Howick was born about 1288, the son of Adam [Hill] le Taillour, Howick, Hoghwyk and Agnes. The place is not known.
His wife was Beatrice. They were married, but the date and place have not been found. Their three known children were William (c1306->1350), Simon (c1308-?) and John (c1310-?).
| Event | Date | Details | Source | Multimedia | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birth | ABT 1288 |
Note 1
!Note: Summary Boteler, Hesketh, and the Lancashire Re-Formation:
An early marriage between the Botelers of Wem and the de Ferrers line — through Ankaret le Boteler [1310–1361] and Thomas de Ferrers [1305–1353] —
shows an established partnership between those families and the wider Sybil-descended group.
By the early 14th century, the lines of Henry [de Baskerville] Hesketh of Hesketh [~1206 - ?] and Sir William Hawkins Hesketh [~1243 - ~1327] are
established in the Hesketh and Heskin area, along with the Clerk and Taillour lines, forming a working local network.
At the same time, the Lancashire Botelers are split between the Warrington barony, which ends c.1328, and the Wem barony, created 1308 and continuing
through William le Boteler [d. 1334], William [d. 1361], and William [d. 1369].
During the final phase of the Wem line, Nicholas le Boteler is active in Lancashire from about 1331 to 1368, holding land beside Hesketh and supporting
the group, including land transfers into their hands. This places the Wem interest directly next to the developing Hesketh network.
In 1369, the 3rd Baron of Wem dies and the line passes through Elizabeth, effectively ending the male baronial line. At the same time, Nicholas
disappears from the Lancashire record.
What follows is a short gap in authority for the Botelers. The local Hesketh-side group remains in place, but the Boteler structure is no longer unified.
The turning point comes in 1389, when Elizabeth Boteler of the Warrington line marries Richard Boteler of the Rawcliffe line under papal dispensation.
This reunites the two Lancashire branches into a single organized line.
After this, authority stabilizes. By the 1390s, Sir John Boteler of Rawcliffe appears as sheriff, marking the return of a functioning Lancashire leadership.
!Source: The National Archives' catalogue https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/68ff16b4-c74d-4e78-a41c-1cee030bd79e
55 - Lancashire Archives
DDHE - HESKETH of RUFFORD
DDHE 22 - HOWICK
Catalogue description Final Concord : William son of Richard of Hoghwyk and Beatrice his wife, plaintiffs, and...
Reference: DDHE 22/8
Description:
Final Concord : William son of Richard of Hoghwyk and Beatrice his wife, plaintiffs, and by Robert of Pinington, and Simon son of Richard of Hoghwyk, deforceant -- a moiety of the manor of Hoghwyk
Date: 29 Sep. 1317
Held by: Lancashire Archives, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
Notes: In this "Final Concord," William will end up with the moiety [half] of the manor of Hoghwyk. The document is a legal loop-the-loop designed to settle the inheritance in a way that cannot be challenged later. Both parents are alive and orchestrating this. Here is how that sentence actually works:
1. The Plaintiffs [The "Future" Owners] — William is the primary plaintiff.The text describes him as "William son of Richard of Hoghwyk and Beatrice his wife." Grammatically, "Beatrice his wife" refers to Richard's wife [William's mother], identifying William's lineage. William is the one suing to "gain" the property.
2. The Deforceants [The "Temporary" Owners] — Robert of Pinington and Simon [William's brother]. Even though Simon is a child, he is acting as a feoffee [a legal placeholder]. Richard likely "gave" the land to Simon and Robert first, so that William could "sue" them to get it back.
3. The Result — Because William is the plaintiff and the court has reached a "Final Concord" [a final agreement], the court is officially recognizing that the moiety of the manor belongs to William. By naming William's parents [Richard and Beatrice] in his title, the document confirms he is the rightful heir of that specific line. This was the 14th-century version of title insurance: by having a court "order" Simon to give the land to William, nobody — not even Simon when he grew up — could ever claim the land wasn't legally William's. Naming the mother often also serves to extinguish any dower/life interest she might claim, so it also might bar Beatrice from later asserting a right over that share. However, I don’t think that is the case as she is not named as a party, but just to identify the plaintiff. Adam may still be alive if he transfered the property to Richard.
!Source: The National Archives' catalogue https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/d9dfee85-a8d3-44ff-a2ac-c4b195fe5537
55 - Lancashire Archives
DDHE - HESKETH of RUFFORD
DDHE 26 - MAWDESLEY
Catalogue description Lease : Adam son of Matilda of Eccleston to John the Tailor of Maudesley -- a moiety of...
Reference: DDHE 26/3
Description:
Lease : Adam son of Matilda of Eccleston to John the Tailor of Maudesley -- a moiety of property held by Henry son of Bymme in Moudesley, held by right of Agnes my wife, daughter of the said Henry -- to hold for life for rent of rose annually and 9d. to the Lord John the Flemmyng, chief lord of the fee. Witn: Roger son of Hugh, Warin Banastre, John son of Adam, Richard his brother, John son of Hugh, John Germayn, Richard of Kyrkham, clerk, and others. Given at Moudesley, Sun. before St. Margaret Virgin, 17 EdII.
Date: [17 Jul. 1323.
Held by: Lancashire Archives, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
Note: This is likely a family transaction, which is why most of the surnames are left off. I would propose here that means most of the folks are “le Taillours” and others are followers from Shropshire, so:
1. John the Tailor, is this John, the son of Adam, the son of Henry. He is repeated in the witness list just to identify Richard.
2. Matilda is the mother of Adam and wife of Henry.
3. Agnes is the wife of Adam, and her father is Henry son of Bymme of Maudesley.
4. Richard is the brother of John le Taillour.
5. and by special apperance, we’ve seen and identified John son of Hugh before as “Hotchkiss”, which would make Roger his brother the first actual recorded user of “Hotchkiss” as a surname.
6. Lord John the Flemmying, was previously known as Sir John Fleming [~1275].
7. The Banastres married into the Heskeths.
8. Richard of Kyrkham, clerk could either be a le Clerk related to William le Clerk, le Personnes, or the actual clerk recording this document.
9. That leave us with ony John Germayn not identified.
!Source: The National Archives' catalogue https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7573568
C - Records created, acquired, and inherited by Chancery, and also of the Wardrobe, Royal Household, Exchequer and various commissions
Division within C - Records of the Chancery as central secretariat
C 143 - Chancery: Inquisitions Ad Quod Damnum, Henry III to Richard III
C 143/238 - Inquisitions taken as a result of applications to the Crown for licences to alienate land. Described at item level.
Catalogue description John le White, chaplain, and William de Tatham to grant land in Leyland to the abbot and...
Reference: C 143/238/16
Description:
John le White, chaplain, and William de Tatham to grant land in Leyland to the abbot and convent of Evesham, retaining land and rent in Leyland. Lanc. John son of Richard de Hoghwyk and John son of Maud de Longeton to grant messuages and land in Longton to the same, retaining land and rent there. Lanc. 10 Edw III.
Date: 1336 Jan 25-1337 Jan 24
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record
Closure status: Open Document, Open Description