Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 4.djvu/101

 GREY. 103 IS 33 §3 ? ■ o entitled to their notice as coheirs of the Barony, and the claimant ceased to prosecute he matter. He was cr. a Baronet in 1818 with rem. to his brother, who tue. him herein and who was sue. by his s. and h., the 3d Bart., who d. s.p. 7 .March 1S66, when that title became extinct. By the death s.p. on 19 Oct. 1SU7, of his sister, the representation of Dame Elizabeth kvuaston ttH Grey (thro' whom the Barony was claimed) devolved on the issue of the two daughters of Ro -or Kyuaston who d. 1684.] b GREY DE RADCLIFi-E. i.e., "Grey de Radcliffe, in cn. Lancaster," Barony (Erjerton), cr. 1875 ; ex. 1885. See " Wilton " Earldom, cr. 1801. sub the Od Earl. GREY DE ROLLESTON. v Barony by /. The Hon. Charles North, s. and h. ap. of Writ. D«dley,LoRD North DE Kiiitlino, by Ann, da. and coheir of Sir Charles Montagu, having m. Catharine, da. (but not heir I. 10/3. or coheir) of William (CitF.vi, 1st Baron GkeT of WKiiKR.was sum. to Pari. v. p. as a Baron (LOUT) GRUY DE UOLLES- TON) by writ 24 Oct. (1673), 25 Car. II., directed " Carolo North Grey de Jlallettoii, Cheer." He sue. his father, 21 June 1677, as Loud NORTH de Kiiitlino, and was sum. to Pari. 1 Jac. II. by writ directed " Carolo North ct Orci) dc Jtolstoii, Cld'r." He d. 1690 aged 56. II. 1G90, .?. William (North), Lord Xortii dg Kirtlixv, to [1554] and Lord Giiey de Rolleston [1673.] He d. s.p. 1734. 31 Oct. 1731, at Madrid, when the issue of his father as also . the Barony of Grey dc Rollcston became extinct. a j| GREY DE ROTHERFIELD. Barony by /. Sin John de Grey,(1 ) of Rothcrfielc!, Oxon and "Writ. Soulcotes, co. York, s. and h. of Sir John G.( 1 ') of the same, by Margaret, only da. and coheir of William DE Odingsklls, of MaXtoek, co. Warwick, I. ISS8. was b. about 1300; sue. his father 1313; proved his age 1321; was the addition of 1 Domino ' is never, even in a solitary instance, to be found preceding the description, such addition cannot be considered as the title of the dignity ; that the converse of this rule cannot be relied upon, fur as in the examples just mentioned (though the instances are very uncommon) it sometimes occurs that the words ' Domino dc,' See., are introduced without its ever having been deemed that such appellation was the proper title of the Barons to whose names it was added ; that as it is remarked under Dudley, with the exception of the titles of Bergavenny and Powis, the designation was never considered to be the title of the Barony when it was not derived from the name of a family ; that the word ' Domino' never formed part of- such addition until the reign of Henry VI. ; and that the origin of these descriptions which occur even in the first writ of summons on record, the 49 Hen. III. , was manifestly to distinguish one individual from another or others of the same name, without its ever being intended or considered to be the title of the Barony. From an inspection of the Rolls of Parliament it appears that in 33 Hen. VI. (1455), the ' Dominus dc roirys ' is stated to have been then* present in Parliament ; and as from the causes assigned under Ciierleton, John Tiptoft could not have been the personage alluded to, it is almost certain that it must have been Richard Grey, father of John, here stated to have been summoned in 22 Ed. IV. ; but there is no notice of the said Richard Grey having ever been summoned to Pari, by that or any other title." ( a ) See p. 96, note " a," sub " Grey de Codnor," for some notice of this branch of the house of Grey. ( b ) This Sir John had received a summons 26 Jan. (1296/7), 25 Ed. I. ; but see vol. i, p. Ill, note " b," siii " Ap Adam," as to this writ not constituting a regular writ of summons to Pari. but 14 in 1450, and would, consequently, be under age in 1455.
 * It should, however, be noticed that Richard Grey, Dominus dc Povys, was aged