Henry VII (1457-1509) and Elizabeth of York (1466-1503)

[Zonk]

I was quite surprised that there isn't a thread on Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, as both had quite an interesting life and played an important role in British Royal history.

While in the bookstore today, I noticed a new book (The Tudor Rose) one those of fictional books (think Anne Boleyn's Sister), and it tells the story of Princess Elizabeth of York (daughter of Edward IV, sister of the Princes of the Tower, mother of Henry VIII and grandmother of Elizabeth I, Mary I and Edward V).

Has anyone read it?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I have not read the book but it would be fascinating to learn more about Elizabeth. As I recall, the chroniclers of her time did not write at length about Elizabeth and what she thought remains a mystery. By this, I mean what she felt about the deaths of her brothers, who may have been responsible (i.e., her uncle or her husband), etc. By all accounts, she and Henry had a loving marriage. If she was a political pawn, perhaps Elizabeth accepted her fate and went along in order to survive.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have not read the book but it would be fascinating to learn more about Elizabeth. As I recall, the chroniclers of her time did not write at length about Elizabeth and what she thought remains a mystery. By this, I mean what she felt about the deaths of her brothers, who may have been responsible (i.e., her uncle or her husband), etc. By all accounts, she and Henry had a loving marriage. If she was a political pawn, perhaps Elizabeth accepted her fate and went along in order to survive.

I do think she was most definitely a political pawn but then in her time most royal woman were e.g. her daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon and her own daughters - their marriages weren't for love but for alliances and political advantage of their fathers/brothers etc. Sometimes love came but other times it didn't.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Henry VII 928 January 1457 – 21 April 1509) was the King of England and Lord of Ireland from his seizing the crown on 22 August 1485 until his death on 21 April 1509, as the first monarch of the Tudor dynasty.

Her married Elizabeth Of York daughter and heir of King Edward IV. They were third cousins, as both were great-great-grandchildren of John of Gaunt. The marriage took place on 18 January 1486 at Westminster. The marriage unified the warring houses and gave his children a stronger claim to the throne. The unification of the houses of York and Lancaster by Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York is represented in the heraldic symbol of the Tudor rose, a combination of the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster.

They had 7 children

1. Arthur, Prince of Wales (20 September 1486 – 2 April 1502).
2. Margaret, Queen consort of Scotland (28 November 1489 – 18 October 1541).
3. Henry, Duke of York, later Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547).
4. Elizabeth Tudor (2 July 1492 – 14 September 1495).
5. Mary, Queen consort of France (18 March 1496 – 25 June 1533).
6. Edmund, Duke of Somerset (21 February 1499 – 19 June 1500).
7. Katherine Tudor (born/died 2 February 1503).

Elizabeth Of York (11 February 1466 – 11 February 1503) was the daughter, sister, niece, mother, grandmother and wife of Kings of England. She was Queen of England as spouse of King Henry VII, whom she married in 1486.

She was born at Westminster, the eldest child of King Edward IV and his Queen consort, the former Elizabeth Woodville, Lady Grey. Elizabeth's younger siblings included Mary of York, Cecily of York, Edward V of England, Margaret Plantagenet (Princess of York), Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, Anne of York, George Plantagenet, Duke of Bedford, Catherine of York and Bridget of York.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I do think she was most definitely a political pawn but then in her time most royal woman were e.g. her daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon and her own daughters - their marriages weren't for love but for alliances and political advantage of their fathers/brothers etc. Sometimes love came but other times it didn't.

True, Iluvbertie, royal women were used as pawns for strategic purposes. Then Elizabeth of York was fortunate because it appears from the accounts that love blossomed from her relationship with Henry VII. From everything I've read, he was stingy but spared no expense for her burial. Actions often speak louder than words.

 

[pacomartin]

Unfortunately many of us remember these monarchs via the way Shakespeare presented them. They have the opposite problem of Richard III. They are presented as one dimensional noble people, and hence totally forgettable.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

True, villains or cruel people are more colorful and tend to be remembered more, but isn't there plenty of information on Henry VII? Look at how he obtained the throne by conquest and then solidified his position through an advantageous marriage. In a separate thread there was a discussion on whether Henry or Richard was the murderer of the young King and Prince in the tower. What say you, Pacomartin?

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

I find it very interesting to note that if Henry VII had not won the throne by right of conquest, then the next senior claimant from the Beaufort line would have been James III of Scotland.

The last of the male Beauforts died out in 1471, with the death of the 3rd Duke of Somerset.

Of the children of John Beaufort and Margaret de Holland, the next in line would have been the descendants of Joan Beaufort, their eldest daughter, who was Queen Consort of Scotland as the wife of James I.

Their grandson, James III, could have claimed England for himself and erased the Tudor dynasty from history altogether.

So regardless of the fact that the Beauforts were "barred" from the succession, it's ironic that Joan Beaufort's 4th great grandson wound up ruling England anyway..

But what do you think? Did James III have a greater claim to England's throne than Henry VII?

 

[Lady Ann]

This is very appealing to people with minds like ours Queen Cathrine .... good question. I will have to read up on it more before answering. Although I think it would have been sad to have such a Queen as Elizabeth I erased from history.

 

[Lady Ann]

I do think she was most definitely a political pawn but then in her time most royal woman were e.g. her daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon and her own daughters - their marriages weren't for love but for alliances and political advantage of their fathers/brothers etc. Sometimes love came but other times it didn't.

I read that she was as you say a political pawn to keep her fathers blood line to the throne or to keep the peace betweetn the two families their mothers are said to have a BIG hand in the match making In the end I read they had a loving marrage and she was a proud and good women who was distroied by the early deaths of 3 of her 7 children.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

I do find the question worth examining, Lady Ann.

James III of Scotland, however, was an unpopular and ineffective ruler of his own country.. so there is no telling what he would have done to England.

In the early years of his adult reign, he did pursue alliances with England, and even discussed betrothing his heir (James IV) with Cecily of York. The marriage was agreed by both parties in 1474, but the two countries were at war by 1480 so the marriage never happened.

On the other hand, Henry VII did restore political stability and brought the War of the Roses to an end when his army killed Richard III at Bosworth. His marriage to Elizabeth of York unified the warring houses, and he later restored the financial fortunes of England by being prudent with his spending.

There is no question that Henry VII was a better choice than James III.. but I have to wonder what the outcome would have been if James had sat on the throne instead of Henry.

 

[Lady Ann]

I find it very interesting to note that if Henry VII had not won the throne by right of conquest, then the next senior claimant from the Beaufort line would have been James III of Scotland.

The last of the male Beauforts died out in 1471, with the death of the 3rd Duke of Somerset.

Of the children of John Beaufort and Margaret de Holland, the next in line would have been the descendants of Joan Beaufort, their eldest daughter, who was Queen Consort of Scotland as the wife of James I.

Was Lady Margaret Beaufort form the same family you are speaking??? This was Henry VII mother correct???

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

I read that she was as you say a political pawn to keep her fathers blood line to the throne after he lost the battle( war) what every you want to call it. In the end I read they had a loving marrage and she was a proud and good women who was distroied by the early deaths of 3 of her 7 children.

Elizabeth of York may have been a political pawn.. but not in the most traditional sense.

Her marriage was the result of the political alliance between Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII's mother, and her own mother, Elizabeth Woodville.

Margaret and Elizabeth agreed that the Woodvilles would support Henry Tudor in his bid for the throne and Henry would marry Elizabeth of York to unify the houses.

Henry was the closest claimant the Lancastrians had, and Elizabeth Woodville would probably have done anything to avenge the deaths of her sons and topple Richard from the throne.

What a triumph for these two women that their plan succeeded. Margaret got a kingdom for her son.. and Elizabeth made her daughter a Queen. Together they helped destroy Richard III and bring peace back to England.

As for Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, from everything I've read, they had a happy and loving relationship.

Elizabeth did not exercise much political power, which was mostly held by her mother-in-law, Margaret Beaufort. But she was well-loved by her people and was known to have been kind and generous.

Perhaps she could have had more power if she wanted, but after all the political intrigue, murder, war and rebellion of her younger years, I think she probably left the politics to those with a stomach for it. And she probably didn't regret not having that power in the least.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Was Lady Margaret Beaufort form the same family you are speaking??? This was Henry VII mother correct???

Here is a brief tree:

John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset (son of John of Gaunt)
married Margaret de Holland
1) Henry Beaufort, Earl of Somerset (died age 16, no issue)
2) John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset
married Margaret Beauchamp
.......a) Margaret Beaufort(mother of Henry VII Tudor)
3) Thomas Beaufort, Count of Perche (died age 26, no issue)
4) Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset
married Eleanor Beauchamp
.......*9 children. The male line of Beauforts ended with the death of their son Edmund, 2nd Duke of Somerset, in 1471.*
5) Joan Beaufort, Queen Consort of Scotland
married James I Stewart of Scotland
.......a) James II of Scotland (father of James III Stewart)
6) Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon
married Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon
.......*8 children. The male line of Courtenays of Devon ended with the death of their son John, 15th Earl of Devon, in 1471.*

Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset and John Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon, died at the Battle of Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire - 4 May 1471. Edmund Beaufort's younger brother, John Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, also died in this battle (and they are buried together).

James II of Scotland and Margaret Beaufort were first cousins. James was deceased well before 22 August 1485 (he died in 1460), which was the beginning of Henry VII's reign. James III of Scotland would have inherited his father's claim to the English throne.

Henry's claim came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, while James III's claim came through his grandmother, Joan Beaufort. Both being descendants of John of Gaunt in the female line, I would think the stronger claim would have been through Joan Beaufort, an anointed queen and a generation closer to John of Gaunt, but I could be wrong.. hence my question.

Addendum: It's also worth noting that Elizabeth of York was the great granddaughter of Joanna Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Joanna was the only daughter of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. Her brother was John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

But wouldn't Henry's claim be stronger because his mother was the daughter of a son whereas James III was the grandson of a younger sister. Hence, the claim would follow the male lines of descent from the common ancestor before passing down through the female lines. Thus, Joan Beaufort, being a Queen Consort, would not give James III precedence because she was a younger sister to John Beaufort.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Actually, through a little more research I've found the answer to my question.

James III of Scotland would not have been in the line of succession at all, because by Act of Parliament of 1331, foreign title holders not born in England were not part of the line of succession.

This is also the reason that Afonso V of Portugal was excluded from the line of succession of Henry IV, although he was second in line to inherit the crown of England according to the rules of primogeniture.

This Act of 1331 was still in effect at the time of Henry VII's conquest.

The Beaufort prohibition to the succession was removed in 1470. This means that Lady Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII) was 2nd in line of succession on the death of Henry IV. She was also 4th in line of succession after the death of her own son.. but she only survived him by about 2 months.

Incidentally, Henry VII's daughter Margaret, Queen of Scotland, was 2nd in line to the throne upon his death after her brother Henry. She was born in England and though she held a foreign title, it was not a regnal title since she was the consort of a king.

So it appears the Act did not forbid foreign titleholders from the succession, per se, but did forbid those not born on English soil.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Incidentally, Henry VII's daughter Margaret, Queen of Scotland, was 2nd in line to the throne upon his death after her brother Henry. She was born in England and though she held a foreign title, it was not a regnal title since she was the consort of a king.

So it appears the Act did not forbid foreign titleholders from the succession, per se, but did forbid those not born on English soil.

Queen Catherine:

Thank you for all of this information. The last lines of your comment remind me of the prohibition against people not born on United States soil running for President.

 

[Lady Ann]

Wow, thanks for all your time and info..

 

[AmyTudor]

Tudor surname

Does anyone know when the Tudor surname began to be used? I don't know much about my ancestry, but I remember my grandmother telling me that we were entitled to use the Tudor coat of arms/crest/shield??? but it had to have a sinister bar??? across it which designated illegitimacy.

 

[norenxaq]

at least during the 1400s with owen tudor, who was welsh

 

[SLV]

Owen Tudor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Something about the name Tudor.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Does anyone know when the Tudor surname began to be used? I don't know much about my ancestry, but I remember my grandmother telling me that we were entitled to use the Tudor coat of arms/crest/shield??? but it had to have a sinister bar??? across it which designated illegitimacy.

The Tudor name has existed for quite a long time.. as Tewdwr or Tewdr. The name is the Welsh equivalent of Theodoric or Theodore.

Welsh names are patronyms.. meaning they are personal names based on the name of one's father and/or grandfather. And in Wales, both male and female names are patronyms.

Males are designated "ap" or son of, while females are designated "ferch" or daughter of.

For example: If Tewdwr is the son of Rhys, he is named Tewdwr ap Rhys - and if Gwyneth is the daughter of Rhys, she is named Gwyneth ferch Rhys.

If Tewdwr ap Rhys has a son named Lionel, he will be Lionel ap Tewdwr, and if Tewdwr has a daughter named Anne, she will be Anne ferch Tewdwr.

Technically speaking, the name Tudor has probably existed since the Welsh language began, and it is also used as a first name and as a surname in Romania.

As far as the English surname.. well, it came from Wales in the person of Owen Tudor (Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr), whose name was anglicized from its original Welsh. And since his children with Catherine of Valois were born and lived in England, they naturally were not given a patronym.. or at least it was not used in England. If they had, their names would not have been Tudor at all, but ap Owain ap Maredudd.

 

[Lady Meg]

Sir Roland Velville

Has anyone confirmed whether or not this was a child of Henry VII? Are there any sources that identify the Velville descendants as children of Henry? For example, Katheryn Tudor of Berain?

I ask because there are a lot of people on ancestry.com who have these people listed under the descendants of Henry VII, I suppose as part of their family.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Sir Roland de Velville is generally accepted to be the natural son of Henry VII, although there have been a few detractors, whose arguments have not been sufficient to disprove his paternity.. and there even lingers the possibility that he wasn't illegitimate at all.

As far as it can be known, Sir Roland was never not considered Henry's son until 1967, when Professor S.B. Chrimes of Cardiff University published his argument against it. A few other historians have since followed suit and published papers of their own.. but there are holes in their reasoning.

He continues to be accepted as a natural son of Henry VII - the most recent example being Alison Weir in her book 'Britain's Royal Families' . Even the Dictionary of Welsh Biography refers to Velville as 'a natural son of Henry VII' (under the entry for Katheryn of Berain).

There is contemporary evidence relating to Velville's paternity, in the form of an elegy in 1535 (the year of his death) by a Welsh bard named Daffyd Alaw, which refers to him as being 'of kingly line' and 'of earls blood'. Henry VII was Earl of Richmond from birth.

And at that time in Wales, the bards were the recognized genealogical authorities, much like the Heralds of the College of Arms today, in so far as it was their function to maintain, and pass on, the genealogies of the Welsh royal or princely families, and that the elegy therefore amounts to a statement by an authoritative contemporary source that Velville was of royal blood.

While elegies may often exaggerate the good and gloss over the bad they do not, on the whole, make important assertions of fact that are either unknown or likely to be regarded as false by the intended audience.

What this means is that Velville was believed to be an illegitimate son of Henry VII in his own lifetime, at least by his immediate circle. This circle included many members of the extended Tudor family, into which Velville had married - the very people who would have been least likely to accept such a statement as true had it actually been false.

Katheryn of Berain was Roland's granddaughter. If Sir Roland de Velville was indeed the natural son of Henry VII, as is believed, then all of Katheryn's descendants may claim royal Tudor blood through him.

 

[lady of hay]

Elizabeth Woodville would probably have done anything to avenge the deaths of her sons and topple Richard from the throne.
Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville did not believe her sons were dead at this point ,there has been a question of the legitimacy of her and Edward IV's children because of pre contract.
It was recorded that Elizabeth and her daughters spent the christmas of 1484 at court with Richard,
"I know her murderd Edward and Dickon, but he does give wonderful parties "
doesn't sound quite right to me . If I suspected someone of murdering my children I would make as much noise about it as I could.
The most likely candidate for this crime is the Duke of Buckingham, who himself had a claim to the throne.

What a triumph for these two women that their plan succeeded. Margaret got a kingdom for her son.. and Elizabeth made her daughter a Queen.

Elizabeth's triumph was short lived , she did not attend her daughters coronation, and after her involvement in one of two rebellions against Henry, spent the last five years of her life in a nunnery. Most historians agree that this was not through choice.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Unfortunately, whether she believed Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, to be dead or not, and by whose hand is irrelevant.

Richard III did have both her brother Anthony, Earl Rivers, and her son Richard Grey executed in June 1483. This fact is not disputed, and Richard III is responsible for the deaths of Elizabeth's brother and at least one of her sons. I cannot imagine that just because Edward V and the Duke of York were royal, that it would hurt any less as a mother, to lose Richard Grey.

I believe Elizabeth did what she thought was expedient at the time. She was a woman without much political power on her own.. and whatever power she had previously held was only through her marriage to Edward IV. She could claim a right noble bloodline through her mother, but her father was merely a baron when she married the king.. and before it was all over, she had many enemies because of the favor shown to her family.

So regardless of her feelings for Richard III, she and her daughters came out of sanctuary in March 1484, because she had secured his public agreement that they would not go to the Tower, and he would grant dowries and make suitable marriages for her daughters.

By this time, too, Elizabeth had already allied with Margaret Beaufort and arranged that if Henry Tudor won the throne, then he would marry Elizabeth of York, and bring the two warring houses together.

I think it was a calculated move on her part, to be at Court and be privy to the happenings there, rather than be shut away in sanctuary and not know what was blowing in the political wind. We will probably never know how much this helped Henry Tudor's cause..

As far as Edward IV's pre-contract to Eleanor Butler.. that was not even mentioned until after Edward's death, and was clearly used as a means to declare his sons illegitimate so that Richard could take the throne. After Richard was defeated by Henry Tudor, Elizabeth's marriage to Edward was declared valid and their children were restored to legitimacy.

What I cannot decide, is whether or not Richard III was responsible for the murder of his nephews. Like you, I think the Duke of Buckingham had plenty of motive, and everything I've read so far, shows Richard III to be loyal to his brother Edward IV, while he lived. He showed no compunction about executing Elizabeth Woodville's relatives, and I can see that he would not consider them part of his family, whereas his brother's children would be a different story.

History has not been kind to Richard, especially if he was innocent in the murder of his nephews.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

You are right that history has not been kind to Richard III. It seems more likely to me that Henry VII had the young princes murdered. Remember, they were declared bastards and Richard III was crowned as King. Thus, there was no need to eliminate the princes, unless they posed a political threat, and I don't think there was any evidence of that at the time Richard was ruling England. Second, Henry Tudor had every reason to eliminate any Plantagenet heir because Henry's claim to the throne was tenuous and thus he wished to marry the Plantangenet heiress, Elizabeth, so his children could rightfully claim a link to the throne. Thus, Henry VII might be viewed as a better candidate for murderer than Richard III.

 

[lady of hay]

Some Plantagenet heirs were eliminated under Henry VII and also under Henry VIII, remember Margaret Pole ? Both she and her sons presented some kind of threat to Henry VIII.
H M Queen Catherine, I'm pleased that you agree that Buckingham had a motive. Did you know that he was married to Elizabeth Woodvilles sister, Catherine, and that he is alleged to have hated both his wife and her family for their " humble" origins.
A document found at the College of Arms in the 1980's stated that Richard had the princes murdered on the "vice" of the Duke of Buckingham. Just what "vice " means has ,I understand been the subject of much debate.
Buckingham supported Richard in his claim to the throne, but soon began working with one John Morton Bishop of Ely , in order to put his ( Buckinghams) second cousin Henry Tudor , on the throne . Some sources suggest that the marriage between Henry and Elizabeth was first suggested at this time. Buckingham later joined a group of dissaffected nobles in a plot with the intention of putting Edward V back on the throne, and it was due to this rebellion that Buckingham was executed.

Buckinghams claim to the throne was as strong as Henry Tudors, three of his grandparents were decended from Edward III.

Unfortunately I have lost many of the notes I had made when originally studying this period of history, house moves and career change taking their toll.
One interesting thing to note is this , the afore mentioned John Morton took into his houeshold a young man by the name of Thomas ( later Sir Thomas ) More, on whos book "A History of Richard III" Shakespeare is said to have based his play.
There are ,as far as I am aware 4 possible solutions to the "mystery " of the princes

1 they were murdered by Richard
2 they were murdered by Henry
3 they were murdered by Buckingham
4 that they were removed from the tower, a Royal palace at that time , and sent to live with a noble family in anonymity. The household of Thomas More being the favorite for this.

This is however going off the original purpose of the thread. After the death of their son Arthur , Elizabeth of York gave "great comfort " to Henry VII, and then returned to her own chambers to vent her own grief , the king on hearing of it went to comfort her. A loving and devoted couple ? yes I believe they were, despite all the politics and scheming that went on around them.

 

[Lady Meg]

Katheryn of Berain was Roland's granddaughter. If Sir Roland de Velville was indeed the natural son of Henry VII, as is believed, then all of Katheryn's descendants may claim royal Tudor blood through him.

Thank you for this. I have been looking around ancestry again... people have Jasper Tudor's illegit son as being the father of either Katherine of Berain's mother or father. Can't remember now, but I do remember that that was incorrect as well as Jasper's son being listed as Henry VII's son. People are just copying others trees and not questioning or looking facts up for themselves; for you have maybe 200+ people on there that think they have the line correct and are somehow related to the Tudors. Even the dates are off. Anyway, is there a place that I can find the descendants of Sir Roland; a reputable source? Perhaps I should look at the Alison Weir book? I read that there is a branch that ended up in Virginia, USA. Perhaps these things will never be sorted out unless people take a DNA test?

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

First of all, I am not aware that Jasper Tudor had an illegitimate son, nor have I seen any documented evidence that such a son existed. Jasper did have at least one illegitimate daughter, Helen (or Ellen) Tudor, wife of William Gardiner (a cloth merchant) .. and is thought to have had a second illegitimate daughter named Joan Tudor, the supposed wife of William ap Yevan.

The sons of these daughters are a matter of debate. Helen Tudor is thought by some to have been the mother of Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. She is known to have had at least three sons, but it is not at all certain that the Bishop can be attributed as her son.. it appears she did, though, have a son named Stephen.

Joan Tudor is thought to have been the mother of Morgan ap Williams, whose wife was Catherine Cromwell, and whose descendant is Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector.

As far as I know, these are the only children attributed to Jasper Tudor. He had no children with his wife, Catherine Wydeville. Her five children were Staffords - by her first husband, Henry, Duke of Buckingham, and these appear to be her only children as she had none with Jasper Tudor or with her third husband Richard Wingfield.

There is a reputable family tree for the descendants of Sir Roland de Velville. Sources are cited in the endnotes section. These are the descendants of Jane Velville, who married Tudur ap Robert Vychan. It is through their daughter, Katheryn of Berain, that the family descends.. she was their only surviving child and sole heiress of her father and apparently of her grandfather, Roland.

Incidentally, Katheryn's Tudor (anglicized) surname was only derived from the fact that her father's first name was Tudur. In the Welsh tradition, she was Katheryn ferch Tudur ap Robert Vychan. She was still related to the Tudor kings, however, through both her grandfather Roland de Velville and his wife, Agnes Griffith.. her grandmother's lineage was legitimate.

Certainly no supposed son of Jasper Tudor could have been a grandparent of Katheryn of Berain. That is simply and absolutely wrong. Obviously his son could not be Roland de Velville, and Katheryn's paternal grandfather was a Welshman named Robert Vychan, as evident by the name of her father.

Jane de Velville appears to be the only one of Roland's two daughters that had issue. The other daughter, Grace, appears to have either died young, unmarried or without issue, as I have only seen her name mentioned in passing.

Roland de Velville had no sons, or at least no sons that survived to adulthood, and this is evident by his will in which he left all his chattels to his wife. His daughters are not mentioned in the will.

You can find the tree here A Richer Dust - The Descent of Hughes
The tree goes backwards, so check out page four first and then page three.