A Mill, Dowry & Lost Papers of Dunham Massey Page 2 of 5  / Press for 3

PAGE 2 UPDATED 23rd February 2026

JOINING THE DOTS: - ANCIENT LAND OF TATTON & MASSEY - part 1 of 3.

Tatton land "Northsake", the dowry of Cicely de Massey, the lost papers of Dunham Massey

During the earliest time of Henry 3^rd 1216- 1272, there are very few dated muniments to be found pre 1276 and this can make it difficult to establish how the information fits with events, while those post 1276 usually have a recognisable date & can be easily identified. However, on an undated charter, when there are several events that occur at around the same period of time, it should in theory be easier to see how they fit into a pattern, like joining the dots on a picture to see the full image. This is the case below where I believe there is sufficient evidence for a probable marriage between Cicely de Massey (grand daughter of the 3rd Baron Massey) & Roger de Tatton, (See TW/2 Tatton Muniments). This union would naturally lead to & future fee tail for their offspring (Hamon born. c.1230) who would be provided with a charter of land for the manor of Kenworthy from which he would later take his surname in the early medieval manorial tradition of taking the place name of his fiefdom. This marriage would have been a precedent years later for the marriage between Alice de Massey and Robert de Tatton, wherein, it is mentioned, that according to the Tatton of Wythenshaw pedigree, Alice was the wife of Robert de Tatton 44 Edw 3^rd (1371). (See previous page which confirms a marriage in the Wythenshaw pedigree between Robert de Tatton (2nd) & Alice de Massey c.1349). So, during Henry 3^rd around the early 1230’s the importance of ancient Kenworthy would emerge from the mist. This includes 1) A modern-day discovery of the meaning of the term “Northsake”, bringing to light an area of land in Kenworthy that belonged to the Tattons in c.1230 and 2) The transfer of land ownership of Kenworthy from the Tatton & Massey union, in fee tail, during Henry 3^rd c. 1216-1230 & prior to the law of “Quia Emptores”, in 1290.

“Northsake”: - Alan de Tatton c.1230 held land in a place called “Northsake”. Henry 3rd (vol 3 p605).

Ormerod states, by c.1230, Alan, or officially Alanus filius de Alani de Tatton, (son of Alan de Tatton d.1196), "held land in a place called “Northsake” (vol 3 p605), but whether in this neighbourhood does not appear", and "but the connecting link has not been recovered" and "the feudal and later title presenting none of these difficulties so often found where the heirship turns upon abstruse points of law arising out of a once extremely complicated law of real property ". Omerod's apparent dilemma on identifying "Northsake" is because he assumes this area is a place name. Ormerod can also be quoted as saying “The earliest Barons of Dunham had a paramount interest in Tatton, which makes it still more probable that some part of the original Tatton estate lay in Northenden”. So, the Tattons held land in   “Northsake”, but Ormerod was unable to locate it as a place! This is because the name is not a place name, but would have been known in ancient times as where a manorial lord held feudal (not legal) rights. These rights would relate to the authoritative rights over control of a Mill, specifically Kenworthy in Northenden. A study of the Domesday book has confirmed that even before Domesday, the rights of a lord over an estate were expressed by the words soca (Soke)  and saca (Sake) or "soca et saca". North would certainly indicate Northenden (known as Northern to the locals) & “Sake” is an ancient spelling of the word “sooac” which indicates the "place where a feudal right was exercised", for example, grinding corn in a Mill within the manor. (From “A provincial glossary: With a collection of Local Proverbs and Popular Superstitions, 1787. By Francis Grose). In c.1230, this place “Northsake” is logically the location of the ancient Mill of Kenworthy & surrounding lands on the banks of the river Mersey. The medieval term “sooac” has various spellings, but is now written as “Soke” & described as, “soke or suit of mill, as the right”. An excellent modern-day description of medieval milling & the ancient term “Soke” can be found in the website “Mills Archive” within an article entitled “Medieval Mills & Milling” dated September 6^th 2016 by Martin & Sue Watts. A request was subsequently sent to the Cheshire Archives to check the word “Northsake” and in their reply they stated they were unable to locate any reference to this place name in the Cheshire records or in the place names of the Cheshire book by John McNeal Dodgson. They suggested the explanation I had provided was plausible. GL

Ormerod also mentions the Mill at Kenworthy in 1296 as part of a law suit by Cecily widow of Henry de Barlowe, (Barlowe was a place just across the Mersey on the Lancaster side), (vol 3 p605). There is also mention of the Mill in a deed in 1311 (Wythenshaw history & Heritage). The location & use of the Mill can now be understood as representing the term “Northsake” & we see why Ormerod “inadvertently” assumed it was a place. (vol 3 p611). The terms soca (Soke) and saca (Sake) are frequently found in the Domesday Book. By the 11th century, possession of soke & sake implied more than jurisdiction powers of a lord and covered the right to a number of dues and services, in money, and in kind, from the tenants on the land over which soke and sake was exercised. Holders of soke & sake could grant parts of their property to tenants, for example, a miller operating a Mill, but he or she would still be answerable to the feudal right of the lord of the Manor who controlled the land. A distinction between the two words in Domesday suggests that the specific rights of soke represented the jurisdictional powers over the area where the Mill was built & where the lord of the manor maintained his authority over all the surrounding land nearby, particularly here in the case mentioned above, as the ancient water Mill at Kenworthy was close to the crossing point of the river Mersey over which trade, including the important transfer of salt from the salt mines, passed between Manchester & Chester. The salt mines were owned by Sir William de Baguley who was knighted by Edw 1st. Baguley was very close also to Wythenshaw and about 1.5 miles SW as the crow flies from Kenworthy which is on the boundary with the river Mersey & the crossing point for the trade route of salt. It would appear likely the two families would have been involved in officiating with the movement of salt, at least during the lifetime of Hamon de Kenworthy. Evidence of a possible working relationship is in a Bond dated 1313, (Tatton Muniments TW/13) wherein Hamon de Kenworthy as vassal to Sir William de Baguley, agrees a bond for 40 shillings. So, we can see that the location of Kenworthy, was a vital part of the town of Northenden, which had passed into the hands of Tattons by c.1230.

Updated 23rd February 2026
NOTE:- THE PARAGRAPHS BELOW PROVIDES EVIDENTIAL PROOF THAT CICELY DE MASSEY'S "NORDEN" IS  NORTHENDEN. GL.

"CICELY'S DOWRY OF NORDEN". From the County Palatine & History of Chester by George Ormerod, revised by Thomas Helsby. (vol 1 p520/521). "Sibil, a daughter of the 3rd Baron Hamon de Massey, whom gave to Cicely her niece, daughter of John de Massey her brother, half of the town of Norden”. Henry 3rd. Ormerod confirms in

(vol 3 p604), that Ranulfus gave the original moiety of Northenden to the Baron Masseys who in turn gave an advowson of the Church of St. Wilfrids to the Abbey of Chester (St. Werburgh). Records confirm this date to be 1119 . This represents the other half of Northenden which the Masseys originally held. This is also confirmed again in 1270 when records confirm that Simon de Whitechurch, the Abbot of St. Werburgh Abbey in Chester, gave back half of the land, ie  "the demesne which he held"  to Robert de Massey in fee & heirship. (From the History of Chester, the Manorial records & Wythenshaw history & heritage).

The name & spelling of the town of Norden is important as it does not exist in the Domesday book!

Northenden however does appear in the Cheshire Domesday Book of 1086 as part of the Cheshire great survey (recorded as Norwordine, Anglo-saxon for north enclosure), see the  openbook Domesday link for Northenden  . This was an 11th-century settlement in the hundred of Bucklow in Cheshire, situated on the south bank of the mersey river which acted as the border between the two counties of Cheshire & Lancashire, so historically  not in Lancashire. At the time of Domesday, there was no administrative centre for Lancashire, and so the areas making up south Lancashire (between the ribble & the mersey rivers) were included as part of Cheshire & north Lancashire was included as part of Yorkshire. Eventually, in 1182 the county of Lancashire was officially created for the area of land above the Mersey. It appears this is still an area of confusion within the "Domesday book online" website, as Northenden actually appears in the Lancashire list of place names incorrectly >  Lancashire Domesday book-online . This version of the Domesday book also leaves out Northenden from their Cheshire book of places in contradiction to the online "openbook" version of the Domesday book. The openbook version recalls places directly from the Domesday book, which is more accurate. Viewing is Recommended!  https://opendomesday.org/ . Northenden has always been part of Cheshire from Domesday 1086 until 1931, when the county borough of Manchester was formed!

Other places named below have the same or similar name, but are proven to not be Northenden!
11th-12th cent. Naden/Norden, part of the Early Seat of ROCHDALE. Held by Roger de Poitou, followed by John de Lascy (b. John Fitz  Richard) Baron of Halton.

In the Domesday book of Lancashire in 1086, the name Recedham (Rochdale) was vested in the Lordship of Roger de Poitou from 1086 to 1102 at which point he had his lands confiscated. The lands entitled Craven (lands in the north of England) were passed to Robert de Romille, however, the remaining lands, including Rochdale were vested in the lordship of John de Lascy. In 1178 he was Constable of Chester & founded the monastery of Stanlawe & held the manor of Rochdale!  https://www.rmnf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/chapter-i-general-history-pages1-64.pdf  - Page 16.

Rochdale formed part of the Salford 100 & was included in the records for Cheshire, but later the area became a subdivision of the County Palatine of Lancaster (or Lancashire) on its creation in 1182. However, long before that, in 1102, Roger de Poitou or Poitevin & his brothers were part of a failed rebellion against Henry 1st of England and although staying loyal to Rufus (King William 2nd), he had his lands in Rochdale confiscated, which were passed to John De Lascy, so there is no evidence that Rochdale or any smaller villages such as Nadin/Norden at this time were ever passed to the Baron Masseys! Records above do show however, this area was under the Lordship of John de Lascy in 1178 (b. John Fitz Richard), so the spelling of Norden in the dowry of Cicely around c.1230 or before, can only be coincidental with the name of Naden in 1161 or Norden from 1861. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_fitz_Richard After the death of his father in 1163 John inherited his Barony of Halton and the Office of Constable of Chester, whereupon he became the chief official of Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester. After the death of Hugh in 1181 he served in the same capacity for his heir Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester. In 1166 he paid a fee of 1,000 marks to obtain his mother's possessions, including the former de Lacy estates. After 1172 he founded  Stanlow Abbey in Cheshire, of the Cistercian order, and a hospital in Castle Donington.[4] Earl Hugh granted him lands in Antrobus, Cheshire and in 1178 confirmed John's donation of Little Stanney to Stanlow Abbey, and a little later he gave the monks the duty to pay in Chester.

Naden 12th cent Rochdale

There is a local historical timeline for Norden which mentions a small area called Naden in 1161 as part of Rochdale, which appears to be the same place with a little brook of the same name running through the valley. Naden is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning "below". So, we find Naden is the name of a valley in what was the Spotland township in the Rochdale parish. Naden was first recorded in 1107, it was also mentioned in the Coucher Book of Whalley Abbey in the 13thC.  Naden (“Nauden” as it was in medieval times) was mentioned in a grant to Stanlaw Abbey (the monks later moved to Whalley). The Abbey of St. Mary at Stanlaw (or Stanlow as it has been posthumously known since a Victorian cartographical error), was a Cistercian foundation situated on Stanlaw - now Stanlow Point, on the banks of the River Mersey in the Wirral Peninsula, Cheshire. The abbey was founded in 1178 by John fitz Richard, Baron of Halton and Hereditary  Constable of Chester, as a daughter abbey of Combermere Abbey. In August 1277, King Edward I of England stayed there for three nights.

Naden 13th cent - manor of Spotland- Rochdale

A general history of Spotland with a footnote (6) about Naden can be found in the Victoria County History of Lancashire. According to this history (Victoria County History), land was granted to Gilbert de Notton when he married Margery, the daughter of Hugh de Elland. “It gave a name to the immediate holders. Maud widow of Thomas de Naden claimed dower in a messuage and land in Wolstenholme in 1277 against Roger son of Robert de Naden". This charter also mentions Naden Brook and is a transcript from Volume III of the Coucher Book of Whalley Abbey, published by the Chetham Society in the 19th. Century.  A history of the Parish of Rochdale also confirms the following: - "Hugh de Eland (the son of Hugh) was succeeded by his son, Hugh de Eland, who was living about the middle of the Thirteenth Century; he had issue Hugh de Eland, who had two children-John de Eland (of whom presently) and Margery, who married Gilbert de Notton, receiving as her marriage portion certain lands in Naden, in Spotland". 

Naden-Norden-Rochdale -Change of name 19th cent 

Searches have revealed there is in modern times a small village named Norden, within the wider township of Rochdale. Although the village was originally called Naden, it was renamed Norden in 1861 after the village Church of St. Pauls of the same name. It seems the locals decided on the nod of the then lord of the manor Thomas Dearden that the old name of Naden, should instead be changed to Norden. Also, in 1861 the area known as Black Pits was also named Norden. Clearly a name preferred to St Paul’s Black Pits. The name could have been adapted from Naden or from the Old English, Noedre Dene which translates as Snake Valley. There seems to be no other reason to change the ancient name of Naden which had existed since 1107. 

Norton- Nortune-Nordon 1086-1134 - 

A search has also revealed a place called Norton or Nortune in Runcorn, in the Domesday book of Cheshire. This is shown in at least one genealogical website as "Nordon" with a suggestion that it was part of the Massey Barony. Clearly, this is not the case, as the place name  Nordon does NOT exist in the domesday book, but has been confused with the place name  Norton, which IS confirmed in the Domesday book & also the open domesday book, https://opendomesday.org/  as "Land of William, son of Nigel" and which in 1134 was part of the barony of Halton under the 3rd baron William Fitz William. So did not form part of the Baron de Massey holdings!  

SUMMING UP CONCLUSION: -

The names of landowners mentioned above for the places Naden/Norden/Norton/Nortune/Nordon, from the 11th -19th century, confirms these places are not the same location as the place name Norden which features in the dowry of Cicely, granddaughter of the 3rd Baron de Massey!   GL

Cicely de Massey's Dowry of Norden can only logically be Northenden!   https://opendomesday.org/place/?indexChar=N

The only other town found local to Dunham Massey in similarity of name is the township of "Northenden", (3 syllables), which had been vested by Ranulfus with the Barons Massey by Domesday in 1086, so it can be assumed this is the place mentioned, which the locals call "Northern", (two syllables rather than 3) which is not dissimilar phonetically to "Norden" found in Cicely's dowry received from her Aunt Sibil daughter of the 3rd baron de Massey. The other half of Northenden, (see above) not held by Sibil/Cicely; ie the “Church of Northenden”, was held by the Abbey of St. Werburgh following a grant by Ranulfus in 1119 after the conquest. In Leycester’s history of the Barons of Dunham Massey, he neatly lists the six Barons named Hamon de Massey along with the name of his spouse & names their issue or offspring! The first name would be the heir, called Hamon, then any sons & daughters. As far as the 3rd Baron is concerned, he was married to Agatha de Theray and had a son and heir Hamon, Robert (Bowden), John, Agnes (half of Bollington in free marriage), Sibil (gave to Cicely her niece half the town of Norden), Cicely (all the land in Alrctunstall and Sunderland), and another not mentioned (possibly Isabelle), but who had married, also Agatha who married.

THE LOST PAPERS OF DUNHAM MASSEY   UPDATED 13th FEBRUARY 2026.   -   Correction of record for the founding of Birkenhead priory !

At least 2 generations/2 baronies are missing in the 12th century - The dates do not add up!                                                                                            GL

It's clear from many sources that the actual birth date of the 3rd baron and his (Issue) is unknown, however a date can be estimated from the gap between the various generations of Massey and recorded events by Peter Leycester. He writes the 3rd baron died around "sub initio" (meaning "starting from") Henry 3rd c.1216 (vol 1 p521). This would appear to be correct with the generation of Massey available to him, being the 3rd of the 6 Baron dates  c.1052, 1091,  1129, 1168 1207 & 1246 , which coincides with the 5th generation with 8 barons! Therefore, taking into consideration the two missing generations of Massey in the records, we have the third generation shown as c.1111 below , which falls perfectly within the time frame of the founding. The generation that Leycestor has accredited it to in the record is actually the 5th baron de Massey  c.1052,  1084, 1111,  1138,  1165, 1192, 1219, 1246. The papers for the two dates in blue are lost! Clearly, as Leycestor assumed there were only 6 generations, he set the details of the founding of the priory in c.1150 alongside what he thought was the 3rd generation, but was in actual fact the 5th baron's record, who is born after the founding date! The date for the founding was confirmed by a prior named Oliver residing at the priory in 1206.

 A point has been made within the Grey (Stamford) of Dunham papers EGR,"According to Sir Peter Leycester, between the 1080s and 1340s the barony passed by linear descent through six generations of Masseys, each named Hamo. However, this would imply an improbably long span between each generation and at least one, if not two, generations may have gone unnoticed in the twelfth century", and "There is little medieval material, other than title deeds and a handful of manorial accounts, surveys and court rolls. No doubt the chequered history of the barony in the hundred years prior to its inheritance by Robert Booth can account for such losses. More surprising perhaps is the paucity of material relating to the Booth family, a mere sixteen boxes, with almost no records relating to their political activities either locally or nationally. Particular reasons for the poor survival rate may be surmised, over and above the customary hazards to archives from fire, water, vermin, poor storage conditions and accidental loss", and "Archival History, very little is known about the custodial history of the archives from Dunham Massey prior to 1666, when Sir Peter Leycester inspected the muniments at the Hall. Several documents are cited in his Antiquities (Ormerod, vol. 1, pp. 520-6). Evidence of the rather casual record-keeping practices of Henry Booth (1651-1694), 1st Earl of Warrington, is contained in the papers relating to the dispute over his will, the validity of which was disputed by his son George Booth, 2nd Earl of Warrington: There stood on the Floor in a corner of his closet [elsewhere called the Evidence Closet] a large old Deal Box with a broken Lid without Lock or Key to it, which Seem'd to be placed there purely for a Receptacle for cast-away papers, being full of old useless dusty papers confusedly tumbled together, it being his common practice, when he found no further use for a paper, to throw it carelessly away, without further thought of it, or considering whether needful to destroy it. (see EGR3/6/2/1/6)"

And we also know from Helsby's comment, "The dates given by Leycester and the few descents, stretching over a period of upwards of two centuries, renders the hypothesis far from improbable".  (Additional notes at the foot of vol 2 p367).  With the above in mind and the admission from a number of sources of many gaps in the history of the barony and the knowledge that some of the Chester Domesday rolls were incomplete with sections missing from rolls, it is not at all unreasonable to assume the dates of events cannot be fully trusted, particularly as the Domesday roll of Chester is believed to have been stolen from Chester Castle. (see pg. 1). So, it is impossible to conjecture with any accuracy or positivity the exact dates of birth of any of the barons or their issue (children) up to the end of the 12th century, let alone know which generation of Baron Hamon de Massey was responsible for whatever has been ascribed to them, with perhaps many other events which have not been entered into the history of the barony, or have been lost or damaged beyond recognition over time. 

A simple calculation shows the proof!   UPDATED 10th February 2026   -  Correction of dates!

To sum up, 6 generations between the presumed birth of the first Baron Massey in c.1052 & the birth of the sixth baron in about 1246 is 194 years! (The 6th baron died 15 Edw 3rd - d.1341 -Vol 1 p522). (Refer Dunham Massey Family : https://www.thornber.net/cheshire/htmlfiles/dunham.html). That supposes an  unlikely average  38.8  years between each generation of heirs, so  working back from the most reliable date of 1246 we have:  c.1052, 1091, 1129, 1168 1207 & 1246. This is just an example to show the huge difference in 5 steps between each generation. No one back then waited until they were nearly aged 40! A more likely number of 8 barons, would solve the issues with dates within the many online genealogies which have shown many confusing & contradicting dates. This would involve (7 steps) from the 1st to the 8th baron, more accurately showing an average of 27 years, between the birth of heirs for this period in history, so again working back from 1246, with the exception of the first contentious date of 1052, (see pg1), we have : c.1052, 1084, 1111, 1138, 1165, 1192, 1219, 1246.  With 8 barons, not 6, Helsby & the Grey (Stamford) of Dunham papers EGR would agree,  (see above), that the 8 dates shown here would be a fair representation. So, for example, the third baron mentioned in the original line of descent becomes the 5th baron, born c.1165. I can now work out that the new 5th Baron 1165 who died in c1216 would have been aged about 51. We now know that this baron's son John is possibly born c.1194 (2 years after the heir in 1192) & his daughter Cicely, the baron's grand daughter, could in effect have been born c1214. The dates match up with the lives of Cicely de Massey, aged about 16 in c1230 and a match with Roger de Tatton b.c1212, younger brother of William de Tatton.

UPDATED 13th February 2026 - A more complex but accurate view of the more probable 8 Barons of the Massey lineage!

So, using the above calculator for a more accurate measure of dates we would have the Baron de Massey Lineage as follows:-

1)  Hamon de Massey 1st  b.c.1052 Married? Issue- Hamon 2nd & Robert de Massey

2) Hamon de Massey 2nd b.c.1084  Records missing! Antiquarians Ormerod, Helsby & Grey (Stamford) of Dunham papers EGR,) 

3) Hamon de Massey 3rd  b.c. 1111 Married?  Issue- Hamon 4th, John (received Moreton), & Robert de Massey (Masseys of Sale descent).   (SEE BELOW!)

4) Hamon de Massey 4th b.c.1138   Records missing! Antiquarians Ormerod, Helsby & Grey (Stamford) of Dunham papers EGR,) 

5) Hamon de Massey 5th b. c.1165 – 1216. Married Agatha de Theray. Issue- Hamon 6th & Robert de Massey (Received Moiety of Bowden from his Mother Agatha), John (Moreton), Agnes (half of Bolinton in marriage), Sibil (gave to Cicely, daughter of brother John, half of Norden), Cicely (Alretunstall & Sunderland), Isabelle, Agatha (married). Established Founding of Birkenhead Priory, a Benedictine Monastery. Witness Prior Oliver of Birkinhead in 1206. Leycestor recorded the founding of the priory against this 5th generation in the records, assuming it was the 3rd, but being unaware there were two generations missing! The actual 3rd generation is dated c.1111 within the date for the founding of the priory.(See above).

 6) Hamon d Massey 6th. b. c1192 – Married?  Issue- Hamon 7th & William de Massey. (William's 1st son, William, was first Massey of Tatton- lands from Alan de Tatton- Henry 111). The 1st William of Tatton (d.1270) had 3 sons, Richard (Knight & Sheriff of Chester 1278 & Judge 1300- d.1305, m. Isabel who survived him.)

7) Hamon de Massey 7th. b. c1219– 1278.  Married Alice Whitney - daughter & heir of Sir Eustace Whitney. Advowson of Church of Bowden to Priory of Birkenhead in 1278. Richard Massey Sheriff of Chester was witness. (Enrolled in the Cheshire Domesday book, now lost -Ormerod). Issue- Hamon 8th. No other children mentioned. It is believed there were 4 sisters of the last Baron. See Thomas Helsby footnotes p527. The 4 sisters (Cicely m. Thomas Orreby (died), then m. John Fitton, Isabel m. Hugh Dutton, Alice m. Hamon de Hilond &? m. Thomas de Lathom? 

 8) Hamon de Massey 8th. b. about c1246 – 1341. (Son of Hamon 7th & Alice Whitney). Mar. Isabelle de Beauchamp (died), Alice (divorced) & married Joan Clinton in 1316. (Ormerod v1. p522). In 1315 the Baron & wife Alice obtained Kelsall & Backford for Robert of Sale & his son. (v1. p528.) Issue - Hamon, illegitimate d. before the Baron in Gascony (between 1309 & 1315). No other "issue" except the heir, (See Reversion)! When both the Bastard heir & his father had died, the 4 sisters entered into a claim on the estate!                                                       

New - Updated 13th February 2026 - Evidence for the 5th Baron's (now 7th Baron above) Issue -4 daughters are missing. Ormerod-(Vol 1 pg521).

It is always possible, that a delay in forming a family, can be the result of a fertility issue, but it's proven that necessity has always found a way, for example, the last baron, Hamon de Massey V1, (or more likely the 8th). As far as records confirm, only had one child, also called Hamon who was declared a "bastard" by the church as a result of his father's divorce to Alice de Beauchamp (b. about 1244), ie, the church stance was that the marriage never took place. As a bastard son was unable to inherit at this time, the remaining baron's heirs would inherit, in this case the 6th baron's 4 sisters. In the Will (Vol 1 p527) it is stated that the 6th Baron did leave a small moiety for his bastard son, but he died before his father.  Incidentally, in the narrative of the line of descent of the "so called" six barons, (Vol 1 p520/1) there is no mention of any heirs of the 5th (now 7th) Baron, other than his future son & heir Hamon V1. In (Vol 1 pg521). A close scrutiny of the text suggests the names of the 4 daughters of the Baron were originally missed off by Sir Peter Leycester. The wording reads:-  "This Hamon married Alice, daughter & heir of Sir Eustace Whitney, and had issue Hamon son & heir &.......!  At this juncture the names of the 4 daughters should have appeared, but are absent from the text! The narrative then continues on the next line with details of the advowson of the church of Bowden. One of the 4 daughters of the 5th Baron, (the eldest Cecily), then appears in (Vol 1 pg 522) in the name of Fitton as co-heir with her 3 sisters, to the estate of their deceased brother Baron Hamon V1. The narrative continues with the descent:  "John Fitton married Cecily, eldest daughter and co-heir of Sir Hamon Massey Baron of Dunham Massey". This does put things in perspective as to the birth of the 5th Baron's heirs. From the new calculater above it can be seen the 5th Baron would have been born c 1219. So his age on the birth of his heir Hamon V1 in 1246 would be 27. For Cicely, his age would be 49, which is not impossible. According to the  "Booth & Grey of Dunham Massey" website, under footnote 2, the 5th Baron's eldest daughter Cecily Booth is recorded as being born in c1268, followed by 3 other daughters even later, leaving a gap of 22 years between the last heir & Cecily, which might suggest the sisters may have been illegitimate, however, there is no evidence of this. As stated above in red, there is only a limited record of this generation of Massey in the Chester Antiquities, which is 1) his Issue Hamon V1 & 2) his wife Alice Whitney (the daughter of Sir Eustace Whitney). So if the papers pertaining to the 4 daughters is missing, there may also have been other important records lost! Realistically, there must be a question mark over Alice's age as she would have to have been the 5th Baron's junior by at least 10 years, ie born c1229 for Cecily's birth in 1268 making Alice 39, quite aged for a child bearer of the time. However, it would be quite remarkable her conceiving 4 daughters from 1268 during her 40's, which is very old at this time, but cannot be ruled out! For example,  Eleanor of Aquitaine b.1124 had 10 children between 1145 & 1167 with the last being King John when she was 43! There is always another possibility that Alice died earlier than has been speculated & the Baron remarried, then providing 4 daughters. The proof for the 4 sisters being the sisters of the last & 6th Baron appears in the Antiquities (vol 1 pg527) with Ormerod correcting Sir Peter Leycester on the subject of Issue & then Helsby reconfirming this in the small print of the footnotes. Also, It is understandable why Sir Peter Leycester originally thought they were the 6th Baron's daughters rather than sisters.

The last Baron was clearly long lived at around 95, unlike many of the earlier generations, although we have to keep into context the state of the country from c1066 which had started off with a gradual colonisation by the Normans, leaving lands desolate from brutal battles, and a lack of sanitation. From 1135 -1154 (Stephen & Matilda) faught a violent civil war. Law and order & peace was eventually restored by Henry 2nd introducing common law by 1189, but by 1215-1267,the Barons went to war over excessive royal power, taxation, and broken promises regarding governance. There was also always a constant threat of famine ie the Great Famine 1315-1317 and Just as things began to settle there was the start of the 100 years war with France in 1337. Survival was a daily chore in England throughout the middle ages whether titled or a commoner as War was always around the corner. All this lasted for about 350 years, until 1341/2 when the V1 & last Baron died. However, we have to remember the titled members of society were always protected by monarchy & their barons & knights which allowed them to live a life apart in what would be called luxery compared to the average person. At that time, marriages of the nobility were arranged in advanced to a) form alliances, b) ensure the continuation of the line & c) to ensure there would be a wealthy heir to succeed in society. Certainly, most titled families at this time would have raised a family early rather than later, with the importance of matters of state left to an advisor until the head of the family had fully gained his station in life publically.                                                                                 GL