Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir R

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir R

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 sep 2007 19:07:35

Dear Newsgroup ~

One perplexing problem I've encountered in researching medieval
English families concerns the Camville and Vernon families. Complete
Peerage, 3 (1913): 4-5 (sub Canville) nicely sets out the known
history of the baronial Camville family. It indicates that William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire,
Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire, Fedamore, co. Tipperrary, etc., died in
1308, leaving five daughters and co-heiresses, namely

1. Maud de Camville, wife of Richard de Vernon, Knt.

2. Eleanor de Camville, wife of Richard de Penris.

3. Isabel de Camville, wife of Gilbert de Bermingham.

4. Nichole de Camville, wife of John de Saint Clere.

5.`Katherine de Camville, wife of Robert de Gresley, Knt.

The five daughters are not traced further in Complete Peerage, as the
writ creating the barony of Camville was deemed to be in abeyance on
the death of their father, William de Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, in
1338.

Maud de Camville, the eldest daughter, received as her share of her
father's estates the English manors of Clifton-Campville, Haselor, and
Stotfold, Staffordshire, and the overlordship of Arrow, Warwickshire,
as well as unpsecified lands in Ireland. Eleanor the 2nd daughter
received Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire. Fedamore, co. Limerick fell to
their 5th sister, Katherine, and her husband, Sir Robert de Gresley.
I believe that Caher, co. Tipperary fell to Isabel de Camville and her
husband, Gilbert de Bermingham.

In 1339 Maud de Camville made a settlement of most of her Camville
inheritance by fine on her daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir
Richard de Stafford. This settlement consisted of the manors of
Clifton-Campville, Haselor, and Stotfold, all in Staffordshire. If
Isabel de Stafford died without issue, the fine stipulated that the
properties were to revert to Maud, daughter of Richard de Vernon, who
was presumably Maud de Camville's younger daughter. And, if Maud de
Vernon died without issue, the properties were to revert to Maud de
Camville's right heirs. No mention is made of any other children of
Maud de Camville in this fine.

It is commonly believed that Maud de Camville was also the mother of
Sir Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon. The chief
reason for this belief is that William de Vernon was stated to have
been aged 10 and more in 1323 at his father's death (or born about
1313), whereas it is known that William's father, Richard de Vernon,
and his wife, Maud (presumably Maud de Camville), were married in or
before 1309. However, a study of the available evidence suggests that
Maud de Camville was not William de Vernon's mother. The reasons for
this are several. First, surviving property records indicate that
Maud de Camville's share of her father's Camville estates went solely
to her daughter, Isabel, wife of Richard de Stafford, to the exclusion
of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon. Second, there
is a fine dated Michaelmas 1351, in which Richard de Stafford and
Isabel his wife are styled "cousins and heirs of William de Campvill,
and Aubrey his wife." [see The Topographer 2 (1790): 2]. The William
and Aubrey de Camville in question can be readily identified as lineal
ancestors of Maud de Camville, wife of Richard de Vernon [see C.P. 3
(1913): 3, footnote d (sub Canville); VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 28]. If
Isabel de Stafford was the heir of Maud de Camville, it would be
legally correct for Isabel to claim in turn to be the heir of Maud's
ancestors, William and Aubrey de Camville. If Isabel was merely their
successor representative, it would be incorrect for her to call
herself William and Aubrey's heir. Third, there is a record of a deed
dated 22 Edward III [1348-1349] in which the grantors are Maud de
Camville, widow of Richard de Vernon, and her daughter and son-in-law,
Isabel and Richard de Stafford. The seal for Isabel de Stafford on
this deed displays the Stafford, Camville, and Vernon arms [see The
Topographer 2 (1790): 3]. The inclusion of the Camville arms on
Isabel's seal suggests she was deemed to be the heiress apparent to
her mother, Maud de Camville, in her mother's lifetime. Otherwise,
under normal circumstances, Isabel's seal would typically have
displayed only her husband's and her father's arms, and not her
mother's. Lastly, I find that the Camville arms appears at the tomb
of Sir Humphrey Stanley, who is a lineal descendant of Isabel de
Vernon, wife of Sir Richard de Stafford. This suggests that Sir
Humphrey Stanley's family believed that his ancestress, Isabel de
Vernon, was the heiress of her mother, Maud de Camville. I believe
the Camville arms also appear on at least one other tomb of the
Stanley family in this same time period.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 10 sep 2007 21:32:09

On Sep 10, 8:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

One perplexing problem I've encountered in researching medieval
English families concerns the Camville and Vernon families. Complete
Peerage, 3 (1913): 4-5 (sub Canville) nicely sets out the known
history of the baronial Camville family. It indicates that William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire,
Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire, Fedamore, co. Tipperrary, etc., died in
1308, leaving five daughters and co-heiresses, namely

1. Maud de Camville, wife of Richard de Vernon, Knt.

2. Eleanor de Camville, wife of Richard de Penris.

3. Isabel de Camville, wife of Gilbert de Bermingham.

4. Nichole de Camville, wife of John de Saint Clere.

5.`Katherine de Camville, wife of Robert de Gresley, Knt.

The five daughters are not traced further in Complete Peerage, as the
writ creating the barony of Camville was deemed to be in abeyance on
the death of their father, William de Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, in
1338.

Maud de Camville, the eldest daughter, received as her share of her
father's estates the English manors of Clifton-Campville, Haselor, and
Stotfold, Staffordshire, and the overlordship of Arrow, Warwickshire,
as well as unpsecified lands in Ireland. Eleanor the 2nd daughter
received Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire. Fedamore, co. Limerick fell to
their 5th sister, Katherine, and her husband, Sir Robert de Gresley.
I believe that Caher, co. Tipperary fell to Isabel de Camville and her
husband, Gilbert de Bermingham.

In 1339 Maud de Camville made a settlement of most of her Camville
inheritance by fine on her daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir
Richard de Stafford. This settlement consisted of the manors of
Clifton-Campville, Haselor, and Stotfold, all in Staffordshire. If
Isabel de Stafford died without issue, the fine stipulated that the
properties were to revert to Maud, daughter of Richard de Vernon, who
was presumably Maud de Camville's younger daughter. And, if Maud de
Vernon died without issue, the properties were to revert to Maud de
Camville's right heirs. No mention is made of any other children of
Maud de Camville in this fine.

It is commonly believed that Maud de Camville was also the mother of
Sir Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon. The chief
reason for this belief is that William de Vernon was stated to have
been aged 10 and more in 1323 at his father's death (or born about
1313), whereas it is known that William's father, Richard de Vernon,
and his wife, Maud (presumably Maud de Camville), were married in or
before 1309. However, a study of the available evidence suggests that
Maud de Camville was not William de Vernon's mother. The reasons for
this are several. First, surviving property records indicate that
Maud de Camville's share of her father's Camville estates went solely
to her daughter, Isabel, wife of Richard de Stafford, to the exclusion
of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon. Second, there
is a fine dated Michaelmas 1351, in which Richard de Stafford and
Isabel his wife are styled "cousins and heirs of William de Campvill,
and Aubrey his wife." [see The Topographer 2 (1790): 2]. The William
and Aubrey de Camville in question can be readily identified as lineal
ancestors of Maud de Camville, wife of Richard de Vernon [see C.P. 3
(1913): 3, footnote d (sub Canville); VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 28]. If
Isabel de Stafford was the heir of Maud de Camville, it would be
legally correct for Isabel to claim in turn to be the heir of Maud's
ancestors, William and Aubrey de Camville. If Isabel was merely their
successor representative, it would be incorrect for her to call
herself William and Aubrey's heir. Third, there is a record of a deed
dated 22 Edward III [1348-1349] in which the grantors are Maud de
Camville, widow of Richard de Vernon, and her daughter and son-in-law,
Isabel and Richard de Stafford. The seal for Isabel de Stafford on
this deed displays the Stafford, Camville, and Vernon arms [see The
Topographer 2 (1790): 3]. The inclusion of the Camville arms on
Isabel's seal suggests she was deemed to be the heiress apparent to
her mother, Maud de Camville, in her mother's lifetime. Otherwise,
under normal circumstances, Isabel's seal would typically have
displayed only her husband's and her father's arms, and not her
mother's. Lastly, I find that the Camville arms appears at the tomb
of Sir Humphrey Stanley, who is a lineal descendant of Isabel de
Vernon, wife of Sir Richard de Stafford. This suggests that Sir
Humphrey Stanley's family believed that his ancestress, Isabel de
Vernon, was the heiress of her mother, Maud de Camville. I believe
the Camville arms also appear on at least one other tomb of the
Stanley family in this same time period.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Douglas,

I had a moment of deja vu there, as that theory prompted my first post
here- which I'll reproduce below. The fact remains that the Vernons
also included the Camville arms on their tombs by then (and I believe
Sir Humphrey Stanley also had a Vernon mother to add to the mix).
Ideally we would know from the Huntbach deed cited in Shaw's
Staffordshire (below; which might possibly be in the William Salt
Library in Stafford?).

Best wishes -Matthew



"Dear Douglas,

you have voiced a valid concern about the descent of the Vernons from
Maud de Camville, given the subsequent devolution of her inheritance.
However, a case can be made to support William de Vernon's maternity.
Firstly, in the Feodary of Tutbury, as reproduced in John Pym
Yeatman's
Feudal History of the County of Derby vol.1 section 2, on page 495 we
find "Rich Vernon and Magister Edmund Stafford hold the manors of
Bromcote, Grendon, Shepeye, and Basturley [all in Leics.], for 3
fees."
Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter (1344-1419) was the surviving
legitimate son and heir of Sir Richard Stafford, and Shepeye and
Grendon, at least, were certainly Camville lands; this would imply a
shared Camville descent. In the intricate (but not entirely accurate)
pedigree at page 982* of Nichols's Leicester vol.3 part 2 we have Sir
Richard de Stafford "of Clifton in part" and his son Bishop Edmund
"lord of Clifton by exchange with Richard Vernon and guardians". This
may give a clue- Shaw's Staffordshire vol.1 page 404 gives as an
evidence for the pedigree a "deed of bp.Edm.Staff.cop. in Huntb[ach]
No.2", which evidently dates from 1402-3 and involves Richard de
Vernon, then a minor, son of the late Richard de Vernon of Harleston
kt
and his wife Joanna, then living. (If anybody can locate the text of
this deed, it should settle the matter.) Although Richard de Vernon
(dead 1323) was betrothed while a minor to Eleanor, daughter of Giles
de Fenes, she would not appear to be a candidate for William's mother,
as she was dead by 1302 (see, for instance, VCH Bucks, sub Pitchcott)
and William is described as being 10 years old at his father's
inquisition in 1323 (CIPM Edw.II, vi.238). Richard was married to Maud
by 1313, as there is an enfeoffment of "Richard son of Richard de
Vernon and Maud his wife" dated Sunday after the Purification, 6
Edw.II
(HMC Rutland, iv.28).
As for the heraldry, it is significant that the arms of Pype are
mentioned, as although the manor of Pipe was held by the Staffords and
Stanleys, there was no blood succession. The new ODNB describes how
Richard, Lord Stafford of Clifton acquired this manor at the expense
of
the blood heir, his mother Margaret (nee Bassett) having remarried to
Sir Thomas Pipe. Stafford's second wife Maud Stafford also brought
claims to the Pipe lands; but again, she was not the mother of his
posterity. So it seems that the shields that Earwaker records
represent
the acquisition of lands, by whatever means, by the ancestors of John
Stanley (query whether he was a knight, although his father -also
John-
certainly was one). Clifton and other Camville lands (in part?) may
have been a marriage portion, later enhanced by exchange; the arms of
Camville also appear among those of other heiresses on the memorial
brass to Sir William Vernon (d.1467) at Tong, Shropshire, and on all
later such Vernon heraldry."

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 10 sep 2007 21:36:44

[Rearranged, childish crosspost removed]

On Sep 10, 11:07 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

It is commonly believed that Maud de Camville was also the mother of
Sir Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon. The chief
reason for this belief is that William de Vernon was stated to have
been aged 10 and more in 1323 at his father's death (or born about
1313),

How many times need something be pointed out before the point gets
across? Aged 10 and more means born IN OR BEFORE 1313, not ABOUT
1313. Your very own argument is in favor of such an interpretation.
If it meant ABOUT 1313, your argument _must_ fail, full stop.

whereas it is known that William's father, Richard de Vernon,
and his wife, Maud (presumably Maud de Camville), were married in or
before 1309. However, a study of the available evidence suggests that
Maud de Camville was not William de Vernon's mother. The reasons for
this are several. First, surviving property records indicate that
Maud de Camville's share of her father's Camville estates went solely
to her daughter, Isabel, wife of Richard de Stafford, to the exclusion
of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon.

[begin reordered section]

In 1339 Maud de Camville made a settlement of most of her Camville
inheritance by fine on her daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir
Richard de Stafford. This settlement consisted of the manors of
Clifton-Campville, Haselor, and Stotfold, all in Staffordshire. If
Isabel de Stafford died without issue, the fine stipulated that the
properties were to revert to Maud, daughter of Richard de Vernon, who
was presumably Maud de Camville's younger daughter. And, if Maud de
Vernon died without issue, the properties were to revert to Maud de
Camville's right heirs. No mention is made of any other children of
Maud de Camville in this fine.
[end]


So, Maud's lands did not pass by inheritance _at all_. They passed by
fine. Thus you can hardly argue that the fact that Isabel ended up
with them means Maud had no son to inherit them. That is the whole
purpose of a fine, to subvert legal inheritance. As to no mention of
other children, a son would have been the "right heir" of Maud.

Second, there
is a fine dated Michaelmas 1351, in which Richard de Stafford and
Isabel his wife are styled "cousins and heirs of William de Campvill,
and Aubrey his wife." [see The Topographer 2 (1790): 2]. The William
and Aubrey de Camville in question can be readily identified as lineal
ancestors of Maud de Camville, wife of Richard de Vernon [see C.P. 3
(1913): 3, footnote d (sub Canville); VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 28]. If
Isabel de Stafford was the heir of Maud de Camville, it would be
legally correct for Isabel to claim in turn to be the heir of Maud's
ancestors, William and Aubrey de Camville. If Isabel was merely their
successor representative, it would be incorrect for her to call
herself William and Aubrey's heir.

And no one ever used an imprecise or misleading claim in a fine to
ratify ownership?

Third, there is a record of a deed
dated 22 Edward III [1348-1349] in which the grantors are Maud de
Camville, widow of Richard de Vernon, and her daughter and son-in-law,
Isabel and Richard de Stafford. The seal for Isabel de Stafford on
this deed displays the Stafford, Camville, and Vernon arms [see The
Topographer 2 (1790): 3]. The inclusion of the Camville arms on
Isabel's seal suggests she was deemed to be the heiress apparent to
her mother, Maud de Camville, in her mother's lifetime. Otherwise,
under normal circumstances, Isabel's seal would typically have

typically? How typically?

displayed only her husband's and her father's arms, and not her
mother's.

Given how much of her property came from her mother, she was, in
effect, her mothers heir, even though she held her land through
transfer rather than inheritance (which was the case, no matter what
the solution to this question).

Lastly, I find that the Camville arms appears at the tomb
of Sir Humphrey Stanley, who is a lineal descendant of Isabel de
Vernon, wife of Sir Richard de Stafford. This suggests that Sir
Humphrey Stanley's family believed that his ancestress, Isabel de
Vernon, was the heiress of her mother, Maud de Camville. I believe
the Camville arms also appear on at least one other tomb of the
Stanley family in this same time period.

As if these tombs never included arms representing the origins of land
holdings rather than legal inheritance. The members of this group
wouldn't be troubled too much to come up with other such examples (for
example the Blount use of Ayala).

All in all, it is not exactly an open and shut case, worthy of
broadcast to the vast indifferent hordes across usenet. That being
said, it does add some interesting nuggets to the debate.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 sep 2007 00:01:44

Dear Matthew ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

I'm well aware of your earlier post in which you stated that the later
Vernon family incuded the Camville arms on their tomb. However, as
directly opposing evidence, I find that the tomb of Sir Humphrey
Stanley (a descendant of Isabel de Vernon) displayed the Camville arms
WITHOUT the Vernon arms, which suggests that Sir Humphrey and his
family believed that Isabel de Vernon, was the heiress of her mother,
Maud de Camville, but not of her father, Richard de Vernon. I believe
there is another Stanley family. tomb where the Camville arms are
displayed, again without the Vernon arms. I will double check this to
be sure and get back to you.

The view that Isabel de Vernon was the daughter and heiress of Maud de
Camville is confirmed by the fine dated 1351 which I cited in my post
today, in which Isabel de Vernon and her husband, Richard de Stafford,
styled themselves the "cousins and heirs" of Maud de Camville's lineal
ancestors, William de Camville and his wife, Aubrey. Had Isabel de
Vernon had a brother, William de Vernon, who was heir to their mother,
Maud de Camville, it is highly unlikely that Isabel would ever have
called herself the heir to William de Camville and his wife, Aubrey.
The term "heir" means something you received by line of inheritance,
not something you obtained by fine, purchase, or gift. Therefore, the
choice of words in this fine tells us all we need to know about Isabel
being Maud's heir.

Moreover, the appearance of the Camville arms on Isabel de Vernon's
seal in 1348-1349 is further evidence that Isabel was considered to be
the heiress apparent of her mother, Maud de Camville at that date.
Under normal circumstances, a woman's would typically show the arms of
her husband and her father, but not those of her mother, unless, of
course, she was her mother's heir. The inclusion of the Camville arms
on Isabel's seal does not prove that Isabel was Maud de Camville's
heiress, but it certainly suggests it.

Incidentally, the Camville inheritance did not pass entirely by
settlement to Isabel de Vernon and her husband, Richard de Stafford,
as alleged today by a newsgroup poster. In 1403, for instance,
Isabel and Richard's son, Bishop Edmund Stafford, claimed custody of
half of the manor of Grendon, Warwickshire until Roger son and heir of
William Chetwynd, Knt., came of age, on the grounds that William
Chetwynd held that half of him by knight service [Reference:VCH
Warwick, 4 (1947): 75-80]. Grendon, Warwickshire was definitely a
Camville family property [Reference: Ibid.]. Likewise, the
overlordship of the manor of Arrow, Warwickshire, also a Camville
property, passed to the Stafford family [Reference: VCH Warwick 3
(1945): 28]. In 1349, it was held by Isabel de Vernon's husband, Sir
Richard de Stafford. Isabel de Vernon and her husband also appear to
have inherited her mother's inteest to lands in Ireland. I find that
in 1351, Isabel and Richard appointed attorneys to represent them in
Ireland, presumably on behalf of the extensive Camville inheritance
there. As best I can tell, the Warwickshire properties were not
passed by fine. Rather, Isabel de Vernon appears to have inherited
them direct from her mother on her mother's death sometime before
1351. Isabel's sister, Maud de Vernon, may well have been a co-
heiress to these other estates, if Maud de Vernon was living at that
time.

In short, I find no evidence that William de Vernon had any interest,
share, or right in any of the Camville properties. IAs such, I am
forced to conclude that he was not the son of Maud de Camville.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I quoted a settlement today dated 1309 which established that
Richard de Vernon married a wife named Maud by that date. I took this
date from a post I found in the newsgroup archives. However, if your
own earlier post, you gave the date of this settlement as being
1313. I think it would be good to have the correct date of this
settlement. Do you have a citation for the date 1313?

On Sep 10, 2:32 pm, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
< Dear Douglas,
<
< I had a moment of deja vu there, as that theory prompted my first
post
< here- which I'll reproduce below. The fact remains that the Vernons
< also included the Camville arms on their tombs by then (and I
believe
< Sir Humphrey Stanley also had a Vernon mother to add to the mix).
< Ideally we would know from the Huntbach deed cited in Shaw's
< Staffordshire (below; which might possibly be in the William Salt
< Library in Stafford?).
<
< Best wishes -Matthew
<

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 sep 2007 00:39:10

Dear Matthew ~

Checking my sources, I find that Earwaker indicates that the tomb of
Isabel de Vernon's descendant, Sir John Stanley (died 1508), displays
various Stanley family quarterings, including Arderne impaling
Stafford, Pype, and Camville, but NOT Vernon [Reference: Earwaker,
East Cheshire 1 (1877): 277-278]. This heraldic evidence suggests
that Sir John Stanley's ancestress, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir
Richard de Stafford, was heiress of her mother, Maud de Camville, but
not of her father, Richard de Vernon.

Sir John Stanley (died 1508) was the half-brother of Sir Humphrey
Stanley, whose tomb I mentioned in my post earlier today. Sir
Humphrey Stanley's tomb also displays the Camville arms, but NOT the
Vernon arms. Again, the implication is obvious.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Higgins

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av John Higgins » 11 sep 2007 01:47:23

But Earwaker also indicates, in a pedigree of Arderne and Stanley of Elford,
that Sir John Stanley of Elford (d. 1508) was descended from Sir Thomas
Arderne and his wife Katherine Stafford, whom Earwaker says was "dau. and
heiress of Sir Richard Stafford of Pipe, by his wife Matilda, daughter of
William Campville [sic] of Clifton Campville" - NOT Isabel Vernon. Earwaker
bases this on a monument to Sir Thomas and his wife in Elford church.

There appears to have been considerable confusion about the daughters of Sir
William de Camville and their husbands. At least one chronicler, Sampson
Erdeswicke, is reported to have given Maud de Camville two husbands: first
Sir Richard Vernon and 2nd Sir Richard Stafford. Although this may well be
incorrect, it's possible that the Stanleys believed that Katherine Stafford,
wife of Sir Thomas Arderne, was a daughter, not a grand-daughter, of Maud de
Camville. If so, they would have had no reason to include the Vernon
quartering on their tombs, while still including the Camville arms.

In other words, there could be another explanation for the lack of the
Vernon arms on the Stanley tombs than simply the assumption that Isabel
Vernon was not an heir of her father. It might be just a simple mistake by
the Stanleys in identifying an ancestor 5 or 6 generations prior to them
(Maud de Camville, who was herself confused in various sources). Occam's
razor may apply here....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon,wife of Sir
Richard de Stafford, Lord Stafford


Dear Matthew ~

Checking my sources, I find that Earwaker indicates that the tomb of
Isabel de Vernon's descendant, Sir John Stanley (died 1508), displays
various Stanley family quarterings, including Arderne impaling
Stafford, Pype, and Camville, but NOT Vernon [Reference: Earwaker,
East Cheshire 1 (1877): 277-278]. This heraldic evidence suggests
that Sir John Stanley's ancestress, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir
Richard de Stafford, was heiress of her mother, Maud de Camville, but
not of her father, Richard de Vernon.

Sir John Stanley (died 1508) was the half-brother of Sir Humphrey
Stanley, whose tomb I mentioned in my post earlier today. Sir
Humphrey Stanley's tomb also displays the Camville arms, but NOT the
Vernon arms. Again, the implication is obvious.

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

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 11 sep 2007 01:49:44

[silly arrogant crossposting removed]

On Sep 10, 4:01 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

The view that Isabel de Vernon was the daughter and heiress of Maud de
Camville is confirmed by the fine dated 1351 which I cited in my post
today, in which Isabel de Vernon and her husband, Richard de Stafford,
styled themselves the "cousins and heirs" of Maud de Camville's lineal
ancestors, William de Camville and his wife, Aubrey. Had Isabel de
Vernon had a brother, William de Vernon, who was heir to their mother,
Maud de Camville, it is highly unlikely that Isabel would ever have
called herself the heir to William de Camville and his wife, Aubrey.
The term "heir" means something you received by line of inheritance,
not something you obtained by fine, purchase, or gift.

Yet you have given us a fine whereby these same lands were granted to
Isabel. You can't have it both ways.

This whole post fits the typical pattern - if anyone questions you,
repeat yourself and maybe no one will notice.

taf

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 11 sep 2007 01:57:56

On Sep 10, 4:01 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Matthew ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

I'm well aware of your earlier post in which you stated that the later
Vernon family incuded the Camville arms on their tomb. However, as
directly opposing evidence, I find that the tomb of Sir Humphrey
Stanley (a descendant of Isabel de Vernon) displayed the Camville arms
WITHOUT the Vernon arms, which suggests that Sir Humphrey and his
family believed that Isabel de Vernon, was the heiress of her mother,
Maud de Camville, but not of her father, Richard de Vernon.

This is really ducking the issue. If the Vernons did NOT descent from
Camville, as you maintain, then they shouldn't have used their arms,
right? You want to be able to say that the Stanleys arms prove
something, because the use of arms has clear meaning, while the use of
the arms by Vernon is meaningless. Now, I am not going to argue that
the Vernon quartering of Camville must be taken as proof of defense,
but I will say that you can't have it both ways.

taf

Gjest

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 sep 2007 06:13:47

On Sep 10, 6:57 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

This is really ducking the issue.

I think I've proved the point. You're just complaining to complain.
That's o.k.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 sep 2007 06:29:48

In my first post today on Maud de Camville, I stated in one place that
her father, Sir William de Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, died in 1308.
I stated in another place that he died in 1338.

The correct date of Lord Camville's death is 1338, not 1308. My
apologies if the double dating caused anyone any confusion. The 1308
date was a typo.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< One perplexing problem I've encountered in researching medieval
< English families concerns the Camville and Vernon families.
Complete
< Peerage, 3 (1913): 4-5 (sub Canville) nicely sets out the known
< history of the baronial Camville family. It indicates that William
de
< Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire,
< Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire, Fedamore, co. Tipperrary, etc., died
in
< 1308, leaving five daughters and co-heiresses, namely
<
< 1. Maud de Camville, wife of Richard de Vernon, Knt.
<
< 2. Eleanor de Camville, wife of Richard de Penris.
<
< 3. Isabel de Camville, wife of Gilbert de Bermingham.
<
< 4. Nichole de Camville, wife of John de Saint Clere.
<
< 5.`Katherine de Camville, wife of Robert de Gresley, Knt.
<
< The five daughters are not traced further in Complete Peerage, as
the
< writ creating the barony of Camville was deemed to be in abeyance on
< the death of their father, William de Camville, 2nd Lord Camville,
in
< 1338.
<
< Maud de Camville, the eldest daughter, received as her share of her
< father's estates the English manors of Clifton-Campville, Haselor,
and
< Stotfold, Staffordshire, and the overlordship of Arrow,
Warwickshire,
< as well as unpsecified lands in Ireland. Eleanor the 2nd daughter
< received Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire. Fedamore, co. Limerick fell
to
< their 5th sister, Katherine, and her husband, Sir Robert de Gresley.
< I believe that Caher, co. Tipperary fell to Isabel de Camville and
her
< husband, Gilbert de Bermingham.
<
< In 1339 Maud de Camville made a settlement of most of her Camville
< inheritance by fine on her daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir
< Richard de Stafford. This settlement consisted of the manors of
< Clifton-Campville, Haselor, and Stotfold, all in Staffordshire. If
< Isabel de Stafford died without issue, the fine stipulated that the
< properties were to revert to Maud, daughter of Richard de Vernon,
who
< was presumably Maud de Camville's younger daughter. And, if Maud de
< Vernon died without issue, the properties were to revert to Maud de
< Camville's right heirs. No mention is made of any other children of
< Maud de Camville in this fine.
<
< It is commonly believed that Maud de Camville was also the mother of
< Sir Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon. The chief
< reason for this belief is that William de Vernon was stated to have
< been aged 10 and more in 1323 at his father's death (or born about
< 1313), whereas it is known that William's father, Richard de Vernon,
< and his wife, Maud (presumably Maud de Camville), were married in or
< before 1309. However, a study of the available evidence suggests
that
< Maud de Camville was not William de Vernon's mother. The reasons
for
< this are several. First, surviving property records indicate that
< Maud de Camville's share of her father's Camville estates went
solely
< to her daughter, Isabel, wife of Richard de Stafford, to the
exclusion
< of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon. Second,
there
< is a fine dated Michaelmas 1351, in which Richard de Stafford and
< Isabel his wife are styled "cousins and heirs of William de
Campvill,
< and Aubrey his wife." [see The Topographer 2 (1790): 2]. The
William
< and Aubrey de Camville in question can be readily identified as
lineal
< ancestors of Maud de Camville, wife of Richard de Vernon [see C.P. 3
< (1913): 3, footnote d (sub Canville); VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 28]. If
< Isabel de Stafford was the heir of Maud de Camville, it would be
< legally correct for Isabel to claim in turn to be the heir of Maud's
< ancestors, William and Aubrey de Camville. If Isabel was merely
their
< successor representative, it would be incorrect for her to call
< herself William and Aubrey's heir. Third, there is a record of a
deed
< dated 22 Edward III [1348-1349] in which the grantors are Maud de
< Camville, widow of Richard de Vernon, and her daughter and son-in-
law,
< Isabel and Richard de Stafford. The seal for Isabel de Stafford on
< this deed displays the Stafford, Camville, and Vernon arms [see The
< Topographer 2 (1790): 3]. The inclusion of the Camville arms on
< Isabel's seal suggests she was deemed to be the heiress apparent to
< her mother, Maud de Camville, in her mother's lifetime. Otherwise,
< under normal circumstances, Isabel's seal would typically have
< displayed only her husband's and her father's arms, and not her
< mother's. Lastly, I find that the Camville arms appears at the tomb
< of Sir Humphrey Stanley, who is a lineal descendant of Isabel de
< Vernon, wife of Sir Richard de Stafford. This suggests that Sir
< Humphrey Stanley's family believed that his ancestress, Isabel de
< Vernon, was the heiress of her mother, Maud de Camville. I believe
< the Camville arms also appear on at least one other tomb of the
< Stanley family in this same time period.
<
< Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 sep 2007 06:40:05

Dear Newsgroup ~

I just checked the book, Notes on the Churches of Derbyshire, by J.
Charles Cox, Volume 2, published in 1877. On pages 19-20, there is a
discussion of the tomb of a certain Sir John Vernon who died in 1477.
According to the author, the following arms were visible at this tomb
in 1611:

Vernon, Vernon quartering Avenell, and Durversal of Spencer -
Pembrugge - Stackpole - Vernon impaling a blank shield - and Vernon
with a canton gules.

There are no Camville arms mentioned as being found at this early
Vernon tomb.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 11 sep 2007 09:15:27

On Sep 11, 7:40 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

I just checked the book, Notes on the Churches of Derbyshire, by J.
Charles Cox, Volume 2, published in 1877. On pages 19-20, there is a
discussion of the tomb of a certain Sir John Vernon who died in 1477.
According to the author, the following arms were visible at this tomb
in 1611:

Vernon, Vernon quartering Avenell, and Durversal of Spencer -
Pembrugge - Stackpole - Vernon impaling a blank shield - and Vernon
with a canton gules.

There are no Camville arms mentioned as being found at this early
Vernon tomb.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


Dear Douglas,

Thanks for that reference to the tomb of John Vernon (not Sir) at
Bakewell, he is stated to have been the predeceased son and heir of
Sir Henry Vernon (d.1515, and whose youngest son was in turn called
John, so perhaps born after the death of the elder). It's worth noting
that the arms of Pype and Swynfen are also lacking, so the tomb in
itself doesn't appear to claim completeness. In contrast, the 1467
tomb of Sir William Vernon at Tong includes Camville along with
Vernon, Pembrugge, Pype, Durvasssal, Stackpole and Swynfen. I also
have a photograph in front of me now showing a shield on the tomb of
Sir Henry Vernon himself at Tong, which quarters Camville, Stackpole,
Pembrugge and Pype. The same combination is displayed on the brass at
Tong to another of Sir Henry's sons, Arthur, a priest. You will notice
though that the same arms do not necessarily appear on every tomb; for
instance, Avenel is not included on the Tong examples, yet there
should be no doubt that all the other arms are there by right.

As to your query:

P.S. I quoted a settlement today dated 1309 which established that
Richard de Vernon married a wife named Maud by that date. I took this
date from a post I found in the newsgroup archives. However, if your
own earlier post, you gave the date of this settlement as being
1313. I think it would be good to have the correct date of this
settlement. Do you have a citation for the date 1313?

-the date of 1309 I see comes from a post by Rosie Bevan citing
Richard de Vernon's IPM; that was in September 2005, since my original
post, and obviously it renders my initial 'by 1313' superfluous:

from her post at
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1125635179
b) Richard jnr's father had settled moieties of the manor of Nether
Haddon and Baslow on Richard his son and his wife Maud in 1309.
William was Maud's son.

That last sentence could be very important!

[The 'by 1313' at any rate is from HMC Rutland IV (1905) p.28:
"(8*) [1313.]--- Feoffment by Henry le (sic) Curzun, of Breideshale,
of Richard son of Sir Richard de Vernon and of Maud his wife in all
the lands, etc. at Basselowe in which he had lately been enfeoffed by
the said Richard son of Richard to be held by them and the heirs of
their bodies, with remainder, in default of such issue, to heirs of
Richard.
Hiis testibus: Ricardo de Curzun de Breideshale (and five others).
Nether Haddon, Sunday after the Purification, 6 Edw. II."]

The other daughter of Richard and Maud, i.e. the younger Maud de
Vernon, is interesting. Luke Potter posted possible details of her
here:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1125391876

Their other sister, Matilda, received a grant from her mother in 12
Edward III (1338/9) of £20 yearly from the rents of her tenement in
Haunton, Staffordshire [BL, Harl MS. 2074, f.34]. I suspect that this
Matilda may then have married William son of Hugh de Venables of
Cheshire.

BL Harl MS 2077, f.37 gives summaries of the following two charters:

1/ Covenant of marriage that William son of Sir Hugh Venables should
marry Maude the daughter of Maude Vernon and of Richard Vernon. Dated
16 Edward III

2/ Maud who was wife of Richard de Vernon grants to Maude her daughter
wife of William de Venables and her heirs an annual rent of £20 silver
from the lands and tenements which were of John de Cave in Hamtton.
Dated 23 Edward III.

I suspect that Hamtton was actually a misreading by the original
copier of Haunton. Haunton was part of the Camville land held by
Matilda de Vernon (nee Camville) in the 1327 Lay Subsidy, and so looks
like this Vernon/Venables marriage was actually of the Haddon Vernons
rather than the Shipbrook Vernons.

Mention of Haunton as a Camville land draws me to this, from the HoP
entry for Sir Richard Vernon (1390-1451):
"While still a minor, for example, he had surrendered his claim to
property in the Haunton area of Staffordshire in return for Bishop
Stafford's manor of Great Bridgford in the same county: this he leased
out at first to the lawyer, Robert Whitgreve, who eventually bought it
from him outright."

J.S. Roskell's biography of the same Sir Richard Vernon in the
Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, lxxxii, mentions that he held lands
in -among many other places- Haselour (Staffs.) and Seckington
(Warks.). Both were Camville properties, so there is indeed evidence
showing that the Vernons had an interest in the Camville inheritance,
and that at least some exchange with the Staffords did take place.

-Matthew

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 11 sep 2007 13:36:34

On Sep 10, 10:13 pm, Zai...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 6:57 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

This is really ducking the issue.

I think I've proved the point. You're just complaining to complain.
That's o.k.

Well, it would certainly look that way since you have removed the
content of my criticism and then complain that it lacked content. And
of course you crossposted AGAIN like a petulant child, knowing full
well that if I act responsibly and you don't you get to frame the
argument in the other irrelevant groups because they don't see my
original posts, just the parts of them you choose to show. Making
friends, indeed.

Perhaps you just didn't get the point:

You argue that the heraldry used by the Stanleys has meaning and yet
you dismiss out of hand the use of the Camville arms by the Vernon
descendants. Which is it - does heraldry have meaning, or doesn't it?
You want it to mean something when convenient, and to ignore it
entirely when inconvenient. Is that what your vaunted 'training'
taught you?

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 sep 2007 21:24:51

Dear Matthew ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

I appreciate you clarifying the date of the settlement made on Richard
de Vernon and his wife, Maud. Clearly the couple were married by
1313.

Regarding Roskell's statements regarding Sir Richard Vernon's alleged
later land holdings at Haunton and Haselour, Staffordshire, and at
Seckington, Warwickshire, to date I've found no evidence that Sir
Richard Vernon had lands in any of these places. Haselour, for
example, was settled on Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon,
and her husband, Richard de Stafford, in 1339. It was subsequently
inherited by their descendants, the Stanleys, Huddlestons, and
Brookes. Haunton was a "member" of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire.
It was likewise inherited by the later Stanleys, who were descendants
of Isabel de Vernon [see, for example, Erdeswicke, A Survey of
Staffordshire (1820), pp. 341-341]. The Camville family orginally held
the overlordship at Arrow, Warwickshire and the mesne lordship at
Seckington, Warwickshire. I know for certain that the overlordship of
Arrow, Warwickshire fell to Isabel de Vernon and her husband, Richard
de Stafford. The history of the mesne lordship of Seckington is set
forth by VCH Warwick, 4 (1947): 197-200. It early fell to a cadet
branch of the Camville family. There is no indication in VCH Warwick
4 that anyone named Vernon had any interest at Seckington,
Warwickshire at any time. As far as I can tell, Roskell has his facts
wrong. The so-called exchange Roskell mentions between a Vernon and
Bishop Edmund Stafford may not be an exchange at all, but the
termination of an enfeoffment (or trusteeship) or even a leasehold
interest. One would have to see the record itself to see how it was
worded. Even then, you might not be able to determine what actually
was transpiring between the two parties.

I believe that Luke Potter has correctly interpreted the identity of
the place, Hamtton, as being the same place as Haunton, a township in
the parish of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire. In 1260, for example,
I find that Maud de Camville's great-grandmother, Lucy, widow of
William de Camville (died 1260), sued her son, Geoffrey de Camville,
for dower in the manor and advowson of Clifton-Campville,
Staffordshire [Reference: Colls. Hist. Staffs. 4 (1883): 134-147]. At
the same time Lucy also sued for one-third of nineteen virgates of
land and 26s. rent in Hampton (Haunton), and Ralph de Burgo [Burgh]
for one-third of a messuage and four virgates of land in Clifton, and
Roger le Eskuur for one-third of 8d. rent in the same vill, as dower
[Reference: Ibid.].

Incidentally, this lawsuit is yet another addition to Complete
Peerage, 3 (1913): 3 (sub Canville). Complete Peerage states that
Maud de Camville's grandfather, Geoffrey de Camville, 1st Lord
Camville, "was of age, but not yet a knight, before 20 June 1272."
Actually, as we can see, he was of age in 1260, when his mother was
suing him for dower in Staffordshire. I've earlier posted evidence
which shows that Geoffrey de Camville had a hitherto unknown first
marriage to an unidentified wife, by whom he had a daughter, Amice,
who married Henry de Pomeroy. So Geoffrey was clearly of age well
before 1272.

As for other Camville links to Haunton, elsewhere I find that about
1277, Geoffrey de Stratton wrote a petition dated c. 1277 in which he
requested remedy because on Monday after the end of Easter in the
King's fifth year [1277] Robert de Pycheford, Peter de Gumpiate,
Robert Wyengge and others came to Haunton in Geoffrey de Caumvile's
manor of Clifton, Staffordshire and took a young steer and heifer and
drove them to Tamworth, Staffordshire, wherefore hue and cry was
raised and suit made by which Gumpiate and Wyennge were taken and
imprisoned, but not Pycheford; to Stratton's damage of £40.
[Reference:PRO Document, SC 8/307/15305, abstract of document
available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp].

In 1330 an assize was held to determine if Geoffrey de Camville, John
de Milbourne, Hugh le Rotour and William de Stratton had unjustly
disseised John de la Bache of a messuage and a virgate of land in
Haunton; Geoffrey stated he claimed nothing in the tenements but the
lordship of them [Reference: Colls. Hist. Staffs. 7(1) (1886): 65-
76].

The next Camville-Haunton connection I find in the records occurs in
Michaelmas term 1339, when Richard de Stafford and his wife, Issabel,
appeared by Roger de Aston, their attorney, in a plea against Isabel's
mother, Maud de Vernon, that she should carry out a covenant made
between them by which she should find sufficient security for a rent
of £30, to be received from the lands and tenements formerly belonging
to William de Camville, father of Maud, in Clifton-Campville and
Haunton, Staffordshire [Reference: Colls. Hist. Staffs., 11 (1890): 90-
100]. Maud subsequently settled the Camville manors of Clifton-
Campville, Haselor, and Stotfold, Staffordshire by fine on Isabel and
Richard and their issue, with reversion to Isabel's sister, Maud.

By the way, if Isabel de Vernon's sister, Maud de Vernon, wife of
William de Venables, survived or left issue, this could explain why
Isabel's son, Bishop Edmund Stafford, only claimed a half-interest in
the manor of Grendon, Warwickshire in 1403. If there two co-heirs of
Maud de Camville, they presumably would have split Grendon between
them at the time of Maud de Camville's death. By any chance, do you
have any particulars regarding Maud de Vernon's husband, William de
Venables? Another explanation for Bishop Edmund Stafford's half
interest at Grendon could be that the other half was being held in
dower by the widow of Sir William Chetwynd, and therefore not subject
to the bishop's claim to custody due to there being a minor Chetwynd
heir.

My impression is that Maud de Vernon, wife of William de Venables,
must have died without issue. Other than the Grendon half-interest
mentioned in 1403, I find no other indication that the Camville
inheritance was shared, split, or divided by anyone. As far as I can
tell, it went exclusively to Isabel de Vernon and her husband, Sir
Richard de Stafford, and their heirs. If Isabel had a co-heir, the co-
heir almost certainly would have been named with Isabel in the fine I
found dated 1351, in which Isabel and Richard styled themselves the
"cousins and heirs of William de Campvill, and Aubrey his wife." So
by the year 1351, Isabel and Richard appear to have had full
possession of the Camville inheritance. The year 1351 is the same
year in which Isabel and Richard appointed attorneys to represent them
in Ireland, apparently on behalf of the Camville inheritance there.
My guess is that 1351 is the year that Isabel de Vernon's mother, Maud
de Camville, died.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 05:29:41

On Sep 11, 4:00 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
William, 2nd Lord Camville (who died shortly before 27 Jul 1338 per CP "Camville") had five daughters and co-heirs as CP has it.

However in one posting it was stated that his daughter Eleanor married Richard de Penris. CP has this daughter unmarried and cites the IPM simply calling her Eleanor with no husband and no alternate surname to indicate she might be a widow of anybody.

Since Eleanor was the second daughter, she had to be at least in her late 20s if not possibly as old as her 40s at this time.

It would be useful were the person with the Penris proof to supply it.

I suggest you consult the newsgroup archives.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 05:39:41

On Sep 11, 4:05 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
-----------------------
In this particular case, it seems reasonable to connect Sir John to that Richard de Vernon d 1452 Speaker of the House as his mother was Benedicta Pembrugge, a known heiress.

Will

You have it all wrong as usual, Will. It is Richard Vernon, not
Richard de Vernon, who was Speaker of the House. They stopped using
the article "de" with English surnames about 1400. The speaker's wife
was Bennet Ludlow, not Benedicta Pembrugge. Benedicta is the Latin
form of the woman's name Bennet. Unless you prefer to be called
Gulielmus, I suggest you use the form Bennet for the Speaker's wife.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fwd: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 05:49:48

On Sep 11, 4:22 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< In a message dated 09/11/07 15:18:44 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson
writes:
< <<In a message dated 09/11/07 13:25:48 Pacific Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
< In 1260, for example,
< I find that Maud de Camville's great-grandmother, Lucy, widow of
< William de Camville (died 1260), sued her son, Geoffrey de Camville,
< for dower in the manor and advowson of Clifton-Campville,
< Staffordshire [Reference: Colls. Hist. Staffs. 4 (1883): 134-147].>>
<
< --------------------------
< This would be more interesting were it to cite back to the actual
primary source material. I would not wish anyone to rely on Collins
for this level of exactitude, esp as we know that "1260" is pregnant
for errors, being also the year William died.
<
< It could very well be that the suit is undated and should rightly
say merely "after 1260" for all we know.
<
< Will Johnson

You have ALL wrong again, Will. I didn't cite Collins. I cited
Colls. Hist. Staffs. Colls. Hist. Staffs. abstracted the original
lawsuit dated 1260. So, yes, it is quite reliable as a source to
correct Complete Peerage.

You might want to check the extensive bibliography in either
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) or Magna Carta Ancestry (2005) for Colls.
Hist. Staffs.

DR

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 05:50:30

On Sep 11, 1:15 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Thanks for that reference to the tomb of John Vernon (not Sir) at
Bakewell, he is stated to have been the predeceased son and heir of
Sir Henry Vernon (d.1515, and whose youngest son was in turn called
John, so perhaps born after the death of the elder). It's worth noting
that the arms of Pype and Swynfen are also lacking, so the tomb in
itself doesn't appear to claim completeness. In contrast, the 1467
tomb of Sir William Vernon at Tong includes Camville along with
Vernon, Pembrugge, Pype, Durvasssal, Stackpole and Swynfen. I also
have a photograph in front of me now showing a shield on the tomb of
Sir Henry Vernon himself at Tong, which quarters Camville, Stackpole,
Pembrugge and Pype. The same combination is displayed on the brass at
Tong to another of Sir Henry's sons, Arthur, a priest. You will notice
though that the same arms do not necessarily appear on every tomb; for
instance, Avenel is not included on the Tong examples, yet there
should be no doubt that all the other arms are there by right.

I am not sure I agree with this. I would say ". . . by perceived
right." We know from the visitations that families pedigrees did not
always match historical reality, and particularly there are examples
of land transfer that did not involve descent but have been
reconfigured as such in pedigrees. It would not surprise me at all if
an arms derived from a flawed pedigree got included on a brass (and
windows are even worse, with all kinds of monkey business going on
during resetting).

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 06:05:35

On Sep 11, 3:09 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Attacking this from a new direction, I note DR has stated that the 1351 fine, which he quotes from an 18th century work where the author there has translated (or quoted) "cousins and heirs" of William de Campville and Audrey his wife.

Laying aside for the moment that the fines are probably extant, in Latin, in the stacks at Salt Lake for one, DR states that William and Audrey can be "readily identified as the lineal ancestors...."

I don't have such an identification, and my quick sources don't seem to either. Perhaps DR can point out what source identifies this particular couple as such ancestors ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

To make it easy for everyone, I cited two sources which mention
William de Camville and his wife, Aubrey, by name, so they could be
easily placed in the Camville family tree. Since you're still having
trouble, you might try consulting Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 3,
footnote d. Aubrey is there called Auberée. You can also find this
couple mentioned in the National Archives Catalogue under an
alternative spelling of Camville.

DR

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 06:11:18

On Sep 11, 9:53 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:30 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:

I believe that Durvassal is of Spernor, not of
Spencer.

Good to hear from you as always. Yes, you are entirely correct.
Durvassal is of Spernor. However, I was quoting my source which
spelled it Spencer.

". . . spelled it Spencer". It is not a typo. It is not misspelled.
It is misnamed. It is like saying Newark rather than Newport. An easy
enough slip for your source to have made, but let's call a duck a
duck.

taf

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 07:27:00

On Sep 11, 4:30 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Douglas,

I believe that Durvassal is of Spernor, not of
Spencer.


I have two different sources that call the family Durvassal _alias_
Spernor(e), not "of" Spernor (and several others that just use Spernor
alone as the surname).

taf

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 07:50:28

On Sep 11, 11:27 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 4:30 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Douglas,

I believe that Durvassal is of Spernor, not of
Spencer.

I have two different sources that call the family Durvassal _alias_
Spernor(e), not "of" Spernor (and several others that just use Spernor
alone as the surname).

On further investigation, it looks like both might have been used
(i.e. they were called both Durvassal of Spernore and simply de
Spernore or Spernore).


THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS

FILE - [no title] - ref. CR 1998/EB/6 - date: 29 Dec 1349

Contents
Pair of indentures. Thomas Durvassal of Spernore (Spernall) gives to
William the son and Sibilla the widow of John Durvassal late lord of
Spernall, property in Spernall for life.

--------

Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry IV C 137/30/3
William Spernore: Warwickshire, Staffordshire .



taf

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 08:18:49

On Sep 12, 8:50 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:27 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 4:30 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Douglas,

I believe that Durvassal is of Spernor, not of
Spencer.

I have two different sources that call the family Durvassal _alias_
Spernor(e), not "of" Spernor (and several others that just use Spernor
alone as the surname).

On further investigation, it looks like both might have been used
(i.e. they were called both Durvassal of Spernore and simply de
Spernore or Spernore).

THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS

FILE - [no title] - ref. CR 1998/EB/6 - date: 29 Dec 1349

Contents
Pair of indentures. Thomas Durvassal of Spernore (Spernall) gives to
William the son and Sibilla the widow of John Durvassal late lord of
Spernall, property in Spernall for life.

--------

Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry IV C 137/30/3
William Spernore: Warwickshire, Staffordshire .

taf

HoP has a biography of "Spernore alias Durvassall, William (d.1401),
of Spernall, Warws. and Frankley, Worcs.", which begins "The family of
Durvassall had held Spernall (then known as Spernore) since the 12th
century." This William was father of Joyce, wife of William Swinfen;
whose daughter married Sir William Vernon. There's a little more on
the family in VCH Warks iii pp172-3.

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 08:18:49

On Sep 12, 8:50 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:27 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 4:30 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Douglas,

I believe that Durvassal is of Spernor, not of
Spencer.

I have two different sources that call the family Durvassal _alias_
Spernor(e), not "of" Spernor (and several others that just use Spernor
alone as the surname).

On further investigation, it looks like both might have been used
(i.e. they were called both Durvassal of Spernore and simply de
Spernore or Spernore).

THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS

FILE - [no title] - ref. CR 1998/EB/6 - date: 29 Dec 1349

Contents
Pair of indentures. Thomas Durvassal of Spernore (Spernall) gives to
William the son and Sibilla the widow of John Durvassal late lord of
Spernall, property in Spernall for life.

--------

Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry IV C 137/30/3
William Spernore: Warwickshire, Staffordshire .

taf

HoP has a biography of "Spernore alias Durvassall, William (d.1401),
of Spernall, Warws. and Frankley, Worcs.", which begins "The family of
Durvassall had held Spernall (then known as Spernore) since the 12th
century." This William was father of Joyce, wife of William Swinfen;
whose daughter married Sir William Vernon. There's a little more on
the family in VCH Warks iii pp172-3.

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 08:18:49

On Sep 12, 8:50 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:27 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 4:30 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Douglas,

I believe that Durvassal is of Spernor, not of
Spencer.

I have two different sources that call the family Durvassal _alias_
Spernor(e), not "of" Spernor (and several others that just use Spernor
alone as the surname).

On further investigation, it looks like both might have been used
(i.e. they were called both Durvassal of Spernore and simply de
Spernore or Spernore).

THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS

FILE - [no title] - ref. CR 1998/EB/6 - date: 29 Dec 1349

Contents
Pair of indentures. Thomas Durvassal of Spernore (Spernall) gives to
William the son and Sibilla the widow of John Durvassal late lord of
Spernall, property in Spernall for life.

--------

Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry IV C 137/30/3
William Spernore: Warwickshire, Staffordshire .

taf

HoP has a biography of "Spernore alias Durvassall, William (d.1401),
of Spernall, Warws. and Frankley, Worcs.", which begins "The family of
Durvassall had held Spernall (then known as Spernore) since the 12th
century." This William was father of Joyce, wife of William Swinfen;
whose daughter married Sir William Vernon. There's a little more on
the family in VCH Warks iii pp172-3.

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 08:18:49

On Sep 12, 8:50 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:27 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 4:30 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Douglas,

I believe that Durvassal is of Spernor, not of
Spencer.

I have two different sources that call the family Durvassal _alias_
Spernor(e), not "of" Spernor (and several others that just use Spernor
alone as the surname).

On further investigation, it looks like both might have been used
(i.e. they were called both Durvassal of Spernore and simply de
Spernore or Spernore).

THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS

FILE - [no title] - ref. CR 1998/EB/6 - date: 29 Dec 1349

Contents
Pair of indentures. Thomas Durvassal of Spernore (Spernall) gives to
William the son and Sibilla the widow of John Durvassal late lord of
Spernall, property in Spernall for life.

--------

Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry IV C 137/30/3
William Spernore: Warwickshire, Staffordshire .

taf

HoP has a biography of "Spernore alias Durvassall, William (d.1401),
of Spernall, Warws. and Frankley, Worcs.", which begins "The family of
Durvassall had held Spernall (then known as Spernore) since the 12th
century." This William was father of Joyce, wife of William Swinfen;
whose daughter married Sir William Vernon. There's a little more on
the family in VCH Warks iii pp172-3.

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 08:35:11

On Sep 12, 6:50 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:15 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:

Thanks for that reference to the tomb of John Vernon (not Sir) at
Bakewell, he is stated to have been the predeceased son and heir of
Sir Henry Vernon (d.1515, and whose youngest son was in turn called
John, so perhaps born after the death of the elder). It's worth noting
that the arms of Pype and Swynfen are also lacking, so the tomb in
itself doesn't appear to claim completeness. In contrast, the 1467
tomb of Sir William Vernon at Tong includes Camville along with
Vernon, Pembrugge, Pype, Durvasssal, Stackpole and Swynfen. I also
have a photograph in front of me now showing a shield on the tomb of
Sir Henry Vernon himself at Tong, which quarters Camville, Stackpole,
Pembrugge and Pype. The same combination is displayed on the brass at
Tong to another of Sir Henry's sons, Arthur, a priest. You will notice
though that the same arms do not necessarily appear on every tomb; for
instance, Avenel is not included on the Tong examples, yet there
should be no doubt that all the other arms are there by right.

I am not sure I agree with this. I would say ". . . by perceived
right." We know from the visitations that families pedigrees did not
always match historical reality, and particularly there are examples
of land transfer that did not involve descent but have been
reconfigured as such in pedigrees. It would not surprise me at all if
an arms derived from a flawed pedigree got included on a brass (and
windows are even worse, with all kinds of monkey business going on
during resetting).

taf

Well, absolutely, but I know you're well versed in the intricacies of
the Vernon pedigree and will be familiar with the reasons why all the
arms mentioned actually appear- nothing to do with the later
visitations with their Vescis, et al.- unless you have doubts about
any in particular? Unlike some tombs that have had Victorian makeovers
and arms painted on to match the received wisdom of the time, the arms
I cited at Tong are all carved and so not easy to change. But as we
need to repeat, such heraldry isn't in itself proof of anything- and
Douglas has here ignored the fact that the Pype arms also appear on
the Stanley tombs, although they held the lands with no blood descent.
To repeat from my first post:

"As for the heraldry, it is significant that the arms of Pype are
mentioned, as although the manor of Pipe was held by the Staffords
and
Stanleys, there was no blood succession. The new ODNB describes how
Richard, Lord Stafford of Clifton acquired this manor at the expense
of the blood heir, his mother Margaret (nee Bassett) having remarried
to
Sir Thomas Pipe. Stafford's second wife Maud Stafford also brought
claims to the Pipe lands; but again, she was not the mother of his
posterity. So it seems that the shields that Earwaker records
represent the acquisition of lands, by whatever means, by the
ancestors of John
Stanley".

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 08:44:36

On Sep 12, 6:53 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=7673&path=The+Lives...

Calls her "Benedicta" sister and heiress of Sir Fulk PEMBRUGE, Knt of Tonge Castle
So you can take your snotty response and stick it back up your nose.
Or you can post what your source is for calling her Ludlow :)
Have a nice day

A caveat though Will- look at the DNB entry for Richard Vernon, which
at the end of the bibliography states "The account in Manning's Lives
of the Speakers, pp. 75, 76, is genealogically worthless." Not that
the DNB article is entirely correct in itself... anyway, to cut a long
story short, Sir Richard's wife was stepdaughter of Sir Fulk
Pembrugge, and Sir Richard himself was great nephew and heir of the
same Sir Fulk.

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 08:59:58

On Sep 11, 9:39 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 4:05 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
-----------------------

In this particular case, it seems reasonable to connect Sir John to that Richard de Vernon d 1452 Speaker of the House as his mother was Benedicta Pembrugge, a known heiress.


You have it all wrong as usual, Will.

And I am the one whose negativity is driving off the serious
historians?

It is Richard Vernon, not
Richard de Vernon, who was Speaker of the House.

Which would lead the reader to think that these were different people,
but in fact it is just a quibble over name forms.

They stopped using
the article "de" with English surnames about 1400.

Another rule of thumb made law, it would seem. And an application of
the generic to specific. Still, I guess no one told James "de
Vernon", 1422. Given that Richard was born before this date, one
wonders how certain we can be that never, during his entire life, was
the 'de' article used. (A check of actual records does show him using
the form without the de, but if you are going to assault someone, it
really should be with records specific to the individual in question
rather than another of your rules of thumb about generic English
surnames.)

The speaker's wife
was Bennet Ludlow, not Benedicta Pembrugge. Benedicta is the Latin
form of the woman's name Bennet. Unless you prefer to be called
Gulielmus, I suggest you use the form Bennet for the Speaker's wife.


And another quibble. Of course we have been through this before too.
"wrong" is rather a harsh term with which to describe a difference in
preference over a given name (and a spurious analogy as well).Given
the choice between the name under which she appears throughout the
historical literature, and the name that Douglas Richardson says is
the only right one, well, there can be no two ways about it.

The only thing that is not a quibble is the surname, where you have
Ludlow. Well, there you have him. I guess this really does mean Will
is usually wrong.


Will, many 19th century sources such as the one you are citing have
compressed the Vernon pedigree something terrible. The Pembrugge
marriage was several generations earlier. I remember having seen a
detailed study of it, but I can't seem to find it now. Weis/Sheppard
AR7 shows the pedigree correct in these generations, but mucks up the
top of the pedigree. For a more broad survey, search Google Books for
Benedicta Ludlow. There are a good number of pertinent references in
the first several pages (some better than others). Then you can search
for Bennet Ludlow to find out all of the 19th century secondary
sources the author using that form has cited (the last cite in the
list is probably where you want to start).

taf

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 09:05:41

On Sep 12, 12:05 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 22:45:11 Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:
Vernon, Vernon quartering Avenell, and Durversal of Spencer -
Pembrugge - Stackpole - Vernon impaling a blank shield - and Vernon
with a canton gules.

There are no Camville arms mentioned as being found at this early
Vernon tomb.

---------------------------
Unless you can show exactly who this Sir John Vernon d 1477 is supposed to fit into the Vernon family you're detailing, what arms his tomb shows isn't relevant. There are many Vernons who we do not yet know where they fit exactly (from primary sources), and the reconstructions of historians who had only partial information really doesn't help the situation.

In this particular case, it seems reasonable to connect Sir John to that Richard de Vernon d 1452 Speaker of the House as his mother was Benedicta Pembrugge, a known heiress.

Will

The passage from Cox that Douglas cited also gives the inscription:
"Hic jacet Johis Vernon filius et heres Henrici Vernon qui obiit xii
die mensis Augusti Anno Dni Mcccclxxvii cuj anime piciet de." I also
have some photos of the tomb and it is very small, with only one
escutcheon each on the visible side and end, so quite how six coats
were ever there to see at all is not apparent.

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 09:17:42

On Sep 12, 12:35 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Well, absolutely, but I know you're well versed in the intricacies of
the Vernon pedigree and will be familiar with the reasons why all the
arms mentioned actually appear- nothing to do with the later
visitations with their Vescis, et al.- unless you have doubts about
any in particular?

No, just a general comment about reading things into arms. That being
said, in digging around I found that Durvassal apparently descended
from their own Camville heiress. I guess that gives someone some
weasel room. (I note there is a decent Durvassal summary in VCH Warks:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=57006 , although
the author was apparently unaware of the indenture I cited elsewhere
in this thread.)

Unlike some tombs that have had Victorian makeovers
and arms painted on to match the received wisdom of the time, the arms
I cited at Tong are all carved and so not easy to change.

I don't know. A hammer, a chisel, some putty, a marching band to
disguise the noise . . . .

But as we
need to repeat, such heraldry isn't in itself proof of anything- and
Douglas has here ignored the fact that the Pype arms also appear on
the Stanley tombs, although they held the lands with no blood descent.

No! Say it ain't so!

taf

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 09:53:18

On Sep 11, 10:24 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Matthew ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

I appreciate you clarifying the date of the settlement made on Richard
de Vernon and his wife, Maud. Clearly the couple were married by
1313.

Regarding Roskell's statements regarding Sir Richard Vernon's alleged
later land holdings at Haunton and Haselour, Staffordshire, and at
Seckington, Warwickshire, to date I've found no evidence that Sir
Richard Vernon had lands in any of these places. Haselour, for
example, was settled on Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon,
and her husband, Richard de Stafford, in 1339. It was subsequently
inherited by their descendants, the Stanleys, Huddlestons, and
Brookes. Haunton was a "member" of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire.
It was likewise inherited by the later Stanleys, who were descendants
of Isabel de Vernon [see, for example, Erdeswicke, A Survey of
Staffordshire (1820), pp. 341-341]. The Camville family orginally held
the overlordship at Arrow, Warwickshire and the mesne lordship at
Seckington, Warwickshire. I know for certain that the overlordship of
Arrow, Warwickshire fell to Isabel de Vernon and her husband, Richard
de Stafford. The history of the mesne lordship of Seckington is set
forth by VCH Warwick, 4 (1947): 197-200. It early fell to a cadet
branch of the Camville family. There is no indication in VCH Warwick
4 that anyone named Vernon had any interest at Seckington,
Warwickshire at any time. As far as I can tell, Roskell has his facts
wrong. The so-called exchange Roskell mentions between a Vernon and
Bishop Edmund Stafford may not be an exchange at all, but the
termination of an enfeoffment (or trusteeship) or even a leasehold
interest. One would have to see the record itself to see how it was
worded. Even then, you might not be able to determine what actually
was transpiring between the two parties.


Dear Douglas,

I should have clarified that although the volumes of HoP in question
were of course edited by J.S. Roskell, Vernon's entry was written by
one 'C.R.', presumably Dr. Carole Rawcliffe, now Professor of Medieval
History at the University of East Anglia. So there are two different
authors whose findings you have issue with, rather than just
'Roskell'- CR for Haunton, JSR for Haselour and Seckington. Why should
the Vernons have any interest at all in lands in Camville manors? You
say you had found no evidence they did, yet these writers appear to
have. CR says 'exchange', you say 'The so-called exchange... may not
be an exchange at all'. If you are challenging CR's ability to
interpret documents, shouldn't you first identify and see the document
in question? But surely your first priority should be the Vernon IPM,
which Rosie Bevan has reported states that William (de Vernon) was son
of Maud?

-Matthew

[DCR's further Haunton material snipped for space]

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 10:14:41

On Sep 12, 10:17 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
No, just a general comment about reading things into arms. That being
said, in digging around I found that Durvassal apparently descended
from their own Camville heiress. I guess that gives someone some
weasel room. (I note there is a decent Durvassal summary in VCH Warks:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=57006, although
the author was apparently unaware of the indenture I cited elsewhere
in this thread.)


I know Philip Durvassal is given the wife Felicia, daughter of Thomas
Camville of Arrow, but query whether she was an heiress? See VCH Warks
again at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=42680 .
Even if she were, that wouldn't explain Sir Richard Vernon having the
interests in those Camville manors, especially as a minor, as it was
his son who married the heiress of William Durvassal...

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 16:48:19

On Sep 12, 2:14 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:17 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

I know Philip Durvassal is given the wife Felicia, daughter of Thomas
Camville of Arrow, but query whether she was an heiress? See VCH Warks
again athttp://www.british-history.ac.uk/repo ... mpid=42680.
Even if she were, that wouldn't explain Sir Richard Vernon having the
interests in those Camville manors, especially as a minor, as it was
his son who married the heiress of William Durvassal...

I introduced it with only the heraldry in mind.

I am a little unsure about the pedigree as presented in VCH Warks.
Specifically, it reveals a contradiction: in 1347, John is given as
son of Thomas, son of Philip, son of Roger, yet another record shows a
John, d. 1323, with heir John, ae 23. It tries to harmonize these by
suggesting that in the latter record the deceased is misnamed and
should be Thomas. Alternatively, I wonder if the 1347 plea extract
might have dropped a generation - that the John was son of John, son
of Thomas, etc. Have you (or any one else) looked into this family and
come away with enough chronological information to resolve this?

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 16:54:03

On Sep 11, 10:53 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view ... he+Lives...
<
< Calls her "Benedicta" sister and heiress of Sir Fulk PEMBRUGE, Knt
of Tonge Castle
< So you can take your snotty response and stick it back up your nose.
< Or you can post what your source is for calling her Ludlow :)
< Have a nice day

You seem to be going around in circles. Maybe this will help.

The name of the wife of Sir Richard Vernon (died 1451) is Bennet
Ludlow, not Benedicta Pembruge. Benedicta is the Latin form of this
name. Use Bennet, not Benedicta.

Also, you have confused Richard Vernon's grandmother, Juliane
Pembridge, who is the known sister and heiress ofr Fulk Pembridge,
Knt., with that of his wife, Bennet Ludlow, and turned them into one
person.

My source for Sir Richard Vernon and Bennet Ludlow is Magna Carta
Ancestry (2005) by Douglas Richardson, pp. 862-864.

You have a nice day, Will.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fwd: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 16:59:57

On Sep 11, 10:54 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< ----------------
< Oh Lordy. So we can again spend a week of spinning wheels only to
discover that the fact stated is not actually from *any* of the cited
sources?
<
< I think not.

Why are you spinning your wheels? I've given you the correct source
twice now. It's available on the internet.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 17:01:23

On Sep 11, 11:16 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< Yes I've since discovered that this is in CP III which is online
courtesy of my ancestry subscription and so I've now copied out what
it states.

You're welcome, Will.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 17:05:41

On Sep 12, 2:53 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:24 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:



Dear Matthew ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

I appreciate you clarifying the date of the settlement made on Richard
de Vernon and his wife, Maud. Clearly the couple were married by
1313.

Regarding Roskell's statements regarding Sir Richard Vernon's alleged
later land holdings at Haunton and Haselour, Staffordshire, and at
Seckington, Warwickshire, to date I've found no evidence that Sir
Richard Vernon had lands in any of these places. Haselour, for
example, was settled on Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon,
and her husband, Richard de Stafford, in 1339. It was subsequently
inherited by their descendants, the Stanleys, Huddlestons, and
Brookes. Haunton was a "member" of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire.
It was likewise inherited by the later Stanleys, who were descendants
of Isabel de Vernon [see, for example, Erdeswicke, A Survey of
Staffordshire (1820), pp. 341-341]. The Camville family orginally held
the overlordship at Arrow, Warwickshire and the mesne lordship at
Seckington, Warwickshire. I know for certain that the overlordship of
Arrow, Warwickshire fell to Isabel de Vernon and her husband, Richard
de Stafford. The history of the mesne lordship of Seckington is set
forth by VCH Warwick, 4 (1947): 197-200. It early fell to a cadet
branch of the Camville family. There is no indication in VCH Warwick
4 that anyone named Vernon had any interest at Seckington,
Warwickshire at any time. As far as I can tell, Roskell has his facts
wrong. The so-called exchange Roskell mentions between a Vernon and
Bishop Edmund Stafford may not be an exchange at all, but the
termination of an enfeoffment (or trusteeship) or even a leasehold
interest. One would have to see the record itself to see how it was
worded. Even then, you might not be able to determine what actually
was transpiring between the two parties.

Dear Douglas,

I should have clarified that although the volumes of HoP in question
were of course edited by J.S. Roskell, Vernon's entry was written by
one 'C.R.', presumably Dr. Carole Rawcliffe, now Professor of Medieval
History at the University of East Anglia. So there are two different
authors whose findings you have issue with, rather than just
'Roskell'- CR for Haunton, JSR for Haselour and Seckington. Why should
the Vernons have any interest at all in lands in Camville manors? You
say you had found no evidence they did, yet these writers appear to
have. CR says 'exchange', you say 'The so-called exchange... may not
be an exchange at all'. If you are challenging CR's ability to
interpret documents, shouldn't you first identify and see the document
in question? But surely your first priority should be the Vernon IPM,
which Rosie Bevan has reported states that William (de Vernon) was son
of Maud?

-Matthew

[DCR's further Haunton material snipped for space]

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 12 sep 2007 17:32:54

On Sep 12, 8:54 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:53 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view ... he+Lives...

Calls her "Benedicta" sister and heiress of Sir Fulk PEMBRUGE, Knt
of Tonge Castle
So you can take your snotty response and stick it back up your nose.
Or you can post what your source is for calling her Ludlow :)
Have a nice day

You seem to be going around in circles. Maybe this will help.

The name of the wife of Sir Richard Vernon (died 1451) is Bennet
Ludlow, not Benedicta Pembruge. Benedicta is the Latin form of this
name. Use Bennet, not Benedicta.

Also, you have confused Richard Vernon's grandmother, Juliane
Pembridge, who is the known sister and heiress ofr Fulk Pembridge,
Knt., with that of his wife, Bennet Ludlow, and turned them into one
person.

No, _he_ hasn't. He has derived his information from a source that
reports incorrect information. (I seem to recall you suffering the
same fate with regard to 'Spencer' in this same thread.) He made this
clear by citing (precisely) his source for the information. He has not
himself 'confused' them, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest
that this is the case.

My source for Sir Richard Vernon and Bennet Ludlow is Magna Carta
Ancestry (2005) by Douglas Richardson, pp. 862-864.

My source is myself? Hardly helpful. The work in question lists a
range of sources, many of which have little to do with demonstrating
that Benedicta was a Ludlow, so simply citing a source that has a list
of sources, most irrelevant, some perhaps even contradictory, but
apparently with a diamond in there somewhere (but as we have seen in
other cases, perhaps not) does not answer his question. You know
exactly which of your cited reference(s) you used to draw this
conclusion, but you refuse to tell - still making friends.

taf

Leticia Cluff

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 12 sep 2007 17:46:47

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:54:03 -0700, Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 10:53 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view ... he+Lives...

Calls her "Benedicta" sister and heiress of Sir Fulk PEMBRUGE, Knt
of Tonge Castle
So you can take your snotty response and stick it back up your nose.
Or you can post what your source is for calling her Ludlow :)
Have a nice day

You seem to be going around in circles. Maybe this will help.

The name of the wife of Sir Richard Vernon (died 1451) is Bennet
Ludlow, not Benedicta Pembruge. Benedicta is the Latin form of this
name. Use Bennet, not Benedicta.

Also, you have confused Richard Vernon's grandmother, Juliane
Pembridge, who is the known sister and heiress ofr Fulk Pembridge,
Knt., with that of his wife, Bennet Ludlow, and turned them into one
person.

My source for Sir Richard Vernon and Bennet Ludlow is Magna Carta
Ancestry (2005) by Douglas Richardson, pp. 862-864.

So Douglas Richardson's source for the above is
a book by Douglas Richardson.

No wonder poor Will is going around in circles!

Tish

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 17:48:22

On Sep 12, 2:53 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
< Dear Douglas,
<
< I should have clarified that although the volumes of HoP in question
< were of course edited by J.S. Roskell, Vernon's entry was written by
< one 'C.R.', presumably Dr. Carole Rawcliffe, now Professor of
Medieval
< History at the University of East Anglia. So there are two different
< authors whose findings you have issue with, rather than just
< 'Roskell'- CR for Haunton, JSR for Haselour and Seckington. Why
should
< the Vernons have any interest at all in lands in Camville manors?
You
< say you had found no evidence they did, yet these writers appear to
< have. CR says 'exchange', you say 'The so-called exchange... may not
< be an exchange at all'. If you are challenging CR's ability to
< interpret documents, shouldn't you first identify and see the
document
< in question?

I believe I've countered your statements point for point with solid
evidence. As far as I can tell, the later Vernons had no interest in
any of the Camville family properties. As for Ms. Rawcliffe, medieval
documents present challenges for everyone, including people who are
experts in the field. Not only are the documents difficult to
properly decipher and interpret, they are scattered throughout England
in countless places. Reconstructing the history of even one
individual can be a lifetime achievement. If you so desire, I might
suggest that you contact Ms. Rawcliffe directly.

< But surely your first priority should be the Vernon IPM,
< which Rosie Bevan has reported states that William (de Vernon) was
son, of Maud?

I believe you have misunderstood what Ms. Bevan said. I don't think
Ms. Bevan was quoting from the actual abstract of the IPM. I believe
it was Ms. Bevan's personal conclusion that William de Vernon was the
son of Maud de Camville.

Two points should be considered here. First, ages in inquisitions are
sometimes in error. The king was primarily interested in determining
if the heir was a minor, not proving his exact age. So, if the
inquisition says that William de Vernon was aged ten in 1323, you have
to accept the fact that this may have been a general estimate, not a
modern statement of exactitude. Second, it's possible that Richard de
Vernon may have had two wives named Maud. Maud was a very common name
in that time period.

Lastly, if William de Vernon was made a ward of the king in 1323, it
should be relatively easy to determine when he came of age and
obtained possession of his father's lands. Generally this took place
when male heirs were 21 or 22 years of age.

If you find anything further, by all means, please get back to me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 sep 2007 17:51:58

On Sep 12, 2:53 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
< Dear Douglas,
<
< I should have clarified that although the volumes of HoP in question
< were of course edited by J.S. Roskell, Vernon's entry was written by
< one 'C.R.', presumably Dr. Carole Rawcliffe, now Professor of
Medieval
< History at the University of East Anglia. So there are two different
< authors whose findings you have issue with, rather than just
< 'Roskell'- CR for Haunton, JSR for Haselour and Seckington. Why
should
< the Vernons have any interest at all in lands in Camville manors?
You
< say you had found no evidence they did, yet these writers appear to
< have. CR says 'exchange', you say 'The so-called exchange... may not
< be an exchange at all'. If you are challenging CR's ability to
< interpret documents, shouldn't you first identify and see the
document
< in question?

Dear Matthew ~

I believe I've countered your statements point for point with solid
evidence. As far as I can tell, the later Vernons had no interest in
any of the Camville family properties. As for Ms. Rawcliffe, medieval
documents present challenges for everyone, including people who are
experts in the field. Not only are the documents difficult to
properly decipher and interpret, they are scattered throughout England
in countless places. Reconstructing the history of even one
individual can be a lifetime achievement. If you so desire, I might
suggest that you contact Ms. Rawcliffe directly.

< But surely your first priority should be the Vernon IPM,
< which Rosie Bevan has reported states that William (de Vernon) was
son, of Maud?

I believe you have misunderstood what Ms. Bevan said. I don't think
Ms. Bevan was quoting from the actual abstract of the IPM. I believe
it was Ms. Bevan's personal conclusion that William de Vernon was the
son of Maud de Camville.

Two points should be considered here. First, ages in inquisitions are
sometimes in error. The king was primarily interested in determining
if the heir was a minor, not proving his exact age. So, if the
inquisition says that William de Vernon was aged ten in 1323, you have
to accept the fact that this may have been a general estimate, not a
modern statement of exactitude. Second, it's possible that Richard de
Vernon may have had two wives named Maud. Maud was a very common name
in that time period.

Lastly, if William de Vernon was made a ward of the king in 1323, it
should be relatively easy to determine when he came of age and
obtained possession of his father's lands. Generally this took place
when male heirs were 21 or 22 years of age.

If you find anything further, by all means, please get back to me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 17:53:04

On Sep 12, 6:32 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
[snip]
No, _he_ hasn't. He has derived his information from a source that
reports incorrect information. (I seem to recall you suffering the
same fate with regard to 'Spencer' in this same thread.) He made this
clear by citing (precisely) his source for the information. He has not
himself 'confused' them, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest
that this is the case.


re: 'Spencer', I have a photocopy of Cox's 'Churches of Derbyshire'
vol ii, p20 here and it clearly says "Durversal of Spernor". I do
recall seeing a transcription of (at least some of) Cox online with a
good many typos- either from OCR or typing at speed- so that may be
where 'Spencer' came in.

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 12 sep 2007 18:17:21

On Sep 12, 6:51 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Matthew ~

I believe I've countered your statements point for point with solid
evidence.

Dear Douglas,
I also believed I had countered your statements, so perhaps we should
just agree to disagree!

As far as I can tell, the later Vernons had no interest in
any of the Camville family properties. As for Ms. Rawcliffe, medieval
documents present challenges for everyone, including people who are
experts in the field. Not only are the documents difficult to
properly decipher and interpret, they are scattered throughout England
in countless places. Reconstructing the history of even one
individual can be a lifetime achievement. If you so desire, I might
suggest that you contact Ms. Rawcliffe directly.

Again, I had thought you might want to do that, as it is you who doubt
her statement...

But surely your first priority should be the Vernon IPM,
which Rosie Bevan has reported states that William (de Vernon) was
son, of Maud?

I believe you have misunderstood what Ms. Bevan said. I don't think
Ms. Bevan was quoting from the actual abstract of the IPM. I believe
it was Ms. Bevan's personal conclusion that William de Vernon was the
son of Maud de Camville.


But it should still be your priority to check that, as it is so
important to your case.

Two points should be considered here. First, ages in inquisitions are
sometimes in error. The king was primarily interested in determining
if the heir was a minor, not proving his exact age. So, if the
inquisition says that William de Vernon was aged ten in 1323, you have
to accept the fact that this may have been a general estimate, not a
modern statement of exactitude. Second, it's possible that Richard de
Vernon may have had two wives named Maud. Maud was a very common name
in that time period.

Agreed, but do you also then doubt the Camvill marriage date was
around 1309 as implied?

Lastly, if William de Vernon was made a ward of the king in 1323, it
should be relatively easy to determine when he came of age and
obtained possession of his father's lands. Generally this took place
when male heirs were 21 or 22 years of age.

If you find anything further, by all means, please get back to me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 sep 2007 19:42:29

Matthew Connolly has kindly quoted a modern historian (C.R.) who has
stated that Sir Richard Vernon (died 1451), Speaker of the House, was
dealing with property in Haunton, Staffordshire as a minor. Matthew's
spin on this is that Richard Vernon must have inherited a claim to
Camville lands in that place, as Haunton had earlier belonged to the
Camville family. However, as we will see below, this may not be the
case. This is why:

First, Clifton-Campville was the chief seat of the Camville family in
England until 1338. My research into the Camville family land
holdings indicates that Haunton was considered a "member" of the manor
of Clifton Camville, Staffordshire. Hence, anyone who held Clifton-
Campville, Staffordshire in turn held Haunton, Staffordshire. We
know for a fact that the manor of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire was
settled by fine in 1339 by Maud de Camville, the senior Camville
heiress, on her daughter and son-in-law, Isabel and Richard de
Stafford. Haunton was not mentioned in the fine, nor need it have
been, as it would have passed at the same time as Clifton-Campville to
the Staffords.

We can be sure of this for two reasons. First, immediately before
Maud de Camville made the settlement of Clifton-Campville, her
daughter, Isabel, and son-in-law, Richard de Stafford, appeared by
Roger de Aston, their attorney, in a plea against Isabel's mother,
Maud de Camville, that she should carry out a covenant made between
them by which she should find sufficient security for a rent of £30,
to be received from the lands and tenements formerly belonging to
William de Camville, father of Maud, in Clifton-Campville and Haunton,
Staffordshire. As we can see, Haunton was intended to be part of Maud
de Camville's grant to her daughter, Isabel, although it is not
mentioned in the fine itself. This is typical for the time period.

Second, that Haunton did so pass to Isabel and Richard de Stafford is
confirmed by a plea dated Easter term, 19 Richard II [1396], in which
their son and heir, Edmund Stafford, then Bishop of Exeter, sued in
person Walter Bayton, chaplain, "for breaking into his close at
Haunton and taking his fish from several fishery there." [Reference:
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 15)
(1894): 72]. So, yes, the Stafford family got possession of Haunton.

Subsequent to this lawsuit, the claim has been made that "while still
a minor .... he [Richard Vernon] had surrendered his claim to property
in the Haunton area of Staffordshire in return for Bishop Stafford's
manor of Great Bridgford in the same county."

While this may be true, we are not told what property was involved in
the surrender, only that it lay "in the Haunton area." Since Richard
Vernon's father did not die until 1400, it is obviously that Richard
Vernon can not have surrendered his claim as a minor to anything until
after that date. Since we know Haunton itself was already in
possession of the Stafford family, it is not clear what claim to
property in the Haunton area was surrendered by Richard Vernon. In
any case, the Camville estates encompassed far more than a claim to
minor property in a member of the chief seat of the family. As I have
stated previously, as far as I can tell, the entire Camville
inheritance of Maud de Camville fell to her daughter, Isabel de
Stafford, to the exclusion of the Vernon family.

Just to confuse matters, it appears the Vernon family held ancestral
lands of their own in the parish of Clifton-Campville,
Staffordshire. My research indicates that Harlaston, Staffordshire,
which manor was held for many generations by the Vernon family, is
also situated in Clifton-Campville. As such, it is entirely possible
that the Vernon family had an interest to land in nearby Haunton which
lies in the same parish, which property could have been separate and
distinct from the Camville lands in that place. Thus, the assumption
that property in Haunton is equal to Camville lands is faulty at best,
and may be entirely incorrect.

Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 13 sep 2007 20:09:32

On Sep 13, 11:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Since we know Haunton itself was already in
possession of the Stafford family, it is not clear what claim to
property in the Haunton area was surrendered by Richard Vernon.

The fact that someone else possessed property in no way is
inconsistent with another party having a claim to that property -
quite the opposite, in fact.

taf

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 13 sep 2007 22:09:49

On Sep 13, 8:42 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Matthew Connolly has kindly quoted a modern historian (C.R.) who has
stated that Sir Richard Vernon (died 1451), Speaker of the House, was
dealing with property in Haunton, Staffordshire as a minor. Matthew's
spin on this is that Richard Vernon must have inherited a claim to
Camville lands in that place, as Haunton had earlier belonged to the
Camville family.

I should just pick up on one point there Douglas- I was not putting a
'spin' on it, just offering a response to your statement- and I quote-
"In short, I find no evidence that William de Vernon had any interest,
share, or right in any of the Camville properties", by showing that
his descendants appear to have had just such interests- and bear in
mind that those historians were only attempting to record the facts of
Sir Richard's existence, not prove any Camville connection.

But the William de Vernon mentioned above is a scantily documented
individual anyway, so any new records of him could be of value. You
can see from Rosie Bevan's September 2005 post already cited that he
was dead in 1339. Can we be sure he even outlived William de Camville?
If he did it can't have been by long- not surprising if he doesn't
appear in connection with the Camville lands. Maud was distributing
her lands in 1339- possibly not a coincidence? Also perhaps a good
reason why William de Vernon wasn't mentioned in the fine. William's
son Richard, a minor, was then the male heir of the Vernons- and as
taf pointed out, could easily be the next 'right heir' of the fine.
The daughter Isabella was already married to Richard Stafford- it is
quite normal to settle lands on a couple; there were then three
generations of widows claiming dower on the Vernon properties
(Isabella, Maud and Joan), so why shouldn't the maternal inheritance
be the marriage portion?

However, as we will see below, this may not be the
case. This is why:

First, Clifton-Campville was the chief seat of the Camville family in
England until 1338. My research into the Camville family land
holdings indicates that Haunton was considered a "member" of the manor
of Clifton Camville, Staffordshire. Hence, anyone who held Clifton-
Campville, Staffordshire in turn held Haunton, Staffordshire. We
know for a fact that the manor of Clifton-Campville, Staffordshire was
settled by fine in 1339 by Maud de Camville, the senior Camville
heiress, on her daughter and son-in-law, Isabel and Richard de
Stafford. Haunton was not mentioned in the fine, nor need it have
been, as it would have passed at the same time as Clifton-Campville to
the Staffords.

We can be sure of this for two reasons. First, immediately before
Maud de Camville made the settlement of Clifton-Campville, her
daughter, Isabel, and son-in-law, Richard de Stafford, appeared by
Roger de Aston, their attorney, in a plea against Isabel's mother,
Maud de Camville, that she should carry out a covenant made between
them by which she should find sufficient security for a rent of £30,
to be received from the lands and tenements formerly belonging to
William de Camville, father of Maud, in Clifton-Campville and Haunton,
Staffordshire. As we can see, Haunton was intended to be part of Maud
de Camville's grant to her daughter, Isabel, although it is not
mentioned in the fine itself. This is typical for the time period.

Second, that Haunton did so pass to Isabel and Richard de Stafford is
confirmed by a plea dated Easter term, 19 Richard II [1396], in which
their son and heir, Edmund Stafford, then Bishop of Exeter, sued in
person Walter Bayton, chaplain, "for breaking into his close at
Haunton and taking his fish from several fishery there." [Reference:
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 15)
(1894): 72]. So, yes, the Stafford family got possession of Haunton.

Subsequent to this lawsuit, the claim has been made that "while still
a minor .... he [Richard Vernon] had surrendered his claim to property
in the Haunton area of Staffordshire in return for Bishop Stafford's
manor of Great Bridgford in the same county."

While this may be true, we are not told what property was involved in
the surrender, only that it lay "in the Haunton area." Since Richard
Vernon's father did not die until 1400, it is obviously that Richard
Vernon can not have surrendered his claim as a minor to anything until
after that date. Since we know Haunton itself was already in
possession of the Stafford family, it is not clear what claim to
property in the Haunton area was surrendered by Richard Vernon. In
any case, the Camville estates encompassed far more than a claim to
minor property in a member of the chief seat of the family. As I have
stated previously, as far as I can tell, the entire Camville
inheritance of Maud de Camville fell to her daughter, Isabel de
Stafford, to the exclusion of the Vernon family.

Just to confuse matters, it appears the Vernon family held ancestral
lands of their own in the parish of Clifton-Campville,
Staffordshire. My research indicates that Harlaston, Staffordshire,
which manor was held for many generations by the Vernon family, is
also situated in Clifton-Campville. As such, it is entirely possible
that the Vernon family had an interest to land in nearby Haunton which
lies in the same parish, which property could have been separate and
distinct from the Camville lands in that place. Thus, the assumption
that property in Haunton is equal to Camville lands is faulty at best,
and may be entirely incorrect.

Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

That's right, your research indicates correctly- indeed, Sir John
Vernon (d.1545) has a fine tomb in the church at Clifton Campville.
But again, Haunton was mentioned by me because it was a Camville manor
and you said you couldn't find any Vernon interests in them; you now
have a theory that this does not mean a Camville connection, but still
need proof of that. Likewise the other places- geographical position
is not necessarily the explanation. You could well turn out to be
right- but as you say, these things can be a lifetime achievement.

There is a perfectly simple explanation sitting there if you want it-
Maud de Vernon, as we have seen, granted the rents of tenements in
Haunton to her daughter Maud wife of William de Venables and her
heirs. As you have suggested, Maud de Venables may have died without
issue. Her heir would have been the head of the Vernon family at that
date. It would have thus descended to Richard; Bishop Stafford wished
to consolidate his holdings, so they exchanged.

It's interesting that Isabella had so much settled on her and Maud
apparently so little (except in remainder)- you said yourself that
Maud (Camville) de Vernon settled "most of her Camville inheritance"
on Isabella. This makes sense though, when comparing the relative
importance of their husbands. But the unequal distribution between the
daughters doesn't help the theory that they were coheiresses.

-Matthew

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 14 sep 2007 02:51:33

On Sep 13, 6:15 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/12/07 01:20:24 Pacific Standard Time, farme...@interfold.com writes:
I guess that gives someone some
weasel room. (I note there is a decent Durvassal summary in VCH Warks:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=57006, although
the author was apparently unaware of the indenture I cited elsewhere
in this thread.)

----------------------
The next interesting point in the descent of Spernell.
This report states that Henry Beaumont and Joan his wife had half the manor in 1441 when they dispossessed it to John Throckmorton and that Dugdale makes this Joan a granddaughter of William Spernore who this report guesses might be an illegitimate son.


It is unclear to me why illegitimacy has been suggested. The property
passed from Thomas to John, and then from John to a Thomas (who has
escaped notice in all of the accounts I have seen - maybe I should
post this to five newsgroups as a VCH Correction), and Thomas granted
it to William, son of John, who apparently was not the heir, for
life. Later Nicholas challenged William's right to hold it, but it
wasn't until William's death that it passed to Nicholas's line,
suggesting that Nicholas was the blood heir. If it were known that
Nicholas was brother of John, then that would seem to indicate that
William must have been illegitimate. However, if Nicholas was John's
son, then he could have been between Thomas and William, and bypassed
by Thomas's grant to William.

I note that in an earlier case, a Durvassal granted the entire estate
to his second son, Roger, in order to protect it from the large debts
accumulated by the elder son.

taf

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 14 sep 2007 04:53:25

On Sep 13, 6:59 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/13/07 18:55:37 Pacific Standard Time, farme...@interfold.com writes:
- maybe I should
post this to five newsgroups as a VCH Correction), and Thomas granted
it to William, son of John, who

--------------
Where are you getting that Thomas granted it to William? The VCH report doesn't state that. It only states that William received a life interest and died perhaps in or slightly before 1401.


See my book.



But seriously, I posted that a couple of days ago, from A2A:

THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS

FILE - [no title] - ref. CR 1998/EB/6 - date: 29 Dec 1349

Contents
Pair of indentures. Thomas Durvassal of Spernore (Spernall) gives to
William the son and Sibilla the widow of John Durvassal late lord of
Spernall, property in Spernall for life.

taf

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 14 sep 2007 09:35:27

On Sep 14, 3:50 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/13/07 14:10:32 Pacific Standard Time, mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
That's right, your research indicates correctly- indeed, Sir John
Vernon (d.1545) has a fine tomb in the church at Clifton Campville.
--------------------
Can we quibble? I think the date is 9 Feb 1545/6

Will

Thanks Will, '1545' was just from memory- also in my last post, for
'William Venables' read 'Hugh Venables' (William was the father).

-Matthew

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 14 sep 2007 12:29:14

On Sep 12, 6:51 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Two points should be considered here. First, ages in inquisitions are
sometimes in error. The king was primarily interested in determining
if the heir was a minor, not proving his exact age. So, if the
inquisition says that William de Vernon was aged ten in 1323, you have
to accept the fact that this may have been a general estimate, not a
modern statement of exactitude. Second, it's possible that Richard de
Vernon may have had two wives named Maud. Maud was a very common name
in that time period.

Lastly, if William de Vernon was made a ward of the king in 1323, it
should be relatively easy to determine when he came of age and
obtained possession of his father's lands. Generally this took place
when male heirs were 21 or 22 years of age.

If you find anything further, by all means, please get back to me.

There is further to be found on William's age- Rev. F.W. Ragg's long
article on Maud's Meaburn and Newby in Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq.
& Arch. Soc. Trans. NS XII (1912) p.332 details an ongoing dispute
over "land at Barton juxta Melsamby in Yorkshire". To quote the
relevant part:

"And then again it came on in 1331 (de Banco Roll 283, 4 Edw.III., m.
329), which I give from Wrottesley. [...] William de Vernoun, kinsman
(consanguineus) and heir of Gilbert le Fraunceys, who is summoned in
Staffordshire and Westmorland, and appeared and stated that that [sic-
MC] both Thomas de Hodelleston and William de Vernoun (himself) were
under age and prayed to have delay. Thomas de Hertford stated that
they were of full age, and prayed for the case to go on, and the
Sheriffs of York and Stafford were ordered to summon them to appear
within one month after Easter. And at this last date it was admitted
that they were under age, and the case was again delayed."

Then VCH Bucks IV p.90 (Pitchcott) gives us "William de Vernon had
succeeded early in 1331, when Isabel widow of his grandfather and Maud
widow of his father claimed dower in Pitchcott." This cites "De Banco
R. 286, m.348 d."

If the latter shows he was then of age, and the former that he wasn't,
it seems that he must have been born in 1310; so the 1309 grant still
looks to be a settlement on his parents. The 1313 feoffment to Richard
and Maud of lands at Baslow was to "them and the heirs of their
bodies, with remainder, in default of such issue, to heirs of
Richard." As Richard evidently already had a son and heir by then, and
Baslow stayed in the male line, it seems that this Maud was William's
mother. That leaves a ten year period to try and find proof that one
Maud died and he married another.

Another thought about the 1339 fine- notice that the younger Maud is
named in remainder, followed by her mother's right heirs; if there
were only the two daughters then Maud would be the right heir anyway,
so why mention her? If there was a son (or son of a son in this case)
then he would be the next right heir, so not necessary to name him;
but Maud has to be mentioned specifically if she is to inherit
anything.

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 14 sep 2007 16:25:24

On Sep 14, 4:29 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

There is further to be found on William's age- Rev. F.W. Ragg's long
article on Maud's Meaburn and Newby in Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq.
& Arch. Soc. Trans. NS XII (1912) p.332 details an ongoing dispute
over "land at Barton juxta Melsamby in Yorkshire". To quote the
relevant part:

Ah, I'd forgotten about this.

Another thought about the 1339 fine- notice that the younger Maud is
named in remainder, followed by her mother's right heirs; if there
were only the two daughters then Maud would be the right heir anyway,
so why mention her? If there was a son (or son of a son in this case)
then he would be the next right heir, so not necessary to name him;
but Maud has to be mentioned specifically if she is to inherit
anything.

It does seem odd (even pointless) to have a fine that recapitulates
the preexisting inheritance, although I guess it would allow Maud to
remarry without encumbering the property for life with the new
husband, but that falls under the category of ad hoc hypothesis, just
like the 'two Mauds' suggestion.

taf

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 15 sep 2007 01:45:31

On Sep 14, 4:45 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/13/07 20:55:27 Pacific Standard Time, farme...@interfold.com writes:

Pair of indentures. Thomas Durvassal of Spernore (Spernall) gives to
William the son and Sibilla the widow of John Durvassal late lord of
Spernall, property in Spernall for life.

------------------
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Thomas is supposed to be dead by 1328!
Stop posting this stuff you're messing up my beautiful files.

This is not the same Thomas. Can't be. John was in full possession by
(I think it was) 1323. John died 1347|1349, leaving widow Joyce, and a
younger Thomas was his heir. This Thomas died shortly thereafter, but
not before granting a life-interest to Joyce and William, in so doing
bypassing Nicholas, the next heir. Then we have the heirs of Nicholas
challenging William and his heirs.

taf

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 15 sep 2007 04:16:21

On Sep 14, 6:34 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/14/07 17:50:29 Pacific Standard Time, farme...@interfold.com writes:
This is not the same Thomas. Can't be. John was in full possession by
(I think it was) 1323. John died 1347|1349, leaving widow Joyce, and a
younger Thomas was his heir. This Thomas died shortly thereafter, but
not before granting a life-interest to Joyce and William, in so doing
bypassing Nicholas, the next heir. Then we have the heirs of Nicholas
challenging William and his heirs.

-------------------------------
You'll get in trouble speaking extemporaneously.

I did mess that up, didn't I.

Thomas died in 1328 perhttp://www.british-history.ac.uk/rep ... 06although there he is called John which they correct to Thomas who was holding in 1316.


I don't recall if I posted this already or not, but I am not entirely
happy with this correction. Setting aside the secondary source, we
have two primary sources that are in conflict, unfortunately both
known to me only from secondary sources, leaving the opportunity for
error in transmission. These are the statement that John, aged 28,
son of John came into possession in 1328, and the other that in 1347,
John gave the pedigree that he was son of Thomas, son of Phillip, son
of Roger. These are in conflict, but it is not clear to me that it is
the first and not the second that is in error (at least as it has come
down to us). It seems to me that John could have either been son of
Thomas (with the first in error) or son of John son of Thomas (with
the second wrong). Chronology would help, but most web sites give
John (b. ca. 1300, unless the age is actually 28 and more, in which
case all bet are off) a birthdate in the 1270s or 1280s, but I am
afraid this is nothing but an extrapolation from many generations
later. It would be great to have more precise chronology.

Somewhere I saw a lawsuit involving William's widow and daughters, as
well as others. I almost felt sorry for the primary - he kept having
the suit set aside because one after another defendant died and the
case had to be refiled, again and again. He finally won by default
only to have this challenged because William's daughters were minors.
Note I said _almost_ - it looks like he had invented his relationship
to the deceased and reported the true heir as dead without heirs,
which was a complete lie, so I can't feel too sorry for him.

taf

Rosie Bevan

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 17 sep 2007 05:19:32

On Sep 13, 5:17 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:51 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Matthew ~

I believe I've countered your statements point for point with solid
evidence.

Dear Douglas,
I also believed I had countered your statements, so perhaps we should
just agree to disagree!

As far as I can tell, the later Vernons had no interest in
any of the Camville family properties. As for Ms. Rawcliffe, medieval
documents present challenges for everyone, including people who are
experts in the field. Not only are the documents difficult to
properly decipher and interpret, they are scattered throughout England
in countless places. Reconstructing the history of even one
individual can be a lifetime achievement. If you so desire, I might
suggest that you contact Ms. Rawcliffe directly.

Again, I had thought you might want to do that, as it is you who doubt
her statement...



But surely your first priority should be the Vernon IPM,
which Rosie Bevan has reported states that William (de Vernon) was
son, of Maud?

I believe you have misunderstood what Ms. Bevan said. I don't think
Ms. Bevan was quoting from the actual abstract of the IPM. I believe
it was Ms. Bevan's personal conclusion that William de Vernon was the
son of Maud de Camville.


And I believe Mr Richardson is prevaricating. Should anyone actually
believe his slant on this, it was the escheator's conclusion that
William de Vernon was the son of Maud de Camville, not mine.

The following is from Richard de Vernon's ipm for Staffordshire taken
in 1323 [CIPMVI, no.406], referring to Clifton Campville.

"Clifton Caunvill manor. 100a. arable and 100a. heath, held jointly by
the said Richard and Maud his wife, by the enfeoffment of William de
Caunvill who held of the said earl [RB - Thomas earl of Lancaster], TO
HOLD TO THEM AND THE HEIRS OF THEIR BODIES [emphasis mine], of the
said William and his heirs by service of a pair of gilt spurs.

Heir as above." [ - i.e. William his son, aged 10, is his next heir].

William could not have been heir of this estate under the terms of
William de Camville's settlement unless he was the son of Richard de
Vernon and Maud de Camville. As such he was clearly named after his
maternal grandfather.

Further evidence that William was son of Maud de Camville comes from a
suit in which Maud was sued for a messuage in Haunton, which was a
member of Clifton Campville. Having succeeded to the estate on the
death of William de Vernon around 1338, Richard de Vernon, Maud's
grandson, was called to warrant on her behalf, but was underage.

12 Edw III 1338
Staff. Henry Coppe, of Haunton, sued Matilda, formerly wife of Richard
de Vernoun, of Haunton, for a messuage and a virgate of land in
Haunton as his right and inheritance, and in which she had no entry,
except by a demise which Ralph Coppe, his grandfather, had made to
Thomas de Wymyndham, when the said Ralph was out of his mind. Matilda
called to warranty Simon de Norton, who appeared by attorney and
warranted the tenement to her, and called to warranty Richard, son of
William de Vernoun, Chivaler, kinsman and heir of Richard de Vernoun
the younger, who was under age. As Henry could not deny this, it was
ordered that the suit should remain till the full age of the said
Richard. m. 330.

From: 'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 12 Edward III', Staffordshire
Historical Collections, vol. 11 (1890), pp. 80-9.

The Vernons' Camville ancestry was acknowledged by the quartering of
the Camville arms amongst the nine quarterings of Vernon on the tomb
of Sir George Vernon d 1567 [Cox, pp. 22.]


Mr Richardson believes that William de Vernon was an adult when sued
for Isabel de Vernon's dower in 1329, but this is not so. William de
Vernon was returned as '9 and more' and '10' in three counties on the
death of his father in 1223, and was still underage in 1330 as shown
below.

4 Edw III 1330
Ebor. Thomas, son of John de Hertford sued Thomas, son of William de
Moubray for a messuage and 140 acres of land and six acres of meadow
and half a mill in Barton near Melsamby. Thomas, son of William called
to warranty Robert, son of John Fraunceys who appeared and warranted
the tenements to him, and as regarded one acre of land and one-and-a-
half acre of meadow, Robert called to warranty Thomas, son of John de
Hodelleston of co. Ebor and as regarded the residue of the tenements
he called to warranty William de Vernoun, the kinsman and heir of
Gilbert le Fraunceys, who is to be summoned in cos. Stafford and
Westmoreland, and he stated that the said Thomas son of John, and
William de Vernoun were under age, and prayed that the suit might be
made a remanet till their full age.
Thomas, son of John, stated they were of full age and prayed that they
might be summoned, and the Sheriffs of cos. York and Stafford were
ordered to summon them for a month from Easter. A postscript states
that at the above date Thomas, son of John de Hertford, admitted that
Thomas, son of John de Hodeleston, and William de Vernoun were under
age, and the suit was therefore to remain till their full age. (fn. 2)
m. 329.
From: 'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 4 Edward III', Staffordshire
Historical Collections, vol. 11 (1890), pp. 14-21

Isabel inherited the lion's share of Maud's inheritance and it is not
so difficult to see why. The 1339 settlement was made in response to
the death of both Maud de Camville's father and her son, William,
around 1338. With the Vernon estates now plunged into a long minority
and wardship, I believe the fine was a sucessful attempt by Maud to
preserve the Camville lands in safe hands, and create a buffer against
further wardship in the grasp of unsympathetic overlords, by
enfeoffing her sister and husband in the property, with the grant of
them to herself for life, and successive remainders to her adult
daughters.

At York, on the Morrow of the Purification. 13 E. III.
Between Matilda de Vernoun, complainant, and Richard de Peures and
Alianora his wife, deforciants of a Knight's fee in Stotfold and
Haselore, and the manor of Clifton Campvill, excepting 120 acres of
land, sixteen acres of meadow, eighteen acres of pasture, twenty-four
acres of wood in the same manors, and of the advowson of the Church of
Clifton Campville, in co. Stafford, and 120 acres of land, sixteen
acres of meadow, eighteen acres of pasture, and twenty-four acres of
wood in Clifton Campville and Chirche Sheyle, in co. Leycestre.
Matilda acknowledged the said Knight's fee, manor, and tenements, and
advowson to belong to Alianora, of which Richard and Alianora held the
said manor and tenements and advowson of the Church, and for this
acknowledgment the said Richard and Alianora granted the same to
Matilda for her life, and they further granted to her the said
Knight's fee, with the homages and services of John de Arderne, John
de Lee, Thomas de Harecourt, William le Fremon, Henry le Fremon, John,
son of Hugh de Tymmor, Ralph de Tymmore, Richard de Tymmor, Richard de
Strethay, Alice, formerly wife of William le Chaumberleyn, Robert le
Wolf, Robert le Cuntur, Richard Austyn, and Henry de Tymmor, and their
heirs, for all the tenements they held in the vills of Stotfold and
Haselore, to be held by Matilda for her life, and after her death they
shall remain to Richard de Stafford and Isabella his wife and their
issue, and failing such, to Matilda, daughter of Richard de Vernoun,
junior, and her issue, and failing such, to the right heirs of Matilda
de Vernoun for ever. Endorsed Gilbert de Burmyngham and Isabella his
wife, John de Seyntcler and Coletta his wife, Robert de Greseleye and
Katrine his wife, Richard de Peures and Alianora his wife, and Matilda
de Vernoun put in their claim.
From: 'Fines of mixed counties: Edward III', Staffordshire Historical
Collections, vol. 11 (1890), pp. 183-92

Edmund Stafford's ipm [CIPM XXI no. 196] records property in 5
counties worth around 73 pounds annually, with the Clifton Campville
estate being worth 27 pounds. Stotfield and Haselor were not included.

I hope this has helped straighten Mr Richardson's 'misunderstanding'.

Rosie Bevan

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 17 sep 2007 17:16:11

On Sep 17, 8:53 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I've read two different abstracts of the 1323 inquisition of Richard
de Vernon which are in print. Maud de Camville is not called the
mother of his son, William de Vernon, in either abstract.

Ah. Not a new ad hoc hypothesis, but rather a simple 'duck and
denial'. Rosie's point was not, after all, that the ipm called
William son of Maud (it wouldn't) but that the land in question was to
go to Richard and Maud and the heirs of their body begotten, and that
William was that heir. (like your seals, not perfect, but extremely
strong)

I've also encountered two different documents in which
the age of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon, was
disputed during his minority.

Given that the ipm of Richard and the 1330 document are consistent
with each other, you choose to deny them, as they fail to match the
decision you have already made.

1. collect data
2. evaluate data
3. draw conclusion

(if necessary)

4. collect more data
5. reevaluate data
6. reevaluate conclusion

Not:

1. draw conclusion
2. look for data that agrees with conclusion
3. figure out how to deny any data that disagrees

The conclusion should flow from the data, not be used to filter or
evaluate the data.

taf

Matthew Connolly

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 17 sep 2007 17:46:08

On Sep 17, 5:53 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I've read two different abstracts of the 1323 inquisition of Richard
de Vernon which are in print. Maud de Camville is not called the
mother of his son, William de Vernon, in either abstract.

Please can you post these abstracts Douglas, so that we can compare
them. The text Rosie posted was very clear in its import.

The
evidence is clear, however, from OTHER sources that Maud de Camville
was his surviviing wife and that she was the mother of his two
daughters, Isabel and Maud.

There is not a single part of that sentence that has been disputed.
The evidence is also clear that William de Vernon was dead in 1339;
the year the three ladies appear together in the fine.

It is also equally clear that Maud de
Camville's heiress was her daughter, Isabel de Stafford, who obtained
the entire possession of the English barony of Camville by 1351, with
the exception of a minor settlement made earlier on Isabel's younger
sister, Maud.

It is clear that Isabel was the *de facto* heiress. It is clear that
she received land by fine. It is not clear that she would have
inherited it all anyway. 75 posts in, we can safely say it is anything
but clear.

I've also encountered two different documents in which
the age of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon, was
disputed during his minority.

The relevance of that to the rest of your statement is not so clear-
please post more details. As you have seen, it was accepted he was
under age by one of the people who'd previously denied it. But his age
isn't the problem here, is it?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 19:11:45

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Sep 17, 10:46 am, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

< Please can you post these abstracts Douglas, so that we can compare
< them. The text Rosie posted was very clear in its import.

The text that has been quoted is the same one that I have seen. It
states that land was settled on Richard de Vernon and his wife, Maud,
at Clifton Campville, Staffordshire, during Richard's lifetime by
William de Camville. It makes no mention of when this grant was
made. It also makes no mention that Maud was William de Camville's
daughter, or that she was the mother of Richard de Vernon's son and
heir, William. Or, are you reading a different document than I am?

Actually, if we take the inquisition post mortem of Richard de Vernon
strictly, then William de Vernon can not be Maud de Camville's son.
The inquisition clearly states that the property in Clifton-Campville,
Staffordshire was settled on Richard de Vernon and his wife, Maud, by
William de Camville TO HOLD TO THEM AND THE HEIRS OF THEIR BODIES. We
know that the manor of Clifton-Campville later fell to Richard and
Maud's daughter, Isabel, not Richard's son William. If so, then
Isabel would typically be deemed to be the child of this marriage, not
William. It is possible, however, that the lands at Clifton-Campville
granted by William de Camville had a separate history from the manor
itself. But, usually this is not the case.

There is not a single part of that sentence that has been disputed.
The evidence is also clear that William de Vernon was dead in 1339;
the year the three ladies appear together in the fine.

This has nothing to do with whether or not William de Vernon was Maud
de Camville's son.

< It is clear that Isabel was the *de facto* heiress. It is clear that
< she received land by fine. It is not clear that she would have
< inherited it all anyway. 75 posts in, we can safely say it is
anything
< but clear.

Isabel de Stafford was not her mother's "de facto" heiress. She was
her mother's heiress, pure and simple. Isabel stated as such when she
claimed to be the "kinswoman and heiress" of Maud de Camville's
ancestors, William and Aubrey de Camville, in the Warwickshire fine
dated 1351. Isabel also put her mother's Camville arms on her seal
before her mother's death. This action would also be most unusual,
unless Isabel was her mother's heiress.

Isabel only received L30 of lands in Staffordshire by gift of her
mother in 1339. The rest of the Camville inheritance came to Isabel
by some unknown conveyance or other legal means sometime in or before
1351. The rest of the Camville's lands included property in
Leicestershire, Warwickshire, and Ireland. The only thing Isabel did
not get of the Camville inheritance was the L20 out of lands in
Haunton, Staffordshire that was settled on her sister, Maud de Vernon,
wife of William de Venables.

< > DR: I've also encountered two different documents in which
< > the age of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon,
was
< > disputed during his minority.
<
< The relevance of that to the rest of your statement is not so clear-
< please post more details. As you have seen, it was accepted he was
< under age by one of the people who'd previously denied it. But his
age
< isn't the problem here, is it?

Yes, William de Vernon's age is most certainly a problem if you assume
he was aged nine or ten at his father's death in 1323. If he was
older than that, then it would have implications as to whether or not
Maud de Camville was his mother. Richard de Vernon had a wife named
Maud by 1313, and probably by 1309. I assume this wife was Maud de
Camville. If William was born before 1309, he could have been by an
earlier wife. And, we know that Richard de Vernon had an earlier
wife.

In any event, I find it odd that William de Vernon's age was disputed
on at least two different occasions when he was a minor. You've
already cited one of these occasions already. I found a second one.
Again, it is rather unusual for the heir's age to be disputed not once
but twice, especially when the minor in question was a ward of the
king.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av taf » 17 sep 2007 20:55:09

On Sep 17, 11:11 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Actually, if we take the inquisition post mortem of Richard de Vernon
strictly, then William de Vernon can not be Maud de Camville's son.
The inquisition clearly states that the property in Clifton-Campville,
Staffordshire was settled on Richard de Vernon and his wife, Maud, by
William de Camville TO HOLD TO THEM AND THE HEIRS OF THEIR BODIES. We
know that the manor of Clifton-Campville later fell to Richard and
Maud's daughter, Isabel, not Richard's son William. If so, then
Isabel would typically be deemed to be the child of this marriage, not
William.

It didn't "fall to" them - it was granted to them. Grants don't follow
the rules of inheritance, they subvert them. In fact, it would be
reasonable to conclude the the whole reason this fine was payed out
was to get around the "heirs of their bodies" limitation of the
original inheritance.

It is clear that Isabel was the *de facto* heiress. It is clear that
she received land by fine. It is not clear that she would have
inherited it all anyway. 75 posts in, we can safely say it is
anything
but clear.

Isabel de Stafford was not her mother's "de facto" heiress. She was
her mother's heiress, pure and simple.

Then there would have been no reason to pass the land to her by fine,
and no reason for later Vernons to use the Camville arms.

taf

Gjest

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 22:12:20

On 17 Sep., 05:19, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

I hope this has helped straighten Mr Richardson's 'misunderstanding'.

Indeed it has - as you will see, having feebly disputed the proof that
you offered, Mr Richardson has now adopted it as his own without
attribution and has now started another [cross-posted] thread in which
he is collegially pronouncing:

"I believe the evidence is sound that Maud de Camville was the mother
of William de Vernon"

as if the research and reasoning were his own. This is a nice change
from his original posting on the same topic a few days ago, which
declared that:

"a study of the available evidence suggests that Maud de Camville was
not William de Vernon's mother. The reasons for this are several".

When I first started posting here several years ago, I was surprised
at how negatively Mr Richardson was usually received. I can now well
understand why this is the case. It is sad and shoddy behaviour.

MAR

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»