Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of Sir
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of Sir
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 500-501 (sub Fitzwarin) includes an
account of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin (died 12 Feb. 1373/4), 4th Lord Fitz
Warin. According to this account, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin married as
follows:
"He married Margaret, 3rd daughter and, in her issue, coheiress of Sir
James Daudleye, of red Castle in Weston, Salop, and Heighley in
Audley, co. Stafford [Lord Audley], by his 2nd wife, Isabel." END OF
QUOTE.
In truth, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin's wife was neither named Margaret de
Audley, nor was she co-heiress in her issue of her father, Sir James
de Audley, Lord Audley.
Sir Fulk Fitz Warin's wife was actually Blanche de Audley, daughter of
Sir James de Audley, 2nd Lord Audley, by his 2nd wife, Isabel (said to
be a Fitz Walter or a le Strange). Evidence of Blanche's given name
and parentage is provided in two contemporary records, the first being
a settlement dated 1374-1375 in her lifetime, an abstract of which is
copied below. The settlement names Sir James de Audley and Roland,
Thomas, and Blanche, his younger children by his second wife, Isabel.
Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)
C 143/384/18
Nicholas de Audeley, knight, and Elizabeth his wife to grant the manor
of Ford (Fordeshome) to James de Audeley of Heighley, knight, for
life, with remainder to Roland his son and the heirs male of his body,
remainder to Thomas, also his son, and the heirs male of his body,
remainder to Blanche, his daughter, for life, remainder to Fulk Corbet
of Moreton and the heirs male of his body, remainder to the right
heirs of James. Salop. Date: 48 EDWARD III [1374-1375].
Sir Fulk Fitz Warin's wife is specifically identified as Blanche de
Audley in a contemporary lawsuit dated 1388, in which her son and
heir, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin the younger, stated that his mother was
Blanche de Audley "daughter of James and Isabella." [Reference:
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 15)
(1894): 6-7].
As for Blanche de Audley being a co-heiress to her father, the actual
train of events shows that on the death of Blanche de Audley's father,
Sir James de Audley, in 1386, he was succeeded by his son and heir by
his 1st marriage, namely Sir Nicholas de Audley, 3rd Lord Audley. Sir
Nicholas de Audley in turn died in 1391, when his heirs were found to
be his sister of the whole blood, Margaret Hillary, and his great-
nephew of the whole blood, John Tuchet (grandson of Nicholas' sister,
Joan de Audley). Blanche de Audley's son, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin the
younger, was excluded as an heir, as his mother Blanche was a sister
of the half-blood to Sir Nicholas de Audley. As has been discussed in
earlier posts on soc.genealogy.medieval, heirs of the half blood were
excluded from inheritance in this time period. Blanche's son, Sir
Fulk Fitz Warin, later obtained some of the Audley estates, but this
was on the basis of property settlements, not by right of inheritance.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 500-501 (sub Fitzwarin) includes an
account of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin (died 12 Feb. 1373/4), 4th Lord Fitz
Warin. According to this account, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin married as
follows:
"He married Margaret, 3rd daughter and, in her issue, coheiress of Sir
James Daudleye, of red Castle in Weston, Salop, and Heighley in
Audley, co. Stafford [Lord Audley], by his 2nd wife, Isabel." END OF
QUOTE.
In truth, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin's wife was neither named Margaret de
Audley, nor was she co-heiress in her issue of her father, Sir James
de Audley, Lord Audley.
Sir Fulk Fitz Warin's wife was actually Blanche de Audley, daughter of
Sir James de Audley, 2nd Lord Audley, by his 2nd wife, Isabel (said to
be a Fitz Walter or a le Strange). Evidence of Blanche's given name
and parentage is provided in two contemporary records, the first being
a settlement dated 1374-1375 in her lifetime, an abstract of which is
copied below. The settlement names Sir James de Audley and Roland,
Thomas, and Blanche, his younger children by his second wife, Isabel.
Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)
C 143/384/18
Nicholas de Audeley, knight, and Elizabeth his wife to grant the manor
of Ford (Fordeshome) to James de Audeley of Heighley, knight, for
life, with remainder to Roland his son and the heirs male of his body,
remainder to Thomas, also his son, and the heirs male of his body,
remainder to Blanche, his daughter, for life, remainder to Fulk Corbet
of Moreton and the heirs male of his body, remainder to the right
heirs of James. Salop. Date: 48 EDWARD III [1374-1375].
Sir Fulk Fitz Warin's wife is specifically identified as Blanche de
Audley in a contemporary lawsuit dated 1388, in which her son and
heir, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin the younger, stated that his mother was
Blanche de Audley "daughter of James and Isabella." [Reference:
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 15)
(1894): 6-7].
As for Blanche de Audley being a co-heiress to her father, the actual
train of events shows that on the death of Blanche de Audley's father,
Sir James de Audley, in 1386, he was succeeded by his son and heir by
his 1st marriage, namely Sir Nicholas de Audley, 3rd Lord Audley. Sir
Nicholas de Audley in turn died in 1391, when his heirs were found to
be his sister of the whole blood, Margaret Hillary, and his great-
nephew of the whole blood, John Tuchet (grandson of Nicholas' sister,
Joan de Audley). Blanche de Audley's son, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin the
younger, was excluded as an heir, as his mother Blanche was a sister
of the half-blood to Sir Nicholas de Audley. As has been discussed in
earlier posts on soc.genealogy.medieval, heirs of the half blood were
excluded from inheritance in this time period. Blanche's son, Sir
Fulk Fitz Warin, later obtained some of the Audley estates, but this
was on the basis of property settlements, not by right of inheritance.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
wjhonson
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
Douglas great find. I note for those who are keeping up with the
chronological puzzle and who may have previously placed this Isabel,
possibly a le Strange, as the possible daughter of Roger, 5th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Alayne FitzAlan, that this placement
can no longer be supported and it must be, if she is a Strange of
Knockyn at all, that her father was *his* father Roger, 4th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Maud somebody.
This placement would then allow Isabel a birthrange of 1319/34
It still would not answer the question of why Fulk Corbet in the above
document however.
Will Johnson
chronological puzzle and who may have previously placed this Isabel,
possibly a le Strange, as the possible daughter of Roger, 5th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Alayne FitzAlan, that this placement
can no longer be supported and it must be, if she is a Strange of
Knockyn at all, that her father was *his* father Roger, 4th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Maud somebody.
This placement would then allow Isabel a birthrange of 1319/34
It still would not answer the question of why Fulk Corbet in the above
document however.
Will Johnson
-
alden@mindspring.com
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
On Apr 6, 7:29 pm, "wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
One (no doubt of many) possibility is that Isabel was sister of Fulk
Corbet of Moreton Corbet and therefore daughter of Sir Robert Corbet
(d 3 dec 1375) and his wife Elizabeth le Strange of Blackmere (d. Nov
1381).
This would explain the reversion, is consistent with the chronology of
her born in the range 1310/1334 and shows and connection with the le
Strange family.
Purely speculative but certainly worth a little poking.
Doug Smith
Douglas great find. I note for those who are keeping up with the
chronological puzzle and who may have previously placed this Isabel,
possibly a le Strange, as the possible daughter of Roger, 5th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Alayne FitzAlan, that this placement
can no longer be supported and it must be, if she is a Strange of
Knockyn at all, that her father was *his* father Roger, 4th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Maud somebody.
This placement would then allow Isabel a birthrange of 1319/34
It still would not answer the question of why Fulk Corbet in the above
document however.
Will Johnson
One (no doubt of many) possibility is that Isabel was sister of Fulk
Corbet of Moreton Corbet and therefore daughter of Sir Robert Corbet
(d 3 dec 1375) and his wife Elizabeth le Strange of Blackmere (d. Nov
1381).
This would explain the reversion, is consistent with the chronology of
her born in the range 1310/1334 and shows and connection with the le
Strange family.
Purely speculative but certainly worth a little poking.
Doug Smith
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
Dear Doug ~
My research indicates that Sir James de Audley, 2nd Lord Audley,
settled a 1/5th share of the manor of Chipping Torrington, Devon In
1359-60 on Fulk Corbet for life. This settlement has the signs of
Fulk Corbet being Sir James de Audley's son-in-law, rather than
brother-in-law.
Fulk Corbet is likewise associated in one record dated 1379 with Sir
Thomas de Audley, who was one of Sir James de Audley's younger sons.
I've copied an abstract of this record below:
Source: National Archives Catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp)
PRO Document, E 210/986
Grant by Sir Thomas Fichet, knight, lord of Spaxston, to Richard Lyf,
lord of Corypol [Currypool (in Charlinch)], at the request of Sir
Thomas de Audelegh, knight, son of Sir James de Audelegh, lord of Red
Castle and Helegh, of his watercourse of Fordemulle, for Richard's
mill of Cherdelynchemulle, until Fulk Corbet of London shall next
return to Stoweye, before Midsummer next. [Somerset]. Dated: Saturday
the feast of St. George the martyr [23 April 1379] 2 Richard II.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 7, 6:38 am, "a...@mindspring.com" <a...@mindspring.com> wrote:
My research indicates that Sir James de Audley, 2nd Lord Audley,
settled a 1/5th share of the manor of Chipping Torrington, Devon In
1359-60 on Fulk Corbet for life. This settlement has the signs of
Fulk Corbet being Sir James de Audley's son-in-law, rather than
brother-in-law.
Fulk Corbet is likewise associated in one record dated 1379 with Sir
Thomas de Audley, who was one of Sir James de Audley's younger sons.
I've copied an abstract of this record below:
Source: National Archives Catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp)
PRO Document, E 210/986
Grant by Sir Thomas Fichet, knight, lord of Spaxston, to Richard Lyf,
lord of Corypol [Currypool (in Charlinch)], at the request of Sir
Thomas de Audelegh, knight, son of Sir James de Audelegh, lord of Red
Castle and Helegh, of his watercourse of Fordemulle, for Richard's
mill of Cherdelynchemulle, until Fulk Corbet of London shall next
return to Stoweye, before Midsummer next. [Somerset]. Dated: Saturday
the feast of St. George the martyr [23 April 1379] 2 Richard II.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 7, 6:38 am, "a...@mindspring.com" <a...@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:29 pm, "wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Douglas great find. I note for those who are keeping up with the
chronological puzzle and who may have previously placed this Isabel,
possibly a le Strange, as the possible daughter of Roger, 5th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Alayne FitzAlan, that this placement
can no longer be supported and it must be, if she is a Strange of
Knockyn at all, that her father was *his* father Roger, 4th Lord
Strange of Knockyn by his wife Maud somebody.
This placement would then allow Isabel a birthrange of 1319/34
It still would not answer the question of why Fulk Corbet in the above
document however.
Will Johnson
One (no doubt of many) possibility is that Isabel was sister of Fulk
Corbet of Moreton Corbet and therefore daughter of Sir Robert Corbet
(d 3 dec 1375) and his wife Elizabeth le Strange of Blackmere (d. Nov
1381).
This would explain the reversion, is consistent with the chronology of
her born in the range 1310/1334 and shows and connection with the le
Strange family.
Purely speculative but certainly worth a little poking.
Doug Smith
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
Dear Michael ~
Thank you for your good posts. I was out of town for several days on
a speaking engagement and unable to respond until now. My apologies
for the delay.
In my original post, I stated that the correct name of the wife of
Fulk Fitz Warin (died 1374), 4th Lord Fitz Warin, was Blanche de
Audley, not Margaret de Audley as long claimed by Complete Peerage sub
Fitz Warin (and numerous other sources). I based my statement on two
contemporary documents, one dated in Blanche's own life time, the
other dated immediately afterwards. I further stated that Blanche was
not "co-heiress in her issue" to her father as claimed by Complete
Peerage. Rather, the evidence makes it clear that Blanche's son, Fulk
Fitz Warin the younger, was an heir of the half-blood to his uncle,
Sir Nicholas de Audley. That being the case, Blanche's son was heir
only through the previous settlement of Audley lands, not by right of
inheritance.
To recap my findings: The first record I cited was a Feet of Fines
dated 1374-1375 in which Blanche's half-brother, Sir Nicholas de
Audley, agreed to settle property in Shropshire on their elderly
father, Sir James de Audley, for life, with successive reversions on
Sir James' death to Sir James' children by his 2nd wife, namely
Thomas, Roland, and Blanche. There can be no question that the Feet
of Fines got Blanche's name correct as this record was generated by
her own brother and father.
In the second record, Blanche de Audley's son, Fulk Fitz Warin the
younger, was sued in 1388 by Elizabeth, widow of Blanche's deceased
full brother, Sir Thomas de Audley, for dower in the manor of
Kingston, Devon. The younger Fulk stated unequivocably that he was
the "son of Blanch, the daughter of James and Isabella" de Audley.
Fulk also carefully explained in his pleading that he was heir to the
property in question by an earlier settlement which had been made
during the lifetime of his mother's father, James de Audley.
Given that Blanche is so named in records generated by her brother,
father, and son, it seems rather clear that Blanche is the correct
name of this woman.
Regarding Ms. Bevan's comment that "you can't always believe the
allegations made in Plea Rolls!," this is true when a pleading
concerns events long after the fact given by people who have no first
hand knowledge. However, in this instance, the person making the
pleading was the woman's own son and was made within 15 years of his
mother's death. Surely, if anyone was in a position to know her
correct given name it would be him. Moreover, his statement in the
pleading is corrobated by the earlier Feet of Fines which was
generated in his mother's own lifetime. Such evidence in my opinion
is unimpeachable.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 11, 3:12 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
< Here are two documents, kindly sent to me by Rosie Bevan, each of
which
< sounds convincing on its own, but which give different accounts of
the name of
< the daughter of Sir JamesAudleyof Helegh, Staffs, who was the wife
of Sir
< Fulk Fitzwarren, named as dead in CPR R II, vol 1, 218- entry for
24th May
< 1378, with an infant heir.
< Rosie's comment is to the effect that you can't always believe the
< allegations made in Plea Rolls!
<
< A. ( from the de Banco Rolls for Hilary term 11 R II), naming her
as
Thank you for your good posts. I was out of town for several days on
a speaking engagement and unable to respond until now. My apologies
for the delay.
In my original post, I stated that the correct name of the wife of
Fulk Fitz Warin (died 1374), 4th Lord Fitz Warin, was Blanche de
Audley, not Margaret de Audley as long claimed by Complete Peerage sub
Fitz Warin (and numerous other sources). I based my statement on two
contemporary documents, one dated in Blanche's own life time, the
other dated immediately afterwards. I further stated that Blanche was
not "co-heiress in her issue" to her father as claimed by Complete
Peerage. Rather, the evidence makes it clear that Blanche's son, Fulk
Fitz Warin the younger, was an heir of the half-blood to his uncle,
Sir Nicholas de Audley. That being the case, Blanche's son was heir
only through the previous settlement of Audley lands, not by right of
inheritance.
To recap my findings: The first record I cited was a Feet of Fines
dated 1374-1375 in which Blanche's half-brother, Sir Nicholas de
Audley, agreed to settle property in Shropshire on their elderly
father, Sir James de Audley, for life, with successive reversions on
Sir James' death to Sir James' children by his 2nd wife, namely
Thomas, Roland, and Blanche. There can be no question that the Feet
of Fines got Blanche's name correct as this record was generated by
her own brother and father.
In the second record, Blanche de Audley's son, Fulk Fitz Warin the
younger, was sued in 1388 by Elizabeth, widow of Blanche's deceased
full brother, Sir Thomas de Audley, for dower in the manor of
Kingston, Devon. The younger Fulk stated unequivocably that he was
the "son of Blanch, the daughter of James and Isabella" de Audley.
Fulk also carefully explained in his pleading that he was heir to the
property in question by an earlier settlement which had been made
during the lifetime of his mother's father, James de Audley.
Given that Blanche is so named in records generated by her brother,
father, and son, it seems rather clear that Blanche is the correct
name of this woman.
Regarding Ms. Bevan's comment that "you can't always believe the
allegations made in Plea Rolls!," this is true when a pleading
concerns events long after the fact given by people who have no first
hand knowledge. However, in this instance, the person making the
pleading was the woman's own son and was made within 15 years of his
mother's death. Surely, if anyone was in a position to know her
correct given name it would be him. Moreover, his statement in the
pleading is corrobated by the earlier Feet of Fines which was
generated in his mother's own lifetime. Such evidence in my opinion
is unimpeachable.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 11, 3:12 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
< Here are two documents, kindly sent to me by Rosie Bevan, each of
which
< sounds convincing on its own, but which give different accounts of
the name of
< the daughter of Sir JamesAudleyof Helegh, Staffs, who was the wife
of Sir
< Fulk Fitzwarren, named as dead in CPR R II, vol 1, 218- entry for
24th May
< 1378, with an infant heir.
< Rosie's comment is to the effect that you can't always believe the
< allegations made in Plea Rolls!
<
< A. ( from the de Banco Rolls for Hilary term 11 R II), naming her
as
"Blanch". This must be the lawsuit identified by DouglasRichardsonin his
instructive post of 6th April last.
.
Devon
Hugh de Courtenay and Elizabeth his wife sued Fulk Fitzwarren, knight, for a
third of the manor of Kyngeston, as dower of Elizabeth, of the dotation of
Thomas deAudley, knight, her former husband.
Fulk pleaded that Elizabeth was not entitled to dower from the manor, and
stated that in 33 E III a fine was levied by which the reversion of the manor,
which was then held by Margaret, formerly wife of William Martyn, was settled
on James deAudley, of Helegh, and Isabella his wife for their lives, with
remainder to Oliver, the son of James and Isabella, and to his male issue, and
failing such, with remainder to Thomas deAudleyand to his male issue, and
failing such, with remainder to Roland, brother of Thomas, and to his male
issue, and failing such, to revert to the heirs of the bodies of James and
Isabella. And James and Isabella had entered after the death of Margaret, and
Isabella died, and Oliver died leaving no male issue, and after the death of
Oliver James deAudleydemised the manor to Thomas for his life, Thomas then
being of full age, with a proviso that if Thomas died during the life time of
James, he could re-enter into the manor, and Roland afterwards died, leaving no
male issue, and Thomas died leaving no issue.
James then re-entered into the manor and died seised of it, and after the
death of James
[in 1386, according to the Oxford DNB] Sir Fulk Fitzwarren had entered as
kinsman and nearest heir of James and Isabella, viz, as son of Blanch, the
daughter of James and Isabella.
This Fulk can only have been the one who was an infant in 1378- see CPR R
II, vol 1, 218, and who married Elizabeth Cogan, dying before February 1393,
when Hugh Courtenay was pardoned for marrying her.
B. An inquisition (CIM vol 5, no.335), taken in 1392, which identifies the
daughter of Sir JamesAudley, married to Fulk Fitz Waryn, as Margaret
The inquisition records the descent of the manor of Tavistock, Devon, from
Sir William Martyn- first to his son William, whose widow Margaret had the
manor as dower, then to the younger William's sister and coheiress, wife of
Philip de Columbariis, to whom it was allotted on partition, then under a fine of
Hilary term 8 E III to Philip and Eleanor for their lives, with remainder to
Ralph Bassett of Drayton and his wife Alice in fee tail, and an ultimate
remainder to the right heirs of Eleanor. (Alice was a daughter of Eleanor's
sister Joan [note 1 below], the wife of Sir Nicholas deAudley, so Alice was a
sister of Sir Nicholas' son Sir JamesAudley, as the inquisition finds). Ralph
and Alice entered and had an only child, also Ralph, who entered after his
parents' deaths..
The inquisition then records the effect of a fine levied at Westminster in
Hilary term 44 E III between Thomas deAudleyas plaintiff and his father Sir
James as deforciant, whereby Sir James, as sole heir of his aunt Eleanor de
Columbariis, settled the reversion of the manor, which was still held for life
by Ralph Bassett the son, on his son Thomas the plaintiff in fee tail, with
remainders to Thomas's brothers Roland and James, also in fee tail, and an
ultimate remainder to Thomas' right heirs.
The inquisition then finds that Thomas, Roland and James, and also Ralph
Bassett, were all dead without heirs of their bodies, and that after Ralph's
death [on 10th May 1390, according to Stirnet] the manor descended to the infant
Fulk Fitz Waryn, aged two years and more, kinsman and next heir of Thomas,
namely son of Fulk, son of his [Thomas' sister Margaret. [see note 2 below]
Notes
1. This Joan, nee Martin, was according to the Oxford DNB article on the Audleyfamily, first married to Henry de Lacy, whereby she was Countess of
Lincoln
2. According to Stirnet, his father Fulk had died on 8th August 1391
For ease of reference I append the footnotes from VCH Staffs, sv Tunstall,
which I included in my latest post on this topic.
128 Complete Peerage, 'Audley'; CIPM ii, 68,121,287; iii, 408;
v, 29;vi, 42; Cal. Fine R. 1391-9, 10.
129 Cal. Close R. 1389-92, 468.
130 Ibid.
131 Complete Peerage, 'Audley'; C 137/73; CCR. 1409-13, 254;
S.H.C. xi. 209.
132 CP 'Audley'; U.C.N.S., Sneyd MSS., Ct. R. 7/3, 7/5-7/9;
Tunstall Ct. R. (T.N.S.F.C. lx, lxi), passim;
L. & P. Hen. VIII, i, p. 96; iv, p. 3183; v, p. 150.
.....
139 Cal. Close R. 1389-92, 468. He was 2 years old in 1391,
and in 1393 his mother Eliz. m. Sir Hugh Courtenay as her
2nd husband (Complete Peerage, 'FitzWarin'); Sir Hugh tried
to secure the wardship of the heir after Eliz's death in 1411:
C 137/85; CFR. 1405-13, 214; C.C.R. 1409-13, 399-400.
This explains why this part of the manor was variously
described as the king's and Courtenay's in 1405 and 'recently
Courtenay's' in 1416
(U.C.N.S Sneyd, Ct. R. 7/3) : ibid.
140 Complete Peerage, 'Bath', 'FitzWarin'; C.C.R 1392-6, 73;
C.F.R. 1405-13, 214; C/138/52; C 139/51; C 139/65;
C 142/129/31; S.H.C. n.s. iv. 11; U.C.N.S., Sneyd MSS.,
Ct. R. 7/3, 7/5-7/9; Tunstall Ct. R. (T.N.S.F.C. lxi), passim;
ibid. lxii. 65; lxiii. 53.
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
On Apr 6, 4:28 pm, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Apologies for coming in late on this post - I have been trying to make
sense of the mass of material. While Blanche(?Margaret) was not
considered a coheir of her half-brother Nicholas for real property
purposes according to the law as applied to his estate, is CP
nevertheless correct in stating she was a coheir to her father, James,
Lord Audley, inasmuch as she and her two sisters had the same rights
to the barony itself (afterall, CP's real concern, as opposed to the
descent of land)?
1375/1388 vs 1392 primary records about her Christian name are
difficult to resolve absolutely!
MA-R
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 500-501 (sub Fitzwarin) includes an
account of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin (died 12 Feb. 1373/4), 4th Lord Fitz
Warin. According to this account, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin married as
follows:
"He married Margaret, 3rd daughter and, in her issue, coheiress of Sir
James Daudleye, of red Castle in Weston, Salop, and Heighley in
Audley, co. Stafford [Lord Audley], by his 2nd wife, Isabel." END OF
QUOTE.
In truth, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin's wife was neither named Margaret de
Audley, nor was she co-heiress in her issue of her father, Sir James
de Audley, Lord Audley.
Apologies for coming in late on this post - I have been trying to make
sense of the mass of material. While Blanche(?Margaret) was not
considered a coheir of her half-brother Nicholas for real property
purposes according to the law as applied to his estate, is CP
nevertheless correct in stating she was a coheir to her father, James,
Lord Audley, inasmuch as she and her two sisters had the same rights
to the barony itself (afterall, CP's real concern, as opposed to the
descent of land)?
1375/1388 vs 1392 primary records about her Christian name are
difficult to resolve absolutely!
MA-R
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Apr 16, 6:48 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
< Apologies for coming in late on this post - I have been trying to
make
< sense of the mass of material. While Blanche(?Margaret) was not
< considered a coheir of her half-brother Nicholas for real property
< purposes according to the law as applied to his estate, is CP
< nevertheless correct in stating she was a coheir to her father,
James,
< Lord Audley, inasmuch as she and her two sisters had the same rights
< to the barony itself (afterall, CP's real concern, as opposed to the
< descent of land)?
Sir Nicholas de Audley's heirs at his death were his full sister, Lady
Margaret Hillary, and his full sister, Joan's grandson, John Tuchet.
Fulk Fitz Warin, being the son of Sir Nicholas' half-sister, Blanche,
would have had no claim to heirship. Fulk only had claim to certain
estates by right of prior settlements, not by right of inheritance.
This is because by medieval law, heirs of the half blood were excluded
from inheritance. Fulk was not in any sense of the word "heir" or "co-
heir" to Sir Nicholas de Audley. Fulk was, however, "kinsman and
nearest heir" by property settlements to Sir Nicholas' father, Sir
James de Audley and his second wife, Isabel. Perhaps this is what is
confusing you. If so, I certainly understand your confusion.
The short end of it is that Complete Peerage is wrong to state that
Blanche de Audley was "co-heiress in her issue" to her father. She
wasn't. It also got her given name wrong to boot. That's a real
oopsie!
Sir Nicholas de Audley's two heirs, Margaret Hillary and John Tuchet,
split the Audley barony between them. The bulk of their Martin
inheritance escheated to the king and eventually passed to Sir John
Holand, Duke of Exeter. Fulk Fitz Warin obtained a few manors by
right of settlement. Margaret Hillary conveyed part of her share of
the Audley barony to Hugh de Holes (or Hulse), and it descended in
time to his descendant, Sir William Troutbeck (died 1459), of Dunham-
on-the-Hill, Cheshire, King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer. What
remained in Margaret Hillary's hands of the Audley barony fell at her
death in 1411 to her great-grand-nephew, Sir James Tuchet, 5th Lord
Audley.
< 1375/1388 vs 1392 primary records about her Christian name are
< difficult to resolve absolutely!
Fulk Fitz Warin's pleading in 1388 makes it plain that his mother's
name was Blanche de Audley. He specifically stated that he was the
rightful owner of the manor of Kingston, Devon, as the "son of Blanch,
the daughter of James and Isabella" de Audley. Fulk was surely in a
position to know his own mother's given name! Moreover, as I have
already pointed out, Fulk's statement in the pleading agrees with
information recorded earlier in a Feet of Fine dated 1374-1375, which
was information was`supplied by Blanche's own brother and father.
Blanche's brother and father likewise would surely have known her
correct given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 16, 6:48 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
< Apologies for coming in late on this post - I have been trying to
make
< sense of the mass of material. While Blanche(?Margaret) was not
< considered a coheir of her half-brother Nicholas for real property
< purposes according to the law as applied to his estate, is CP
< nevertheless correct in stating she was a coheir to her father,
James,
< Lord Audley, inasmuch as she and her two sisters had the same rights
< to the barony itself (afterall, CP's real concern, as opposed to the
< descent of land)?
Sir Nicholas de Audley's heirs at his death were his full sister, Lady
Margaret Hillary, and his full sister, Joan's grandson, John Tuchet.
Fulk Fitz Warin, being the son of Sir Nicholas' half-sister, Blanche,
would have had no claim to heirship. Fulk only had claim to certain
estates by right of prior settlements, not by right of inheritance.
This is because by medieval law, heirs of the half blood were excluded
from inheritance. Fulk was not in any sense of the word "heir" or "co-
heir" to Sir Nicholas de Audley. Fulk was, however, "kinsman and
nearest heir" by property settlements to Sir Nicholas' father, Sir
James de Audley and his second wife, Isabel. Perhaps this is what is
confusing you. If so, I certainly understand your confusion.
The short end of it is that Complete Peerage is wrong to state that
Blanche de Audley was "co-heiress in her issue" to her father. She
wasn't. It also got her given name wrong to boot. That's a real
oopsie!
Sir Nicholas de Audley's two heirs, Margaret Hillary and John Tuchet,
split the Audley barony between them. The bulk of their Martin
inheritance escheated to the king and eventually passed to Sir John
Holand, Duke of Exeter. Fulk Fitz Warin obtained a few manors by
right of settlement. Margaret Hillary conveyed part of her share of
the Audley barony to Hugh de Holes (or Hulse), and it descended in
time to his descendant, Sir William Troutbeck (died 1459), of Dunham-
on-the-Hill, Cheshire, King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer. What
remained in Margaret Hillary's hands of the Audley barony fell at her
death in 1411 to her great-grand-nephew, Sir James Tuchet, 5th Lord
Audley.
< 1375/1388 vs 1392 primary records about her Christian name are
< difficult to resolve absolutely!
Fulk Fitz Warin's pleading in 1388 makes it plain that his mother's
name was Blanche de Audley. He specifically stated that he was the
rightful owner of the manor of Kingston, Devon, as the "son of Blanch,
the daughter of James and Isabella" de Audley. Fulk was surely in a
position to know his own mother's given name! Moreover, as I have
already pointed out, Fulk's statement in the pleading agrees with
information recorded earlier in a Feet of Fine dated 1374-1375, which
was information was`supplied by Blanche's own brother and father.
Blanche's brother and father likewise would surely have known her
correct given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Apr 16, 6:48 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
< Apologies for coming in late on this post - I have been trying to
make
< sense of the mass of material. While Blanche(?Margaret) was not
< considered a coheir of her half-brother Nicholas for real property
< purposes according to the law as applied to his estate, is CP
< nevertheless correct in stating she was a coheir to her father,
James,
< Lord Audley, inasmuch as she and her two sisters had the same rights
< to the barony itself (afterall, CP's real concern, as opposed to the
< descent of land)?
Sir Nicholas de Audley's heirs at his death were his full sister, Lady
Margaret Hillary, and his full sister, Joan's grandson, John Tuchet.
Fulk Fitz Warin, being the son of Sir Nicholas' half-sister, Blanche,
would have had no claim to heirship. Fulk only had claim to certain
estates by right of prior settlements, not by right of inheritance.
This is because by medieval law, heirs of the half blood were excluded
from inheritance. Fulk was not in any sense of the word "heir" or "co-
heir" to Sir Nicholas de Audley. Fulk was, however, "kinsman and
nearest heir" by property settlements to Sir Nicholas' father, Sir
James de Audley and his second wife, Isabel. Perhaps this is what is
confusing you. If so, I certainly understand your confusion.
The short end of it is that Complete Peerage is wrong to state that
Blanche de Audley was "co-heiress in her issue" to her father. She
wasn't. It also got her given name wrong to boot. That's a real
oopsie!
Sir Nicholas de Audley's two heirs, Margaret Hillary and John Tuchet,
split the Audley barony between them. The bulk of their Martin
inheritance escheated to the king and eventually passed to Sir John
Holand, Duke of Exeter. Fulk Fitz Warin obtained a few manors by
right of settlement. Margaret Hillary conveyed part of her share of
the Audley barony to Hugh de Holes (or Hulse), and it descended in
time to his descendant, Sir William Troutbeck (died 1459), of Dunham-
on-the-Hill, Cheshire, King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer. What
remained in Margaret Hillary's hands of the Audley barony fell at her
death in 1411 to her great-grand-nephew, Sir James Tuchet, 5th Lord
Audley.
< 1375/1388 vs 1392 primary records about her Christian name are
< difficult to resolve absolutely!
Fulk Fitz Warin's pleading in 1388 makes it plain that his mother's
name was Blanche de Audley. He specifically stated that he was the
rightful owner of the manor of Kingston, Devon, as the "son of Blanch,
the daughter of James and Isabella" de Audley. Fulk was surely in a
position to know his own mother's given name! Moreover, as I have
already pointed out, Fulk's statement in the pleading agrees with
information recorded earlier in a Feet of Fine dated 1374-1375, which
was information was`supplied by Blanche's own brother and father.
Blanche's brother and father likewise would surely have known her
correct given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 16, 6:48 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
< Apologies for coming in late on this post - I have been trying to
make
< sense of the mass of material. While Blanche(?Margaret) was not
< considered a coheir of her half-brother Nicholas for real property
< purposes according to the law as applied to his estate, is CP
< nevertheless correct in stating she was a coheir to her father,
James,
< Lord Audley, inasmuch as she and her two sisters had the same rights
< to the barony itself (afterall, CP's real concern, as opposed to the
< descent of land)?
Sir Nicholas de Audley's heirs at his death were his full sister, Lady
Margaret Hillary, and his full sister, Joan's grandson, John Tuchet.
Fulk Fitz Warin, being the son of Sir Nicholas' half-sister, Blanche,
would have had no claim to heirship. Fulk only had claim to certain
estates by right of prior settlements, not by right of inheritance.
This is because by medieval law, heirs of the half blood were excluded
from inheritance. Fulk was not in any sense of the word "heir" or "co-
heir" to Sir Nicholas de Audley. Fulk was, however, "kinsman and
nearest heir" by property settlements to Sir Nicholas' father, Sir
James de Audley and his second wife, Isabel. Perhaps this is what is
confusing you. If so, I certainly understand your confusion.
The short end of it is that Complete Peerage is wrong to state that
Blanche de Audley was "co-heiress in her issue" to her father. She
wasn't. It also got her given name wrong to boot. That's a real
oopsie!
Sir Nicholas de Audley's two heirs, Margaret Hillary and John Tuchet,
split the Audley barony between them. The bulk of their Martin
inheritance escheated to the king and eventually passed to Sir John
Holand, Duke of Exeter. Fulk Fitz Warin obtained a few manors by
right of settlement. Margaret Hillary conveyed part of her share of
the Audley barony to Hugh de Holes (or Hulse), and it descended in
time to his descendant, Sir William Troutbeck (died 1459), of Dunham-
on-the-Hill, Cheshire, King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer. What
remained in Margaret Hillary's hands of the Audley barony fell at her
death in 1411 to her great-grand-nephew, Sir James Tuchet, 5th Lord
Audley.
< 1375/1388 vs 1392 primary records about her Christian name are
< difficult to resolve absolutely!
Fulk Fitz Warin's pleading in 1388 makes it plain that his mother's
name was Blanche de Audley. He specifically stated that he was the
rightful owner of the manor of Kingston, Devon, as the "son of Blanch,
the daughter of James and Isabella" de Audley. Fulk was surely in a
position to know his own mother's given name! Moreover, as I have
already pointed out, Fulk's statement in the pleading agrees with
information recorded earlier in a Feet of Fine dated 1374-1375, which
was information was`supplied by Blanche's own brother and father.
Blanche's brother and father likewise would surely have known her
correct given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Blanche de Audley, wife of
On Apr 16, 3:07 pm, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
Thanks Douglas - I understand all that - for what it is worth, I agree
it seems likely that her name was Blanche, rather than Margaret. In
my view (for what it is worth), the 1392 IPM does leave some room for
doubt though. Nevertheless, CP should certainly be amended to detail
this.
As regards the position of Blanche/Margaret as her father's coheir for
peerage purposes (i.e. the barony as a peerage title, rather than the
barony as land), I understood that the rule preferring full sisters to
half-siblings (of either gender) where the inheritance arose from the
common parent applied only to land, and not to peerages: see this post
from WAR on 30 April 2002 for instance:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ec4f22d595
Are you saying this is not the case? If so, I would be interested to
know of your examples illustrating this.
Best wishes, Michael
wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Apr 16, 6:48 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Apologies for coming in late on this post - I have been trying to
make
sense of the mass of material. While Blanche(?Margaret) was not
considered a coheir of her half-brother Nicholas for real property
purposes according to the law as applied to his estate, is CP
nevertheless correct in stating she was a coheir to her father,
James,
Lord Audley, inasmuch as she and her two sisters had the same rights
to the barony itself (afterall, CP's real concern, as opposed to the
descent of land)?
Sir Nicholas de Audley's heirs at his death were his full sister, Lady
Margaret Hillary, and his full sister, Joan's grandson, John Tuchet.
Fulk Fitz Warin, being the son of Sir Nicholas' half-sister, Blanche,
would have had no claim to heirship. Fulk only had claim to certain
estates by right of prior settlements, not by right of inheritance.
This is because by medieval law, heirs of the half blood were excluded
from inheritance. Fulk was not in any sense of the word "heir" or "co-
heir" to Sir Nicholas de Audley. Fulk was, however, "kinsman and
nearest heir" by property settlements to Sir Nicholas' father, Sir
James de Audley and his second wife, Isabel. Perhaps this is what is
confusing you. If so, I certainly understand your confusion.
The short end of it is that Complete Peerage is wrong to state that
Blanche de Audley was "co-heiress in her issue" to her father. She
wasn't. It also got her given name wrong to boot. That's a real
oopsie!
Sir Nicholas de Audley's two heirs, Margaret Hillary and John Tuchet,
split the Audley barony between them. The bulk of their Martin
inheritance escheated to the king and eventually passed to Sir John
Holand, Duke of Exeter. Fulk Fitz Warin obtained a few manors by
right of settlement. Margaret Hillary conveyed part of her share of
the Audley barony to Hugh de Holes (or Hulse), and it descended in
time to his descendant, Sir William Troutbeck (died 1459), of Dunham-
on-the-Hill, Cheshire, King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer. What
remained in Margaret Hillary's hands of the Audley barony fell at her
death in 1411 to her great-grand-nephew, Sir James Tuchet, 5th Lord
Audley.
1375/1388 vs 1392 primary records about her Christian name are
difficult to resolve absolutely!
Fulk Fitz Warin's pleading in 1388 makes it plain that his mother's
name was Blanche de Audley. He specifically stated that he was the
rightful owner of the manor of Kingston, Devon, as the "son of Blanch,
the daughter of James and Isabella" de Audley. Fulk was surely in a
position to know his own mother's given name! Moreover, as I have
already pointed out, Fulk's statement in the pleading agrees with
information recorded earlier in a Feet of Fine dated 1374-1375, which
was information was`supplied by Blanche's own brother and father.
Blanche's brother and father likewise would surely have known her
correct given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thanks Douglas - I understand all that - for what it is worth, I agree
it seems likely that her name was Blanche, rather than Margaret. In
my view (for what it is worth), the 1392 IPM does leave some room for
doubt though. Nevertheless, CP should certainly be amended to detail
this.
As regards the position of Blanche/Margaret as her father's coheir for
peerage purposes (i.e. the barony as a peerage title, rather than the
barony as land), I understood that the rule preferring full sisters to
half-siblings (of either gender) where the inheritance arose from the
common parent applied only to land, and not to peerages: see this post
from WAR on 30 April 2002 for instance:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ec4f22d595
Are you saying this is not the case? If so, I would be interested to
know of your examples illustrating this.
Best wishes, Michael