RD600 p. 448 includes a reference to Joan Holand, dau. of Sir Robert, 1st Lord Holand and Maud la Zouche, as the wife of Sir John Radcliffe [of Ordsall]. Gary Boyd Roberts lists several [secondary] sources for this as well as citing Brice Clagett's forthcoming work. At least one of GBR's sources describes Joan as "sister of Thomas, Earl of Kent" (which would confirm this particular parentage) and says that Sir John Radcliffe, following Sir Hugh Dutton and preceding Sir Edmund Talbot of Bashall.
RPA p. 398 includes the marriage of Sir Robert, 1st Lord Holand, and Maud la Zouche but does not include a Joan among their numerous children (although citing at least one source that DOES include a Joan, with two of her three marriages mentioned). I've noted some speculation in the Gen-Med archives that Joan was more likely a sister, rather than a daughter, of the 1st Lord Holand. Can anyone provide evdience to support this conclusion, as well as evidence on whether she did have the three husbands specified (and if so, in what order)?
Related Holand question: I've seen some references that another dau. of the 1st Lord Holand and Maud la Zouche, variously called Margaret, Jane, or Mary, mar. Sir John Tempest of Bracewell (d. 1359). This daughter also is not listed in RPA - possibly also a sister of the 1st Lord Holand?
Holand/Radcliffe - RPA and RD600 disagree
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Holand/Radcliffe - RPA and RD600 disagree
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net ("John Higgins") wrote in message news:<001001c4c2b5$1543a3c0$7b77ce3f@labs.agilent.com>...
Dear John ~
Contrary to your statement, you'll find a discussion of the identity
of Margaret de Holand, wife of Sir John Tenmpest the younger, on pages
400 and 401 of my book, Plantagenet Ancestry. I note there that
Margaret is identified in Harleian MS. 6136 as the "daughter of Sir
Robert Holand." If correct, she would presumably be identical with
Sir Robert de Holand's daughter, Margaret (died 1349), who married Sir
John la Warre (died 1331). I've found that Sir John Tempest the
younger occurs in records about 1347. As such, chronologically it is
possible that he was the 2nd husband of John la Warre's widow.
However, evidence is yet lacking. I recommend you do further research
and get back to us with your findings.
As for Joan de Holand, I'll let Brice Clagett provide you the primary
evidence proving her existence. I know of none myself.
Douglas Richardson
Related Holand question: I've seen some references that another dau. of the 1st >Lord Holand and Maud la Zouche, variously called Margaret, Jane, or Mary, mar. >Sir John Tempest of Bracewell (d. 1359). This daughter also is not listed in RPA >- possibly also a sister of the 1st Lord Holand?
Dear John ~
Contrary to your statement, you'll find a discussion of the identity
of Margaret de Holand, wife of Sir John Tenmpest the younger, on pages
400 and 401 of my book, Plantagenet Ancestry. I note there that
Margaret is identified in Harleian MS. 6136 as the "daughter of Sir
Robert Holand." If correct, she would presumably be identical with
Sir Robert de Holand's daughter, Margaret (died 1349), who married Sir
John la Warre (died 1331). I've found that Sir John Tempest the
younger occurs in records about 1347. As such, chronologically it is
possible that he was the 2nd husband of John la Warre's widow.
However, evidence is yet lacking. I recommend you do further research
and get back to us with your findings.
As for Joan de Holand, I'll let Brice Clagett provide you the primary
evidence proving her existence. I know of none myself.
Douglas Richardson
-
Gjest
Re: Holand/Radcliffe - RPA and RD600 disagree
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wouldn't this possible Tempest/Holand marriage show
up in the ancestry of Lawrence Towneley and his sisters Mrs. Mary Towneley
Warner and Mrs. Elizabeth Towneley Halstead Smith (ancestors of a number of
notable Virginians, the late Queen Mother, and a few of the rest of us as
well)? Isn't Sir John Tempest of Bracewell (d. 1359) an ancestor of Matilda
(or Alice) Hamerton Sherburne?
Also, (although I may start to sound like a broken record) The Baldwins
(William, Robert, and Mrs. Frances Baldwin Townshend Jones Williams) are
descended from the Talbots of Bashall, one of whom is supposed to have married
either a Jane or Joan de Holand. If anyone wants the lineage (and references)
I'll be glad to post them to the list.
Thanks.
Jeff Duvall
Quoting Douglas Richardson <douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net>:
up in the ancestry of Lawrence Towneley and his sisters Mrs. Mary Towneley
Warner and Mrs. Elizabeth Towneley Halstead Smith (ancestors of a number of
notable Virginians, the late Queen Mother, and a few of the rest of us as
well)? Isn't Sir John Tempest of Bracewell (d. 1359) an ancestor of Matilda
(or Alice) Hamerton Sherburne?
Also, (although I may start to sound like a broken record) The Baldwins
(William, Robert, and Mrs. Frances Baldwin Townshend Jones Williams) are
descended from the Talbots of Bashall, one of whom is supposed to have married
either a Jane or Joan de Holand. If anyone wants the lineage (and references)
I'll be glad to post them to the list.
Thanks.
Jeff Duvall
Quoting Douglas Richardson <douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net>:
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net ("John Higgins") wrote in message
news:<001001c4c2b5$1543a3c0$7b77ce3f@labs.agilent.com>...
Related Holand question: I've seen some references that another dau. of
the 1st >Lord Holand and Maud la Zouche, variously called Margaret, Jane, or
Mary, mar. >Sir John Tempest of Bracewell (d. 1359). This daughter also is
not listed in RPA >- possibly also a sister of the 1st Lord Holand?
Dear John ~
Contrary to your statement, you'll find a discussion of the identity
of Margaret de Holand, wife of Sir John Tenmpest the younger, on pages
400 and 401 of my book, Plantagenet Ancestry. I note there that
Margaret is identified in Harleian MS. 6136 as the "daughter of Sir
Robert Holand." If correct, she would presumably be identical with
Sir Robert de Holand's daughter, Margaret (died 1349), who married Sir
John la Warre (died 1331). I've found that Sir John Tempest the
younger occurs in records about 1347. As such, chronologically it is
possible that he was the 2nd husband of John la Warre's widow.
However, evidence is yet lacking. I recommend you do further research
and get back to us with your findings.
As for Joan de Holand, I'll let Brice Clagett provide you the primary
evidence proving her existence. I know of none myself.
Douglas Richardson
-
John Higgins
Re: Holand/Radcliffe - RPA and RD600 disagree
My original note should have said that Margaret Holand, wife of Sir John
Tempest was not listed in RPA - in its list of the children of the 1st Lord
Holand and Maud la Zouche.
So we have Margaret de Holand who m. Sir John la Warre and Margaret
(variously called Jane or Mary) Holand who m. Sir John Tempest. Both
Margarets appear in a number of sources (many of which are cited by RPA) and
are generally each identifed as a dau. of Sir Robert Holand (although in
both cases not always specifically the 1st Lord Holand). I think there are
three possible scenarios for this puzzle:
1) one daughter with two husbands
2) two daughters of the 1st Lord Holand, possibly both named Margaret or
maybe one named something else
3) one daughter of the 1st Lord Holand and one daughter of another Robert
Holand (possibly his father or - much less likely - his son)
RPA appropriately discounts the first option, saying that more evidence is
needed. But no explanation is given for disregarding the sources (cited in
RPA) that could clearly be read as supporting option 2 - i.e., the numerous
references to the parentage of the wife of Sir John Tempest. I happen to
think that option 3 is perhaps the most likely, which would legitimately
remove Margaret (Holand) Tempest from the scope of RPA. But more evidence
is needed before simply dismissing option 2, as RPA does.
In preparation for a revised and corrected edition of RPA (or for Magna
Carta Ancestries if it's pertinent for that volume), "I recommend you do
further research" and, of course, "get back to us with your findings".
As to Joan de Holand, Gary Boyd Roberts cites other sources besides Bryce
Clagett for his conclusion. It might be educational for you to compare
notes with GBR on this topic - and perhaps add to the corrections for RPA
2nd edition.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: Holand/Radcliffe - RPA and RD600 disagree
Mary, mar. >Sir John Tempest of Bracewell (d. 1359). This daughter also is
not listed in RPA >- possibly also a sister of the 1st Lord Holand?
Tempest was not listed in RPA - in its list of the children of the 1st Lord
Holand and Maud la Zouche.
So we have Margaret de Holand who m. Sir John la Warre and Margaret
(variously called Jane or Mary) Holand who m. Sir John Tempest. Both
Margarets appear in a number of sources (many of which are cited by RPA) and
are generally each identifed as a dau. of Sir Robert Holand (although in
both cases not always specifically the 1st Lord Holand). I think there are
three possible scenarios for this puzzle:
1) one daughter with two husbands
2) two daughters of the 1st Lord Holand, possibly both named Margaret or
maybe one named something else
3) one daughter of the 1st Lord Holand and one daughter of another Robert
Holand (possibly his father or - much less likely - his son)
RPA appropriately discounts the first option, saying that more evidence is
needed. But no explanation is given for disregarding the sources (cited in
RPA) that could clearly be read as supporting option 2 - i.e., the numerous
references to the parentage of the wife of Sir John Tempest. I happen to
think that option 3 is perhaps the most likely, which would legitimately
remove Margaret (Holand) Tempest from the scope of RPA. But more evidence
is needed before simply dismissing option 2, as RPA does.
In preparation for a revised and corrected edition of RPA (or for Magna
Carta Ancestries if it's pertinent for that volume), "I recommend you do
further research" and, of course, "get back to us with your findings".
As to Joan de Holand, Gary Boyd Roberts cites other sources besides Bryce
Clagett for his conclusion. It might be educational for you to compare
notes with GBR on this topic - and perhaps add to the corrections for RPA
2nd edition.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: Holand/Radcliffe - RPA and RD600 disagree
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net ("John Higgins") wrote in message
news:<001001c4c2b5$1543a3c0$7b77ce3f@labs.agilent.com>...
Related Holand question: I've seen some references that another dau. of
the 1st >Lord Holand and Maud la Zouche, variously called Margaret, Jane, or
Mary, mar. >Sir John Tempest of Bracewell (d. 1359). This daughter also is
not listed in RPA >- possibly also a sister of the 1st Lord Holand?
Dear John ~
Contrary to your statement, you'll find a discussion of the identity
of Margaret de Holand, wife of Sir John Tenmpest the younger, on pages
400 and 401 of my book, Plantagenet Ancestry. I note there that
Margaret is identified in Harleian MS. 6136 as the "daughter of Sir
Robert Holand." If correct, she would presumably be identical with
Sir Robert de Holand's daughter, Margaret (died 1349), who married Sir
John la Warre (died 1331). I've found that Sir John Tempest the
younger occurs in records about 1347. As such, chronologically it is
possible that he was the 2nd husband of John la Warre's widow.
However, evidence is yet lacking. I recommend you do further research
and get back to us with your findings.
As for Joan de Holand, I'll let Brice Clagett provide you the primary
evidence proving her existence. I know of none myself.
Douglas Richardson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Holand/Radcliffe - RPA and RD600 disagree
My comments are interspersed below. DR
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net ("John Higgins") wrote in message news:<001c01c4c3a0$36ff9640$1f60ac40@labs.agilent.com>...
Margaret de Holand, wife of John Tempest the younger, was not listed
as a child of Robert, 1st Lord Holand, in my Plantagenet Ancestry
book, for the simple reason that I found no primary evidence to prove
her placement in this family.
Margaret de Holand, wife of John Tenpest the younger, was not listed
as a child because I found no evidence to prove her placement ui
Actually I haven't discounted the first option at all. Margaret de
Holand, wife of John la Warre, was widowed in 1331 when she was still
a young woman. She survived until 1349. As a general rule, young
widows of this rank remarried rather quickly in this time period. As
such, it is entirely possibly that Margaret de Holand, widow of John
la Warre, is identical with the Margaret de Holand who married John
Tempest the younger. In this case, the evidence to link the two women
is lacking. If Mr. Higgins has evidence which proves the two women
were the same person, I'd certainly like to see it.
But no explanation is given for disregarding the sources (cited in
It is doubtful that Margaret de Holand, wife of John Tempest, is the
daughter of the younger Robert de Holand. The younger Robert and his
wife, Elizabeth, are the likely parents of another Margaret de Holand,
who married before 1354 to Sir Marmaduke de Lumley. This "third"
Margaret is identified as a Holand in a Lumley family monument. She
also used a seal bearing the Holand arms. So, there is no question
that Marmaduke de Lumley's wife was a Holand. However, as I note on
page 478 of my book, further research is needed before the matter of
Margaret de Lumley's parentage is settled conclusively.
Actually, I compared notes with Gary Boyd Roberts on this matter
before I published my book. Mr. Roberts told me that he got the
identification of Joan de Holand from Brice Clagett. He did no
original research himself. If Mr. Higgins or Mr. Clagett possess
primary evidence which proves that Joan de Holand was the child of
Robert de Holand and Maud la Zouche, I'd certainly like to see it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net ("John Higgins") wrote in message news:<001c01c4c3a0$36ff9640$1f60ac40@labs.agilent.com>...
My original note should have said that Margaret Holand, wife of Sir John
Tempest was not listed in RPA - in its list of the children of the 1st Lord
Holand and Maud la Zouche.
Margaret de Holand, wife of John Tempest the younger, was not listed
as a child of Robert, 1st Lord Holand, in my Plantagenet Ancestry
book, for the simple reason that I found no primary evidence to prove
her placement in this family.
Margaret de Holand, wife of John Tenpest the younger, was not listed
as a child because I found no evidence to prove her placement ui
So we have Margaret de Holand who m. Sir John la Warre and Margaret
(variously called Jane or Mary) Holand who m. Sir John Tempest. Both
Margarets appear in a number of sources (many of which are cited by RPA) and
are generally each identifed as a dau. of Sir Robert Holand (although in
both cases not always specifically the 1st Lord Holand). I think there are
three possible scenarios for this puzzle:
1) one daughter with two husbands
2) two daughters of the 1st Lord Holand, possibly both named Margaret or
maybe one named something else
3) one daughter of the 1st Lord Holand and one daughter of another Robert
Holand (possibly his father or - much less likely - his son)
RPA appropriately discounts the first option, saying that more evidence is
needed.
Actually I haven't discounted the first option at all. Margaret de
Holand, wife of John la Warre, was widowed in 1331 when she was still
a young woman. She survived until 1349. As a general rule, young
widows of this rank remarried rather quickly in this time period. As
such, it is entirely possibly that Margaret de Holand, widow of John
la Warre, is identical with the Margaret de Holand who married John
Tempest the younger. In this case, the evidence to link the two women
is lacking. If Mr. Higgins has evidence which proves the two women
were the same person, I'd certainly like to see it.
But no explanation is given for disregarding the sources (cited in
RPA) that could clearly be read as supporting option 2 - i.e., the numerous
references to the parentage of the wife of Sir John Tempest. I happen to
think that option 3 is perhaps the most likely, which would legitimately
remove Margaret (Holand) Tempest from the scope of RPA. But more evidence
is needed before simply dismissing option 2, as RPA does.
It is doubtful that Margaret de Holand, wife of John Tempest, is the
daughter of the younger Robert de Holand. The younger Robert and his
wife, Elizabeth, are the likely parents of another Margaret de Holand,
who married before 1354 to Sir Marmaduke de Lumley. This "third"
Margaret is identified as a Holand in a Lumley family monument. She
also used a seal bearing the Holand arms. So, there is no question
that Marmaduke de Lumley's wife was a Holand. However, as I note on
page 478 of my book, further research is needed before the matter of
Margaret de Lumley's parentage is settled conclusively.
In preparation for a revised and corrected edition of RPA (or for Magna
Carta Ancestries if it's pertinent for that volume), "I recommend you do
further research" and, of course, "get back to us with your findings".
As to Joan de Holand, Gary Boyd Roberts cites other sources besides Bryce
Clagett for his conclusion. It might be educational for you to compare
notes with GBR on this topic - and perhaps add to the corrections for RPA
2nd edition.
Actually, I compared notes with Gary Boyd Roberts on this matter
before I published my book. Mr. Roberts told me that he got the
identification of Joan de Holand from Brice Clagett. He did no
original research himself. If Mr. Higgins or Mr. Clagett possess
primary evidence which proves that Joan de Holand was the child of
Robert de Holand and Maud la Zouche, I'd certainly like to see it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah