Dear Newsgroup ~
In my previous post earlier today, I stated that on the death of Sir
William de Ufford,K.G., 2nd Earl of Suffolk, without surviving issue
in 1382, his heirs were his`three nephews, Robert de Willoughby, Knt.,
Roger de Scales, Knt., and Henry de Ferrers, Knt., and his sister,
Maud de Ufford, a nun at Campsey [References: C.P. 12(1) (1953): 434
(sub Suffolk); C.P. 12(2) (1959): 153 (sub Ufford)].
Neither Complete Peerage account cites the evidence the Maud de
Ufford, a canoness of Campsey, was heir to her brother, Sir William de
Ufford, or that she was living at his death. In fact, according to
Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 433, footnote l, the Earl's "heirs"
as stated in the inquisition post mortem following his death were his
three nephews as given above. Even more curious, Maud is not listed
as a child of Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, in Complete
Peerage, 12(1): 432, footnote i, which item lists the earl's four
sons, but none of his daughters.
Maud de Ufford's existence and place in this family is proven by the
1368 will of her father, Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk,
an abstract of which can be found in Beltz, Memorials of the Most
Noble Order of the Garter (1841): 100, footnote 4. Maud is likewise
mentioned in Harleian MS. 10, folio 211b, which indicates that she was
a nun at Campsey and living in 1412.
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage 12 Pt 1 (1953): 432 (sub Suffolk) states
that Sir William de Ufford's parents, Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl
of Suffolk, and Margaret de Norwich, were married on or before 21
October 1329. However, Robert and Margaret were surely married much
earlier than this as their elder son, Robert de Ufford, was summoned
to Parliament 25 Feb. 1341/2, by writ directed Roberto de Ufford, le
fitz. Had Robert and Margaret been married as late as 1329, their son
would have been at best only 13 years old when summoned to
Parliament. This is patently impossible.
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 470 (sub Cailly) states that
Robert de Ufford and Margaret de Norwich were married "probably about
1320," which date certainly harmonizes much better with the known
chronology of their elder son, Robert. Margaret de Norwich's first
husband, Thomas de Cailly, Lord Cailly, died shortly before 30 July
1316 (date of the writ for his inquisition post mortem). Thus, Robert
and Margaret were conceivably married as early as 1317, and likely by
1320. A marriage date of about 1320 for Robert de Ufford and
Margaret de Norwich also better fits the known chronology of their
daughters, Katherine de Ufford, who married before 6 May 1335 Robert
de Scales, Knt., 3rd Lord Scales, and Cecily, who married in 1337
(date of grant) John de Willoughby, 3rd Lord Willoughby of Eresby.
Interestingly, I note that an otherwise reliable article on the Ufford
family by Nichols in The Topographer & Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277
assigns Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, a first wife
named Alianor [Eleanor], living 1336-1337, who was allegedly buried at
Campsey, Suffolk. George F. Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order
of the Garter (1841): 100, likewise states that Robert de Ufford had a
first wife, Eleanor, who was "living at the period of his elevatiion
to the earldom." However, inasmuch as Robert was made Earl of Suffolk
in 1337, after he is known to have married Margaret de Norwich, Beltz
is clearly in error as to when Eleanor was alive.
Since no original record is cited by either of these sources, it is
impossible to say if Sir Robert de Ufford really had a first wife
named Eleanor, before he married Margaret de Norwich. However, given
the statement by Nichols that Eleanor was buried at Campsey, there
might well be a record of Eleanor's existence in the cartulary of that
house if one has survived. Whatever the case, Complete Peerage
appears to have suppressed or ignored the previously published
statements in Topographer & Genealogist and Beltz regarding the earl's
first wife, Eleanor. Both of these works were seen by the author of
the Complete Peerage account and were cited in his notes. Perhaps the
author decided that the first wife, Eleanor, was utterly fictitious,
but, if so, an explanatory note would surely seem to have been in
order.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
More C.P. Additions/Corrections: Family of Robert de Ufford,
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: More C.P. Additions/Corrections: Family of Robert de Uff
On 27 Apr., 22:42, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Might this apparent discrepancy not be accounted for by the fact that
an IPM only records the inheritance of real property, not other rights
such as peerage titles, arms or familial representation, and the heirs
to the two are not necessarily the same? A daughter who was a
professed religious, as I understand the application of the common law
at the time, would be out of the running as a coheir to real property.
Given that his three well-known daughters are omitted from the list of
the Earl's four sons, why is it "even more curious" that the fourth,
less well-known daughter should also have been left out of this list
of male issue?
For what it is worth, Dugdale also "suppresses" Maud's existence in
his 1676 list of the Earl's three daughters (Baronage, Vol 2, p 48),
despite detailing much of the contents of his will [which he cites as
"Witlesey f 111b]. Doubtless this is a very long-standing
conspiracy
Have you seen Harl. MS 10 f 211b, or a reproduction of its text, or
are you inferring this from a secondary source?
Given the possibility that Robert the elder had an earlier marriage
(see your notes below) how do we know that all his children were by
his marriage to Margaret de Norwich?
'Ignored', 'overlooked', 'rejected' etc would seem to be valid
descriptions. 'Surpressed', which indicates a deliberate decision to
stop information from being revealed for some reason, just looks silly
in this context. On this basis, you have 'surpressed' a huge amount
of material during your own research (as have we all).
Agreed.
Good luck!
PS I am sorry to see that you have been delayed in providing further
details in relation to the Audley/Clavering matter, and in responding
to WAR's material re heirs of the half-blood - I hope you will be able
to share your thoughts on these issues shortly.
Best wishes, Michael
In my previous post earlier today, I stated that on the death of Sir
William de Ufford,K.G., 2nd Earl of Suffolk, without surviving issue
in 1382, his heirs were his`three nephews, Robert de Willoughby, Knt.,
Roger de Scales, Knt., and Henry de Ferrers, Knt., and his sister,
Maud de Ufford, a nun at Campsey [References: C.P. 12(1) (1953): 434
(sub Suffolk); C.P. 12(2) (1959): 153 (sub Ufford)].
Neither Complete Peerage account cites the evidence the Maud de
Ufford, a canoness of Campsey, was heir to her brother, Sir William de
Ufford, or that she was living at his death. In fact, according to
Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 433, footnote l, the Earl's "heirs"
as stated in the inquisition post mortem following his death were his
three nephews as given above.
Might this apparent discrepancy not be accounted for by the fact that
an IPM only records the inheritance of real property, not other rights
such as peerage titles, arms or familial representation, and the heirs
to the two are not necessarily the same? A daughter who was a
professed religious, as I understand the application of the common law
at the time, would be out of the running as a coheir to real property.
Even more curious, Maud is not listed
as a child of Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, in Complete
Peerage, 12(1): 432, footnote i, which item lists the earl's four
sons, but none of his daughters.
Given that his three well-known daughters are omitted from the list of
the Earl's four sons, why is it "even more curious" that the fourth,
less well-known daughter should also have been left out of this list
of male issue?
For what it is worth, Dugdale also "suppresses" Maud's existence in
his 1676 list of the Earl's three daughters (Baronage, Vol 2, p 48),
despite detailing much of the contents of his will [which he cites as
"Witlesey f 111b]. Doubtless this is a very long-standing
conspiracy
Maud de Ufford's existence and place in this family is proven by the
1368 will of her father, Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk,
an abstract of which can be found in Beltz, Memorials of the Most
Noble Order of the Garter (1841): 100, footnote 4. Maud is likewise
mentioned in Harleian MS. 10, folio 211b, which indicates that she was
a nun at Campsey and living in 1412.
Have you seen Harl. MS 10 f 211b, or a reproduction of its text, or
are you inferring this from a secondary source?
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage 12 Pt 1 (1953): 432 (sub Suffolk) states
that Sir William de Ufford's parents, Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl
of Suffolk, and Margaret de Norwich, were married on or before 21
October 1329. However, Robert and Margaret were surely married much
earlier than this as their elder son, Robert de Ufford, was summoned
to Parliament 25 Feb. 1341/2, by writ directed Roberto de Ufford, le
fitz. Had Robert and Margaret been married as late as 1329, their son
would have been at best only 13 years old when summoned to
Parliament. This is patently impossible.
Given the possibility that Robert the elder had an earlier marriage
(see your notes below) how do we know that all his children were by
his marriage to Margaret de Norwich?
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 470 (sub Cailly) states that
Robert de Ufford and Margaret de Norwich were married "probably about
1320," which date certainly harmonizes much better with the known
chronology of their elder son, Robert. Margaret de Norwich's first
husband, Thomas de Cailly, Lord Cailly, died shortly before 30 July
1316 (date of the writ for his inquisition post mortem). Thus, Robert
and Margaret were conceivably married as early as 1317, and likely by
1320. A marriage date of about 1320 for Robert de Ufford and
Margaret de Norwich also better fits the known chronology of their
daughters, Katherine de Ufford, who married before 6 May 1335 Robert
de Scales, Knt., 3rd Lord Scales, and Cecily, who married in 1337
(date of grant) John de Willoughby, 3rd Lord Willoughby of Eresby.
Interestingly, I note that an otherwise reliable article on the Ufford
family by Nichols in The Topographer & Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277
assigns Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, a first wife
named Alianor [Eleanor], living 1336-1337, who was allegedly buried at
Campsey, Suffolk. George F. Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order
of the Garter (1841): 100, likewise states that Robert de Ufford had a
first wife, Eleanor, who was "living at the period of his elevatiion
to the earldom." However, inasmuch as Robert was made Earl of Suffolk
in 1337, after he is known to have married Margaret de Norwich, Beltz
is clearly in error as to when Eleanor was alive.
Since no original record is cited by either of these sources, it is
impossible to say if Sir Robert de Ufford really had a first wife
named Eleanor, before he married Margaret de Norwich. However, given
the statement by Nichols that Eleanor was buried at Campsey, there
might well be a record of Eleanor's existence in the cartulary of that
house if one has survived. Whatever the case, Complete Peerage
appears to have suppressed or ignored
'Ignored', 'overlooked', 'rejected' etc would seem to be valid
descriptions. 'Surpressed', which indicates a deliberate decision to
stop information from being revealed for some reason, just looks silly
in this context. On this basis, you have 'surpressed' a huge amount
of material during your own research (as have we all).
the previously published
statements in Topographer & Genealogist and Beltz regarding the earl's
first wife, Eleanor. Both of these works were seen by the author of
the Complete Peerage account and were cited in his notes. Perhaps the
author decided that the first wife, Eleanor, was utterly fictitious,
but, if so, an explanatory note would surely seem to have been in
order.
Agreed.
This matter deserves further study.
Good luck!
PS I am sorry to see that you have been delayed in providing further
details in relation to the Audley/Clavering matter, and in responding
to WAR's material re heirs of the half-blood - I hope you will be able
to share your thoughts on these issues shortly.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: More C.P. Additions/Corrections: Family of Robert de Uff
On 27 Apr., 22:42, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Actually, it appears that this thread is not a new discovery or
publication. ODNB has this to say - as usual, its references are not
very useful, as they are lumped together en bloc at the end of the
article, without footnoting.
"Rober Ufford, 1st Earl of Suffolk... born on 9 August 1298... his
marriage was granted to Walter Norwich... to whose daughter
Margaret... (he) was subsequently married between 2 July and 13
November 1324 (sic).... (His) marriage to Margaret produced a large
marriage. The eldest son, Robert... died childless and before his
father, so that the comital title passed... to the next son, William.
*Joan, the eldest daughter* [my emphasis - MAR] was betrothed to marry
her father's ward, John de St Philibert, but the marriage did not take
place. Three other daughters all married well: Cecily to William
[Willoughby], Catherine to Robert [Scales], and Margaret to William
[Ferrers]. The other known daughter, Maud, entered the house of
Augustinian canonesses at Campsey Ash, Suffolk."
So, if ODNB is correct, it seems there was a fifth daughter, Joan,
whose existence has also been otherwise 'surpressed'.
MA-R
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my previous post earlier today, I stated that on the death of Sir
William de Ufford,K.G., 2nd Earl of Suffolk, without surviving issue
in 1382, his heirs were his`three nephews, Robert de Willoughby, Knt.,
Roger de Scales, Knt., and Henry de Ferrers, Knt., and his sister,
Maud de Ufford, a nun at Campsey [References: C.P. 12(1) (1953): 434
(sub Suffolk); C.P. 12(2) (1959): 153 (sub Ufford)].
Neither Complete Peerage account cites the evidence the Maud de
Ufford, a canoness of Campsey, was heir to her brother, Sir William de
Ufford, or that she was living at his death. In fact, according to
Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 433, footnote l, the Earl's "heirs"
as stated in the inquisition post mortem following his death were his
three nephews as given above. Even more curious, Maud is not listed
as a child of Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, in Complete
Peerage, 12(1): 432, footnote i, which item lists the earl's four
sons, but none of his daughters.
This matter deserves further study.
Actually, it appears that this thread is not a new discovery or
publication. ODNB has this to say - as usual, its references are not
very useful, as they are lumped together en bloc at the end of the
article, without footnoting.
"Rober Ufford, 1st Earl of Suffolk... born on 9 August 1298... his
marriage was granted to Walter Norwich... to whose daughter
Margaret... (he) was subsequently married between 2 July and 13
November 1324 (sic).... (His) marriage to Margaret produced a large
marriage. The eldest son, Robert... died childless and before his
father, so that the comital title passed... to the next son, William.
*Joan, the eldest daughter* [my emphasis - MAR] was betrothed to marry
her father's ward, John de St Philibert, but the marriage did not take
place. Three other daughters all married well: Cecily to William
[Willoughby], Catherine to Robert [Scales], and Margaret to William
[Ferrers]. The other known daughter, Maud, entered the house of
Augustinian canonesses at Campsey Ash, Suffolk."
So, if ODNB is correct, it seems there was a fifth daughter, Joan,
whose existence has also been otherwise 'surpressed'.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: More C.P. Additions/Corrections: Family of Robert de Uff
On 27 Apr., 23:54, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Recte: *family*
MA-R
On 27 Apr., 22:42, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my previous post earlier today, I stated that on the death of Sir
William de Ufford,K.G., 2nd Earl of Suffolk, without surviving issue
in 1382, his heirs were his`three nephews, Robert de Willoughby, Knt.,
Roger de Scales, Knt., and Henry de Ferrers, Knt., and his sister,
Maud de Ufford, a nun at Campsey [References: C.P. 12(1) (1953): 434
(sub Suffolk); C.P. 12(2) (1959): 153 (sub Ufford)].
Neither Complete Peerage account cites the evidence the Maud de
Ufford, a canoness of Campsey, was heir to her brother, Sir William de
Ufford, or that she was living at his death. In fact, according to
Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 433, footnote l, the Earl's "heirs"
as stated in the inquisition post mortem following his death were his
three nephews as given above. Even more curious, Maud is not listed
as a child of Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, in Complete
Peerage, 12(1): 432, footnote i, which item lists the earl's four
sons, but none of his daughters.
This matter deserves further study.
Actually, it appears that this thread is not a new discovery or
publication. ODNB has this to say - as usual, its references are not
very useful, as they are lumped together en bloc at the end of the
article, without footnoting.
"Rober Ufford, 1st Earl of Suffolk... born on 9 August 1298... his
marriage was granted to Walter Norwich... to whose daughter
Margaret... (he) was subsequently married between 2 July and 13
November 1324 (sic).... (His) marriage to Margaret produced a large
marriage.
Recte: *family*
MA-R