Robert de Sandford

• Preferred Name: Robert de Sandford^{[1] [2] [3]}
  
• Gender: M
  
• http://familysearch.org/v1/TitleOfNobility: Lord of Sandford in Sandford, Westmorland, England at LATI: N4.5333 LONG: E2.4167
  
• Biography: 1314 in It is pretty certain therefore, that Robert de Sandford was not present at Bannockburn. at LATI: N7.1667 LONG: E5.55 with note: Description: Three years after the battle of Bannockburn, the victorious Scots poured south under Sir Edward Bruce and Sir James Douglas, and sacked and burnt Appleby. The greater part of Westmorland was laid waste. From a deed it appears that Robert de Sandford was a heavy sufferer, and thus was excused from sending men to Edward II's host, which suffered such a decisive defeat by Robert Bruce. Genuki: A History of the Family of Sandford of Sandford, Askham, Howgill and Helton in the County of Westmorland FROM THE YEAR 1174 TO THE PRESENT DAY.
  
• Occupation: appointed joint deputy sheriff of WestmorlandBET 1313 AND 1326 with note: Genuki: A History of the Family of Sandford of Sandford, Askham, Howgill and Helton in the County of Westmorland FROM THE YEAR 1174 TO THE PRESENT DAY.
  
• Occupation: chosen as Knight of the Shire of WestmorlandBET 1316 AND 1317 with note: Genuki: A History of the Family of Sandford of Sandford, Askham, Howgill and Helton in the County of Westmorland FROM THE YEAR 1174 TO THE PRESENT DAY.
  
• Death: 1356 with note: GEDCOM data
  
• FSID: G9XH-MJP
  
• Occupation: represented the county almost continuously in 16 parliamentsBET 1316 AND 1344 with note: Genuki: A History of the Family of Sandford of Sandford, Askham, Howgill and Helton in the County of Westmorland FROM THE YEAR 1174 TO THE PRESENT DAY.
  
• Birth: 1280
  

• m. 1285 in Askham, Westmorland, England

1. Edmund Sandford, b. 1310 in Askham, Westmorland, England, United Kingdom     d. in England, United Kingdom

1. Title: Genuki: A History of the Family of Sandford of Sandford, Askham, Howgill and Helton in the County of Westmorland FROM THE YEAR 1174 TO THE PRESENT DAY
   Publication: Name: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/WES/Warcop/sandford3;
   Note: By William Arthur Cecil Sandford Part 3 12 Three years afterwards (1314) occurred the battle of Bannockburn, and the victorious Scots, pouring south under Sir Edward Bruce and Sir James Douglas, sacked and burnt Appleby. The greater part of Westmorland was laid waste, and from a deed which will be quoted later it appears that Robert de Sandford was a heavy sufferer. But before this the two counties of Cumberland and Westmorland had suffered so terribly at the hands of the Scots, that they alone, out of all England north of the Trent, were excused from sending men to Edward II's host which suffered such a decisive defeat by Robert Bruce in 1314. It is pretty certain therefore, that Robert de Sandford was not present at Bannockburn. In 1313 he was appointed joint deputy sheriff of Westmorland, an office which he continued to hold till 1326. In 10 Edward II (1316/17) Robert de Sandford was chosen as Knight of the Shire of Westmorland, and thus started on a long parliamentary career, representing the county almost continuously from this date to 1344, in 16 parliaments. (b) In the parliamentary writs of the period are some interesting entries showing expenses allowed him for his attendance at Westminster from 13 to 19 Edward II. The scale varies from 2/6 to 3/4 per day, and he is allowed expenses for 14 days travelling - © 7 coming up to London and 7 returning to Westmorland, so that in those days it took as long to get from Westmorland to London as it now takes to get from London to New York,. In modern money the allowance at the higher scale equalled about £4 a day, or at the rate of about £1500 a year, but it was only paid during his actual attendance at parliament and his journey there and back. Travelling in those days was not a simple matter. Roads were practically non-existent (except the great Roman roads and near a Cistercian Abbey) and inns were poor and few. The baggage taken with them by travellers of position was considerable, including as it did their bedding and provisions, and as wheeled vehicles were unknown all this was carried by pack. The expense of such a journey (a) C. & W. Trans. (O.S.) IV, 285 et seq. (b) Rolls of Parliament. © "Parliamentary Writs" (1831). II. (ii) 13 must have been great, and it cannot be said that the allowance was excessive. As Knight of the Shire of Westmorland Robert de Sandford took part in some historic Parliaments. The glory of Edward I's reign had departed, and the Scots under King Robert the Bruce had not only shaken off the English yoke but were laying waste the Northern counties. The defeat of Bannockburn was followed in 1319 by that of Mylton-in-Swale, and under the Earl of Lancaster the Barons rose against the King. In 1322 Edward met them at Boroughbridge in Yorkshire and inflicted a heavy defeat on them, Lancaster paying on the scaffold the penalty of his rebellion. Parliament at once met at York, revoked the Ordinances passed in 1311, and reestablished the authority of the King, Lords, and Commons. But the incapacity of the King was all too evident. On 18th November, 1325, he laid his grievances before Parliament (the expences allowed Robert de Sandford for attending this Parliament were 3/- a day) (a) and for a time the end was staved off, but on 7th January 1327 took place one of the most dramatic and significant episodes in the long story of Parliament, when for the first time in history a King of England was solemnly arraigned before the representatives of his subjects, declared unfit to govern, and deposed from the throne they considered him unworthy to fill. A few weeks later with the tragedy of Berkeley Castle ended the life of this the unhappiest of the Plantagenets. The immediate effect of those happenings on Robert de Sandford's personal affairs is interesting. In 1324 he had obtained from the Crown the "keeping" of lands in Thibay (Tobay) and Ronnerthwayt (Roundthwaite) in Co. Westmorland, for seven years at a rent of 50/- per annum. (b) With the deposition of Edward II, however, intrigues started all over England to have concessions originally granted by the late King transferred to new beneficiaries, and in 1327 the same lands were granted by the new government to Adam de Redeman on the same terms, in spite of the fact that the term for which they had boon granted to Robert de Sandford still had four years to run. In the grant to Adam de Redeman the lands are distinctly described. as "lately held by Robert de Sandford from the late King," so there was no question of trying to hide the matter. © (a) Parliamentary Writs (1831);II, (ii) (b) Fine Rolls, 17 ;Ed. II. © ibid., 1 E.III (memb. II) 14 However, Robert de Sandford did not take the injustice lying down. He promptly petitioned Parliament, and his petition can still be read in the Rolls of Parliament. It is given in the original Norman-French in Appendix. In it he states that he "took of our Sovereign Lord the King who is dead" a small holding in Tybay and Roundthwaite for seven years, which holding had been "completely destroyed and burnt by the Scots." And that on the holding he had built 12 houses for tenants and erected a mill. And in view of the new grant to Adam de Redman he had been robbed of four years of his term of occupation and put to heavy loss. It was decided that Robert should remain in possession for the full term of his original grant. This incident is a small one, but it shows how those who were not too scrupulous tried to turn the deposition of Edward II to their own advantage. Incidentally, Robert's petition shows that Sandford and the surrounding district had boon heavily ravaged by the Scots 12 or 13 years after Bannockburn. In 1328 he brought an action against William Todd of Appleby and Margaret his wife that they should hold to their covenant with him concerning one messuage and two bovates of land in Sandford: as a result of which the Sheriff was ordered to distrain them by all lands. Robert's attorney for this action was William de Sandford, - probably either his brother William the cleric or his nephew William, also a cleric.* In 1331 he again hold the office of Deputy sheriff of Westmorland (b) and three years later two of his sons, Thomas and William, were returned to Parliament as members for Appleby, while their father again represented the County of Westmorland; © so the Parliament of l334 saw no less than three members of the Sandford family sitting in it, this family distinction being repeated in 1340 and l346. In 1332 Robert de Sandford sat in the first Parliament where the Barons and Bishops sat in a separate chamber from the Knights of the Shire and the Burgesses - an incident of great historical importance. From this date the Lords and Commons were quite separate, and the Constitution took the form that it keeps today * De Banco Roll, 2 E.III, Easter, 273; & Mich., 275. (a) Rolls of Parliament, II, 412. (b) C. & W. Trans., (O.S.), IV, 285 et seq,. (d) Parliamentary Writs. 15 In 1335 Robert de Sandford took part in one of the numerous personal feuds of the period, for in that year is a Commission of Oyer and Terminer to Richard de Wylughby and others on a complaint by Sir Henry Fits Hugh, kt that he had impounded certain cattle for trespass on his lands at Mikelton in Teasdale, Co. York, and Robert de Clifford, Kt., with Robert de Sandford and eleven others (including such well known Westmorland names as Strickland, Layburn, Warcop, Musgrave and Brampton) broke down the pound, rescued the cattle, hunted in his lands and assaulted his man and servants. The raiding party included three knights (Sir Robert de Clifford, Sir Thomas de Strikland and Sir Alexander de Wyndesore) a knight of the Shire and late deputy sheriff (Robert de Sandford), and a parson ("Master" William de Brampton, parson of Betham) and the whole incident is a good illustration of the lawlessness of the time. It was evidently in revenge for a considered injustice to Sir Robert de Clifford, for five days later the King appointed a commission to enquire into the complaint of Sir Henry Fits Hugh that he having recovered seison against Sir Robert de Clifford of 3000 acres of Moor and pasture in Mikleton in Teesdale, having come with the Sheriff of York and 12 Knights and freemen of the county to take Inquisition of the land and make execution of the King's writ, there came Robert de Clifford and others with an armed force no that they dare not execute the writ, "Contrary to the Statute of Northampton.' There is little doubt that Robert de Sandford was one of the party which accompanied Clifford. Despite the heavy defeat of the Scots at Halidon Hill in 1333, Cumberland and Westmorland were still being ravaged and laid waste, for in 1337 the Bishop of Carlisle reported that he could not get the tenths as the clergy had all fled. Without going so far as Taylor, the (17th century) water poet, in his statement that "whoso then did in the Borders dwell Lived little happier than those in hell"....
   
2. Title: Legacy NFS Source: Robert Sandford -
   Author: Ancestral File (R), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Copyright (c) 1987, June 1998, data as of 5 January 1998
   Page: Migrated from user-supplied source citation: urn:familysearch:source:2737222799
   
3. Title: Legacy NFS Source: Robert Sandford -
   Author: Ancestral File (TM), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, June 1998 (c), data as of 5 JAN 1998
   Page: Migrated from user-supplied source citation: urn:familysearch:source:2737222797