Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 5.djvu/25

 LATIMER, 23 V. 1381. o. Elizabeth, .vie jure Baroness Latimer, da. and h., aped 24 years at her father's death and then (second) wife to Johu 'NkviuJ, Lord NsvitX DE RaBT, who d. 17 Oct. 1388. and was bur. at Durham. She )». secondly (as his third wife) Robert (Willouguby), Loud Willouohbt dk KiiKsiiv, uy whom (who surviving her a year d. 9 Aug. 1390;, she had no issue. She d. 5 Nov. 1895, and was lur. at Guisborough priory. VI 13 ( J5. 0, JoHH (Nevii.i ), Loud Latimer, b. and h. of his mother [by her first husband) being 12 years old at her death. He proved his full age in 1101 and was sum. to Pari.?*) as a Baron {Lord Latimer) from 25 Aug. (1404), 5 Hen. IV.. to 27 Nov. (1130), !> Hen. VI. He was knighted by King Henry VI. at Leicester on Whitsunday 1428. He m. Maud, widow of Richard (PlantagenetI, Kami, ok Cambridge [executed 5 Aug. 1415), da of Thomas [Clifford), Lord de Clifford, by Elizabeth, da. of Thomas (BE Koos), Lord Roos. Having no issue he settled the greater parts of his estates (tho' derived ex parte matcrnu) on his br. of the liis half blood [ex parte paterni) Ralph. 1st Earl ok Westmorland, to the exclusion of sister [of the whole blood) and heir. He d s.p. Dec. 1430. His widow d. Aug. 1448. VII. l.'i-JO. ?. Sin John WifciouGHBT, de jure Lord Latimer, but who never assumed that title, nephew ami h., being only s. and h. of Sir Thomas Wifldnghby,( b ) by Elizabeth, sister (the only sister who had issue) of the late Lord Latimer. He was 6. about 1400, being aged 30 at his uncle's death («) and was Jiving 1435. He m. Joau, da. and h. of (— ) Welby. VIII. llfoO ? S. Sir John WnxorciiiRY, de jure Lord Latimer, but who never assumed that title, only s. and h. He was knighted, 3 .May 1471, by King Ed. IV., at Grafton, co. Gloue. He m. Anne, da. and coheir of Sii Edmund Cheney, of Brooke, co. Wilts, and of Ottery, co. Devon, by Alice, da. of Sir Humphrey STAFFORD, of Southwicke, Wilts. IX. 14807 !>. Sn: Robert Willoughisy, iff jura Lord^ k a isj Latimeu, but who never assumed that title, s. and h. He was, however, sum. to Port as n Baron, LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROOKS by writ 12 Aug. 1 192. He claimed the Barony of Latimer as against Richard (Nevill), the 2d Lord Latimer, of the creation of 1432,( d ) but compounded the matter with the said Lord, from whom he received a regrant of several of the Latimer estates, including that of Iselhampsted = = 5 " glj-s .= 5 S Latimer*, Rucks. He d. Dec. 1502. J £-25 S ( :i ) There is proof in the rolls of Pari, of his sitting. ( b ) He was 3d s. of Hubert, 1st Lord Willoughby de Eresby (who m. for his 3d wife Elizabeth. xun jure Baroness Latimer abovenamed) by his jint wife, Alice, da. of Sir William Skipwith. See Tabular pedigree on p., 24 note "b." I?) Dugdale (vol i, p. 312, nib " Nevill "), who states this John to be the Baron s "next heir, then 30 years of age," but in Collins' "Precedents" (p. 15) it is stated that "the Lord John Latymer's two sisteis were both living at his death, it being added that, this " being true, the Lord Brooke had no colour of title " to the Barony of Latimer. This statement is apparently on the principle that all Baronies when once in abeyance merge in the Crown, and consequently that no subsequent extinction of coheirs can give the right of inheritance thereto to the (then) sole heir without a regrant from the Crown. It is certain that of the two sisters, Margaret, d. unm. and that the Lord Brooke, at the time of his claim, was great grandson and representative of Elizabeth, the other sister. ( d ) He appears, however, not so much to have claimed the old Barony of Latimer [129'J] as heir gcneial of the first Lord as to have disputed the right of Richard (Nevill), Lord Latimer, to the title of Latimer. He, however, " perceiving his error, was contented to renounce his claim to that style, having one [i.e., a peerage dignity] of his own" after having been "informed by a Herald that Sir George Nevill, grand- father to Richard, was cr. [1 432] Lord Latymer by a new title, and therefore [that title] lineally descended by [should be "to"] Richard, sou of Henry, sou of the said George, and that the Lord Brooke had made a wrong claim which should have claimed his style from William Latymer first created Earl [should be " Baron, Latimer"], of Dauby, the head mauor of tho Barony which [manor] was also descended to Kichard, Loid Latymer." [Collins' " Precedents," p. 15.]