I am presently examining the Bardolf-Lynde relationship in relation to
the manor of Mapledurham, co. Oxon, late-14thC. Conventional wisdom
says that Roger Lynde married (1) Margery Bardolf, by whom he may or may
not have had children, and married (2) Elizabeth, the sister of Amice,
widow of John de Beverley, both being daughters of Alan de Buxhall.
(Amice married (2) Robert Bardolf, the brother of Margery.) However,
there seems to be conflicting evidence here, so I would be grateful if
anyone could clarify the situation.
On the one hand, A.H. Cooke, in his history of Mapledurham (Oxford
Rec.Soc., 1925) says that according to the 1381 inquisition after the
death of Sir Alan de Buxhall in November that year, his heirs were
Elizabeth, wife of Roger Lynde, and Amice, widow of John Beverley. This
seems to fix Roger's second marriage as being before 1381. On the other
hand there are indications that Margery Bardolf was alive well after
that date. Cooke says that in Robert Bardolf's will, dated 2 May 1395,
Robert mentioned his sister Margery, to whom he gave 10 marks (I have
read the will, but I read it as saying "Item lego margarete sorori mee x
marc[es]", and in his 1375 will, their father refers to his daughter
Margaret only, not Margery, and doesn't mention Roger Lynde). This
implies that Roger can only have married his second wife Elizabeth after
1395 because Margery/Margaret was still alive. As far as I can see, the
alternative is that Roger Lynde actually married Elizabeth first and
Margery/Margaret second (though everyone seems to agree it was the other
way around, for reasons that are still a little elusive to me as I have
not seen the precise evidence).
Another possible inconsistency is that Cooke identifies Amice and
Elizabeth as sisters, the daughters of Sir Alan de Buxhall. I would
tend to agree, provided they are specifically identified by their
marriages in Alan's IPM. However, VCH (Bucks) states that Amice was the
daughter of (Godfrey?) Sifrewast and his wife Maud, presumably on the
basis that Maud married (2) John Wolseley, and in 1378 Maud Wolseley
renounced her (dower) rights in the third of the manor of Chesham
(previously held by Godfrey Sifrewast) to John de Beverley (Amice's
first husband) for 100 marks. Amice and Robert Bardolf, knight, held
Chesham in 1394, and on her death in 1416, Chesham passed, according to
settlement, to William Lynde and his heirs, to the exclusion(!) of
Amice's grandsons and heirs Robert Langford and Walter Daudessey. It
would seem strange that if Mapledurham were granted to Robert Bardolf
and Amice and their heirs, that Amice's heirs inherited neither that
manor, nor her other lands, such as Chesham, which instead went to the
children of her sister.
Thus, the Bardolf-Buxhull-Lynde connections appear to need some
clarification, unless I've missed something. Does anyone have access to
the Buxhull IPM, or otherwise have any clarification/sources on these
marriages and parentage? Any comments would be much appreciated.
Alan R Grey
Bardolf-Lynde connection
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
wjhonson
Re: Bardolf-Lynde connection
The manor of Wick was release in 1400 to Maud who d 1424 and in 1425
to "her son Sir Alan Buxhall". Sir Alan Buxhall in 1436 conveyed Wick
in remainder...
Unless VCH is wrong about "her son" or unless the IPM is wrong that
Sir Alan d 1381 had two women as co-heirs, then this Sir Alan cannot
be son to that Alan and this Maud can't be his widow.
Something seems confused.
Will
to "her son Sir Alan Buxhall". Sir Alan Buxhall in 1436 conveyed Wick
in remainder...
Unless VCH is wrong about "her son" or unless the IPM is wrong that
Sir Alan d 1381 had two women as co-heirs, then this Sir Alan cannot
be son to that Alan and this Maud can't be his widow.
Something seems confused.
Will
-
Alan R Grey
Re: Bardolf-Lynde connection
wjhonson wrote:
It does seem confusing, but in actual fact, both are correct. Sir Alan
died on 2 November 1381, and the IPMs (at Shaftsbury on 14 November and
at Robertsbridge on 25 November) found that his heirs were Elizabeth
(aged 30 years), wife of Robert[/?/] Lynde, and Amicia (aged 28 years),
widow of John Beverly (and later wife of Robert Bardolf). However,
earlier in 1381 Alan had married Maud Fraunceys, widow of John Aubrey
(who died on 18 March), and she was pregnant at the time Alan died.
Thus, when she was delivered of the child, it was a son whom she named
Alan and he became heir to his father, displacing his half-sisters. On
3 June 1383 the king granted Nicholas Sarnesfeld the manor of
Bryaneston, co. Dorset, during the minority of the heir of Alan de
Buxhull, knight, saving for Matilda, late wife of Alan, her reasonable
dower and enough for the maintenance of the (unnamed) heir [CPR, 6 Ric.
II, Vol. 2, p.277]. Clearly the infant was by this stage acknowledged
as the heir of his father (the daughters were adults and married, and so
had no need of maintenance). More specifically, on 16 December 1383 the
king granted John de Montagu le Fitz (Maud's then third husband, who
later became earl of Salisbury), two parts of the manor of Buxhull,
during the /minority /of the heir of Alan de Buxhull [CPR, 6 Ric. II,
Vol. 2, p.362].
The key problem is still in what happened to the daughters and their
relationship to the Bardolfs.
Elizabeth Buxhull was married to Robert or Roger (?) Lynde before 1381,
and lived until after 1416. Margaret Bardolf was apparently alive in
1375 and 1395. As both women were contemporaries, they cannot both have
been married to Roger Lynde.
If Elizabeth married Roger, then it was before 1381 (probably
significantly before), and since she was alive in 1416 then she is
probably the mother of all his children. That being the case, then
there is the problem of why the manor of Mapledurham passed from Robert
Bardolf and Amice to the children of Elizabeth. It is not clear why
this should be when we know that Amice had children and heirs of her own.
One of the keys lies in the two 1381 IPMs of Sir Alan de Buxhull.
Unfortunately I do not have access to these, but if anyone does, then I
would greatly appreciate knowing who they actually name as Elizabeth's
husband, since I have seen him reported as Robert Lynde by some, and
Roger Lynde by others.
Alan R Grey
The manor of Wick was release in 1400 to Maud who d 1424 and in 1425
to "her son Sir Alan Buxhall". Sir Alan Buxhall in 1436 conveyed Wick
in remainder...
Unless VCH is wrong about "her son" or unless the IPM is wrong that
Sir Alan d 1381 had two women as co-heirs, then this Sir Alan cannot
be son to that Alan and this Maud can't be his widow.
Something seems confused.
It does seem confusing, but in actual fact, both are correct. Sir Alan
died on 2 November 1381, and the IPMs (at Shaftsbury on 14 November and
at Robertsbridge on 25 November) found that his heirs were Elizabeth
(aged 30 years), wife of Robert[/?/] Lynde, and Amicia (aged 28 years),
widow of John Beverly (and later wife of Robert Bardolf). However,
earlier in 1381 Alan had married Maud Fraunceys, widow of John Aubrey
(who died on 18 March), and she was pregnant at the time Alan died.
Thus, when she was delivered of the child, it was a son whom she named
Alan and he became heir to his father, displacing his half-sisters. On
3 June 1383 the king granted Nicholas Sarnesfeld the manor of
Bryaneston, co. Dorset, during the minority of the heir of Alan de
Buxhull, knight, saving for Matilda, late wife of Alan, her reasonable
dower and enough for the maintenance of the (unnamed) heir [CPR, 6 Ric.
II, Vol. 2, p.277]. Clearly the infant was by this stage acknowledged
as the heir of his father (the daughters were adults and married, and so
had no need of maintenance). More specifically, on 16 December 1383 the
king granted John de Montagu le Fitz (Maud's then third husband, who
later became earl of Salisbury), two parts of the manor of Buxhull,
during the /minority /of the heir of Alan de Buxhull [CPR, 6 Ric. II,
Vol. 2, p.362].
The key problem is still in what happened to the daughters and their
relationship to the Bardolfs.
Elizabeth Buxhull was married to Robert or Roger (?) Lynde before 1381,
and lived until after 1416. Margaret Bardolf was apparently alive in
1375 and 1395. As both women were contemporaries, they cannot both have
been married to Roger Lynde.
If Elizabeth married Roger, then it was before 1381 (probably
significantly before), and since she was alive in 1416 then she is
probably the mother of all his children. That being the case, then
there is the problem of why the manor of Mapledurham passed from Robert
Bardolf and Amice to the children of Elizabeth. It is not clear why
this should be when we know that Amice had children and heirs of her own.
One of the keys lies in the two 1381 IPMs of Sir Alan de Buxhull.
Unfortunately I do not have access to these, but if anyone does, then I
would greatly appreciate knowing who they actually name as Elizabeth's
husband, since I have seen him reported as Robert Lynde by some, and
Roger Lynde by others.
Alan R Grey
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Bardolf-Lynde connection
In message of 4 Apr, Alan R Grey <a.grey@niwa.co.nz> wrote:
In his "Early History of Mapledurham", A H Cooke on p. 36 writes:
"Sir Alan died 2 November 1381 and was buried in Jesus Chapel under St
Paul's. The inquisition after his death found that Elizabeth, wife of
Roger Lynde, and Amice, widow of John Beverley, were his heirs..."
I assume that he had looked at the IPM himself as he was a known
scholar.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
wjhonson wrote:
The manor of Wick was release in 1400 to Maud who d 1424 and in 1425
to "her son Sir Alan Buxhall". Sir Alan Buxhall in 1436 conveyed
Wick in remainder...
Unless VCH is wrong about "her son" or unless the IPM is wrong that
Sir Alan d 1381 had two women as co-heirs, then this Sir Alan cannot
be son to that Alan and this Maud can't be his widow.
Something seems confused.
It does seem confusing, but in actual fact, both are correct. Sir
Alan died on 2 November 1381, and the IPMs (at Shaftsbury on 14
November and at Robertsbridge on 25 November) found that his heirs
were Elizabeth (aged 30 years), wife of Robert[/?/] Lynde, and Amicia
(aged 28 years), widow of John Beverly (and later wife of Robert
Bardolf). However, earlier in 1381 Alan had married Maud Fraunceys,
widow of John Aubrey (who died on 18 March), and she was pregnant at
the time Alan died. Thus, when she was delivered of the child, it was
a son whom she named Alan and he became heir to his father, displacing
his half-sisters. On 3 June 1383 the king granted Nicholas Sarnesfeld
the manor of Bryaneston, co. Dorset, during the minority of the heir
of Alan de Buxhull, knight, saving for Matilda, late wife of Alan, her
reasonable dower and enough for the maintenance of the (unnamed) heir
[CPR, 6 Ric. II, Vol. 2, p.277]. Clearly the infant was by this stage
acknowledged as the heir of his father (the daughters were adults and
married, and so had no need of maintenance). More specifically, on 16
December 1383 the king granted John de Montagu le Fitz (Maud's then
third husband, who later became earl of Salisbury), two parts of the
manor of Buxhull, during the /minority /of the heir of Alan de Buxhull
[CPR, 6 Ric. II, Vol. 2, p.362].
The key problem is still in what happened to the daughters and their
relationship to the Bardolfs.
Elizabeth Buxhull was married to Robert or Roger (?) Lynde before
1381, and lived until after 1416. Margaret Bardolf was apparently
alive in 1375 and 1395. As both women were contemporaries, they
cannot both have been married to Roger Lynde.
If Elizabeth married Roger, then it was before 1381 (probably
significantly before), and since she was alive in 1416 then she is
probably the mother of all his children. That being the case, then
there is the problem of why the manor of Mapledurham passed from
Robert Bardolf and Amice to the children of Elizabeth. It is not
clear why this should be when we know that Amice had children and
heirs of her own.
One of the keys lies in the two 1381 IPMs of Sir Alan de Buxhull.
Unfortunately I do not have access to these, but if anyone does, then
I would greatly appreciate knowing who they actually name as
Elizabeth's husband, since I have seen him reported as Robert Lynde by
some, and Roger Lynde by others.
In his "Early History of Mapledurham", A H Cooke on p. 36 writes:
"Sir Alan died 2 November 1381 and was buried in Jesus Chapel under St
Paul's. The inquisition after his death found that Elizabeth, wife of
Roger Lynde, and Amice, widow of John Beverley, were his heirs..."
I assume that he had looked at the IPM himself as he was a known
scholar.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Alan R Grey
Re: Bardolf-Lynde connection
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Robert Lynde through the Alan Buxhull entry in ODNB. Since both were
secondary works I was unclear as to which one was correct. Since then
Rosie Bevan has kindly shown me that the IPM does say Roger Lynde, not
Robert. Therefore, my take on the situation with the Bardolfs and
Lyndes is as follows:
It appears that Amice was married/betrothed at a very young age to John
de Beverly, for on 18 September 1362 the king granted "John de Beverle
and Amice de Bockeshill his wife" an annuity of £10 [CPR 1362, m.29,
Edw. III, Vol. 12, p.244] (and thus she was aged about 9 years, given
her age at her father's IPM). On 16 February 1375 John de Beverlee and
his wife Amice, and the heirs of John, were granted lands in London [CPR
1375, m.28, Edw III, Vol. 16, p.78] (the reason I cite this will be
apparent shortly).
John and Amice had two daughters named Anne and Elizabeth, as shown by
the fact that on 16 May 1381 Amice was granted their marriages [CPR
1381, m.15, Ric II, Vol. 2, p.6]. Anne married Mr Langford and had a
son Robert Langeford, born c.1392; Elizabeth married John Daundessey,
knight, and had a son Walter Daundessey, knight, born c.1395. Both
these grandchildren were alive at the time of Amice's death in 1416,
aged about 24 and 21 respectively, and in her IPM were identified by
their descent and named as her "kinsmen and heirs". It is curious that
Amice did not mention them at all in her own will, but I suppose she was
under no obligation to do so. It is questionable whether Robert
Langeford and Walter Daundessey had surviving issue, for on 21 February
1438 the 1375 grant to John and Amice mentioned above was given to
George Curteys and John Maistre, on the basis that John Beverlee "is
dead without heirs" and Amice "is also dead" [CPR 1438, m.1, Hen VI,
Vol. 3, p.143]. I have not yet tracked down fully what happened to
Langford and Daundessey, though Langford died in 1429 and had a
surviving son, aged 3 years, who it seems may have died within a few
years.
From Amice's IPM, it is clear that while she was alive settlements were
made whereby the estate that came to her through her father and second
husband, Robert Bardolf, passed to her sister's sons. The estate that
came down to her through her husband John de Beverley passed to her two
grandsons without prior settlement [CIPM Hen V, no.584-8, pp.182-3].
As far as Amice's elder sister Elizabeth goes, I suggest that she was
married/betrothed before Amice in 1362, otherwise I would have expected
that John de Beverlee would have been in marriage "negotiations" for the
eldest of the Buxhull daughters (i.e., in the business and politics of
acquiring a young bride, the arrangements were for the eldest daughter
first, by convention; the fact that John married Amice shows that
Elizabeth was already spoken for). Also, since Elizabeth was married to
Roger Lynde by 1381 and remained so, and since there is no evidence for
any other husband or family, then he is probably her only husband (and,
given the timeframe, she would be his only wife).
While it is said that Margery Bardolf married Roger Lynde and that she
is the mother of some children, this appears to be incorrect and there
is no direct evidence for this assumption; rather the contrary, since
although she was alive 1375-95, Roger was clearly married to Elizabeth
during that time.
As an aside, my interest in this question is through the Dabridgecourt
connection. Roger Lynde's daughter Elizabeth (c.1379-bef.1415) married
Sir John Dabridgecourt (1379-1418), but with the conflicting information
I had seen it was not immediately apparent whether she was the daughter
of Elizabeth de Buxhull or Margery Bardolf, Roger's two supposed wives.
I think it is clear now that the Dabridgecourts trace descent through
the Buxhull, not the Bardolf line.
Many thanks to Rosie Bevan for her contributions.
Alan R Grey
In his "Early History of Mapledurham", A H Cooke on p. 36 writes:
"Sir Alan died 2 November 1381 and was buried in Jesus Chapel under St
Paul's. The inquisition after his death found that Elizabeth, wife of
Roger Lynde, and Amice, widow of John Beverley, were his heirs..."
I assume that he had looked at the IPM himself as he was a known
scholar.
Yes, quite right. I had seen Cooke's reference. I picked up the name
Robert Lynde through the Alan Buxhull entry in ODNB. Since both were
secondary works I was unclear as to which one was correct. Since then
Rosie Bevan has kindly shown me that the IPM does say Roger Lynde, not
Robert. Therefore, my take on the situation with the Bardolfs and
Lyndes is as follows:
It appears that Amice was married/betrothed at a very young age to John
de Beverly, for on 18 September 1362 the king granted "John de Beverle
and Amice de Bockeshill his wife" an annuity of £10 [CPR 1362, m.29,
Edw. III, Vol. 12, p.244] (and thus she was aged about 9 years, given
her age at her father's IPM). On 16 February 1375 John de Beverlee and
his wife Amice, and the heirs of John, were granted lands in London [CPR
1375, m.28, Edw III, Vol. 16, p.78] (the reason I cite this will be
apparent shortly).
John and Amice had two daughters named Anne and Elizabeth, as shown by
the fact that on 16 May 1381 Amice was granted their marriages [CPR
1381, m.15, Ric II, Vol. 2, p.6]. Anne married Mr Langford and had a
son Robert Langeford, born c.1392; Elizabeth married John Daundessey,
knight, and had a son Walter Daundessey, knight, born c.1395. Both
these grandchildren were alive at the time of Amice's death in 1416,
aged about 24 and 21 respectively, and in her IPM were identified by
their descent and named as her "kinsmen and heirs". It is curious that
Amice did not mention them at all in her own will, but I suppose she was
under no obligation to do so. It is questionable whether Robert
Langeford and Walter Daundessey had surviving issue, for on 21 February
1438 the 1375 grant to John and Amice mentioned above was given to
George Curteys and John Maistre, on the basis that John Beverlee "is
dead without heirs" and Amice "is also dead" [CPR 1438, m.1, Hen VI,
Vol. 3, p.143]. I have not yet tracked down fully what happened to
Langford and Daundessey, though Langford died in 1429 and had a
surviving son, aged 3 years, who it seems may have died within a few
years.
From Amice's IPM, it is clear that while she was alive settlements were
made whereby the estate that came to her through her father and second
husband, Robert Bardolf, passed to her sister's sons. The estate that
came down to her through her husband John de Beverley passed to her two
grandsons without prior settlement [CIPM Hen V, no.584-8, pp.182-3].
As far as Amice's elder sister Elizabeth goes, I suggest that she was
married/betrothed before Amice in 1362, otherwise I would have expected
that John de Beverlee would have been in marriage "negotiations" for the
eldest of the Buxhull daughters (i.e., in the business and politics of
acquiring a young bride, the arrangements were for the eldest daughter
first, by convention; the fact that John married Amice shows that
Elizabeth was already spoken for). Also, since Elizabeth was married to
Roger Lynde by 1381 and remained so, and since there is no evidence for
any other husband or family, then he is probably her only husband (and,
given the timeframe, she would be his only wife).
While it is said that Margery Bardolf married Roger Lynde and that she
is the mother of some children, this appears to be incorrect and there
is no direct evidence for this assumption; rather the contrary, since
although she was alive 1375-95, Roger was clearly married to Elizabeth
during that time.
As an aside, my interest in this question is through the Dabridgecourt
connection. Roger Lynde's daughter Elizabeth (c.1379-bef.1415) married
Sir John Dabridgecourt (1379-1418), but with the conflicting information
I had seen it was not immediately apparent whether she was the daughter
of Elizabeth de Buxhull or Margery Bardolf, Roger's two supposed wives.
I think it is clear now that the Dabridgecourts trace descent through
the Buxhull, not the Bardolf line.
Many thanks to Rosie Bevan for her contributions.
Alan R Grey
-
suthen
Re: Bardolf-Lynde connection
On Apr 4, 8:07 pm, Alan R Grey <a.g...@niwa.co.nz> wrote:
Actually Robert Langford had surviving issue and Walter Dauntsey (d.
1420) was survived by his sister Joan (d. 1455), wife of John
Stradling of Dauntsey, Wilts. Robert Langford was son of William
Langford, M. P. d.1411 of Bradfield, Berks. William and Anne had five
children Robert, William, Henry, Edward and Isabel and William had a
daughter by his second wife Lucy ____, also named Lucy. Robert's heir
Edward Langford d. 1474 was husband of Sanchia Blount of Elvaston,
Derbyshire, daughter of Sir Thomas Blount and Margaret Gresley. Their
son Thomas Langford apparently died unmarried or without children in
1493, but there are many descendants of his sisters Margaret, wfife of
Nicholas IV Crew of Beddington and Alice, wife of John Dauntsey of
Dauntsey.
Sources: VCH Berks, VCH Hants, VCH Hertfordshire, VCH Surrey and HOP
Best regards,
Henry Sutiff
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
snip
It is questionable whether Robert
Langeford and Walter Daundessey had surviving issue, for on 21 February
1438 the 1375 grant to John and Amice mentioned above was given to
George Curteys and John Maistre, on the basis that John Beverlee "is
dead without heirs" and Amice "is also dead" [CPR 1438, m.1, Hen VI,
Vol. 3, p.143]. I have not yet tracked down fully what happened to
Langford and Daundessey, though Langford died in 1429 and had a
surviving son, aged 3 years, who it seems may have died within a few
years.
snip
Alan R Grey
Actually Robert Langford had surviving issue and Walter Dauntsey (d.
1420) was survived by his sister Joan (d. 1455), wife of John
Stradling of Dauntsey, Wilts. Robert Langford was son of William
Langford, M. P. d.1411 of Bradfield, Berks. William and Anne had five
children Robert, William, Henry, Edward and Isabel and William had a
daughter by his second wife Lucy ____, also named Lucy. Robert's heir
Edward Langford d. 1474 was husband of Sanchia Blount of Elvaston,
Derbyshire, daughter of Sir Thomas Blount and Margaret Gresley. Their
son Thomas Langford apparently died unmarried or without children in
1493, but there are many descendants of his sisters Margaret, wfife of
Nicholas IV Crew of Beddington and Alice, wife of John Dauntsey of
Dauntsey.
Sources: VCH Berks, VCH Hants, VCH Hertfordshire, VCH Surrey and HOP
Best regards,
Henry Sutiff
-
Alan R Grey
Re: Bardolf-Lynde connection
suthen wrote:
had no surviving issue. I suppose, therefore, that the statement in the
1438 CPR that John Beverlee and Amice died "without heirs" was one of
convenience for Curteys and Maistre (who no doubt hoped that no one dug
too deeply into the family history)!
Thanks again
Alan R Grey
On Apr 4, 8:07 pm, Alan R Grey <a.g...@niwa.co.nz> wrote:
snip
It is questionable whether Robert
Langeford and Walter Daundessey had surviving issue, for on 21 February
1438 the 1375 grant to John and Amice mentioned above was given to
George Curteys and John Maistre, on the basis that John Beverlee "is
dead without heirs" and Amice "is also dead" [CPR 1438, m.1, Hen VI,
Vol. 3, p.143]. I have not yet tracked down fully what happened to
Langford and Daundessey, though Langford died in 1429 and had a
surviving son, aged 3 years, who it seems may have died within a few
years.
snip
Alan R Grey
Actually Robert Langford had surviving issue and Walter Dauntsey (d.
1420) was survived by his sister Joan (d. 1455), wife of John
Stradling of Dauntsey, Wilts. Robert Langford was son of William
Langford, M. P. d.1411 of Bradfield, Berks. William and Anne had five
children Robert, William, Henry, Edward and Isabel and William had a
daughter by his second wife Lucy ____, also named Lucy. Robert's heir
Edward Langford d. 1474 was husband of Sanchia Blount of Elvaston,
Derbyshire, daughter of Sir Thomas Blount and Margaret Gresley. Their
son Thomas Langford apparently died unmarried or without children in
1493, but there are many descendants of his sisters Margaret, wfife of
Nicholas IV Crew of Beddington and Alice, wife of John Dauntsey of
Dauntsey.
Sources: VCH Berks, VCH Hants, VCH Hertfordshire, VCH Surrey and HOP
Thank you for advising that ... I would have been surprised if both had
had no surviving issue. I suppose, therefore, that the statement in the
1438 CPR that John Beverlee and Amice died "without heirs" was one of
convenience for Curteys and Maistre (who no doubt hoped that no one dug
too deeply into the family history)!
Thanks again
Alan R Grey