Oh! Kaye!
From
Ian Goddard@ian_ng@austonley.org.uk to
soc.genealogy.medieval on Mon Dec 30 16:42:24 2024
From Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.medieval
The editor of Dossworth's notes (JYAS vXIII) makes this statement in a
long (pp27-9) footnote:
"in the same year Maunton and Cupper make John Rybenden their attorney
to deliver seisin of the above premises to John, son of William Cay,
..., according to the tenor of a grant made to him by them in 49 Edw.
III., .... The year 1375 is therefore the exact period of the coming of
the Kayes into Yorkshire.
It ought to have been mentioned that in that year Maunton and Cupper
granted this manor of Slaithwaite to Collan and other chaplains to
enfeof in it, John, son of William Cay, for term of life in fee tail or
fee simple, remainder to his sons Lawrence, William and Peter in
succession remained to any other issue of John, son of William,
remainder to John, his bastard son, remainder to the right heirs"
This is the John Kaye normally referred to as being of Woodsome.
In fact there had been Kayes - in various spellings - for over a century
by this time.
My oldest possible man who might have had a Kay surname is Henry in
Yorkshire Deeds (YD) VIII p75:
"217. Gift by Gilbert de Gant to Peter de le Stane, for his homage and service, of four carucates and two and a half bovates of land in
Hundemanebi with all appurtenances within the vill and without, in
meadows and feedings, waters, paths and all easements belonging to the
land; of which Ralph de Nitherafne had held three bovates, Ralph son of
Walter two ,rCa Henry son of Kay* one, rCa Witnesses, Ellis (Eliseo), prior
of Bridligtona, Stephen de Gant, Reginald de Gant, John de Melsa, Peter
de Melsa, Henry de Folketona, Ralph de Nouilla, Walter de Sancto Laudo,
Roger son of Malger."
There was an Ellis/Elias prior of Bridlington around 1200. If this is
the same man then it's possible that the Kay surname /could/ have arisen
at this early date.
* I have found my own surname evolve from a statement in this form in a
family in Cowick a few decades later.
The above was rather speculative. A little later we are on firmer
ground, YD II p 70:
"Grant by Nicholas de Herneby [Harmby, Layburn] to Walter Gille and
Olive his wife, of two acres of land in the vill and territory of
Herneby, ...Witnesses, Walter de Eggelescleve, Thomas de Spenithorn,
Roger de StodehagrCO, Simon Jutteman, William Schoteman, Thomas Orm, Alan Cay."
This is undated but another grant by Nicolas to the Gilles with
Spenithorn as witness is dated 1283 and a confirmation by Adam son of
Nicholas to them is dated 1294 so it would appear likely that Alan Cay
was living in the late C13th.
From the 1279 taxation roll we have, in Austwick:
"Willelmus Kay habet ij vaccas[cows], precium viijs; fenum[hay], xijd.
Summa bonorum, ixs. Nona, xijd"
Only the better off were taxed at this time so there may have been other
Kays. His wealth, such as it was, was derived from farming.
The family was still in Austwick in 1379, i.e. contemporary with John
Kaye of Woodsome, when Johannes Cay & wife were taxed 4d.
There were others contemporary with John of Woodsome.
This family was from Dalton by Topliffe, Thirsk:
YD IX p 57 relating to Dalton by Topcliffe1
"133. Purification of the B.V.M. [Feb. 2], 1375[-6]. Release and
quitclaim by Hugh Kae of Dalton to Emma and Agnes, daughters and heirs
of William Acthebeld of Dalton, of all right and claim in an annual rent
of 8d. from lands and tenements which are called DalbyrCOs lands (terre de Dalby). Sealing clause. Witnesses: Sir Robert de RowclifrCO, knt., John
Darel, William de le Rywer, John de Thorpe, John son of Robert de
Dalton, John Forest of the same"
Undated YD II p187 relating to nearby Thirkelby another deed has a Hugh
Kaye as a witness
"475. Grant and release by Olyver de Buscy, knt, to Geoffrey, son of Guy (Wydo) de Thurkelby, of a toft and croft in the vill of Thurkelby, and
four bovates of land in the territory of the same vill, ... Witnesses,
Sir Richard de Malebis, Sir Marmaduke Darel, Sir Robert de Furneus,
knts., John Maunsel of Bruddeford, John son of John de Siggeston, Thomas Maunsel of Heton, Ranulph de Dalton, Peter at the spring (ad fontem),
Hugh Ke, Robert Wygot, William son of the clerk of Dalton."
This Dalton family appears to have continued into the next century.
Also YD IX p150 relating to nearby Sessay
"389. Oct. 20, 20 Henry VI [1441]. Appointment by Ranald Paron and Emma,
his wife, of John Heton and Ranald Thomlyson as their attorneys ...
Witnesses: William Barre, Henry Maunselle, William Chilton of Dalton,
Thomas Ka of the same, Thomas Thomlynson of Heton."
These have all been from the N of the county although Austwick is, in
fact, in the West Riding. There are more from the West Riding 1379 roll
and, more significantly, more from the Wakefield Manorial rolls from the
late C13th.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
From
Ian Goddard@ian_ng@austonley.org.uk to
soc.genealogy.medieval on Mon Dec 30 17:27:45 2024
From Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.medieval
There were Kayes in Wakefield from the 1270s, a century before their
alleged arrival in Yorkshire.
Hugh Kaye
Most of the records from Wakefield come from the manorial rolls but the taxation records of 1279 contained another Kaye beside William of
Austwick, Hugh of Wakefield:
"Hugo Kay : ij affros [horses], precium vjs ; j vaccam, iiijs. In
mercimoniis, xvjs. Summa bonorum, xxvjs. Nona, ijs xd"
Unlike William, Hugh was a primarily a merchant. He appears to be of a
higher status than the other Wakefield Kayes. At this time he is
wealthier than them and twice in the manorial rolls he is listed on a
tourn jury, a function reserved for freeholders.
In the C14th rolls there are references to a Hugh Kaye being fined for
the usual manorial offences (escapes of pigs etc.) and taking small
parcels of land. This seems likely to be a different Hugh, probably of
a later generation. This later HughrCOs wife is given as Juliana.
There are a few instances where a Hugh Kaye is a pledge which could be
either the earlier or later Hugh.
John Kaye and family
On 15 Aug 1277
"Mariota, wife of German the Mercer, complains of John Kay for receiving
her goods, stolen by Margaret [? his] daughter"
At the next court on 08 Sep 1277
"Mariota, wife of German the Mercer, complainant against John Kay, is
called; and because she does not come John Kay goes quit"
As Margaret herself was not prosecuted it would appear that she was only
a child. Having a child old enough to get into mischief but too young
to be prosecuted John might have been in his late 20s or thereabouts,
perhaps born in 1245-50. We do not have any information about his
ancestry but possibly Hugh would be of his parentsrCO generation.
John became the Receiver for the manor and clerk to the Steward which
would explain why he attended court regularly although in the rolls we
see him acting either as an unofficial attorney for others or pursuing
his own interests. A somewhat confusing case of April, May and June of
1286 (the original request for an inquisition is garbled) seems
primarily to have been a claim for dower. A number of people were
summoned as witnesses including Robert and John Kaye in circumstances
which suggest they were brothers and a Maloc Kaye who may have been a
sister was also mentioned. Robert had a booth in Wakefield market.
Many of John's business affairs involved suing for debt. We learn that
he is a burgess of Wakefield by the fact that one of his cases is
transferred to the burgess court. Another was adjourned from court to
court for several years. The last instance of this is on 02 Jan 1316,.
At the next court on 23 Jan 1316 the usual announcement is made and then
the case disposed of with rCLnothing is done as the same John is deadrCY.
In life he was clearly a power in the Wakefield court for as soon as he
was dead a number of charges were laid against him for having acquired property by taking advantage of his position, charges that clearly could
not have been brought in his lifetime. It was left to German Kay,
apparently his heir, to make good on a suit for dower arising out of
these dealings. German had also appeared as a pledge, etc. several
times in the past but does not seem to have been as active as his father
in subsequent courts but was still present as late as 1340.
Beatrice Kaye
In 1307 the manorial rolls record that
rCLThe case between Beatrice Kay, pit., and Nicholas de Bateley, deft.,
for trespass, is respited until she returns from RomerCY
She must have been both devout and affluent to have made this journey. Unfortunately there is no further mention of her.
There are various records of Robert, Richard, Margery, Thomas Kaye &
Richard's son John but not from the later 1340s & onwards.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
From
Ian Goddard@ian_ng@austonley.org.uk to
soc.genealogy.medieval on Fri Jan 10 23:31:42 2025
From Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.medieval
Various visitations list the children of the original John Kaye of Woodsome.
His father is given as William
Flower numbers them:
1. Laurance
2 Wiliam
3 Peter
4 Richard
5 John
6 Jenken??? A diminutive of John. Others give James
Also 6 unnamed daughters and an illegitimate s also John.
Of these the first 3 legitimate sons are listed in 1375 grant of
Slaithwaite along with the illegitimate son John. If we make an
assumption that as 3 of 6 sons were born by this time there would have
been 3 +/- 1 o 6 daughters. Allowing 2 years between children the first
would have been born in the early-mid 1360s. This is consistent with
none of them being old enough to be taxed in 1379. Whatever William and John's ages at marriage (& William's when John was born) this must put William's birth back in the period when there were Kayes in Wakefield,
just down the road.
On the basis that John's first wife was a Finchenden (possibly only but
with 12 children it's also possible he was married more then once) the following from the 1379 taxation records for Wakefield caught my attention:
Willelmus de Ky*' Wodekirk iiij.d.
Johannes de Wodekirk iiij.d.
* This is the beginning of a name written in error? [Original footnote
by the editor]
The following line makes this more likely that Willism's surname was
Woodkirk rather than Kaye but Woodkirk is next to Finchenden. Sadly
unlikely, especially as he was only taxed 4d.
The sons are named again in 1396, along with the names of three
daughters in
https://www.catalogue.wyjs.org.uk/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=KC00184%2F1
The sequence in which the property is entailed are ia Lawrence, Peter,
John, Richard, James amd William, folloed by "John Johnson' Cay son of
[John of Woodsome], i.e. the illegitimate son, followed by daughters
Isabelle, Alice and Marjorie and their male heirs. Presumably these were daughters who had married and had sons by the time of the document
From Dosworth's noted Margaret [sic] had married John, s of William
Fenay [Fenay was a leading family of the area but Fenay the place was
close to Woodsome] in 1393
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Linux NewsLink 1.2