Dear Newsgroup ~
Sometime ago I posted a reference to a lawsuit in the National Archives
Catalogue which showed that Desiderata, widow of Geoffrey de Lucy, and
her probable niece, Juliane de Leybourne, were involved in a lawsuit in
the period, 1327-1328:
JUST 1/403/11: Special assize roll and file,
Desiderata Lucy v Juliana Leybourne, Date: 1 Edward III [1327-8].
Since finding the above reference to the lawsuit, I contacted the PRO
and asked them for further particulars. This past week I received a
cordial reply from Dr. Malcolm Mercer, Senior Records Specialist, in
the Medieval Records division of the PRO. Dr. Mercer indicates that
the case was heard 26 October 1327. No relationship is stated between
the plaintiff, Desiderata de Lucy, and the defendant, Juliane de
Leybourne. However, several properties are named in the lawsuit.
I think it would be worthwhile to determine the history of the
properties in question. If any of these estates can be shown to derive
from the inheritance of Juliane de Sandwich, wife of William de
Leybourne, then I think a good case can be made that Desiderata de Lucy
was Juliane de Sandwich's daughter. We already know from another
record that Desiderata de Lucy had a life interest c. 1330-1 in the
manor of Winchfield, Hampshire, which VCH Hampshire indicates was held
by Juliane de Sandwich at her death in 1327. Presumably Desiderata de
Lucy obtained the life interest to Winchfield, Hampshire under the
terms of her mother's will. Complete Peerage indicates that at least
part of Juliane de Sandwich's will is found in Reg. A, I, of Canterbury
Corporation Muniments, which I have not seen.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF LETTER
Dear Mr. Richardson
Thank you for your email which I have been asked to reply to on behalf
of Dr. Bevan.
JUST 1/403/11 is, in fact, a case of novel disseisin between Desiderata
de Lucy and Juliana de Leybourne (I have used the spellings as they
appear in the document). The dispute does not relate to the property
you have suggested in your enquiry. Instead, it concerns the manors of
Dene and Ripple and a moiety of the manor of Ham in Minster, Stonar,
and the vills of St. John and St. Laurence in Thanet, Ripple and Ham
next to Sandwich. Part of the text of this document is faded and
unclear. However, I was able to ascertain that there is no indication
of kinship between the two women. Moreover, the case itself was heard
on 26 October 1327 at which time, according to her DNB article and
Complete Peerage entry, she was still married to Thomas, Lord Blount.
Blount died 17 August 1328. At this stage she was not yet Countess of
Huntingdon.
With respect to your suggestion for adding more details to this assize
roll item, I regret to say that enhancing the series list to JUST 1 is
not part of our current programme. To do justice to the series we would
have to review the descriptions of every piece. Instead, we are
concentrating our attention on those series which lack even the most
basic descriptions. I do, however, accept that there are series
(including JUST 1) which are worthy of improvement and will raise this
with my colleagues as a possible area for future investigation.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Malcolm Mercer
Senior Records Specialist
Medieval Records
Research, Knowledge and Academic Services
Update on Desiderata de Lucy
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
C.P. Addition: Death date of Juliane de Sandwich, wife of Wi
Dear Newsgroup ~
Checking today on the Leybourne family, I determined that Lady Juliane
de Leybourne presented to the church of Ridley, Kent on 12 September
1327 [Reference: Charles Johnson, ed., Registrum Hamonis Hethe,
Diocesis Roffensis, A.D. 1319-1352, 1 (Canterbury & York Soc. 48)
(1948): 180.
That the woman who presented to the church was Juliane, widow of Sir
William de Leybourne, and not their granddaughter, also named Juliane
de Leybourne, is determined by the fact that the granddaughter was the
wife of Sir Thomas le Blount between 1325 and 17 August 1328, on which
date Sir Thomas le Blount died.
This means that the defendant in the subsequent lawsuit dated 26
October 1327 must also have been the elder Juliane de Leybourne, not
her granddaughter as I earlier thought was the case. The writ for the
inquisition post mortem of the elder Juliane de Leybourne is dated 16
January 1327/8 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1929): 637, footnote
k].
This means that Lady Juliane de Leybourne, widow of Sir William de
Leybourne, Lord Leybourne, died sometime between 26 October 1327 and 16
January 1327/8.
Regarding the various properties involved in the 1237 lawsuit, I
elsewhere found that Lady Juliane de Leybourne's father, Sir Henry de
Sandwich, was lord of a moiety of the manor of Ham, Kent in the reign
of King Edward I, and that it was afterwards held by his brother, Ralph
de Sandwich [Reference: Edward Hasted, The History and Topographical
Survey of the County of Kent, 10: 38-39]. Hasted tell us that It
afterwards passed to the Leybourne family, "in which it continued till"
Juliane de Leybourne the younger, the heiress of her grandmother, died
possessed of it in 1367.
Thus it would appear that Desiderata de Lucy was involved in a legal
action involving her mother, the elder Juliane de Leybourne, rather
than her niece of the same name. If so, I imagine this was a friendly
lawsuit in anticipation of a concord and fine, which was arranged for
the purpose of transferring the manor of Ham and other lands from Lady
Juliane de Leybourne to her eldest daughter, Desiderata de Lucy. The
outcome of the 1327 lawsuit is not known. What is known is that the
manor of Winchfield, Hampshire, which Lady Juliane de Leybourne the
elder held on her death, passed on her death to Desiderata de Lucy for
the term of Desiderata's life. The IPM of the elder Lady Juliane de
Leybourne specifically states that Winchfield, Hampshire was part of
her own inheritance. VCH Hampshire confirms that Sir Ralph de
Sandwich, uncle of the elder Lady Juliane de Leybourne, held this
property before his death.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Checking today on the Leybourne family, I determined that Lady Juliane
de Leybourne presented to the church of Ridley, Kent on 12 September
1327 [Reference: Charles Johnson, ed., Registrum Hamonis Hethe,
Diocesis Roffensis, A.D. 1319-1352, 1 (Canterbury & York Soc. 48)
(1948): 180.
That the woman who presented to the church was Juliane, widow of Sir
William de Leybourne, and not their granddaughter, also named Juliane
de Leybourne, is determined by the fact that the granddaughter was the
wife of Sir Thomas le Blount between 1325 and 17 August 1328, on which
date Sir Thomas le Blount died.
This means that the defendant in the subsequent lawsuit dated 26
October 1327 must also have been the elder Juliane de Leybourne, not
her granddaughter as I earlier thought was the case. The writ for the
inquisition post mortem of the elder Juliane de Leybourne is dated 16
January 1327/8 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1929): 637, footnote
k].
This means that Lady Juliane de Leybourne, widow of Sir William de
Leybourne, Lord Leybourne, died sometime between 26 October 1327 and 16
January 1327/8.
Regarding the various properties involved in the 1237 lawsuit, I
elsewhere found that Lady Juliane de Leybourne's father, Sir Henry de
Sandwich, was lord of a moiety of the manor of Ham, Kent in the reign
of King Edward I, and that it was afterwards held by his brother, Ralph
de Sandwich [Reference: Edward Hasted, The History and Topographical
Survey of the County of Kent, 10: 38-39]. Hasted tell us that It
afterwards passed to the Leybourne family, "in which it continued till"
Juliane de Leybourne the younger, the heiress of her grandmother, died
possessed of it in 1367.
Thus it would appear that Desiderata de Lucy was involved in a legal
action involving her mother, the elder Juliane de Leybourne, rather
than her niece of the same name. If so, I imagine this was a friendly
lawsuit in anticipation of a concord and fine, which was arranged for
the purpose of transferring the manor of Ham and other lands from Lady
Juliane de Leybourne to her eldest daughter, Desiderata de Lucy. The
outcome of the 1327 lawsuit is not known. What is known is that the
manor of Winchfield, Hampshire, which Lady Juliane de Leybourne the
elder held on her death, passed on her death to Desiderata de Lucy for
the term of Desiderata's life. The IPM of the elder Lady Juliane de
Leybourne specifically states that Winchfield, Hampshire was part of
her own inheritance. VCH Hampshire confirms that Sir Ralph de
Sandwich, uncle of the elder Lady Juliane de Leybourne, held this
property before his death.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sometime ago I posted a reference to a lawsuit in the National Archives
Catalogue which showed that Desiderata, widow of Geoffrey de Lucy, and
her probable niece, Juliane de Leybourne, were involved in a lawsuit in
the period, 1327-1328:
JUST 1/403/11: Special assize roll and file,
Desiderata Lucy v Juliana Leybourne, Date: 1 Edward III [1327-8].
Since finding the above reference to the lawsuit, I contacted the PRO
and asked them for further particulars. This past week I received a
cordial reply from Dr. Malcolm Mercer, Senior Records Specialist, in
the Medieval Records division of the PRO. Dr. Mercer indicates that
the case was heard 26 October 1327. No relationship is stated between
the plaintiff, Desiderata de Lucy, and the defendant, Juliane de
Leybourne. However, several properties are named in the lawsuit.
I think it would be worthwhile to determine the history of the
properties in question. If any of these estates can be shown to derive
from the inheritance of Juliane de Sandwich, wife of William de
Leybourne, then I think a good case can be made that Desiderata de Lucy
was Juliane de Sandwich's daughter. We already know from another
record that Desiderata de Lucy had a life interest c. 1330-1 in the
manor of Winchfield, Hampshire, which VCH Hampshire indicates was held
by Juliane de Sandwich at her death in 1327. Presumably Desiderata de
Lucy obtained the life interest to Winchfield, Hampshire under the
terms of her mother's will. Complete Peerage indicates that at least
part of Juliane de Sandwich's will is found in Reg. A, I, of Canterbury
Corporation Muniments, which I have not seen.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF LETTER
Dear Mr. Richardson
Thank you for your email which I have been asked to reply to on behalf
of Dr. Bevan.
JUST 1/403/11 is, in fact, a case of novel disseisin between Desiderata
de Lucy and Juliana de Leybourne (I have used the spellings as they
appear in the document). The dispute does not relate to the property
you have suggested in your enquiry. Instead, it concerns the manors of
Dene and Ripple and a moiety of the manor of Ham in Minster, Stonar,
and the vills of St. John and St. Laurence in Thanet, Ripple and Ham
next to Sandwich. Part of the text of this document is faded and
unclear. However, I was able to ascertain that there is no indication
of kinship between the two women. Moreover, the case itself was heard
on 26 October 1327 at which time, according to her DNB article and
Complete Peerage entry, she was still married to Thomas, Lord Blount.
Blount died 17 August 1328. At this stage she was not yet Countess of
Huntingdon.
With respect to your suggestion for adding more details to this assize
roll item, I regret to say that enhancing the series list to JUST 1 is
not part of our current programme. To do justice to the series we would
have to review the descriptions of every piece. Instead, we are
concentrating our attention on those series which lack even the most
basic descriptions. I do, however, accept that there are series
(including JUST 1) which are worthy of improvement and will raise this
with my colleagues as a possible area for future investigation.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Malcolm Mercer
Senior Records Specialist
Medieval Records
Research, Knowledge and Academic Services
-
Douglas Richardson
C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Juliane de Leybourne and Joh
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is the account of a 1321 lawsuit involving Lady Juliane de
Leybourne and her young granddaughter, also named Juliane de Leybourne,
then wife of John de Hastings. The lawsuit involves a concord and
fine, by which Lady Juliane settled unspecified property on herself for
life, with remainder to her granddaughter and heiress, the younger
Juliane, and her husband, John de Hastings. The authoritative Complete
Peerage, 7 (1929): 638 (sub Leybourne) states that the younger Juliane
de Leybourne and John de Hastings were married "before the Quinzaine of
Easter 1321." The lawsuit below proves that the younger Juliane and
John were married before Hilary Term, 14 Edward II [or about 13 Jan.
1320/1]. So this is yet another addition for Complete Peerage.
The 1321 lawsuit seems to mirror the 1327 lawsuit between Lady Juliane
de Leybourne and Desiderata de Lucy. Presumably the 1327 lawsuit was
also for the purposes of transferrring lands from Lady Juliane to a
family member, in this case, her elder daughter, Desiderata.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + +
Reference: http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/lawyearbooks/d ... hp?id=4733
Law Year Books
Seipp Number: 1321.032
Year: 1321
Court: Common Pleas
Regnal Year
King: Plea Number Folio Number
Hil. 14 Edw. 2 [32] 423 (b)
Serjeants/ Justices Plaintiff Surname Plaintiff First Name v.
Defendent Surname Defendent First Name
Bereford, WIlliam de CJCP
Toutheby, GIlbert de Sjt Tond
Bereford, William de CJCP
Malberthorpe, Robert de JKB Malm'
Stonore, John de JCP
Other Plaintiffs Other Names Places Other Defendents
Leybourne, Juliane, widow of William of, grantee for life
Martyn, grantor
Hastyng, John of, remainderman in tail
Hastyng, Juliane, wife of J. of, remainderman in tail
Abridgements Cross-References Statutes
Un Pees fuit retret en ceste manere que Juliana que fuit la feme Will.
de Leybourne 24
Process and Pleading
Language Notes (Law French)
Abstract Context
Commentary & Paraphrase
Summary: A concord was entered into that Juliane, the widow of William
de Leybourne, recognized the tenements to be the right of Martyn, as
those which he had of her gift, and for this recognizance M. granted
and rendered the same tenements to Juliana for the term of her life to
hold of the chief lords, and after the death of J. the same tenements
would remain to J. de Hastyng and Juliane his wife, and to the heirs of
their two bodies begotten, on condition that if they died without heirs
etc. the same tenements would remain to Juliana wife of J. de Hastyng
and to the heirs of her body, and if she died without heir, the
tenements would return to the right heirs of J. wife of William de
Leybourne. Discussion by justices on the ways in which the terms of the
fine would be contrary to law. Another form was agreed by which after
the death of J. wife of W. the tenements would remain to John and J.
his wife, and to the heirs of their bodies, and if they died without
such heirs, would return to Juliana wife of William forever.
Malberthorpe JKB spoke in Common Pleas.
A concord (Pees) was drawn in this manner: that Juliane, widow of
William of Leybourne, acknowledged the tenements to be the right of
Martyn, as those that he had of her gift, and for this acknowledgment
M. granted and rendered the same tenements to Juliana for term of her
life, to hold of the chief lord etc., on condition that after the death
of J., the same tenements would remain to J. of Hastyng and to his wife
Juliane and to the heirs of their two bodies, on condition that if they
died without heir etc., that the same tenements would remain to
Juliana, wife of J. of Hastyng, and to the heirs of her body etc., and
if she died without heir etc., that the same tenements would return to
the right heirs of J., wife of William of Leyborne. Bereford CJCP asked
how Juliana, wife of John, would have the tenements after her death,
because by this fine counsel supposed that she would have the tenements
by the second tail after her death, which could not be. And then
counsel said everything in this manner as above, until here so that
after the death of Juliane wife of W. it would remain to John and to
Juliane and to the heirs of John engendered of the body of Juliane, and
that after the death of John if he died etc., it would remain to
Juliane and to the heirs of her body. Bereford CJCP said that this fine
was not receivable, because by the first acknowledgment J. wife of John
had estate; therefore to join another estate during the estate that she
took by the first grant would not be permissible in law. Malberthorpe
JKB said that by the first she had a freehold, against whom a writ of
Waste would lie against her after the death of John; then if a fee tail
were added during this estate, the action of Waste that could accrue by
the first grant would be defeated (diffet), which would be contrary to
law. Stonore CJCP said that if to the estate that Juliane had by the
first grant another estate tail were added, this could not change the
first estate; therefore it was necessary that if the second tail should
hold to her, this would be to the heirs of the body of Juliane begotten
after the death of John; therefore the heirs of John would hold the
tenements jointly with Juliane, which would be against the law;
therefore he told counsel to agree in another form that after the death
of J., widow of W., the tenements would remain to John and to his wife
J. and to the heirs of their bodies, and if they died without etc.,
they would return to Juliane, widow of William forever.
Below is the account of a 1321 lawsuit involving Lady Juliane de
Leybourne and her young granddaughter, also named Juliane de Leybourne,
then wife of John de Hastings. The lawsuit involves a concord and
fine, by which Lady Juliane settled unspecified property on herself for
life, with remainder to her granddaughter and heiress, the younger
Juliane, and her husband, John de Hastings. The authoritative Complete
Peerage, 7 (1929): 638 (sub Leybourne) states that the younger Juliane
de Leybourne and John de Hastings were married "before the Quinzaine of
Easter 1321." The lawsuit below proves that the younger Juliane and
John were married before Hilary Term, 14 Edward II [or about 13 Jan.
1320/1]. So this is yet another addition for Complete Peerage.
The 1321 lawsuit seems to mirror the 1327 lawsuit between Lady Juliane
de Leybourne and Desiderata de Lucy. Presumably the 1327 lawsuit was
also for the purposes of transferrring lands from Lady Juliane to a
family member, in this case, her elder daughter, Desiderata.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + +
Reference: http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/lawyearbooks/d ... hp?id=4733
Law Year Books
Seipp Number: 1321.032
Year: 1321
Court: Common Pleas
Regnal Year
King: Plea Number Folio Number
Hil. 14 Edw. 2 [32] 423 (b)
Serjeants/ Justices Plaintiff Surname Plaintiff First Name v.
Defendent Surname Defendent First Name
Bereford, WIlliam de CJCP
Toutheby, GIlbert de Sjt Tond
Bereford, William de CJCP
Malberthorpe, Robert de JKB Malm'
Stonore, John de JCP
Other Plaintiffs Other Names Places Other Defendents
Leybourne, Juliane, widow of William of, grantee for life
Martyn, grantor
Hastyng, John of, remainderman in tail
Hastyng, Juliane, wife of J. of, remainderman in tail
Abridgements Cross-References Statutes
Un Pees fuit retret en ceste manere que Juliana que fuit la feme Will.
de Leybourne 24
Process and Pleading
Language Notes (Law French)
Abstract Context
Commentary & Paraphrase
Summary: A concord was entered into that Juliane, the widow of William
de Leybourne, recognized the tenements to be the right of Martyn, as
those which he had of her gift, and for this recognizance M. granted
and rendered the same tenements to Juliana for the term of her life to
hold of the chief lords, and after the death of J. the same tenements
would remain to J. de Hastyng and Juliane his wife, and to the heirs of
their two bodies begotten, on condition that if they died without heirs
etc. the same tenements would remain to Juliana wife of J. de Hastyng
and to the heirs of her body, and if she died without heir, the
tenements would return to the right heirs of J. wife of William de
Leybourne. Discussion by justices on the ways in which the terms of the
fine would be contrary to law. Another form was agreed by which after
the death of J. wife of W. the tenements would remain to John and J.
his wife, and to the heirs of their bodies, and if they died without
such heirs, would return to Juliana wife of William forever.
Malberthorpe JKB spoke in Common Pleas.
A concord (Pees) was drawn in this manner: that Juliane, widow of
William of Leybourne, acknowledged the tenements to be the right of
Martyn, as those that he had of her gift, and for this acknowledgment
M. granted and rendered the same tenements to Juliana for term of her
life, to hold of the chief lord etc., on condition that after the death
of J., the same tenements would remain to J. of Hastyng and to his wife
Juliane and to the heirs of their two bodies, on condition that if they
died without heir etc., that the same tenements would remain to
Juliana, wife of J. of Hastyng, and to the heirs of her body etc., and
if she died without heir etc., that the same tenements would return to
the right heirs of J., wife of William of Leyborne. Bereford CJCP asked
how Juliana, wife of John, would have the tenements after her death,
because by this fine counsel supposed that she would have the tenements
by the second tail after her death, which could not be. And then
counsel said everything in this manner as above, until here so that
after the death of Juliane wife of W. it would remain to John and to
Juliane and to the heirs of John engendered of the body of Juliane, and
that after the death of John if he died etc., it would remain to
Juliane and to the heirs of her body. Bereford CJCP said that this fine
was not receivable, because by the first acknowledgment J. wife of John
had estate; therefore to join another estate during the estate that she
took by the first grant would not be permissible in law. Malberthorpe
JKB said that by the first she had a freehold, against whom a writ of
Waste would lie against her after the death of John; then if a fee tail
were added during this estate, the action of Waste that could accrue by
the first grant would be defeated (diffet), which would be contrary to
law. Stonore CJCP said that if to the estate that Juliane had by the
first grant another estate tail were added, this could not change the
first estate; therefore it was necessary that if the second tail should
hold to her, this would be to the heirs of the body of Juliane begotten
after the death of John; therefore the heirs of John would hold the
tenements jointly with Juliane, which would be against the law;
therefore he told counsel to agree in another form that after the death
of J., widow of W., the tenements would remain to John and to his wife
J. and to the heirs of their bodies, and if they died without etc.,
they would return to Juliane, widow of William forever.
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Juliane de Leybourne and
So, Lady Juliane de Leybourne and her husband William de Leybourne were the
parents of Thomas de Leybourne who married Alice de Toeni, and they in turn
were the parents of Juliane de Leybourne, wife of John de Hastings, 2nd Lord
Hastings?
I have yet another Juliane de Leybourne, much later, who married Hugh
Machell of Crackenthorpe, Westmorland, who died about 1554. Has anyone any
idea how she fits?
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
<Snip
Below is the account of a 1321 lawsuit involving Lady Juliane de
Leybourne and her young granddaughter, also named Juliane de Leybourne,
then wife of John de Hastings. > snip
parents of Thomas de Leybourne who married Alice de Toeni, and they in turn
were the parents of Juliane de Leybourne, wife of John de Hastings, 2nd Lord
Hastings?
I have yet another Juliane de Leybourne, much later, who married Hugh
Machell of Crackenthorpe, Westmorland, who died about 1554. Has anyone any
idea how she fits?
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
<Snip
Below is the account of a 1321 lawsuit involving Lady Juliane de
Leybourne and her young granddaughter, also named Juliane de Leybourne,
then wife of John de Hastings. > snip
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Juliane de Leybourne and
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my previous message, I posted a record which indicated that John de
Hastings, 2nd Lord Hastings, and his wife, Juliane de Leybourne, were
married sometime before Hilary Term, 14 Edward II [or before 13 Jan.
1320/1].
I've since located an even earlier Kent fine dated 26 November 1319
(see copy below) in which John de Hastings and his wife, Juliane, are
plaintiffs. At the date of this fine, Juliane still had a guardian,
even though she was married and then about 16 years of age.
Interestingly, the deforciants for this fine were Juliane de
Leybourne's first cousin, Geoffrey de Lucy, who was the son of her
aunt, Desiderata (de Leybourne) de Lucy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. XIV (1882): 267-268.
Kent Fines, 13 Edward II.
"661. At York, Quinzaine of St. Martin A° 13 - Between John de
Hastinges and Juliana his wife (by Robert de Lalleford' in place of
John, and by the same Robert as guardian of Juliana) plaintiffs, and
Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Lucy and Katherine his wife deforciants,
of the Manor of Newynton' [Newington], with appurtenances. Right of
Geoffrey; for which admission of Geoffrey and Katherine grant (by
service of a rose at Nativity of St. John Baptist) to John and Juliana
and to his heirs male by her; but if none, then after their deaths to
revert to Geoffrey and Katherine and to the heirs of Geoffrey, quit of
other heirs of John and Juliana."
In my previous message, I posted a record which indicated that John de
Hastings, 2nd Lord Hastings, and his wife, Juliane de Leybourne, were
married sometime before Hilary Term, 14 Edward II [or before 13 Jan.
1320/1].
I've since located an even earlier Kent fine dated 26 November 1319
(see copy below) in which John de Hastings and his wife, Juliane, are
plaintiffs. At the date of this fine, Juliane still had a guardian,
even though she was married and then about 16 years of age.
Interestingly, the deforciants for this fine were Juliane de
Leybourne's first cousin, Geoffrey de Lucy, who was the son of her
aunt, Desiderata (de Leybourne) de Lucy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. XIV (1882): 267-268.
Kent Fines, 13 Edward II.
"661. At York, Quinzaine of St. Martin A° 13 - Between John de
Hastinges and Juliana his wife (by Robert de Lalleford' in place of
John, and by the same Robert as guardian of Juliana) plaintiffs, and
Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Lucy and Katherine his wife deforciants,
of the Manor of Newynton' [Newington], with appurtenances. Right of
Geoffrey; for which admission of Geoffrey and Katherine grant (by
service of a rose at Nativity of St. John Baptist) to John and Juliana
and to his heirs male by her; but if none, then after their deaths to
revert to Geoffrey and Katherine and to the heirs of Geoffrey, quit of
other heirs of John and Juliana."