Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 3.djvu/425

 CONYERS 405 provisional denial of the Pope's supremacy in case of his not consenting to the King's divorce. He m., 28 Sep. 1515, at Kirkoswald, Anne, da. of Thomas [not William], Lord Dacre (of Gilsland), by Elizabeth, da. and h. of Sir Robert Greystock. He d. 14 June 1538. His widow's will^) dat. 16 Dec. 1547, was pr. 21 Apr. 1548. III. 1538 3. John (CoNYERs), Lord CoNYERS, s. and h. Knighted to I I May 1 544. He was sum. to Pari, by writs from i Dec. 1557- (1544) 36 Hen. Vlll to 22 Oct. (1555) 2 and 3 Ph. and Mary. He served at the siege of Leith. Was Warden of the West Marches and Gov. of Carlisle, /^;«/>. Edward VI ; Warden of the East Marches and Gov. of Berwick, /emp. Mary. He m., before 28 Oct. 1539, when he was aged 15, Maud, da. of Henry (Clifford), ist Earl of Cumber- land, by his 2nd wife, Margaret, da. of Henry (Percy), Earl of North- umberland. He ^. s.p.m., June 1557 {Inq.p. m.) when the Barony fell into abeyance.^') (*) In her will she calls herself " Anne Lady Conyers Dowager of Skelton," and directs her burial to be " in Skelton, beside my lord my husband." There is no reference to any and marriage, though she is commonly said to have w., 2ndly, in 1552 or 1553 Henry (Clifford), 2nd Earl of Cumberland; but the proof of her will in Apr. 1548 disposes of this story. Moreover, the Visitation pedigree of Yorks, 1584-85, "put in" in the Conyers case (1798) gives "Anne, da. of Thomas Lord Dacres" (1485-1525) as the wife. The Anne, da. of William^ Lord Dacre, who did so marry, did not die till July 1581, and was presumably her niece. V.G. (*") The coheirs were his three daughters, of whom (i) Anne, m. Anthony Kempe, of Slindon, Sussex, by whom she had one child, Henry, who d. s.p. (2) Eliza- beth, m. Thomas Darcy, leaving by him Conyers Darcy, who in 1644 became sole representative of the Barony; and (3) Katherine, who m. John Atherton, of Ather- ton, CO. Lancaster, by whom she had an only child, John Atherton, whose only da. and h., Anne, m. Sir William Pennyman, Bart., and d. IT) July 1644, s.p. G.E.C. J. H. Round, who was consulted by tlic Crown on the Darcy (de Knayth) claim in 1903, writes that "the subsequent history of the Conyers barony has been unduly complicated by its conjunction with that of Darcy. Conyers Darcy was, through his mother, a coheir (according to the doctrine of abeyance now accepted) to the barony of Conyers and also, through Conyers, to the much older barony of Darcy, of which the earliest writ of summons was 1332. But the doctrine of abeyance, under Charles I, had not been clearly defined, and he petitioned in 1640 or 1641 for the old barony of Darcy with limitation to the heirs male of his body (see Darcy of Knayth). Not only was this petition granted, but he was also given, as shown in the text, his grandfather's barony of Conyers with the same limitation. " No question as to the validity of this action by the Crown arose till I 798, when the Duke of Leeds, as htn-general of the above Conyers Darcy, claimed the barony of Conyers (but not the barony of Darcy). His petition is recited in 'Cruise ' (1823), pp. 209-210. Search was then made for the patent of 164 1, but in vain, and reliance appears to have been placed, in default of it, on the entry in the Lords' Journals of 20 Jan. 1641/2 recording that Conyers Darcy then took his seat as 'Lord Darcy