taxes in Westmorland. The second one, strangely enough, is in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1397: Order to the sheriff of Westmerland for election of a coroner instead of John de Lancastre of Brampton, who has no lands in that county, neither makes his abode continually therein. This claim against him obviously did not work because the next early sighting is in 1399, in the inquisitio post mortem of Sir William de Lancaster of Howgill, who would have been a near neighbour. (This also make it clear he was not William's son who was also named John.) 

In the Duke of Norfolk's Dacre records we find CW 250 Gift: at Appleby, Thursday in Easter week, 3 Hen. IV 1402:  In summary, lands and tenements in the town and territory of Appleby of John Hurworth of Appleby are granted by John Hurworth to Henry, parson of the church of Mertone, William, parson of the church of Dunstane, John Lancaster of Bramptone and John of Heltone.

The evidence that connects him to the Sockbridge Lancasters is the following sequence...

1405 Joan late the wife of Christopher de Lancastre [of Sockbridge] held of William Parr, knt., and Elizabeth late his wife, the hamlet of Stirkeland Roger for 13s. 5d. rent at Easter and Mich. worth 20s.; and the manor of Stirkeland Roger for 26s. 11½d., at the same term, worth yearly 40s.; Inq. p.m., 6 Henry IV, n. 37.

1407 John de Lancastre of Brompton held of John de Parr the manor of Stirkeland Roger for 26s. 11½d. rent at Easter and Mich., worth 40s.; Inq. p.m., 9 Henry IV, n. 38.

1409 Assignment of dower to Agnes, who was the wife of John de Par, deceased, who held of the king in chief, made on the 13th day of January, 10 Henry IV [1409] [...] of all the lands and tenements of the said John de Par. ... they assigned to the said Agnes ... also the rents and services of John de Lancastre of Brampton and William de Lancastre of Hertsopp, for their lands in Strikeland Roger;

Ragg 1910, adds some information which might be relevant, and which shows that John had rights in Strickland Ketel, although I do not know where:

In the de Banco Roll of the next year of Henry V., Hillary term 1416, John de Lancaster of Brampton appears against John Crackall of Strickland Ketel and others for forcibly and in arms digging turves and taking them from his private turbary in Strickland Ketel.

In 1417/8, John de Lancaster of Brampton was executor for Thomas de Sandford. They had been involved together earlier in cases versus William Blenkensop concerning destruction of crops with soldiers from Carlisle.

In 1418, at the time of the post mortem inquisition of Ralph, Baron of Greystoke, John de Lancastre and his heirs held Brampton, paying 8s 6d. (The immediately next entry supposedly concerns Warthewyk, and says that John de Lancastre, "knight", and his wife Joan, not mentioned in Brampton, are paying 8s 6d, along with another couple, George Warthewycke and his wife Elizabeth. It appears both men hold this in name of their wives, who are perhaps sisters? As we will see below, 100 years later there was another couple named John Lancaster of Brampton and Joan. I tend to believe this particular knight in 1418 is John de Lancaster of Howgill. The placename also appears to be a mistaken transcription of the surname, and looking at what possessions the Greystokes would have held, the place involved is probably Yanwath, which the Howgill family held at about this time.)

Ragg did not have time, it seems, to follow up the leads of the Brampton Lancasters back to the hints we mention above, however he does gives leads to at least some of the probable children. However, note that Ragg proposes a generation between John of Brampton and Thomas and Elizabeth. This is because of one record (Ragg 1910, p. 418)

In the de Banco Roll of Trinity term, 2 Henry V. 1414, there is an entry, containing no particulars, telling that William Tempest, knight, and Alianora his wife claimed against William de Lancaster and Elizabeth his wife half of the manors of Helton Flechan and Brampton as the right to Alianora.

Ragg presumes Elizabeth is an heiress of the Wessington family. But might Brampton be a mis-reading then for Bampton? But who are William and Elizabeth? Nicholson and Burn say that John Lancaster of Brampton held Knock, another property, of his wife Joan, who they say was a Rookby, but this does not appear to match the post mortem information, and I see no sign of this John and Joan holding Knock (though we could perhaps argue that John Lancastre of Howgill did? He held Knock, it seems, but he also had at least two other wives we know of already apart from any Joan.) So I tend to think that the Joan who brought Knock to the Lancasters of Brampton was a later Joan. We know there was a later couple named John and Joan Lancaster in Brampton, and that they had an interest in the deeds to Knock in the 1500s, which will be discussed below.

  1. Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton? SPECULATION BY ME

  2. Isabel de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME

  3. Elizabeth de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME.

Possible extra children of Christopher de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.1.4. John de Lancaster, the younger, son of Isabel de Wyndesore.

Was apparently intended to receive Whynfell, Fatherbank and Sleddale in Kendale, some of the same properties Christopher had held already before the death of his brother Roger. (Ragg document XXII of 1383.) See more below concerning his brother. We speculate further concerning sons...

  1. Christopher de Lancaster son of John de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME

  2. John de Lancaster son of John de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME

1.1.1.1.1.5. Thomas de Lancaster, brother of John the younger, son of Isabel de Wyndesore.

With apparently no evidence, Ragg chooses to think that Isabel de Wyndesore must be a Lancaster daughter being referred by her married name. He does not identify John (1371 grant), whom he thinks of as a "de Wyndesore" because of his mother, and John de Lancaster the younger (1383 grant), but the names of the two brothers, and that fact that both sets of siblings are treated as second grade heirs, in parallel positions in different documents, seems a remarkable coincidence. A further coincidence was apparently unknown to Ragg, which is that we know Isabel had to heirs who were called John and Thomas de Lancaster.

If we may equate these two pairs of brothers, then in 1371 they are referred to by reference the their mother, and in 1383, in the grant concerning some of the important Lancaster lands and tenements in Kendal: Whynfell, Fatherbank and Sleddale in Strickland Ketel. They are this time called "John de Lancastre the younger" and "Thomas de Lancaster brother of the same John". We can unite the two pairs of brothers by examining the mother's record...

As explained by Rowling, in 1385 Isabel de Wyndesore and her two sisters, Margery Duket and Christiana Morieux, were found to be heirs of their brother, Sir William de Wyndesore of Heversham, Westmorland, husband of the court beauty, Alice Perrers, mistress of Edward III.

In 1398, it appears this inheritance had become a dispute, apparently because "Sir William had ... during his lifetime disposed of some of his property to his nephew John de Wyndesore, leaving the bulk of it by will to him and his brothers."

The disputants were "Edmund Redman, Richard Doket, John and Thomas de Lancaster and others, on the one side, and the Roger de Wyndesore, William, Thomas and John de Bethom, Roland, John and Richard Threlkeld and Christopher Forster on the other".

Rowling accounts for these parties as follows...

Richard Duket was Margery's son, Thomas and John de Lancaster, if my deductions from the evidence are correct, were illegitimate sons of Christopher de Lancaster by Isabel de Wyndesore, while Edmund Redman was a relative by marriage of the Dukets.
On the opposing side, Roger Wyndesore was John's brother and one of the beneficiaries of his uncle's will which does not mention any of Sir William's three sisters or their descendants. The Bethoms and Christopher Forster were adherents of the Lancastrian party, and John de Preston of the Wyndesores...
[...]
Unfortunately we are given no certain evidence regarding the final outcome of these disturbances. The likelihood is that they were swallowed up—for a time at least—in the great feud of 1399 which ended by Bolingbroke mounting his cousin Richard's throne as Henry IV.
In 1394, there was a pardon "to Thomas de Loncastre, son of Christopher de Loncastre of Westmorland, for the death of Robert de Veryouse of the barony of Greystoke, killed at Bowes before the feast of St. Peter ad Vincula in the tenth year". It is tempting to suggest that this is the son of Isabel de Wyndesore.
On the other hand, the appearance in later generations of William de Lancaster who was son of Thomas "Gibbeson" (son of Gilbert) makes me also wonder whether the unknown father of this Thomas was Gilbert, the son of Christopher who pre-deceased him.


The children of Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge (the second of that name).

1.1.1.1.2.1. Alexander de Lancaster (approx 1339-1362). Aged 16 in 1355, so born about 1339. It appears that Alexander was in line to inherit quite a lot and probably died young, after his father but before his mother. However before he did he was named in a complaint a few years later? 1359 Thomas son of Marmaduke de Tweng impleaded Alexander son of Roger de Lancastre, Ralph Hunter and others for breaking his park at Staveleye and taking his deer there; De Banco R. Trin., 399, m. 108d. The February 1368 inquest into his father's goods says he had died of pestilence 6 years before, which fits.

Alexander's father had been Roger son of Gilbert de Lancastre, had lately deceased in 1355, and was involved in this area and this landlord (a de Lancaster relative). Specifically, he "held at his death, jointly with Margaret his wife, 3 tofts and 1 carucate at Fauerbank of Thomas de Thweng for 1 lb. of cummin yearly, worth 13s. 4d. yearly; Inq. p.m., 30 Edward III (1)."

1.1.1.1.2.2. Joan, wife of William le Taillour. Aged 30 in 1369, so born about 1339, like her presumed brother. She seems to have been considered heir for a while, after Alexander disappears from the record. Presumably Christopher, her uncle, came to some arrangement (friendly or otherwise) to take over the various Lancaster family holdings which we hear of later as staying in his branch of the family.


Generation 7.

The children of Gilbert de Lancaster of Sockbridge (the fourth of that name).

1.1.1.1.1.1.1. John de Lancaster. Only mentioned in 1371, in his grandfather's grants. Presumably died young.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2. William de Lancaster (approx 1355-1440?). In about 1388, apparently not long after the passing of his father and grandfather and presumably also his brother, William made marriage contract with Thomas de Warcop, for his daughter Margret de Warcop. It seems to have gone into effect in the same year according to a second document reproduced by Ragg. This timing corresponds well with the pedigree Ragg used, given that William's heir Thomas was apparently bought not long after.

It is difficult to track all the Williams in this period, and consequently difficult to know when this particular William died. There seems to be a good chance that he out-lived his son Thomas and continued to appear in documents as William de Lancaster of Hartsop, who at least in the first half of the 1400s is clearly not the same person as William de Lancaster the son of Thomas de Lancaster.

Frustratingly, even in this generation we only know of one child for sure, the heir according to old pedigrees, but it is also possible that there was only one...

  1. Thomas de Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.1.1.3. Thomas Gibonson. SPECULATION BY RAGG. Thomas is not mentioned in the 1371 charters of his grandfather, but in 1430, William Lancaster of Sockbridge mentions "William de Lancaster, son of Thomas Gibbonson". Gibson would mean son of Gilbert, and so it seems a reasonable suggestion that this may represent an illegitimate branch descended from Gilbert. This person could possibly be the same as Thomas the son of Isabel de Wyndesore (above), although that Thomas might also be a son of Christopher de Lancastre.

In 1447, in a grant by William Arnaldson of Penrith to William Lancaster of Hertsopp, a witness is "William Lancaster of Sockbridge Senior, otherwise called William Gyboneson".

In a similar type of charter to the 1430 one, this time in 1450 and made for the de Lowthers in neighbouring Askham, a William de Lancaster is again called upon, once again with a local vicar, but this time it is mentioned that he is "otherwise called William Thomson of Sokbrede".

In 1467, Hugh de lancaster had tenements and a mill in Sockbridge occupied by William Lancaster alias William Thomson.

The son of Thomas seems to therefore be...

  1. William de Lancaster "senior" of Sockbridge, alias William Gibonson (mentioned 1447), alias William Thomson (1467).

  2. John Gibson. Ragg mentions a record of him in 1458, and proposes him to fit here.


The proposed children of John de Lancaster of Brampton (first of that name).

1.1.1.1.1.3.1. Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton. SPECULATION BY ME.

In 1452/53 (31 Henry VI), Ragg in his articles on the "Feoffees of the Cliffords" reports that under Ralf, baron of Greystoke, Lancelot Threlkeld held Yanwath and Thomas Lancaster held Brampton. So a Thomas had replaced the earlier John. At a similar time, a Thomas Lancaster, perhaps the same one, also held Melkinthorpe, seemingly along with Richard Musgrave. Indeed, in Ragg's later "appendix" article to this one he calls this Thomas Lancaster of Brampton, perhaps having gained this information from the transcriptions of Dodsworth which he had discovered in the meantime (or perhaps just guessing?).

David Hall tells me that in 1521, Christopher Lancaster of Deepdale purchased land at Melkinthorpe from Edward Lancaster of Brampton (he refers to Machel Vol 1 page 606). So there does seem to have been a Brampton-Melkinthorpe connection, at least in later generations. (By which time I think another branch of Lancasters had taken over. See below.)

On the other hand it should be kept in mind that during this same period there was a Thomas Lancaster in Sockbridge. Thomas in Sockbridge was the grandson and heir of John of Brampton's presumed brother Gilbert. We know very little about all these contemporary Thomases. For example we have no real evidence that this Thomas of Brampton was a son of his predecessor John of Brampton. (The lack of evidence is a kind of evidence that there was a smooth inheritance.) And so there seem to be a chance that Thomas in Sockbridge is the same man as Thomas in Brampton, and/or possibly Melkinthorpe.

1.1.1.1.1.3.2. Isabel, widow of a de Fleming, daughter and coheir of John Lancaster of Brampton, espoused John Wharton in 1461 (Burkes). SPECULATION BY ME.

Was she perhaps a sister to Thomas? On the other hand this record should perhaps be doubted. We know that an Isabel de Lancaster married a de Fleming in 1409, but she was daughter and coheir of John de Lancaster of Howgill. The two Johns are sometimes confused with each other. Although geographically close, the Brampton and Howgill Lancasters show no evidence of close links that I am aware of.

1.1.1.1.1.3.3. Elizabeth de Lancaster. Ragg reports:

1455, an indenture exists at Lowther between Thomas Lancaster of Brampton and Elizabeth his sister, much of which is illegible, but the general sense is clear. He agrees to grant one mark to his sister for six years, and is not to trouble him any further. A transcription appears on a Norwegian University website.


The proposed sons of John de Lancaster, but which one?

Could these perhaps be sons of John Lancaster of Brampton? Or perhaps they might be connected to the Howgill Lancasters? Or they might be sons of John de Lancastre who was son of Isabel de Wyndesore.

1.1.1.1.1.?. Christopher de Lancaster son of John de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY ME

1.1.1.1.1.?. John de Lancaster son of John de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY ME


Generation 8.

The known son of William de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1. Thomas Lancaster (approx 1389-1440?). Apart from the names of his children, nearly all I can find out about him is that he is supposed to have married Christian, daughter of Hugh Salkeld of Rosgill.

If Ragg is wrong concerning the feofees of the Cliffords which appears to be of an inexact date of about 1452-1482, then this Thomas may have possessed Melkinthorpe and/or Brampton? But this seems too late for him.
I am accepting the existence of the other Thomas both because he seems younger, and also that there appear to be records mentioning Thomas de Lancaster "of Brampton" which would seem inappropriate for the main line Lancaster of Sockbridge.
In 1419 a 40 year old Thomas de Lancastre was a witness to the age of Henry de Threlkeld, heir of William de Threlkeld. This may be one of the only clear records for this Thomas. This age would match well with the 1388 marriage of his father.
By 1425 his sons William and Gilbert were married and William was being enfeoffed of Lancaster land without Thomas being mentioned. This was done by one William de Lancaster of Hartsop, which makes me wonder if Thomas's father William out-lived him and moved to Hartsop as his chief residence.

The children, or at least some sons, are now able to be listed, if we can trust old pedigrees. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the perfectly match one document concerning a dispute with the Batys in the 1440s (except that no William but only his tenants were mentioned?)...

  1. Sir William Lancaster of Sockbridge.

  2. Hugh Lancaster.

  3. Robert Lancaster.

  4. James Lancaster.

  5. Sir Gilbert Lancaster.

  6. Edward Lancaster.

I think we can also add these who do not appear in the old pedigree...

  1. Roger Lancaster

  2. Richard Lancaster

  3. Elizabeth Lancaster. Although it is typically hard to trace daughters for this period, Elizabeth appears in Gilpin pedigrees, such as the one presented in Nicholson and Burn, and the one appearing in the Surtees Society's Visitations of the North.


The proposed son of Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton (first of that name).

1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1. John de Lancaster of Brampton (second of that name). As with the previous generation of Brampton Lancasters, we have no direct evidence of the connection between generations, only the indirect evidence that the inheritance is not especially recorded and presumably went smoothly.

We know there was a John in this generation because Nicolson and Burn cite an inquest of 1503/4 (which is now also online) wherein a certain John de Lancaster was 30 years old and held Brampton in knights service to the de Greystokes since he was 22, his father, also John, having held it before him. Therefore John the father died about 1495/6 and John the son was himself born about 1473/4. So we need to insert the father into the family tree.

By the 1500s we know that the Brampton Lancasters had also somehow taken possession of Knock, which had was previously held by the Howgill Lancasters. Therefore John is possibly also John de Lancaster of Knock, yeoman, mentioned in D LONS/L5/1/3/75 with date 1472. (This is decades after the death of John de Lancaster of Howgill, who was also not a yeoman.)

As The Later Records relating to North Westmorland tells us, the "manor of Knock Shalcock belonged in the reigns of Edward II and III to the family of Boyville, afterwards to the Rookby and then to the Lancaster families". However this makes no distinction between the Brampton and Howgill Lancasters. And if the Howgill Lancasters married the Rokebys then this was much earlier.

Nevertheless, Ragg's 1908 transcription "The Feoffees of the Cliffords" distinguishes John of Knock from Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton, living at the same time, and also explains that his wife was daughter and heir of John Rukeby. Nicholson and Burn also say that Knock came to the Lancasters through a marriage of John to Joan Rookby. So this first John of Knock must have appeared by somewhere in the period of 1450-1480 and he is said to held Knock by his wife.

But if John of Knock was alive at the same time of Thomas of Brampton (and Melkinthorpe), was he really the son of Thomas, or perhaps a relative who became heir to him, possibly a member of the Howgill family?

In any case we much later find a widow Joanne, of a John de Lancaster of Brampton, who had an interest in both Knock and Brampton.

Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary

C 1/651/15 Johan, late the wife of John Lancaster of Branton [Brampton in Long Marton]. v. Thomas Lancaster, her son.: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Knottishalcoke [Knock in Long Marton ?].: Westmorland. Covering dates 1529-1532

C 1/616/31 Christopher Crakenthorpe, esquire, and Thomas Byrkbek, gentleman, feoffees to uses. v. Johanne [Lancaster] and Lancelot Lancaster.: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Brampton and land there, whereof Thomas Lancaster enfeoffed complainants to the use of Jane, Maud, and Bridget, daughters of Ambrose Lancaster.: Westmorland. Covering dates 1529-1532

It has to be said that it would make a lot of sense if this Joane was a Rookby and the wife of the first John de Lancaster of Knock. In that case her claim on the Knock deeds would be very un-surprising because they may have been something she had a right to. But then wouldn't Thomas need to be her grandson? Or might Joane indeed be the Rookby who married the first John of Knock, but now very old, and might her first heir John have died young? If so then maybe this John should be a brother of the man I name as his probable son.

We can propose the next generation as follows:

  1. John de Lancaster of Brampton. b. abt 1473/4. Became heir around 1503/4 as stated at the inquisition after his father's death.

  2. Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton. Was being pursued by his mother, Joane the widow of John around 1529-1532.


The proposed son of Thomas Gibbonson.

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1. William de Lancaster "senior" of Sockbridge, alias William Gibonson, alias William Thomson. See above for discussion. He appears to have been at Sockbridge mill in 1425 and 1467.


Generation 9.

The sons of Thomas Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1. Sir William Lancaster of Sockbridge (approx 1405-1463). Son and heir of Thomas. Was said to have been a Sheriff of Westmorland (which is a complicated concept, because I understand that there were hereditary sheriffs in this county, which means the other people referred to as sheriffs are normally deputies). He married Margaret Strickland, daughter of Thomas Strickland and Mabel de Beethom (14 Henry VI; 1435/6). There is a letter patent of Edward IV, dated June 10th, 2 Edward IV (1462) releasing William's lands to Hugh, his brother, for administration.

In summary William de Lancaster of Hartsop in the 1400s appears to be a name used by two different men in the main line, one the grandfather, who was heir and kinsman of Christopher de Lancaster, and the other his grandson. But this is not perfectly clear.

  1. Mabel Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2. Hugh Lancaster esquire (approx 1407-1465). Second son. Married another Beethom (Bethum/ Betham etc.).

In 1463, not only did Hugh receive possessions from his (dead?) brother, but he also granted some possessions to his son Christopher and Christopher's wife Elionor, daughter of Thomas Musgrave, with reversion to Hugh if the couple died without heir...

  1. Christopher de Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3. Robert Lancaster. Could this Robert have been wealthy enough young enough to appear on the 1436 subsidy roll? In any case he is said to have been burgess of Carlisle, temp Henry V. However according to the History of Parliament website, this was a brother of John de Lancaster of Howgill. So our only source for this Robert is the old pedigree which corresponds to the list of men in the case with Baty in 1444. Might the pedigree itself have been based on some such old record?

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.4. James Lancaster. Only mentioned in the Baty conflict, but also appears in old pedigrees.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.5. Sir Gilbert Lancaster. Said to have married Alice Grey, originally Alice de Neville, daughter of Ralf de Neville, Earl of Westmorland, and widow of Thomas Grey of Heton.

Ragg indicates that he has seen a document referring to him in 1450, but does not explain which. It may a Northumberland document, and/or perhaps relating to Melmerby which was sold to Sir Gilbert by Hugh Lowther of Askham at that time. The Sandford history online claims this is Melmerby in Yorkshire, but I think it might be the one in Cumberland. Geoffrey Lancaster and Lord Dacre would later have a dispute with Thomas Sandford over his title to lands he had later bought from these Lowthers in Askham, Measand and Bowerbank. (See below.)

Alice apparently later married Sir Thomas Horton, or did she have a son who married his daughter? Her brother would have been Earl of Westmorland, and her brother in law would have been Thomas, Lord Dacre. Gilbert appears in many references because of these very powerful family ties, but it is not easy to trace any details of his life.

Some references to this Gilbert in old books claim that he had one son with his Neville wife look like a mere misunderstanding for the apparent father. One Visitation of Yorkshire says that he married a daughter of Sir Thomas Horton, Knight. But his mother married such a Thomas. See above.
In 1428, Gilbert is already married and owning land in Fenton, Northumberland, within the Barony of Alnwick and under Henry Neville.
In 1436, Sir Gilbert was appointed as escheator for Northumberland.
In 1450, a Gilbert Lancastre, knight, received a commission concerning illegal fishing in Northumberland.
In 1457 he received a commission in Northumberland to help inquire how much money had been spent by one Ralph Grey, apparently kin to his wife's ex husband, for repairs to the King's tower in Roxburgh.

Although some of the exact claims of old Neville pedigrees seem like errors, it is possible Gilbert had a son named Gilbert. In particular, two documents concerning Askham, C 1/331/34 (1504-1515) and C 4/169 Part 3/40 concern Roger Lancaster, "nephew and heir of Gilbert a Lancaster, knight." describing Roger being son of Roger, who was brother of the said Gilbert, knight. If I read correctly, the two documents both state that Gilbert had a son named Gilbert who was heir to sir Gilbert, but died without issue. We can therefore suggest a connection to a Gilbert who was an "armiger" or "esquire" of that name in 1466 and 1481 in Colynflat, Whinfell, in transactions involving the Cyll or Syll family. Probably the same Gilbert Lancaster esq. and his wife Elizabeth (not Alice) seems to appear in 1488, in nearby Helsington and Sizergh, involving the Stricklands of Sizergh and "two tenements in the holding of Robert Wilkinson of Shawe and John Mownce, dwelling at "Park fute"." It is worth remembering that the in the previous century, Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge had made land here available to his two apparent illegitimate children by Isabel de Wyndesore (see above). And before that it had been mentioned as a place where the youngest brother of Christopher, Robert, might inherit. So it had a record as a secondary Lancaster possession, given to younger brothers and so on.

There also appear to be connection to Geoffrey Lancaster, of Elderbeck, Penrith, Melkinthorpe, and finally Crake Trees (discussed below). Geoffrey like Roger appears to have acted as heir to a Gilbert who had apparently been active in the late 1480s.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.6. Edward Lancaster, gentleman. Edward may be the same as the one mentioned in an historical incident, and example of the lawlessness of the period...

In 1453 one Edward Lancaster, late of Skipton in Craven, gentleman accompanied by a band of men including William Lancaster of Brougham, gentleman, captured and forcibly married Joan Beaumont, widow of Henry Beaumont, knight. Lancaster and others then proceeded to make assaults on Joan's servants, and her, and her family's goods and property. They were summoned by proclamation to answer the charges concerning the rape, felony or trespass.
David Hall has pointed out to me that there are indications that the Lancasters of Sockbridge held land in Brougham amongst their possessions, at least in the 1500s. But who would William in 1453 be? Whoever he was he appears to have been assigned in 1455 (as shown in the Fine Rolls) as one of the people to take possession of the lands lands, rents, offices and services which Thomas Clyfford, knight, held on the day of his death. This must refer to the 8th Baron of Clifford, was killed fighting on the losing Lancastrian side at the First Battle of St Albans, the first battle of the Wars of the Roses in 1455. After the battle, a Lancastrian king was in power, but under heavy Yorkist influence. Clifford's heir did manage to take over his father's possessions. So it is not immediately obvious to me what kind of people would have been retained for this responsibility, but presumably, people who were not too strongly of one side or another?? But it is worth noting that Clifford's home castle was Skipton, which probably also explains why Edward was in the area.
Also, the man who was supposed to be Joan second husband, Charles Nowell, was a Yorkist who was himself mentioned in various complaints to courts in the same period. He had been terrorizing Norfolk and Suffolk with an armed band, and was a partisan of the Duke of Norfolk. His marriage in 1452 must be connected to this land deal also.
Brougham is very close to Eamont Bridge, and Clifton. In the period concerned it seems there was a relatively important Lancaster named William in Eamont Bridge, and Sr Gilbert Lancaster had land in Clifton. Brougham was also apparently a site of a Clifford castle. During this period the Cliffords were allied with the Percys and in a state of conflict in Yorkshire against the Nevilles.


Other probable grandsons of William de Lancaster of Sockbridge, and possibly sons of Thomas, not listed above.

We can see in Fetherstonehalgh pedigrees that indeed there was a connection here that may be a lead. Robert Fetherstonehalgh died about 1375, and his son William married an unknown Lancaster of Sockbridge. William's son was Alexander, and Alexander's son Thomas married a Whitfield in 1434. These last two Fetherstonhalghs correspond to the ones says were close kin to Roger and Richard. The Salkelds were also said to be close kin, which must indicate a close relationship to Thomas Lancaster of Sockbridge who married a Salkeld in these times.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.7. Roger de Lancaster, of Sockbridge, esquire.

All the above-named sons of Thomas Lancaster of Sockbridge were involved, along with their Salkeld cousins and others, in several cases of livestock theft from Thomas Baty, of Bampton, Burgham and Regill. Several documents seems to exist, concerning several incidents. Ragg describes two, and another is a mention in the Patent Rolls. Another record in the chancery proceedings is scanned, and it seems to mention William of Hertsop as the arbitrator. It mentions a Roger and Richard of Lancaster, who I can not trace, while the patent roll incident mentions Roger. They must be close relatives, but maybe a step less close. Baty seems to claim that he did not know that this second set of Lancasters and Salkelds were very closely related to some Fetherstonehalghs who had stolen from him, just as the other Lancasters, the sons of Thomas, had done earlier with others from the area. The patent roll reference at least tells us that Roger was a gentlemen "late of Sockbridge" in 1444.
It is tempting to equate this Roger with the one who appears on Bellingham pedigrees as the
Sir Roger who married Jane Bellingham daughter of Sir Robert Bellingham and Elizabeth Tunstall. Bellingham and Tunstall were Lancastrian families during the war of the Roses. So Roger might have had a son named William, because on July 20th, 1471, two months after the battle of Tewkesbury the King granted a Commission to William Parr, Kt., John Parr, Kt., Thomas Strykland, Kt., and Christopher Moresby, Kt., to arrest various Westmorland figures including William Lancastre, son and heir of Roger Lancastre Esquire, who had made forfeiture to the King, and bring them before the King and Council and seize their goods and lands to the King’s use.
Another son appears to be named Roger because
two documents concerning Askham, C 1/331/34 (1504-1515) and C 4/169 Part 3/40 concern Roger Lancaster, "nephew and heir of Gilbert a Lancaster, knight" describing Roger being son of Roger, who was brother of the said Gilbert, knight. (This also adds to the impression that Roger in conflict with the Batys was a brother of Sir Gilbert who was also in conflict with them.)
A Roger de Lancaster received a commission in 1444 to help arrest William Stapleton of Edenhall by Penrith.

He also seems to have had at least 2 sons:

  1. William de Lancaster.

  2. Roger Lancaster of Barton, gentleman.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.8. Richard Lancaster, possibly a freeholder in Hartsop. See Roger, the proposed brother. A close relative of both the Salkelds and the Fetherstonehaughs during the conflict with the Batys in the 1440s. Ragg also mentions a 1467 deed by Hugh Lancaster, mentioning the widow of Richard Lancaster occupying a tenement in Hartsop.


The proposed sons of John de Lancaster of Brampton (second of that name).

1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1. John de Lancaster of Brampton (third of that name). b. abt 1473/4. As explained above, Nicolson and Burn cite an inquest of 1503/4 (which is now also online) wherein a certain John de Lancaster was 30 years old and held Brampton in knights service to the de Greystokes since he was 22. It is possible that it is this John who widow Joanne is mentioned in later documents concerning disputes with a son of John and Joanne named Thomas, or else was Joane this John's mother? In any case we can suppose that this John who is mentioned in 1515-1518 in C 1/441/10, "Santforde v Lancastre", where Edmund Santforde, esquire, pursued John Lancastre of Knock, and John Blenkynsop, gentlemen, concerning "Detention of deeds relating to the manors of Askham and Asby, and messuages and land elsewhere". By 1519 however, we see only mention of a widow of John. See next.

1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.2. Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton. Married to Janet, a daughter and/or coheir of Thomas Beauchamp

We know that by now, the Lancasters of Brampton and Knock were the same family, because of records concerning some disputes:

Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary

C 1/651/15 Johan, late the wife of John Lancaster of Branton [Brampton in Long Marton]. v. Thomas Lancaster, her son.: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Knottishalcoke [Knock in Long Marton ?].: Westmorland. Covering dates 1529-1532

C 1/616/31 Christopher Crakenthorpe, esquire, and Thomas Byrkbek, gentleman, feoffees to uses. v. Johanne [Lancaster] and Lancelot Lancaster.: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Brampton and land there, whereof Thomas Lancaster enfeoffed complainants to the use of Jane, Maud, and Bridget, daughters of Ambrose Lancaster.: Westmorland. Covering dates 1529-1532 [Crackenthorpe and Byrkbek were married to daughters of Ambrose]

In the second document Thomas is dead. In the first, he was alive, so he died in the period of 1529 to 1532.

Thomas must have been married some time before 1511, as per this record of Henry VIII:

Coheirs of Thos. Beauchamp. Pardon and release for Richard Bell and Margaret his wife, John Hoton and Elizabeth his wife, Thomas Musgrave and Alice his wife, Thomas Lancastre and Joan his wife, daughters and heirs of Thomas Beauchamp of Crogling, late sheriff of Cumberland ; also grant of the goods and chattels of the said Thomas Beauchamp, seized by John Ratclyff, late sheriff of the said county. Windsor Castle, 12 July, 3 Hen. VIII. Del. Knoll, 17 July. P.S. Pat. 3 Hen. VIII. p. 1, m. 8.

In 1519 (CP40/1023 757f) we hear of Thomas Lancastre of Knock, Westmorland, gentleman. In 1529 (CP40/1060 6398d) Thomas Lancastre of Brumpton, gent is mentioned as having a debt claimed against him by some Musgraves of Murton, who had also married an heiress of the Beauchamps. 

A new possession that apparently came to the Brampton Lancasters was a moiety of Waitby. Only a few years after we find Thomas Beauchamp and Richard Warcop sharing the two moieties of Waitby, we find Thomas Lancastre's son there.

Ragg (1910, p.419)

...in 1519 comes a deed by Ambrose Lancaster, son and heir of Thomas Lancaster of Brampton, "gentleman," and of Janet his wife, releasing to John Hoton of Penrith all his right and title to a chief messuage (manor house) in Waitbie [Waitby], of which Thomas Wherton was occupant, and to all rents and services of the demesne in Waitbie and Kirkby Stephen, which of late belong to Thomas Beauchamp of "Croglying" [Croglin] in Cumberland.

The Hotons of Penrith, like the Musgraves of Murton and the Lancasters of Brampton, had married the last generation of heiresses of the Beauchamps of Croglin. The other such family was a Bell family of Howgill.

Note that the records show that Ambrose already had 3 daughters by about 1530. So Thomas was presumably already quite old.

So we know the name of the son of Thomas:

  1. Ambrose de Lancaster of Brampton.

1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.3. Edward Lancaster of Brampton.
"Edward Longcastre, Loncastre or Lancastre, of Branton or Braunton, Westmld., Carlisle and Berwick upon Tweed", either a gentleman or yeoman, is mentioned in a long list of pardons from the second year of Henry VIII, in 1510.

David Hall informs me:

Machel Vol 1 page 606 says that William, son and heir of Christopher Lancaster of Deepdale purchased land at Melkinthorpe from Edward Lancaster of Brampton in 1521. This Edward had to secure release of claim from his elder brothers and so I suggest this Edward was the same third son of Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge and Elliner.


Clearly the above 1510 reference brings this theory into doubt and makes it seem as if Edward is a younger brother of the Brampton Lancasters.

1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.4. Cristabelle de Lancastre

A book about the Birkbeck family of Wesmorland quotes a charter concerning this Cristabelle:

Carta Cristabelle de Lancastre. To all to whom this present writing shall come, Cristabeila de Lancastre, spinster, greeting in the Lord. Whereas I, the said Cristabeila, have and hold one tenement with appurtenances in Brampton, at which same tenement with appurtenances the reversion then falls {spectat) to Thomas Lancaster my brother when it shall happen after my death, which same tenement Christofer Crackenthorp, Thomas Byrkbeke, and James Crackenthorp lately purchased from my aforesaid brother Thomas Lancaster and his heirs. Be it known that I, the said Cristabella, have returned to the said Christofer Crackenthorpe, Thomas Byrkebeke, and James Crackenthorpe concerning the aforesaid reversion, and by the payment of one silver penny. In witness whereof I have set my seal to this present writing. Dated 7 day of April, 19 Hen. VIII. [1527]

This shows that Christopher Crackenthorp and Thomas Birkbeck were already taking over some land in Brampton through purchase from Thomas, not through the marriages of daughters.


The son of Roger Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.?.?.?. William Lancastre, son and heir of Roger Lancastre Esquire.


Generation 9.

The known son of Hugh Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1. Christopher Lancaster (approx 1435-1495).
M
arried Eleanor Musgrave, daughter of Thomas Musgrave of Musgrave and Eden Hall, son of Sir Richard, by 1463, when he also received grants of land from his father.
Still alive in 1492 (DLONS/L/5/1/3/99).

We know very little about this generation. Christopher is the only son known of Hugh Lancaster, and documents shown above seem to show that Hugh represented the main line of Lancasters of Sockbridge once his brother William died without male heirs. In the meantime Sockbridge itself perhaps went at least partly to the Lowthers, who were not only relatives and neighbours of the Lancasters, but also increasingly important in Cumbria.

Christopher's son William in turn married a Lowther heiress and perhaps re-gained Sockbridge. We do not even know if Christopher was the eldest son of Hugh or to what extent things went according to agreements and plans, or just luck. My impression is that such allied families in Westmorland were always arranging marriages with an eye to who might inherit not only in "plan A", but also in "plan B", "plan C" and so on. So Christopher was likely to be the first son of Hugh, and Hugh was clearly the designated next-in-line brother of William of Sockbridge.

Several Christophers appear in the records of the area in this time, apart from this one. In 1471 for example, no less than three are mentioned in a boundary dispute versus Thomas Sandford with especial reference to a place at Ellerbek "late John Bek". (David Hall thinks this will be Elder Beck in Barton.) The parties aligned against Sandford were all Lancasters: Christopher Lancaster of Nether Hertsop, Christopher Lancaster of Over Hertsop, Geoffrey Lancaster, and John Lancaster of Wainbredhalse. And one of the parties who would be judging the case was named simply as Christopher Lancaster. I tend to think that the Christopher we are currently discussing, who appears to have been the heir of the main line, would be the one called in as judge and not needing to be named after the specific property he ran. The others were presumably all cousins, nephews, brothers etc?

We are far more fortunate concerning our information about Christopher's children! The following are given as in old pedigrees, which means they should be with sons first from oldest to youngest, and then the daughters.

  1. Thomas Lancaster.

  2. Edward Lancaster.

  3. Master Stephen Lancaster, chaplain.

  4. Nicholas Lancaster.

  5. William Lancaster.

  6. Margaret Lancaster.

  7. Isabel Lancaster.

  8. Joane Lancaster.

  9. Elizabeth Lancaster.


More men from this generation, some probably grandsons of Thomas Lancaster of Sockbridge

As seen above, in 1471 we see mention of several men who seem to be in the generation of Geoffrey Lancaster: Christopher Lancaster of Nether Hertsop, Christopher Lancaster of Over Hertsop, and John Lancaster of Wainbredhalse. Here are some more Lancasters from this period. One thing to keep in mind is that fortunes often rose and fell with the War of the Roses during the 1400s. It seems notable that apparently new knights and armigers named Lancaster are amongst the hardest to explain.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.5.1. Gilbert de Lancaster, armiger

Gilbert was an "armiger" or "esquire" of that name in 1466 and 1481 in Colynflat, Whinfell, in transactions involving the Cyll or Syll family. Probably the same Gilbert Lancaster esq. and his wife Elizabeth (not Alice) seems to appear in 1488, in nearby Helsington and Sizergh, involving the Stricklands of Sizergh and "two tenements in the holding of Robert Wilkinson of Shawe and John Mownce, dwelling at "Park fute"." Ragg describes this 1488 transaction with Strickland as one where Gilbert took over Throstormond and Pooley in Barton, giving up land in Depeslak (Whinfell), Colynslak and Sleddale (a term applying to two areas on either side of the watershed near Shap). It is worth remembering that the in the previous century, Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge had made land in one of the places called Whinfell available to his two apparent illegitimate children by Isabel de Wyndesore (see above). And before that it had been mentioned one of a place where the youngest brother of Christopher, Robert, might live during his lifetime. So it had a record as a secondary Lancaster possession, given to younger brothers and so on. Could Gilbert connect back to John and Thomas, the sons of Isabel de Wyndesore?

There also appears to be connection to Geoffrey Lancaster, of Elderbeck and Crake Trees (discussed below), and a knight named Sir Roger de Lancaster (C 1/331/34 1504-1515, concerning Askham). In later generations, both Geoffrey and Roger appear to have acted as heirs to a Gilbert who had apparently been active in the 1480s and 1490s. In the documents Roger is specifically described as a nephew of a Gilbert who was specifically called a knight, not just an armiger or esquire. But it appears that this Sir Gilbert also had a son named Gilbert, who had died. In the case of Geoffrey we only have more indirect evidence in that we know Geoffrey's son and grandson held possession of Bowerbank based on the older possession of a Gilbert in the time of Richard III.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.7.1. William Lancaster.

David Hall reports a Lowther record from the time of Richard III (1483-1485) which gives us the name of a brother and mother for Geoffrey. William Lancaster made grant with this charter to Janete his mother and Galfrid his brother, of his manor of [Ravensby?] and all his lands and tenements in the town of Maudysmeburn (Maulds Meauburn, later held by Geoffrey's heirs) in Co Westmorland to the aforesaid Janet and Galfrid their heirs and assigns for ever. We know that Geoffrey later owned Crake Trees in Maulds Meaburn. So this record gives the name of Geoffrey's mother and brother but not his father.

It is hard to avoid wondering this William is a son of Roger, because on July 20th, 1471, two months after the battle of Tewkesbury the King granted a Commission to William Parr, Kt., John Parr, Kt., Thomas Strykland, Kt., and Christopher Moresby, Kt., to arrest various Westmorland figures including William Lancastre, son and heir of Roger Lancastre Esquire, who had made forfeiture to the King, and bring them before the King and Council and seize their goods and lands to the King’s use.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.7.2. Roger Lancaster, gentleman of Barton

There are several documents about properties which are also associated with Geoffrey Lancaster in the same period. I suspect Geoffrey and his brother William are brothers or first cousins to this Roger.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.7.3. Geoffrey Lancaster, of Elderbeck, Penrith, Melkinthorpe, and finally Crake Trees

Geoffrey Lancaster, like his younger contemporary Lancelot (discussed below) became important. To quote one source...

Lancaster was one of the most significant figures in the administration of the North West of England, serving as JP in both Cumberland and Westmorland, one of the quorum in both, and custos rotulorum in Cumberland, retained by the earl of Northumberland for his legal advice, and associated with the Dacres in their feuding with the Cliffords.

Geoffrey Lancaster was admitted to Lincoln's Inn 28 July 1494. He marks the start of new phase for the Westmorland Lancasters. With the coming of the Tudors we see less lawless blood-letting (although that was still present), and more laywers with southern educations. He must have been particularly useful to Dacre, who he advised in legal matters from 1521. Lancelot Lancaster, Dacre's steward, was apparently quite often involved in disturbances of the peace in favour of their party. In April 1524, one William Lancaster of Sockbridge joined Geoffrey as a legal advisor to Dacre, and at about this time it seems Geoffrey and William also served as JPs in Northumberland. But there were very few JPs in Westmorland, Cumberland or Northumberland. "By March 1526, there was in fact only one member of the quorum who could act for Cumberland: Geoffrey Lancaster, who was, in addition, acting in this capacity in Westmorland, and as custos rotulorum." And even in 1528 there were only two active JPs there, Geoffrey and Sir Christopher Dacre. This source continues:

The importance of the quorum was again underlined by the fate of a special commission appointed to enquire into riots instigated by William, Lord Dacre in 1528. Geoffrey Lancaster was still the sole occupant of the quorum in Cumberland, despite Sir Christopher's pleas. Thus the session could not be held in Lancaster's absence, and it was a simple matter for Dacre to 'disappoint' it, by keeping Lancaster at Naworth on the day appointed. A second attempt to try the case, at the county quarter sessions held on 6 October 1528, further emphasises the point. Predictably, given that the defendant was the most important landholder in the county, warden of the west march and a JP himself, the jury demonstrated considerable reluctance to deliver a verdict. The panel sat all day until eight o'clock, refused to give a verdict, and dispersed without licence - in most cases failing to return the following day. Those who remained had still not reached a verdict by midday, at which point Sir Christopher, claiming the pressing calls of Wolsey's business, departed, leaving Geoffrey Lancaster to finally receive the verdict. The copies of the indictments forwarded to the Council were sent on to Wolsey, because it considered itself 'insufficient' to order and determine the matter.

Geoffrey or Jeffrey Lancaster was married to Isabel Bartram, daughter of Robert Bartram, a wealthy merchant of Penrith. The marriage articles are dated 1499 and are apparently contained in D LONS/L5/1/48/9. David has pointed out to me that the marriage articles DJH ID186 are directly between Geoffrey and Robert, implying that Jeffrey's father was dead. We know that Isabel out-lived Geoffrey because her and their son Ambrose acted as executors in debt cases brought in Cumberland against some other Lancasters (CP40/1139 1549).

In a passage on page 34 of the book Prophecy, Politics And the People in Early Modern England, by Tim Thornton, we get a feeling for the time in which Geoffrey and his contemporary Lancelot lived, the time of the so-called "Pilgrimage of Grace" and Henry VIII. It seems that Geoffrey was an example of a politically involved person having a prophecy. In particular, one William Todde, prior of the house of Gilbertine canons at Malton, had seen a parchment in Geoffrey's hands "on which the moon (symbolic of the Percy family) was painted growing, with a number of years growing as the moon did. Where the moon was full, a Cardinal was painted and beneath him the moon waned, and there were two monks, headless, one under the other, and so on and so forth". The describes Geoffrey:-

...he was evidently relatively well connected at that point, for Lancaster was one of the most significant figures in the administration of the North West of England, serving as JP in both Cumberland and Westmorland, one of the quorum in both, and custos rotulorum in Cumberland, retained by the earl of Northumberland for his legal advice, and associated with the Dacres in their feuding with the Cliffords.

A footnote remarks that he "appears to have died in or after 24 Henry VIII [1532-3], this being the last year in which he appears in a commission". David also points out that when his son Ambrose was married in 1534 (DJH ID104), his father was not a signatory to the marriage articles, but rather Isabel (mother), Lancelot esquire, and William (gent). He was certainly dead by 1549, when his executors Ambrose and Isabel were active, as shown by their pursuit of debts in common pleases records CP40.

The origin of Geoffrey is not so clear as that of Lancelot. One significant problem is that we find mentions of Geoffrey Lancaster not consistently naming him by one residence. The first reference to Geoffrey is in the 1471 document discussed above, concerning a dispute between several of Lancasters and Thomas Sandford of Askham about a place called Elerbek "late John Bek".

By around 1515, he seems to have been associated with Melkinthorpe. This is how he is described at the marriage of his daughter in 1513/14 (see below), and in the 1515 will of William Lancaster, the father of Lancelot, discussed below, where he was supervisor and a "gentleman". (In the body of the will, a Geoffrey Lancaster "my son" is also mentioned as a son, for which see below. David Hall has convinced me that Geoffrey of Melkinthorpe could not possibly have been the son of William.) He is also referred to this way in common pleas about debt in 1523 (CP40/1038). But in CP40/1055 for 1525 he seems to be "of Clifton". And in some debt cases he is "of Penrith". Later in life of course he is of "Crake Trees" which is a residence he apparently constructed for himself in Maulds Meaburn.

Is there a chance that we are dealing with several Geoffreys? At this stage I believe that at least until well into the 1500s, there was only one main one. We'll try to cross reference to the ones which are most concrete. But making this still more difficult, we find that when we look at place names associated with various Lancasters in this generation, some of the Sockbridge Lancasters appear in places where their cousins are to be expected. For example, Brampton, Melkinthorpe, and Waitby, which have all been associated with the Brampton Lancasters.

One of the earliest mentions of Geoffrey may be in 1471, when he was involved in disputes with Thomas Sandford concerning Ellerbeck, together with a number of other Lancasters of the Barton area (D LONS/L5/1/3/73, although note that the Cumbria Record Office have transcribed his name as Wilfrid; Geoffrey in Latin would be Galfridus). That this is the later Geoffrey of Crake Trees and father of Ambrose seems correct given that the dispute concerned a place called Eller Beck (probably Elder Beck in Barton),

and much later (C 241/281/41, dated 1529 Jun 30), when Ambrose Lancaster is in debt to a London merchant while living in Westminster, he is described as son and heir apparent to Geoffrey Lancaster of Eller Beck. Although there are several such place names around Westmorland, David and I think this the hamlet of Elder Beck, near Sockbridge.

David Hall reports a Lowther record from the time of Richard III (1483-1485) which gives us the name of a brother and mother for Geoffrey. William Lancaster made grant with this charter to Janete his mother and Galfrid his brother, of his manor of [Ravensby?] and all his lands and tenements in the town of Maudysmeburn (Maulds Meauburn, later held by Geoffrey's heirs) in Co Westmorland to the aforesaid Janet and Galfrid their heirs and assigns for ever. We know that Geoffrey later owned Crake Trees in Maulds Meaburn, so this land possibly came from his brother, fairly early in his life.

The marriage linked Geoffrey to Penrith it seems, so concerning another of Ambrose's debts, (C 241/281/123, dated 1530 Feb 23) Geoffrey is described as being of "Perrott" (sic, in the National Archives index) in Cumberland. David Hall mentions this record: Close rolls 1502 - Geoffrey Lancaster of Penrith Esq - bond to Richard Clifford. It could perhaps also be that Penrith was a better court for debts? Or else this is perhaps a result of his marriage, because his wife was from Penrith.

Melkinthorpe is in Lowther parish and close to Sockbridge rather than Brampton, so maybe the above explanation of Sockbridge involvement in Brampton means there was in fact no Melkinthorpe connection to the "original" Brampton Lancaster line. If we put aside the above links between Melkinthorpe and Brampton Lancasters, there is however one earlier possible link. Reverend Ragg, in a series of articles transcribing and interpreting records about the Feoffees of the Cliffords, mentions that the period of about 1452/3 until 1482, there were the following Lancasters in those lands: Thomas Lancaster in Brampton, Thomas Lancaster in Melkinthorpe, and John Lancaster in Knock (Long Marton). In his summary of comparisons between different records he describes the Thomas in Melkinthorpe as being "of Brampton". Was this in the original document?

Here the overlap does not involve Geoffrey directly, but rather an Edward who is in turn linked to Melkinthorpe, as Geoffrey seems to be at the time of his marriage. David Hall also informs me of a note he has that Geoffrey Lancaster of Melkinthorpe was mentioned in a marriage contract of 1514 for Elizabeth his daughter to Thomas Wybergh. Melkanthorpe had been held relatively recently by Thomas de Lancaster, who was apparently the one who also possessed Brampton (see above). An 1879 article about Clifton Hall in CWAAS says that the grandson of Thomas de Wybergh, who died 1504, married "a Lancaster of Melkinthorpe". And Burke's says that the father of the wife (Elizabeth) of one alive Thomas Wybergh of Clifton in 1526/7, was Geoffrey Lancaster of Crake Trees. As in so many cases for these generations, David Hall has provided me with some fascinating extra information:

Manuscripts of the Revd. Thomas Machel, vicar of Kirky Thore (d 1698) - these are his manuscript notes bound in 6 volumes - on page 606 of volume 1 the following note was made by myself back in 1996 at Carlisle Record Office " 13 Hen 8 (1521), Edward Lancaster of Brampton gentleman had 2 messuages 24 acres of land & 4 acres of meadow 1 with common of pasture for beasts without number belonging heir to ? (i) with common terberies, common of ? common of ?, and the 4th part of the Mill, in the town & field of Melkinthorpe which he sold unto William Lancaster son and heir of Christopher Lancaster of Deepdale [see below] of x markes which he held by the gift of his father and brother for term of life and he was also obliged to procure his elder brothers release of claim to those lands and grant the reversion for evermore to the said William."

To explain this Edward, we've already seen above how Lancelot Lancaster, presumably of Sockbridge, somehow became involved in a dispute which seems to concern the inheritance of the daughters of the last Brampton Lancaster. We can go further. David Hall informs me:

I have rediscovered in my files, a deed of confirmation (settlement) dated 1565 between Henry Backus and Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge concerning one third part of demesne lands of Brampton. Henry Backus appears to be going to marry or be married to Elizabeth Lancaster the daughter of Lancelot Lancaster. If all Henry Backus & Elizabeth Lancaster's heirs die out, then the estate goes to John Biggs & Adam Harrison, yeomen, the legitimate atornies of Henry. Edward Lancaster son of Lancelot Lancaster is also mentioned.

Another one, dated 1568 deed of partition - Wynder - refers to Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge the elder Esq. and Edward Lancaster of Brouham/Brampton (not sure which) son and heir of Lancelot - partition of property lately purchased off Walter Strickland.

It appears as if, with the ending of the Brampton line, Lancelot Lancaster, and possibly also Geoffrey, made a concerted effort to get whatever they could, back into Lancaster hands. This might explain why Lancelot was helping the widow of John de Lancaster of Brampton to sue her own son in order to stop him allowing properties all being giving out to the families of her great grand-daughters (above). Such machinations may also have played a role in Melkinthorpe and Waitby. But it might also not be quite that simple.

Waitby is quite far from Sockbridge, so it is surprising to find that Nicolson and Burn write, concerning Waitby...

In 18 Henry 8 [1526/7] John Bell, John Hoton, and the heirs of Thomas Musgrave and Thomas Lancaster, in the right of their wives, daughters and coheirs of Thomas Beauchamp, held a moiety of the manor of Wateby; and Geoffrey Lancaster the other moiety.

That Thomas Lancaster was one of the Brampton Lancasters is known, and we also know his lands went to his grand-daughters. (See above.) However, Geoffrey Lancaster's family is new in Waitby. That this was Geoffrey of Sockbridge seems clear because in the Inquisitio Post Mortem of Ambrose Lancaster, Geoffrey's son, Waitby appears as a possession.

What we can say however is that the two Lancaster families could be quite separate in Waitby. Waitby was divided into two moieties, and the record is quite clear in stating that Geoffrey was not in the one associated with the Brampton Lancasters of that time. It is very interesting that Geoffrey was in the moiety which had been held in 1452/3 by George Nevil knight, lord Latimer. (That moiety was called Waitby-Agnes.) We know that in the period between a Sockbridge Lancaster, Gilbert, was married to Alice Nevill, half sister to this George.

What was a Lancaster doing suddenly appearing in this place? An interesting speculation could be made which takes into consideration the events of these times, wherein the Lancasters of Sockbridge were partisans of Thomas Lord Dacre, and a tension was apparently building up against the Whartons, who lived in and around Waitby, and would become very apparent in the 1500s. Thomas Sandford, who is mentioned often in Lancaster records of this period, transferred his loyalty from Dacre to Wharton. Going further, to quote just as an example, a modern work on the period, "Society, Politics and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England" by Mervyn Evans James, mentions a dispute in 1535...

The mutual hatred exploded into hunting disputes and frays in Westmorland, where one of the Musgrave houses, Hartley castle, stodd within a few miles of Wharton Hall [and Waitby]. Christopher Wharton, Sir Thomas's brother, slew a Musgrave servant; significantly, Dacre tenants joined in the disorders on the Musgrave side. Agrarian grievances became entangled in the dynastic quarrels, so that Lancelot Lancaster, one of Dacre's officers in Westmorland, assembled his master's tenants, and led them to throw down certain enclosures which had been made by John Warcop, Wharton's brother-in-law. Eventually the earl of Westmorland and then Lord Monteagle were sent to the scene to restore peace. The murderer Christopher Wharton escaped lightly. He was merely bound over to keep the peace, together with the aggrieved Sir Edward Musgrave. But Lancelot Lancaster was imprisoned in Appleby Castle.

Concerning Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge, steward of Dacre in Westmorland, the boy who Geoffrey was to help supervise at the death of his father, to quote from James again he "could be relied on, when required, to push his master's quarrels with the dominant local Clifford interest to the point of violence". Geoffrey would have been one of the only local legal authorities to bring a case to, and Geoffrey was also legal advisor to Dacre.

Once again I start with something from David Hall...

I have a note that Gilbert could have been the father of this Geoffrey - from a deed 1574, Ambrose Lancaster & his son Thomas of Craketrees sell Bowerbank to William Sisson and Richard Hodgson (9acres). This deed refers to an old deed of Gilbert Lancaster's in the reign of Henry VII (so I assume it was dated between 1485 and 1509). I guess therefore that Bowerbank descended to Ambrose via his father Geoffery and before that from Gilbert. Also, a Gilbert married an Alice. Could this Gilbert have been the brother of Hugh Lancaster of Sockbridge, in which case he was a knight?

We recall above that the Sir Gilbert who David is referring to was married to the Nevill family. However, this Gilbert was probably long dead by the time involved and the connection to Geoffrey might not be one of simple inheritance. More complex dispute seems to have been involved in claiming this land to the Lancasters. According to a History of the Sandford family, reviewing documents previously published and commented upon by Ragg...

...there had been a controversy concerning the lands bought by Thomas Sandford from Thomas Lowther in 1478, for in 1495 is an award in the dispute between Thomas, Lord Dacre of Gillesland and Geoffrey Lancaster on the one part and Thomas Sandfurth on the other, about the right “tytill” to lands in “Askom, Meysand and Burbank”. It was decided that Lord Dacre and Geoffrey Lancaster were to have Burbank and Wirril [Ragg describes the same document with Tirril, not Wirril, which seems correct], and Thomas Sandford was to keep Askham and Measand and he consequently gave them a release of Burbank and Wirril on 21st October 1495. Evidently despite the care taken to block all possible claimants by means of interim feofees etc., during the purchase of these lands from 1476 to 1478, some legal flaw in the transfer had been discovered. Mr. Ragg suggests that it may have been owing to their having been granted Thomas Sandford by Hugh Lowther for the term of Hugh’s life only instead of without any restriction.

The documents involved seem to be D LONS/L5/1/3/101, 102 & 103 from the Lonsdale records. One of them mentions an old document of Sir Gilbert of about 1491, seeming to imply that Ambrose, the son of Geoffrey, was heir to Sir Gilbert. Very interesting in this particular story, there is another document about Askham, and this dispute with the Sandfords. C 1/331/34 (1504-1515) concerns Roger Lancaster, "nephew and heir of Gilbert a Lancaster, knight." v. Margaret, executrix and late the wife of Thomas Sampford.: Detention of deeds relating to messuages and land in Ascombe.: Westmorland. Roger will be discussed more below, but in general, the claims against Sandford seem to involve Sir Gilbert and people claiming to be his heirs.

There is a tendency in the above information which suggests that Geoffrey is not just a Sockbridge Lancaster, but also one with a special connection the possessions formerly held by one Sir Gilbert de Lancaster, who was however apparently too recent to have been the one who married Alice Neville, but who might have been related. Perhaps Geoffrey, like Roger, is a nephew, but then we have the inconvenient problem of deciding whose son he is.

David Hall has found an old Visitation which says that Geoffrey's children were Ambrose and also Ann who married John Warcop, however concerning Ann Warcop nee Lancaster see the will of Geoffrey's seeming father:

  1. Ambrose Lancaster of Crake Trees.

  2. Elizabeth Lancaster, who married Thomas Wybergh of Clifton Hall.


The son of the second Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton.

1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.2.1. Ambrose de Lancaster of Brampton.

Ragg (1910, p.419)

...in 1519 comes a deed by Ambrose Lancaster, son and heir of Thomas Lancaster of Brampton, "gentleman," and of Janet his wife, releasing to John Hoton of Penrith all his right and title to a chief messuage (manor house) in Waitbie [Waitby], of which Thomas Wherton was occupant, and to all rents and services of the demesne in Waitbie and Kirkby Stephen, which of late belong to Thomas Beauchamp of "Croglying" [Croglin] in Cumberland.

The Later Records relating to North Westmorland tells us,

The manor of Brampton belonged anciently to a family of its own name, afterwards it came to the Graystocks in whom it continued until the latter end of Henry v, when it passed to the Lancaster family and continued therein until the reign of Elizabeth when it passed to the three co-heiresses of the last male heir.

These three heiresses seem clearly to be the ones already mentioned above:

C 1/616/31 Christopher Crakenthorpe, esquire, and Thomas Byrkbek, gentleman, feoffees to uses. v. Johanne [Lancaster] and Lancelot Lancaster.: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Brampton and land there, whereof Thomas Lancaster enfeoffed complainants to the use of Jane, Maud, and Bridget, daughters of Ambrose Lancaster.: Westmorland. [Covering dates 1529-1532]

Johanne seems to be the mother of Thomas de Lancaster (see above) and grandmother of the 3 daughters. It is interesting to see that Lancelot Lancaster, apparently one of the Sockbridge family, appears on her side. He apparently had claims on this property himself, or perhaps he was insisting on the rights of the daughters of Ambrose. Perhaps it is as a result of this pressure that the second son of Thomas Birkbeck, Edward Birkbeck, married Jane Lancaster the daughter of Ambrose? (The above record makes it clear that Jane, Maud, and Bridget were daughters of Ambrose, not Thomas as claimed in the Birkbeck book.)

I suppose the Birkbeck book to be correct when it asserts that Bridget married John Backhouse, and Maud married Gilbert Wharton of Kirkby Thore. Lancelot seems to have later transacted with this Backhouse family, and another marriage was organized. David Hall writes of a deed:

The deed is dated 1565 re Brampton and is between Henry Backhus and Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge. Interestingly it mentions Edward Lancaster of Broughton (I think) son and heir of Lancelot but definitely concerns Brampton. I think maybe Henry Bachus is going to be married to Elizabeth daughter of Lancelot?

The same Birkbeck family perhaps later also married into Lancelot's own family and seem to have eventually taken over the Durham property of Headlam from them. See below.


Generation 10.

The children of Christopher Lancaster and Eleanor Musgrave.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1. Thomas Lancaster. Married a Laybourne and had two daughters. The old pedigrees are likely to be very correct for this generation so we can accept their stating that Thomas was the eldest son, and that his brother William inherited the main manors from him.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.2. Edward Lancaster. Mentioned in old pedigrees.

David Hall informs me:

Machel Vol 1 page 606 says that William, son and heir of Christopher Lancaster of Deepdale purchased land at Melkinthorpe from Edward Lancaster of Brampton in 1521. This Edward had to secure release of claim from his elder brothers and so I suggest this Edward was the same third son of Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge and Elliner.

David later found further evidence for this event in The Duke of Norfolk's Deeds at Arundel Castle. It gives extra details, first that the document was dated 6 September, and then the terms. Property: one tenement in Melkanthorpe in occ of Robert Culpeper and William Culpeper, tenants at will a) grants to b) to hold during the lifetime of a). So it was only for Edward's lifetime. The "livery of seisin" was later the same month, on the 24th of September. The witnesses to that event were John W[ar]thcope of Smardell, farmer, Thomas Walker of Melkenthorpe, William Warkeman of the same and William Wilkinson, husbandmen, John Jacson [?the younger]. Roger Lancaster, gentleman.

Only two days later, comes a connection confirming that Melkinthorpe was still connected to the Brampton Lancasters:

Quitclaim: 26 September, 13 Hen. VIII
a) Joan Lancaster, widow of John Lancaster of Branton [?Brampton]
b) William Lancaster as in CW 289 above
Property: as in CW 289
a) quitclaims to b) all her rights in the property
Witnesses: Edward Lancaster, gentleman, Roger Lancaster, John Patenson the elder 

So it seems that Edward was intended by Joan to takever Melkinthorpe, and Roger was involved. As we explained above we know that a few years later Lancelot Lancaster was involved in Joan claiming the deeds of Knock from her own son Thomas, and defending her from similar claims to Brampton itself, from two men who claimed to have it from Thomas.

David says in other correspondence:

[A] child of Christopher L of Sockbridge and Elliner Musgrave was Edward Lancaster. This Edward was the next in line male heir after William L who married Elizabeth Lowther. Now, there is a will of Lancelot Lancaster of Hartsop proved in 1583 who says his uncle and his grandfather were both called Christopher Lancaster and his father was described as second son/next heir. I therefore think that this Lancelot was the son of the above Edward. This Lancelot married Isabel ? and they had sons John Lancaster of Nether Hartsop, Patterdale (will 1589) and Ambrose Lancaster of Hartsop (will 1590). John married Jannett and had Christopher, John, Lancelot, Agnes and Isabell. Ambrose married Ellen? and had Christopher.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.3. Master Stephen Lancaster, chaplain. Ragg gives a date of 1507, but with no apparent reference. He appears in his brother William's will. There is an inventory for a Margaret, widow of Steven, of Barton, dated 1580. We also have the following snippets...

C 1/873/23. 1533-38. Elizabeth, late the wife of Edward Penruddocke. v. Lancelot Lancaster and Stephen Lancaster, clerk.: Messuages and land in Barton Row, Thorpe and Tirrel, formerly of Robert Penruddocke.: Westmorland

Testamenta Eboracensia Or Wills Registered at York, Page 368 (Surtees Society 1865). Licence to Stephen Lancaster, chaplain, to marry Cuthbert Ratcliffe par.

Northumberland, and Margaret Clifford of Barden, in the chapel of Barden. [Could Barden be Barton? But there are at least two Bardens in Yorkshire.]

In Burkes it is claimed that at least one son can be identified: William Lancaster of Swarthbeck whose will is dated 18 December 1599 and was proved 1600/01. However, there appear to be many questionable steps in this pedigree.The evidence for this being a son of Stephen is unknown, but William's will exists and shows that he a son Christopher and daughter in law Jane. Burkes claim they had a son Francis Lancaster of Coate, but this seems doubtful also. See below concerning Edward Lancaster, the son of William Lancaster of Sockbridge and Elizabeth Lowther.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.4. Nicholas Lancaster. Mentioned in old pedigrees. He had either a son or nephew with the same name according to the will of his brother William. One of these Nicholases was listed as one of the gentlemen of Westmorland in 1539.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5. William Lancaster of Barton (approx. 1465-1510). The continuation of the main line, because he married Elizabeth Lowther, great grand daughter of William Lancaster of Sockbridge, brother of his own great grand father Hugh Lancaster, and thereby apparently re-took control of Sockbrige, if it had ever effectively been lost. According to David Hall the marriage articles are dated 1494. See above.

David Hall informs me:

William was the second son and heir and marriage articles dated 1494 give his wife as Elizabeth daughter of Sir Hugh Lowther. In 1490/91 William made a legal document concerning his estate (prior to his will). This document mentions William's nephew William Lancaster and a Stephen Lancaster, clerk, who was the older William's younger brother.

William's will also mentions a nephew Nicholas Lancaster.

David Hall informs me that a William Lancaster was admitted to Lincoln's Inn on 20 April 1476. Geoffrey Lancaster (see below) was admitted some 20 years later, and other members of Westmorland families also entered in this period, so this could be the same William we are discussing.

On 12 July in the first year of Henry VIII (1509), a chancery record names "William Lancastre. of Soykbreyd. Cumb" as a surety for a large amount money which had been owed, if I understand correctly, by Thomas Lord Dacre and Sir Edward Musgrave, of Edenhall, to the late kind Henry VII. Other records of Henry VIII seem to indicate that William deceased during that same first year of his reign. In any case a William Lancaster with official positions died and was replaced in several of them by one Richard Appulby. These positions included bailiff of Penrith and steward of Marten.

William's will mentions land in Kendal, Patterdale, Nether Hartsop, and Sleagill. The original lands of his ancestor Gilbert in the 1100s.

The only child in old pedigrees is his main heir Lancelot, but thanks to David Hall I know that at least some of his other children were mentioned in his will of 1515, and his wife's will of 1524. The names are mostly new ones for the Lancasters, but soon to be imitated in the family:

  1. Lancelot Lancaster, also mentioned in his mother's later will.

  2. Geoffrey Lancaster, mentioned in his father's will, but not as an executor.

  3. Percival Lancaster, also mentioned in mother's will. Possibly died about 1575 (inventory exits for Percival of Barton). David Hall writes:

I think Percival was the one who married Margaret (widow Sisson) and they lived at Kirkbarrow, near Barton church. Percival had a son Jarvis but I do not know who became of him.

  1. Edward Lancaster.

  2. Anthony Lancaster. According to David Hall he was admitted to Oxford the same day as his brother Ambrose, 15 Feb 1533/4.

  3. Ambrose Lancaster. Appears to have been rector of Swanscombe in 1566. He was educated at Queens College Oxford.

  4. Cuthbert Lancaster.

  5. Anne Lancaster. Seems to be Anne Warcop by the time of her mother's will, with son Lancelot Warcop. Apparently married John Warcop. Based on information from David Hall, this Anne is named as a daughter of Geoffrey Lancaster of Crake Trees in an old visitation?

  6. Margaret Lancaster, also mentioned in mother's will, without surname.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.6. Margaret Lancaster. Married a John Boste or Reeste or Boostes of Penrith according to old pedigrees.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.7. Isabel Lancaster. Married Thomas Skipton of London, according to old pedigrees.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.8. Joane Lancaster. Married Christopher Lancaster of Deepdale, according to old pedigrees. Deepdale had belonged to the Lancasters of Howgill so this may represent a mixing of the Howgill and Sockbridge lines of Westmorland Lancasters. This can be compared to my proposals on the Howgill Lancaster page.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.9. Elizabeth Lancaster. Married John Hodgson or Hodson of Barton, according to old pedigrees.

Also in this generation.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.?.?.?. Robert Lancaster of Patterdale?

David Hall writes:

Robert L of Patterdale (will 1576) could be a son of Christopher and Elliner. This Robert seems to be married to Mabel (will 1583). They probably had the following children; William Lancaster Esq of Swarthbeck (will 1600), then Richard of Patterdale (will 1600?), then Rowland, Jeffrey of Swarthbeck (will 1599) then Henry of Penrith (will 1607) and Jane who possibly married a Ruking?

The line might continue from the above William L Esq. of Swarthbeck and his wife Margaret having Christopher Lancaster who married a Jane? Then Christopher and Jane had William, Thomas of Swarthbeck (will 1669) who married Margaret Walker at Martindale in 1649. Thomas and Margaret had Jane baptised in 1650 at Martindale and Thomas baptised in 1652. This son Thomas married Agnes? and was admitted to Swarthbeck in 1681 (manorial records) and was later of Sandwick (will 1708). Thomas and Agnes had George bap in 1671 (eldest son) Edward bap in 1673, Jane? in 1677 Mary in 1679, Thomas in 1681, Margaret in 1682, David in 1687, Lancelot in 1700 and Elizabeth in 1704 all at Martindale. Besides having these children, Thomas had other siblings but only two were brothers, Jo baptised in 1654 (not in his mothers will) and Richard baptised in 1662 (both at Martindale).


The son of Geoffrey Lancaster of Crake Trees.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.?.?.1. Ambrose Lancaster of Crake Trees. Married Elioner Wandisford of Kirklinton, Yorkshire. (David Hall mentions marriage articles 1534.) His Inquisitio Post Mortem is dated 1590/91.

This document mentions Melkinthorpe in the first line, perhaps indicating that it was made there, and many lands apart from Crake Trees, including Maulds Meaburn, Waitby, Witherslack, Martindale, Eamont Bridge and Low Winder.

Elioner's mother re-married after having children and her will is to be found under the name Margary Tunstall. Most of her children mentioned there are Wandisfords by surname, but her daughter is Hellener Lancaster, and her Son(-in-law?) is Ambrose Lancaster. The sons of Ambrose are John and Thomas, the children of John are Francis, Esaybell, Margery and Jeffrey.

In 1549-1564 he appears to have been escheator for Westmorland.

David Hall wonders if Ambrose is the father of Edmund Lancaster of Witherslack.

We only know the children from the grand mother's will:

  1. Thomas Lancaster of Crake Trees.

  2. John Lancaster.

  3. Edmund Lancaster? SPECULATION BY DAVID HALL.


Generation 11.

The children of William Lancaster and Elizabeth Lowther.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1. Lancelot Lancaster esquire, of Sockbridge (approx 1490-1570), apparently the first of that later much-used name amongst Westmorland Lancasters. (Lancelot was also a name used earlier by other Westmorland families such as the Threlkelds, for some time.) There are many records of his life, many of which seem to show him as a controversial and acquisitive person.

Lancelot was steward of Lord Dacre. In 1547-1549 he was escheator for Westmorland. The historian of Mervyn Evans James wrote that "he could be relied on, when required, to push his masters quarrels with the dominant local Clifford interest to the point of violence".

Lancelot appears to be the first owner to use the name "Ladyford" for some land in Skelsmergh, which I believe was probably land long in Sockbridge Lancaster hands, possibly as part of their Strickland Ketel lands?

Lancelot's will is dated to 1570.

Lancelot had children from no less than three wives...

...From his first wife Ann, daughter of Nicholas Harrington of Sleydale and Euberry Hall...

  1. Edward Lancaster of Sockbridge

  2. Elianor, who married Richard Cleybourne

  3. Ann, who married John Wharton

...From his second wife, Margaret, daughter of Thomas Rookby or Rokeby of Murton...

  1. Joane, who married Thomas Dykes of Dykesfield, escheator of Westmorland under Elizabeth I.

  2. Thomas Lancaster

  3. George Lancaster

  4. Ambrose Lancaster.

  5. Grace, who married James Harrington of Wallop.

...From his third wife, Winifred...

  1. William Lancaster.

  2. Simon Lancaster, who is said to have had 6 sons, and was a young son mentioned in his father's will.

  3. Frances, who married a Turner.

  4. Anne. Mentioned as unmarried in her father's will.

David Hall writes concerning this last wife:

After the father Lancelot died in 1570, his wife Winifred married Robert Cheyney in 1573 at St Gregory by St Paul, London. Hence the move of part of the family to London.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.2. Geoffrey Lancaster. As discussed above, this presumes that William de Lancaster was speaking of two different Geoffreys in his will.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.4. Edward Lancaster.

David Hall believes this is Edward Lancaster of Sockbridge whose will is dated 1571. If so then he had sons Lancelot, John and Christopher, mentioned in the body of his will. Also he had sons Arthur and Hew who were stated as executors with his wife Annas. The son Lancelot had a son Christopher "to be brought up at the house until he be of lawful years". Perhaps Lancelot had died young. David Hall has traced several lines of descendants from these children, summarising one:

John Lancaster of Tirril married Elizabeth Todd at Dacre in 1577, and his son Edward, known through property deeds, married Margaret Ematson at Askham in 1606.

...

The Edward Lancaster who married at Askham in 1606 was stated to be from Barton.

There is a Bond dated 1610 from Edward Lancaster of Askham to George Lancaster of Sockbridge yeoman regarding 1 acre of land.

There is also a deed of gift dated 17 March 1602/3 from Thomas Lancaster of Sockbridge, tailor, to his nephew George Lancaster son of Arthur Lancaster of Sockbridge (Arthur being the brother of Thomas) and to his nephew Edward Lancaster the son of John Lancaster deceased (John being the deceased brother of Thomas).

Hence, George Lancaster of Sockbridge and the Edward Lancaster (who went to Askham) were first cousins.

John, Thomas and Arthur were all sons of Edward Lancaster of Sockbridge (brother of Lancelot Lancaster Esquire of Sockbridge)

...

He had a son John baptised in 1616 at Askham, who in turn seems to have married Agnes Barle in Askham in 1644. George Lancaster who married Francis Tinkler in 1683 was baptised at Askham in 1652, son of John L and Agnes Barle.

I have also been informed by Christopher David that Edward and Margaret had a daughter Frances baptized in 1616, who married William Steavenson. David believes we can go further in at least one male line...

George Lancaster who married Francis Tinkler in 1683 was baptised at Askham in 1652, son of John L and Agnes Barle.

(This is known to disagree with a pedigree in Burkes, which makes this George a son of another George who lived in Barton. But David reasons...

The marriage of George Lancaster and Frances Tinkler in 1683 at Askham is verified and the details state that both were of Askham. Therefore the first place to look for this George's baptism would be Askham. The church records for Askham seem to be partially duplicated in the church records for Lowther and so it is best to look at them both. Askham and Lowther are very close. This reveals the family of John Lancaster of Lowther and his wife Agnes Barle of Askham who married at Askham 13 Feb 1644/5, viz;

Hence I believe it was the George Lancaster baptised in 1652 at Lowther who was the father of the John Lancaster baptised at Askham in 1685/6, or at least there would need to be a good reason to look to an outside parish for him.

This whole discussion, bringing a particular Burkes pedigree in question is therefore also interesting to discussion concerning the family whose descent that pedigree claims to trace - the Lancasters of Holme in Cliviger, near Burnley in Lancashire. In other words, while it is hard to prove or disprove their connection to Askham, it does seem relevant that Burkes made a paper trail between the Sockbridge line and Askham which seems filled with questionable speculation. David Hall has listed a few problems...

1. "Burke gives the date of baptism of George Lancaster of Tyrill (will 1663 pr 1674) as 2nd March 1632. The report says the baptism is found at Martindale in 1639 of George the son of Thomas. Now, this is unlikely to be the same George Lancaster of Tyrill because George was married to Margaret sometime before 1656. There is a property deed dated 1656 in which George Lancaster of Tyrill is married to Margaret and he is selling property at Tyrill. This would make George less than 17 at this time. Also, when George made his will in 1663 he had 4 sons and this would also be very unlikely at the age of 24. After George died in 1663 his widow Margaret was still in Tyrill and property was held on behalf of the eldest son William. I think that George Lancaster of Tyrill was born well before 1639."

2. "Burke has George the son of Thomas Lancaster of Coate. I think this George was buried at Barton in 1676 as the burial states he was of Thrangcrag in Martindale. His inventory gives his mother as Annas. Therefore it is unlikely that this was the George of Tyrill."

3. "I have Francis Lancaster of Coate as being born in about 1567 from a witness statement in a court case. Now, Christopher Lancaster of Fewsdale (the proposed father of Francis Lancaster according to Burke) had to be born after 1566 because his Christopher's mother had been married to Thomas Brown prior to marrying secondly to Christopher's father, William of Swarthbeck. Thomas Brown's will was proved in 1566 so Christopher was born after then. Therefore Christopher could not be the father of Francis as Francis was born in about 1567."

Eventually, Burkes traces their version of this line back to Master Stephen Lancaster, mentioned above as the son of Christopher Lancaster and Eleanor Musgrave.


The son of Ambrose Lancaster of Crake Trees.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.?.?.1.1. Thomas Lancaster. Thomas Lancaster married Jannet Brown daughter of Cicely Brown (widow of Thrangcrag by the time of the marriage articles of 1564). Janett's 1620 will still exists with a copy in the Lowther archives in Carlisle (Deeds re Craketrees Farm incl. probate will of Janet Lancaster 1620 D LONS/L5/1/15/7). It mentions one grandchild is a Robinson, and her main heir and sole executor is another grandchild, Christopher Lancaster.

David Hall mentions that there is a sale deed in 1604 - farmhold at Witherslack, Thomas Lancaster of Craketrees.
There is also a record indicating that he possessed the tithes for Yanwath and Eamont Bridge in 1592 (WDRY/7/1/1/9/4). These tithes had been bought earlier by Lancelot Lancaster in 1541 (WDRY/7/1/1/3/9).

The children of Thomas and Janet were:

  1. Barbara Lancaster, who married Richard Lancaster of Sockbridge, mentioned above.

David Hall writes: Barbara married secondly possibly to John Robinson in 1599 at Crosby Ravensworth. After Barbara died, it is possible that John Robinson? married Agnes Barwick ? at Shap in 1601. (lawsuit 1635).

  1. Francis Lancaster, who according to David Hall married Frances Pickering in 1590 at Crosby Ravensworth (no issue - will of Cicelly Brown and deeds 1592 & 1594).

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.?.?.1.2. John Lancaster.

John is mentioned in his grandmother's will as having four children:

  1. Francis Lancaster. Old spelling is not standardized, so this could be a son or daughter.

  2. Esaybell Lancaster

  3. Margery Lancaster

  4. Gyffray Lancaster

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.?.?.1.3. Edmund Lancaster. SPECULATION BY DAVID HALL.

David writes: There is a burial at Crosby Ravensworth in 1613 of Edmund Lancaster of "Wickerslack" - see the parish records for this family.

The Crake Trees family held land there until at least 1604. See above.

He is however not mentioned in his supposed grand mother's will. He might be a relative though.


Generation 12 for the main line.

The children of Lancelot Lancaster, the first of that name.

...From his first wife Ann, daughter of Nicholas Harrington of Sleydale and Euberry Hall...

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1. Edward Lancaster of Sockbridge (approx 1538-1618).

Married Margaret Middleton, daughter of John.

In 1604, Edward and his son Lancelot sold Ladyford.

Edward Lancastre died 20 January, 15 James I (1618) and Lancelot Lancastre esquire is his son and heir, aged 50 years at the time of his father's death.

His children:

  1. Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge

  2. Richard Lancaster. Old pedigrees say that he had 2 sons.

  3. Frances Lancaster

  4. Margaret Lancaster

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.2. Elianor, who married Richard Cleybourne

Mr Cleburne is mentioned as an executor in Lancelot Lancaster's will.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.3. Ann, who married John Wharton.

John Wharton is mentioned as an executor in Lancelot Lancaster's will.

...From his second wife, Margaret, daughter of Thomas Rookby or Rokeby of Murton...

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.4. Joane, who married Thomas Dykes of Dykesfield, escheator of Westmorland under Elizabeth.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.5. Thomas Lancaster. David Hall writes:

Thomas had at least 1 son, Christopher evidenced by a deed in 1597 between Thomas and his brother Ambrose. I do not know what happened to this Christopher. He was possibly baptised at Gainford, Co Durham in 1578 but the father's name was not given. (see later about Ambrose as he was at Gainford/Headlam Co Durham). Thomas went to Tewkesbury.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.6. George Lancaster

A George Lancaster is mentioned as an executor in Lancelot Lancaster's will. However, while Thomas and Ambrose, his brothers, were both mentioned in their uncle Ralph Rokebie's will, there is no mention of a George there.

David Hall writes:

George is not listed in the articles of marriage in 1576 between Lancelot Lancaster (Edward of Sockbridge's son) and Jane Musgrave - not sure if the marriage took place even - so I think George had probably died before 1576 or become a priest?

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.7. Ambrose Lancaster.

David Hall: The connection with Headlam as mentioned before is by Ambrose the son of Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge. This Ambrose had children baptised at Gainford, Co. Durham but the parents names are not given in the church records and so it is possible that Ambrose's brother Thomas had children baptised at Gainford also. See Gainford church records 1578 to 1594 where 10 Lancaster children baptisms are recorded but parents name not given. I have often wondered about the connection between Birkbeck and Lancaster in Co Durham but never bottomed it out.

...and again...

Ambrose was a gent at Headlam, married to a Margaret. Ambrose had a least 1 son called John, evidenced in a deed dated 1597 between Ambrose and his brother Thomas, John being under 21. John was possibly baptised at Gainford in 1580, but the father's name was not given. At Gainford several boy Lancasters are baptised with no father's name given, viz; 1578 Christopher, 1580 John, 1580 Henry, 1581 Lancelot (who probably married Elizabeth Pattison at Gainford in 1641 - check if not 1640 as this could be important), 1587 William (who probably married Marie Whittaker in 1624), 1588 George, 1589 Henry. There is a burial of Ambrose in 1623 at Gainford (probably the father) and there is a burial of Mr Henry Lancaster in 1658. So, there could be a line descending from this lot! I am pretty sure that Lancelot of Headlam (bap in 1581 at Gainford) corresponded with Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge (and Craketrees) about the sale of the Lancaster estates and claimed a pay off, but this was limited because he was not married at the time, then suddenly did marry - hence the date of marriage being important if 1640. However I suspect that Lancelot had no sons.

From Durham Records we see references to documents like the following...

Ref No. D/Cr 5; 1593; (2 parchments): Lease for 21 years, from Ambrose Lancaster of Headlam and Cuthbert Wayde of Ingleton, to Michael Hodgson of Headlam, with bond to secure performance of the covenants,

Ref No. D/Cr 7; 1596/7; (1 parchment): Feoffment from Thomas Lancaster of Gloucester to Richard Mershall of Denton and Percevele Burrell of Summerhouse, of all his property in Gain ford, Headlam and Summerhouse, including Agnes Flatts,

Ref No. D/Cr 9; (3 parchments): Feoffment from Ambrose Lancaster and his sons, John and Lancelot, to Rev. John Cradocke, and his son, Richard (1592-1624), with a bond to secure performance of the covenants, 1599

Ref No. D/Cr 10; (2 parchments): Final concord between Ambrose Lancaster and Rev. John Cradocke, 1600

So two of his sons were:

  1. John Lancaster

  2. Lancelot Lancaster

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.8. Grace, who married James Harrington of Wallop.

...From his third wife, Winifred...

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.9. William Lancaster.

As mentioned above, this William went into law and was for some time a legal advisor to Lord Dacre, along with Geoffrey Lancaster, starting April 1524. He is probably also the William who along with Geoffrey became a JP in Northumberland at the same time.

David Hall writes...

"William the eldest son by Lancelot's 3rd marriage resided in Westminster and married two or three times, the latter two wives probably Mary and Jane. William was buried Westminster 1623. There are several son baptised at Westminster to William, viz; 1589 Francis (Francis went to Oxford - PCC will proved 1629), 1590 Richard, 1594 John (PCC will 1621 no issue mentioned), 1603 James - will pr 1646 by sister Mary as sole executor, 1610 Lancelot and 1613 George. There are several daughters and two had wills proved at the PCC but no mention of any male Lancaster nephews. So there is a possible line continuing from this branch."

[The 1621 PCC will of John Lancaster, a grocer in London, specifically mentions his father as living, eldest sister Francis, sister Margaret, and younger brothers and sisters, James, George, Ann, Cordelia and Mary. Cordelia also had a PCC will of 1633. It mentioned sisters Mary, Francis and Margaret and brothers James, Lancelot and George. Her mother Jane was still alive.]

He "was at Westminster by 1622 when he sold tithe corn at Sockbridge to Lancelot Lancaster of Hartsop that had been settled on him and his wife Jane. William had a large family at St Margaret's, Westminster between 1586 and 1613. William's son Francis was baptised at Westminster in 1589 and he went to Oxford. In Francis's will proved in 1629 he mentions his sister Frances Lancaster, his cousin Christopher Lancaster of Craketrees, and his brother Richard."

[Alumni records show Francis matriculated at Christchurch College 5 December 1606, aged 17.]

"I have this Richard as being baptised at Westminster and his will is probably that of Richard Lancaster of Kirkbythore, proved at York in 1637 - it mentions his wife Mary and daughter Mary."

"[Richard's] daughter Mary was to be brought up in the fear of God and so perhaps he was a vicar?"

[Alumni records show that there was a Richard Lancaster of Westmorland at Queens College, matriculated 1572, aged 18.]

I note that if Richard was the one in Kirkby Thore, then he appears, for example, in Boyds Families of London. His wife Mary was Mary Wharton. Her parents were Thomas Wharton of Kirkby Thore and Mary Hartley of Appleby.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.10. Lancelot Lancaster, who is said to have had 3 sons, and was a young son mentioned in his father's will.

Brother-in-law of "Thomas Dykys of Warther" against whom he appeared in the Court of Chancery C 1/782/37 (1533-38). A will of 1640 for Lancelote Lancaster of Sockbridge exists naming his niece Anne Dyke and her daughter Alice. Also had Middleton, Musgrave and Blenkinsopp cousins and a Tankard godson.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.11. Francis Lancaster, who is said to have had 4 or 5 sons, and was a young son mentioned in his father's will.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.12. Simon Lancaster, who is said to have had 6 sons, and was a young son mentioned in his father's will. David Hall writes:

He is not in the articles of marriage 1576 between Lancelot and Jane Musgrave and so presumably he had died between 1570 and 1576 (Simon is mentioned in the 1570 inventory of Lancelot).

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.13. Frances, who married a Turner.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.14. Anne. Mentioned as unmarried in her father's will.


Generation 13 for the main line, and 12 for the Crake Trees line.

The sons of Edward Lancaster of Sockbridge

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1.1. Lancelot Lancaster (approx 1568-1642). He married Frances Tancred, who was accused of being a recusant. They had no heir. Strangely, they were still alive when their nephew, last of the line, wrote his will. So Christopher never took up his position as next line, but already knew that the line was going to end.

It appears there had been a plan that he would marry a Musgrave. From British History Online:

1619 Inquest taken at Browham, 15 October, 17 James 1 (1619), before Cuthbert Orfeur, gentleman, Roger Otway, esquire, escheator and Robert Curwen, gentleman, feodary, the king's commissioners. Edward Lancaster, esquire, long before his death was seised of the manor of Sockbread and divers lands, &c. in Tirell; the manor of Hartsopp; the manor of Strickland Roger and divers lands, &c. in Ladyford and Skelmerster; a moiety of the advowson of the vicarage of the parish church of Barton; a moiety of the rectory of Barton and of all the tithes of grain, hay, lambs, wool, hemp and other tithes of the parish of Barton, the tithes in Martindell, parcel of the said rectory of Barton excepted. So seised he by deed dated 28 September, 18 Elizabeth (1576) granted to Edward Middleton, esquire, John Wharton, esquire, and George Hudson, gentleman, all the premises and his lands and tenements in co. Westmorland, to the use expressed in certain indentures of same date made between the parties for the advancement of Lancelot Lancaster, son and heir apparent of the said Edward Lancaster, and for the jointure of Jane Musgrave, one of the daughters of William Musgrave, esquire, if a marriage hereafter should be had between the said Lancelot and Jane, namely: To hold the capital messuage called the demesne lands of Ladyford, parcel of the manor of Strickland Roger, and 8 messuages then in the tenure of the wife of Nicholas Redmaine, Mabel Duckett, widow, Edward Redmaine, Christopher Redmaine, Robert Richardson of Hartsopp, Geoffrey Thompson of Gaithowe in Overhartsopp, Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbread and John Lancaster of Tirrell with the lands to the same capital messuage or 8 messuages belonging, to the use of the said Lancelot Lancaster and the said Jane, daughter of the said William Musgrave, for parcel of her jointure and the heirs male of the said Lancelot, with divers other remainders to heirs male; and to hold the residue of the premises to the use of the said Edward Lancaster for term of his life and after his death to use of Lancelot and his heirs male.

Nicholas (sic Lancelot) Lancastre still survives and by force of the statute of uses of Henry VIII, Edward Lancaster was seised for term of his life of the premises aforesaid except the messuage and lands assured for the jointure of Jane.

The manor of Sockbread is held of the heirs of Matthew Redmaine, by a pair of spurs, saving foreign service; a moiety of the manor of Hartsopp, a moiety of the manor of Strickland Roger, a moiety of the lands and tenements in Ladyfoordes and a moiety of the lands and tenements in Skelmerstre are held of James Bellingham, knight, in socage by a pair of spurs and are worth yearly 40s.; and the other moiety of the manors, lands and tenements in Sockbread, Tirrell, Hartsopp, Strickland Roger, Ladyfoordes and Shelmestre are held or Charles, prince of Wales, as of his purparty of the barony of Kirkbykendall called "le Marquesse Fee," by knight service and a yearly rent of 26s. 8d. and are worth yearly £10 clear; the moiety of the advowson or right of patronage of the vicarage of the church of the parish of Barton and the moiety of the rectory of Barton and of all the tithes of grain, &c., of the parish of Barton, except the tithes in Martindell, parcel of the aforesaid rectory of Barton, are held of the king in chief by knight service and are worth yearly clear £3. Edward Lancastre died 20 January, 15 James I (1618) and Lancelot Lancastre esquire is his son and heir, aged 50 years at the time of his father's death; Court of Wards Inq. p.m., vol. 61, n. 141. 

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1.2. Richard Lancaster. He married Barbara Lancaster, of the Crake Tree Lancasters (see above). Although the old pedigrees mention two sons, it seems only one lived long enough to be an heir.

The son:

  1. Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge.


The sons of Ambrose Lancaster of Headlam, Durham.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.7.1. John Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.7.2. Lancelot Lancaster.


Generation 14 for the main line and 13 for the Crake Trees line.

The son of Richard Lancaster of Sockbridge and Barbara Lancaster from Crake Trees.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1.2.1. Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge Esquire, was heir to both the main Sockbridge line, and the Crake Trees line. He died about 1641 and married Elizabeth Tankard, daughter of Thomas Tankard, who was a relative of Christopher's recusant aunt? (Nicolson and Burn).

In the Lowther archives the following record exists: Grant of wardship of Christopher Lancaster heir to part of the manor of Waitby and property in Oddendale and Crosby Ravensworth D LONS/L5/1/15/5 1614.

As mentioned above, his uncle was still alive when he wrote his will. He wanted lands in Waitby and Penrith, apparently not connected to his uncle, to be sold for the advantage of his younger daughters before his uncle died. The lands in Sockbridge, Hartsop and two other places could, if I understand correctly, be taken over by the Lowthers after his uncle's death, if they paid off the other sisters for a very large amount of fifteen hundred pounds?

Strickland Roger appears to have been sold in 1623, to "Hugh Barrow of Skelsmergh, yeoman and Mathew Phillipson of Strickland Roger, yeoman", so it did not end up with the Lowthers.

The will mentions an uncle Lancelott, and his wife Francis, as well as John Lowther, Christopher Lowther, and Leonard Dykes. The names of his four daughters agree with the account of Nicholas and Burn, of which Francis was to marry Christopher Lowther, and his wife was Elizabeth.

A house was also conveyed by a Christopher Lancaster to a John Robertson, in Sockbridge in 1647 D LONS/L5/1/34/4. Possibly a relative of his mother?

The four daughters...

  1. Frances Lancaster. Married Christopher Lowther, sheriff of Cumberland, first baronet of Whithaven, thus inheriting Sockbridge. He also apparently bought out the 3 other sisters in a pre-agreed way.

  2. Elizabeth married to William Hutton of Penrith and Gale

  3. Barbara married to Mr Davyes of Winder

  4. Mary married to Mr Highmore of Cumberland.