Previously, I believed that the parents of 1050811Joan ___ were 2101622Thomas de Dene and 2101623Martha de Shelving. However, researcher Pete Andrews called my attention to 2101622Thomas' inquisitions post mortem, which I had overlooked. 2101622Thomas' two IPM's strongly suggest that he is not 1050811Joan's father (since the IPM explicitly notes 2101622Thomas' daughter Joan as deceased in early childhood, among other incongruences).

Nevertheless, because 1050811Joan certainly seems to be related to 2101622Thomas in some manner, and because my older work could prove useful for future research, I've isolated the profile pages that I'd written for 1050811Joan's formerly proposed ancestors into a separate section of my website, starting from the old version of Joan's page onward.

You can see a list of those ancestors or a family tree of them.
33625960Robert de Manekesye/Gatton
Key Facts
Snapshot:land-owner in 13th-century Surrey and Kent, England
Parents:unknown
Born:unknown
Died:not long before 14 July 1264
location unknown
Buried:unknown

33625960Robert de Manckes/Manekesye had married 33625961Isabela de Gatton by 30 November 1234, and he received properties at Catteshall and Artington (in Surrey) as a dowry, as explained below.

Problem: Resolved
Who is 33625960Robert's wife?

On 30 November 1234, 33625960Robert de Manckes was granted properties at Catteshall and Artington (in Surrey) by Thomas de Bavelinham and his wife 67251923Mabel.1

This came after a legal dispute in which they (67251923Mabilia de Gattona and Thomas de Rauelingham) were opposed by 67251923Mabel's son, Hamonis de Gattona. During the dispute, Thomas and 67251923Mabel described the pending transfer to 33625960Roberto de Manekeseya as ad exheredacionem ipsius Mabilie, i.e. as an inheritance from Mabel.2

Notice that 33625960Robert isn't described as a son, just an heir. This implies that they're related in some other manner, e.g. as in-laws.

In Henry Elliot Malden's The Victoria History of the County of Surrey, Volume III, page 32, footnote 85, we read:

Assize R. 80, m. 3 d. Robert de Manekesey married Mabel's daughter Isabel

As best I can tell, this refers to JUST 1/80, m. 3d, which you can see at these two URL's:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no80/bJUST1no80dorses/IMG_0305.htm
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no80/bJUST1no80dorses/IMG_0306.htm
For reference, you can see 3f here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no80/aJUST1no80fronts/IMG_0257.htm

I was unable to find the entry that Malden cites, but the text is admittedly difficult to read.

Similarly, in Archaeologia Cantiana, Volume V, page 222 insert we see:

Quo War. Roll, Surr. 25 H. III rot. 1 dors. [...] [33625960Robert de Mankesey] held [property at Cateshull and Ertindon], 1241, as given to him "in maritagium cum Isabella filia eorum."

I think (but am not sure) this refers to JUST 1/867, m. 1d, which you can see at these two URL's:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no867/bJUST1no867dorses/IMG_8866.htm
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no867/bJUST1no867dorses/IMG_8867.htm
For reference, you can see 1f here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no867/aJUST1no867fronts/IMG_8820.htm

Again, I was unable to find the entry in question, but the text is exceedingly difficult to read.

Despite my inability to find the original sources cited, both the Victoria County History and Archaeologia Cantiana are generally very reliable, so I'm confident that the evidence exists (somewhere...) and that 33625960Robert truly did marry 33625961Isabel as described.

33625960Robert later changed his "surname" from Manckes to Gatton, judging from a 1274 legal record in which "Robt de Gatton" is described as the owner of the Catteshall and Artington manors.3 Although unusual, the change isn't particularly surprising since 33625960Robert also owned a manor at Gatton,4 and because the Gatton family was a well-known, well-to-do family. As described above, his receipt of the Catteshall and Artington manors resulted in a family legal dispute,2 so perhaps he was also trying to smooth things over by changing his name.


This 1274 court record is evidence that 33625960Robert changed his name from de Manckes to de Gatton. Full page.3

33625960Robert had died by 14 July 1264, when a writ was issued for an inquisition post mortem of his estate in Surrey. Another writ was issued for his property in Kent, but only a fragment of the record is extant, and the names/locations of the property are lost.4

Sources Cited:

1: Calendar of the Charter Rolls [...]: Volume 1, Henry III, A.D. 1226-1257 (London, 1903), page 188

2: F. W. Maitland, ed., Bracton's Note book: A Collection of Cases Decided in the King's Courts during the Reign of Henry the Third, Volume III (London, 1887), pages 186-188

3: UK National Archives reference JUST 1/874, m. 26d. I obtained an image of this record from: Anglo-American Legal Tradition, O'Quinn Law Library, University of Houston; <http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no874/bJUST1no874dorses/IMG_9484.htm>, accessed 21 August 2022.

4: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem [...]: Volume 1, Henry III (London, 1904), page 182