Chapter C: R. M

* * * * *

Replies.

CRANMER'S DESCENDANTS.

(Vol. iii., p. 8.)

Your correspondent may be interested to know, that Sir Anthony Chester, Bart., of Chichley, co. Bucks, married, May 21, 1657, Mary, dau. of Samuel Cranmer, Esq., alderman of London, and sister to Sir Caesar Cranmer, Kt., of Ashwell, Bucks. This Samuel Cranmer was traditionally the last male heir of the eldest of Cranmer's sons; his descent is, I believe, stated in general terms in the epitaphs of Lady Chester, at Chichley, and Sir Caesar Cranmer, at Ashwell. He was a great London brewer by trade, and married his cousin Mary (sister of Thomas Wood, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and Sir Henry Wood, Bart., of the Board of Green Cloth), dau. of Thomas Wood, Esq., of Hackney, by his wife ---- Cranmer. They had only two children, and it would appear from Harleian MS. No. 1476. fo. 419., which omits all mention of Sir Caesar, that he died in his father's lifetime, and that Lady Chester was sole heiress to this branch of the Cranmers.

There are two brief pedigrees I have seen of these Cranmers, one in Harl. MS. 1476. above {189} mentioned, the other in Philipot's _Catalogue of Knights_; but neither of them goes so far as to connect them with the archbishop, or even with the Nottinghamshire family; for they both begin with Samuel Cranmer's grandfather, who is described of Alcester, co. Warwick. Now the connexion is certain: could one of your readers supply me with the wanting links? Is it possible that they omit all mention of the archbishop on account of the prejudice mentioned by your correspondent; being able to supply the three generations necessary to gentility without him?

I am obliged to write without any books of reference, or I would have consulted the epitaphs in question again.

R. E. W.

I am afraid that my quotations from memory, in my letter of Saturday, were _not exactly correct_; for on examining Lipscomb's _Buckinghamshire_ to-day, I find that it is stated (vol. iv. pp. 4-7.) on the monument of Samuel Cranmer at _Astwood Bury_, that he was "descended in a direct line from Richard Cranmer, elder brother to Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury;" and that it was found, on an inquisition held on April 7, 1640, that his son and heir Caesar Cranmer (called on the monument "Sir Caesar Wood At^e Cranmer, Kt.") was his heir at six years of age. This Caesar was knighted by Charles II., and died unmarried; so that his sister, Lady Chester, was evidently the representative of this branch of the Cranmer family.

Now, with regard to this statement on the monument, in the first place it is discrepant with Lady Chester's epitaph at Chichley, which (Lipscomb's _Bucks_, vol. iv. p. 97.) expressly declares that she derived her descent from the archbishop. In the next place it appears from Thoroton's _Notts_, that the archbishop had no elder brother named Richard. His elder brother's name was John; who by Joan, dau. of John Frechevill, Esq., had two sons, Thomas and _Richard_. Could this be the Richard alluded to? In the third place, in neither of the pedigrees alluded to is there given any connexion with the family of Cranmer of Aslacton. And, lastly, it is opposed to the uniform tradition of the family. Now, if any of your readers can clear up this difficulty, or will refer me to any other pedigree of the Cranmers, I shall feel extremely obliged to him.

With the exception of the points now noticed, my former letter was perfectly correct, and may be relied on in every respect.

I may mention that these Cranmers were from Warwickshire. The monument states that Samuel Cranmer was born at "Aulcester" in that county, "about the year 1575."

R. E. W.

* * * * *

DUTCH POPULAR SONG-BOOK.

(Vol. iii., p. 22.)

The second edition of the song-book mentioned by the HERMIT OF HOLYPORT must have been published between 1781 and 1810, as the many popular works printed for S. and W. Koene may testify. In 1798 they lived on the Linde gracht, but shifted afterwards their dwelling-place to the Boomstraat. For the above information--about a trifle, interesting enough to call a _hermit_ from his _memento-mori_ cogitations--I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. J. J. NIEUWENHUYZEN.

But, alas! what can I, the man with a _borrowed name_ and borrowed learning, say in reply to the first Query of the busy anchorite? He will believe me, when I tell his reverence that I am _not_ JANUS DOUSA. What's in the name, that I could choose it? Must I confess? A token of grateful remembrance; the only means of making myself known to a British friend of my youth, but for whom I would perhaps never have enjoyed MR. HERMIT'S valuable contributions--the medium, in short, of being recognised incognito. Will this do? Or must I say, copying a generous correspondent of "NOTES AND QUERIES,"--Spare my blushes, I am

J. H. VAN LENNEP.

Amsterdam, Feb. 25. 1851.

* * * * *

BARONS OF HUGH LUPUS.

(Vol. iii., p. 87.)

Your correspondent P. asks for information respecting the families and descendants of William Malbank and Bigod de Loges, two of the Barons of Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, whose signatures are affixed to the charter of foundation of St. Werburgh's Abbey at Chester.

Of the descendants of William Malbank I can learn nothing; but it appears from the MS. catalogue of the Norman nobility before the Conquest, that Roger and Robert de Loges possessed lordships in the district of Coutances in Normandy. One at least, Roger, must have accompanied the Conqueror to England (and his name appears in the roll of Battle Abbey as given by Fox), for we find that he held lands in Horley and Burstowe in Surrey. His widow, Gunuld de Loges, held the manor of Guiting in Gloucestershire of King William; and in the year 1090 she gave two hides of land to the monastery of Gloucester to pray for the soul of her husband. Roger had two sons, Roger and Bigod, or, as he is sometimes called, Robert. The former inherited the lands in Surrey. One of his descendants (probably his great-grandson) was high sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in the years 1267, 1268, and 1269. His son Roger de Loges owned lands and tenements in Horley, called La Bokland, which he sold to the Abbot of {190} Chertsea. His successor, John de Logge of Burstowe, witnessed in the tenth year of Edward II. a deed relating to the transfer of land in Hadresham, Surrey. The name became gradually corrupted to Lodge.

To return to the subject of inquiry, Bigod de Loges--

"held five tenements in Sow of the Earl of Chester, by the service of
conducting the said earl towards the king's court through the midst of
the forest of Cannock, meeting him at Rotford bridge upon his coming,
and at Hopwas bridge on his return. In which forest the earl might, if
he pleased, kill a deer at his coming, and another at his going back:
giving unto Loges each time he should so attend him a barbed arrow.
Hugo de Loges granted to William Bagot all his lands in Sow, to hold of
him the said Hugo and his heirs, by the payment of a pair of white
gloves at the feast of St. Michael yearly."--Dugdale.

Bigod de Loges had two sons, Hugo and Odardus:

"Odardus de Loges was infeoffed by Ranulphus de Meschines, Earl of
Chester, in the baronies of Stanyton, Wigton, Doudryt, Waverton,
Blencoyd, and Kirkbride, in the county of Cumberland; and the said
Odardus built Wigton church and endowed it. He lived until King John's
time. Henry I. confirmed the grant of the barony to him, by which it is
probable that he lived a hundred years. He had issue Adam. Adam had
issue Odard, the lord, whose son and heir, Adam the Second, died
without issue, and Odard the Fourth likewise," &c.--Denton's _MS._

Of the branch settled in Staffordshire and Warwickshire--

"Hugo de Loges married, tempo Richard I., Margerie, daughter and
heiress of Robert de Brok. By this marriage Hugo became possessed of
the manor of Casterton in Warwickshire. He was forester of Cannock
chace. He had issue Hugo de Loges, of Chesterton, whose son and heir,
Sir Richard de Loges, died 21st of Edward I. Sir Richard had issue two
sons, Richard and Hugo. The eldest, Richard of Chesterton, left issue
an only daughter, Elizabeth, married to Nicholas de Warwick. The issue
of this marriage was John de Warwick, whose daughter and heiress,
Eleonora, married Sir John de Peto, and brought the manor of Chesterton
into that family."--Dugdale.