Research of Ian Wallace
Research on Friday 3rd April 1998 into the possible origin of Peter
Mallory.
A) Facts
i) Parish Registers of Chesham, Bucks.
Working from Vol. 1 of the transcript prepared by J. W. Garrett-Pegge,
which covers the period 1538 to 1636.
Baptisms:
26/8/1604 Susan d of John & Elyzabeth Weedon, Pynner.
14/1/1626-7 Susan d of James & Margaret Weedon.
13/12/1629 Mary d of William & Eliz Preston.
Marriage:
19/4/1636 Mr Peter Mallory & Susan Weedon.
In this Vol. there are no other Mallory (or variant spellings) entries at
all. There is no other entry for Mary Preston. There are other Weedon
entries.
ii) Parish Registers of Shelton, Beds.
Working from the transcript edited by F. G. Emmison and covering the
years 1602 to 1812. The original Registers only survive from 1706. For the
period prior to this the transcript has been based on Bishop's Transcripts
which have not survived for all years. The period reviewed runs from the
start in 1602 until 1753. In this period the B.T.s for 1636, 1640 to 1649,
1661 to 1664, 1667 and 1703 are missing.
Baptisms:
31/12/1618 Grace d of Jn Malory.
25/2/1620-1 Grace d of Ralph Malory.
25/1/1637-8 Susan d of Peter & Susan Malory.
7/1/1639-40 Wm s of Peter & Susan Malory.
9/5/1668 Francis s of Rog Malory, gent.
15/10/1669 Elizabeth d of Roger Malory, gent.
Marriage:
28/8/1683 Joshua Baker, Londoner & Grace Malory of Kimbolton, Hunts.
Burials:
26/5/1619 Grace d of Jn Malory.
27/9/1688 Peter Malory, gent.
B Interpretation.
Regarding the Chesham entries, it would obviously be advisable to extend
the review into the next Vol. of the transcripts in order to check for
children of the marriage of Peter and Susan, or the death of the spouses.
This would give some indication of whether Peter Malory and Susan stayed in
Chesham after their marriage. On the limited evidence of what is now known,
this looks like a traditional marriage in the home parish of the bride,
with the groom coming from another parish.
The entry for Mary Preston was sought as some pedigrees show Peter
Mallory marrying her in Chesham, the more general view is that the marriage
took place after Peter arrived in America. This Mary Preston is about the
right age; her father's name is William, the same as that given for the
father of the Mary Preston who married Peter in America, but there is not
any obvious Yorkshire connection.
Regarding the Shelton entries, these fit in fairly well with Mrs Smith's
book. The continuation of Pedigree G on page 148 shows the birth of Grace
in 1618 to John and supplies the name of his wife, the register entries now
give the exact date of baptism and explain the lack of later history as she
died an infant. Pedigree K on page 156 shows the birth of Grace to Ralph
and Grace (nee Neal); the register entries provide the exact baptismal date
and details of her marriage - it seems inconceivable that the marriage does
not relate to the daughter of Ralph given that branch of the family's
connection with Shelton and the absence of any alternative Grace Malory.
Kimbolton in Huntingdonshire is only just over the old county boundary, a
few miles east of Shelton.
Pedigree K also shows William and Susan, the children of Peter Mallory
and Susan (?Weedon). The register entries give the precise baptismal dates.
It might have been expected that Susan's marriage would be found in Shelton. Her burial as Susan Boundy was not checked for.
I am not at all clear who the Roger Malory was that fathered Francis and
Elizabeth. Both Roger and Francis are names more associated with the
Yorkshire/Cheshire branch of the family than with the Bedfordshire branch.
However it may well be that this is the Francis who began in 1705 the legal
action which eventually recovered Shelton for the Mallory family in 1714.
(see Mrs Smith's book, page 89). A protracted legal action in the period
1705 to 1714 is perhaps more plausible for a man born in 1668 than in 1626.
Notes on the origins of the Mallory family, in particular with
reference to ideas put forward by Mrs S. V. Mallory Smith in
"A History of the Mallory Family".
1) The Meulan Connection.
Mrs Smith picks up the suggestion first made, I think, by L.C.Lloyd in
"Origins of some Anglo Norman Families" in 1951 that the Mallory family
originated in or near Meulan on Seine. This location is in France proper,
rather than the Duchy of Normandy. She also noticed the similarity between
the arms of various branches of the Mallory family and those of the Earls of Leicester. Robert de Beaumont was Count of Meulan and became Earl of Leicester (in the context of the extracts quoted below he was Earl Robert I). Researchers looking at the early landholdings of the Mallory family will have noticed how often they hold as sub tenants of the Earl of Leicester or in association with other persons connected to Earls of Leicester. Mrs Smith recounts the story of the sack of Leicester in 1173 and the role played by Anketil Mallory as Constable of Leicester Castle.
Some time ago I came across other evidence of an early close relationship
between the Mallory and Beaumont families in an obscure but erudite book
about the Beaumont family. All the mentions of the Mallory family are quoted
below. While there is no more direct evidence of a Meulan origin of the
Mallory family than Lloyds earlier comments, the close involvement of
Richard and Anschetil Mallory in the inner circle of Beaumont confidants
over a period of time is consistent with such an origin. It seems to have
been common at that time for posts such as steward to great lords to be
almost hereditary. It seems very plausible that members of the Mallory
family had a tradition of service to the Beaumont family in France and
accompanied their lords to England. It is unclear whether the charter
referred to in the footnote to page 157 of Crouch's book evidences the
relationship between Richard and Anschetil.
NOTES FROM " THE BEAUMONT TWINS : THE ROOTS AND BRANCHES OF POWER IN THE
TWELFTH CENTURY" . by DAVID CROUCH , WITH REFERENCE TO THE MALLORY
FAMILY.
1) PAGE 142 :-
"Earl Robert III continued the process of multiplying stewardships.
Between 1168 & 1189 William de Brasseuil is described as senescallo de
Paci; William de Cierrey, Eustace de Hellenvilliers, Anschetil Mallory,
Ralph de Martinwast, and Gilbert des Minieres each appear on one occasion
as steward, in addition to the appearance of Arnold IV du Bois as steward
in 1180. "
2) PAGE 157 :-
Re. attestation of Earl Robert II's acts:- "Men of what may be called
knightly class are also regulars. Roger of Cranford, Reginald de Bordigny,
and Richard Mallory, attest respectively fifteen, twelve and ten times. "
A footnote adds :- "Richard Mallory was the elder brother of Anschetil
Mallory, who was to be a steward of Earl Robert III. Richard was a tenant
of the honour of Leicester at Swinford, Leics., and Welton Northants.,
see Brit. Libr., additional charter 47394; Reg.Leicester, fol. 143. The
Mallories apparently came from the county of Meulan, see Lloyd(1955),p56.
It may be that Richard Mallory can be identified with the Richard who was
Earl Robert's chamberlain during the period that Richard Mallory followed
Earl Roberts curia. The reference is to L C Lloyd "The Origins of some
Anglo-Norman Families", pub by the Harleien Society,ciii.
3) PAGE 175 :-
Re the household of Earl Robert III :- "The witness lists of his
pre-1168 charters include several men who became his officers after his
succession to the Earldom: notably, Master Hugh Barre, Anschetil Mallory,
William de Cierrey, Hugh Burdet II, and Hugh de Campanne.
4) The book is concerned with the Lives and Careers of Earl Robert II
of Leicester and his elder twin Waleran, Count of Meulan & Earl of Worcester.
They were the children of Robert de Beaumont , Count of Meulan & Earl of
Leicester.
Fulcher de Malsours and The Battle Abbey Roll.
In her discussion of the Mallory family origins Mrs Smith considersthe role
of Fulcher de Malsours and the claim that he was the progenitor of the
Mallory family
Page 124). Shealso reviews the relationship between Fulcher's
Northamptonshire and Rutland landholdings and the somewhat later Mallory
holdings in those counties, concluding that there is no evidence to
suggest that the Mallory holdings were derived from Fulcher's holdings
(Pages 35/6).
The suggestion that Fulcher gave rise to the Mallory family seems
to originate in the Duchess of Cleveland's "The Battle Abbey Roll"
published in 1889. As Mrs Smith says, this work has now been to a large
extent discredited, but as the whole subject of the Battle Abbey
Roll still gives rise to frequent confusion and unwarranted assumptions it
is worth looking at it in more detail. Nothing that follows is original,
as a number of authors have dealt with this subject including the late
Sir Anthony Wagner and Anthony Camp. The latter has just retired as director of the
Society of Genealogists, his booklet "My Ancestors came with the
Conqueror" is a very good summary of the facts.
There is no original of the Battle Abbey Roll in existence at present.
What is described as the original was probably destroyed by a fire in 1793.
It has been plausibly suggested that the Roll was a fourteenth century
production, but it is not of course now possible to test that theory
directly. All that can be said is that there is no real evidence to suggest
the Roll was in existence earlier. This leaves open the question of what
sources of information might have been available if it was drawn up in the
fourteenth century. A major problem with the so called Battle Abbey Roll is
that various copies of it do not agree with each other. The main versions
are :-
1) Holinshed's of 1577, published in his Chronicles.
2) John Brompton's of 1436, printed by Twisden in 1652.
3) Andre Duchesne's published in 1619.
4) Robert Wace's version, published by Edgar taylor in 1837.
5) John Leland's version, transcribed before 1550, printed by
Thomas Hearn in 1715.
6) Guillaume de Tailleur's version of 1487 (in 'Chroniques de Normendie'),
printed by John Stowe and Edmond Howes in 1615.
In addition there are two other lists that are sometimes confused
with the Battle Abbey Roll or are said to be accurate records of the
knights who came with William the Conqueror in 1066:-
A) The Falaise Roll. These 315 names were included on a bronze
tablet erected at Falaise in 1931, they purport to be the names of those
identified after research as having come with Duke William in 1066. It is
generally agreed that for almost all of the names there is insufficient
evidence to show that they did in fact accompany Duke William in 1066.
B) The Dives Roll. This was compiled by Leopold Desisle in 1866
and inscribed on a memorial in Dives Church. It seems to be generally
agreed that Desisle was a genuine scholar but he left no record of his
researches. As far as can be ascertained his research derived from
landholdings recorded in the Doomsday Book drawn up in 1085. It is
therefore not direct evidence of what took place in 1066.
It is difficult to make considered judgements about all of these
sources, but Leland can be regarded as likely to make an accurate
transcription of a document placed before him, he is a reputable historian.
However, the value of his transcription would be no better than the value
of the document from which he was working. On the other hand Holinshed
(a major source ofinformation for Shakespeare in other matters) is often
sloppy.
In general it can be said with confidence that these sources
include four types of persons :-
1) Those generally agreed to be real people and to have been
present at the Battle of Hastings. (A small number, under 20).
2) Real people who may well have been at the Battle of Hastings,
but for whom it is not possible to produce evidence to show this.
3) Real people not at the Battle of Hastings.
4) Fictitious characters.
The difficulty is that although category 1 has been well
defined by earlier work and category 4 can usually be found out by
research, it is not possible to distinguish categories 2 and 3.
Turning now to the Mallory family, the usual spelling (either Mallory
or Malory) is reported by Holinshed and Duchesne, but
not by Leland. In fact the nearest that Leland includes is "Mauliverer"
and "Mallop". The question to be answered is why a reliable historian did
not report the name if he saw it? The only obvious answer is that the name
was not on the document he was working from. In these later years there
would have been more incentive to include names than to exclude them,
so the negative evidence should be given more weight. The obvious explanation
is that some versions of the Battle Abbey Roll or some of the historians
producing copies of it were seeing names that were not there. For our
purposes it is not necessary to explain why some accounts of this (?) 14th
century source include names which might be Mallory, it is more instructive
to consider why not all of the reliable versions include this name.
There seems litle justification on any grounds to derive the name
Mallory from Malsours.
On the whole then there is not much evidence to suggest that the
progenitor of the Mallory family was in England by 1066. On the other hand
there is a lot of direct evidence to show that the family was present in
the mid/late 12th century. Does this mean that the Mallory family arrived
significantly after 1066?
Back to Peter Mallory Page
Return to Main Page