Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir James
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir James
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
of Eve's family found in the records of Sibton Abbey as stated below:
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
Abbaciæ de Sybeton:
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
The marriage of Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is similarly
attested in the another pedigree of Eve's family found in the records
of Horsham Priory [Reference: Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51-
52].
Complete Peerage gives the following explanation for Eve's alleged
failure to marry Sir James de Audley:
".... possibly owing to some difficulty in obtaining a dispensation,
or to avoid the fine which she would have had to pay on marriage" END
OF QUOTE.
This statement is possibly derived from the belief that Eve de
Clavering's first marriage to Thomas de Audley was consumated, which
marriage presented a bar to Eve later marrying Thomas de Audley's
first cousin, Sir James de Audley. Although I haven't studied the
matter of Eve's first marriage to Thomas de Audley in depth, the
marriage of Eve and Thomas was certainly childless and was presumably
contracted when Eve was a very young child. Thomas de Audley died
shortly before 21 November 1307. Eve is stated to have been aged 40
and more at her mother's death in 1345, which would place her birth at
sometime in the period, 1295-1305. If correct, Eve would have been at
best 12 years old when her first husband died, and possibly even
younger. If the marriage was unconsumated (as I suspect was the
case), Eve's marriage to Thomas de Audley would obviously not have
barred her from later marrying Thomas' first cousin, Sir James de
Audley. Whether consumated or not, Eve de Clavering was certainly
awarded dower by virtue of her first marriage to Thomas de Audley
[see, for example, Collectanea Top. & Gen. 7 (1841): 51-52].
Eve de Clavering's first marriage withstanding, it appears that she
and Sir James de Audley actually were man and wife. This is indicated
by more than one contemporary record which I have seen. In one record
provided below dated 1335, Eve de Clavering is specifically called the
widow of Sir James de Audley in a record generated by her own
steward, Richard de Venables. Eve is likewise called the widow of
James de Audley in another contemporary record found in the Calendar
of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58, which item records the issuance of a writ
for an inquisition following Eve's own death in 1369.
Record #1:
Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Shropshire Archives: Phillipps Collection, Reference: 52/32
Date: Friday of Michaelmas, 9 Edward III (29 September 1335)
Language: French
Scope and Content
Richard de Venables steward of Eva who was the wife of James de
Audeley has received from Richard prior of St Thomas a coffyn to keep
on behalf of his said lady, sealed with his seal. Witnesses:- Adam
de Swyneshed, William Jorden of Hildriston and Richard de Mere ----
priory of St Thomas near Stafford. END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale) and Complete
Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) both allege that Eve de
Clavering was survived by her fourth husband, Sir Robert de Benhale,
Lord Benhale, who reportedly died "in or about, and not later than,
1404." Both Complete Peerage accounts are dead wrong in that respect
(pun intended).
Contemporary records clearly indicate that Sir Robert de Benhale
actually predeceased his wife, Eve, by some four years, he dying
shortly before 28 February 1365, as indicated by the following two
records drawn from the published Patent Rolls:
Record #2:
"And, on 28 February [1365], because Robert de Benhale, late a justice
of the peace in the county of Norfolk, is dead, John Harsyk is
appointed in his place." [Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls,
1364-1367 (1912): 141]. END OF QUOTE.
Record #3:
Date: 18 Feb. 1369. "Pardon to William de Upgate of the king's suit
for the death of Walter Halleman, whereof he is indicted or appealed,
and of any consequent outlawry; at the request of Eve Daudele late the
wife of Robert de Benhale, and because the king is informed that he
killed him in self-defense." [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1367-1370 (1913): 223]. END OF QUOTE.
We see above that Eve de Clavering is called Eve de Audley in 1369,
which appears to have been the name she used after the death of Sir
James de Audley in 1332.
Interestingly, there are two surviving heraldic seals used by Eve de
Clavering, one attached to a document dated 1334, and the other
attached to a document dated 1346. In both instances, Eve de
Clavering's seal bears a shield of arms bearing Ufford impaling by
dimidiation Audley. The arms of Ufford would presumably represent
Eve's 2nd marriage to Sir Thomas de Ufford, the arms of Audley would
presumably represent Eve's 3rd marriage to Sir James de Audley. Eve
had children by both her 2nd marriage to Ufford and by her 3rd
marriage to Audley.
Seal of Eve de Clavering dated 1334-A shield of arms: per pale, dex.,
a cross lezengy, dimidiated, over all a bend [UFFORD]; sin., fretty of
six pieces [AUDLEY]. Within a carved gothic panel of three points and
five semicircular cusps, ornamented with ball-flowers along the inner
edge. Outside this the carving and tracery, which is very elaborate,
contains three susped countersunk panels in triangle, in each of which
is a lozenge-shaped shield of arms: quarterly a bendlet [CLAVERING]).
[Reference: Birch, Cat. of Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 645].
Seal of Eve de Clavering dated 1346-A shield of arms: cross lozengy,
over all a bendlet [UFFORD] impaling by dimidiation fretty [AUDLEY],
on a shield set in a richly cusped circular panel, between three
lozenges with the arms of CLAVERING, quarterly a bendlet, in smaller
panels. [Reference: Hedley, Northumberland Fams. (1968): 160-183].
Lastly, I've seen references in print to a contemporary deed in which
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley are reportedly called husband
and wife. To date, I've been unable to find the deed itself. Should
I find the source of the deed in question, I'll be sure to post a
followup message at a future date.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
of Eve's family found in the records of Sibton Abbey as stated below:
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
Abbaciæ de Sybeton:
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
The marriage of Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is similarly
attested in the another pedigree of Eve's family found in the records
of Horsham Priory [Reference: Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51-
52].
Complete Peerage gives the following explanation for Eve's alleged
failure to marry Sir James de Audley:
".... possibly owing to some difficulty in obtaining a dispensation,
or to avoid the fine which she would have had to pay on marriage" END
OF QUOTE.
This statement is possibly derived from the belief that Eve de
Clavering's first marriage to Thomas de Audley was consumated, which
marriage presented a bar to Eve later marrying Thomas de Audley's
first cousin, Sir James de Audley. Although I haven't studied the
matter of Eve's first marriage to Thomas de Audley in depth, the
marriage of Eve and Thomas was certainly childless and was presumably
contracted when Eve was a very young child. Thomas de Audley died
shortly before 21 November 1307. Eve is stated to have been aged 40
and more at her mother's death in 1345, which would place her birth at
sometime in the period, 1295-1305. If correct, Eve would have been at
best 12 years old when her first husband died, and possibly even
younger. If the marriage was unconsumated (as I suspect was the
case), Eve's marriage to Thomas de Audley would obviously not have
barred her from later marrying Thomas' first cousin, Sir James de
Audley. Whether consumated or not, Eve de Clavering was certainly
awarded dower by virtue of her first marriage to Thomas de Audley
[see, for example, Collectanea Top. & Gen. 7 (1841): 51-52].
Eve de Clavering's first marriage withstanding, it appears that she
and Sir James de Audley actually were man and wife. This is indicated
by more than one contemporary record which I have seen. In one record
provided below dated 1335, Eve de Clavering is specifically called the
widow of Sir James de Audley in a record generated by her own
steward, Richard de Venables. Eve is likewise called the widow of
James de Audley in another contemporary record found in the Calendar
of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58, which item records the issuance of a writ
for an inquisition following Eve's own death in 1369.
Record #1:
Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Shropshire Archives: Phillipps Collection, Reference: 52/32
Date: Friday of Michaelmas, 9 Edward III (29 September 1335)
Language: French
Scope and Content
Richard de Venables steward of Eva who was the wife of James de
Audeley has received from Richard prior of St Thomas a coffyn to keep
on behalf of his said lady, sealed with his seal. Witnesses:- Adam
de Swyneshed, William Jorden of Hildriston and Richard de Mere ----
priory of St Thomas near Stafford. END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale) and Complete
Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) both allege that Eve de
Clavering was survived by her fourth husband, Sir Robert de Benhale,
Lord Benhale, who reportedly died "in or about, and not later than,
1404." Both Complete Peerage accounts are dead wrong in that respect
(pun intended).
Contemporary records clearly indicate that Sir Robert de Benhale
actually predeceased his wife, Eve, by some four years, he dying
shortly before 28 February 1365, as indicated by the following two
records drawn from the published Patent Rolls:
Record #2:
"And, on 28 February [1365], because Robert de Benhale, late a justice
of the peace in the county of Norfolk, is dead, John Harsyk is
appointed in his place." [Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls,
1364-1367 (1912): 141]. END OF QUOTE.
Record #3:
Date: 18 Feb. 1369. "Pardon to William de Upgate of the king's suit
for the death of Walter Halleman, whereof he is indicted or appealed,
and of any consequent outlawry; at the request of Eve Daudele late the
wife of Robert de Benhale, and because the king is informed that he
killed him in self-defense." [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1367-1370 (1913): 223]. END OF QUOTE.
We see above that Eve de Clavering is called Eve de Audley in 1369,
which appears to have been the name she used after the death of Sir
James de Audley in 1332.
Interestingly, there are two surviving heraldic seals used by Eve de
Clavering, one attached to a document dated 1334, and the other
attached to a document dated 1346. In both instances, Eve de
Clavering's seal bears a shield of arms bearing Ufford impaling by
dimidiation Audley. The arms of Ufford would presumably represent
Eve's 2nd marriage to Sir Thomas de Ufford, the arms of Audley would
presumably represent Eve's 3rd marriage to Sir James de Audley. Eve
had children by both her 2nd marriage to Ufford and by her 3rd
marriage to Audley.
Seal of Eve de Clavering dated 1334-A shield of arms: per pale, dex.,
a cross lezengy, dimidiated, over all a bend [UFFORD]; sin., fretty of
six pieces [AUDLEY]. Within a carved gothic panel of three points and
five semicircular cusps, ornamented with ball-flowers along the inner
edge. Outside this the carving and tracery, which is very elaborate,
contains three susped countersunk panels in triangle, in each of which
is a lozenge-shaped shield of arms: quarterly a bendlet [CLAVERING]).
[Reference: Birch, Cat. of Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 645].
Seal of Eve de Clavering dated 1346-A shield of arms: cross lozengy,
over all a bendlet [UFFORD] impaling by dimidiation fretty [AUDLEY],
on a shield set in a richly cusped circular panel, between three
lozenges with the arms of CLAVERING, quarterly a bendlet, in smaller
panels. [Reference: Hedley, Northumberland Fams. (1968): 160-183].
Lastly, I've seen references in print to a contemporary deed in which
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley are reportedly called husband
and wife. To date, I've been unable to find the deed itself. Should
I find the source of the deed in question, I'll be sure to post a
followup message at a future date.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On 16 Apr., 03:25, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
How trustworthy is this record, given that, according to your details,
it gets the name of her second husband wrong (Ralph instead of Thomas
Ufford), and names her daughters by her third as "Avice and
Hawise" (rather than Katherine, Anne and Hawise)? Dugdale used the
same document in his Peerage (London, 1675, vol 1, p 109) to conclude
that Eve's husband by whom she had issue was Thomas Audley (NB the
document does not give a Christian name to the Audley husband).
Perhaps - assuming that the author of the CP entries was aware of this
document - it was not 'surpressed' by CP, but merely considered
unreliable?
Kind regards, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
of Eve's family found in the records of Sibton Abbey as stated below:
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
Abbaciæ de Sybeton:
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
Dear Douglas
How trustworthy is this record, given that, according to your details,
it gets the name of her second husband wrong (Ralph instead of Thomas
Ufford), and names her daughters by her third as "Avice and
Hawise" (rather than Katherine, Anne and Hawise)? Dugdale used the
same document in his Peerage (London, 1675, vol 1, p 109) to conclude
that Eve's husband by whom she had issue was Thomas Audley (NB the
document does not give a Christian name to the Audley husband).
Perhaps - assuming that the author of the CP entries was aware of this
document - it was not 'surpressed' by CP, but merely considered
unreliable?
Kind regards, Michael
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1176705006.852535.105770@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The unreliability of this document is flagged by an editorial note in
_Monasticon_, pointing out that it starts with a gross error about the
family of a founder - which, as the title quoted in Richardson's post shows,
is precisely the subject matter offered by the writer: William de Chednay's
daughter Sara is said to have died without issue, whereas in fact she was
married to Richard Engaine and had descendants, through their son Vitalis,
flourishing until the mid-17th century. This text appears to be a late
concoction, of no authority.
Peter Stewart
news:1176705006.852535.105770@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Apr., 03:25, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
of Eve's family found in the records of Sibton Abbey as stated below:
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
Abbaciæ de Sybeton:
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
Dear Douglas
How trustworthy is this record, given that, according to your details,
it gets the name of her second husband wrong (Ralph instead of Thomas
Ufford), and names her daughters by her third as "Avice and
Hawise" (rather than Katherine, Anne and Hawise)? Dugdale used the
same document in his Peerage (London, 1675, vol 1, p 109) to conclude
that Eve's husband by whom she had issue was Thomas Audley (NB the
document does not give a Christian name to the Audley husband).
Perhaps - assuming that the author of the CP entries was aware of this
document - it was not 'surpressed' by CP, but merely considered
unreliable?
The unreliability of this document is flagged by an editorial note in
_Monasticon_, pointing out that it starts with a gross error about the
family of a founder - which, as the title quoted in Richardson's post shows,
is precisely the subject matter offered by the writer: William de Chednay's
daughter Sara is said to have died without issue, whereas in fact she was
married to Richard Engaine and had descendants, through their son Vitalis,
flourishing until the mid-17th century. This text appears to be a late
concoction, of no authority.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 16, 7:30 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
VCH Oxfordshire, Vol 6, p324 et seq provides details of the descent of
the manor of Stratton Audley. It notes (p 326):
"Stratton Audley was restored to James, son of Hugh Audley, in 1327.
In 1330 James with Eva, described as his wife, made a settlement of
the manor by fine [CP 25(1)/189/17/41]. Eva was the mistress of James
Audley, having been already twice married, firstly to Thomas Audley,
James' first cousin, and secondly to Sir Thomas de Ufford [citing
Complete Peerage]. The settlement... of 1330 mentions James and Peter
their sons and Katherine, Anne and Hawise their daughters [i.e. here
we have contemporary evidence of James & Eve's children]. James
Audley died without legitimate issue in 1334 [again citing Complete
Peerage] and Stratton did not descend to either of his sons but passed
to his younger brother and legal heir, Hugh Audley [afterwards Earl of
Gloucester], who certainly held the manor in 1335 [Cal. Patent Rolls,
1334-8, 214 - the actual date of the entry is 16 November 1335] when
various persons were accused of breaking into his house (sic;
"houses", CPR) at Stratton Audley... [The manor] was the security for
a debt of one thousand marks which Hugh owed a London vintner [in
1339] [Cal. Close Rolls, 1339-41, 241]."
The text and import of the 1330 settlement would certainly be
interesting, but the descent of Stratton Audley to James' brother
rather than his son(s) is surely indicative of their having been
illegitimate?
MA-R
On 16 Apr., 03:25, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
of Eve's family found in the records of Sibton Abbey as stated below:
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
Abbaciæ de Sybeton:
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
Dear Douglas
How trustworthy is this record, given that, according to your details,
it gets the name of her second husband wrong (Ralph instead of Thomas
Ufford), and names her daughters by her third as "Avice and
Hawise" (rather than Katherine, Anne and Hawise)? Dugdale used the
same document in his Peerage (London, 1675, vol 1, p 109) to conclude
that Eve's husband by whom she had issue was Thomas Audley (NB the
document does not give a Christian name to the Audley husband).
Perhaps - assuming that the author of the CP entries was aware of this
document - it was not 'surpressed' by CP, but merely considered
unreliable?
VCH Oxfordshire, Vol 6, p324 et seq provides details of the descent of
the manor of Stratton Audley. It notes (p 326):
"Stratton Audley was restored to James, son of Hugh Audley, in 1327.
In 1330 James with Eva, described as his wife, made a settlement of
the manor by fine [CP 25(1)/189/17/41]. Eva was the mistress of James
Audley, having been already twice married, firstly to Thomas Audley,
James' first cousin, and secondly to Sir Thomas de Ufford [citing
Complete Peerage]. The settlement... of 1330 mentions James and Peter
their sons and Katherine, Anne and Hawise their daughters [i.e. here
we have contemporary evidence of James & Eve's children]. James
Audley died without legitimate issue in 1334 [again citing Complete
Peerage] and Stratton did not descend to either of his sons but passed
to his younger brother and legal heir, Hugh Audley [afterwards Earl of
Gloucester], who certainly held the manor in 1335 [Cal. Patent Rolls,
1334-8, 214 - the actual date of the entry is 16 November 1335] when
various persons were accused of breaking into his house (sic;
"houses", CPR) at Stratton Audley... [The manor] was the security for
a debt of one thousand marks which Hugh owed a London vintner [in
1339] [Cal. Close Rolls, 1339-41, 241]."
The text and import of the 1330 settlement would certainly be
interesting, but the descent of Stratton Audley to James' brother
rather than his son(s) is surely indicative of their having been
illegitimate?
MA-R
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Michael ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
To my knowledge, there has never been any factual evidence, then or
now, which directly states that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering
were not married. As best I can tell, it was only a modern author's
"opinion" that this couple were never married. In any event, I don't
believe that medieval documents pertinent to the facts should be
suppressed simply because parts of them are deemed to be unreliable;
all the more so if the document gives a contrary picture of the events
than what is commonly thought to have happened.
In this instance, Complete Peerage suppressed the fact that Eve de
Clavering was stated in two ancient family pedigrees to have married
Sir James de Audley, by whom she had known issue. I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly that Eve and James had never married. This is all the more
surprising when one considers that the earlier printed literature
contained a reference to a contemporary deed in which James and Eve
are specifically called husband and wife. The deed was dismissed out
of hand, as were both family pedigrees. Now additional evidence has
surfaced which indicates that James and Eve were married after all.
In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has been found to be
untrustworthy and unreliable, not the contemporary evidence. This
highlights once again the need to rely on original records whenever
possible, not on secondary sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
To my knowledge, there has never been any factual evidence, then or
now, which directly states that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering
were not married. As best I can tell, it was only a modern author's
"opinion" that this couple were never married. In any event, I don't
believe that medieval documents pertinent to the facts should be
suppressed simply because parts of them are deemed to be unreliable;
all the more so if the document gives a contrary picture of the events
than what is commonly thought to have happened.
In this instance, Complete Peerage suppressed the fact that Eve de
Clavering was stated in two ancient family pedigrees to have married
Sir James de Audley, by whom she had known issue. I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly that Eve and James had never married. This is all the more
surprising when one considers that the earlier printed literature
contained a reference to a contemporary deed in which James and Eve
are specifically called husband and wife. The deed was dismissed out
of hand, as were both family pedigrees. Now additional evidence has
surfaced which indicates that James and Eve were married after all.
In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has been found to be
untrustworthy and unreliable, not the contemporary evidence. This
highlights once again the need to rely on original records whenever
possible, not on secondary sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176728879.166781.260460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Hello - "As best I can tell...", "To my knowledge...", "I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly..." but then "In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has
been found to be untrustworthy and unreliable".
Do you think it might be better to consider the meaning of words before you
use them? If CP's conclusion could be right then it might be trustworthy on
this point, no?
Peter Stewart
news:1176728879.166781.260460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Michael ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
To my knowledge, there has never been any factual evidence, then or
now, which directly states that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering
were not married. As best I can tell, it was only a modern author's
"opinion" that this couple were never married. In any event, I don't
believe that medieval documents pertinent to the facts should be
suppressed simply because parts of them are deemed to be unreliable;
all the more so if the document gives a contrary picture of the events
than what is commonly thought to have happened.
In this instance, Complete Peerage suppressed the fact that Eve de
Clavering was stated in two ancient family pedigrees to have married
Sir James de Audley, by whom she had known issue. I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly that Eve and James had never married. This is all the more
surprising when one considers that the earlier printed literature
contained a reference to a contemporary deed in which James and Eve
are specifically called husband and wife. The deed was dismissed out
of hand, as were both family pedigrees. Now additional evidence has
surfaced which indicates that James and Eve were married after all.
In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has been found to be
untrustworthy and unreliable, not the contemporary evidence. This
highlights once again the need to rely on original records whenever
possible, not on secondary sources.
Hello - "As best I can tell...", "To my knowledge...", "I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly..." but then "In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has
been found to be untrustworthy and unreliable".
Do you think it might be better to consider the meaning of words before you
use them? If CP's conclusion could be right then it might be trustworthy on
this point, no?
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 16, 2:07 pm, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
Thanks Douglas - but isn't it rather a problematic argument? If we
are not to reject the Monasticon document, should we also conclude
that Eve married Ralph de Ufford, and that she had two daughters by
her Audley husband, both with the same name? If that document is
manifestly inaccurate in several respects, how can we still pick and
chose those bits which we wish to treat as reliable? I think many of
us here could cite instances where a marriage was asserted after the
fact, to avoid the embarrassment of illegitimacy.
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)? And is
Collectanea the "earlier printed literature" referring to the 1330
deed? It is not VCH Oxon, as that post-dates CP (indeed, it refers to
CP in its footnotes); I thought the Collectanea entry had been taken
into account by CP, according to a post here by Cris Nash some time
ago on the subject. By the way, what is the date of the Monasticon
item, do you know? Is it "contemporary"?
Additionally, Collectanea Top. & Gen. is not itself a primary source -
do we have details of the Horsham document? When was it produced, and
what is its text?
Leaving aside the Horsham document whose contents I am unaware of, are
not the two reliable "facts" in this case prima facie contradictory -
viz, the 1330 deed allegedly says Eve was James' wife, while the
Stratton Audley property descent in 1334-5 is a strong counter-
argument? On the basis of this evidence, it seems to me difficult (if
not impossible) for a definitive position to be taken.
Best wishes, Michael
wrote:
Dear Michael ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
To my knowledge, there has never been any factual evidence, then or
now, which directly states that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering
were not married. As best I can tell, it was only a modern author's
"opinion" that this couple were never married. In any event, I don't
believe that medieval documents pertinent to the facts should be
suppressed simply because parts of them are deemed to be unreliable;
all the more so if the document gives a contrary picture of the events
than what is commonly thought to have happened.
In this instance, Complete Peerage suppressed the fact that Eve de
Clavering was stated in two ancient family pedigrees to have married
Sir James de Audley, by whom she had known issue. I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly that Eve and James had never married. This is all the more
surprising when one considers that the earlier printed literature
contained a reference to a contemporary deed in which James and Eve
are specifically called husband and wife. The deed was dismissed out
of hand, as were both family pedigrees. Now additional evidence has
surfaced which indicates that James and Eve were married after all.
In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has been found to be
untrustworthy and unreliable, not the contemporary evidence. This
highlights once again the need to rely on original records whenever
possible, not on secondary sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thanks Douglas - but isn't it rather a problematic argument? If we
are not to reject the Monasticon document, should we also conclude
that Eve married Ralph de Ufford, and that she had two daughters by
her Audley husband, both with the same name? If that document is
manifestly inaccurate in several respects, how can we still pick and
chose those bits which we wish to treat as reliable? I think many of
us here could cite instances where a marriage was asserted after the
fact, to avoid the embarrassment of illegitimacy.
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)? And is
Collectanea the "earlier printed literature" referring to the 1330
deed? It is not VCH Oxon, as that post-dates CP (indeed, it refers to
CP in its footnotes); I thought the Collectanea entry had been taken
into account by CP, according to a post here by Cris Nash some time
ago on the subject. By the way, what is the date of the Monasticon
item, do you know? Is it "contemporary"?
Additionally, Collectanea Top. & Gen. is not itself a primary source -
do we have details of the Horsham document? When was it produced, and
what is its text?
Leaving aside the Horsham document whose contents I am unaware of, are
not the two reliable "facts" in this case prima facie contradictory -
viz, the 1330 deed allegedly says Eve was James' wife, while the
Stratton Audley property descent in 1334-5 is a strong counter-
argument? On the basis of this evidence, it seems to me difficult (if
not impossible) for a definitive position to be taken.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
<cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted>
In message of 16 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
<snip>
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
In message of 16 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
<snip>
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 16, 3:20 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
Many thanks, Tim - it is:
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
Cheers, Michael
cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted
In message of 16 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Many thanks, Tim - it is:
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
Cheers, Michael
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Michael ~
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
can be access at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... +Clavering
The author in Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica specifically
states that the Horsham Priory pedigree assigns Eve de Clavering four
husbands, including James de Audley. This information was known to
the author of Complete Peerage, as it is cited as a source in C.P., 3
(1913): 276, footnote a. That is why I say that Complete Peerage
suppressed this evidence.
I believe the Horsham Priory pedigree is similar if not the same as
the Sibton Abbey pedigree which I quoted in my post. The Sibton Abbey
pedgree was early published in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum,
5 (London, 1825): 559-560, which source can be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
Complete Peerage should have been aware of this pedigree as well.
There is also another early article which discusses Eve de Clavering
and her marriages which appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2
(1853): 271-277; 8 (1843): 159. I believe this article mentions the
deed in which Eve de Clavering and James de Audley are called husband
and wife. However, the evidence of the deed was discounted by the
author.
Finally, I note that Complete Peerage once again makes the claim that
Eve de Clavering "lived with, but did not marry" Sir James Audley in
C.P., 1 (1910): 339 (sub Audley). Elsewhere, Eve is likewise termed
the "mistress" of Sir James Audley in Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 348,
footnote a. No evidence is cited in either account to support these
statements.
Inexplicably, I find no evidence then or now that directly indicates
that Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were not married. Thus, I'm
puzzled that the earlier known evidence of the deed and the pedigrees
should have been dismissed out of hand by the authors of Topographer
and Genealogist and Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
can be access at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... +Clavering
The author in Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica specifically
states that the Horsham Priory pedigree assigns Eve de Clavering four
husbands, including James de Audley. This information was known to
the author of Complete Peerage, as it is cited as a source in C.P., 3
(1913): 276, footnote a. That is why I say that Complete Peerage
suppressed this evidence.
I believe the Horsham Priory pedigree is similar if not the same as
the Sibton Abbey pedigree which I quoted in my post. The Sibton Abbey
pedgree was early published in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum,
5 (London, 1825): 559-560, which source can be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
Complete Peerage should have been aware of this pedigree as well.
There is also another early article which discusses Eve de Clavering
and her marriages which appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2
(1853): 271-277; 8 (1843): 159. I believe this article mentions the
deed in which Eve de Clavering and James de Audley are called husband
and wife. However, the evidence of the deed was discounted by the
author.
Finally, I note that Complete Peerage once again makes the claim that
Eve de Clavering "lived with, but did not marry" Sir James Audley in
C.P., 1 (1910): 339 (sub Audley). Elsewhere, Eve is likewise termed
the "mistress" of Sir James Audley in Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 348,
footnote a. No evidence is cited in either account to support these
statements.
Inexplicably, I find no evidence then or now that directly indicates
that Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were not married. Thus, I'm
puzzled that the earlier known evidence of the deed and the pedigrees
should have been dismissed out of hand by the authors of Topographer
and Genealogist and Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 16, 4:00 pm, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
wrote:
Dear Michael ~
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
can be access at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... jpJkj8C&...
The author in Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica specifically
states that the Horsham Priory pedigree assigns Eve de Clavering four
husbands, including James de Audley. This information was known to
the author of Complete Peerage, as it is cited as a source in C.P., 3
(1913): 276, footnote a. That is why I say that Complete Peerage
suppressed this evidence.
I believe the Horsham Priory pedigree is similar if not the same as
the Sibton Abbey pedigree which I quoted in my post. The Sibton Abbey
pedgree was early published in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum,
5 (London, 1825): 559-560, which source can be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... n=detail...
Complete Peerage should have been aware of this pedigree as well.
There is also another early article which discusses Eve de Clavering
and her marriages which appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2
(1853): 271-277; 8 (1843): 159. I believe this article mentions the
deed in which Eve de Clavering and James de Audley are called husband
and wife. However, the evidence of the deed was discounted by the
author.
Finally, I note that Complete Peerage once again makes the claim that
Eve de Clavering "lived with, but did not marry" Sir James Audley in
C.P., 1 (1910): 339 (sub Audley). Elsewhere, Eve is likewise termed
the "mistress" of Sir James Audley in Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 348,
footnote a. No evidence is cited in either account to support these
statements.
Inexplicably, I find no evidence then or now that directly indicates
that Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were not married. Thus, I'm
puzzled that the earlier known evidence of the deed and the pedigrees
should have been dismissed out of hand by the authors of Topographer
and Genealogist and Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
In message of 16 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
It is at:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscripts/Clavering.pdf
I've included the two previous pages as they looked relevant.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
On Apr 16, 3:20 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted
In message of 16 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
Many thanks, Tim - it is:
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
It is at:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscripts/Clavering.pdf
I've included the two previous pages as they looked relevant.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 16, 4:00 pm, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
It appears the Horsham item is also defective, since it assigns Eve as
a wife of "Ralph" de Ufford; the author of the Collectanea piece
himself rejects it sufficiently so as to conclude that she was not
married to Ralph de Ufford, and also that she was not wife to James
Audley.
It would, of course, be interesting to see the article of 1853, which
you say you believe also concludes Eve and James were not married.
I have to add that the 1335 Phillips Collection document, which I have
not addressed, adds strength to your argument. Do you have the text
of the IPM writ from 1369 to hand?
Best wishes, Michael
wrote:
Dear Michael ~
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
can be access at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... jpJkj8C&...
It appears the Horsham item is also defective, since it assigns Eve as
a wife of "Ralph" de Ufford; the author of the Collectanea piece
himself rejects it sufficiently so as to conclude that she was not
married to Ralph de Ufford, and also that she was not wife to James
Audley.
It would, of course, be interesting to see the article of 1853, which
you say you believe also concludes Eve and James were not married.
I have to add that the 1335 Phillips Collection document, which I have
not addressed, adds strength to your argument. Do you have the text
of the IPM writ from 1369 to hand?
Best wishes, Michael
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
In message of 16 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I have added the CT&G 8, 159 article there as:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... ring_2.pdf
Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853), 271-277 is, of course, a
different series.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
On Apr 16, 3:20 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted
In message of 16 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Many thanks, Tim - it is:
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
I have added the CT&G 8, 159 article there as:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... ring_2.pdf
Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853), 271-277 is, of course, a
different series.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 16, 4:18 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
Many thanks, Tim - the second link gives us the text of the IPM, which
mentions James Audley the heir of her first husband, but not the James
Audley by whom she had issue. Perhaps the writ as referred to in the
Fine Rolls adds something.
MA-R
In message of 16 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:20 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted
In message of 16 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Many thanks, Tim - it is:
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
I have added the CT&G 8, 159 article there as:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... ring_2.pdf
Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853), 271-277 is, of course, a
different series.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Many thanks, Tim - the second link gives us the text of the IPM, which
mentions James Audley the heir of her first husband, but not the James
Audley by whom she had issue. Perhaps the writ as referred to in the
Fine Rolls adds something.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On 16 Apr., 16:06, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
I have been contacted off-list with advice that the property of James
Audley's mother passed on her death to James, the son of James (who
died vita matris), indicating that he was her heir and was thus
legitimate. As this is at odds with the descent of Stratton Audley
itself, we must conclude that one or other transfers operated by means
of a special remainder, or represented a family settlement or even an
intra-family sale, and is not truly indicative of heirship. The
problem is: we don't know which property this was the case for, or
both, or...
MA-R
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
I have been contacted off-list with advice that the property of James
Audley's mother passed on her death to James, the son of James (who
died vita matris), indicating that he was her heir and was thus
legitimate. As this is at odds with the descent of Stratton Audley
itself, we must conclude that one or other transfers operated by means
of a special remainder, or represented a family settlement or even an
intra-family sale, and is not truly indicative of heirship. The
problem is: we don't know which property this was the case for, or
both, or...
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1176736708.779757.139930@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The Horsham priory version of the genealogy is also defective because it is
simply as rehash (or prehash) of the one for Sibton abbey. These are not
separate evidence, and we don't know how "ancient" the writing was except to
say that the errors suggest it was probably late and maybe post-medieval -
although the Horsham version gives "Anna and Hawise" as the names of James
Audley's daughters by Eve, the Sibton version calls them "Avice and Hawise",
the writer who made this error having been apparently unaware that these
were two forms of the same name, suggesting he was perhaps not contemporary
with its frequent occurrence in the 14th century.
The pedigrees both start identically, "Domina Sibilla soror Johannis de
Cayneto, filia Radulfi de Cayneto, qui venit ad conquestum Angliae....",
that ought to have provided enough of a hint to Richardson that he is not
dealing with two independent sources but rather with two versions of one &
the same source, and a highly unreliable one at that.
A link and citation for the Sibton version has been given already, the
Horsham version is in volume 3 of the online _Monasticon_ on pp. 636-637.
Peter Stewart
news:1176736708.779757.139930@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 4:00 pm, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com
wrote:
Dear Michael ~
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
can be access at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... jpJkj8C&...
It appears the Horsham item is also defective, since it assigns Eve as
a wife of "Ralph" de Ufford; the author of the Collectanea piece
himself rejects it sufficiently so as to conclude that she was not
married to Ralph de Ufford, and also that she was not wife to James
Audley.
The Horsham priory version of the genealogy is also defective because it is
simply as rehash (or prehash) of the one for Sibton abbey. These are not
separate evidence, and we don't know how "ancient" the writing was except to
say that the errors suggest it was probably late and maybe post-medieval -
although the Horsham version gives "Anna and Hawise" as the names of James
Audley's daughters by Eve, the Sibton version calls them "Avice and Hawise",
the writer who made this error having been apparently unaware that these
were two forms of the same name, suggesting he was perhaps not contemporary
with its frequent occurrence in the 14th century.
The pedigrees both start identically, "Domina Sibilla soror Johannis de
Cayneto, filia Radulfi de Cayneto, qui venit ad conquestum Angliae....",
that ought to have provided enough of a hint to Richardson that he is not
dealing with two independent sources but rather with two versions of one &
the same source, and a highly unreliable one at that.
A link and citation for the Sibton version has been given already, the
Horsham version is in volume 3 of the online _Monasticon_ on pp. 636-637.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1176761525.685983.149200@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Or the grandmother made arrangements for her property that allowed this to
pass to a gransdon by her son's common-law wife, who with his siblings was
cut off from any legitimate Audley inheritance....
In this question, why assume first that some such arrangement to redirect a
normal inheritance was made on one side rather than the other?
Peter Stewart
news:1176761525.685983.149200@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Apr., 16:06, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
I have been contacted off-list with advice that the property of James
Audley's mother passed on her death to James, the son of James (who
died vita matris), indicating that he was her heir and was thus
legitimate. As this is at odds with the descent of Stratton Audley
itself, we must conclude that one or other transfers operated by means
of a special remainder, or represented a family settlement or even an
intra-family sale, and is not truly indicative of heirship. The
problem is: we don't know which property this was the case for, or
both, or...
Or the grandmother made arrangements for her property that allowed this to
pass to a gransdon by her son's common-law wife, who with his siblings was
cut off from any legitimate Audley inheritance....
In this question, why assume first that some such arrangement to redirect a
normal inheritance was made on one side rather than the other?
Peter Stewart
-
wjhonson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
MA-R it would be helpful if you posted tbe exact quotation since this
is a sticky area and the idea that Eve de Clavering might be the
mother to an heir of Thomas de Audley is controversial and conflicts
with other sources. I speak in particular of the IPM of her mother to
which DR alluded which calls Eve "40 and more" at that time in 1345.
Thanks
Will Johnson
is a sticky area and the idea that Eve de Clavering might be the
mother to an heir of Thomas de Audley is controversial and conflicts
with other sources. I speak in particular of the IPM of her mother to
which DR alluded which calls Eve "40 and more" at that time in 1345.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Michael ~
The passage of lands in the medieval time period in England can be a
bit confusing, especially if one's ancestor was attainted or if
properties were held by trustees or if they were held in dower for a
long period by a surviving widow.
In the case of the Audley family, Sir Hugh de Audley, Lord Audley
(father of Sir James de Audley who married Eve de Clavering) joined
Thomas of Lancaster's rebellion in 1322, but surrendered before the
Battle of Boroughbridge. He died while a prisoner in Wallingford
castle shortly before 1 April 1325. Complete Peerage states there is
no trace found of any pardon; thus all of his estates were forfeited
by attainder at his death. I find that his widow, Iseult, petitioned
for the restitution of the estates which belonged to her in her first
widowhood in 1325; she incurred a penalty of £10 for taking possession
of the manor of Upper Arley, Staffordshire without obtaining a royal
licence for such resumption. She subsequently had restoration of the
manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire in 1326.
Iseult's son and heir, Sir James de Audley (husband of Eve de
Clavering) died in her lifetime in 1334. On Iseult's death in 1338,
the manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire passed to her grandson, James
de Audley, son and heir of her deceased son, James. The grandson was
in possession of Eastington in 1357 and 1368. Had the younger James
de Audley been illegitimate, he would have been barred from inheriting
from his grandmother. Obviously this was not the case. On the
younger James de Audley's death without issue in 1369, Eastington
passed by inheritance to his cousin, Sir Hugh de Stafford, K.G., 2nd
Earl of Stafford. For further particulars of the history of the manor
of Eastington, please see VCH Gloucester, 10 (1972): 127-128, which
can be found at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... Eastington
As for evidence that Sir James de Audley and Eve de Clavering were
husband and wife, I earlier cited a notification by Eve's own steward
dated 29 September 1335 in which Eve was styled widow of James de
Audley (or, in the vernacular of the time, "Eva who was the wife of
James de Audeley").
Eve is likewise styled "Eve late the wife of James de Audeleye, the
elder" in 1369, when an inquisiition was ordered following her death
in that year [Reference: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58].
Eve was likewise called wife of James de Audley in a settlement they
made in 1330 of the manor of Stratton (in Stratton Audley),
Oxfordshire [Reference: C.P. 25(1)/189/17/41, cited by VCH Oxford, 6
(1959): 326]. Inasmuch as this settement was made by James and Eve
before justices, I believe we can accept the fact that James and Eve
were man and wife.
I've already pointed out the existence of two genealogical pedigrees
of Eve's family recorded in Sibton Abbey and Horsham Abbey, both of
which affirm that Eve de Clavering married James de Audley.
In the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must
conclude that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering were in fact
married as stated in the contemporary records and that their issue was
considered lawful. Complete Peerage's repeated assertions in four
different accounts that Eve was merely Sir James de Audley's mistress
represents one of the most serious gaffes I have found to date in that
source, especially since at least one of the accounts suppressed
evidence which ran counter to that assertion. Likewise, no evidence
is provided in any of these accounts to support that claim that Eve
was merely James de Audley's mistress.
Lastly, in an post I made earlier today, I stated that there is an
early article which discusses Eve de Clavering and her marriages which
appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277; 8 (1843):
159. I checked that source today and found it primarily concerns the
Ufford family. Eve de Clavering is shown in a pedigree on page 272
with all four of her marriages, including her third marriage to Sir
James de Audley. There is no indication made in the chart that Eve
was James de Audley's mistress. Rather, the author appears to have
considered Eve's union with James de Audley a lawful marriage.
Likewise, there is no indication whatsoever in the older DNB biography
of Eve's son, Sir James de Audley, K.G., that he was considered by any
contemporary to be of illegitimate birth [Reference: DNB, 1 (1908):
722-723].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The passage of lands in the medieval time period in England can be a
bit confusing, especially if one's ancestor was attainted or if
properties were held by trustees or if they were held in dower for a
long period by a surviving widow.
In the case of the Audley family, Sir Hugh de Audley, Lord Audley
(father of Sir James de Audley who married Eve de Clavering) joined
Thomas of Lancaster's rebellion in 1322, but surrendered before the
Battle of Boroughbridge. He died while a prisoner in Wallingford
castle shortly before 1 April 1325. Complete Peerage states there is
no trace found of any pardon; thus all of his estates were forfeited
by attainder at his death. I find that his widow, Iseult, petitioned
for the restitution of the estates which belonged to her in her first
widowhood in 1325; she incurred a penalty of £10 for taking possession
of the manor of Upper Arley, Staffordshire without obtaining a royal
licence for such resumption. She subsequently had restoration of the
manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire in 1326.
Iseult's son and heir, Sir James de Audley (husband of Eve de
Clavering) died in her lifetime in 1334. On Iseult's death in 1338,
the manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire passed to her grandson, James
de Audley, son and heir of her deceased son, James. The grandson was
in possession of Eastington in 1357 and 1368. Had the younger James
de Audley been illegitimate, he would have been barred from inheriting
from his grandmother. Obviously this was not the case. On the
younger James de Audley's death without issue in 1369, Eastington
passed by inheritance to his cousin, Sir Hugh de Stafford, K.G., 2nd
Earl of Stafford. For further particulars of the history of the manor
of Eastington, please see VCH Gloucester, 10 (1972): 127-128, which
can be found at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... Eastington
As for evidence that Sir James de Audley and Eve de Clavering were
husband and wife, I earlier cited a notification by Eve's own steward
dated 29 September 1335 in which Eve was styled widow of James de
Audley (or, in the vernacular of the time, "Eva who was the wife of
James de Audeley").
Eve is likewise styled "Eve late the wife of James de Audeleye, the
elder" in 1369, when an inquisiition was ordered following her death
in that year [Reference: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58].
Eve was likewise called wife of James de Audley in a settlement they
made in 1330 of the manor of Stratton (in Stratton Audley),
Oxfordshire [Reference: C.P. 25(1)/189/17/41, cited by VCH Oxford, 6
(1959): 326]. Inasmuch as this settement was made by James and Eve
before justices, I believe we can accept the fact that James and Eve
were man and wife.
I've already pointed out the existence of two genealogical pedigrees
of Eve's family recorded in Sibton Abbey and Horsham Abbey, both of
which affirm that Eve de Clavering married James de Audley.
In the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must
conclude that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering were in fact
married as stated in the contemporary records and that their issue was
considered lawful. Complete Peerage's repeated assertions in four
different accounts that Eve was merely Sir James de Audley's mistress
represents one of the most serious gaffes I have found to date in that
source, especially since at least one of the accounts suppressed
evidence which ran counter to that assertion. Likewise, no evidence
is provided in any of these accounts to support that claim that Eve
was merely James de Audley's mistress.
Lastly, in an post I made earlier today, I stated that there is an
early article which discusses Eve de Clavering and her marriages which
appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277; 8 (1843):
159. I checked that source today and found it primarily concerns the
Ufford family. Eve de Clavering is shown in a pedigree on page 272
with all four of her marriages, including her third marriage to Sir
James de Audley. There is no indication made in the chart that Eve
was James de Audley's mistress. Rather, the author appears to have
considered Eve's union with James de Audley a lawful marriage.
Likewise, there is no indication whatsoever in the older DNB biography
of Eve's son, Sir James de Audley, K.G., that he was considered by any
contemporary to be of illegitimate birth [Reference: DNB, 1 (1908):
722-723].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
It is Horsham Priory, not Horsham Abbey.
DR
DR
-
wjhonson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Is the IPM of James Audley, KG who d 1369 extant? Did his cousin
inherit the Manor of Eastington because all of James' own siblings
were dead and had died s.p. ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
inherit the Manor of Eastington because all of James' own siblings
were dead and had died s.p. ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On 16 Apr., 23:42, "wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry, Will - which quotation are you referring to? I am not sure
that anyone really think Eve was mother to an heir of Thomas de
Audley, other than slips (eg Dugdale) based on a misreading of the
garbled Monasticon document.
MA-R
MA-R it would be helpful if you posted tbe exact quotation since this
is a sticky area and the idea that Eve de Clavering might be the
mother to an heir of Thomas de Audley is controversial and conflicts
with other sources. I speak in particular of the IPM of her mother to
which DR alluded which calls Eve "40 and more" at that time in 1345.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Sorry, Will - which quotation are you referring to? I am not sure
that anyone really think Eve was mother to an heir of Thomas de
Audley, other than slips (eg Dugdale) based on a misreading of the
garbled Monasticon document.
MA-R
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Newsgroup ~
A fellow newsgroup poster has alleged that the pedigree of the
Clavering family recorded in the cartulary of Horsham Priory is
"defective." This statement bears closer examination.
The Horsham Priory pedigree as published by William Dugdale records
many genealogical and historical events in the Clavering family, chief
among them being:
1. Name of Eve de Clavering's parents: John and Hawise.
2. Names of Eve de Clavering's four husbands, Thomas de Audley, Thomas
de Ufford (there called Ralph), Knt., James de Audley, Knt., and
Robert de Benhale, Knt.
3. The names of Eve de Clavering's seven children, all correctly
assigned to the proper marriages.
4. That Eve de Clavering had no issue by her 1st and 4th marriages.
4. The place of Eve de Clavering's burial at Langley Priory.
Other than the given name of one of Eve's husbands and the omission of
an additional eighth child who presumably died young, the account is
entirely accurate.
That this reliable pedigree should have been ignored and suppressed by
Complete Peerage in no less than four different accounts is
regrettable indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
A fellow newsgroup poster has alleged that the pedigree of the
Clavering family recorded in the cartulary of Horsham Priory is
"defective." This statement bears closer examination.
The Horsham Priory pedigree as published by William Dugdale records
many genealogical and historical events in the Clavering family, chief
among them being:
1. Name of Eve de Clavering's parents: John and Hawise.
2. Names of Eve de Clavering's four husbands, Thomas de Audley, Thomas
de Ufford (there called Ralph), Knt., James de Audley, Knt., and
Robert de Benhale, Knt.
3. The names of Eve de Clavering's seven children, all correctly
assigned to the proper marriages.
4. That Eve de Clavering had no issue by her 1st and 4th marriages.
4. The place of Eve de Clavering's burial at Langley Priory.
Other than the given name of one of Eve's husbands and the omission of
an additional eighth child who presumably died young, the account is
entirely accurate.
That this reliable pedigree should have been ignored and suppressed by
Complete Peerage in no less than four different accounts is
regrettable indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Michael ~
In response to your question about the account of the manor of
Stratton (in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire as found in VCH Oxford, 6
(1959): 325-326, I suspect that this account may be slightly
defective.
VCH Oxford makes it appear that the manor of Stratton, Oxfordshire was
held continuously by Hugh de Audley from 1334 until his death in
1347. However, it only documents his ownership in 1335 and 1339. It
likewise alleges that the children of Sir Hugh's older brother, Sir
James de Audley, by Eve de Clavering were illegitimate (including
their son, James the younger), which we now know was not the case.
My personal research indicates that when Sir Hugh de Audley's nephew,
Sir James de Audley the younger, died in 1369, the king ordered that
an inquisition be taken of Sir James' land holdings in Oxfordshire and
other counties [Reference: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58].
Without seeing the actual inquisition, it is difficult to know exactly
what property the younger Sir James held in Oxfordshire. But a good
bet is that it was the manor of Stratton (in Stratton Audley) and that
James the younger somehow acquired the manor from his uncle, Sir Hugh,
before the uncle's death in 1347.
In suppprt of this, I find that Sir Hugh de Audley elsewhere conveyed
the manor of Great Marcle, Herefordshire to his nephew, Sir James de
Audley the younger, in 1342 [Reference: Duncumb et al. Colls. Towards
the Hist. & Antiqs. of Hereford 3 (1882): 7-10]. Possibly Sir Hugh
conveyed the manor of Stratton, Oxfordshire to his nephew, Sir James
de Audley the younger, at the same time. If so, it would explain how
Sir James de Audley the younger was holding lands in Oxfordshire at
the time of his death in 1369.
Whatever the case, VCH Oxford indicates that Stratton, Oxfordshire
eventually fell to Sir James de Audley's cousin, Sir Hugh de Stafford,
2nd Earl of Stafford, whose trustees were dealing with the manor in
1387. If so, the manor of Stratton would follow the same descent as
the manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire, which similarly passed to
the Stafford family following the death of Sir James de Audley the
younger in 1369.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
In response to your question about the account of the manor of
Stratton (in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire as found in VCH Oxford, 6
(1959): 325-326, I suspect that this account may be slightly
defective.
VCH Oxford makes it appear that the manor of Stratton, Oxfordshire was
held continuously by Hugh de Audley from 1334 until his death in
1347. However, it only documents his ownership in 1335 and 1339. It
likewise alleges that the children of Sir Hugh's older brother, Sir
James de Audley, by Eve de Clavering were illegitimate (including
their son, James the younger), which we now know was not the case.
My personal research indicates that when Sir Hugh de Audley's nephew,
Sir James de Audley the younger, died in 1369, the king ordered that
an inquisition be taken of Sir James' land holdings in Oxfordshire and
other counties [Reference: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58].
Without seeing the actual inquisition, it is difficult to know exactly
what property the younger Sir James held in Oxfordshire. But a good
bet is that it was the manor of Stratton (in Stratton Audley) and that
James the younger somehow acquired the manor from his uncle, Sir Hugh,
before the uncle's death in 1347.
In suppprt of this, I find that Sir Hugh de Audley elsewhere conveyed
the manor of Great Marcle, Herefordshire to his nephew, Sir James de
Audley the younger, in 1342 [Reference: Duncumb et al. Colls. Towards
the Hist. & Antiqs. of Hereford 3 (1882): 7-10]. Possibly Sir Hugh
conveyed the manor of Stratton, Oxfordshire to his nephew, Sir James
de Audley the younger, at the same time. If so, it would explain how
Sir James de Audley the younger was holding lands in Oxfordshire at
the time of his death in 1369.
Whatever the case, VCH Oxford indicates that Stratton, Oxfordshire
eventually fell to Sir James de Audley's cousin, Sir Hugh de Stafford,
2nd Earl of Stafford, whose trustees were dealing with the manor in
1387. If so, the manor of Stratton would follow the same descent as
the manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire, which similarly passed to
the Stafford family following the death of Sir James de Audley the
younger in 1369.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On 17 Apr., 17:36, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
On the basis that 3 out of 4 is "not defective", would you like to buy
a used car which is only missing one of its wheels?
Joking aside, while admitting that the Horsham document is imperfect
(which you yourself acknowledge), I think the 1335 document alone that
you present makes a good case in relation to Eve and James' marriage.
It would be interesting to know when the earliest print reference to
their not being married appears. The apparent absence of a known
dispensation is a shame (Eve's marriage with Thomas Audley certainly
gave her a long entitlement to dower). I wonder whether another clue
might be found in examing the arms used by the younger James - as a
founder KG I presume these will be recorded. I wonder if they reveal
any differencing which could suggest a mediaeval mark of
illegitimacy? If not, your case would be strengthened.
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
A fellow newsgroup poster has alleged that the pedigree of the
Clavering family recorded in the cartulary of Horsham Priory is
"defective." This statement bears closer examination.
The Horsham Priory pedigree as published by William Dugdale records
many genealogical and historical events in the Clavering family, chief
among them being:
1. Name of Eve de Clavering's parents: John and Hawise.
2. Names of Eve de Clavering's four husbands, Thomas de Audley, Thomas
de Ufford (there called Ralph), Knt., James de Audley, Knt., and
Robert de Benhale, Knt.
3. The names of Eve de Clavering's seven children, all correctly
assigned to the proper marriages.
4. That Eve de Clavering had no issue by her 1st and 4th marriages.
4. The place of Eve de Clavering's burial at Langley Priory.
Other than the given name of one of Eve's husbands and the omission of
an additional eighth child who presumably died young, the account is
entirely accurate.
That this reliable pedigree should have been ignored and suppressed by
Complete Peerage in no less than four different accounts is
regrettable indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas
On the basis that 3 out of 4 is "not defective", would you like to buy
a used car which is only missing one of its wheels?
Joking aside, while admitting that the Horsham document is imperfect
(which you yourself acknowledge), I think the 1335 document alone that
you present makes a good case in relation to Eve and James' marriage.
It would be interesting to know when the earliest print reference to
their not being married appears. The apparent absence of a known
dispensation is a shame (Eve's marriage with Thomas Audley certainly
gave her a long entitlement to dower). I wonder whether another clue
might be found in examing the arms used by the younger James - as a
founder KG I presume these will be recorded. I wonder if they reveal
any differencing which could suggest a mediaeval mark of
illegitimacy? If not, your case would be strengthened.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
In message of 17 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
<snip>
As a KG he would have had a plate in his stall in St George's Chapel
Windsor but the DNB (edn I) records that, though this was in existence
in 1569, it has long since disappeared. He is not in the initial two
volumes of the "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary". But his
arms may well be in Beltz' "Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter" pp. 75-84.
(The remarkable thing is that of the 227 KGs 'elected' before 1485, as
many as 87 of their stall plates do in fact survive, or at least did
in 1901 when pictures were made of all those Plantagenet stall plates.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
<snip>
I wonder whether another clue might be found in examing the arms used
by the younger James - as a founder KG I presume these will be
recorded. I wonder if they reveal any differencing which could
suggest a mediaeval mark of illegitimacy?
As a KG he would have had a plate in his stall in St George's Chapel
Windsor but the DNB (edn I) records that, though this was in existence
in 1569, it has long since disappeared. He is not in the initial two
volumes of the "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary". But his
arms may well be in Beltz' "Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter" pp. 75-84.
(The remarkable thing is that of the 227 KGs 'elected' before 1485, as
many as 87 of their stall plates do in fact survive, or at least did
in 1901 when pictures were made of all those Plantagenet stall plates.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On 17 Apr., 21:53, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
Thanks, Tim - if nowhere else, they should be on the ceiling in St
George's Hall at Windsor Castle, which displays all the Garter
Knights' arms [except those who were degraded, which remain blank].
I'll try to remember to have a look when I am there next month.
Regards, Michael
In message of 17 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
I wonder whether another clue might be found in examing the arms used
by the younger James - as a founder KG I presume these will be
recorded. I wonder if they reveal any differencing which could
suggest a mediaeval mark of illegitimacy?
As a KG he would have had a plate in his stall in St George's Chapel
Windsor but the DNB (edn I) records that, though this was in existence
in 1569, it has long since disappeared. He is not in the initial two
volumes of the "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary". But his
arms may well be in Beltz' "Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter" pp. 75-84.
(The remarkable thing is that of the 227 KGs 'elected' before 1485, as
many as 87 of their stall plates do in fact survive, or at least did
in 1901 when pictures were made of all those Plantagenet stall plates.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Thanks, Tim - if nowhere else, they should be on the ceiling in St
George's Hall at Windsor Castle, which displays all the Garter
Knights' arms [except those who were degraded, which remain blank].
I'll try to remember to have a look when I am there next month.
Regards, Michael
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176827795.063171.255240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
So CP and now VCH are "defective" because they don't agree with you, whereas
this document is not "defective" because it only disagrees with facts.
Apparently you live in an alternative world where scholars aim to "suppress"
information in works that they are actually citing. Can you explain how this
trick is done? CP and VCH have obviously failed, since you have come along
at this late stage to save the reputation of Eve de Clavering that they set
out to blacken for eternity, in the hope that no-one would ever look up
material they were "suppressing" by the devious means of citing.
Then you might explain how it was that you claimed two genealogies supported
your view, while "suppressing" the fact that these are two versions of one
document and that this contains gross errors in other important matters. It
took less than a day for you to come a cropper with this, so CP and VCH have
at least managed to beat you by some decades.
Peter Stewart
news:1176827795.063171.255240@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
A fellow newsgroup poster has alleged that the pedigree of the
Clavering family recorded in the cartulary of Horsham Priory is
"defective." This statement bears closer examination.
The Horsham Priory pedigree as published by William Dugdale records
many genealogical and historical events in the Clavering family, chief
among them being:
1. Name of Eve de Clavering's parents: John and Hawise.
2. Names of Eve de Clavering's four husbands, Thomas de Audley, Thomas
de Ufford (there called Ralph), Knt., James de Audley, Knt., and
Robert de Benhale, Knt.
3. The names of Eve de Clavering's seven children, all correctly
assigned to the proper marriages.
4. That Eve de Clavering had no issue by her 1st and 4th marriages.
4. The place of Eve de Clavering's burial at Langley Priory.
Other than the given name of one of Eve's husbands and the omission of
an additional eighth child who presumably died young, the account is
entirely accurate.
That this reliable pedigree should have been ignored and suppressed by
Complete Peerage in no less than four different accounts is
regrettable indeed.
So CP and now VCH are "defective" because they don't agree with you, whereas
this document is not "defective" because it only disagrees with facts.
Apparently you live in an alternative world where scholars aim to "suppress"
information in works that they are actually citing. Can you explain how this
trick is done? CP and VCH have obviously failed, since you have come along
at this late stage to save the reputation of Eve de Clavering that they set
out to blacken for eternity, in the hope that no-one would ever look up
material they were "suppressing" by the devious means of citing.
Then you might explain how it was that you claimed two genealogies supported
your view, while "suppressing" the fact that these are two versions of one
document and that this contains gross errors in other important matters. It
took less than a day for you to come a cropper with this, so CP and VCH have
at least managed to beat you by some decades.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
In message of 17 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
When I first saw those I was very taken with them. But I later found
that (a) they had of course been completely re-painted after the fire
had burnt the place down and (b) they had not consulted the College of
Arms at all about what should be there.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
On 17 Apr., 21:53, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 17 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
I wonder whether another clue might be found in examing the arms
used by the younger James - as a founder KG I presume these will
be recorded. I wonder if they reveal any differencing which could
suggest a mediaeval mark of illegitimacy?
As a KG he would have had a plate in his stall in St George's Chapel
Windsor but the DNB (edn I) records that, though this was in
existence in 1569, it has long since disappeared. He is not in the
initial two volumes of the "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval
Ordinary". But his arms may well be in Beltz' "Memorials of the
Most Noble Order of the Garter" pp. 75-84.
(The remarkable thing is that of the 227 KGs 'elected' before 1485,
as many as 87 of their stall plates do in fact survive, or at least
did in 1901 when pictures were made of all those Plantagenet stall
plates.)
Thanks, Tim - if nowhere else, they should be on the ceiling in St
George's Hall at Windsor Castle, which displays all the Garter
Knights' arms [except those who were degraded, which remain blank].
I'll try to remember to have a look when I am there next month.
When I first saw those I was very taken with them. But I later found
that (a) they had of course been completely re-painted after the fire
had burnt the place down and (b) they had not consulted the College of
Arms at all about what should be there.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Michael ~
My review of the Horsham Priory pedigree indicates that it got 15 out
of 16 genealogical facts correct. Also, the order of Eve de
Clavering's four marriages was correctly given. The one error was
that given name of one husband was wrongly stated, but his surname was
given correctly. So I'd give it a 19.5 rating out of 20. When
compared against other similar pedigrees of the time period, I'd say
it is very accurate. I believe it goes without saying that this
evidence should not have been suppressed by Complete Peerage. I'm
sure you agree.
In response to your query about the coat of arms borne by Sir James de
Audley the younger (son of Sir James the elder and his wife, Eve de
Clavering), his arms are discussed in a good article written on him
which appeared in the Herald & Genealogist, 5 (1870): 63-68.
According to this source, the arms of Sir James the younger were:
Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.
This agrees with Beltz who says that he bore the Audley arms [Gules
fretty or] with a label, on the authority of a seal in the Royal
library at Paris, which seal is engraved in Beltz's book, Memorials of
the Garter, pg. 395.
The actual engraving of Sir James the younger's seal can be found at
the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=075D_ ... 2-PA395,M1
Sir James de Audley the younger's arms give no indication whatsoever
of bastardy or illegitimacy.
The Herald & Genealogist article further states that Sir James de
Audley the younger's uncle, Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester,
bore these arms:
Gules, une fret or, une border d'argent.
The same difference of a bordure argent is assigned to Sir Hugh in
Brooke's Catalogue of Nobility. A later difference of Sir Hugh is
said to have been a bordure argent semée de fleurs de lis sable "for
the wife, as supposed, of John Broke 1417. (Collectanea Topogr. et
Geneal. iv. 43.)."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 17, 1:27 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
My review of the Horsham Priory pedigree indicates that it got 15 out
of 16 genealogical facts correct. Also, the order of Eve de
Clavering's four marriages was correctly given. The one error was
that given name of one husband was wrongly stated, but his surname was
given correctly. So I'd give it a 19.5 rating out of 20. When
compared against other similar pedigrees of the time period, I'd say
it is very accurate. I believe it goes without saying that this
evidence should not have been suppressed by Complete Peerage. I'm
sure you agree.
In response to your query about the coat of arms borne by Sir James de
Audley the younger (son of Sir James the elder and his wife, Eve de
Clavering), his arms are discussed in a good article written on him
which appeared in the Herald & Genealogist, 5 (1870): 63-68.
According to this source, the arms of Sir James the younger were:
Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.
This agrees with Beltz who says that he bore the Audley arms [Gules
fretty or] with a label, on the authority of a seal in the Royal
library at Paris, which seal is engraved in Beltz's book, Memorials of
the Garter, pg. 395.
The actual engraving of Sir James the younger's seal can be found at
the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=075D_ ... 2-PA395,M1
Sir James de Audley the younger's arms give no indication whatsoever
of bastardy or illegitimacy.
The Herald & Genealogist article further states that Sir James de
Audley the younger's uncle, Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester,
bore these arms:
Gules, une fret or, une border d'argent.
The same difference of a bordure argent is assigned to Sir Hugh in
Brooke's Catalogue of Nobility. A later difference of Sir Hugh is
said to have been a bordure argent semée de fleurs de lis sable "for
the wife, as supposed, of John Broke 1417. (Collectanea Topogr. et
Geneal. iv. 43.)."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 17, 1:27 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Dear Douglas
On the basis that 3 out of 4 is "not defective", would you like to buy
a used car which is only missing one of its wheels?
Joking aside, while admitting that the Horsham document is imperfect
(which you yourself acknowledge), I think the 1335 document alone that
you present makes a good case in relation to Eve and James' marriage.
It would be interesting to know when the earliest print reference to
their not being married appears. The apparent absence of a known
dispensation is a shame (Eve's marriage with Thomas Audley certainly
gave her a long entitlement to dower). I wonder whether another clue
might be found in examing the arms used by the younger James - as a
founder KG I presume these will be recorded. I wonder if they reveal
any differencing which could suggest a mediaeval mark of
illegitimacy? If not, your case would be strengthened.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 18, 4:06 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Thanks Douglas. I do agree that it is reasonable to place some
credence on the Horsham Priory document, while acknowledging that it
is still defective in parts. I don't agree with your
characterisations about the Editor of CP having "supressed" the
document, but only because of the apparent strength of your language -
I see no reason why CP would be ruthlessly determined to present Eve
as James's mistress, given their many other instances of admitting
doubt; it seems more likely to me to be an omission on their part.
That is interesting. I know that early heraldry had numerous ways of
exhibiting marks of bastardy on arms (not just the "bar sinister" so
beloved by fiction); if I remember these include batons and bordures,
and rearranging features of the shield (eg inverting charges). I am
not aware of a label having been so used - it is normally employed to
denote the eldest son during his father's lifetime, but seems to have
been a permanent feature of various coats where its significance is no
longer evident. Perhaps it was just a general mark to distiguish
junior members of houses. I am not aware of the label having been
used as a mark of bastardy but I will check my sources and revert.
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Michael ~
My review of the Horsham Priory pedigree indicates that it got 15 out
of 16 genealogical facts correct. Also, the order of Eve de
Clavering's four marriages was correctly given. The one error was
that given name of one husband was wrongly stated, but his surname was
given correctly. So I'd give it a 19.5 rating out of 20. When
compared against other similar pedigrees of the time period, I'd say
it is very accurate. I believe it goes without saying that this
evidence should not have been suppressed by Complete Peerage. I'm
sure you agree.
Thanks Douglas. I do agree that it is reasonable to place some
credence on the Horsham Priory document, while acknowledging that it
is still defective in parts. I don't agree with your
characterisations about the Editor of CP having "supressed" the
document, but only because of the apparent strength of your language -
I see no reason why CP would be ruthlessly determined to present Eve
as James's mistress, given their many other instances of admitting
doubt; it seems more likely to me to be an omission on their part.
In response to your query about the coat of arms borne by Sir James de
Audley the younger (son of Sir James the elder and his wife, Eve de
Clavering), his arms are discussed in a good article written on him
which appeared in the Herald & Genealogist, 5 (1870): 63-68.
According to this source, the arms of Sir James the younger were:
Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.
That is interesting. I know that early heraldry had numerous ways of
exhibiting marks of bastardy on arms (not just the "bar sinister" so
beloved by fiction); if I remember these include batons and bordures,
and rearranging features of the shield (eg inverting charges). I am
not aware of a label having been so used - it is normally employed to
denote the eldest son during his father's lifetime, but seems to have
been a permanent feature of various coats where its significance is no
longer evident. Perhaps it was just a general mark to distiguish
junior members of houses. I am not aware of the label having been
used as a mark of bastardy but I will check my sources and revert.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Newsgroup ~
Regarding the issue of whether or not Complete Peerage suppressed
evidence that ran counter to its interpretation of Eve de Clavering's
marriages, my review to date of the literature indicates that several
sources which pre-date Complete Peerage ALL stated that Eve de
Clavering married (3rd) Sir James de Audley. These sources are:
1. William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 3 (1821): 636-637; 5 (1825):
559-560.
2. Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 11-12
(sub Benhale).
3. Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52.
4. George Frederick Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter (1841): 75-84.
5. Topographer & Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277.
6. Norfolk Archaeology, 15 (1904): 267-292.
6. Dictionary of National Biography, 1 (1908): 722-723 (biog. of Sir
James de Audley).
Complete Peerage definitely saw the third source above. The other
sources cited above should have been readily available to the author
of Complete Peerage. Most if not not of these sources should have
been checked if a researcher was doing his job back in 1910, when the
first of Complete Peerage's four accounts dealing with Eve de
Clavering's marriages was published.
We should also add to the above list the evidence of Eve de
Clavering's own heraldic seal published in Birch, Catalogue of Seals
in the British Museum, 2 (1892): 645, which shows the arms of Ufford
impaling by dimidiation the arms of Audley. The inclusion of the
Audley arms can only be attributed to Eve de Clavering's third
marriage to Sir James de Audley, as her first marriage to his cousin
Thomas de Audley was childless and almost certainly unconsumated.
And, we should also add the extensive testimony of the chronicler
Froissart who commented on many men who were bastards, but made no
mention of either of Eve de Clavering's sons, James and Peter, being
illegitimate.
Likewise, we should also add the evidence of the 1330 fine generated
by Eve de Clavering and James de Audley themselves, in which Eve was
styled James' wife. I believe this document should have been
available to Complete Peerage.
Lastly, I find that Duncumb et al., Colls. Towards the Hist. & Antiqs.
of Hereford, 3 (1882): 9 published an abstract of a charter of Sir
Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester, in which Sir Hugh referred to Eve
de Clavering's son, James de Audley, as his "nephew" [nepoti]. Again,
there is no hint of James being illegitimate.
Following the publication of Complete Peerage, additional evidence
supporting the marriage of Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley
was published in Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58 and VCH
Gloucester 10 (1972): 127-128. Also, most recently, a notification
dated 1335 was posted to the online A2A Catalogue in which Eve is
specifically called the widow of James de Audley by her own steward.
So how did Complete Peerage blow it? I'll post the answer to that
question in the second part of this post later this week. The answer
may be a bit of a surprise.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Regarding the issue of whether or not Complete Peerage suppressed
evidence that ran counter to its interpretation of Eve de Clavering's
marriages, my review to date of the literature indicates that several
sources which pre-date Complete Peerage ALL stated that Eve de
Clavering married (3rd) Sir James de Audley. These sources are:
1. William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 3 (1821): 636-637; 5 (1825):
559-560.
2. Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 11-12
(sub Benhale).
3. Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52.
4. George Frederick Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter (1841): 75-84.
5. Topographer & Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277.
6. Norfolk Archaeology, 15 (1904): 267-292.
6. Dictionary of National Biography, 1 (1908): 722-723 (biog. of Sir
James de Audley).
Complete Peerage definitely saw the third source above. The other
sources cited above should have been readily available to the author
of Complete Peerage. Most if not not of these sources should have
been checked if a researcher was doing his job back in 1910, when the
first of Complete Peerage's four accounts dealing with Eve de
Clavering's marriages was published.
We should also add to the above list the evidence of Eve de
Clavering's own heraldic seal published in Birch, Catalogue of Seals
in the British Museum, 2 (1892): 645, which shows the arms of Ufford
impaling by dimidiation the arms of Audley. The inclusion of the
Audley arms can only be attributed to Eve de Clavering's third
marriage to Sir James de Audley, as her first marriage to his cousin
Thomas de Audley was childless and almost certainly unconsumated.
And, we should also add the extensive testimony of the chronicler
Froissart who commented on many men who were bastards, but made no
mention of either of Eve de Clavering's sons, James and Peter, being
illegitimate.
Likewise, we should also add the evidence of the 1330 fine generated
by Eve de Clavering and James de Audley themselves, in which Eve was
styled James' wife. I believe this document should have been
available to Complete Peerage.
Lastly, I find that Duncumb et al., Colls. Towards the Hist. & Antiqs.
of Hereford, 3 (1882): 9 published an abstract of a charter of Sir
Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester, in which Sir Hugh referred to Eve
de Clavering's son, James de Audley, as his "nephew" [nepoti]. Again,
there is no hint of James being illegitimate.
Following the publication of Complete Peerage, additional evidence
supporting the marriage of Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley
was published in Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58 and VCH
Gloucester 10 (1972): 127-128. Also, most recently, a notification
dated 1335 was posted to the online A2A Catalogue in which Eve is
specifically called the widow of James de Audley by her own steward.
So how did Complete Peerage blow it? I'll post the answer to that
question in the second part of this post later this week. The answer
may be a bit of a surprise.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176908764.780486.219090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
How can he agree with such a preposterous statement?
Richardson says "the one error" as to genealogical facts in the Horsham
priory version of this document is in the name of one of Eve de Claverings
"four" husbands, when it is not yet established that she was canonically
married four time including to James Audley.
More egregiously, Richardson is deliberately "suppressing" the gross error,
already pointed out to him after he missed the editor's note about it,
concerning the genealogy of the founder's family, where it falsely asserts
that Sara de Chesney died without issue.
Just how stupid does he imagine the newsgroup readers to be?
Peter Stewart
news:1176908764.780486.219090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Michael ~
My review of the Horsham Priory pedigree indicates that it got 15 out
of 16 genealogical facts correct. Also, the order of Eve de
Clavering's four marriages was correctly given. The one error was
that given name of one husband was wrongly stated, but his surname was
given correctly. So I'd give it a 19.5 rating out of 20. When
compared against other similar pedigrees of the time period, I'd say
it is very accurate. I believe it goes without saying that this
evidence should not have been suppressed by Complete Peerage. I'm
sure you agree.
How can he agree with such a preposterous statement?
Richardson says "the one error" as to genealogical facts in the Horsham
priory version of this document is in the name of one of Eve de Claverings
"four" husbands, when it is not yet established that she was canonically
married four time including to James Audley.
More egregiously, Richardson is deliberately "suppressing" the gross error,
already pointed out to him after he missed the editor's note about it,
concerning the genealogy of the founder's family, where it falsely asserts
that Sara de Chesney died without issue.
Just how stupid does he imagine the newsgroup readers to be?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176916945.255971.216970@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
More to the point, the CP author had the fundamental nous to realise that
these works were available for readers to consult independently, so that it
was out of the question to "suppress" anything in them.
Peter Stewart
news:1176916945.255971.216970@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Regarding the issue of whether or not Complete Peerage suppressed
evidence that ran counter to its interpretation of Eve de Clavering's
marriages, my review to date of the literature indicates that several
sources which pre-date Complete Peerage ALL stated that Eve de
Clavering married (3rd) Sir James de Audley. These sources are:
1. William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 3 (1821): 636-637; 5 (1825):
559-560.
2. Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 11-12
(sub Benhale).
3. Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52.
4. George Frederick Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter (1841): 75-84.
5. Topographer & Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277.
6. Norfolk Archaeology, 15 (1904): 267-292.
6. Dictionary of National Biography, 1 (1908): 722-723 (biog. of Sir
James de Audley).
Complete Peerage definitely saw the third source above. The other
sources cited above should have been readily available to the author
of Complete Peerage. Most if not not of these sources should have
been checked if a researcher was doing his job back in 1910, when the
first of Complete Peerage's four accounts dealing with Eve de
Clavering's marriages was published.
More to the point, the CP author had the fundamental nous to realise that
these works were available for readers to consult independently, so that it
was out of the question to "suppress" anything in them.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On 18 Apr., 17:10, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
According to Fox-Davies, illegitimate sons differenced their arms by a
wide variety of means, including (he implies) the use of a label e.g.
"except for the label, the earliest marks of either cadency or
illegitimacy for which accepted use can be made are the bend and the
bordure" and "until a comparatively recent period it is absolutely
unsafe to use these marks as signifying or proving either legitimate
cadency or illegitimacy" (Complete Guide to Heraldry, chapter 32
entitled Marks of Bastardy).
Rothery in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Heraldry" (1994 reprint)
states that Sir James Audley, whose mother was a Longspee, bore a
label azure on his paternal arms, charged with a lion rampant or on
each of the points, in recognition of his maternal descent (p 137); he
was clearly legitimate.
So it seems the jury is still out on the heraldic evidence.
MA-R
On Apr 18, 4:06 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
According to this source, the arms of Sir James the younger were:
Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.
That is interesting. I know that early heraldry had numerous ways of
exhibiting marks of bastardy on arms (not just the "bar sinister" so
beloved by fiction); if I remember these include batons and bordures,
and rearranging features of the shield (eg inverting charges). I am
not aware of a label having been so used - it is normally employed to
denote the eldest son during his father's lifetime, but seems to have
been a permanent feature of various coats where its significance is no
longer evident. Perhaps it was just a general mark to distiguish
junior members of houses.
According to Fox-Davies, illegitimate sons differenced their arms by a
wide variety of means, including (he implies) the use of a label e.g.
"except for the label, the earliest marks of either cadency or
illegitimacy for which accepted use can be made are the bend and the
bordure" and "until a comparatively recent period it is absolutely
unsafe to use these marks as signifying or proving either legitimate
cadency or illegitimacy" (Complete Guide to Heraldry, chapter 32
entitled Marks of Bastardy).
Rothery in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Heraldry" (1994 reprint)
states that Sir James Audley, whose mother was a Longspee, bore a
label azure on his paternal arms, charged with a lion rampant or on
each of the points, in recognition of his maternal descent (p 137); he
was clearly legitimate.
So it seems the jury is still out on the heraldic evidence.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On 19 Apr., 00:22, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
recte: it was his paternal *grandmother* who was a Longspee.
Rothery in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Heraldry" (1994 reprint)
states that Sir James Audley, whose mother was a Longspee,
recte: it was his paternal *grandmother* who was a Longspee.
bore a
label azure on his paternal arms, charged with a lion rampant or on
each of the points, in recognition of his maternal descent (p 137); he
was clearly legitimate.
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Michael, et al.,
I believe the heraldic evidence only implies that Sir James de
Audley was of the lineage of Hugh de Audley, of Stretton Audley (d.
1325).
Concerning the inclusion of the label in the arms of Sir James
de Audley, this does not indicate bastardy. In fact, the arms of
Hugh de Audley (d. ca. 1325), father of Hugh de Audley the younger
(later Earl of Gloucester dju) are given in the Galloway Roll
(ca. 1300) as " Gules fretty or a label of three points azure "
(en Fran�ais, " de gueulles frette d'or a ung label d'asur ") [1].
It appears that this was simply an indicator that the elder
Hugh de Audley was the younger brother of Nicholas de Audley,
eventual heir of their elder brothers. The arms of Nicholas de
Audley are known to have been "Gules, fretty or" [2].
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] From Brian Timms, evidence from the Galloway Rolls.
Timms cited M14bis, pp 376-90, from the College of Arms,
London. URL:
http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... wayGA3.htm
[2] Timms, Collins Roll, part 3. URL:
http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... insQ03.htm
These arms are given by Gough as being in Harleian MS.
No. 6589 [Henry Gough, ed. Scotland in 1298: Documents
relating to the campaign of King Edward the First in that
year, and especially to the Battle of Falkirk (Paisley:
Alexander Gardner, 1888), p. 134].
On Apr 18, 7:22�pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
I believe the heraldic evidence only implies that Sir James de
Audley was of the lineage of Hugh de Audley, of Stretton Audley (d.
1325).
Concerning the inclusion of the label in the arms of Sir James
de Audley, this does not indicate bastardy. In fact, the arms of
Hugh de Audley (d. ca. 1325), father of Hugh de Audley the younger
(later Earl of Gloucester dju) are given in the Galloway Roll
(ca. 1300) as " Gules fretty or a label of three points azure "
(en Fran�ais, " de gueulles frette d'or a ung label d'asur ") [1].
It appears that this was simply an indicator that the elder
Hugh de Audley was the younger brother of Nicholas de Audley,
eventual heir of their elder brothers. The arms of Nicholas de
Audley are known to have been "Gules, fretty or" [2].
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] From Brian Timms, evidence from the Galloway Rolls.
Timms cited M14bis, pp 376-90, from the College of Arms,
London. URL:
http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... wayGA3.htm
[2] Timms, Collins Roll, part 3. URL:
http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... insQ03.htm
These arms are given by Gough as being in Harleian MS.
No. 6589 [Henry Gough, ed. Scotland in 1298: Documents
relating to the campaign of King Edward the First in that
year, and especially to the Battle of Falkirk (Paisley:
Alexander Gardner, 1888), p. 134].
On Apr 18, 7:22�pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 18 Apr., 17:10, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:06 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
According to this source, the arms of Sir James the younger were:
Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.
That is interesting. I know that early heraldry had numerous ways of
exhibiting marks of bastardy on arms (not just the "bar sinister" so
beloved by fiction); if I remember these include batons and bordures,
and rearranging features of the shield (eg inverting charges). I am
not aware of a label having been so used - it is normally employed to
denote the eldest son during his father's lifetime, but seems to have
been a permanent feature of various coats where its significance is no
longer evident. Perhaps it was just a general mark to distiguish
junior members of houses.
According to Fox-Davies, illegitimate sons differenced their arms by a
wide variety of means, including (he implies) the use of a label e.g.
"except for the label, the earliest marks of either cadency or
illegitimacy for which accepted use can be made are the bend and the
bordure" and "until a comparatively recent period it is absolutely
unsafe to use these marks as signifying or proving either legitimate
cadency or illegitimacy" (Complete Guide to Heraldry, chapter 32
entitled Marks of Bastardy).
Rothery in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Heraldry" (1994 reprint)
states that Sir James Audley, whose mother was a Longspee, bore a
label azure on his paternal arms, charged with a lion rampant or on
each of the points, in recognition of his maternal descent (p 137); he
was clearly legitimate.
So it seems the jury is still out on the heraldic evidence.
MA-R
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Newsgroup ~
That Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were in fact married is
indicated by several pieces of evidence which I've already presented.
One additional one piece of evidence that I haven't yet posted is
found in the interesting work by Waters entitled Chester of Chicheley,
1 (1878): 337-338. This work was in print for many years prior to the
publication of Complete Peerage.
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
The following weblink is for the Waters book:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2 ... Eve+Audley
Sir James de Audley is last known to have been living on 21 April
1331, when he had letters nominating attorneys in England for two
years, he then going on a pilgrimage to Santiago in Spain [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334 (1893): 102]. Thus, he died
sometime between this date and 1332. Needless to say, this is yet
another correction for Complete Peerage.
I might note that a parallel case of the twin Audley marriages of Eve
de Clavering is surely Anne of Gloucester, daughter of Thomas of
Woodstock, Earl of Gloucester, who married (1st) Thomas de Stafford,
Knt., 3rd Earl of Stafford. He was born in or before 1368, and died
at Westminster 4 July 1392. Anne herself was born shortly before 8
May 1383 [Reference: Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004): 139,
673]. Thus, she was only nine year old at the time her first husband
died; although he was at least 24. Anne eventually married (2nd)
Edmund Stafford, K.B., K.G., 5th Earl of Stafford, her first husband's
younger brother. Complete Peerage makes no mention of a dispensation
for Anne and Edmund's marriage, but I believe I have seen one in the
Papal Registers. This would be a dispensation for a marriage in the
1st and 1st degrees of kindred, which is even closer than what would
been the case with Eve de Clavering's two Audley marriages.
I've already presented evidence which indicates that Eve de Clavering
can at best have been 12 years old at the time of her first husband,
Thomas de Audley's death in 1307. She was possibly much younger than
12. As with Anne of Gloucester, the marriage while contracted in
childhood. However, it probably not yet consumated at the time of
Thomas de Audley's death due to Eve's tender age.
Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
then be awarded dower. The assignment of her dower is recorded in
Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52, which record can be viewed
at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... +Clavering
It is correct to say that many dispensations were granted, but not
recorded. As such, Eve de Clavering and her husband, Sir James de
Audley, might well have obtained a dispensation, and there be no
record of it. One such case that I know of is John de Warenne, Knt.
(died 1347), 8th Earl of Surrey, who married his cousin, Joan of Bar.
They were related in 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. We know from
their messy divorce proceedings that the Pope granted a dispensation
for this marriage at the time the couple were married. However, I
haven't noticed a dispensation for this marriage in the published
Papal Registers. Thus, it would appear that this dispensation was
handled in a private manner.
In conclusion, the evidence continues to pile up that Eve de Clavering
and Sir James de Audley were man and wife. Clearly they were treated
as a married couple by the king, the church officials, the justices,
and Eve's own steward. The failure to acknowledge Eve and James'
marriage is one of the worst gaffes that I've found to date in
Complete Peerage. The fact that this error is found in four different
accounts in Complete Peerage simply compounds the mistake.
I'll post on the matter of the legitimacy of Eve de Clavering's son,
Sir James de Audley the younger, sometime later this week.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
That Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were in fact married is
indicated by several pieces of evidence which I've already presented.
One additional one piece of evidence that I haven't yet posted is
found in the interesting work by Waters entitled Chester of Chicheley,
1 (1878): 337-338. This work was in print for many years prior to the
publication of Complete Peerage.
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
The following weblink is for the Waters book:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2 ... Eve+Audley
Sir James de Audley is last known to have been living on 21 April
1331, when he had letters nominating attorneys in England for two
years, he then going on a pilgrimage to Santiago in Spain [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334 (1893): 102]. Thus, he died
sometime between this date and 1332. Needless to say, this is yet
another correction for Complete Peerage.
I might note that a parallel case of the twin Audley marriages of Eve
de Clavering is surely Anne of Gloucester, daughter of Thomas of
Woodstock, Earl of Gloucester, who married (1st) Thomas de Stafford,
Knt., 3rd Earl of Stafford. He was born in or before 1368, and died
at Westminster 4 July 1392. Anne herself was born shortly before 8
May 1383 [Reference: Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004): 139,
673]. Thus, she was only nine year old at the time her first husband
died; although he was at least 24. Anne eventually married (2nd)
Edmund Stafford, K.B., K.G., 5th Earl of Stafford, her first husband's
younger brother. Complete Peerage makes no mention of a dispensation
for Anne and Edmund's marriage, but I believe I have seen one in the
Papal Registers. This would be a dispensation for a marriage in the
1st and 1st degrees of kindred, which is even closer than what would
been the case with Eve de Clavering's two Audley marriages.
I've already presented evidence which indicates that Eve de Clavering
can at best have been 12 years old at the time of her first husband,
Thomas de Audley's death in 1307. She was possibly much younger than
12. As with Anne of Gloucester, the marriage while contracted in
childhood. However, it probably not yet consumated at the time of
Thomas de Audley's death due to Eve's tender age.
Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
then be awarded dower. The assignment of her dower is recorded in
Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52, which record can be viewed
at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... +Clavering
It is correct to say that many dispensations were granted, but not
recorded. As such, Eve de Clavering and her husband, Sir James de
Audley, might well have obtained a dispensation, and there be no
record of it. One such case that I know of is John de Warenne, Knt.
(died 1347), 8th Earl of Surrey, who married his cousin, Joan of Bar.
They were related in 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. We know from
their messy divorce proceedings that the Pope granted a dispensation
for this marriage at the time the couple were married. However, I
haven't noticed a dispensation for this marriage in the published
Papal Registers. Thus, it would appear that this dispensation was
handled in a private manner.
In conclusion, the evidence continues to pile up that Eve de Clavering
and Sir James de Audley were man and wife. Clearly they were treated
as a married couple by the king, the church officials, the justices,
and Eve's own steward. The failure to acknowledge Eve and James'
marriage is one of the worst gaffes that I've found to date in
Complete Peerage. The fact that this error is found in four different
accounts in Complete Peerage simply compounds the mistake.
I'll post on the matter of the legitimacy of Eve de Clavering's son,
Sir James de Audley the younger, sometime later this week.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 19, 3:49 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
The problem with the presentation is that if she was unmarried she
would be presenting in her own right anyway, so this is not
necessarily evidence unless the register specifically says she was
widow of James de Audley, and this was the reason for her
presentation. What we need is evidence of James de Audley presenting
as husband of Eve. That would be convincing.
This is not a parallel case at all. Here we have proof of dispensation
for betrothed partners, not married ones.
You have only presented a theory for her minority based on your say
so, which is not proof.
She was possibly much younger than
This is only your assumption, not proven fact.
This is blatantly false. The king ordered her dower to be directly
given to her on March 24 1308 [Patent Rolls, 1307-1313, p.27]. It was
the challenge by Bertrand de Cayllon which caused it to be delayed -
not the need for her to be married in order to receive it. Later, on
May 22 1308 the patent rolls record the, "Grant to Thomas de Ufford of
the marriage of Eva, late the wife of Thomas de Aldithelegh, tenant in
chief, or of any fine incurred by her marrying without licence".
Clearly she would have been old enough to contract her own marriage,
with or without the king's licence, which means she was in her
majority.
The assignment of her dower is recorded in
This is not a record of her assignment of dower, it is a memorandum
outlining the nature of the agreement with Bertrand de Cayllon. Why do
you give secondary sources as evidence when you can quote the original
source more accurately from the Close Rolls? Don't you have a set at
SLC? Pages 51 and 52 of C.T & G. not only do not give full details
about her dower, but say she was never married to Thomas de Ufford in
the first place!
However, in this case we know they were married from other sources. In
the case of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley there is room for
doubt.
Rosie Bevan
Dear Newsgroup ~
snip
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
The following weblink is for the Waters book:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2 ... AQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
The problem with the presentation is that if she was unmarried she
would be presenting in her own right anyway, so this is not
necessarily evidence unless the register specifically says she was
widow of James de Audley, and this was the reason for her
presentation. What we need is evidence of James de Audley presenting
as husband of Eve. That would be convincing.
I might note that a parallel case of the twin Audley marriages of Eve
de Clavering is surely Anne of Gloucester, daughter of Thomas of
Woodstock, Earl of Gloucester, who married (1st) Thomas de Stafford,
Knt., 3rd Earl of Stafford. He was born in or before 1368, and died
at Westminster 4 July 1392. Anne herself was born shortly before 8
May 1383 [Reference: Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004): 139,
673]. Thus, she was only nine year old at the time her first husband
died; although he was at least 24. Anne eventually married (2nd)
Edmund Stafford, K.B., K.G., 5th Earl of Stafford, her first husband's
younger brother. Complete Peerage makes no mention of a dispensation
for Anne and Edmund's marriage, but I believe I have seen one in the
Papal Registers. This would be a dispensation for a marriage in the
1st and 1st degrees of kindred, which is even closer than what would
been the case with Eve de Clavering's two Audley marriages.
This is not a parallel case at all. Here we have proof of dispensation
for betrothed partners, not married ones.
I've already presented evidence which indicates that Eve de Clavering
can at best have been 12 years old at the time of her first husband,
Thomas de Audley's death in 1307.
You have only presented a theory for her minority based on your say
so, which is not proof.
She was possibly much younger than
12. As with Anne of Gloucester, the marriage while contracted in
childhood. However, it probably not yet consumated at the time of
Thomas de Audley's death due to Eve's tender age.
This is only your assumption, not proven fact.
Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
then be awarded dower.
This is blatantly false. The king ordered her dower to be directly
given to her on March 24 1308 [Patent Rolls, 1307-1313, p.27]. It was
the challenge by Bertrand de Cayllon which caused it to be delayed -
not the need for her to be married in order to receive it. Later, on
May 22 1308 the patent rolls record the, "Grant to Thomas de Ufford of
the marriage of Eva, late the wife of Thomas de Aldithelegh, tenant in
chief, or of any fine incurred by her marrying without licence".
Clearly she would have been old enough to contract her own marriage,
with or without the king's licence, which means she was in her
majority.
The assignment of her dower is recorded in
Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52, which record can be viewed
at the following weblink:
This is not a record of her assignment of dower, it is a memorandum
outlining the nature of the agreement with Bertrand de Cayllon. Why do
you give secondary sources as evidence when you can quote the original
source more accurately from the Close Rolls? Don't you have a set at
SLC? Pages 51 and 52 of C.T & G. not only do not give full details
about her dower, but say she was never married to Thomas de Ufford in
the first place!
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqx ... jpJkj8C&...
It is correct to say that many dispensations were granted, but not
recorded. As such, Eve de Clavering and her husband, Sir James de
Audley, might well have obtained a dispensation, and there be no
record of it. One such case that I know of is John de Warenne, Knt.
(died 1347), 8th Earl of Surrey, who married his cousin, Joan of Bar.
They were related in 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. We know from
their messy divorce proceedings that the Pope granted a dispensation
for this marriage at the time the couple were married. However, I
haven't noticed a dispensation for this marriage in the published
Papal Registers. Thus, it would appear that this dispensation was
handled in a private manner.
However, in this case we know they were married from other sources. In
the case of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley there is room for
doubt.
Rosie Bevan
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
"Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1176965225.898225.301500@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It says:
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, amrried thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
Clearly this does NOT mean as claimed by Richardson that Eve was "styled"
the widow of James Audley in an episcopal register, but only that Chester
Waters said the man was dead in 1332. In a footnote on the same page he
wrote "It is also certain that Eve's third husband, James de Audley, was
dead in 1333".
Unfortunately page 342 of the book, containing the single reference given
for both these statements, is missing from the Google digitisation - sadly
typical of the carelessness of technicians and their supervisors. So unless
someone else has access to a copy, we will have to rely on Richardson, who
hasn't interpreted the straightforward text competently, to report the
citation.
Peter Stewart
news:1176965225.898225.301500@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 19, 3:49 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
snip
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
The following weblink is for the Waters book:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2 ... AQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
It says:
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, amrried thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
Clearly this does NOT mean as claimed by Richardson that Eve was "styled"
the widow of James Audley in an episcopal register, but only that Chester
Waters said the man was dead in 1332. In a footnote on the same page he
wrote "It is also certain that Eve's third husband, James de Audley, was
dead in 1333".
Unfortunately page 342 of the book, containing the single reference given
for both these statements, is missing from the Google digitisation - sadly
typical of the carelessness of technicians and their supervisors. So unless
someone else has access to a copy, we will have to rely on Richardson, who
hasn't interpreted the straightforward text competently, to report the
citation.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
On Apr 19, 9:31 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
A good example of the danger of relying on non-primary sources.
Waters errs in stating that Sir James (the elder) was second cousin of
Eve's first husband, Thomas Audley: he was his first cousin. How
reliable are the rest of Waters's glosses on the Audleys?
MA-R
"Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1176965225.898225.301500@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 19, 3:49 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
snip
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
The following weblink is for the Waters book:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2 ... AQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
It says:
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, married thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
A good example of the danger of relying on non-primary sources.
Waters errs in stating that Sir James (the elder) was second cousin of
Eve's first husband, Thomas Audley: he was his first cousin. How
reliable are the rest of Waters's glosses on the Audleys?
MA-R
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Thanks, Peter
Your elucidation is as I suspected,
Cheers
Rosie
On Apr 19, 8:31 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Your elucidation is as I suspected,
Cheers
Rosie
On Apr 19, 8:31 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1176965225.898225.301500@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 19, 3:49 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
snip
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
The following weblink is for the Waters book:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2 ... AQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
It says:
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, amrried thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
Clearly this does NOT mean as claimed by Richardson that Eve was "styled"
the widow of James Audley in an episcopal register, but only that Chester
Waters said the man was dead in 1332. In a footnote on the same page he
wrote "It is also certain that Eve's third husband, James de Audley, was
dead in 1333".
Unfortunately page 342 of the book, containing the single reference given
for both these statements, is missing from the Google digitisation - sadly
typical of the carelessness of technicians and their supervisors. So unless
someone else has access to a copy, we will have to rely on Richardson, who
hasn't interpreted the straightforward text competently, to report the
citation.
Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear Newsgroup ~
One of our fellow posters has stated that Eve de Clavering was married
to her 4th husband, Sir Robert de Benhale, sometime before November
1340, as indicated by Cal. Inquisitions Post Mortem, VIII, no. 265.
I can provide further improvement on this date. We know that Eve de
Clavering was still unmarried as late as 29 September 1335, when her
steward Richard de Venables referred to her as "Eva who was the wife
of James de Audeley" (or, in modern parlance, Eve the widow of James
de Audley) [Reference: Shropshire Archives: Phillipps Collection,
Reference: 52/32, available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp].
Elsewhere, in the interesting article entitled "Some Account of the
Manor or Castle of Horsford," published in Norfolk Archaeology, 15
(1904): 267-292, I find the following statement on page 275:
"I am unable to fix the date of Eva's last marriage, which was to Sir
Robert Benhall, but it must have been in or previous to the year 1335,
as there is an entry in the Account Rolls of the Priory of Carhow for
that year which refers to her as then being Lady 'Benhale.'" END OF
QUOTE.
If correct, then Eve de Clavering must have married (4th) in 1335,
sometime after 29 September, to Sir Robert de Benhale.
Following their marriage, Eve and Robert subsequently conveyed
property in 11 Edward III [1337-1338] in Ilketshall and Spexhall,
Suffolk to Elizabeth de Burgh [Reference: Walter Rye, Calender of Feet
of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 184, which reference is available online
at http://books.google.com/books?vid=00W5z ... #PPA184,M1].
Elizabeth de Burgh is, of course, one of the better known noble ladies
of medieval times, she being Elizabeth de Burgh, lady of Clare, niece
of King Edward II, and a woman known for her great charity. In 1338
she refounded University Hall at Cambridge University under the name
of Clare Hall. Lady de Burgh was the sister of Margarat de Clare,
wife of Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester. Sir Hugh de Audley in
turn was the brother of Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de
Audley.
And, yes, this information is yet another new addition to several
accounts in Complete Peerage. Needless to say, both the Suffolk Feet
of Fnes and the Horsford article were in print previous to the
publication of Complete Peerage. Sadly, both were ignored by Complete
Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
One of our fellow posters has stated that Eve de Clavering was married
to her 4th husband, Sir Robert de Benhale, sometime before November
1340, as indicated by Cal. Inquisitions Post Mortem, VIII, no. 265.
I can provide further improvement on this date. We know that Eve de
Clavering was still unmarried as late as 29 September 1335, when her
steward Richard de Venables referred to her as "Eva who was the wife
of James de Audeley" (or, in modern parlance, Eve the widow of James
de Audley) [Reference: Shropshire Archives: Phillipps Collection,
Reference: 52/32, available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp].
Elsewhere, in the interesting article entitled "Some Account of the
Manor or Castle of Horsford," published in Norfolk Archaeology, 15
(1904): 267-292, I find the following statement on page 275:
"I am unable to fix the date of Eva's last marriage, which was to Sir
Robert Benhall, but it must have been in or previous to the year 1335,
as there is an entry in the Account Rolls of the Priory of Carhow for
that year which refers to her as then being Lady 'Benhale.'" END OF
QUOTE.
If correct, then Eve de Clavering must have married (4th) in 1335,
sometime after 29 September, to Sir Robert de Benhale.
Following their marriage, Eve and Robert subsequently conveyed
property in 11 Edward III [1337-1338] in Ilketshall and Spexhall,
Suffolk to Elizabeth de Burgh [Reference: Walter Rye, Calender of Feet
of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 184, which reference is available online
at http://books.google.com/books?vid=00W5z ... #PPA184,M1].
Elizabeth de Burgh is, of course, one of the better known noble ladies
of medieval times, she being Elizabeth de Burgh, lady of Clare, niece
of King Edward II, and a woman known for her great charity. In 1338
she refounded University Hall at Cambridge University under the name
of Clare Hall. Lady de Burgh was the sister of Margarat de Clare,
wife of Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester. Sir Hugh de Audley in
turn was the brother of Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de
Audley.
And, yes, this information is yet another new addition to several
accounts in Complete Peerage. Needless to say, both the Suffolk Feet
of Fnes and the Horsford article were in print previous to the
publication of Complete Peerage. Sadly, both were ignored by Complete
Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Correction: Margaret de Clare, not Margarat de Clare.
DR
DR
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176994706.823832.19460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Why is this an "addition", when CP is not a property register, but a history
of the peerage and all the individuals who belonged to it? Every last detail
about everyone covered in the work does not automatically fall into its
purview, and this one adds or proves nothing worthwhile to that - or to the
present discussion, unless you can make out something more substantial from
it than above.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
news:1176994706.823832.19460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Following their marriage, Eve and Robert subsequently conveyed
property in 11 Edward III [1337-1338] in Ilketshall and Spexhall,
Suffolk to Elizabeth de Burgh [Reference: Walter Rye, Calender of Feet
of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 184, which reference is available online
at
http://books.google.com/books?vid=00W5z ... #PPA184,M1].
Elizabeth de Burgh is, of course, one of the better known noble ladies
of medieval times, she being Elizabeth de Burgh, lady of Clare, niece
of King Edward II, and a woman known for her great charity. In 1338
she refounded University Hall at Cambridge University under the name
of Clare Hall. Lady de Burgh was the sister of Margarat de Clare,
wife of Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester. Sir Hugh de Audley in
turn was the brother of Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de
Audley.
And, yes, this information is yet another new addition to several
accounts in Complete Peerage. Needless to say, both the Suffolk Feet
of Fnes and the Horsford article were in print previous to the
publication of Complete Peerage. Sadly, both were ignored by Complete
Peerage.
Why is this an "addition", when CP is not a property register, but a history
of the peerage and all the individuals who belonged to it? Every last detail
about everyone covered in the work does not automatically fall into its
purview, and this one adds or proves nothing worthwhile to that - or to the
present discussion, unless you can make out something more substantial from
it than above.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
-
wjhonson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Here are the three CPR entries in question on the nature of whether
Thomas Audley was married and to whom, and when.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0451.pdf
CPR E1V3 page 451 Membrane 5
1299 Oct 23 - Westminster
"Grant to Hugh le Despencer of the marriage of Thomas son of Nicholas
de Aldithelegh, tenant in chief, a king's ward, to the use of his
daughter, and in case of the death of the said Thomas before
matrimony, that of the next heir, until matrimony be effected. A
marriage between the parties had been treated of, and was left
unfinished by the death of the said Nicholas; and the king being
favourably disposed to the wishes of the deceased and of the said
Hugh, has made the above grant."
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0026.pdf
CPR E2V1 page 26-27 Membrane 5
1307 Dec 14 - Westminster
"Grant to Hugh le Despencer, for the benefit of his daughter, of the
marriage of Nicholas, brother and heir of Thomas de Aldithelegh' son
and heir of Nicholas de Aldithelegh', deceased, tenant in chief, whose
marriage does not belong to him under the late king's grant, for the
like purpose, of the marriage of the above-named Thomas de
Aldithelegh', who since the king's accession died a minor and
unmarried."
CPR E2V1 page 72 - Membrane 9
1308 May 22 - Westminster
"Grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her
by marrying without license."
Rosie stated that this implies that Eva was already of age. Can
someone explain why? I'm not sure I understand that point.
Also what is the nature of the proof that *that* Thomas Aldithlegh
"tenant in chief" is identical to that Thomas Aldithlegh, heir of
Nicholas who was supposed to have married "the daughter of Hugh
Despencer".
And why would Hugh marry his prize catch to some other girl?
Will Johnson
Thomas Audley was married and to whom, and when.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0451.pdf
CPR E1V3 page 451 Membrane 5
1299 Oct 23 - Westminster
"Grant to Hugh le Despencer of the marriage of Thomas son of Nicholas
de Aldithelegh, tenant in chief, a king's ward, to the use of his
daughter, and in case of the death of the said Thomas before
matrimony, that of the next heir, until matrimony be effected. A
marriage between the parties had been treated of, and was left
unfinished by the death of the said Nicholas; and the king being
favourably disposed to the wishes of the deceased and of the said
Hugh, has made the above grant."
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0026.pdf
CPR E2V1 page 26-27 Membrane 5
1307 Dec 14 - Westminster
"Grant to Hugh le Despencer, for the benefit of his daughter, of the
marriage of Nicholas, brother and heir of Thomas de Aldithelegh' son
and heir of Nicholas de Aldithelegh', deceased, tenant in chief, whose
marriage does not belong to him under the late king's grant, for the
like purpose, of the marriage of the above-named Thomas de
Aldithelegh', who since the king's accession died a minor and
unmarried."
CPR E2V1 page 72 - Membrane 9
1308 May 22 - Westminster
"Grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her
by marrying without license."
Rosie stated that this implies that Eva was already of age. Can
someone explain why? I'm not sure I understand that point.
Also what is the nature of the proof that *that* Thomas Aldithlegh
"tenant in chief" is identical to that Thomas Aldithlegh, heir of
Nicholas who was supposed to have married "the daughter of Hugh
Despencer".
And why would Hugh marry his prize catch to some other girl?
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Okay I have a followup question.
Let's say for argument that Hugh despencer *did* marry one of his
daughter to Thomas Audley and then that daughter died, could not Hugh
then marry that same Thomas Audley to another one of Hugh's
daughters? Since Thomas Audley was still a minor, was he still under
the control of Hugh as to whom he married next ?
And since Hugh comes begging for another heir, the king states that
the first grant is not effective now (why?) and then regrants that
Hugh's daughter (perhaps the same one or a different one) can now
marry Nicholas the next heir.
Perhaps there was another son between Thomas and Nicholas? Or perhaps
since E1 granted the first time, everything he did is voided once E2
comes to the throne?
The other issue would be that Hugh Despencer is lying by stating that
the marriage was not effected, because he wants another marriage of
Nicholas to another daughter, sort of a double-tie in the family.
It's a bit confusing to see that Thomas died as a minor and unmarried
and Hugh getting another marriage grant and then seeing within a year
that Eve is called the widow of Thomas.
Will Johnson
Let's say for argument that Hugh despencer *did* marry one of his
daughter to Thomas Audley and then that daughter died, could not Hugh
then marry that same Thomas Audley to another one of Hugh's
daughters? Since Thomas Audley was still a minor, was he still under
the control of Hugh as to whom he married next ?
And since Hugh comes begging for another heir, the king states that
the first grant is not effective now (why?) and then regrants that
Hugh's daughter (perhaps the same one or a different one) can now
marry Nicholas the next heir.
Perhaps there was another son between Thomas and Nicholas? Or perhaps
since E1 granted the first time, everything he did is voided once E2
comes to the throne?
The other issue would be that Hugh Despencer is lying by stating that
the marriage was not effected, because he wants another marriage of
Nicholas to another daughter, sort of a double-tie in the family.
It's a bit confusing to see that Thomas died as a minor and unmarried
and Hugh getting another marriage grant and then seeing within a year
that Eve is called the widow of Thomas.
Will Johnson
-
John Higgins
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Since Douglas apparently has had no luck finding the Chester-Waters book in
his "mass of books and papers", here's the information from the elusive
page 342 of that volume.
The paragraph quoted below by Peter Stewart from p. 337 of Chester-Waters,
as well as the foonote on the same page also quoted by Peter below, are both
indicated to be from the same source. On page 342, that source is noted as
Suckling's Suffolk, vol. ii p. 161. This item, which apparently is
available at the FHL, is clearly yet another secondary source. Whether or
not it indicates how Eve de Clavering was "styled" in a supposed bishop's
register is yet to be seen.
Which is the worse sin: "suppressing" information, or not accurately
reporting information?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audley
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
his "mass of books and papers", here's the information from the elusive
page 342 of that volume.
The paragraph quoted below by Peter Stewart from p. 337 of Chester-Waters,
as well as the foonote on the same page also quoted by Peter below, are both
indicated to be from the same source. On page 342, that source is noted as
Suckling's Suffolk, vol. ii p. 161. This item, which apparently is
available at the FHL, is clearly yet another secondary source. Whether or
not it indicates how Eve de Clavering was "styled" in a supposed bishop's
register is yet to be seen.
Which is the worse sin: "suppressing" information, or not accurately
reporting information?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audley
"Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1176965225.898225.301500@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 19, 3:49 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
snip
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
The following weblink is for the Waters book:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2 ... AQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
It says:
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, amrried thirdly Sir James de
Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when
she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
Clearly this does NOT mean as claimed by Richardson that Eve was "styled"
the widow of James Audley in an episcopal register, but only that Chester
Waters said the man was dead in 1332. In a footnote on the same page he
wrote "It is also certain that Eve's third husband, James de Audley, was
dead in 1333".
Unfortunately page 342 of the book, containing the single reference given
for both these statements, is missing from the Google digitisation - sadly
typical of the carelessness of technicians and their supervisors. So
unless
someone else has access to a copy, we will have to rely on Richardson, who
hasn't interpreted the straightforward text competently, to report the
citation.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear John ~
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
Dear John ~
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
John Higgins
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
It's helpful that you were able to look up the reference in Suckling so
quickly (one of the benefits of being in SLC, I guess). But, unless it
specifies further sources, it doesn't really add much to the discussion.
There's never been any question that Eve presented to Blythburgh in 1332 -
the issue is whether she was married to James Audley and whether he was dead
by then. In particular no mention is made of any husband of Eve de
Clavering, so no assumption can be made from this that she was actually
married to James Audley (particularly since she had previously married
another Audley). Nor can we assume from this mention that James was dead by
this date (as Waters apparently did), since (as was previously mentioned in
this thread) Eve was presenting to Blythburgh in her own right (inherited
from her father), and thus there is no reason for her husband to be
mentioned - dead or alive. See for example no. 6 and 7 in the list below,
where Sir Thomas Hoo is said to be presenting in right of his wife Eleanor.
The absence of mention of James Audley in the earlier presenting could
indicate either that he was dead or that he was not the legitimate husband
of Eve - you can draw a conclusion either way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audley
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
quickly (one of the benefits of being in SLC, I guess). But, unless it
specifies further sources, it doesn't really add much to the discussion.
There's never been any question that Eve presented to Blythburgh in 1332 -
the issue is whether she was married to James Audley and whether he was dead
by then. In particular no mention is made of any husband of Eve de
Clavering, so no assumption can be made from this that she was actually
married to James Audley (particularly since she had previously married
another Audley). Nor can we assume from this mention that James was dead by
this date (as Waters apparently did), since (as was previously mentioned in
this thread) Eve was presenting to Blythburgh in her own right (inherited
from her father), and thus there is no reason for her husband to be
mentioned - dead or alive. See for example no. 6 and 7 in the list below,
where Sir Thomas Hoo is said to be presenting in right of his wife Eleanor.
The absence of mention of James Audley in the earlier presenting could
indicate either that he was dead or that he was not the legitimate husband
of Eve - you can draw a conclusion either way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audley
Dear John ~
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1177203863.853752.192900@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It confirms only that Suckling asserted this in 1848 - NB not "1868" as
misstated above. For Richardson, who so often sneers at others about his
alleged vast experience in medieval records, misreading a date in Roman
numerals (in this case "M.DCCC.XLVIII" on the title page) is a very loud
howler indeed, once again.
Suckling cited no medieval (or other) source for any of the presentations he
listed, including the one ascribed to Eve apparently acting in her own
right.
Why all the irrelevant entries in the same list are quoted above is a
mystery - surely not even Richardson can think the readers of this newsgroup
are impressed, much less befogged, by superfluous details.
Peter Stewart
news:1177203863.853752.192900@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
It confirms only that Suckling asserted this in 1848 - NB not "1868" as
misstated above. For Richardson, who so often sneers at others about his
alleged vast experience in medieval records, misreading a date in Roman
numerals (in this case "M.DCCC.XLVIII" on the title page) is a very loud
howler indeed, once again.
Suckling cited no medieval (or other) source for any of the presentations he
listed, including the one ascribed to Eve apparently acting in her own
right.
Why all the irrelevant entries in the same list are quoted above is a
mystery - surely not even Richardson can think the readers of this newsgroup
are impressed, much less befogged, by superfluous details.
Peter Stewart