DARCY 71 The following pedigree illustrates the descent of the Barony of Darcv, 5 connected with the Barony of Meinill (^) and the Barony of Conyers. John Darcy, sum. I 33 1/2, d. 13-I.7. Nicholas de Mcinill, sum. 1336, d. s.p.m., 1341. John, Lord Darcy (of Knaith),;/. i 356. j^Elizabeth, da. and h., d. 1368. John Darcy, s. and h., d. unm., i 362. Philip, Lord Darcy, d. 1399. John, Lord Darcy, d. 141 1. Philip D.ircy, d. s.p.m., 141 8. John Da
- nd son, d. 1 45 8.
Sir James=: Elizabeth, 1st Sir John — Margaret, 2nd Richard Darcy, s. Strangways. | da. and coh. Conyers. da. and coh. and h. ap., d. v.p. ^ I I r Sir John Conyers, d. v.p. William Conyers, s. and h., sum. I 509, d. I 524. Christopher, Lord Conyers, d. 1538. Sir William Darcy, s. and h., d. 1488. Sir Thomas Darcy, s. and h., sum. I 509, beheaded zn<l attainted, 1537. I John, Lord Conyers, d. s.p.m, 1557. 2. Arthur Darcy, I. George Darcy, s. and h., restored to the Barony 2nd son, d. 156 1, of Darcy to him, and the heirs male of his body, 1348, a-. 1558. I John, 2nd Lord Darcy, d. 1602. Elizabeth, 2nd da. and coh., whose=Thomas Darcy, d. 1605. son, in 1 644, became sole h. Michael Darcy, d. v.p., 1588. Conyers(Darcy),Lord Conyers (in 1644), John, 3rd Lord Darcy, Henry Savile, = Anne. who had in 1635, become heir CT(7/;f of his sum. to Pari, as Lord of Copley, co. great-grandfather (Lord Darcy), s. and h. Darcy and Meinill. (•>) York. | In 1641, he was in fact cr. Baron Darcy 1605 to 1629. He d. /js and Baron Conyers, in tail male, but this /././., 1635. was held legally (in 1903) to have deter- mined the Darcy abeyance. He d. 1 654. Conyers (Darcy), Lord Darcy [1344], and Lord Conyers [1509], who was sum. in 1661 as "Lord Darcy," and from 1678 to 1680 as "Lord Darcy and Meinill. "C^) In 1682 he was cr. Earl of Holderness. On the failure of his issue male, 19 May 1778, his dignities, save the Baronies of Darcy (of Knaith) and Conyers (which vested in the da. and heir gen. of the last Earl), became extinct. (") J. H. Round writes, "It has now been decided that there is no proof of sitting in the Barony of Meinill, so that its existence is rejected." It is very difficult for the lay mind to grasp what is, and what is not, a peerage Barony. The Meinill claim failed in 1 903 owing to lack of proof of sitting. Yet in the Mowbr.iy claim (1877) the Resolution was: "That it is proved by the Writ of Summons addressed to Roger de Mowbray in the lith year of Edward I, and the other evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner, that the Barony of Mowbray was in the reign of King Edward I vested in Roger de Mowbray." As it has not been proved that Roger de Mowbray ever sat in any Parliament, it is obvious, as J. H. Round points out {Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, p. 257), that "the proposition that 'the Barony of Mowbray was in the reign of King Edward I vested in Roger de Mowbray ' is based on writ, .ind on writ alone." Again, in the Darcy case in 1903, no proof of sitting was produced for John Darcy (sum. 133 1/2), and though the House of Lords .iccepted as such proof hii pre- sence in the King's Council in I 344, the historian, on the analogy of the Meinill case, would be justified in denying that the proceedings before the Committee established the cxiacntc of the earlier Barony of Darcy. V'.G. (t) Though the coheirship to the Barony of Meinill was not in him, but in the dc;cend.int5 of Elizabeth Strangways and Margaret Conyers. (') As to this writ see vol. iii, p. 407, note "c."
