Sir Thomas de Musgrave, Sr., Knight, Lord of Sanford

Thomas de Musgrave was born c.1196 in Great Musgrave, Westmorland, England and died in 1265 at Sanford, Westmorland, England. He was the son of Sir Adam de Musgrave, Lord of Musgrave, and his wife Alicia de Holebec.

Thomas was knighted and served as Sheriff of Westmorland. He was the first in a long line of knights named Thomas de Musgrave. His name is found as a witness to a grant of lands from Robert de Veteripont to Richard Clerke of Appleby. He also served as executor for Robert de Veteripont. Thomas is also known as Lord of Sanford.

He married Alice de Sanford, sometimes written as Isabel de Sanford, about 1220, in Askham, Westmorland County, England. She was the daughter and heiress of William de Sandford of Cumberland County, England.

Dispute over Sanford lands

It was during the lifetime of Sir Adam de Musgrave that the Musgrave family acquired the manor of Sanford as well as a considerable portion of the Sanford lands, which passed father to son until 1356, almost 140 years. Sir Adam's son Thomas inherited the Sanford manor and lands from his wife Isabel's father, William de Sanford. (Thomas de Musgrave was required to turn over 1/3 of the land to Beatrix, the wife of William's son Robert, so it is assumed that Robert was deceased by this time.)

In 1278 Thomas de Goldington brought an action against Thomas de Musgrave "for enclosing ground in Sanford." In his suit he claimed Thomas de Musgrave had no right to the lands because all the easements had been warranted to his father William de Goldington before they had been given to Thomas de Musgrave, in reply to which, Thomas de Musgrave claims that he had all William de Sanford's rights and could exercise them.

Thirteen years passed by and the Goldington family still refused to recognize the Musgraves as their lords. Once again Thomas de Goldington brought suit against Thomas de Musgrave, this time for seizing his cattle which were on the Sanford property. Thomas de Musgrave countered that anyone who uses his lands is obliged to pay homage (a ceremony by which a man acknowledges himself the vassal of a lord) and service (the work or action performed by one who serves). Thomas de Goldington had not paid his services and dues and thus, owed de Musgrave. Nevertheless, because Thomas de Goldington had not made an agreement to become a tenant of the new landlord Thomas de Musgrave (which would give de Musgrave rights over all property movable and immovable), Thomas de Musgrave lost the case.

In the year 1300, the Goldington family once again tried to claim the Sanford lands as theirs. A full verdict is given in which it is found that Richard de Musgrave had been Lord of Sanford and that Thomas his son succeeded to his rights.

• (a) This Richard de Musgrave was son of Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel de Sandford. Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel however also had a son Thomas , whose daughter and heiress Avice married Thomas de Hellebeck, and amongst other lands the Hellebecks held the manor of Smardale which they granted to Guido de Smardale in 1291, except half a carucate and six acres - the same amount of land that Robert to Sandford had kept back from his grant to Nigel de Smardale in 1203.
• (b) It seems that somehow or other the Musgraves had become possessed of a considerable portion of the Sanford lands. Smardale, as we have seen, descended to a daughter, but the manor of Sanford went down in the male line of the Musgraves until1356, when, it once more came back to the Sanfords. There is little doubt however that whatever the Musgrave claim was it was not an undisputed one. In an enquiry held in the year I284 as to the names and lands of those holding their estates from the Veteriponts, Thomas de Musgrave is given as mesne lord of Soulby, Marton and Great Musgrave, and Richard de Sandford as mesne lord of Sanford and part of Smardale,
• (c) and at the partition of the inheritance of the Veteriponts between the two daughters of the last Robert de Veteripont, Idonea had allocated to her the homage and service of Richard de Sandford.
• (d) It would seem that their overlords at least would recognise only the Sanfords as the lords of Sanford. The de Goldington family, as we have seen, refused to recognise the Musgraves as their lords, having brought an action against Richard de Musgrave for seizing his cattle.

Children of Alice de Sandford and Thomas de Musgrave

• Thomas Musgrave, d. 1287
• Richard Musgrave, d. Jan 1301
• Hugh Musgrave

Links to additional material:

• http://www.thepeerage.com/p51938.htm#i519379
• The Baronetage of England: Or The History of the English Baronets ..., Volume 1, By William Betham
• http://musgravemanor.homestead.com/2009a/3269.html
• http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=flakey&id=...

 General Notes:

The first known Thomas in a long line of Knights with the same name.

In 1264 he was named as one of the Executors of Baron Robert de Vipont

He was also Stewart to Roger de Layburn

(a) Mr Ragg in his interesting article on the Sandford family shows that William's lands passed to a daughter Isabel, wife of Thomas de Musgrave, from which he concludes that Isabel was the heiress of William and that Hobart de Sandford was nephew and not son of William.

(b) But Mr. Ragg does not seem to have noticed the regent of Sandford wood by the Veteriponte to the Sandfords (though he gives the original grant by William de Sandford to Robert de Veteripont, whom he wrongly calls John de Veteripont) in which Robert is distinctly called son of William de Sandford.

There is little doubt from the arguments given by Mr. Ragg that Isabel wife of Thomas de Musgrave was a daughter of William de Sandford, and it is also clear that the Musgraves held the manor of Sandford.

For in 1278/9 Thomas son of William de Goldington brought an action against Thomas de Musgrave for enclosing ground in Sandford, and in his petition he claims that Musgrave had no right to approve himself" (i.e. enclose) in this land because his father William de Goldington had hold it of William de Sandford before the latter "gave it" to Thomas de Musgrave, and William de Sandford had warranted all easements to William de Goldington.

In reply to which Thomas Musgrave claims that he had all William de Sandford's rights and could exercise them. (c) No verdict is recorded.

But later in 1300, the same case comes up again and a full verdict is given in which it is found that Richard de Musgrave had been Lord of Sandford and that Thomas his son succeeded to his rights. (a) This Richard de Musgrave was son of Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel de Sandford.

Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel however also had a son Thomas , whose daughter and heiress Avice married Thomas de Hellebeck, and amongst other lands the Hellebecks held the manor of Smardale which they granted to Guido de Smardale in 1291, except half a carucate and six acres - the same amount of land that Robert to Sandford had kept back from his grant to Nigel de Smardale in 1203.

(b) It seems that somehow or other the Musgraves had become possessed of a considerable portion of the Sandford lands. Smardale, as we have seen, descended to a daughter, but the manor of Sandford went down in the male line of the Musgraves till 1356, when, as will be seen in due course it once more came back to the Sandfords. There is little doubt however that whatever the Musgrave claim was it was not an undisputed one. In an enquiry held in the year I284 as to the names and lands of those holding their estates from the Veteriponts, Thomas de Musgrave is given as mesne lord of Soulby, Marton and Great Musgrave, and Richard de Sandford as mesne lord of Sandford and part of Smardale, and at the partition of the inheritance of the Veteriponts between the two daughters of the last Robert de Veteripont, Idonea had allocated to her the homage and service of Richard de Sandford.

It would seem that their overlords at least would recognise only the Sandfords as the lords of Sandford. The de Goldington family, as we have seen, refused to recognise the Musgraves as their lords, and in 1291/2 Thomas de Goldington brought an action against Richard de Musgrave (son of Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel de Sandford) for seizing his cattle in Sandford.

Richard de Musgrave replied that as Go1dington held his lands of him as others did in Sandford by homage and service (i.e. cornage) and that de Goldington had not paid his services and dues. But it was found that as Goldington had not 'attourned" i.e., placed de Musgrave in seisen as his overlord, so Richard de Musgrave lost his case.

We shall find the question of the lordship of Sandford cropping up for the next hundred years. For the moment however it is sufficient to say that William de Sandford (the grantor of the wood at Sandford to de Veteripont) had done something whereby his son-in-law Thomas de Musgrave claimed and appears to have been in possession at the manor of Sandford and of a portion of the Sandford lands, but his (William's) son Robert de Sandford was still looked on by his overlords the Veteriponts as Lord at Sandford. This Robert de Sandford (who as we have seen bought back Sandford wood from the Veteriponts) witnessed a deed about Barton Mill in 1252 (36 Henry III)

In 1255/6 he held, or claimed, as did also Thomas de Musgrave, common pasture in Dufton, be1onging to the lands they held in Morton.

Between the years 1250 and 1278 he granted to his eldest son Richard de Sandford 2 bovates of land in Morton which William de Brampton had held; Richard to hold them of his father for life paying 1died at Christmas, and after his death to hold them of the chief lords.

In 1278/9 Thomas de Musgrave is required to warrant Williams son of Robert de Souleby against the 1/3rd of a tenement which Beatrix, once wife of Robert de Sandford, claimed of him in Souleby as part of her widow' s portion; another claim was made by Beatrix on William Fitz Payne for her dowry in Sandford.

From which it is clear that Robert de Sandford was dead.

Thomas married Isabel (Alice) De Sandford [4458] [MRIN: 1041] in 1220 in Askham, , Westmorland, England. (Isabel (Alice) De Sandford [4458] was born about 1198 in Askham, , Westmorland, England and died in Great Musgrave, , Westmorland, England.)

In 1235 held land in and around Musgrave, Westmorland.