Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Higgins

Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 nov 2004 00:11:01

The new RPA, on page 265, shows a connection from the Courtenays of Powderham and Molland to the Champernouns of Modbury as follows:
Margaret Courtenay, m. (1) Sir John Champernoun of Modbury
Sir Philip Champernoun of Modbury, m. Katherine Carew [descendant of Edward I]
Joan Champernoun, m. Sir Anthony Denny

The implication is that the Plantagenet ancestry came to the Champernouns via Margaret Courtenay, since no earlier Plantagenet ancestry is indicated for Sir John Champernoun. However, elsewhere in RPA (at p. 126) is listed Isabel Bonville [descendant of Henry II] who m. Richard Champernoun. I believe there is a connection between this couple and Sir John Champernoun, as follows (briefly):
Isabel Bonville, m. Richard Champernoun
Hugh Champernoun, m. Alice Bois
William Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Chuderlegh [or Chidderleigh]
Sir John Champernoun, m. Margaret Courtenay

The details for this connection can be found in Ronny Bodine's excellent series of posts of Jan. 1999 on the Champernouns and also, less reliably, in Vivian's Visitations of Devon. Is there any newer evidence that would contradict the Bodine posts, or is this simply an omission in RPA? The Courtenay/Champernoun connection also appeared in PA3, whereas the Bonville/Champernoun connection arises from the expansion of RPA to include illegitimate lines of descent. In the expansion, the connection between the two lines was apparently missed.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 27 nov 2004 04:38:01

John Higgins wrote:
The new RPA, on page 265, shows a connection from the Courtenays of Powderham and Molland to the Champernouns of Modbury as follows:
Margaret Courtenay, m. (1) Sir John Champernoun of Modbury
Sir Philip Champernoun of Modbury, m. Katherine Carew [descendant of Edward I]
Joan Champernoun, m. Sir Anthony Denny

The implication is that the Plantagenet ancestry came to the Champernouns via Margaret Courtenay, since no earlier Plantagenet ancestry is indicated for Sir John Champernoun. However, elsewhere in RPA (at p. 126) is listed Isabel Bonville [descendant of Henry II] who m. Richard Champernoun. I believe there is a connection between this couple and Sir John Champernoun, as follows (briefly):
Isabel Bonville, m. Richard Champernoun
Hugh Champernoun, m. Alice Bois
William Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Chuderlegh [or Chidderleigh]
Sir John Champernoun, m. Margaret Courtenay

There is likewise another illegitimate Plantagenet connection (x2):

King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall', m. Richard Champernoun
Richard Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Valletort
Thomas Champernoun, m. Eleanor Rohaut
Richard Champernoun, m.1 Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubeney
by 2) Richard Champernoun, m. Isabel Bonville (above)

by 1) Joan Champernoun, (m.1 James Chudlegh) m.2 John Courtenay
Philip Courtenay, m. Elizabeth Hungerford
Philip Courtenay, m. Elizabeth Hingeston
Margaret Courtenay, m. John Champernoun (above)

taf

Martin E. Hollick

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Martin E. Hollick » 27 nov 2004 19:27:17

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41a7f608@news.ColoState.EDU>...
John Higgins wrote:
The new RPA, on page 265, shows a connection from the Courtenays of Powderham and Molland to the Champernouns of Modbury as follows:
Margaret Courtenay, m. (1) Sir John Champernoun of Modbury
Sir Philip Champernoun of Modbury, m. Katherine Carew [descendant of Edward I]
Joan Champernoun, m. Sir Anthony Denny

The implication is that the Plantagenet ancestry came to the Champernouns via Margaret Courtenay, since no earlier Plantagenet ancestry is indicated for Sir John Champernoun. However, elsewhere in RPA (at p. 126) is listed Isabel Bonville [descendant of Henry II] who m. Richard Champernoun. I believe there is a connection between this couple and Sir John Champernoun, as follows (briefly):
Isabel Bonville, m. Richard Champernoun
Hugh Champernoun, m. Alice Bois
William Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Chuderlegh [or Chidderleigh]
Sir John Champernoun, m. Margaret Courtenay

There is likewise another illegitimate Plantagenet connection (x2):

King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall', m. Richard Champernoun
Richard Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Valletort
Thomas Champernoun, m. Eleanor Rohaut
Richard Champernoun, m.1 Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubeney
by 2) Richard Champernoun, m. Isabel Bonville (above)

by 1) Joan Champernoun, (m.1 James Chudlegh) m.2 John Courtenay
Philip Courtenay, m. Elizabeth Hungerford
Philip Courtenay, m. Elizabeth Hingeston
Margaret Courtenay, m. John Champernoun (above)

taf

Could you please post your sources for this? I descend from these
people and I have Joan de Okeston as the wife of Richard Champernoun,
not Joan of Cornwall. PA3 (I know not your favorite book) says Joan
of Cornwall married John Howard (p. 233). I would like a chance at
reconciling the differences here.

Martin

Leo van de Pas

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 nov 2004 22:01:01

Dear Todd,

In the proposed lines are several questions.
The first one,
you show
by 1) Joan Champernoun (m.1 James Chudleigh) m.2 John Courtenay
Weis in the 7th edition page 181 Joan is called Agnes

The second,
you show
King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall' married Richard Champernoun

Gary Boyd Roberts in his 600 Immigrants page 489
8.Richard de Champernowne, married Joan, possibly an illegitimate daughter
of Richard Plantagenet, King of the Romans SETH, by Joan de Vautort or
Valletort

Gerald Paget, in his book on ancestors and relatives of Prince Charles,
Volume I, page 15
in a footnote Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, also had three
illegitimate sons, Richard de Cornwall, Sir Walter de Cornwall and Sir
Lawrence de Cornwall,
no mention of a daughter.

Douglas Richardson, in his Plantagenet Ancestry, page 232, tells that
Richard of England, by an unknown mistress (or mistresses) had
1.Richard of Cornwall
2.Walter of Cornwall

He misses out on another son mentioned by Paget as well he omits the name of
Joan, Mrs. de Vautort or Valletort.

How reliable is Joan 'de Cornwall' as daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall?

GBR in 500 immigrants and 600 immigrants calls the mistress Joan de Vautort
or Valletort, at least Weis, 7th edition page 232 (line 258) tells that
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, had by Joan, wife of Sir
Reginald de Vautort or Valletort, at least one illegitimate child (which is
Sir Richard de Cornwall). It is a pity GBR was not more precise as people
may well have looked which Vautort/Valletort is Joan's father.

Now a GBR query involved with this line. Still 600 immigrants, page 489.

12.(by 2) John Champernowne = Margaret Hamley
13.Richard Champernowne= Elizabeth Reynell
14.Elizabeth Champernowne = William Fortescue

Weis, Ancestral Roots, 7th Edition page 217
William Fortescue married Elizabeth Champernowne born ca.1465, died before
1518,
daughter of Richard Champernowne by Mary daughter of Sir John Hamley.
Does Weis miss out on one generation? Is it Mary or is it Margaret Hamley?

Hope these questions can be cleared up.
With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?


John Higgins wrote:
The new RPA, on page 265, shows a connection from the Courtenays of
Powderham and Molland to the Champernouns of Modbury as follows:
Margaret Courtenay, m. (1) Sir John Champernoun of Modbury
Sir Philip Champernoun of Modbury, m. Katherine Carew [descendant of
Edward I]
Joan Champernoun, m. Sir Anthony Denny

The implication is that the Plantagenet ancestry came to the
Champernouns via Margaret Courtenay, since no earlier Plantagenet ancestry

is indicated for Sir John Champernoun. However, elsewhere in RPA (at p.
126) is listed Isabel Bonville [descendant of Henry II] who m. Richard
Champernoun. I believe there is a connection between this couple and Sir
John Champernoun, as follows (briefly):
Isabel Bonville, m. Richard Champernoun
Hugh Champernoun, m. Alice Bois
William Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Chuderlegh [or Chidderleigh]
Sir John Champernoun, m. Margaret Courtenay

There is likewise another illegitimate Plantagenet connection (x2):

King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall', m. Richard Champernoun
Richard Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Valletort
Thomas Champernoun, m. Eleanor Rohaut
Richard Champernoun, m.1 Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubeney
by 2) Richard Champernoun, m. Isabel Bonville (above)

by 1) Joan Champernoun, (m.1 James Chudlegh) m.2 John Courtenay
Philip Courtenay, m. Elizabeth Hungerford
Philip Courtenay, m. Elizabeth Hingeston
Margaret Courtenay, m. John Champernoun (above)

taf




Sutliff

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Sutliff » 27 nov 2004 22:43:12

It was about 1996 that Todd posted a great deal on the Vautort/Valletort
family and if I recall correctly it was in 1998 that Ronny Bodine made
extended posts on the Champernoun family (with considerable) documentation
for each generation. These can be found in the archives and should be very
useful to anyone researching these families.I seem to recall other
discussions on the illegitimate children of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, but
have no recollection as to when they were posted or by whom.

Henry Sutliff


"Martin E. Hollick" <mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:5d20e7f.0411271027.7c6af78@posting.google.com...
<snip>>
Could you please post your sources for this? I descend from these
people and I have Joan de Okeston as the wife of Richard Champernoun,
not Joan of Cornwall. PA3 (I know not your favorite book) says Joan
of Cornwall married John Howard (p. 233). I would like a chance at
reconciling the differences here.

Martin

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 28 nov 2004 00:41:17

Martin E. Hollick wrote:

Could you please post your sources for this? I descend from these
people and I have Joan de Okeston as the wife of Richard Champernoun,
not Joan of Cornwall.

Joan was sister of James de Okeston (Oxton), who was son of Alexander de
Okeston and Joan (de Valletort, widow of Reginald de Valletort and
mistress of Earl Richard. Pole, though, sites a document whereby
Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, legitimate son of Earl Richard, grants some
wood to Richard Champernoun and his wife Joan, sister of Edmund.

PA3 (I know not your favorite book) says Joan
of Cornwall married John Howard (p. 233). I would like a chance at
reconciling the differences here.

IIRC, this Joan is niece of the other, daughter of Richard, son of Earl
Richard.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 28 nov 2004 01:26:34

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41a7f608@news.ColoState.EDU>...
John Higgins wrote:
The new RPA, on page 265, shows a connection from the Courtenays of Powderham and Molland to the Champernouns of Modbury as follows:
Margaret Courtenay, m. (1) Sir John Champernoun of Modbury
Sir Philip Champernoun of Modbury, m. Katherine Carew [descendant of Edward I]
Joan Champernoun, m. Sir Anthony Denny

The implication is that the Plantagenet ancestry came to the Champernouns via Margaret Courtenay, since no earlier Plantagenet ancestry is indicated for Sir John Champernoun. However, elsewhere in RPA (at p. 126) is listed Isabel Bonville [descendant of Henry II] who m. Richard Champernoun. I believe there is a connection between this couple and Sir John Champernoun, as follows (briefly):
Isabel Bonville, m. Richard Champernoun
Hugh Champernoun, m. Alice Bois
William Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Chuderlegh [or Chidderleigh]
Sir John Champernoun, m. Margaret Courtenay

There is likewise another illegitimate Plantagenet connection (x2):

King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall', m. Richard Champernoun
Richard Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Valletort
Thomas Champernoun, m. Eleanor Rohaut
Richard Champernoun, m.1 Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubeney
by 2) Richard Champernoun, m. Isabel Bonville (above)

taf

Dear Todd ~

Please cite the primary source which proves that Joan, wife of Richard
Champernoun, was the daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 28 nov 2004 01:34:51

Dear Martin ~

Thank you for your good post.

Joan of Cornwall, wife of Sir John Howard (died 1331), was the
daughter of Richard de Cornwall (died 1297), bastard son of Richard,
King of the Romans, Earl of Cornwall, Count of Poitou. She is
included in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry. She is a separate and
distinct person from Joan, wife of Richard Champernoun.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

mhollick@mac.com (Martin E. Hollick) wrote in message news:<5d20e7f.0411271027.7c6af78@posting.google.com>...

Could you please post your sources for this? I descend from these
people and I have Joan de Okeston as the wife of Richard Champernoun,
not Joan of Cornwall. PA3 (I know not your favorite book) says Joan
of Cornwall married John Howard (p. 233). I would like a chance at
reconciling the differences here.

Martin

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 28 nov 2004 02:50:24

Douglas Richardson wrote:
There is likewise another illegitimate Plantagenet connection (x2):

King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall', m. Richard Champernoun
Richard Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Valletort
Thomas Champernoun, m. Eleanor Rohaut
Richard Champernoun, m.1 Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubeney
by 2) Richard Champernoun, m. Isabel Bonville (above)

Please cite the primary source which proves that Joan, wife of Richard
Champernoun, was the daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Thanks!

Oh, _now_ you demand a primary source? You know the source for this -
Pole, based on a contemporary charter (unfortunately, apparently since
lost). We have been through this before (anyone interested can check
the archives), except then you were insisting that it is correct and I
was skeptical. I am not completely comfortable yet, but unless that
missing charter is found (and I hold out little hope), this is as good
as we are likely to get, so unless you think Pole can't be trusted, we
have to take him at his word that the charter said what he indicates.

That being said, what exactly _is_ the standard you are using? It is
not "only if demonstrated by a contemporary document", as you seemed
quite offended that I would apply such a stringent standard to the
Holand/Kendall descent (actually I was applying a broader standard, the
one that follows, but in this case no difference comes from the
distinction - by the way, I am still waiting for a collegial response as
to whether you are aware of a document which proves Walter Kendall was
son of John Kendall). In describing your book, you have claimed to
require either primary sources or secondary sources which are drawn from
primary sources, in which case Pole clearly qualifies.

taf

Martin E. Hollick

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Martin E. Hollick » 28 nov 2004 22:57:49

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41a92e96@news.ColoState.EDU>...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
There is likewise another illegitimate Plantagenet connection (x2):

King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall', m. Richard Champernoun
Richard Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Valletort
Thomas Champernoun, m. Eleanor Rohaut
Richard Champernoun, m.1 Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubeney
by 2) Richard Champernoun, m. Isabel Bonville (above)

Please cite the primary source which proves that Joan, wife of Richard
Champernoun, was the daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Thanks!

Oh, _now_ you demand a primary source? You know the source for this -
Pole, based on a contemporary charter (unfortunately, apparently since
lost). We have been through this before (anyone interested can check
the archives), except then you were insisting that it is correct and I
was skeptical. I am not completely comfortable yet, but unless that
missing charter is found (and I hold out little hope), this is as good
as we are likely to get, so unless you think Pole can't be trusted, we
have to take him at his word that the charter said what he indicates.

That being said, what exactly _is_ the standard you are using? It is
not "only if demonstrated by a contemporary document", as you seemed
quite offended that I would apply such a stringent standard to the
Holand/Kendall descent (actually I was applying a broader standard, the
one that follows, but in this case no difference comes from the
distinction - by the way, I am still waiting for a collegial response as
to whether you are aware of a document which proves Walter Kendall was
son of John Kendall). In describing your book, you have claimed to
require either primary sources or secondary sources which are drawn from
primary sources, in which case Pole clearly qualifies.

taf

And the pissing contest continues. However, back to genealogy.

So, Joan (--), widow of a Valletort and wife of a de Okeston was the
mistress of Richard of Cornwall, King John's son and by him had a
daughter Joan, the wife of Richard Champernowne.

This illegimitate daughter is not listed at all in PA3 as noted by Leo
van der Pas already. Your proof for such a line is a secondary work
by Sir William Pole published in 1791. The closest place I can see to
find that is in Salt Lake City at the LDS library there. I will also
look at the C&D Notes and Queries to which you cite in AR8th edition,
lines 51 and 124A.

So, what we really need to find is the charter in which Edmund, Earl
of Cornwall, son of Richard by Sancha de Provence, names Joan as his
sister in 1284/5 as cited by Pole on p. 309 in 1791 (a bit after the
fact).

I'm game. Where would one look for such a charter? If Pole saw it in
1791, there is a chance it was destroyed in the Blitz I suppose.
Where are all these primary sources for Devonshire presently located?

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 29 nov 2004 00:57:59

Martin E. Hollick wrote:

So, Joan (--), widow of a Valletort and wife of a de Okeston was the
mistress of Richard of Cornwall, King John's son and by him had a
daughter Joan, the wife of Richard Champernowne.

As I understand the chronology, Joan married Alexander de Okeston after
her relationship with Richard.

This illegimitate daughter is not listed at all in PA3 as noted by Leo
van der Pas already. Your proof for such a line is a secondary work
by Sir William Pole published in 1791. The closest place I can see to
find that is in Salt Lake City at the LDS library there.

Where are you? I consulted it at the Cleveland Public Library, which
has one of the better collections in the country when it comes to
English antiquarian publications. There are 11 other copies int he US
listed by OCLC (oddly, only 2 west of the Mississippi, in Washington and
Minnasota). Anyhow, it is available on microfilm from teh LDS FHL, so
you can view it at your closest FHC.

I will also
look at the C&D Notes and Queries to which you cite in AR8th edition,
lines 51 and 124A.

So, what we really need to find is the charter in which Edmund, Earl
of Cornwall, son of Richard by Sancha de Provence, names Joan as his
sister in 1284/5 as cited by Pole on p. 309 in 1791 (a bit after the
fact).

Yes, 1791 is a bit after the fact, but PA3 and AR8 and anything written
here are much longer after the fact. The date of the secondary source
is not as important as the care with which it was compiled and the
sources it cited, hence the document.

I'm game. Where would one look for such a charter? If Pole saw it in
1791, there is a chance it was destroyed in the Blitz I suppose.

A real possibility in this case, as anyone looking for wills from the
area knows.

Where are all these primary sources for Devonshire presently located?

Devon Record Office, Cornwall Record Office, Cornwall Association,
National Archives/Public Record Office, British Library, private
collections, etc. Likewise, he may have acquired it (or transcribed it)
himself, in which case you would have to trace his private papers. It
is no easy task to hunt down such a document, but if you are successful
then we all would owe you a debt of gratitude (whatever the result might
be with respect to this particular descent).

taf

Mark Harry

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Mark Harry » 29 nov 2004 08:24:31

As I do not have my notes with me in the internet cafe, I am doing the
following from memory ......

Pole describes the reference as occurring in a grant by Earl Edmund of
the assize of bread and ale to the said Richard Chamnpernowne and his
wife in the reign of Edward I.
Pole and Risdon are the only sources that I am aware of for the
descent of the Champernownes from earl Richard. I have had a search in
what volumes of the published patent rolls and some other rolls are
available to me personally, but could not find anything that either
proved or disproved the connection.
Incidentally Pole was a mid-seventeeth century antiquarian, so his
material dates from that time, even if it was not published until
1791.
I read somewhere (unfortunately I cannot recall the source) that the
deed in question was not found among the Pole collection at Antony.
Pole's reference is ambiguous in that it is open to debate whether the
"sister" in question is Joan wife of Richard Champernowne, or else her
mother, Joan senior, the widow of Ralph de Valletort and subsequent
wife of Alexander de Okeston. However, James Oxton's fine of 1316
whereby he transferred Modbury to Richard Champernowne junior is
strong evidence that Joan was a legitimate daughter of her mother and
hence not a daughter of Richard. This is because she and her then
husband Peter de Fishacre had their claim to Modbury recorded as part
of the fine, a claim which would not exist had Joan not been the
legitmate daughter of Alexander de Okeston.
The conflict that therefore arises between this document and Pole's
statement can however be reconciled if Earl Edmund's sister was Joan
the mnther, not Joan the daughter. This gains support from Risdon, who
says that Earl Richard gave certain rights pertaining to a river when
he gave his daughter in marriage to Ralph de Valletort. Risdon does
not give his source, but one would presume that it was a (second)
contemporary dosument, which would also be worth looking for -- if it
has survived.
Mark

Douglas Richardson

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 nov 2004 09:56:53

My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41a92e96@news.ColoState.EDU>...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
There is likewise another illegitimate Plantagenet connection (x2):

King John
Richard, Earl of Cornwall had by mistress Joan
Joan 'of Cornwall', m. Richard Champernoun
Richard Champernoun, m. Elizabeth Valletort
Thomas Champernoun, m. Eleanor Rohaut
Richard Champernoun, m.1 Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubeney
by 2) Richard Champernoun, m. Isabel Bonville (above)

Please cite the primary source which proves that Joan, wife of Richard
Champernoun, was the daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Thanks!

Oh, _now_ you demand a primary source? You know the source for this -
Pole, based on a contemporary charter (unfortunately, apparently since
lost). We have been through this before (anyone interested can check
the archives), except then you were insisting that it is correct and I
was skeptical. I am not completely comfortable yet, but unless that
missing charter is found (and I hold out little hope), this is as good
as we are likely to get, so unless you think Pole can't be trusted, we
have to take him at his word that the charter said what he indicates.

As everyone knows, I provide documentation with my posts. If you're
going to post here on the newsgroup, you need to do the same thing.
You posted the two Champernouns descents without any explanatory note,
without any qualification, and with no documentation. Now you tell us
you have no primary evidence to support these lines. Your excuses are
wearing thin. Documentation is needed before these lines can be
accepted.

That being said, what exactly _is_ the standard you are using? It is
not "only if demonstrated by a contemporary document", as you seemed
quite offended that I would apply such a stringent standard to the
Holand/Kendall descent (actually I was applying a broader standard, the
one that follows, but in this case no difference comes from the
distinction - by the way, I am still waiting for a collegial response as
to whether you are aware of a document which proves Walter Kendall was
son of John Kendall). In describing your book, you have claimed to
require either primary sources or secondary sources which are drawn from
primary sources, in which case Pole clearly qualifies.

No, Todd, you're quite wrong. I wasn't offended at all. I cordially
asked you to post your documentation for the Holand/Kendall descent
and you refused to provide it. Simple as that. Next, you'll be
admitting that I correctly identified Robert Holand's parentage in my
book. Mmmmm .... what other admissions are you planning to make?
This is getting embarrassing. Get back to us when you're ready to
post your sources and not play pook and boo genealogy with newsgroup
members. Spencer Hines is 100% correct - this is Puerile Mediocre
Academic Gamesmanship Deluxe.

taf

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 nov 2004 11:19:09

It would require a team of sturdy oxen to cart away all of this latest
load of rubbish dumped on the newsgroup by Douglas Richardson. Comments
interspersed:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

As everyone knows, I provide documentation with my posts.

Not at all - everyone knows that you do just what suits YOU from time to
time, without regard to anyone else's needs, and that you demand just
what suits YOU from others.

Occasionally this leads Richardson to post actual source texts, although
far more often we are fobbed off with references that only _may_ support
whatever line you are taking. Frequently as it turns out they do nothing
of the sort.

Since we know that he can't accurately translate these for his own
purposes, and won't do so for others, SGM readers are not much helped
except in the simplest cases, when he has perhaps stumbled on a minor
amendment to the record - usually nothing more than a slightly narrowed
date range for some personal milestone in the otherwise dim existence of
medieval gentlefolk.

If you're
going to post here on the newsgroup, you need to do the same thing.

Rot - people are quite free to post their opinions here, without primary
sources to back them up if it pleases them, or to save time & trouble,
or if they are not able to do that kind of research in the first place.
Richardson takes advantage of this latitude as much as anyone.

You posted the two Champernouns descents without any explanatory note,
without any qualification, and with no documentation. Now you tell us
you have no primary evidence to support these lines. Your excuses are
wearing thin. Documentation is needed before these lines can be
accepted.

Todd has explained that this was discussed on SGM previously, and that a
secondary work refers to a primary document that - if it still exists -
is not readily available. A great many medieval connections depend on
this kind of reported evidence. The important thing is to note which
ones: precisely what Richardson FAILS TO DO so often here & in print, a
duty to scholarship that as we can all see Todd performs scrupulously
when appropriate.

<snip of taf's earlier remarks>

No, Todd, you're quite wrong. I wasn't offended at all. I cordially
asked you to post your documentation for the Holand/Kendall descent
and you refused to provide it.

No, Richarson wasn't "cordial"; and Todd didn't "refuse", he politely
explained why he could not oblige at present.

Simple as that. Next, you'll be
admitting that I correctly identified Robert Holand's parentage in my
book. Mmmmm .... what other admissions are you planning to make?

Now Todd is "planning" to do what Richardson fantasises about? And this
is how Richarson lurches from wish to conclusion in his genealogical
pursuits - rampant, unhinged foolishness.

IF Todd eventually confirms the parentage as identified in PA3, this
will IN NO WAY vindicate Richardson, as all the points made about his
work in the review will still stand undiminished. The link IS NOT and
CANNOT BE justified by the references given for it. That inadequacy is
now fixed in ink on paper, and won't be obfuscated by torrents of piffle.

This is getting embarrassing. Get back to us when you're ready to
post your sources and not play pook and boo genealogy with newsgroup
members. Spencer Hines is 100% correct - this is Puerile Mediocre
Academic Gamesmanship Deluxe.

No, Spencer is just blowing steam about Todd in the hope of provoking a
reaction or else seeming to have prevailed in an argument of his own
making, through silence from the other side. However, Richardson has
neatly described his own approach to the subject - except of course for
"Deluxe", as there is nothing remotely elegant or special about his
hackwork.

Peter Stewart

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 29 nov 2004 21:56:52

Douglas Richardson wrote:

As everyone knows, I provide documentation with my posts. If you're
going to post here on the newsgroup, you need to do the same thing.

You said it is proven that Lawrence Kendall was great-grandson of Robert
Holand. You provided no documentation for that statement, in spite of
me asking, twice. You provide documentation when it is convenient for
you to do so, and you demand it of others when it is convenient for you
to do so. (And you have no standing from which to lecture anyone on
appropriate newsgroup behavior.)

Documentation is needed before these lines can be
accepted.

Funny you should say that, as this all started when I pointed out that
the Holand line, as you presented it, fails to live up to this very
standard, (and curiously it is somehow my fault).

Spencer Hines is 100% correct - this is Puerile Mediocre
Academic Gamesmanship Deluxe.

Mr. Hines' Sticky Caps Lock Appears To Have Infected Your Computer.

If you have anything productive to add to the discussion (such as the
precise quote from Pole - it is, after all, on a microfilm just across
the room from where you work on an almost daily basis), it would be welcome.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 01 des 2004 04:12:55

Mark Harry wrote:
As I do not have my notes with me in the internet cafe, I am doing the
following from memory ......

Pole describes the reference as occurring in a grant by Earl Edmund of
the assize of bread and ale to the said Richard Chamnpernowne and his
wife in the reign of Edward I.
Pole and Risdon are the only sources that I am aware of for the
descent of the Champernownes from earl Richard.

Also a Visitation pedigree (Monk family) shows such a descent, although
it is impossible (it makes Joan, wife of Alexander de Oxton the daughter
of Edmund, Earl of Cornwall).

Pole's reference is ambiguous in that it is open to debate whether the
"sister" in question is Joan wife of Richard Champernowne, or else her
mother, Joan senior, the widow of Ralph de Valletort and subsequent
wife of Alexander de Okeston.

This is only the case of the sentence is removed from context (and even
then, it is a difficult argument). In context, the meaning is
unambiguous. (Fortunately, last night while I was looking for something
else, I found a portion of the Pole quote in my hand-written notes, and
one of Benson's D&CN&Q articles has the whole thing, which, although
they disagree in certain incidental particulars, are in general agreement.)

Quoting Benson (D&CN&Q 18:109-110):

Modbury was conveyed by Roger de Valletort "unto Sr Alexander de
Okeston, wch married Jone, the widow of Raph de Valletort, wch woman (as
it is probable) was the concubine of Richard Erle of Cornwall & Kinge of
Almayne or of ye Romans; they had issue Sr James de Okeston, wch died
wthout issue; wth commandement of King Edw. 2 (hee) conveyed Modbiry, &
all other landes, formerly granted unto his father by Roger de
Valletort, unto Sr Richard Champernon wch was sonne of Richard
Champernon & Jone, daughter of Jone beforementioned, whom Edmond Erle of
Cornwall calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by him unto
the said Richard and Jone, of thassise of bread & ale, dated anno 12 of
King Edw. I; the said Richard the father was yonger son of Sir Henry
Chambernon of Clyst Chambernon."

I don't think it can be doubted what Pole had in mind here. Clearly
Richard married Jone, daughter of Jone (wife of Alex de Oxton),
"probable" mistress of Richard. (Note that Benson lit on "it is
probable" as an indication that Pole was making the whole thing up, but
Prideaux quoted a dictionary indicating that in the 17th century, "it is
probable" meant "it is provable", and that in the next century it had
only started to drift toward its current meaning of "likely but not
certain" - I do not have access to resources that would enable me to
support this, but that does not bear directly on the later part of the
paragraph.) As I read this, Pole had seen a charter dated 12 E. I, and
in that document Edmund, Earl of Cornwall called Jone, wife of Richard
Champernon 'his sister'.

Next, then, we have the Fines.

However, James Oxton's fine of 1316

20 Jan. 1315/6 to be exact. (Dev.F.F. #1031)

whereby he transferred Modbury to Richard Champernowne junior is
strong evidence that Joan was a legitimate daughter of her mother and
hence not a daughter of Richard. This is because she and her then
husband Peter de Fishacre had their claim to Modbury recorded as part
of the fine, a claim which would not exist had Joan not been the
legitmate daughter of Alexander de Okeston.

Do we know that Joan, wife of Peter de Fisshacre is Joan, widow of
Richard Champernoun? I was of the impression that this conclusion was
reached because she challenged the fine, but the argument becomes
circular (she challenged the fine because she was James' sister, and she
was James' sister because she challenged the fine). In fact, could this
have been Joan, widow of Alexander? She would have been elderly (Ralph
died in 1256, while James reached majority 28 Dec. 1285), but I know the
chronology no better. I note that the other claimant (in addition to
Mr. & Mrs. Fisshacre) was Robert de Oxton, son and heir of Alexander de
Oxton. If Modbury was Valletort land, I don't understand why Henry de
la Pomerai and Peter Corbet did not likewise challenge, as they did with
a similar fine for Bridford (Dev.F.F. 1023 - for which, notably, Peter
and Joan de Fisshacre did not put in a claim, while Robert, son of Alex
de Oxton did. The Pomerai and Corbet claims are as Valletort coheirs,
based on Roger de Valletort being _non compos mentis_ when he alienated
various lands to Richard, Earl of Cornwall and Alexander de Oxton, most
of which appear to have ended up as Champernowne land - Corn.F.F.
#217,219,224).

The conflict that therefore arises between this document and Pole's
statement can however be reconciled if Earl Edmund's sister was Joan
the mnther, not Joan the daughter.

I just don't think this is a valid reading of Pole (it seems to be
trying to make Pole bend but not break). He clearly makes Joan, wife of
Oxton the same as the ("probable") mistress of Richard, and this would
mean Edmund was calling his father's mistress his sister. I guess it is
possible that Pole himself got confused while writing this paragraph,
but it is a tricky business to start saying that an author meant
something different than what he said. Likewise, it seems odd to me
that Edmund would call 'the beforementioned Jone' his sister in a grant
to Richard and Jone de Champernoun - if he called the younger Jone
"daughter of my sister Jone" I would think Pole would have been more
explicit (although I guess it could have been in a context like "that I
had previously granted to my sister Jone, wife of Alexander de Oxton").

This gains support from Risdon, who
says that Earl Richard gave certain rights pertaining to a river when
he gave his daughter in marriage to Ralph de Valletort. Risdon does
not give his source, but one would presume that it was a (second)
contemporary document, which would also be worth looking for -- if it
has survived.

Benson suggests that Risdon's version arises from a misreadong of Pole,
while Prideaux suggests Risdon was trying to 'fix' the Visitation
pedigree described above (simply removing Edmund). I do not have the
Risdon quote handy, but unless he refers specifically to one, I would
not be too hasty to posit a second document.

We are still back to the conflict between Pole's description of a lost
document, and the claim in one (but not the other) fine of the transfer
to Champernoun.

taf

Mark Harry

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Mark Harry » 01 des 2004 09:52:29

Todd, now that I have my notes with me.....

You are quite right in saying that Pole does make Joan senior out to
be the mistress of Earl Richard. Hence.my memory was wrong on that
point.
I have a copy of Pole's quote and copies of the Benson and Prideaux
articles that you refer to.
In addition to the Monk pedigree of 1564 that you mentioned, Westcote
(pp 469, 559) also shows two descents from the earl for the
Champernownes. The details in these three accounts vary, but what is,
I think, fundamental here is that there was clearly a tradition in the
Champernowne family that they were descendants of the earl, although
there was confusion over the details of that descent.
The fine of 1315/16 though appears to rule Pole as wrong on Joan
junior.

Do we know that Joan, wife of Peter de Fisshacre is Joan, widow of
Richard Champernoun? I was of the impression that this conclusion was
reached because she challenged the fine, but the argument becomes
circular (she challenged the fine because she was James' sister, and she
was James' sister because she challenged the fine). In fact, could this
have been Joan, widow of Alexander?

Alexander died before March 1276/6, when his inquisition post mortem
tells us that the manors of Modbury, Brideford, Brixham and lands in
Harberton had been taken into the King's hand, and that Joan had
objected to this on the grounds that she was jointly enfeoffed with
Alexander in the same, and that the lands should therefore be restored
to her. In July of that year Joan received licence to remarry to
Andrew de Trelosk. In 1285 Nicholas de Monte Forti obtained the
wardship of James, who was granted seisin in 1286 of all lands
previously held by his mother. (DATR 67, 1925, pp 267-9) Hence,she
must have been dead by the latter year.

The IPM of earl Edmund shows that Peter de Fissacre held Inceworth by
half a fee in 1300. However,in 1319/20 Richard Champernowne obtained
the grant of a weekly market and an annual fair at "his manor of
Inceworth". (DATR 67. pp 281-2). As Inceworth was a gift from Ralph de
Valletort to Joan senior and brought by her to Alexander before 1270,
when their joint possession of it was confirmed by both Earl Richard
and Roger de Valletort (CFOF vol 1 nos 217 and 224), Peter de Fishacre
could not have held it in the intervening period except in the right
of a wife who was a descendant of the said Alexander and Joan, as the
manor had been deeded to them and to the heirs of their bodies.
However, Richard de Campo Arnulfi is recorded as holding Inceworth in
a list of tenants of the former Valletort estates dated some time
after the death of Roger de Valletort in 1275 and before 1302 at the
latest, and probably before 1282 (when another tenant in Nicholas
Martin died, Nicholas appearing in one section of the list and Richard
in that part which then follows). (Testa de Nevill, part 2 p 1298) It
is therefore clear that the manor was held by the Champernownes prior
to 1300. Hence the most likely explanantion of Peter's possession of
it in 1300 is that Richard was then dead and his widow had remarried
to Fishacre by that date. .


Benson suggests that Risdon's version arises from a misreadong of Pole,
while Prideaux suggests Risdon was trying to 'fix' the Visitation
pedigree described above (simply removing Edmund).

True. But it could easily have been the other way around, Pole
misreading Risdon!
Risdon says (Chorographical Description of Devon, page 197) that Roger
de Valletort conveyed Modbury "unto sir alexander Okeston , knight,
which married Joan, the widow of Ralph Vaultort, by which woman he had
issue sir James Okeston, who died without issue, and who, by
commandment of king Edward the second, conveyed Modbury and all his
lands (formerly granted), unto sir Richard Champernon. knight,
descended from Joan before mentioned, whom Edmund, earl of Cornwall,
calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by him unto the
said Richard and Joan, of the assize of bread and ale,ann. 12 Edw. I"

We really need a copy of the deed itself to sort that one out.
However, in my earlier post I was not referring to Risdon's above
version of the Pole quote at all, but to a second reference he makes
which Benson does not seem to have dealt with at all. This is found in
his Chorographical Description of Devon, page 205-6. Here Risdon says
that at Inceworth there was an ancient house which stood at the very
neck of the peninsula there, "sometimes belonging to the earls of
Cornwall, since to the Champernonnes by the Vaultorts" but more
importantly he precedes that by his description of Plymouth, in which
he includes comments about a particular waterway, which is unnamed but
which clearly appears to me to be the Tamar,and he tells us that "the
royalty of which river, together with Southam, did some time belong to
the Vaultorts, which liberty, with certain other privileges, Richard,
Earl of Cornwall and King of the Romans, son of King John, gave in
marriage with his daughter to Ralph Vaultort. Trematon was their
towered castle, sometime the seat of the earls of Cornwall, the ruins
of which lofty building is now so thickly tapestried with ivy, as then
with arms. These Vaultorts have a border bezanted in their coats and
armour, in respect of alliance with the earl of Cronwall, a thing
usual in elder days for such as held lands, or were otherwise obliged
to be great men, to assume part of the device of their armouries."

Could there have been/still be a surviving contemporary record of THIS
grant ?
Mark

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Champernoun/Champernowne - an RPA omission?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 02 des 2004 01:15:06

I will have to take a while to dig through things, but I do have one
quick comment.

Mark Harry wrote:

The IPM of earl Edmund shows that Peter de Fissacre held Inceworth by
half a fee in 1300. However,in 1319/20 Richard Champernowne obtained
the grant of a weekly market and an annual fair at "his manor of
Inceworth". (DATR 67. pp 281-2). As Inceworth was a gift from Ralph de
Valletort to Joan senior and brought by her to Alexander before 1270,
when their joint possession of it was confirmed by both Earl Richard
and Roger de Valletort (CFOF vol 1 nos 217 and 224), Peter de Fishacre
could not have held it in the intervening period except in the right
of a wife who was a descendant of the said Alexander and Joan, as the
manor had been deeded to them and to the heirs of their bodies.

The problem with this is that in 1300, when Peter was holding it, James
de Oxton was the living representative of Alexander and Joan. Thus Joan
(and hence Peter) could not have been holding it in 1300 as heiress of
the body of Alexander and Joan. There must have been some kind of
alienation (for example, at the time of Joan's first marriage) that has
escaped notice, and if so, then things become less cut and dried as to
what Joan's precise parentage must have been. Further, if Bridford
(which Joan and Peter did not claim) was held by James as heir of the
body of Alex and Joan, then there would have been no need for the fine
to make Richard the heir if his mother was James' legitimate heiress
unless it was specifically to bypass Joan, and I would think she would
have put in her claim in that case.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»