Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 577-586 (sub Mautravers) traces the
Mautravers title down to Eleanor Mautravers, de jure Lady Mautravers,
granddaughter and heiress of Sir John Mautravers, Lord Mautravers, who
died in 1364. On page 586, it is noted that Eleanor's grandson, Sir
John Arundel, was styled Lord Mautravers after her death in 1405. The
reader is directed to see the Arundel account for further details.
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London. Complete
Peerage, 1 (1910): 252, 254-255 (sub Arundel) states that prior to his
death, Philip Howard was attainted in 1589 on a charge of high treason,
"when all his honours became forfeited." This would explain then why
Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady Mautravers in the record below
rather than her normal style of Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp
E 178/1910
SHROPSHIRE: Clun Forest Inquisition as to arrears of rent of parcels of
land late of Anne, Lady Mautravers, leased to Charles Walcote.
Date: 40 Elizabeth
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 577-586 (sub Mautravers) traces the
Mautravers title down to Eleanor Mautravers, de jure Lady Mautravers,
granddaughter and heiress of Sir John Mautravers, Lord Mautravers, who
died in 1364. On page 586, it is noted that Eleanor's grandson, Sir
John Arundel, was styled Lord Mautravers after her death in 1405. The
reader is directed to see the Arundel account for further details.
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London. Complete
Peerage, 1 (1910): 252, 254-255 (sub Arundel) states that prior to his
death, Philip Howard was attainted in 1589 on a charge of high treason,
"when all his honours became forfeited." This would explain then why
Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady Mautravers in the record below
rather than her normal style of Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp
E 178/1910
SHROPSHIRE: Clun Forest Inquisition as to arrears of rent of parcels of
land late of Anne, Lady Mautravers, leased to Charles Walcote.
Date: 40 Elizabeth
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London. Complete
Peerage, 1 (1910): 252, 254-255 (sub Arundel) states that prior to his
death, Philip Howard was attainted in 1589 on a charge of high treason,
"when all his honours became forfeited."
This would explain then why
Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady Mautravers in the record below
rather than her normal style of Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
<cross-posting to soc.history.medieval deleted>
In message of 29 Sep, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I would guess that the barony of Mautravers was used only as a courtesy
title and thus not subject to any examination by the people in the House
of Lords who summonsed Real Peers to attend. So it wasn't really a
'title'.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
In message of 29 Sep, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London. Complete
Peerage, 1 (1910): 252, 254-255 (sub Arundel) states that prior to his
death, Philip Howard was attainted in 1589 on a charge of high treason,
"when all his honours became forfeited."
This would explain then why Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady
Mautravers in the record below rather than her normal style of
Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
I would guess that the barony of Mautravers was used only as a courtesy
title and thus not subject to any examination by the people in the House
of Lords who summonsed Real Peers to attend. So it wasn't really a
'title'.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:
Thanks Tim. What is peculiar here is that Philip Howard didn't ever
use the Maltravers title as a courtesy title; his father being Duke of
Norfolk, he used the title Earl of Surrey as his courtesy title.
Whether he continued to be known as such after his father's attainder I
am not sure, but after his father's execution he was restored to the
substantive Surrey title and inherited the Arundel earldom. So far as
I can see his wife was never referred to as Lady Maltravers - the
reference quoted by Douglas above has me mystified.
As I understand it, the loss of a substantive title does not in itself
mean the loss of any courtesy styles that flow from it (eg the children
of modern peers who disclaim nevertheless retain their styles,
including courtesy titles - see the curious case of the current ex-Earl
of Durham), but a wife is in a very different position, as she shares
her husband's position. Anne may have been, prior to her husband's
attainder, Lady Maltravers, assuming he had also been retored to the
Barony of Maltravers, but in any event that ceased to be the case upon
his attainder, and it makes no sense to me to use that title in
reference to her in preference to those by which she would normally
have been known, but for the attainder - viz Countess of Arundel and
Surrey.
Regards, Michael
cross-posting to soc.history.medieval deleted
In message of 29 Sep, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
This would explain then why Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady
Mautravers in the record below rather than her normal style of
Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
I would guess that the barony of Mautravers was used only as a courtesy
title and thus not subject to any examination by the people in the House
of Lords who summonsed Real Peers to attend. So it wasn't really a
'title'.
Thanks Tim. What is peculiar here is that Philip Howard didn't ever
use the Maltravers title as a courtesy title; his father being Duke of
Norfolk, he used the title Earl of Surrey as his courtesy title.
Whether he continued to be known as such after his father's attainder I
am not sure, but after his father's execution he was restored to the
substantive Surrey title and inherited the Arundel earldom. So far as
I can see his wife was never referred to as Lady Maltravers - the
reference quoted by Douglas above has me mystified.
As I understand it, the loss of a substantive title does not in itself
mean the loss of any courtesy styles that flow from it (eg the children
of modern peers who disclaim nevertheless retain their styles,
including courtesy titles - see the curious case of the current ex-Earl
of Durham), but a wife is in a very different position, as she shares
her husband's position. Anne may have been, prior to her husband's
attainder, Lady Maltravers, assuming he had also been retored to the
Barony of Maltravers, but in any event that ceased to be the case upon
his attainder, and it makes no sense to me to use that title in
reference to her in preference to those by which she would normally
have been known, but for the attainder - viz Countess of Arundel and
Surrey.
Regards, Michael
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
In message of 30 Sep, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
A wife of a substantive peer is also using a courtesy title; to some
extent she can be referred to by whatever name she wished - viz the
current duchess of Cornwall. I think the normal practice between a
peer's attainder and their execution, though Philip did not get executed
just imprisoned, was to continue to refer to them by the title they had
held; so the wife would be likewise and thus Countess of Arundel and
Surrey makes much more sense than anything else. I wonder if her will
survives, it might elucidate the matter? (I can't find one on National
Archives.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:
cross-posting to soc.history.medieval deleted
In message of 29 Sep, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
This would explain then why Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady
Mautravers in the record below rather than her normal style of
Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
I would guess that the barony of Mautravers was used only as a courtesy
title and thus not subject to any examination by the people in the House
of Lords who summonsed Real Peers to attend. So it wasn't really a
'title'.
Thanks Tim. What is peculiar here is that Philip Howard didn't ever
use the Maltravers title as a courtesy title; his father being Duke of
Norfolk, he used the title Earl of Surrey as his courtesy title.
Whether he continued to be known as such after his father's attainder I
am not sure, but after his father's execution he was restored to the
substantive Surrey title and inherited the Arundel earldom. So far as
I can see his wife was never referred to as Lady Maltravers - the
reference quoted by Douglas above has me mystified.
As I understand it, the loss of a substantive title does not in itself
mean the loss of any courtesy styles that flow from it (eg the children
of modern peers who disclaim nevertheless retain their styles,
including courtesy titles - see the curious case of the current ex-Earl
of Durham), but a wife is in a very different position, as she shares
her husband's position. Anne may have been, prior to her husband's
attainder, Lady Maltravers, assuming he had also been retored to the
Barony of Maltravers, but in any event that ceased to be the case upon
his attainder, and it makes no sense to me to use that title in
reference to her in preference to those by which she would normally
have been known, but for the attainder - viz Countess of Arundel and
Surrey.
A wife of a substantive peer is also using a courtesy title; to some
extent she can be referred to by whatever name she wished - viz the
current duchess of Cornwall. I think the normal practice between a
peer's attainder and their execution, though Philip did not get executed
just imprisoned, was to continue to refer to them by the title they had
held; so the wife would be likewise and thus Countess of Arundel and
Surrey makes much more sense than anything else. I wonder if her will
survives, it might elucidate the matter? (I can't find one on National
Archives.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Answer ~
This is just a guess. After Philip Howard's death, Queen Elizabeth I
may have released to Philip Howard's widow, Anne, the lands which made
up the barony of Mautravers. That, or else the barony of Mautravers
was settled on Philip and Anne at the time of their marriage. On
Philip's death, property held jointly with his wife, Anne, could be
returned to Anne. Either action would give Anne sufficient income to
support herself and her family, and also allow her to use the title
"Lady Mautravers" in fact, and not simply as a courtesy title.
A similar case in point is Elizabeth Bryan, widow of Sir Nicholas
Carew, which Nicholas was attainted and beheaded in 1540. Following
her husband's death, Elizabeth asked the king for the return of various
properties which she and her husband had held. The king granted part
of her request: the manor of Wallington (in Beddington), Surrey and
lands in Sussex worth £120 for her support. For particulars of this
matter, see
Barbara J. Harris, English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550 (2002):
141-143, 186, 222, 227, 302.
Ms. Harris explains how various widows of executed men were treated
after their husband's death.
DR
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
This is just a guess. After Philip Howard's death, Queen Elizabeth I
may have released to Philip Howard's widow, Anne, the lands which made
up the barony of Mautravers. That, or else the barony of Mautravers
was settled on Philip and Anne at the time of their marriage. On
Philip's death, property held jointly with his wife, Anne, could be
returned to Anne. Either action would give Anne sufficient income to
support herself and her family, and also allow her to use the title
"Lady Mautravers" in fact, and not simply as a courtesy title.
A similar case in point is Elizabeth Bryan, widow of Sir Nicholas
Carew, which Nicholas was attainted and beheaded in 1540. Following
her husband's death, Elizabeth asked the king for the return of various
properties which she and her husband had held. The king granted part
of her request: the manor of Wallington (in Beddington), Surrey and
lands in Sussex worth £120 for her support. For particulars of this
matter, see
Barbara J. Harris, English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550 (2002):
141-143, 186, 222, 227, 302.
Ms. Harris explains how various widows of executed men were treated
after their husband's death.
DR
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London. Complete
Peerage, 1 (1910): 252, 254-255 (sub Arundel) states that prior to his
death, Philip Howard was attainted in 1589 on a charge of high treason,
"when all his honours became forfeited."
This would explain then why
Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady Mautravers in the record below
rather than her normal style of Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Answer ~
This is just a guess. After Philip Howard's death, Queen Elizabeth I
may have released to Philip Howard's widow, Anne, the lands which made
up the barony of Mautravers. That, or else the barony of Mautravers
was settled on Philip and Anne at the time of their marriage. On
Philip's death, property held jointly with his wife, Anne, could be
returned to Anne. Either action would give Anne sufficient income to
support herself and her family, and also allow her to use the title
"Lady Mautravers" in fact, and not simply as a courtesy title.
A similar case in point is Elizabeth Bryan, widow of Sir Nicholas
Carew, which Nicholas was attainted and beheaded in 1540. Following
her husband's death, Elizabeth asked the king for the return of various
properties which she and her husband had held. The king granted part
of her request: the manor of Wallington (in Beddington), Surrey and
lands in Sussex worth £120 for her support. For particulars of this
matter, see
Barbara J. Harris, English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550 (2002):
141-143, 186, 222, 227, 302.
Ms. Harris explains how various widows of executed men were treated
after their husband's death.
DR
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
This is just a guess. After Philip Howard's death, Queen Elizabeth I
may have released to Philip Howard's widow, Anne, the lands which made
up the barony of Mautravers. That, or else the barony of Mautravers
was settled on Philip and Anne at the time of their marriage. On
Philip's death, property held jointly with his wife, Anne, could be
returned to Anne. Either action would give Anne sufficient income to
support herself and her family, and also allow her to use the title
"Lady Mautravers" in fact, and not simply as a courtesy title.
A similar case in point is Elizabeth Bryan, widow of Sir Nicholas
Carew, which Nicholas was attainted and beheaded in 1540. Following
her husband's death, Elizabeth asked the king for the return of various
properties which she and her husband had held. The king granted part
of her request: the manor of Wallington (in Beddington), Surrey and
lands in Sussex worth £120 for her support. For particulars of this
matter, see
Barbara J. Harris, English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550 (2002):
141-143, 186, 222, 227, 302.
Ms. Harris explains how various widows of executed men were treated
after their husband's death.
DR
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London. Complete
Peerage, 1 (1910): 252, 254-255 (sub Arundel) states that prior to his
death, Philip Howard was attainted in 1589 on a charge of high treason,
"when all his honours became forfeited."
This would explain then why
Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady Mautravers in the record below
rather than her normal style of Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
The problem with the theory is that the use or ownership of lands, at
least by Tudor times, did not carry with it the right to use a title of
nobility [except for the unique instance of Arundel Castle with the
earldom of that name). According to the ONDB article on the Countess,
she lost all her lands as a result of the actions surrounding her
husband's attainder - presumably this is why the A2A document says they
were "late" the property of Anne. The barony of Maltravers, as a
peerage title, was a result of a parliamentary writ, and was not
dependant upon or tied to any landed property. Indeed, it is easy to
show that suchs titles and lands were separate, because often they did
not pass together.
There is also a difference between courtesy titles borne, for instance,
by children of a peer, and the style of the peer's wife: the latter is
not a courtesy title; she is a peeress.
Although I suspect Douglas may be right in surmising that the lands to
which the document refers were part of the former Maltravers estates, I
will keep scratching my head over this one.
Answer ~
This is just a guess. After Philip Howard's death, Queen Elizabeth I
may have released to Philip Howard's widow, Anne, the lands which made
up the barony of Mautravers. That, or else the barony of Mautravers
was settled on Philip and Anne at the time of their marriage. On
Philip's death, property held jointly with his wife, Anne, could be
returned to Anne. Either action would give Anne sufficient income to
support herself and her family, and also allow her to use the title
"Lady Mautravers" in fact, and not simply as a courtesy title.
The problem with the theory is that the use or ownership of lands, at
least by Tudor times, did not carry with it the right to use a title of
nobility [except for the unique instance of Arundel Castle with the
earldom of that name). According to the ONDB article on the Countess,
she lost all her lands as a result of the actions surrounding her
husband's attainder - presumably this is why the A2A document says they
were "late" the property of Anne. The barony of Maltravers, as a
peerage title, was a result of a parliamentary writ, and was not
dependant upon or tied to any landed property. Indeed, it is easy to
show that suchs titles and lands were separate, because often they did
not pass together.
There is also a difference between courtesy titles borne, for instance,
by children of a peer, and the style of the peer's wife: the latter is
not a courtesy title; she is a peeress.
Although I suspect Douglas may be right in surmising that the lands to
which the document refers were part of the former Maltravers estates, I
will keep scratching my head over this one.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:800c236e4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
I agree - from my (admittedly rusted over) memory such matters, I would
guess that Thomas Howard, the son of Philip, earl of Arundel, and Anne Dacre
was known by the courtesy title Lord Mautravers before the attainder and
kept this later by convention, as it was not in his case a peerage and he
was not guilty of treason. As a widow, his mother may have been formally
granted (or may have informally assumed) the right to be known by the same
courtesy title, just as the mothers and sisters of peers have been usually
accorded courtesy titles as well as the rank and precedence belonging to
these when their husbands/fathers for whatever reason did not hold them.
The titles of wives of peers may or may not indicate that they are actually
peeresses in a number of different circumstances - divorced or remarried
women can and often do retain the use of their titles by courtesy, with or
without formal permission. Silence is consent, even from the sovereign.
Sarah, duchess of York is an example with permission; Maureen, marchioness
of Dufferin and Ava was one without, as far as I recall, a war widow who
simply put a notice in The Times when she remarried, notifying that she
intended to go on being called by the title from her first marriage.
Peter Stewart
news:800c236e4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
cross-posting to soc.history.medieval deleted
In message of 29 Sep, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London. Complete
Peerage, 1 (1910): 252, 254-255 (sub Arundel) states that prior to his
death, Philip Howard was attainted in 1589 on a charge of high treason,
"when all his honours became forfeited."
This would explain then why Philip's widow, Anne, was called Lady
Mautravers in the record below rather than her normal style of
Countess of Arundel and Surrey.
How would this be explained? If all his honours were extinguished by
Act of Attainder, why not the Barony of Mautravers?
I would guess that the barony of Mautravers was used only as a courtesy
title and thus not subject to any examination by the people in the House
of Lords who summonsed Real Peers to attend. So it wasn't really a
'title'.
I agree - from my (admittedly rusted over) memory such matters, I would
guess that Thomas Howard, the son of Philip, earl of Arundel, and Anne Dacre
was known by the courtesy title Lord Mautravers before the attainder and
kept this later by convention, as it was not in his case a peerage and he
was not guilty of treason. As a widow, his mother may have been formally
granted (or may have informally assumed) the right to be known by the same
courtesy title, just as the mothers and sisters of peers have been usually
accorded courtesy titles as well as the rank and precedence belonging to
these when their husbands/fathers for whatever reason did not hold them.
The titles of wives of peers may or may not indicate that they are actually
peeresses in a number of different circumstances - divorced or remarried
women can and often do retain the use of their titles by courtesy, with or
without formal permission. Silence is consent, even from the sovereign.
Sarah, duchess of York is an example with permission; Maureen, marchioness
of Dufferin and Ava was one without, as far as I recall, a war widow who
simply put a notice in The Times when she remarried, notifying that she
intended to go on being called by the title from her first marriage.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
OK, here's what seems to me to be a much more likely interpretation of
this document and thus a solution to this problem.
Philip Howard inherited the Arundel earldom following the death of his
maternal grandfather in 1580. I haven't looked at CP but given that
this grandfather left two daughters and coheirs between whom any
baronies by writ would have fallen, it is unclear to me that his Howard
grandson also became Lord Maltravers (unless it was called out of
abeyance
However, according to Burke's the old Earl of Arundel had had a son,
Henry, known as Lord Maltravers (a courtesy title), who had died spvp
in 1556 (ODNB). He married in 1555 Ann Wentworth, widow of Sir Hugh
Rich. It would seem most logical that it was his widow, Ann, Lady
Maltravers, who was referred to in the document of 40 Elizabeth, rather
than her nephew's wife the Countess of Arundel & Surrey.
MA-R
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 577-586 (sub Mautravers) traces the
Mautravers title down to Eleanor Mautravers, de jure Lady Mautravers,
granddaughter and heiress of Sir John Mautravers, Lord Mautravers, who
died in 1364. On page 586, it is noted that Eleanor's grandson, Sir
John Arundel, was styled Lord Mautravers after her death in 1405. The
reader is directed to see the Arundel account for further details.
I find that the Mautravers title continued to be employed by various
members of the Arundel family and their descendants. The latest use I
have found of this title is a record dated 40 Elizabeth I [i.e.,
1597-1598], which item was located recently in the helpful online
National Archives Catalogue. It indicates that Anne Dacre, widow of
Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was called Lady Mautravers
after the 1595 death of her husband in the Tower of London.
E 178/1910
SHROPSHIRE: Clun Forest Inquisition as to arrears of rent of parcels of
land late of Anne, Lady Mautravers, leased to Charles Walcote.
Date: 40 Elizabeth
OK, here's what seems to me to be a much more likely interpretation of
this document and thus a solution to this problem.
Philip Howard inherited the Arundel earldom following the death of his
maternal grandfather in 1580. I haven't looked at CP but given that
this grandfather left two daughters and coheirs between whom any
baronies by writ would have fallen, it is unclear to me that his Howard
grandson also became Lord Maltravers (unless it was called out of
abeyance
However, according to Burke's the old Earl of Arundel had had a son,
Henry, known as Lord Maltravers (a courtesy title), who had died spvp
in 1556 (ODNB). He married in 1555 Ann Wentworth, widow of Sir Hugh
Rich. It would seem most logical that it was his widow, Ann, Lady
Maltravers, who was referred to in the document of 40 Elizabeth, rather
than her nephew's wife the Countess of Arundel & Surrey.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
mjcar@btinternet.com schrieb:
Here are two A2A references to Ann Wentworth/Rich/Arundel:
Manorial records for Northweald Basset, Essex
The manor was in the ownership of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury until
her attainder in 1540. It was subsequently granted to Sir Richard
Higham who sold to Sir Richard Rich, later Lord Rich and, between 1547
and 1551, Lord Chancellor. The manor was presumably settled upon his
eldest son, Hugh and his wife Anne, upon his marriage, as his widow,
who had subsequently married Henry Fitzalan, Lord Maltravers, was
holding her court there in 1557 and 1558. She died in 1580/1 when the
lordship reverted to her brother-in-law, Robert, Lord Rich.
item: ref. DR 37/2/Box 119/13 - date: 9 June 1557
View of frankpledge and first court of Lady Anne Matravers,
widow of Henry [Fitzalan] Lord Matravers, previously wife of Sir Hugh
Rich.
item: ref. DR 37/2/Box 119/14 - date: 11 October 1558
View of frankpledge and first court of Lady Anne Matravers,
widow of Henry [Fitzalan] Lord Matravers, previously wife of Sir Hugh
Rich.
Stirnet, FWIW, says she married thirdly (although this would not have
prevented her from using the more impressive title from her second
marriage) and died 5 December 1580.
OK, here's what seems to me to be a much more likely interpretation of
this document and thus a solution to this problem.
Philip Howard inherited the Arundel earldom following the death of his
maternal grandfather in 1580. I haven't looked at CP but given that
this grandfather left two daughters and coheirs between whom any
baronies by writ would have fallen, it is unclear to me that his Howard
grandson also became Lord Maltravers (unless it was called out of
abeyance
However, according to Burke's the old Earl of Arundel had had a son,
Henry, known as Lord Maltravers (a courtesy title), who had died spvp
in 1556 (ODNB). He married in 1555 Ann Wentworth, widow of Sir Hugh
Rich. It would seem most logical that it was his widow, Ann, Lady
Maltravers, who was referred to in the document of 40 Elizabeth, rather
than her nephew's wife the Countess of Arundel & Surrey.
Here are two A2A references to Ann Wentworth/Rich/Arundel:
Manorial records for Northweald Basset, Essex
The manor was in the ownership of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury until
her attainder in 1540. It was subsequently granted to Sir Richard
Higham who sold to Sir Richard Rich, later Lord Rich and, between 1547
and 1551, Lord Chancellor. The manor was presumably settled upon his
eldest son, Hugh and his wife Anne, upon his marriage, as his widow,
who had subsequently married Henry Fitzalan, Lord Maltravers, was
holding her court there in 1557 and 1558. She died in 1580/1 when the
lordship reverted to her brother-in-law, Robert, Lord Rich.
item: ref. DR 37/2/Box 119/13 - date: 9 June 1557
View of frankpledge and first court of Lady Anne Matravers,
widow of Henry [Fitzalan] Lord Matravers, previously wife of Sir Hugh
Rich.
item: ref. DR 37/2/Box 119/14 - date: 11 October 1558
View of frankpledge and first court of Lady Anne Matravers,
widow of Henry [Fitzalan] Lord Matravers, previously wife of Sir Hugh
Rich.
Stirnet, FWIW, says she married thirdly (although this would not have
prevented her from using the more impressive title from her second
marriage) and died 5 December 1580.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title
Dear Michael ~
I concur with your identification of Anne, Lady Mautravers. The record
in question dated 1597-1598 refers to the land "late of Anne, Lady
Mautravers." The word "late" can mean either that Lady Mautravers was
deceased (your solution), or that she formerly held title to the
property and was still living (my original solution).
All things considered, I think your solution is more likely to be the
correct one, especially as Burke states Anne Wentworth's husband was
known as Lord Mautravers.
Thank you for sharing your findings with the newsgroup. Much
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
<
< OK, here's what seems to me to be a much more likely interpretation
of
< this document and thus a solution to this problem.
<
< Philip Howard inherited the Arundel earldom following the death of
his
< maternal grandfather in 1580. I haven't looked at CP but given that
< this grandfather left two daughters and coheirs between whom any
< baronies by writ would have fallen, it is unclear to me that his
Howard
< grandson also became Lord Maltravers (unless it was called out of
< abeyance
<
< However, according to Burke's the old Earl of Arundel had had a son,
< Henry, known as Lord Maltravers (a courtesy title), who had died spvp
< in 1556 (ODNB). He married in 1555 Ann Wentworth, widow of Sir Hugh
< Rich. It would seem most logical that it was his widow, Ann, Lady
< Maltravers, who was referred to in the document of 40 Elizabeth,
rather
< than her nephew's wife the Countess of Arundel & Surrey.
<
< MA-R
I concur with your identification of Anne, Lady Mautravers. The record
in question dated 1597-1598 refers to the land "late of Anne, Lady
Mautravers." The word "late" can mean either that Lady Mautravers was
deceased (your solution), or that she formerly held title to the
property and was still living (my original solution).
All things considered, I think your solution is more likely to be the
correct one, especially as Burke states Anne Wentworth's husband was
known as Lord Mautravers.
Thank you for sharing your findings with the newsgroup. Much
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
<
< OK, here's what seems to me to be a much more likely interpretation
of
< this document and thus a solution to this problem.
<
< Philip Howard inherited the Arundel earldom following the death of
his
< maternal grandfather in 1580. I haven't looked at CP but given that
< this grandfather left two daughters and coheirs between whom any
< baronies by writ would have fallen, it is unclear to me that his
Howard
< grandson also became Lord Maltravers (unless it was called out of
< abeyance
<
< However, according to Burke's the old Earl of Arundel had had a son,
< Henry, known as Lord Maltravers (a courtesy title), who had died spvp
< in 1556 (ODNB). He married in 1555 Ann Wentworth, widow of Sir Hugh
< Rich. It would seem most logical that it was his widow, Ann, Lady
< Maltravers, who was referred to in the document of 40 Elizabeth,
rather
< than her nephew's wife the Countess of Arundel & Surrey.
<
< MA-R