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.

Founding Charters

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):

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 Lancasre 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 forensice 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).

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, Gaeml the forester, Edulf the reeve and many others.

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 hird 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 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.

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 below Aidesdale, 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.

Grant by William de Lancaster II of half of Sockbridge, land in Patterdale etc.

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 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.

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.

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 [near Elterwater?] and all my land of l'Haukesite [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.

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.

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:

• Robert Mustel grants to Gilbert de Lancastre the service and tenement of William Brun in Backestaneholm; Trans. C. and W. A. and A. Soc., N.S., X, 400.

• Patrick, son of Bernard grants to Gilbert de Lancastre, land between Spret and the highway from Churches (sic), and also bounded by the river Kent and Langperbeck, to hold for 3s. cornage and forinsec service (fn. 1) belonging to a 12th part of two bovates of Eschingham (sic), with common of pasture in Skelesmeresergh for his men; Reg. of D. at Levens.

• Robert Mustel grants to Gilbert de Lancastre, the moiety of his land in Stirkeland towards the streams of Spritt and Kent, and between Kent and the demesne of Little Sledale, &c., and meadowland above Karlingheved; ib.

Generation 1.

1. Gilbert de Lancaster. The founder of the Lancasters of Sockbridge was an illegitimate son of William de Lancaster II. Rev. 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. The well-known family of William de Lancaster II is described more on another webpage. Gilbert appears on many charters of his father named as his son, and as I shall explain below he is certainly not a son-in-law as Ragg had previously thought.

Gilbert also appears to have had a brother, Jordan de Lancaster, who though less well-known, also appeared in charters, sometimes explicitly Gilbert's brother and/or William's son, and 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 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.

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.

A possible sister of Gilbert and Jordan is Isabel de Lancaster who was wife to Ivo de Veteripont. Ragg suggest 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 thee possessions to her marriage, Blencarn, Ainstable and Waverton, which in her era were all subject to various claims and disputes by members of the de Thursby family. (My thanks to Pat Junkin for helping me understand who this Isabel might be.)

Late in his father's life Gilbert was enfeoffed of Sockbridge (both of the moieties, in two grants), Hartsop, and Strickland Ketel.

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 that Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid ever used the name “de Lancaster” in his own lifetime.

For Ragg the clinching evidence is when Helewise, the daughter of William II, confirms her fathers grants to Gilbert her brother. Apart from Sockbridge, in 1180–1200 "Uchtred son of Ketel granted to Gilbert de Lancastre a 4th part of the land in Stirkeland (fn. 2) which William de Lancastre had given to Ketel the grantor's father, to hold for 6d. yearly." Gilbert FitzReinfrid also seems to have given Gilbert de Lancaster possession of Hawkshead (by 1196 Fitz Reinfrid's claims had been overcome by Furness Abbey), according to a charter found by Ragg.

Gilbert's wife was Sapience as shown by Ragg in a charter made after the death of her husband but before that of Gilbert fitz Reinfrid, was renting from her. This shows that Gilbert died about 1220.

The first reason we know that he had a son is because 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”.

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

Generation 2.

1.1. Gilbert de Lancastre "junior". This is the next in the main line of the Sockbridge Lancasters.

Along with his apparent father, this Gilbert appears as a witness on a charter of Gilbert Fitz Reinfred around 1189-1201. In 1246, at the passing of William de Lancaster III, 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)

Gilbert also appears to be the husband of Christiana, through whom Ragg believes that the Sockbridge line aquired their property in Hertsop. (However, he apparently forgot the evidence that Gilbert's father already possessed it, see above.)

They and Lord Roger de Lancaster “de Rydal” of the FitzReinfrid Lancasters, mentioned below, were involved in several legal cases, first in 1255-56 (Ragg cites Assize roll 979, & Westmorland Feet of Fines 40 H III), and later after Gilbert's demise, in the 1270s (Assize Roll 980) Christiana, now a widow, and their son Roger had more legal conflict with Lord Roger. Much of the debate seemed to be concerning the Sockbridge family's mill.

I think we can also equate him with “Sir Gilbert de Lancastre” mentioned in a charter concerning 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. William de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME. Ragg discovered that sometime not long before 1196 Gilbert fitz Reinfrid granted Gilbert de Lancaster, presumably the above one, Hawkshead and "Elterdale" (which is probably one of the dales feeding into or out of Elterwater). One of the witnesses was a William de Lancastre. This could have been William de Lancaster III, the son of Gilbert, but might he have been a son who took up residence in Furness? 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.

I notice a case in 1281: a Roger de Lancastre touching possessions in Stirkeland Ketel and Kirkeby in Kendale. His widow Isabella paid 33 pound 2 shillings for custody of his heir Gilbert (Ragg refers to Assize roll 986). 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.

Ragg calculates the value of his possessions as follows:

Sockbridge, including Tirrell: one tenth of a knight's fee

Hartsop: one twentieth of a knight's fee, but commuted during Roger's lifetime to one tenth of a knight's fee.

Slegill: one twentieth of a knight's fee

Bannisdale and Strickland Roger together: one twelfth of a knight's fee.

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 mention 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. As mentioned briefly above, Gilbert is first recorded as an underage heir in 1291. Ragg identified Gilbert from two 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.

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.

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

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

2. Roger de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

3. Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge.

4. Robert de Lancaster.

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.) But 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]...".

He is possibly 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 but favoured son.

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).

1.1.1.1.1. 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.

1.1.1.1.2. Roger de Lancaster (of Sockbridge). Appears to have been the eldest legitimate son and the heir until 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, 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 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. 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.

The inquisitions tells us that he possessed

• A pasture in two portions in Banandesdale in Stirkland Ketel,

• One messuage and one carucate in Skelsmergh, plus two tofts and one carucate there held jointly with his wife Margaret. All of these held of Roger de Leyburn.

• In Stirkland Randolph, one toft and one bovate of land plus one carucate held jointly with his wife which was partly in Sleddate. This was held of Thomas de Roos (Roger's brother-in-law)

• Half of the manor of Sockbridge, held of Thomas de Roos

• Three tofts and one carucate in Whinfell, of Matthew Redmane.

• Three tofts and one carucate of land in Faverbank, in Stirkland Ketel, held jointly with his wife Margaret, of Thomas de Thweng.

• Tenements in Kirkby Kendal held by Walter de Edenhale and Alice de Heton.

From the documents after his death, we know his children...

1. Alexander de Lancaster.

2. Joan, wife of William le Taillour.

1.1.1.1.3. Christopher Lancaster of Sockbridge. Because the above line of Gilbert's is apparently not widely known, the Lancasters of Sockbridge are said to descend from a Christopher de Lancaster who married Joanne, the daughter of Hugh de Lowther of Lowther Castle. His parentage is commonly given incorrectly.

Christopher, already married, was enfeoffed of Sockbridge and Strickland Roger in 1300s. For example they took seisin of Tirril (Tyrehr) in 1371. This first wife before appears to have been named Margaret. The records of Strickland Roger appear to make it clear that he was the son of a Gilbert. See http://edenlinks.rootsweb.com/1gp/RECORDS/FAR/SROGER.HTM.

In 1371, Christopher, also treated John and Thomas the sons of Isabel de Wyndesore as heirs, probably indicating that Isabel was a daughter (Ragg), or might they be his illegitimate children (See Rowling who, who the same passages in Ragg, compares to a 1398 dispute with John and Thomas de Lancaster and other Wyndesore relatives in what seems to be an inheritance dispute, with Isabel having been a potential heir who missed out.). If they were the latter then might might they also be the same as John and Thomas whom Ragg claimed as sons of Joana de Lowther?

It appears from a 1375 and a 1376 patent roll that Christopher's wife, Joan Lowther, had a daughter by Nicholas de Layburn, his deaf mute heir Margaret. A John de Lancastre was also involved in helping this Margaret.

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...

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

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

1.1.1.1.4. 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".

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

1.1.1.3.1. 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 John de Lancaster, son of Roger de Lancaster of Rydal, who was a member of parliament.

Generation 6.

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

1.1.1.1.2.1. Alexander de Lancaster. It appears that Alexander was in line to inherit quite a lot and probably died young. However before he did he be 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.

Alexander's father had Roger son of Gilbert de Lancastre, had lately deceased in 1355, and was involved in with 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. 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 the family.

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

1.1.1.1.3.1. Gilbert de Lancaster. Died before his father. 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).

The 1371 grants mention Gilbert's wife as Elizabeth, but a slightly earlier charter from the 1370 Feet of Fines we see William son of Christopher with his wife Margaret, making a concord with William de Hoton. Ragg suggests that Margaret was therefore a de Hoton. Ragg suggests that Margaret must be the second wife, but the dates imply that has has this the wrong way around. I would interpret the grants as allowing for the possibility that Gilbert might still have children with his new wife Elizabeth, in which case they were first in line for the Barton lands.

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.

1.1.1.1.3.2. William de Lancaster. Second in line for Hartsop, Sockbridge and Strickland Roger. SPECULATING: William de Lancaster of Hartsop, esquire.

Might this be the founder of at least one line of Lancasters of Hartsop? See the information following, speculating about his brother, which shows how William de Lancaster of Hartsop was associated with John de Lancaster of Brampton on at least one occasion in an interesting way.

In 1425 a charter clearly distinguishes William de Lancaster of Hartsop from William de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

However! It is very interesting to note that the same man was apparently also chosen as the last option successor by Sir John de Lancaster of Howgill, last of his more powerful line of Westmorland Lancasters, also in 1425! Why was is William of Hertsop seen as the last option relative of choice by both of the (presumably) very distantly related branches of Westmorland Lancasters? Was he just a senior and neutral member of the "clan" so to speak?

Well, he was also wealthy. A 1436 "Lay Subsidy Roll" names him, it seems, as one of only two Lancasters in that list of men with land worth 100 shillings or more, being worth a significant 20 pounds. The other was a Robert de Lancaster, who only just squeezed in with 100 shillings.

Concerning the parallels between the Williams and Johns we find in records, seemingly corresponding to the two younger sons of Gilbert de Lancaster, it is also interesting that Brampton and Hartsop Lancasters are both recorded as using the cinquefoil in the canton of their Lancaster arms. All the other families with arms used lions or stars, except perhaps for a Lancaster family of Richmond who I nothing about.

In 1458 William of Hartsop granted all his manors, rents and services in the counties of Westmorland, Cumberland and York to William Soureby, an interim feofee, appointing Christopher Lancaster senior as lawful attorney.

1.1.1.1.3.3. John de Lancaster. Third in line for Hartsop, Sockbridge and Strickland Roger. SPECULATING: 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 us to suggest that this man became John de Lancaster of Brampton, perhaps the founder of the Lancasters of Brampton. He was first mentioned by the name perhaps in 1399, in the inquisitio post mortem of Sir William de Lancaster of Howgill:-

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, p. 418, also adds some information which might be relevant:

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.]

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.

Ragg did not have time, it seems to follow up the lads of the Brampton Lancaster, however we can not only propose this link but also children:

1. Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton? SPECULATION BY ME

2. Isabel de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME

3. Elizabeth de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME.

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

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

1.1.1.1.3.5. 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.

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 Whynfell, Fatherbank and Sleddale in Kendale, they are 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.

---

Generation 7.

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

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2. William de Lancaster. 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.

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.

2. Roger de Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME.

3. Richard of Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME.

1.1.1.1.3.1.3. 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.

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 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, alias William Thomson.

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

1.1.1.1.3.3.1. 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. 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?). However 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 in this period.

1.1.1.1.3.3.2. 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. Although geographically close, the Brampton and Howgill Lancasters show know evidence of close links that I am aware of.

1.1.1.1.3.3.3. 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.

The proposed sons of John de Lancaster the younger, son of Isabel de Wyndesore.

1.1.1.1.3.4. Christopher de Lancaster son of John de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY ME

1.1.1.1.3.4. John de Lancaster son of John de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY ME

In 1425, a charter settling lands in Strickland Ketel upon William de Lancaster of Sockbridge (and also mentioning William de Lancaster of Hartsop) is made out by a group of men including Christopher son of John de Lancaster. The settlement also mentions John de Lancaster son of John de Lancaster.

In 1458, in a charter by William de Lancaster of Hertsop, his attorney was Christopher de Lancaster "senior".

Generation 8.

The known son, and some proposed sons, of William de Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1. Thomas Lancaster. 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 in 1452/3, then this Thomas may have possessed Melkinthorpe?

The children however, or at least the sons, are now able to be fully listed, if we can trust old pedigrees...

1. Sir William Lancaster of Sockbridge.

2. Hugh Lancaster.

3. Robert Lancaster.

4. James Lancaster.

5. Sir Gilbert Lancaster.

6. Edward Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.2. Roger de Lancaster, of Sockbridge, esquire? SPECULATION BY ME.

All the sons of Thomas Lancaster of Sockbridge were involved, along with their Salkeld cousins and others, in a long running dispute with Thomas Baty, of Bampton, Burgham and Regill. Three documents seems to exist. Ragg mentions two, and the other is a mention in the Patent Rolls. Strangely, one of the documents Ragg viewed mentioned a Roger and Richard of Lancaster, who I can not trace. The patent roll reference at least tells us that Roger was "late of Sockbridge" in 1444.

He also seems to have had a son:

1. William de Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.3. Richard of Lancaster? SPECULATION BY ME. See Roger, the proposed brother.

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

1.1.1.1.3.3.1.1. John de Lancaster of Brampton (second of that name). SPECULATION BY ME. Nicolson and Burn cite an inquest of 1503/4 wherein a certain John de Lancaster was 30 years old and held it in knights service to the de Greystokes since he was 22, his father, also John, having held it before him. Therefore his father died about 1495/6 and he was himself born about 1473/4.

This father is possibly also John de Lancaster of Knock, yeoman. D LONS/L5/1/3/75 - 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 Ragg's 1908 transcription "The Feoffees of the Cliffords" distinguishes him from Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton, and also explains that his wife was daughter and heir of John Rukeby. Nicolson and Burn say that Knock came to the Lancasters through a marriage of John to Joan Rookby.

Might John of Knock have been a brother of Thomas, and later have taken up Brampton as his brother's heir?

Therefore we may assert the next generation with some more confidence:

1. John de Lancaster of Brampton. b. abt 1473/4.

The proposed son of Thomas Gibbonson.

1.1.1.1.3.1.3.1. William de Lancaster "senior" of Sockbridge, alias William Gibonson, alias William Thomson. See above for discussion.

Generation 9.

The Children of Thomas Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.1. Sir William Lancaster of Sockbridge. Son and heir. 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 deputys). 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.

A charter of 1463-4 (after his death?) granted to his brother Hugh, all his demesnes in Hertsope, Sokebrede, and Stirkeland Roger, and all lands and services in Yorkshire, Westmorland, and Cumberland (Ragg; charter of 1463). It is interesting - and confusing - to see that Sir William held some sort of title in Hertsop, despite the fact that - at least in 1425 - he was contrasted in documents with a "William de Lancaster of Hartsop".

Might William of Hartsop have been an uncle from he had now taken over? See above.

Might William of Sockbridge only have been in possession of part of Hartsop, for example "Nether Hartsop"? See below.

However, the title to Sockbridge seems to have passed out of the Lancaster family for a while after William, via his daughter...

1. Mabel Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2. Hugh Lancaster. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.3. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.4. James Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.5. 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, perhaps relating to Melmerby.

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.

He appears to have had one son with his Neville wife...

1. Gilbert de Lancaster? SPECULATION, IT SEEMS, OF THE OLD GENEALOGISTS.

2. Geoffrey Lancaster, of Elderbeck, Penrith, Melkinthorpe, and finally Crake Trees? SPECULATION BY DAVID HALL.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.6. Edward Lancaster. 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.

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

1.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.1. John de Lancaster of Brampton (third of that name). b. abt 1473/4. His wife was Johane, as seen in several records...

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

[Knock had been a possession of the Howgill Lancasters.]

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

And from these we can also propose his son:

1. Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton.

The son of Roger Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.2. William Lancastre, son and heir of Roger Lancastre Esquire.

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.

Generation 9.

The known son of Sir William Lancaster of Sockbridge.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1. Christopher Lancaster married Eleanor Musgrave, daughter of Thomas Musgrave of Musgrave and Eden Hall, son of Sir Richard.

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 went to the Lowthers, who were not only relatives and neighbours of the Lancasters, but also increasingly important.

Christopher's son William in turn married a Lowther heiress and 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, and Christopher is probably one of them. 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? On the other hand his family only seems to have held land in Nether Hartsop (see the 1463 documents above and also the will of Christopher's son William) so he might be Christopher of Nether Hartsop?

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.

Speculation concerning the son of Sir Gilbert de Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.5.1. Gilbert de Lancaster. SPECULATION BY THE OLD GENEALOGISTS. Most references to this Gilbert in old books look like a mere understanding, but one Visitation of Yorkshire says that he married a daughter of Sir Thomas Horton, Knight. Or did his mother marry Thomas? See above.

Given the father's good connections and knightly career, perhaps we can suggest connecting this second Gilbert to records of an "armiger" or "esquire" of that name in 1466 and 1481 in Colynflat, Whinfell, in transactions involving the Cyll or Syll family. The same Gilbert Lancaster esq. and his wife Elizabeth 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"."

On the other hand 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.5.2. Geoffrey Lancaster, of Elderbeck, Penrith, Melkinthorpe, and finally Crake Trees? PARENTAGE IS SPECULATION BY DAVID HALL.

The origin of Geoffrey who founded the Lancasters of Crake Trees is not so clear, although he seems to have been associated with Melkinthorpe at the marriage of his daughter (see below), which seems to make him the same man referred to in the will of William Lancaster above, as a supervisor and a "gentleman" at about the same time. In the body of the will, a Geoffrey Lancaster is also mentioned as a son (see below), but unlike his brothers he is not an executor. David Hall therefore suggested to me that the son was still under-age, whereas I had been thinking he might be an older son, perhaps from a previous marriage. (As David points out to me, William married about 1494, only a few years before Geoffrey.)

The main problem is that we find early mentions of Geoffrey Lancaster starting around 1471, but never consistently naming him by one residence. Were these really all the same person? 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. Therefore we must digress and consider some of the overlaps...

• Brampton.

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 some generations before by Thomas de Lancaster of 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 the 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.

• Melkinthorpe.

Melkinthorpe is 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 in 1452/3, 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?

• Waitby in Kirkby Stephen.

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. (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 seperate. 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. 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 this same period 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.

This Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge, steward of Dacre, who could even be Geoffrey's brother, is discussed above. 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".

• Bowerbank.

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, 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, 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.

There is a slight 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 Sir Gilbert de Lancaster (above) or his Neville relatives, hence he is speculated to be a son of Gilbert de Lancaster.

One of the earliest mentions of Geoffrey may be in 1471, when he was involved in disputes with Thomas Sandford, 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.

Geoffrey Lancaster was admitted to Lincoln's Inn 28 July 1494, so like his brother Ambrose he had some sort of formal education in the south of England, and must have been a useful man in Westmorland.

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. This linked Geoffrey to Penrith it seems, and 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.

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 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 third John de Lancaster of Brampton.

1.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.1.1. Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton. Married to Janet, a daughter and/or coheir of Thomas Beauchamp. Things seem to have changed, and perhaps Lancasters from other parts of Westmorland become involved. Only a few years after we find Thomas Beauchamp and Richard Warcop sharing the two moieties of Waitby...

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, 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" in Cumberland.

So we know the name of the son of Thomas:

1. Ambrose de Lancaster of Brampton.

Generation 10.

The children of Christopher Lancaster and Eleanor Musgrave.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.1. Thomas Lancaster. Married a Laybourne and had two daughters. Eldest?

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.2. 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.

At this stage I am pencilling in a different theory, which is that Edward was the son of the first Lancelot Lancaster. See below.

And 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.3. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.4. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5. William Lancaster of Barton. 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.

William's will mentions land in Kendal, Patterdale, Nether Hartsop, and Sleagill.

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.

4. Edward Lancaster.

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

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

7. Cuthbert Lancaster.

8. 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?

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

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

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.8. 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.

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).

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

The son of the second and last Thomas de Lancaster of Brampton.

1.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.1.1.1. Ambrose de Lancaster of Brampton.

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.

The son of Geoffrey Lancaster of Crake Trees.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.5.2.1. 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.

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

We only know tow 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1. Lancelot Lancaster of Sockbridge, apparently the first of that later much-used name amongst Westmorland Lancasters.

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.

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.

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.4. 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;

• John son of John bap 1645 at Askham and at Lowther, bur 1646 at Lowther.

• Edward son of John bap 1647 at Askham.

• John son of John bap 1650 at Askham and at Lowther.

• George son of John bap 12 September 1652 at Lowther.

• Thomas son of John bap 1655 at Askham and Lowther.

• William son of John bap 1658 at Askham

• Isaac son of John bap 1661 at Askham.

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 Thomas Lancaster of Crake Trees.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.5.2.1.1. Thomas Lancaster. Thomas Lancaster married Jannet Brown daughter of Cicely Brown (widow of Thrangcrag by 1564) (marriage articles 1564). Janett's 1620 will still exists. 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.

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).

2. 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).

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.5.2.1.2. 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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.5.2.1.3. 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...

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1. Edward Lancaster of Sockbridge.

Married Margaret Middleton, daughter of John.

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.2. Elianor, who married Richard Cleybourne

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.3. 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...

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.5. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.6. 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?

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.7. 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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.8. Grace, who married James Harrington of Wallop.

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.9. William Lancaster. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.10. 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.

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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.12. 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).

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.13. Frances, who married a Turner.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.14. 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

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1.1. Lancelot Lancaster. 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 knw that the line was going to end.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1.2. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.7.1. John Lancaster.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.7.2. 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.

1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1.2.1.5.1.1.2.1. 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).

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?

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 bart. 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.