Immagini della pagina

Agnes, daughter of Sir Richard Redclyffe, son of Sir Hyw by Ankret, sole heiress of Sir Henry Crevecmur, lord of Prestatyn, son of Sir John by Avicia, daughter of Sir James Butler of Wormwood, said to be descended from a sister of Thomas à Becket, son of Sir Raffe Conway, or Conias, by Joyce, daughter of Sir Peter Crofft, son of Sir Richard by Sybil, daughter of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, son of another Sir Richard by Ffelis, daughter of Sir Robert Corbet of Caus, son of Sir William Conias or Conway, Constable of England, by Isabel, daughter of Baldwyn, Earl of Blois. By this lady John ab Cynric was father of seven sons and a daughter, Margaret, wife of John Lloyd ab William ab Rhys o Nant. The sons were,-1, John ; 2, Thomas; 3, Robert; 4, Piers; 5, Richard, of whom hereafter; 6, Roger, who married Catherine, daughter of Thomas ab Llewellyn Vychan ab Evan ab Davydd ab Cynric, and had issue a son Edward, who married Catherine, heiress of Davydd ab Harry ab Llewellyn ab Evan ab Adda ; and ten daughters. 7. Harry, who had issue, Gruffudd ab Harry and Richard ab Harry; the former of whom married Mallt, daughter of Howell ab Rhys ab Dio of Halkin, and was father of a daughter Margaret, wife of John Wyn ab Rhys of Vaesygroes; and a son Richard, who by Jane, daughter of Thomas ab John Griffith of Bagillt, was father of John of Brynfford, who married Elizabeth, heiress of Richard ab Edward ab Davydd ab Evan of Caervallwch. The fifth son, Richard ab John or Jones, was the eldest who left any issue.

issue. He married Margaret, daughter of Llewelyn Vychan ab Evan ab Davydd ab Cynric.

With this name the MS. finishes with respect to this the senior male line; but before returning to the second son of Ithel Vychan, it may be interesting to give, froin the Visitations of Shropshire and other papers in the British Museum, Bodleian, etc., the continuation of this line.

Richard Jones or ab John, by his wife Margaret Vaughan, daughter of Llewelyn Vaughan of Mold (see

under Robert Goch ab Ririd), had issue a son, William Jones, who succeeded his uncle John Jones, who was of Chilton, near Shrewsbury, 1492, and thus removed from North Wales into England; they left issue a son, William Jones of Chilton, who married Alice, daughter of Richard Brereton of Cheshire. This lady was a descendant of Sir William Brereton of Brereton, co. Cheshire, who married, 1stly, Ellen, daughter and heiress of Philip Egerton of Egerton; and 2ndly, Margery, daughter of Henry Done of Utkinton. This Sir William Brereton was son of William Brereton by Margery, daughter of Richard de Bosley, son of Sir William (1321), by Roesia, daughter of Ralph de Vernon, son of Sir William by a daughter of Richard de Sandbach, son of Sir Ralph Brereton by Ada, daughter and coheiress of David Earl of Huntingdon, whose mother was Maud, daughter of Hugh Earl of Chester. This David Earí of Huntingdon was son of Henry Prince of Scotland, 1152 (by Adame, daughter of William Earl of Warren and Surrey), who was the son of David King of Scotland (by Maud, daughter of Woldeofus Earl of Northumberland), son of Malcolm III, King of Scotland, 1093, by Margaret, sister and heiress of Edgar Atheling. This Margaret was granddaughter of Edmund Ironsides, and daughter of Edmund the Outlaw, 1057, by Agatha, daughter of the Emperor Henry III, and thus represented the Saxon kings of England.

The old home of the Breretons still remains at Brereton in Cheshire, though now used only as a farmhouse.

William Jones of Chilton had issue by Alice Brereton his wife, a son and heir, Richard Jones of Chilton, gent., 1488, who is called “ agricola” in his son's admission as a burgess of Shrewsbury.

H. F. J. VAUGHAN. April 8th, 1876.


The stone above referred to will be found in a field called “Cae Fynnon”, part of the farm of Pen-yr-Allt, about a mile and a half from Bridgend, on the road to St. Bride's Minor; and within a few yards is the spring, or“Holy Well”, with which, no doubt, it was first associated, and from which the field takes its name. The accompanying sketch gives a representation of both objects and their relative position.

It is an oblong block, evidently forming at one time the shaft or base of a cross, and is now firmly fixed in the ground with its upper or smaller end downwards, and is 3 feet 9 inches high by 2 ft. and i ft. 7 ins. wide at the larger end. The angles are somewhat rounded, ornamented with an interlacing design, and finished at the top and bottom with four rings ; but from wear and weathering much of this ornamentation is now scarcely discernible. Each side of the stone bears a sunk panel. Three of them are partly filled with interlacing designs of varying character. The upper part of these panels is left vacant, as if intended for an inscription, which for some cause was never cut. The fourth panel is left rough and unornamented, as if intended to stand with this face against a wall or other surface. The firmness with which the stone is fixed in the ground, the prominence and slope of the collar, and the great size and depth of the mortice in its base, point to the conclusion that this was a cross of two or more stages. The whole or part of the upper stage is now buried beneath the surface; but this surmise I had no opportunity of verifying, as the farmer upon whose land it is situated was not disposed to render any assistance in removing the earth. It may be that his reluctance sprang from a feeling of veneration for this landmark of ancient days; and if so, the desire to keep intact that




« IndietroContinua »