Volume 11, page 468:
GEOFFREY DE SAY II, 2nd but 1st surv. s. and h. by 1st wife, was b. probably about 1155. In 1180 in the account of the farm of the Vicomté of Arqueshe is acquitted in respect of a liability of 10s "for the land of Geoffrey de Sai which he had with the wife of Hugh de Periers."(e) In the sameyear he was amerced at the Forest Assize in respect of Hudwic' & Dodinton' (Ditton Priors, Salop); and, again in 1180, with the consent of his wife,he delivered to the prior of Wenlock his manor of Ditton Priors, which was her dower from Hugh de Periers.(f) In 1190 Michael Belet accounted for100li to have right against him of the inheritance of his wife and to have his office.(g) In 1198 he was bailiff of Arques.(h)

The identity of Geoffrey II's first wife, the mother of his son and heir William, is unknown. Geoffrey was married to his second wife Margery byNovember 1225 [the quindene of St Martin, Michaelmas Term 9-10 Henry III; Curia Regis Rolls, vol. 12, pp. 295, 302].

Geoffery ws at Runnymede in June 1215 for the signing of the Magna Charta.

A portion of the information concerning Surety Baron GEOFFREY de SAYE is as follows:

GEOFFREY de SAYE, the Surety, was in arms with the other Barons against the King, and consequently his extensive lands and possessions in tencounties were seized. These were given to Peter de Crohim. Six of the counties we can name: Northampton, Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk andLincoln, but we cannot be sure of what Castles in those areas were Geoffrey's, or which other four counties he could claim.

While William d'Albini and his companions were holding Rochester Castle, they had been assured that other Baronial leaders would relieve them if theCastle were to be besieged by King John. Such a rescue would not have been easy unless the Royal guards were lax in watching the bridge over theMedway. If this bridge were under guard, a march to Rochester from London along the Dover Road would prove impossible, the company then being forcedto detour and approach Rochester from Maidstone. Nevertheless, on 26 October, they moved in as far as Dover, where they soon heard that the King wason his way to meet them. They promptly returned to London, leaving the Rochester garrison to do the best it could.

Perhaps the march on Rochester was a sop to the Barons' consciences. Had it been a serious move, it would have been an extraordinarily foolish one.The only other attempt to save Rochester was negotiatory. On 9 November King John issued letters of conduct for Richard de Clare, Robert FitzWalter,Geoffrey de Saye and the Mayor of London, to confer with the Royal emissaries: Peter de Roches, Hubert de Burgh and the Earls of Arundel and Warren.There is no certainty that these men ever met. If indeed they did, nothing came of it. We suspect that the meeting was originally planned with thehope that a proposal would be accepted, and it is not unlikely that the proposal would have been a willingness to surrender Rochester Castle to theKing if the garrison could go free, but no such move resulted. Yet despite the futility of the meeting, at least we see Geoffrey de Saye connected,if lightly, with Rochester Castle. And this is the only Castle with which we are able to link his name.

Geoffrey de Saye returned to the Royalist party when the civil war was over, and sided with King Henry III, thereby regaining his lost lands afterthe expulsion of the Dauphin. He died 24 October 1230 leaving a son, William, as his heir, by Alice, daughter of William de Cheney(but see above).