Richard Dudley Latin IPM 1633

[Bookbox]

Part 3

... years and over; and further the aforesaid jurors upon their aforesaid oath say that Richard Dudley, deceased, on the day he died neither had or held anything else to his use, nor had or held other or further messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments in demesne, possession, reversion or service in the aforesaid county or elsewhere, to their [the jurors’] knowledge; in witness whereof to one part of this inquisition, remaining in the possession of the aforesaid Escheator, both the aforesaid Escheator and the aforesaid jurors have affixed their seals, and indeed to the other part of this inquisition, remaining in the possession of the aforesaid jurors, the aforesaid Escheator has affixed his seal, on the day and year and in the place first stated above.

[Bookbox]

Signature

Henry Momfort
Escaetor

Henry Momfort
Escheator

I don't think the name is written Mountfort, either in the body of the document or the signature.

The Escheator was charged with representing the rights of the Crown as regards land ownership. There's a useful explanation here ...
http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/about/the-documents-inquisitions-post-mortem/

[Bookbox]

Sorry, I forgot the heading -- and I can’t read the last word of it.

Delivered to the court on seventeenth of May in the ninth year of the reign of King Charles [17 May 1633], through the hands of Edward Chamberlaine [...?]

[Taylor94]

Thank you very much for this Bookbox.
Am I right in thinking that the Heir is this Richards grandson called Richard who was son of his 1st son Richard? Which would mean his first son Richard is deceased?

I'm trying to piece the Dudley line in accordance with the pedigree given in 1634.
I thought this IPM might be the Richard Dudley who is born c1560 in the Pedigree. His 1st son Richard, I think dies 1623. His will in 1623 lists children but not by name so maybe this Richard had a son Richard who could have been heir to his grandfather?

[Bookbox]

Am I right in thinking that the Heir is this Richards grandson called Richard who was son of his 1st son Richard? Which would mean his first son Richard is deceased?

That would be my understanding.

I'm trying to piece the Dudley line in accordance with the pedigree given in 1634.
I thought this IPM might be the Richard Dudley who is born c1560 in the Pedigree. His 1st son Richard, I think dies 1623. His will in 1623 lists children but not by name so maybe this Richard had a son Richard who could have been heir to his grandfather?

It certainly looks feasible, especially as the Swepstone burial in 1623 refers to 'the younger' and the 1632 burial as 'senior'.

I see there is also a Richard Dudley burial in 1630 to consider.

[Taylor94]

I was under the perhaps incorrect assumption that only IPMs were granted to Lords of the Manors/Tenants in Chief.

But I see they could be granted to anyone holding part of a manor under the Lord of the Manor?
As this IPM shows that Richard Dudley was holding 20 acres and 2 messuages in common and free socage under Charles Cockayne, Esq (Later Viscount Cullen) and had to pay an annual sum of Pepper and Cumin?

[Taylor94]

I've seen the 1630 burial which I'm not sure who that is for. There are other Dudley lines in Swepstone whose baptisms only appear randomly in the late 1500s/early 1600s and the parents given are not recorded anywhere else and there is a lack of recorded marriages and baptisms for the Dudleys. There are burials for people but no other records for them.
Its hard to piece together those lies and I think that Richard who dies may be a Cousin of this main line.

[Bookbox]

I was under the perhaps incorrect assumption that only IPMs were granted to Lords of the Manors/Tenants in Chief.

Originally in the medieval period that was so, but this is a very late IPM. I believe by this date the Crown was keen to investigate the holdings of other wealthy property-owners, not only tenants-in-chief, in case any valuable land had been held that might legitimately revert to the Crown. Raising money was always a prime concern.