Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bob Turcott

Re: Long Awaited Longueval/Amiot/Ledran Article Published

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 18 apr 2007 16:52:11

Yves,

I am just still learning how to research for genealogy and I have always
used baptismal records
and marriage records recorded at parish registers etc. To further learn more
on becoming a better researcher what documents fall under the catagory of
"Authentic deeds" is one of them notorial acts
and are there others? I know John Dulong outlines some guidelines on his
nice website about medieval research, however I have never heard the term
"Authentic deeds" mentioned before.
This is certainly a nice learning experince for me to understand ceratin
classifications of documents.

Congrats on your recent publication of Longueval/Amiot/Ledran

Best wishes,
Bob Turcott
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... ttelagace/
http://groups.msn.com/MeherencGenealogy
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... royal.html


Subject: Re: Long Awaited Longueval/Amiot/Ledran Article Published
Date: 17 Apr 2007 23:47:44 -0700

On Apr 18, 3:29 am, "John P. DuLong" <dulo...@habitant.org> wrote:
This research should serve as a model on how to pursue tracing the
origins of other French-Canadian families beyond finding the baptism
record of the immigrant, worthy as that may be. I am curious to see
the
various records used and where they were located.

John, there is only one way to pursue any research: the use of the
three A's: "Authentic deeds, authentic deeds and authentic deeds".
This is how Father Archange Godbout worked, this is how René Jetté
worked, and there is no other choice but to follow the path of our
distinguished predecessors.

Have a good day, R.-Yves Gagné


-------------------------------
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

_________________________________________________________________
Interest Rates Fall Again! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new
payment
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.j ... &moid=7581

Gjest

Re: Parish registers: All Hallows Barking [by the Tower]

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 apr 2007 17:32:07

If you are referring to All Hallows situated just at the Tower, I believe that they are on microfilm at the London Metropolitan facility in Clerkenwell.
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Date: 2007/04/18 Wed AM 08:27:34 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Parish registers: All Hallows Barking [by the Tower]

Does anyone know whether the Registers for All Hallows Barking have
been published?

MA-R


-------------------------------
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

Gjest

Re: Parish registers: All Hallows Barking [by the Tower]

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 apr 2007 17:37:27

On Apr 18, 5:32 pm, <pajun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
If you are referring to All Hallows situated just at the Tower, I believe that they are on microfilm at the London Metropolitan facility in Clerkenwell.

Many thanks - I think the originals are also at the Guildhall on
microfilm - I just wondered whether there's a published transcript as
well.

Regards, Michael

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Long Awaited Longueval/Amiot/Ledran Article Published

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 18 apr 2007 17:40:43

In message of 18 Apr, "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com> wrote:

I am just still learning how to research for genealogy and I have
always used baptismal records and marriage records recorded at parish
registers etc. To further learn more on becoming a better researcher
what documents fall under the catagory of "Authentic deeds" is one of
them notorial acts and are there others? I know John Dulong outlines
some guidelines on his nice website about medieval research, however I
have never heard the term "Authentic deeds" mentioned before.

Like so many other expression, you have to guess what its author meant.
My guess is that it is referring to original documents, which might well
include notorial acts, that have survived from the time of the events
they refer to. They might have been fraudulent, but they are at least
authentic frauds.

I would like to think that some people can obtain and use such
documents. Not everyone can. In the past, Real Scholars used to go
through the surviving documents and transcribe them or translate them or
abstract from them and then get that printed. But the resulting books
would no longer be "authentic deeds".

I could go on describing the many types of document that have survived
and what it virtues and vices were. But I will get to my point in a
moment.

In the end it is up to you to decide what standard you are going to work
to. Are you going to insist on:

1. Authentic deeds?

2. Books of transcripts only of authentic deeds?

3. Books of translations of such?

4. Books of abstracts of such?

5. Genealogy books made from the above (Complete Peerage being an
example, though it does have a few lacunae)?

6. Genealogy books made from pedigrees handed down in families, such as
the Visitation books and those in Burke's many volumes?

Etc.

It is up to you to decide the sorts of things you are capable of
handling and have the time to achieve. Having made your choices, you
should make it clear to your readers and to yourself what you did.

And it will probably be that as you get older and competent with one set
of books or documents, you will change to more exacting - or even to
less exacting - standards.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Gjest

Re: Scanderbeg, two descent-lines

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 apr 2007 19:01:02

Yes no use at all pointing out that a line is a house of cards.

Oh ye of little Faith!

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 18 apr 2007 19:07:26

In message of 18 Apr, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/18/2007 9:16:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<Correct quote marks inserted for intelligibility:>

I see no reason why CP would be ruthlessly determined to present
Eve as James's mistress, given their many other instances of
admitting doubt; it seems more likely to me to be an omission on
their part.


One would think that one possibility for the line being marked
illegitimate or "presumably" illegitimate would be the way the various
properties passed or didn't. That would be one thing to investigate.

The thing about the Claverings or FitzRogers or FitzRoberts is that
there was considerable shenanigans that went on with the family estates.
Normally they would have gone to Eve who was without doubt the heir of
John Fitz Robert lord Clavering, but he alienated them to his sister's
husband even though he had a brother whose line continued. John's
sister was Euphemia and she married Randolf Neville (1262-1331) and in
the Neville records she is regularly listed as the heiress of the
Clavering estates. The College of Arms was even following that same
account as late as 1926, even though CP had unscrambled Euphemia's
position in 1913, and Burke in his XP had the right account too.

So there would not have been much property of Eve's to follow through.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 apr 2007 19:11:02

In a message dated 4/18/2007 9:16:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

I see no reason why CP would be ruthlessly determined to present Eve
as James's mistress, given their many other instances of admitting
doubt; it seems more likely to me to be an omission on their part.


One would think that one possibility for the line being marked illegitimate
or "presumably" illegitimate would be the way the various properties passed or
didn't. That would be one thing to investigate.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 apr 2007 21:11:04

Brilliant work, Douglas! Thanks for the reference to Beltz
MM

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 apr 2007 21:26:02

I found a potentially valuable secondary (or tertiary) source:-
"Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chster of Chichely" by
R.E.Chester-Waters, London, Robson & Sons, 1878.
Eve Clavering and her husbands are dealt with on pages 337-8, with
authorities cited on page 342. Unfortunately I have not been able to read pages 338
and 342 on line.
But I was able to read from page 337 that Thomas Ufford, Eve's second
husband, was slain at Bannockburn in 1314, and to see that he is credited with
three named sons of hers, and that her third husband was James Audley, second
cousin of her first husband Thomas, and that she had five children by him, who
are not named on page 337, but who I think will be named on page 338. All
these statements are referred to footnotes which will I think be found on page
342.
In general, Chester-Waters' work seems to me to to have been meticulous.

According to a google library search for his book, there are 23 libraries in
the USA which hold it, and several in London, including the London Library,
the PRO at Kew and the Inner Temple.

I am beginning to think that Eve may have been the mother, by her third
marriage, of the celebrated Sir James Audley, hero of the battle of Poitiers, as
to whom the Oxford DNB has this to say:-
"Audley, Sir James (c.1318–1369), soldier, was an outstanding exemplar of
chivalry, and one of the heroes of the chronicler Froissart. He was the
illegitimate son of Sir James Audley (d. 1334) of Stratton Audley, Oxfordshire , and
Eva, daughter of Sir John Clavering."
As to his suggested illegitimacy, Douglas Richardson has provided evidence
in the group that his father James was in truth married to his mother Eve.
Here is my current draft effort at reconstructing the family tree of the
Audleys, to which I plan to add more copious refernces as time permits:-

1. Liulph (DNB)
1.1 Adam, d.1203
1.1.1.Adam d.1211
1.1.2 Henry, d.1246, heir to brother Adam
+Bertrada, d. of Ralph Mainwaring
1.1.2.1. James, d.1272 (DNB)
+Ela, d. of William II de Longespee
1.1.2.1.1.James, did homage 1272, dsp
1.1.2.1.2.Henry, d.c.1276 sp
1.1.2.1.3.William, dsp 1282
1.1.2.1.4.Nicholas, 1st Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1299 (DNB). Also CPR
+Katherine, d. of Giffard of Brimsfield
1.1.2.1.4.1. Thomas, dsp.1307
+Eve Clavering (1st husband)
she m.(2) Thomas Ufford and (3) James Audley, v. inf
(Thomas Ufford d. Bannockburn 1214, with 3 sons by Eve)
1.1.2.1.4.2. Nicholas, d.1316 (DNB)
+Joan, d. of William Martyn
1.1.2.1.4.2.1 James, 3rd Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1386 (DNB)
+(1)Joan Mortimer
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Nicholas 4th Lord of Helegh, dsp.1391
+Elizabeth Beaumont (IPM C137/26/56)
1.1.2.1,4.2,1.2.Joan = Tuchet, ancestor of the later Lords Audley
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.3. Margaret = Hillary
+(2) Isabella (?Malbank/?Le Strange)
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.4,5,6,7 (sons dspm)
(They were Oliver, Roland, James and Thomas)
1.1 2.1.4.1.4.8 Blanche = Sir Fulk Fitz Warin
1.1.2.1.5. Hugh of Stratton Audley
+ Isolde d. of Mortimer, who=(1) Sir Walter de Balun
1.1.2.1.5.1. James
+Eve Clavering (her 3rd husband)
1.1.2.1.5.1.1. Sir James Audley KG, hero of Poitiers (DNB)
(dsp Fontenay le Conte 1369- Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.2. Peter (also at Poitiers- see Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.3,4,5. Other children
1.1.2.1.5.2. Hugh, Earl of Gloucester (DNB), heir of nephew James
+ Margaret de Clare, widow of Gaveston
1.1.2.1.5.2.1. Margaret,+ Ralph, Ist Earl of Stafford (DNB)
1.1.2.2.Ralph, d.<1240
1.1.2.3. Alice, w. of Peter de Montfort
1.1.3. Emma, w. of Griffin ap Madoc, Lord of Bromfield

All corrections and criticisms, as ever, welcome
MM

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 apr 2007 01:41:02

Wednesday, 18 April, 2007


Dear Douglas, Peter, Tim, Michael, Will, et al.,

From the detailed discussion on this point, it at present
appears quite possible that Sir James de Audley ['the elder']
was the brother of Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester dju) in
fact married Eve de Clavering, widow at that time of (among
others) his cousin Thomas de Audley. However, the occurrence of
a marriage, and the acceptance of this marriage in the eyes of
the church, are two different things.

There is no record noted at present of a dispensation for
this marriage: while I have noted dispensations at this time for
marriages (pre- and post-nuptial) of individuals related in the
2nd and 3rd degree (most typically stated as being related
"in the third degree of kindred"), no dispensation is to be
found for individuals related in the 2nd and 2nd degree in
Britain until somewhat later. We do have the exception of a
number of royal marriages in Spain (e.g. Alfonso XI of Castile
and Maria of Portugal in 1328), but the church is known to have
applied different levels of strictness concerning consanguinity
to those Christian populations living at the fringes of the
'civilized world' (western Scotland also typically being viewed
as such).

I would suggest with the documentation now in hand, both
evident and as interpreted, that the following is a fair
representation:

1. Sir James de Audley and Eva de Audley were married,
and recognized as such by many lay individuals.

2. The marriage was uncanonical, as there was no
dispensation (and none forthcoming) due to the
consanguinity of the individuals. Therefore, the
issue of the marriage were in fact bastards in the
eyes of the church.

That no dispensation was in fact granted at some point is not
absolutely certain: many dispensations were likely granted, but
not recorded [1]. Many records exist for dispensations, and many
also for requests made for dispensations (whether or not such
dispensations were eventually granted or not). As there is
no evidence that such a dispensation was ever requested or
granted, it appears that the categorization of the marriage as
uncanonical remains.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] See as one example the following grant by Pope John XXII
to cardinals Gaucelin and Luke dated at Avignon,
16 Kal. April 1317:
" Faculty to grant dispensations to persons who, being
related in the fourth degree of kindred, have
intermarried, to remain in the marriages so
contracted." [Bliss, Cal. Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain, CPL II:130]


* John P. Ravilious







<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 19 apr 2007 03:17:31

Dear John

The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.

The religious houses of Sibton and Horsham were founded by William de
Chesney, which is why the life of Eve de Clavering, who represented
the senior line of his three daughters, was recorded by the monastic
annalist. She inherited the advowsons of Sibton, Langley (where Eve
and her spouses were buried), St. Faith Horsham and Blythburgh in
1332. In an attempt to avoid offending his patrons, the clerical
scribe may have tacitly glossed over the nature of the relationship of
Eve and James de Audley in his fifteenth century annal of Horsham, in
much the same way as the mother of Joan, illegitimate daughter of King
John and wife of Llewelyn the Great, was called Queen Clemence in the
Tewksbury annals.

Thomas de Audley was 19 when he died in 1307 (the wardship of his
lands having been in the hands of Piers de Gaveston, who gave them to
Bertrand de Cayllon), and considering her parents were married in
1278, this is good reason to suppose that Eve was of age (approx 15 +)
herself, and she and Thomas were living as married couple at that
time. The direct conveyance of lands of her dower to her in 1308
indicates maturity. Her age of 40 and more given at her mother's death
in 1345, is no more than a vague approximation commonly given at such
inquisitions. Indeed, she had borne 3 sons to Thomas de Ufford by
1314. In 1319 she appears as "dame Eve Doufford" when Sir James de
Audley settled a third part of the manor of Cold Norton on her for her
life by using Sir Peter Giffard to stand in as an intermediary
[Wrottesley. The Giffards. Wm. Salt Society, 1902]. The arrangement is
very unusual to say the least. Eve's known seals clearly represent the
heraldry of her first two husbands Thomas de Audley from whose lands
she received a dower worth £138 p.a. and Thomas de Ufford.

We can improve further on dates. Eve was married to Robert de Benhale,
formerly the king's yeoman, by November 1340 according to the
inquisition for Sir John de Thorpe who held the manor of Ashwell
Thorpe of "Robert de Benhale and Eva his wife"[CIPM VIII, no. 265].
Robert died in late May/ early June 1364 when orders were given for
his lands in Norfolk, Suffolk and Eassex to be taken by the escheator
[Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, p.301].

It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.

Cheers

Rosie


On Apr 19, 11:35 am, Ther...@aol.com wrote:
Wednesday, 18 April, 2007

Dear Douglas, Peter, Tim, Michael, Will, et al.,

From the detailed discussion on this point, it at present
appears quite possible that Sir James de Audley ['the elder']
was the brother of Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester dju) in
fact married Eve de Clavering, widow at that time of (among
others) his cousin Thomas de Audley. However, the occurrence of
a marriage, and the acceptance of this marriage in the eyes of
the church, are two different things.

There is no record noted at present of a dispensation for
this marriage: while I have noted dispensations at this time for
marriages (pre- and post-nuptial) of individuals related in the
2nd and 3rd degree (most typically stated as being related
"in the third degree of kindred"), no dispensation is to be
found for individuals related in the 2nd and 2nd degree in
Britain until somewhat later. We do have the exception of a
number of royal marriages in Spain (e.g. Alfonso XI of Castile
and Maria of Portugal in 1328), but the church is known to have
applied different levels of strictness concerning consanguinity
to those Christian populations living at the fringes of the
'civilized world' (western Scotland also typically being viewed
as such).

I would suggest with the documentation now in hand, both
evident and as interpreted, that the following is a fair
representation:

1. Sir James de Audley and Eva de Audley were married,
and recognized as such by many lay individuals.

2. The marriage was uncanonical, as there was no
dispensation (and none forthcoming) due to the
consanguinity of the individuals. Therefore, the
issue of the marriage were in fact bastards in the
eyes of the church.

That no dispensation was in fact granted at some point is not
absolutely certain: many dispensations were likely granted, but
not recorded [1]. Many records exist for dispensations, and many
also for requests made for dispensations (whether or not such
dispensations were eventually granted or not). As there is
no evidence that such a dispensation was ever requested or
granted, it appears that the categorization of the marriage as
uncanonical remains.

Cheers,

John *

NOTES

[1] See as one example the following grant by Pope John XXII
to cardinals Gaucelin and Luke dated at Avignon,
16 Kal. April 1317:
" Faculty to grant dispensations to persons who, being
related in the fourth degree of kindred, have
intermarried, to remain in the marriages so
contracted." [Bliss, Cal. Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain, CPL II:130]

* John P. Ravilious

BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free athttp://www.aol.com.

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 19 apr 2007 03:51:55

I note in Rye's 'Suffolk Fines' p.184 that Robert and Benhale were
married by 11 Edward III (25 January 1337-24 January 1338) when they
made a fine with Elizabeth de Burgh over Ilketshall and Spexhall. They
were probably married not long after James de Audley's death, as her
dower and inheritance were considerable, and a woman of property in
the king's gift was never single for long.

Rosie


We can improve further on dates. Eve was married to Robert de Benhale,
formerly the king's yeoman, by November 1340 according to the
inquisition for Sir John de Thorpe who held the manor of Ashwell
Thorpe of "Robert de Benhale and Eva his wife"[CIPM VIII, no. 265].
Robert died in late May/ early June 1364 when orders were given for
his lands in Norfolk, Suffolk and Eassex to be taken by the escheator
[Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, p.301].

Peter Stewart

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 apr 2007 04:12:31

On Apr 19, 12:17 pm, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Dear John

The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.

<snip>

It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.

In this case of Eve and James Audley the revised edition of CP was
contradicting the original edition, so there could be no question of
"suppression" - Vicary Gibbs must have been convinced for some reason
that Cokayne had been wrong.

No less than four times in the original CP Cokayne described Eve as
the wife or widow of James - in volume I on pages 198 n (e) and 203 n
(b) under Audley, and on page 319 nuder Benhale; and in volume II on
page 281 under Clavering.

It would appear to be a sloppy omission if the revised edition offers
no rationale for the change of mind, or cites no discussion of this
point elsewhere, but it must have been considered and thought
sustainable. The affinity might provide a good enough reason, but
comment to that effect would have been preferable in the absence (I
suppose) of proof either way.

Langley would seem as promising a place as any to check for a record
of James as the husband or otherwise of Eve - since he was buried
there, maybe the canonical status of their relationship was noted.

Peter Stewart

John P. Ravilious

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 apr 2007 04:15:33

Dear Rosie,

Many thanks for that.

And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?

As we both agree, the bottom line does appear to be that (1)
there was no valid marriage between Sir James and Eve, and (2) their
issue were illegitimate.

Cheers,

John



On Apr 18, 10:17 pm, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Dear John

The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.

The religious houses of Sibton and Horsham were founded by William de
Chesney, which is why the life of Eve de Clavering, who represented
the senior line of his three daughters, was recorded by the monastic
annalist. She inherited the advowsons of Sibton, Langley (where Eve
and her spouses were buried), St. Faith Horsham and Blythburgh in
1332. In an attempt to avoid offending his patrons, the clerical
scribe may have tacitly glossed over the nature of the relationship of
Eve and James de Audley in his fifteenth century annal of Horsham, in
much the same way as the mother of Joan, illegitimate daughter of King
John and wife of Llewelyn the Great, was called Queen Clemence in the
Tewksbury annals.

Thomas de Audley was 19 when he died in 1307 (the wardship of his
lands having been in the hands of Piers de Gaveston, who gave them to
Bertrand de Cayllon), and considering her parents were married in
1278, this is good reason to suppose that Eve was of age (approx 15 +)
herself, and she and Thomas were living as married couple at that
time. The direct conveyance of lands of her dower to her in 1308
indicates maturity. Her age of 40 and more given at her mother's death
in 1345, is no more than a vague approximation commonly given at such
inquisitions. Indeed, she had borne 3 sons to Thomas de Ufford by
1314. In 1319 she appears as "dame Eve Doufford" when Sir James de
Audley settled a third part of the manor of Cold Norton on her for her
life by using Sir Peter Giffard to stand in as an intermediary
[Wrottesley. The Giffards. Wm. Salt Society, 1902]. The arrangement is
very unusual to say the least. Eve's known seals clearly represent the
heraldry of her first two husbands Thomas de Audley from whose lands
she received a dower worth £138 p.a. and Thomas de Ufford.

We can improve further on dates. Eve was married to Robert de Benhale,
formerly the king's yeoman, by November 1340 according to the
inquisition for Sir John de Thorpe who held the manor of Ashwell
Thorpe of "Robert de Benhale and Eva his wife"[CIPM VIII, no. 265].
Robert died in late May/ early June 1364 when orders were given for
his lands in Norfolk, Suffolk and Eassex to be taken by the escheator
[Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, p.301].

It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.

Cheers

Rosie

On Apr 19, 11:35 am, Ther...@aol.com wrote:



Wednesday, 18 April, 2007

Dear Douglas, Peter, Tim, Michael, Will, et al.,

From the detailed discussion on this point, it at present
appears quite possible that Sir James de Audley ['the elder']
was the brother of Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester dju) in
fact married Eve de Clavering, widow at that time of (among
others) his cousin Thomas de Audley. However, the occurrence of
a marriage, and the acceptance of this marriage in the eyes of
the church, are two different things.

There is no record noted at present of a dispensation for
this marriage: while I have noted dispensations at this time for
marriages (pre- and post-nuptial) of individuals related in the
2nd and 3rd degree (most typically stated as being related
"in the third degree of kindred"), no dispensation is to be
found for individuals related in the 2nd and 2nd degree in
Britain until somewhat later. We do have the exception of a
number of royal marriages in Spain (e.g. Alfonso XI of Castile
and Maria of Portugal in 1328), but the church is known to have
applied different levels of strictness concerning consanguinity
to those Christian populations living at the fringes of the
'civilized world' (western Scotland also typically being viewed
as such).

I would suggest with the documentation now in hand, both
evident and as interpreted, that the following is a fair
representation:

1. Sir James de Audley and Eva de Audley were married,
and recognized as such by many lay individuals.

2. The marriage was uncanonical, as there was no
dispensation (and none forthcoming) due to the
consanguinity of the individuals. Therefore, the
issue of the marriage were in fact bastards in the
eyes of the church.

That no dispensation was in fact granted at some point is not
absolutely certain: many dispensations were likely granted, but
not recorded [1]. Many records exist for dispensations, and many
also for requests made for dispensations (whether or not such
dispensations were eventually granted or not). As there is
no evidence that such a dispensation was ever requested or
granted, it appears that the categorization of the marriage as
uncanonical remains.

Cheers,

John *

NOTES

[1] See as one example the following grant by Pope John XXII
to cardinals Gaucelin and Luke dated at Avignon,
16 Kal. April 1317:
" Faculty to grant dispensations to persons who, being
related in the fourth degree of kindred, have
intermarried, to remain in the marriages so
contracted." [Bliss, Cal. Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain, CPL II:130]

* John P. Ravilious

BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free athttp://www.aol.com. Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John P. Ravilious

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 apr 2007 04:23:20

Wednesday, 18 April, 2007


Dear Michael,

Thanks for that draft chart of the Audley family.

Following are some comments and additions:


' 1.1 Adam, d. 1203 '

His one known wife was Emma, daughter and heiress of Ralf fitz
Orm of Horton, Staffs. It is assumed she was the mother of the
eldest son Adam (see below), but she was certainly the mother of
Sir Henry de Audley.

We have the record of a suit concerning Horton, co. Staffs. in
1227. From Wrottesley, Pedigees from the Plea Rolls:

' Staffordshire Assize Roll. 12. Hen. 3. m. 2.

Staff. - Henry de Aldithelegh (Audley) sued Hervey Bagot for
the manor of Horton.

Ralph, son of Orme,
seised temp. H. 2.
I
Emma
______I_______________________________________
I I
Adam, Henry de Aldithelegh,
ob. s.p. the plaintiff. ' [1]


Emma the daughter of Ralf was clearly the namesake of the
later Emmas in the Audley family (Sir Henry's daughter, the wife
of Gruffydd of Powys Fadog, being the one of which I know).


' 1.1.2.2. Ralph, d. <1240 '

A younger son of Sir Henry de Audley and Bertrade de Mainwaring,
re: whom I had no prior notation. The name provides further
onomastic evidence for the descent from Ralph fitz Orm. Thanks
for that!


Additional issue in re: Sir Henry de Audley and Bertrade:

' 1.1.2.4 Emma, w. of Gruffydd ap Madog of Powys Fadog (als,
of Iale and Bromfield)

She is shown in error as a sister of Sir Henry. See Genealogics
#I00287612. Also, the dispensation for the marriage of their
descendant Ralph de Greystoke to Alice de Audley, recorded in a
letter dated 25 Nov. 1317 as noted in CP and elsewhere:

' Request, by the King, for a papal dispensation that Ralph
Craystoke, of the diocese of York, and Alice de Audele the
King's kinswoman, of the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield,
might intermarry, although the said Ralph and Alice are
related in the 4th-3rd degrees of consanguinity ' [2]


' 1.1.2.5 Amicia, w. of William de Blancminster (his 2nd wife) '

' 1.1.2.6 Nicholas de Audley, rector of Woolstaston, co. Salop. '


Any further notes concerning the issue of Sir Henry de Audley,
or of other members of the family, are certainly welcome.

Cheers,

John





NOTES

[1] The Genealogist (1904 - N.S.), XX:223-4.

concerning this suit, ' In 1227 Henry successfully held the
manor against Hervey de Stafford. After a judicial duel Hervey
acknowledged Henry's right to Horton in return for a payment
of 50 marks and land in Norton-in-the-Moors.' [VCH Staffs.,
VII:65-77]


[2] CP VI:190, note (f), cites Roman Roll, 11-14 Edw. II, m. 14d.
This relationship has been resolved as noted in the SGM
post <CP 'Addition': Elizabeth de Nevill, mother of Ralph, Lord
Greystoke (d. 1323)> in November 2006.


* John P. Ravilious


On Apr 18, 3:18 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
I found a potentially valuable secondary (or tertiary) source:-
"Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chster of Chichely" by
R.E.Chester-Waters, London, Robson & Sons, 1878.
Eve Clavering and her husbands are dealt with on pages 337-8, with
authorities cited on page 342. Unfortunately I have not been able to read pages 338
and 342 on line.
But I was able to read from page 337 that Thomas Ufford, Eve's second
husband, was slain at Bannockburn in 1314, and to see that he is credited with
three named sons of hers, and that her third husband was James Audley, second
cousin of her first husband Thomas, and that she had five children by him, who
are not named on page 337, but who I think will be named on page 338. All
these statements are referred to footnotes which will I think be found on page
342.
In general, Chester-Waters' work seems to me to to have been meticulous.

According to a google library search for his book, there are 23 libraries in
the USA which hold it, and several in London, including the London Library,
the PRO at Kew and the Inner Temple.

I am beginning to think that Eve may have been the mother, by her third
marriage, of the celebrated Sir James Audley, hero of the battle of Poitiers, as
to whom the Oxford DNB has this to say:-
"Audley, Sir James (c.1318-1369), soldier, was an outstanding exemplar of
chivalry, and one of the heroes of the chronicler Froissart. He was the
illegitimate son of Sir James Audley (d. 1334) of Stratton Audley, Oxfordshire , and
Eva, daughter of Sir John Clavering."
As to his suggested illegitimacy, Douglas Richardson has provided evidence
in the group that his father James was in truth married to his mother Eve.
Here is my current draft effort at reconstructing the family tree of the
Audleys, to which I plan to add more copious refernces as time permits:-

1. Liulph (DNB)
1.1 Adam, d.1203
1.1.1.Adam d.1211
1.1.2 Henry, d.1246, heir to brother Adam
+Bertrada, d. of Ralph Mainwaring
1.1.2.1. James, d.1272 (DNB)
+Ela, d. of William II de Longespee
1.1.2.1.1.James, did homage 1272, dsp
1.1.2.1.2.Henry, d.c.1276 sp
1.1.2.1.3.William, dsp 1282
1.1.2.1.4.Nicholas, 1st Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1299 (DNB). Also CPR
+Katherine, d. of Giffard of Brimsfield
1.1.2.1.4.1. Thomas, dsp.1307
+Eve Clavering (1st husband)
she m.(2) Thomas Ufford and (3) James Audley, v. inf
(Thomas Ufford d. Bannockburn 1214, with 3 sons by Eve)
1.1.2.1.4.2. Nicholas, d.1316 (DNB)
+Joan, d. of William Martyn
1.1.2.1.4.2.1 James, 3rd Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1386 (DNB)
+(1)Joan Mortimer
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Nicholas 4th Lord of Helegh, dsp.1391
+Elizabeth Beaumont (IPM C137/26/56)
1.1.2.1,4.2,1.2.Joan = Tuchet, ancestor of the later Lords Audley
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.3. Margaret = Hillary
+(2) Isabella (?Malbank/?Le Strange)
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.4,5,6,7 (sons dspm)
(They were Oliver, Roland, James and Thomas)
1.1 2.1.4.1.4.8 Blanche = Sir Fulk Fitz Warin
1.1.2.1.5. Hugh of Stratton Audley
+ Isolde d. of Mortimer, who=(1) Sir Walter de Balun
1.1.2.1.5.1. James
+Eve Clavering (her 3rd husband)
1.1.2.1.5.1.1. Sir James Audley KG, hero of Poitiers (DNB)
(dsp Fontenay le Conte 1369- Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.2. Peter (also at Poitiers- see Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.3,4,5. Other children
1.1.2.1.5.2. Hugh, Earl of Gloucester (DNB), heir of nephew James
+ Margaret de Clare, widow of Gaveston
1.1.2.1.5.2.1. Margaret,+ Ralph, Ist Earl of Stafford (DNB)
1.1.2.2.Ralph, d.<1240
1.1.2.3. Alice, w. of Peter de Montfort
1.1.3. Emma, w. of Griffin ap Madoc, Lord of Bromfield

All corrections and criticisms, as ever, welcome
MM

Peter Stewart

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 apr 2007 04:29:27

On Apr 19, 1:15 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Rosie,

Many thanks for that.

And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?

In the circumstances as revealed by this thread so far it would appear
to be a long shot, but there might be something about it in an
episcopal register if a dispensation had been sought and refused, or
if the irregularity had come to notice by some other means. However, a
documented process of this kind is unlikely to have been overlooked by
many researchers.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 apr 2007 05:35:43

Dear Michael ~

Yes, the Chester-Waters work is quite good. In fact, I used the
online copy today myself. I've detected a few errors in the
material. Needless to say, we all make mistakes. I have a copy of
Waters in my personal library. When I locate my copy, I'll be happy
to check list the citations for you on page 142 which is unavailable
in the copy online.

Regarding your helpful draft of the Audley family, I have a few minor
corrections and additions to make.

Henry de Audley, d.1246 (your 1.1.2), and his wife, Bertrade de
Mainwaring, had a daughter, Amice de Audley, who married William de
Blanchminster. Amice has no living descendants.

Nicholas de Audley, died 1299 (your 1.1.2.1.4.) and his wife,
Katherine Giffard, had a daughter, Ela de Audley, who married (1st)
Gruffydd ab Owain, (2nd) James de Perrers, and (3rd) Peter Giffard,
Knt. Ela had issue, but I haven't yet traced any living descendants.

Nicholas de Audley, d.1316 (your 1.1.2.1.4.2) and his wife, Joan
Martin, had a daughter, Alice de Audley, who married (1st) Ralph
Basset, of Drayton, Staffordshire, and (2nd) Hugh de Meynell, Knt.
Alice has living descendants by her Meynell marriage; none by her
Basset marriage.

Hugh de Audley of Stratton Audley (your 1.1.2.1.5. ) and his wife,
Iseult de Mortimer, had a daughter, Alice de Audley, who married
(1st) Ralph de Greystoke, Knt., 1st Lord Greystoke, and (2nd) Ralph
de Neville, Knt., 2nd Lord Neville of Raby. Alice has living
descendants by both of her marriages.

Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester (your 1.1.2.1.5.2.) was not the
heir of his nephew, James de Audley. Hugh died many years before his
nephew, James. Hugh was, however, the "heir" of his older brother,
James de Audley, which matter I will explain later this week.

It is William II Longespée, not William II de Longespee.
It is Eve de Clavering, not Eve Clavering.
It is James de Audley, not James Audley.
It is Thomas de Ufford, not Thomas Ufford.
The surname Martyn is usually spelled Martin by modern historians.
I recommend where possible that you avoid Latin forms such as
Bertrada. Bertrade is satisfactory.

I trust this helps you a little.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Apr 18, 1:18 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
I found a potentially valuable secondary (or tertiary) source:-
"Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chster of Chichely" by
R.E.Chester-Waters, London, Robson & Sons, 1878.
Eve Clavering and her husbands are dealt with on pages 337-8, with
authorities cited on page 342. Unfortunately I have not been able to read pages 338
and 342 on line.
But I was able to read from page 337 that Thomas Ufford, Eve's second
husband, was slain at Bannockburn in 1314, and to see that he is credited with
three named sons of hers, and that her third husband was James Audley, second
cousin of her first husband Thomas, and that she had five children by him, who
are not named on page 337, but who I think will be named on page 338. All
these statements are referred to footnotes which will I think be found on page
342.
In general, Chester-Waters' work seems to me to to have been meticulous.

According to a google library search for his book, there are 23 libraries in
the USA which hold it, and several in London, including the London Library,
the PRO at Kew and the Inner Temple.

1. Liulph (DNB)
1.1 Adam, d.1203
1.1.1.Adam d.1211
1.1.2 Henry, d.1246, heir to brother Adam
+Bertrada, d. of Ralph Mainwaring
1.1.2.1. James, d.1272 (DNB)
+Ela, d. of William II de Longespee
1.1.2.1.1.James, did homage 1272, dsp
1.1.2.1.2.Henry, d.c.1276 sp
1.1.2.1.3.William, dsp 1282
1.1.2.1.4.Nicholas, 1st Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1299 (DNB). Also CPR
+Katherine, d. of Giffard of Brimsfield
1.1.2.1.4.1. Thomas, dsp.1307
+Eve Clavering (1st husband)
she m.(2) Thomas Ufford and (3) James Audley, v. inf
(Thomas Ufford d. Bannockburn 1214, with 3 sons by Eve)
1.1.2.1.4.2. Nicholas, d.1316 (DNB)
+Joan, d. of William Martyn
1.1.2.1.4.2.1 James, 3rd Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1386 (DNB)
+(1)Joan Mortimer
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Nicholas 4th Lord of Helegh, dsp.1391
+Elizabeth Beaumont (IPM C137/26/56)
1.1.2.1,4.2,1.2.Joan = Tuchet, ancestor of the later Lords Audley
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.3. Margaret = Hillary
+(2) Isabella (?Malbank/?Le Strange)
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.4,5,6,7 (sons dspm)
(They were Oliver, Roland, James and Thomas)
1.1 2.1.4.1.4.8 Blanche = Sir Fulk Fitz Warin
1.1.2.1.5. Hugh of Stratton Audley
+ Isolde d. of Mortimer, who=(1) Sir Walter de Balun
1.1.2.1.5.1. James
+Eve Clavering (her 3rd husband)
1.1.2.1.5.1.1. Sir James Audley KG, hero of Poitiers (DNB)
(dsp Fontenay le Conte 1369- Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.2. Peter (also at Poitiers- see Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.3,4,5. Other children
1.1.2.1.5.2. Hugh, Earl of Gloucester (DNB), heir of nephew James
+ Margaret de Clare, widow of Gaveston
1.1.2.1.5.2.1. Margaret,+ Ralph, Ist Earl of Stafford (DNB)
1.1.2.2.Ralph, d.<1240
1.1.2.3. Alice, w. of Peter de Montfort
1.1.3. Emma, w. of Griffin ap Madoc, Lord of Bromfield

All corrections and criticisms, as ever, welcome
MM

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 19 apr 2007 05:46:48

The Langley cartulary is largely unpublished but can be found in the
BL Add. 5948

In Blomefield's Norfolk, vol 10 (1809) p.149, comes a list of gentry
who were buried at Langley. They include a substantial number of those
known to be associated with Eve de Clavering,

"Sir John de Clavering, patron of the abbey, died in 1332, on the
octaves of the Epiphany, and buried in the presbytery, on the north
side. Also Sir John Lodnes, Sir Peter Egfend, Sir John Dunham, Sir
Charles Carleton, Sir Ely Norfolk, Sir Charles de Jernemutha, Sir
Robert le Grys, Sir Philip Weston, Sir William reedham, Sir Robert de
Vaux, Sir Robert Helington, Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir John, Sir
Robert, Sir Edmund and Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir Simon le Grys, Sir
William de la Pole, Sir James de Audley, and Thomas Audley, esq, Sir
John de Mutford, before the altar of the Holy Cross; Sir Robert de
Benhale, Sir William Bowet.

Nicholas Castell, esq by his will dated June 10, 1490, buried by the
tomb of Elizabeth his wife.

Here were also buried Lady Joan de Burgh, died in 1332, : Dame Mary le
Zouche mother of Sir Robert, son of Sir Roger; Dame Joan, wife of Sir
Robert de Benhale ; Dame Agnes wife of Sir Fulke------; Dame Joan,
wife of Sir John Dunham; Dame Agnes de Clavering; Dame Margaret
Benhale; Dame Eve Audley; Dame Agnes, wife of Sir Simon Grys; Dame
Jane, wife of Sir William Bowet, daughter of Sir Robert Ufford, Dame
Dionysia Inglos, wife of Sir Henry Inglose, Dame Alice, wife of Sir
Thomas Charles"

Cheers

Rosie

On Apr 19, 3:12 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:17 pm, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:





Dear John

The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.

snip

It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.

In this case of Eve and James Audley the revised edition of CP was
contradicting the original edition, so there could be no question of
"suppression" - Vicary Gibbs must have been convinced for some reason
that Cokayne had been wrong.

No less than four times in the original CP Cokayne described Eve as
the wife or widow of James - in volume I on pages 198 n (e) and 203 n
(b) under Audley, and on page 319 nuder Benhale; and in volume II on
page 281 under Clavering.

It would appear to be a sloppy omission if the revised edition offers
no rationale for the change of mind, or cites no discussion of this
point elsewhere, but it must have been considered and thought
sustainable. The affinity might provide a good enough reason, but
comment to that effect would have been preferable in the absence (I
suppose) of proof either way.

Langley would seem as promising a place as any to check for a record
of James as the husband or otherwise of Eve - since he was buried
there, maybe the canonical status of their relationship was noted.

Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter Stewart

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 apr 2007 05:59:20

On Apr 19, 2:46 pm, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
The Langley cartulary is largely unpublished but can be found in the
BL Add. 5948

In Blomefield's Norfolk, vol 10 (1809) p.149, comes a list of gentry
who were buried at Langley. They include a substantial number of those
known to be associated with Eve de Clavering,

"Sir John de Clavering, patron of the abbey, died in 1332, on the
octaves of the Epiphany, and buried in the presbytery, on the north
side. Also Sir John Lodnes, Sir Peter Egfend, Sir John Dunham, Sir
Charles Carleton, Sir Ely Norfolk, Sir Charles de Jernemutha, Sir
Robert le Grys, Sir Philip Weston, Sir William reedham, Sir Robert de
Vaux, Sir Robert Helington, Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir John, Sir
Robert, Sir Edmund and Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir Simon le Grys, Sir
William de la Pole, Sir James de Audley, and Thomas Audley, esq, Sir
John de Mutford, before the altar of the Holy Cross; Sir Robert de
Benhale, Sir William Bowet.

Thanks, Rosie - if there is an obituary amongst the Langley muniments
it is possible but unlikely that this will shed some light on James
Audley's personal affairs: assuming he died "shriven", the honour of
the spot chosen for his burial amongst Eve's husbands would not be
affected by irregularity in their marital status - as it might not be
anyway if she exerted her influence with the house.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 apr 2007 10:16:16

On Apr 19, 4:15 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Rosie,

Many thanks for that.

And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?

As we both agree, the bottom line does appear to be that (1)
there was no valid marriage between Sir James and Eve, and (2) their
issue were illegitimate.


Dear All

4 points

1) According to Beltz, there is no surviving IPM for the younger Sir
James Audley. It is worth noting, however, that property descents
alone are not necessarily cast-iron indications of familial
relationships or heirships. Often property passed according to
settlements and entails; even statements as to heirs in IPMs may not
indicate the closest heir - for instance, the 1417 IPM of Elizabeth
Wolverston, which I posted about recently, lists her heir as Thomas
Wolverston (apparently her brother-in-law), even though she had three
legitimate daughters; we must therefore conclude that an entail
existed, although we know nothing of it. The fact that after the death
of the elder Sir James Audley, his property was divided between his
son, James, and his brother, Hugh, does not enable us to draw any
final concusions about that son's legitimacy or otherwise.

2) Eve Clavering's seal shows the Audley arms, presumably in relation
to her having married an Audley. However, as Rosie points out, these
are likely to relate to her first husband, Thomas Audley, as they are
the undifferenced arms indicating headship of the Audley family. From
the evidence presented to date, James Audley the elder bore different
arms, bearing a label. Thus her seal appears to omit a reference to
any marriage to the elder James. Is this not significant?

3) Continuing to examine the heraldic evidence, we see what may be an
important distinction. As noted above, the headship of the Audley
family rested with that branch of whom Eve's first husband was a
member; they bore the Audley arms without any difference. Beltz tells
us that the elder Sir James, whose father (Hugh the elder) appears to
have been a fifth son, albeit the only known son from his own father's
second, Longspee marriage, bore the Audley arms with this difference:
a label azure displaying a lion or on each of the points. His brother,
Hugh the younger, differenced his arms by displaying them within a
bordure argent. Normally the eldest son would inherit his father's
arms, so we would expect Sir James the younger to have used (after his
father's death) the same arms as the elder Sir James - but apparently
he did not. Instead he differenced the Audley arms thus: a label
gobonny azure and argent. Why would he have differenced his arms from
his father's, if he was the legitimate heir? Illegitimacy as an
answer cannot be ruled out, and indeed would make good sense.

4) I am not sure that an unconsumated marriage was no marriage, and
that no impediments requiring dispensation therefor existed as a
consequence. Certainly Eve used her first husband's arms and received
dower from him. I thought that dispensation was still required despite
non-consumation: the non-consumation just made it easier to get the
dispensation (see the case of Henry VIII's first marriage where his
sister-in-law alleged her first marriage was not consumated but a
dispensation was still thought essential; Henry's side argued that it
was consumated and hence the Pope could not dispense). I would welcome
elucidation on this point.

Lastly, I would like to say how much I have enjoyed this thread. We
have been treated to much robust and intelligent discussion, based on
an interesting original idea; there has been no mudslinging or ad
hominem abuse (even in respect of CP!), and I have learned a great
deal from those who have generously contributed to date. Thanks you -
this is why I come to SGM.

Kind regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 apr 2007 12:11:37

On Apr 19, 10:16 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
3) Continuing to examine the heraldic evidence, we see what may be an
important distinction. As noted above, the headship of the Audley
family rested with that branch of whom Eve's first husband was a
member; they bore the Audley arms without any difference. Beltz tells
us that the elder Sir James, bore the Audley arms with this difference:
a label azure displaying a lion or on each of the points.

Recte: *Rothery*, not Beltz

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 19 apr 2007 13:44:44

On Apr 19, 9:16 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:15 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:

Dear Rosie,

Many thanks for that.

And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?

As we both agree, the bottom line does appear to be that (1)
there was no valid marriage between Sir James and Eve, and (2) their
issue were illegitimate.

Dear All

4 points

1) According to Beltz, there is no surviving IPM for the younger Sir
James Audley. It is worth noting, however, that property descents
alone are not necessarily cast-iron indications of familial
relationships or heirships. Often property passed according to
settlements and entails; even statements as to heirs in IPMs may not
indicate the closest heir - for instance, the 1417 IPM of Elizabeth
Wolverston, which I posted about recently, lists her heir as Thomas
Wolverston (apparently her brother-in-law), even though she had three
legitimate daughters; we must therefore conclude that an entail
existed, although we know nothing of it. The fact that after the death
of the elder Sir James Audley, his property was divided between his
son, James, and his brother, Hugh, does not enable us to draw any
final concusions about that son's legitimacy or otherwise.

2) Eve Clavering's seal shows the Audley arms, presumably in relation
to her having married an Audley. However, as Rosie points out, these
are likely to relate to her first husband, Thomas Audley, as they are
the undifferenced arms indicating headship of the Audley family. From
the evidence presented to date, James Audley the elder bore different
arms, bearing a label. Thus her seal appears to omit a reference to
any marriage to the elder James. Is this not significant?

3) Continuing to examine the heraldic evidence, we see what may be an
important distinction. As noted above, the headship of the Audley
family rested with that branch of whom Eve's first husband was a
member; they bore the Audley arms without any difference. Beltz tells
us that the elder Sir James, whose father (Hugh the elder) appears to
have been a fifth son, albeit the only known son from his own father's
second, Longspee marriage, bore the Audley arms with this difference:
a label azure displaying a lion or on each of the points. His brother,
Hugh the younger, differenced his arms by displaying them within a
bordure argent. Normally the eldest son would inherit his father's
arms, so we would expect Sir James the younger to have used (after his
father's death) the same arms as the elder Sir James - but apparently
he did not. Instead he differenced the Audley arms thus: a label
gobonny azure and argent. Why would he have differenced his arms from
his father's, if he was the legitimate heir? Illegitimacy as an
answer cannot be ruled out, and indeed would make good sense.

4) I am not sure that an unconsumated marriage was no marriage, and
that no impediments requiring dispensation therefor existed as a
consequence. Certainly Eve used her first husband's arms and received
dower from him. I thought that dispensation was still required despite
non-consumation: the non-consumation just made it easier to get the
dispensation (see the case of Henry VIII's first marriage where his
sister-in-law alleged her first marriage was not consumated but a
dispensation was still thought essential; Henry's side argued that it
was consumated and hence the Pope could not dispense). I would welcome
elucidation on this point.

My understanding is that as soon as a betrothal or marriage contract
was in place after the age of seven years, the marriage existed
whether it was consummated or not. At this point a dispensation was
required either to not go ahead with the marriage, or to marry anyone
within four degrees of consanguinity or affinity after the death of
the spouse, otherwise any future issue would be considered
illegitimate. Here are a few early cases which define the problems,

Cal. Papal Registers. Papal Letters, vol. 1 1198-1304, p. 254 5 Kal
May 1248
"To the bishop of Norwich, in answer to his question about Thomas de
Raveningham, whom the pope decides is his father's son and heir. It
appears that Thomas de Raveningham married Cassandra, and having had
by her a son and heir, Thomas died. Hugh, a layman, Thomas' paternal
uncle, endeavoured to shut him out of his inheritance, asserting that
Thomas could not be Cassandra's husband, inasmuch as Thomas's brother
William had espoused her, though the marriage was not consummated, and
that therefore Thomas the heir could not be his legitimate son. But
the said Thomas alleged that Cassandra was under seven years of age
when espoused to William, and as he was born of a marriage contracted
in the face of the church, and no doubt was thrown on his legitimacy
during his father's life, he ought to be judged legitimate. The uncle
alleged in reply that Cassandra when espoused to William, must be
presumed to be of age, unless the contrary is proved; witnesses on
either side unable to prove the point. The pope says that to deprive
Thomas of his inheritance, not only ought it to be proved that
Cassandra when William espoused her was of the age of seven years, or
that espousals were continued after that age by the will of the
parties, but also that Thomas knew this when he married her, of which
Hugh brought no proof."

Also
p. 367 5 Kal Nov 1259
"Mandate to the bishop of Cloyne not to molest Maurice son of Maurice,
of his diocese (who has appealed to the pope) on the grounds that he
married Matilda daughter of Gerald de Prendergast, she having been
espoused to his late brother David, who died before she was seven
years old."
p. 369 $ Non Jan 1260
" Dispensation of Maurice son of Maurice Gerold, of the diocese of
Cloyne, to remain in the marriage contracted with Matilda, who whom,
when seven years old, his brother David, since deceased, had been
espoused."

Cheers

Rosie


Lastly, I would like to say how much I have enjoyed this thread. We
have been treated to much robust and intelligent discussion, based on
an interesting original idea; there has been no mudslinging or ad
hominem abuse (even in respect of CP!), and I have learned a great
deal from those who have generously contributed to date. Thanks you -
this is why I come to SGM.

Kind regards, Michael

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: de Clavering family

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 19 apr 2007 18:28:44

Dear John

Thank you very much for that. It fleshes out what I have a good bit
and the further references to the Kirkbride boys being in the ward of
the Lord of Warkworth is very persuasive for them being of this
family, rather than Dunbar as is sometimes suggested.

Does anyone have a link for the later Eures, Lords Eure, to the
earlier tree here detailed?

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 apr 2007 18:36:02

Douglas Richardson writes:

<Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
<Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
<her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
<that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
<then be awarded dower. The assignment of her dower is recorded in
<Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52

In fact the assignment of Eve's dower is not recorded in the article cited
by Mr Richardson, the article does not mention her marriage to Thomas Ufford,
and the article concludes, contrary to Mr Richardson's belief- and also to
mine-, that Eve had only two husbands, namely Thomas Audley and Robert de
Benhale.

If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment of Eve's
dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any other
marriage) I hope he will post it. I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she be given her
dower- instead it is a grant of Thomas' brother Nicholas' marriage to
Despencer, and specifically records that Thomas had died a minor and unmarried!
I would also be grateful to Douglas, were he to be able to post the text
from pages 338 and 342 of the Chester-Waters book, pages which I still cannot
access on google books.

Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.

Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the death of
James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and his
subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince. Froissart was an
exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company of the
Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and burial in 1373,
according to the Oxford DNB.
Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated that this
James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.

With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
< Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
< the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have presented to
the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible. Blythburgh
belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in 1331: see the
lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in that year
in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her own right,
her husband being already dead, and her father having died very recently.


Finally (for the moment) I would like to thank Douglas Richardson, John
Ravilious, Rosie Bevan, Peter Stewart and Will Johnson for their contributions to
this discussion. both on and off list
MM

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 apr 2007 18:42:12

On Apr 19, 10:31 am, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
< If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment
of Eve's
< dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any
other
< marriage) I hope he will post it.

In answer to Michael's request, I find that Eve de Clavering at her
death had the manor of Audley and a tthid part of the manor of Endon,
Staffordshire which she held "for life in dower" ... "by endowment of
Thomas de Audelegh, her late husband, the reversion after her death
belonging to the said James [de Audley, lord of Heleigh] as kinsman
and heir of Thomas." [Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post
Mortem, 13 (1954): 126 (IPM of Eve late the wife of Robert de
Benhale)].

Elsewhere, I find that property in Audley, Staffordshire was held in
1327 by Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, as
indicated by the subsidy roll of that year [Reference: Collections for
a History of Staffordshire, 7 (1886): 206]. James de Audley surely
held this property in right of his wife, Eve's dower from her first
marriage to his cousin, Thomas de Audley.

I also find that In 1354 Richard le Cooper, parson of Audley,
Staffordshire, was attached at the suit of Robert de Benhale [4th
husband of Eve de Clavering] for forcibly breaking into his park at
Audley, Staffordshire in 1351, chasing his game, cutting down his
trees, and taking his goods and chattels to the value of £10, and
likewise three hares, six rabbits, forty partridges, and ten pheasants
worth 100s., and for which he claimed £100 as damages [Reference:
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 14)
(1893): 82].

It is clear from these various records that Eve de Clavering held
dower in Audley, Staffordshire from her first marriage to Thomas de
Audley.

I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
< says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she
be given her
< dower- instead it is a grant of Thomas' brother Nicholas' marriage
to
< Despencer, and specifically records that Thomas had died a minor
and unmarried!

This is an interesting record, but flawed. Thomas de Audley was a
minor at the time of his death, but he was not unmarried. At the
very least, he was contracted to marry Eve de Clavering at the time of
his death. Eve was at best 12 years old when Thomas died, possibly
even younger. In this time period, a couple usually consumated a
marriage when the woman was 13 or 14. Even if the marriage was
unconsumated, a contract for marriage was treated as a de facto
marriage in this time period. On the whole, I'd say this record
suggests that the marriage of Thomas and Eve had not been consumated
when Thomas died, which would explain why the statement is made that
Thomas was unmarried. The assignment of dower to Eve in the event of
Thomas' death before the consumation of their marriage was probably
covered by their contract for marriage. Such clauses in marriage
contracts were common in this period.

< I would also be grateful to Douglas, were he to be able to post
the text
< from pages 338 and 342 of the Chester-Waters book, pages which I
still cannot
< access on google books.

I'll look for my copy of Waters today in my mass of books and papers.
Wish me luck.

Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.

Actually there was "Heleigh" to pay for marrying a widow in the king's
gift without the king's license (pun intended). Usually the devil was
happy to take money from the couple for their egregious sin.

< Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the
death of
< James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and
his
< subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince.
Froissart was an
< exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company
of the
< Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and
burial in 1373,
< according to the Oxford DNB.
< Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated
that this
< James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.

Yes, agreed.

< With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
< < Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley,
presented to
< < the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
< Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have
presented to
< the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible.
Blythburgh
< belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in
1331: see the
< lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in
that year
< in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her
own right,
< her husband being already dead, and her father having died very
recently.

Yes, agreed. Since there was no inquistion at the time Eve de
Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, died, the only way for
Waters to know that James de Audley was dead in 1332 would be if the
record he saw stated that Eve, as his widow, presented to the church
of Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332. At least this is the way I have
interpreted Waters and I believe it is the correct interpretation.

< Finally (for the moment) I would like to thank Douglas Richardson,
John
< Ravilious, Rosie Bevan, Peter Stewart and Will Johnson for their
contributions to
< this discussion. both on and off list

You're quite welcome, Michael.

< MM

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: de Clavering family

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 apr 2007 18:54:57

Will ~

It would help if you spent some time in the original records of this
time period. Then you would know what I was talking about. I might
also suggest that you consult the newsgroup archives. I've posted
several examples in the past of "nepos" being interchangeable with
"kinsman" in the period before 1300.

Ignorance on your part is not overreaching on mine. Sorry.

DR

On Apr 19, 11:08 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
< I think this is overreaching. I don't recall any proof of this
assertion.
< I've seen nepos as nephew and grandson, but surely there are plenty
of words
< for a more vague relationship ?

Gjest

Re: de Clavering family

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 apr 2007 19:12:03

In a message dated 4/19/2007 8:20:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

As I've indicated in previous posts, the word "nepos" can not be
translated as "nephew" in this time period. Without other supporting
documentation, the appropriate translation of the word "nepos" in this
time period would be the more vague denominator, "kinsman."



I think this is overreaching. I don't recall any proof of this assertion.
I've seen nepos as nephew and grandson, but surely there are plenty of words
for a more vague relationship ?





************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 19 apr 2007 20:51:53

On Apr 20, 4:31 am, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson writes:

Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
then be awarded dower. The assignment of her dower is recorded in
Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52

In fact the assignment of Eve's dower is not recorded in the article cited
by Mr Richardson, the article does not mention her marriage to Thomas Ufford,
and the article concludes, contrary to Mr Richardson's belief- and also to
mine-, that Eve had only two husbands, namely Thomas Audley and Robert de
Benhale.

If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment of Eve's
dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any other
marriage) I hope he will post it. I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she be given her
dower-

The reference for the allocation of Eve's dower is CR, 1308-1313, p.
27

Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.

This was usual practice in medieval times.
Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the death of
James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and his
subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince. Froissart was an
exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company of the
Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and burial in 1373,
according to the Oxford DNB.
Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated that this
James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.

With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have presented to
the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible. Blythburgh
belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in 1331: see the
lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in that year
in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her own right,
her husband being already dead, and her father having died very recently.

Eve also had advowsons as dower from her first marriage. If James de
Audley presented to any of tbese it would be good indication of a
marriage.


Cheers

Rosie

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: de Clavering family

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 19 apr 2007 20:56:21

In message of 19 Apr, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com> wrote:

Does anyone have a link for the later Eures, Lords Eure, to the
earlier tree here detailed?

The Visitation titled 'Visitations of York 1584-5 and 1612' edited by
Joseph Foster and published by him in 1875 has a reasonably well
constructed pedigree with lots of nitty gritty in an Addendum in pp.
607-617; Foster got it from one John H Mathews of Lincoln's Inn, London.
However it does not have the latest thinking on the origin of the lords
of Warkworth.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 19 apr 2007 21:42:24

On Apr 20, 5:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Apr 19, 10:31 am, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment
of Eve's
dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any
other
marriage) I hope he will post it.

In answer to Michael's request, I find that Eve de Clavering at her
death had the manor of Audley and a tthid part of the manor of Endon,
Staffordshire which she held "for life in dower" ... "by endowment of
Thomas de Audelegh, her late husband, the reversion after her death
belonging to the said James [de Audley, lord of Heleigh] as kinsman
and heir of Thomas." [Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post
Mortem, 13 (1954): 126 (IPM of Eve late the wife of Robert de
Benhale)].

Elsewhere, I find that property in Audley, Staffordshire was held in
1327 by Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, as
indicated by the subsidy roll of that year [Reference: Collections for
a History of Staffordshire, 7 (1886): 206]. James de Audley surely
held this property in right of his wife, Eve's dower from her first
marriage to his cousin, Thomas de Audley.

Not necessarily. It is quite usual to find cadet branches as tenants
on family estates
I also find that In 1354 Richard le Cooper, parson of Audley,
Staffordshire, was attached at the suit of Robert de Benhale [4th
husband of Eve de Clavering] for forcibly breaking into his park at
Audley, Staffordshire in 1351, chasing his game, cutting down his
trees, and taking his goods and chattels to the value of £10, and
likewise three hares, six rabbits, forty partridges, and ten pheasants
worth 100s., and for which he claimed £100 as damages [Reference:
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 14)
(1893): 82].

It is clear from these various records that Eve de Clavering held
dower in Audley, Staffordshire from her first marriage to Thomas de
Audley.

The first place to look for any dower allocation of a widow of a
tenant in chief is in the Close Rolls.
I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she
be given her
dower- instead it is a grant of Thomas' brother Nicholas' marriage
to
Despencer, and specifically records that Thomas had died a minor
and unmarried!

This is an interesting record, but flawed. Thomas de Audley was a
minor at the time of his death, but he was not unmarried. At the
very least, he was contracted to marry Eve de Clavering at the time of
his death. Eve was at best 12 years old when Thomas died, possibly
even younger. In this time period, a couple usually consumated a
marriage when the woman was 13 or 14. Even if the marriage was
unconsumated, a contract for marriage was treated as a de facto
marriage in this time period. On the whole, I'd say this record
suggests that the marriage of Thomas and Eve had not been consumated
when Thomas died, which would explain why the statement is made that
Thomas was unmarried. The assignment of dower to Eve in the event of
Thomas' death before the consumation of their marriage was probably
covered by their contract for marriage. Such clauses in marriage
contracts were common in this period.

This is incorrect. A widow was entitled to full dower from the age of
nine. Paul Reed gave some very interesting posts on this which can be
found in the sgm archives. A reading of Pollock and Maitland's,
'History of English law' would improve your knowledge if you are hazy
in this area. As a widow of a tenant in chief, it was up to the king
to allocate her dower. In this case it was at least very substantial
138 pounds worth per annum of property and assets.
I would also be grateful to Douglas, were he to be able to post
the text
from pages 338 and 342 of the Chester-Waters book, pages which I
still cannot
access on google books.

I'll look for my copy of Waters today in my mass of books and papers.
Wish me luck.

If you don't find it, no doubt there is a copy in the FHL which you
frequent.

Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.

Actually there was "Heleigh" to pay for marrying a widow in the king's
gift without the king's license (pun intended). Usually the devil was
happy to take money from the couple for their egregious sin.

Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the
death of
James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and
his
subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince.
Froissart was an
exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company
of the
Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and
burial in 1373,
according to the Oxford DNB.
Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated
that this
James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.

Yes, agreed.

With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley,
presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have
presented to
the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible.
Blythburgh
belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in
1331: see the
lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in
that year
in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her
own right,
her husband being already dead, and her father having died very
recently.

Yes, agreed. Since there was no inquistion at the time Eve de
Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, died, the only way for
Waters to know that James de Audley was dead in 1332 would be if the
record he saw stated that Eve, as his widow, presented to the church
of Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332. At least this is the way I have
interpreted Waters and I believe it is the correct interpretation.

Finally (for the moment) I would like to thank Douglas Richardson,
John
Ravilious, Rosie Bevan, Peter Stewart and Will Johnson for their
contributions to
this discussion. both on and off list

You're quite welcome, Michael.

Cheers


Rosie

Alan R Grey

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Alan R Grey » 19 apr 2007 22:19:06

It has been most interesting following this discussion, but I'm not
fully convinced either way as to Eve's marriage with James de Audley.
Obviously they were together and she is the mother of his children.
While it seems convincing that they were married, there are contemporary
documents that, while not discounting a marriage, seem somewhat
inconsistent with it. In particular, the following:

In a deed dated 1 November 1319 (i.e., at a time when it seems that Eve
and James were together), Eve leased her third part of the manor of Cold
Norton (which she must have had as dower from her first husband's
estate) to Sir Peter Giffard, "c'est a savoir qe, come Sire James
Daudeleye a lese la tierce partie du maner a Sire Pieris advie de la vie
la dame Eve,. ..La dite dame Eve par cest escrit graunte que si ensi
aveigne (qui Deux defent) qe le dit Sire James devie vivaunte la dite
dame Eve, qe le dit Sire Pieris teigne..." (NCHS, Vol. 9 (1906), p.254,
but the deed is also quoted in part in NCHS, Vol. 5, pp. 224-5).

It is notable that Eve is referred to in the deed as "Eve Doufford"
(d'Ufford), but not as the wife of James de Audley, despite the fact
that James is a party to the deed and they clearly have an interest in
each others' lives. If they were married, why was she going by the name
acquired through a previous marriage from which she was widowed 5 years
earlier?

Of even more interest is a plea (De Banco, Michaelmas Term, 7 Edward
III, 1333) that Eva brought against Peter de Ty and Richard de Lyng for
the Manor of Burgh in Fleg (Norfolk). She was making the claim as the
daughter of John, brother of Alexander de Claveryng to whom the manor
had been granted in the reign of Edward I. This was a Clavering case
(and so had nothing whatsoever to do with any husband), so it is
especially interesting that Eve referred to herself as "formerly wife of
Thomas de Ufford" [CHS, Vol. 11 (1890), p.49]. I would think it strange
that she referenced herself to a husband dead for nearly 20 years, if a
husband to whom she had been legally and lawfully married for nearly
that whole time had recently died.

Having said that, there are the undoubted references to James and Eve as
husband and wife, such as the fine made 4 Edward III between "James de
Audeleye and Eva his wife, complainants, and Richard de Delves and
Richard de Boghay, deforciants of four acres of land and twelve acres of
turbary in Mere, by Assheleye, and the fourth part of the manor of Mere,
and a fourth part of the same manor" (CHS Vol. 11 (1890), p.131). The
land was granted back to James and Eva for their lives, with remainder
successively to James's children Peter, James, Katherine, Anne and
Hawise, and in default of male heirs by any children, to remain to the
"right heirs of James de Audeleye for ever". (This record is, of
course, a translation, so I have not seen the original and cannot say
what word was used (Latin? French?) in describing Eve's relationship to
James.)

In any case, we have apparent inconsistencies in the way in which Eve is
referred, which implies a level of uncertainly regarding her marriage to
James. Either she was or was not married to James, or they were married
but it was not countenanced by church authorities.

Under a scenario that she was not married to him, then after the passage
of over 15 years and with at least 5 children under their belt, so to
speak, then she was his wife in any practical sense of the word, and she
and others (e.g., her steward) would be justified in calling her the
wife (common-law) of James (i.e., she was the only one he had and was
the mother of all his children).

If she was lawfully married to him, then all the little issues discussed
in this thread and above (e.g., being referenced to a deceased husband
while and after a supposed marriage to another man) have to be explained.

One thing which seems to explain these is if they managed to get married
by a priest, but the church (authorities) later said that they were not
married in their (official) eyes because of the dispensation issue
regarding her first husband and James's relationship. This explanation
makes both CP and DR correct, i.e., we could say that Eve and James both
were and were not married, hence the appearance of somewhat equivocal
records.

As to CP's suppression or otherwise: I'm not sure about willful
suppression of the information; neglect, yes, poor scholarship, even,
but suppression? This requires motivation, and I have yet to see such
motivation ascribed. I do notice that a significant amount of the
evidence said to have been suppressed is secondary [e.g., Beltz, DNB,
Collectania, Banks, pedigrees (ancient or otherwise)]. Perhaps the CP
editor(s) did review those, but also the contemporary documents where
the marriage is both indicated and equivocal, and came to the
conclusion, "Well, I think there is sufficient uncertainty to have
grounds for doubt ... they might have been married, but they might not"
and they decided on the latter.

Alan R Grey

CHS = Collections for a History of Staffordshire, William Salt Archaeol.
Soc.
NCHS = New Collections for a History of Staffordshire, William Salt
Archaeol. Soc.

Peter Stewart

Re: de Clavering family

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 apr 2007 23:31:22

Needless to say, Will, you are being subejected to the overweening
arragonace and ignorance of Richardson, who doesn't know what he is talking
about and doesn't take rudimentary care over logic in expressing his erratic
ideas.

Of course you were perfectly right: nepos _can_ be correctly translated as
"nephew" in any text from any place and time where it is known to mean
"nephew". This is a common relationship to be mentioned between individuals,
and the most common term to describe a brother's or sister's son was always
"nepos". The fact that the word could be used more vaguely cannot preclude
its meaning "nephew" as Richardson clumsily and so rudely suggests.

"Several examples" of nepos meaning "kinsman" only show that it could mean
kinsman rather than nephew, which to intelligent and sensible people is
quite different from saying that it can not be translated as "nephew" as
Richardson absurdly stated.

Peter Stewart


"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1177005297.778395.187750@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Will ~

It would help if you spent some time in the original records of this
time period. Then you would know what I was talking about. I might
also suggest that you consult the newsgroup archives. I've posted
several examples in the past of "nepos" being interchangeable with
"kinsman" in the period before 1300.

Ignorance on your part is not overreaching on mine. Sorry.

DR

On Apr 19, 11:08 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I think this is overreaching. I don't recall any proof of this
assertion.
I've seen nepos as nephew and grandson, but surely there are plenty
of words
for a more vague relationship ?

Peter Stewart

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 apr 2007 23:57:11

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1177004532.618152.58090@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Since there was no inquistion at the time Eve de Clavering's third
husband, Sir James de Audley, died, the only way for Waters to
know that James de Audley was dead in 1332 would be if the
record he saw stated that Eve, as his widow, presented to the
church of Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332. At least this is the way
I have interpreted Waters and I believe it is the correct
interpretation.

But Waters says on the same page that Eve was the widow of James in 1332 and
that it is certain he was dead in 1333 - these are not necessarily
incompatible, but in the context the second statement is redundant if the
first os correct. Have you not considered that one or other was a misprint?
And unless the authority given by Waters on one of the missing pages can
justify a conclusion that he saw Eve descibed as the "widow" of James in an
original document of their time, a mere belief about what he meant is
wishful thinking, not evidence.

Peter Stewart

Ken Ozanne

Re: IGI

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 19 apr 2007 23:58:17

John, Brad,
Changing P or C to M is not universally effective in finding
marriage records.

I'd recommend Hugh Wallis site,
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... umbers.htm

For both some explanations and IGI batch numbers for all transcripts in
North America and the British Islands.

Best,
Ken

On 20/4/07 8:30, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:26:44 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: International Genealogy Index (IGI) Questions

Thanks to Will Johnson, I've been exploring the database of the IGI.
Though the medieval-era entries are a mess, there is much worthwhile
once the era of the parish registers begins.

My first question is: are all the parish registers that survived the
centuries and that exist today in the IGI system? Or just the ones
that have been published?

Also, there seem to be much fewer burial entries than birth and
marriage entries. Is that the case, or am I searching wrong?

Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad

To get the marriage entries (if any), change the first letter of the
batch to "M." Baptismal batches usually begin with "C," "P," or
sometimes "R."

Bob Turcott

Re: International Genealogy Index (IGI) Questions

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 20 apr 2007 05:29:50

Denis,

I visited the LDS library in nashua new hampshire USA recently>
firtsly, the LDS uses a combination of sources, people who contribute
and Parish records. Online as you probably know the LDS has online
PAF file system, however the real nice thing about LDS is, you can order
a microfilm for about 5 dollars and they hold it for about a month, so you
could
view an original parish register on microfilms from france scotland, you
name
it they have a very good selection of microfilms spread world wide,
especially in the USA.
The only thing sometimes is you have to wait 2 or 3 weeks for the microfilm
to come in if they dont have it at a particular location, and another good
thing is, you can extend the duration by adding additional viewing months, I
think the second or 3rd 5 dollar payment, they will even hold the film for a
year so that one could study it for a year, but its well worth it!!!
As Yves Gagne & Dr. Dulong pointed out,
"Authentic deeds, authentic deeds and authentic deeds".
The best source is the original parish registers and baptismal acts and I am
sure many notorial acts
you can view on micOrfilm at LDS. I do realize a lot of old records are
still not micorfilmed such as some private noble family records and other
ancient records, but who knows, 10 years from now it can be very different
as more online original acts become available in the future.

Cheers

Bob Turcott


I don't know if there are statistics about the source of the IGI
data. I presume the family sheets were entered before enough
people used a computer and PAF (the LDS software) to enter data
so that the IGI family sheets would be quite old, AF or Ancestral
Files the next generation used by LDS members for baptisms and the
PF or Pedigree File are the current generation. AF is made from
GEDCOM and there was an attempt to remove the duplicate, but not in
PF.

In short:

- reliability depends on the source
- I don't think any area is fully covered. At most, it would be
some parishes and likely not a complete diocese.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord -
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 -
http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765

-------------------------------
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

_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/defaul ... ineapril07

Gjest

Re: International Genealogy Index (IGI) Questions

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 apr 2007 06:51:02

In a message dated 4/19/2007 9:30:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

I
think the second or 3rd 5 dollar payment, they will even hold the film for a
year so that one could study it for a year, but its well worth it!!!


The first payment is for three weeks, the second payment is an additional
three weeks, if you make a third payment of five dollars the film becomes
*permanent*.

I have about 20 films on permanent hold in my local FHC, it's well worth it,
if you're studying an entire area, county, parish, family or what-have-you.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: International Genealogy Index (IGI) Questions

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 apr 2007 10:46:03

Wales in particular is not at all well covered.

Also, for the UK many parishes are covered but not all years.

Kind Regards,

Rose
Surrey / UK

Researching : ST. LEGER

Researching : HEVENINGHAM

Janet

Re: IGI

Legg inn av Janet » 20 apr 2007 13:02:02

This sometimes works but The Mormon Church thought it was broken so the try
to fit it and now good luck
Janet

-------Original Message-------

From: Ken Ozanne
Date: 04/19/07 17:58:06
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: IGI

John, Brad,
Changing P or C to M is not universally effective in finding
marriage records.

I'd recommend Hugh Wallis site,
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... umbers.htm

For both some explanations and IGI batch numbers for all transcripts in
North America and the British Islands.

Best,
Ken

On 20/4/07 8:30, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:26:44 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: International Genealogy Index (IGI) Questions

Thanks to Will Johnson, I've been exploring the database of the IGI.
Though the medieval-era entries are a mess, there is much worthwhile
once the era of the parish registers begins.

My first question is: are all the parish registers that survived the
centuries and that exist today in the IGI system? Or just the ones
that have been published?

Also, there seem to be much fewer burial entries than birth and
marriage entries. Is that the case, or am I searching wrong?

Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad

To get the marriage entries (if any), change the first letter of the
batch to "M." Baptismal batches usually begin with "C," "P," or
sometimes "R."



-------------------------------
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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release Date: 4/18/2007
7:39 AM

.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: IGI

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 apr 2007 13:35:04

In message of 20 Apr, "Janet" <monkey@getgoin.net> wrote:

This

Can you explain which 'this' you are referring to?

sometimes works but The Mormon Church thought it was broken so the try
to fit it and now good luck Janet

-------Original Message-------

From: Ken Ozanne
Date: 04/19/07 17:58:06
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: IGI

John, Brad,
Changing P or C to M is not universally effective in finding
marriage records.

I'd recommend Hugh Wallis site,
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... umbers.htm

For both some explanations and IGI batch numbers for all transcripts in
North America and the British Islands.

Best,
Ken

On 20/4/07 8:30, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:26:44 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: International Genealogy Index (IGI) Questions

Thanks to Will Johnson, I've been exploring the database of the IGI.
Though the medieval-era entries are a mess, there is much worthwhile
once the era of the parish registers begins.

My first question is: are all the parish registers that survived the
centuries and that exist today in the IGI system? Or just the ones
that have been published?

Also, there seem to be much fewer burial entries than birth and
marriage entries. Is that the case, or am I searching wrong?

Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad

To get the marriage entries (if any), change the first letter of the
batch to "M." Baptismal batches usually begin with "C," "P," or
sometimes "R."



-------------------------------
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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release Date: 4/18/2007
7:39 AM

.


--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 apr 2007 14:43:38

Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the dower of Eve de Clavering from her marriage to Thomas de
Audley, in my previous post, I stated that Eve de Clavering was
assigned property in Audley and Endon, Staffordshire, as indicated by
her inquisition post mortem taken after her death in 1359. The three
lawsuits cited below, however, give a much fuller picture of her
dower. They indicate that Eve de Clavering actually held dower in a
messuage in the vill of Newcastle-under-Lyme, as well as in the manors
of Chesterton and Audley, and in the third part of the manors of
Endon, Over Longdon, Cold Norton, and Balterley, all in
Staffordshire.

In the first suit below dated 1313, Eve de Clavering is sued with her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford. Sir Thomas de Ufford died at
the Battle of Bannockburn the following year. In the actions dated
1315 and Michaelmas term 1319, she is simply styled the widow of
Thomas de Audley [her first husband].

In Easter term, 6 Edward II [1313], Nicholas de Aldithelegh [Audley],
by James de Podemor his custos, appeared against Thomas de Offard and
Eva his wife, for causing waste and destruction in the woods, lands,
and iron mines which they held as dower of Eva in Alditheleye
[Audley], Enedon, and Chesterton, Staffordshire. The defendants did
not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain and produce them
on the morrow of St. Martin [Reference: Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Volume 9 (1888), pg. 44].

In Trinity term, 8 Edward II [1315], the Sheriff had been ordered to
summon Eva formerly wife of Thomas de Audeleye to acknowledge what
rights she claimed in the vill of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and in the
manors of Chesterton and Audeleye, and in the third part of the manors
of Endon, Overlongesdon, Coldenorton, and Balterdeleye, which John de
Kynardesle had conceded in Court by a fine to Nicholas de Audeleye and
Joan his wife. Eva did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to
distrain and produce her at the Quindene of St. Michael. [Reference:
Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Volume 9 (1888), pg.
52].

In Michaelmas term, 13 Edward II [1319], the Sheriff had been
commanded to produce Eva formerly wife of Thomas de Audele to
acknowledge what right she claimed in a messuage in Newcastle-under-
Lyme, and in the manors of Chesterton and Audeleye [Audley], and in
the third part of the manors of Endon, Ovre Longedon, Coldenorton, and
Balterdeleye, which John de Kynardeslye had condeded by fine to
William de Audeley, who is now dead, and to Joan his wife; and the
Sheriff had done nothing, and returned the writ reached him too late.
He was therefore ordered as before to distrain and produce her at the
Quindene of Easter [Reference: Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Volume 9 (1888), pg. 78].

Confirmation of the above records as well as the marriage of Eve de
Clavering to James de Audley is found in the published subsidy roll
for 1327 where James de Audley [3rd husband of Eve] is assessed at
Cold Norton [iij s.], Chesterton [vij s.], and Audley, Staffordshire
[vj. s. vj. d.] [Reference: Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Volume 7 (1886), pp. 202, 205, and 206]. Eve was
assigned dower from her first marriage in all three places.

Likewise, in the following subsidy roll for 6 Edward III [1332-1333],
Eva de Offord is listed for Chesterton [viij s., iiij d.], whereas
James de Audley is listed for Audley [v.s. iiij d.] and for Mere and
Aston [ix. s.] [Reference: Collections for a History of Staffordshire,
Volume 10 (1889), pp. 94, 100, and 101]. The last named property,
Mere, was held by James de Audley by inheritance from his father, Hugh
de Audley the elder. The former property, Audley, was part of Eve de
Clavering's dower from her first marriage to Thomas de Audley. The
year 1332 appears to be the year that James de Audley died, if we are
to trust Waters' statement that his widow, Eve, presented to the
church of Blythburgh, Suffolk in that year. Thus, James de Audley was
evidently living early in 1332, but presumably dead sometime within
the year.

I concur with Alan Grey that Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were
likely living together before 1 November 1319, when James leased the
third part of the manor of Cold Norton, Staffordshire to Sir Peter
Giffard, with Eve's permission. This property was part of Eve's dower
from her first marriage to Thomas de Audley as proven by the last two
lawsuits quoted above. Had James and Eve not been married, James
would have had no right to lease her land to anyone.

In my post tomorrow, I'll comment on the evidence concerning the
legitimacy of the marriage of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley.
Get ready: I'm about to throw a spanner in the works.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 apr 2007 04:14:43

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1177076618.824031.200640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

In my post tomorrow, I'll comment on the evidence concerning the
legitimacy of the marriage of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley.
Get ready: I'm about to throw a spanner in the works.

Apart from the unnecessary melodrama of this announcement, and the delay for
several days since you first insinuated that you are withholding something
important to the question, it is not at all likely to be delivered as
advertised: mere "comment" from you on the existing evidence cannot very
well be a "spanner in the works" at hand.

In this instance the work in process is a search for proof as to whether or
not the couple were canonically married. Either they were or they were not,
and if resolved either way the "works" of the issue are not disrupted by a
contribution.

Comment from you is not the same as proof for the rest of us. A "spanner" in
these works would have to produce some third alternative, and if there could
be such an outcome only evidence can subtantiate it, not comment.

Can you at least _try_ to think about what you write before you post
tomorrow?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Addition: Joan de Clemdon, wife of Thomas d

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 apr 2007 17:46:02

In a message dated 4/21/2007 1:30:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

I will post (or not) some startling
new comment to this effect tommorrow. Start preparing now for the shock.


Could you please post your findings in perhaps Italian, Swedish or Sanskrit
and then make pronouncements on what a particular word means, esp. in those
cases where the meaning has changed over time. It would help if you have no
personal instruction in that language by the way.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

John Brandon

Re: Life is A Liberty Salem Sandwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 apr 2007 23:59:04

When I was a teenager, my favorite sandwich was
White Bread
Bacon and
Lots of Mayo

nothing else.

Will Johnson

Add some fat old tomatos and I agree!

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 01:24:03

Thank you John Higgins for posting a detail from page 342 of the
Chester-Waters book.
Could I ask you to summarise what is said on page 338 as to the Audley
children, please?
MM

Gjest

Re: Life is A Liberty Salem Sandwich

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 01:25:03

When I was a teenager, my favorite sandwich was
White Bread
Bacon and
Lots of Mayo

nothing else.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 01:26:02

In a message dated 4/21/2007 4:09:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

Could I ask you to summarise what is said on page 338 as to the Audley
children, please?


Speaking of this, is that James Audley mentioned as the heir of Thomas
supposed to be his son? The more I think about this reconstruction the more
problematic I see it.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

John Higgins

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av John Higgins » 22 apr 2007 01:50:28

There's not much said in the Chester-Waters book about the children of Eve
de Clavering and Sir James Audley, since this is basically just an "aside"
in a discussion of the Uffords. It notes that they had five children, "of
whom their two sons were both famous warriors and are celebrated by
Froissart" (the other children are not named). The two sons, who both d.
unmarried, are Sir James, who fought at Poitiers and d. at Fontenay-le-Comte
in 1369, and Sir Peter, who d. at Beaufort Castle in Champagne in 1359.
These are the two sons noted by CP 1:348 as being illegitimate, which is of
course the subject of this lengthy thread.

It's also noted that Eve died 20 Sept 1369 and is buried at Langley with all
of her four husbands. Finally, the book notes that her son Sir James is
often confused (by Ashmole and Dugdale, for example) with his kinsman James
Lord Audley of Helagh, who was the nephew of Eve's first husband Thomas.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Millerfairfield@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audl


Thank you John Higgins for posting a detail from page 342 of the
Chester-Waters book.
Could I ask you to summarise what is said on page 338 as to the Audley
children, please?
MM





-------------------------------
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

kelly 6424

Re: Life is A Liberty Salem Sandwich

Legg inn av kelly 6424 » 22 apr 2007 01:57:26

Roast beef on an excellent sesame seeded italian bread with ketchup, a
little butter, salt & pepper.
Wavy potato chips and deli-macaroni salad if available.

KG
NYC

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?produc ... 056&p=5117

John Higgins

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av John Higgins » 22 apr 2007 02:58:34

It's not clear from this cryptic note which Thomas and which James you're
referring to, but the Thomas Audley who the 1st husband of Eve de Clavering
did have a nephew James who is construed by CP to be the 2nd Lord Audley of
Heleigh. This latter James is the one who is apparently confused, by
Dugdale and others, with the Sir James, KG, son of Eve by James Audley.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audl


In a message dated 4/21/2007 5:52:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

Finally, the book notes that her son Sir James is
often confused (by Ashmole and Dugdale, for example) with his kinsman
James
Lord Audley of Helagh, who was the nephew of Eve's first husband Thomas.


Is this implying that that James who is called the heir of Thomas was
actually his nephew not his son?



************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

-------------------------------
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

John Higgins

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av John Higgins » 22 apr 2007 03:43:30

Perhaps it simply means that, at the time of Eve's IPM in 45 Edward III, James Lord Audley was then the heir of her 1st husband Thomas, because James' father Nicholas had died in 1316, not too long after Thomas.
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: jthiggins@sbcglobal.net ; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir James de Audl


In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:00:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
It's not clear from this cryptic note which Thomas and which James you're
referring to, but the Thomas Audley who the 1st husband of Eve de Clavering
did have a nephew James who is construed by CP to be the 2nd Lord Audley of
Heleigh. This latter James is the one who is apparently confused, by
Dugdale and others, with the Sir James, KG, son of Eve by James Audley.
I'm referring to this where Tim says earlier:
"I have added the CT&G 8, 159 article there as:

http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... ring_2.pdf



and Mar responds "Many thanks, Tim - the second link gives us the text of the IPM, which
mentions James Audley the heir of her first husband, but not the James
Audley by whom she had issue."



How can James Audley be the heir of her first husband? The CPR extracts I've posted seems to make it clear that *Nicholas* was the next brother to that Thomas Audley ward of Hugh Despencer



Doesn't this imply something is still amiss ?



Will Johnson






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 03:46:02

In a message dated 4/21/2007 5:52:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

Finally, the book notes that her son Sir James is
often confused (by Ashmole and Dugdale, for example) with his kinsman James
Lord Audley of Helagh, who was the nephew of Eve's first husband Thomas.


Is this implying that that James who is called the heir of Thomas was
actually his nephew not his son?



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 04:21:02

In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:00:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

It's not clear from this cryptic note which Thomas and which James you're
referring to, but the Thomas Audley who the 1st husband of Eve de Clavering
did have a nephew James who is construed by CP to be the 2nd Lord Audley of
Heleigh. This latter James is the one who is apparently confused, by
Dugdale and others, with the Sir James, KG, son of Eve by James Audley.


I'm referring to this where Tim says earlier:
"I have added the CT&G 8, 159 article there as:
_http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscripts/Clavering_2.pdf_
(http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... ring_2.pdf)
and Mar responds "Many thanks, Tim - the second link gives us the text of the
IPM, which
mentions James Audley the heir of her first husband, but not the James
Audley by whom she had issue."
How can James Audley be the heir of her first husband? The CPR extracts
I've posted seems to make it clear that *Nicholas* was the next brother to that
Thomas Audley ward of Hugh Despencer
Doesn't this imply something is still amiss ?
Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 05:06:02

In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:45:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

James' father Nicholas had died in 1316, not too long after Thomas.


Nine years wasn't it?



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 05:07:01

In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:45:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

Perhaps it simply means that, at the time of Eve's IPM in 45 Edward III,
James Lord Audley was then the heir of her 1st husband Thomas, because James'
father Nicholas had died in 1316,


Wouldn't it be rather odd to express "heir" to someone who had died 20 years
previously ? If you're suggesting that James was heir to his father who was
heir to Thomas then why would the IPM express it in some complicated
language? Everyone knew who Nicholas was, Thomas was rather obscure, dying as an
unmarried minor wasn't he? If Nicholas was heir to Thomas, then James was heir
to Nicholas why would her IPM not state it that way?

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 09:17:50

On 22 Apr., 04:00, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:45:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

jthigg...@sbcglobal.net writes:

Perhaps it simply means that, at the time of Eve's IPM in 45 Edward III,
James Lord Audley was then the heir of her 1st husband Thomas, because James'
father Nicholas had died in 1316,

Wouldn't it be rather odd to express "heir" to someone who had died 20 years
previously ? If you're suggesting that James was heir to his father who was
heir to Thomas then why would the IPM express it in some complicated
language? Everyone knew who Nicholas was, Thomas was rather obscure, dying as an
unmarried minor wasn't he? If Nicholas was heir to Thomas, then James was heir
to Nicholas why would her IPM not state it that way?


Because it was Eve's IPM, not Nicholas's. Heir in its simplest sense
just means the person who inherits from the deceased. It doesn't
imply any specific blood relationship (indeed there may be none, if
the property is passing by an entail or after being held in dower by a
widow - as in this case). So Nicholas was heir to his brother Thomas,
and James was heir to his father Nicholas, but at the time of the
Inquest, James was also heir to his aunt-by-marriage, Eve, in respect
of her dower lands from her first marriage to Thomas. Occasionally
IPMs spell out the complicated relationships, but usually they are not
so helpful to us.

Michael

Denis Beauregard

Re: Long Awaited Longueval/Amiot/Ledran Article

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 22 apr 2007 15:07:17

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:24:22 +0000, "Mike Potaski"
<mikepotaski@hotmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.french:

I'd like to look at the Boileau sisters--Marie and Marguerite--who were
daughters of Rene Boileau, ecuyer, Sieur de la Goupilliere from Poitou arr.
Chatellerault. Beauchet-Filteau references a number of
Boileau/Boileve/Boyleve/Boisleau in Poitiers but nothing useful and the
published sources like Chaix d'est Ange, Saint Allais, and La Chesnaye des
Bois deal with the Boileau de Castelnau which appears to be a completely
different family.

I don't catch this one. I have 5 more generations online at
http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genea ... 004255.php

This is based from a research made in France by a Frenchman and
published in Les amitiés généalogiques canadiennes-françaises.
You will see there many more French families to cover in a search.



Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765

Gjest

Re: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2007 15:57:25

I do not know if this would be of use, however, it seems to allude to a Zouche connection:
1345 C 143/270/11 James de Audeleye to grant one-fifth of the manor of Torrington to Richard Hody for life, retaining the manors of Fremington, Barnstaple, Combe Martin, South Molton, Bovey Tracey, Dartington, Holne, Up-Exe, Holsworthy, and Kingston. Devon.
18 EDWARD III. 1345
Pat
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Date: 2007/04/22 Sun AM 04:17:50 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,
wife of Sir James de Audl

On 22 Apr., 04:00, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:45:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

jthigg...@sbcglobal.net writes:

Perhaps it simply means that, at the time of Eve's IPM in 45 Edward III,
James Lord Audley was then the heir of her 1st husband Thomas, because James'
father Nicholas had died in 1316,

Wouldn't it be rather odd to express "heir" to someone who had died 20 years
previously ? If you're suggesting that James was heir to his father who was
heir to Thomas then why would the IPM express it in some complicated
language? Everyone knew who Nicholas was, Thomas was rather obscure, dying as an
unmarried minor wasn't he? If Nicholas was heir to Thomas, then James was heir
to Nicholas why would her IPM not state it that way?


Because it was Eve's IPM, not Nicholas's. Heir in its simplest sense
just means the person who inherits from the deceased. It doesn't
imply any specific blood relationship (indeed there may be none, if
the property is passing by an entail or after being held in dower by a
widow - as in this case). So Nicholas was heir to his brother Thomas,
and James was heir to his father Nicholas, but at the time of the
Inquest, James was also heir to his aunt-by-marriage, Eve, in respect
of her dower lands from her first marriage to Thomas. Occasionally
IPMs spell out the complicated relationships, but usually they are not
so helpful to us.

Michael


-------------------------------
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

Bob Turcott

Re: Long Awaited Longueval/Amiot/Ledran Article

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 22 apr 2007 20:23:43

Denis,

I am off key, but
how do I get the Article by
Les Amities Genealogiques Canadiennes Francaises, No. 11, 2000, pages 33 -
35. Article by Jean-Marie Germe Les Amities Genealogiques Canadiennes
Francaises about Turcot dit Tureau famille?

Can you refer me to who I ask for it or buy it?

thanks

Bob Turcott

_________________________________________________________________
MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John.  Enter to win today.
http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline

wjhonson

Re: William de la Zouche

Legg inn av wjhonson » 24 apr 2007 04:12:54

On Apr 23, 7:59 pm, <pajun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In 1275 there was an assize of mort d' ancestor brought by Robert de Mortimer and Jocosa his wife against John son of William la Zusche, touching possessions in Petworth and Ludgershall, Sussex. (Annual Report of the Duty Keeper of Public Records. GBPRO.)
Joyce's first husband, Nicholas de Whelton, by whom she had Felecia, was dead and Joyce/Jocosa had by ca. 1268 married de Mortimer.
[Snipped]


What is the basis of the statement that they married "ca 1268" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Re: William de la Zouche

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2007 16:06:17

The approximate date is based on the sale by Roger de Whelton in 1267-8 of Norton, Northts. to William la Zouche. (Bedfordshire Records) The allocation of the de Whelton properties has been studied in various publications.
From: wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: 2007/04/23 Mon PM 11:12:54 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: William de la Zouche

On Apr 23, 7:59 pm, <pajun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In 1275 there was an assize of mort d' ancestor brought by Robert de Mortimer and Jocosa his wife against John son of William la Zusche, touching possessions in Petworth and Ludgershall, Sussex. (Annual Report of the Duty Keeper of Public Records. GBPRO.)
Joyce's first husband, Nicholas de Whelton, by whom she had Felecia, was dead and Joyce/Jocosa had by ca. 1268 married de Mortimer.
[Snipped]

What is the basis of the statement that they married "ca 1268" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson


-------------------------------
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

Gjest

Re: Wiltshire Inquisitions

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2007 16:16:02

Dear All,
I have found a splendid on line resource, available in full via proxify.com.
It is the text of "Wiltshire Inquisitions post mortem", by Ethel Stokes and
E.A.Fry.
I have so far only managed a rapid browse of the first 180 pages, bnut have
discovered a lot of information about the following (among other) families,
and their landholdings:-
Basset
Bygot/Bygod
Danseye/Dansey
de Albiniaco (Daubeney)
de Albo Monasterio/ Blanchminster
de Balon
de Bathonia/Bath
de Bohun/Boun
de Brayboeuf
de Cadurciis (Chaources/ Chaworth)
de Cantilupe
de Columbariis
de Dunstanville
de Ebroicis/Devereux
de Ferarriis/de Ferrers
de Hastinges/Hastings
de la Mare
de Lungespey/Longespee
de Mandeville
de Marmyon/Marmion
de Montfort
de Moun/Mohun
de Pavely
de Penbridge
de Pycheford/Pichford
de Quincy
de Verdon
de Zuche/de la Zouche
Giffard of Boyton (the two bishops0
Haversham of Winterbourne
Huse/Hoese/Hussey
Maudut/Mauduit
Rokeley
Tregoz of Ewyas Lacy
Wake
Walleraund/Walerand

Well, that's got to be all for now- New Zealand are playing Sri Lanka at
cricket.
MM

Gjest

Re: Re: William de la Zouche

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2007 16:28:52

Well, Will, I re-read what I wrote and must amend this to say that she married Mortimer sometime AFTER 1267-8 and before 1275, if we assume that the sale of the property was in the lifetime of Nicholas who, because of his refusal to assume the properties his father wanted him to have confused disposition of Whelton properties.
Pat
From: wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: 2007/04/23 Mon PM 11:12:54 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: William de la Zouche

On Apr 23, 7:59 pm, <pajun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In 1275 there was an assize of mort d' ancestor brought by Robert de Mortimer and Jocosa his wife against John son of William la Zusche, touching possessions in Petworth and Ludgershall, Sussex. (Annual Report of the Duty Keeper of Public Records. GBPRO.)
Joyce's first husband, Nicholas de Whelton, by whom she had Felecia, was dead and Joyce/Jocosa had by ca. 1268 married de Mortimer.
[Snipped]

What is the basis of the statement that they married "ca 1268" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson


-------------------------------
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

Gjest

Re: Queen Elizabeth I

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2007 00:01:04

My Fellow List Members,
Elizabeth I was a lot like her several
times ancestress, Eleanor of Aquitaine in that She didn`t shirk unpleasant
duties and proved herself fully capable of leading her own armies. She purposedly
didn`t marry, as She wanted to be King. She saw her cousin Jane controlled by
her father in law the Duke of Northumberland, her desperate sister Mary I
surrender all regal powers to her noxious husband Felipe of Spain amd her cousin
Mary of Scotland lose her crown as She attempted to get away from her consort
husband Henry, who manipulated if not abused her and had him killed in hope
of a better partnership with Bothwell. Finally, She waited until almost the
final days of her life before announcing that James VI (Mary of Scotland`s son
and successor) was to succeed her as well.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Peter Stewart

Re: Wiltshire Inquisitions

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 apr 2007 00:57:56

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1299.1177423961.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<snip>

Well, that's got to be all for now- New Zealand are playing Sri Lanka at
cricket.

Given that it's ANZAC day, commiserations from Australia (with a straight
face, of course).

I hope you won't have the opportunity to return this favour any time
soon....

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Wiltshire Inquisitions

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 apr 2007 01:01:58

It's a multi-volume work, the volume which covers the Reigns of Henry III, Edward I and Edward II (so the years 1242-1326) is here

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0Nfe2 ... em#PPR3,M1

Will Johnson

In a message dated 04/24/07 07:13:04 Pacific Standard Time, Millerfairfield writes:
Dear All,
I have found a splendid on line resource, available in full via proxify.com.
It is the text of "Wiltshire Inquisitions post mortem", by Ethel Stokes and
E.A.Fry.
I have so far only managed a rapid browse of the first 180 pages, bnut have
discovered a lot of information about the following (among other) families,
and their landholdings:-
Basset
Bygot/Bygod
Danseye/Dansey
de Albiniaco (Daubeney)
de Albo Monasterio/ Blanchminster
de Balon
de Bathonia/Bath
de Bohun/Boun
de Brayboeuf
de Cadurciis (Chaources/ Chaworth)
de Cantilupe
de Columbariis
de Dunstanville
de Ebroicis/Devereux
de Ferarriis/de Ferrers
de Hastinges/Hastings
de la Mare
de Lungespey/Longespee
de Mandeville
de Marmyon/Marmion
de Montfort
de Moun/Mohun
de Pavely
de Penbridge
de Pycheford/Pichford
de Quincy
de Verdon
de Zuche/de la Zouche
Giffard of Boyton (the two bishops0
Haversham of Winterbourne
Huse/Hoese/Hussey
Maudut/Mauduit
Rokeley
Tregoz of Ewyas Lacy
Wake
Walleraund/Walerand

Well, that's got to be all for now- New Zealand are playing Sri Lanka at
cricket.
MM








-------------------------------
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

Janet

books

Legg inn av Janet » 25 apr 2007 13:06:04

Can anyone tell me what books could find more information on Sir Peter
Gunter and Sir Walter Havard?

Janet

Gjest

Re: Early American settlers

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2007 23:52:25

Dear Jeffrey,
You might also give Doten also spelled Doty a try. I
believe the actual pronounciation was Dawt-en or Dow-ten like Doubtin` Thomas.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Brad Verity

Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicid

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 26 apr 2007 00:13:50

From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org

The only reference I can find to the Greystoke-Aske connection is in the
Visitations of the North, pub Surtees Soc 1930, Greystoke pedigree part
iii, p. 139. This gives an additional generation:

Anne Greystoke = Ralph Bigod
|
Ralph Bigod = (Margaret) a dau of Robert Constable

and this couple everywhere says led to:

|
Elizabeth Bigod = John Aske.

Who has any evidence for which version?

Dear Tim,

From 'Testamenta Eboracensia' Vol. III (1865), p. 327: "1432-3, Jan. 29.
Dispensation from John Selow, vicar-general, for Ralph, son of Sir John

Bigod knt., and Anne, daughter of Ralph lord Greystock, to marry, they being
twice related in the 4th degree. Issued from Rome by Eugenius IV., Feb. 18,
anno primo."

Anne's will is printed in the same volume, p. 226: "Anna Bigod, vidua,
relicta Radulphi Bigod, militis", so she survived him and he didn't take a
second wife.

The release of the Aske/Bigod marriage settlement properties is in
'Yorkshire Deeds' in Yorks. Arch. Soc. Vol. 17 (1903), p. 109: "September 5,
2 Edw. IV (1462) ... upon trust to enfeoff John son and heir of the said
Richard Aske and Margaret, late his wife, and Elizabeth daughter of Ralph
Bygote, knight, and Anne, late his wife, within six weeks after their
marriage..."

This proves Elizabeth Bigod's parentage. The c.1480 Visitation pedigree of
Greystoke confused the heralds, with the family being so numerous and
well-married. It was hopefully the herald, and not the Greystoke family
informant, who confused the John-Ralph-John-Ralph-John Bigod generations,
which go:

1) Sir John Bigod m. Constance de Mauley
2) Sir Ralph Bigod m. Anne Greystoke
3) Sir John Bigod m. Elizabeth le Srope
4) Sir Ralph Bigod m. 1)Margaret Constable
5) Sir John Bigod m. Joan Strangways
6) Sir Francis Bigod

The 1530 Visitation pedigree of Bigod, whose informant was Sir Francis
above, starts with generation 4.

Cheers, ---------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Re ... ORM=MGAC01

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicid

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26 apr 2007 10:50:56

In message of 26 Apr, "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org

The only reference I can find to the Greystoke-Aske connection is in the
Visitations of the North, pub Surtees Soc 1930, Greystoke pedigree part
iii, p. 139. This gives an additional generation:

Anne Greystoke = Ralph Bigod
|
Ralph Bigod = (Margaret) a dau of Robert Constable

and this couple everywhere says led to:

|
Elizabeth Bigod = John Aske.

Who has any evidence for which version?

Dear Tim,

From 'Testamenta Eboracensia' Vol. III (1865), p. 327: "1432-3, Jan. 29.
Dispensation from John Selow, vicar-general, for Ralph, son of Sir John
Bigod knt., and Anne, daughter of Ralph lord Greystock, to marry, they being
twice related in the 4th degree. Issued from Rome by Eugenius IV., Feb. 18,
anno primo."

Anne's will is printed in the same volume, p. 226: "Anna Bigod, vidua,
relicta Radulphi Bigod, militis", so she survived him and he didn't take a
second wife.

The release of the Aske/Bigod marriage settlement properties is in
'Yorkshire Deeds' in Yorks. Arch. Soc. Vol. 17 (1903), p. 109: "September 5,
2 Edw. IV (1462) ... upon trust to enfeoff John son and heir of the said
Richard Aske and Margaret, late his wife, and Elizabeth daughter of Ralph
Bygote, knight, and Anne, late his wife, within six weeks after their
marriage..."

This proves Elizabeth Bigod's parentage.

Excellent - and many thanks.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Brad Verity

Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicid

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 26 apr 2007 20:39:48

Thanks, John. Comments interspersed.

From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net

A particularly interesting aspect of this useful summary of the Askes of
Aughton is the identification (for the first time?) of Julian Aske the
first
wife of Thomas Portington as the sister, not the daughter, of Sir John Aske
who married Eleanor Ryther.

This Julian Aske was apparently confused,
probably by Foster in his edition of Glover's visitations of Yorkshire,
with
her niece Julian the 3rd wife of John Vavasour of Spaldington. Foster
includes Thomas Portington as the husband of the second Julian in italics
(without mentioning a Vavasour marriage), indicating an addition not in the
original visitation manuscripts.

That's a great explanation of how it started. I think I've been reading
Foster's Visitation work incorrectly. I thought the italics in a 1585 &
1612 combined pedigree indicated it was information found in the 1612
pedigree, not information Foster put in himself.

This error appears to have been carried
forward to subsequent pedigree compilations, including for example
Maddison's Lincolnshire Pedigrees (HSP v. 52),

Yes, Maddison calls Julian 'heiress' of John Aske of Ryther, 4th son, or
something like that, which made me think for awhile she was a daughter of
John Aske, younger son of Sir John Aske & Elizabeth Bigod.

Gerald Paget's work on the
ancestry of Prince Charles, and most recently Douglas Richardson's
Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry.

PA3 also overlooks the will of Robert Aske (d. 1542), the son and heir of
John Aske and Eleanor Ryther.

The will of Sir John Aske as cited by Brad clearly indicates that he had a
daughter Julian not yet married and that the wife of Thomas Portington was
his sister, not his daughter.

Yes. Clearly Julian's son Henry Portington was important to his uncle John
Aske, who made him executor of his will and guardian of his two youngest
sons until they came of age. At least one of those sons was not as thrilled
with cousin Henry, as the following Chancery suits show:

C1/1326/46-47 John ASKE v. Henry PORTINGTON of Sawcliffe in Risby
(Savelyff), co. Lincoln, late his guardian.: Legacy of John Aske of
Houghton, father of complainant, of whom both parties were executors, and
account of his possessions, being tithes of corn and hay andlands in
Londesborough, some of which produced lead ore.: YORK. 1553-1555

C1/1400/43 John, younger son of John ASKE, deceased, v. [Henry PORTYNGTON,
overseer of the will of the said John the father].: Detention of goods of
the said John the father and of a lease of the tithes of Houghton and of
land there and in Londesborough.: YORK. 1556-1558

The chronology certainly works better with
Julian Aske Portington as a sister of Sir John Aske, since she was married
by 1510/1 to Thomas Portington and thus could not possibly have been a
daughter to Sir John, who was himself only 10 to 15 years old at that time
(based on the wills of his father and grandfather).

Yes. The one wrinkle in all of this is Julian being left off of the 1530
Aske Visitation pedigree. John Aske was the informant, and from his will we
know he was close to his sister's son. Portington, one of the Yorkshire
properties of the Portingtons, was in the same parish (Eastrington) as
Owsthorpe, the original Aske East Riding property, so the families were
close neighbors. He provides the names of his other four sisters, all of
whom were also married by 1530, but leaves off Julian. Three possible
explanations:

1) Error by herald Thomas Tonge. We've seen other errors by Tonge
(confusing the two Mauleverer wives of Richard Aldeburgh, for instance),
even in the generations of the informant himself. So John Aske could have
given his sister Julian's name, but Tonge left her off by mistake when he
officially entered the pedigree back in London.
2) Julian had died shortly after her son Henry's birth, well before 1530,
and John Aske only gave the names to Tonge of his siblings who were living.
3) Julian was an illegitimate daughter of Sir Robert Aske, and so would not
be appropriate to include in a list of his children with Elizabeth Clifford.

I'm leaning toward explanation 2). What are your thoughts?

Both Julian Askes have a considerable number of notable descendants,
including (for example) Princes William and Harry. I'd guess that a number
of pedigrees and databases will need to be corrected based on this
information....

Hopefully moving her back a generation in a database won't prove too
difficult.

Cheers, --------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Download Messenger. Join the i’m Initiative. Help make a difference today.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?s ... AGHM_APR07

John Higgins

Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicid

Legg inn av John Higgins » 26 apr 2007 22:00:00

A couple of comments added below....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicide
Counsel


This Julian Aske was apparently confused,
probably by Foster in his edition of Glover's visitations of Yorkshire,
with
her niece Julian the 3rd wife of John Vavasour of Spaldington. Foster
includes Thomas Portington as the husband of the second Julian in italics
(without mentioning a Vavasour marriage), indicating an addition not in
the
original visitation manuscripts.

That's a great explanation of how it started. I think I've been reading
Foster's Visitation work incorrectly. I thought the italics in a 1585 &
1612 combined pedigree indicated it was information found in the 1612
pedigree, not information Foster put in himself.

Upon re-reading the preface to Foster's work, I think you're generally
correct about his use of italics to indicate material from the 1612
visitation - especially when he doesn't explicitly indicate otherwise, with
a footnote. In the Aske pedigree, however, he lists a number of MSS numbers
as his sources, including both the 1585 and 1612 visiattions as well as a
number of other sources which are not clearly identified. The information
on the mispalced Portington marriage may well be from the 1612 visitation,
but that's not entirely clear based on the way he lists his sources (sounds
like some modern authors we know!). In any case, regardless of the source,
he clearly got it wrong.

Yes. The one wrinkle in all of this is Julian being left off of the 1530
Aske Visitation pedigree. John Aske was the informant, and from his will
we
know he was close to his sister's son. Portington, one of the Yorkshire
properties of the Portingtons, was in the same parish (Eastrington) as
Owsthorpe, the original Aske East Riding property, so the families were
close neighbors. He provides the names of his other four sisters, all of
whom were also married by 1530, but leaves off Julian. Three possible
explanations:

1) Error by herald Thomas Tonge. We've seen other errors by Tonge
(confusing the two Mauleverer wives of Richard Aldeburgh, for instance),
even in the generations of the informant himself. So John Aske could have
given his sister Julian's name, but Tonge left her off by mistake when he
officially entered the pedigree back in London.
2) Julian had died shortly after her son Henry's birth, well before 1530,
and John Aske only gave the names to Tonge of his siblings who were
living.
3) Julian was an illegitimate daughter of Sir Robert Aske, and so would
not
be appropriate to include in a list of his children with Elizabeth
Clifford.

I'm leaning toward explanation 2). What are your thoughts?

I also tend to favor explanation #2, although the other two are also
plausible. As to # 3 (illegitimacy), Foster did include an illegitimate son
of the Askes a generation after the misplaced Julian (based on a
non-visitation source), so he at least was aware of that possibility, which
might make #2 (or #1) more likely.

WJhonson

Re: New Henry Project pages - Dál Riata

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 apr 2007 03:45:45

Thanks James, shades of King Lear.
I shall unlink Erc from the "ascent" and add your note.
Will



In a message dated 04/26/07 19:26:34 Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870 writes:
Dear Will,
Your fourth sources is apparently Holinshed`s chronicles
which was written in 1577 by Raphael Holinshed together with William Harrison,
Richard Stanyhurst and John Hooker. It was very popular in the time of
Shakespeare and a source book for several of his" historical " plays.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

-------------------------------
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

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 27 apr 2007 04:26:47

Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's
relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.

In my opinion the biggest stumbling block is the question of affinity
- and
this must explain the circumspection of the author, Josiah Wedgwood of
the
Audley of Helegh section in 'The Complete Peerage'. Politically their
marriage was not important enough for them to be granted a
dispensation at such a high level of
consanguineous affinity. At two degrees this would have meant a papal
dispensation, not one by a bishop, who only had discretion over fourth
degree dispensations at this period in time. Eve's father had
alienated most of his patrimony in 1311, so that there was precious
little for her to inherit, and James came from a minor cadet branch
with a small estate. It seems doubtful that they would have even
considered applying for one, in the knowledge that they had neither
the resources or political influence to carry through the process,
which had no guarantee of success anyway.

The 1319 deed bears closer examination. While Mr Richardson has
glossed over
it, saying it is indication that they had married by that time, the
evidence shows otherwise.

There were actually two deeds - one dated 1 November 1319 and the
other
dated 11 November 1319.

The one dated 1 November was a deed of James de Audley leasing the
third
part of the manor of Cold Norton, Eve's dower, to Peter de Giffard for
an
annual rent of £23 6s 8d.,

"...covent entre Sir James Daudeleye de une parte et Sir Piers Giffard
de
autre part, cest-a-savoir que le dit Sir James par cest escrit ad
grante et
a ferme lesse au dit Sir Piers la tierce partie du maner de
Coldenorton ove
tous les appurtenaunces saunt rein retenir en le Countee de Estafford
le
quel le dite Sir James ad du donn dame Eve Doufford a terme de la vie
la
dite dame Eve a avoir le tenir la tierce partie du maner susdit ove
les
appurtenaunces a le avaunt dit Sir Piers, ses heirs et ses assignes
del dit
Sir James a terme de la vie la dite dame Eve. Rendaunt pures chescun
an a
dit Sir James vint trois livres siz soutz vyt deners desterlings a
deux
termes etc E si aveigne qe le dit Sir James devie. (No witnesses.)
(1st
November, 1319)" [NCHS, Vol. 5, p. 224]

With the kind help of Peter Stewart the above translates to,

....agreement between Sir James de Audley on one part and Sir Peter
Giffard
onthe other part, notice that the said Sir James by this writing has
granted
thefee farm to the said Sir Peter of the third part of the manor of
Cold Norton
including all its appurtenances without withholding anything in the
County
of Stafford, which the said Sir James acquired by the gift of lady
Eve
Doufford for the term of life of the said lady Eve, to have and to
hold, the
third part of themanor aforesaid and its appurtenances to the
aforesaid Sir Peter, his heirsand assigns, of the said Sir James for
the term of the life of lady Eve.

Here we see that James held the third part manor by the GIFT of lady
Eve,
not by right as her husband - "le quel le dite Sir James ad du donn
dame Eve
Doufford". The nature of the tenure is reinforced by the fact that
lady Eve
made a separate charter on 11 November 1319 confirming James' lease to
Peter
de Giffard. Had James de Audley been married to Eve at this time there
would
have been one deed in which both their names appeared as granting the
lease.
James would have had automatic right de jure uxoris, and a
confirmation
charter by Eve would have been superfluous.

The article in which the second charter is mentioned is by Josiah
Wedgwood
himself - Parentage of Sir James de Audley, K.G., in Coll. Hist.
Staff. N.S.
vol. IX, pp.246-268. This is a fairly detailed and competent study of
Sir
James de Audley and worth reading. The author included an illustration
of
the seal of Eve at the end of the article, and from the description
in
Hedley, it is exactly the same one as was used in 1334, with the arms
of
Ufford impaling Audley. They are of Audley of Heighley, those of her
first
husband, not Audley of Stratton.

The author gives another potentially important piece of evidence
showing
that a James de Audley was alive on 23 Sept 1333 when Hugh de Audley,
brother of James de Audley, appointed him his attorney while he was on
a
pilgrimage overseas. This pilgrimage is given in the account of his
life in
CP V p.717.

Patent Rolls, 1333, p.467
"Simple protection, until a fortnight after Easter, for Hugh Daudele
going
on
pilgrimage beyond the seas.

The said Hugh has letters nominating James Daudele and John de Sancto
Paulo,
clerk, his attorneys in England until the same date."

Although the entry does not specify that James is Hugh's brother,
there is
no other known candidate of the same name within Hugh's trusted
family
circle at that time. It could not have been James de Audley of
Heleigh, who
was still a minor and not able to legally conduct affairs on Hugh's
behalf,
even though he had been given early seisin of his lands. It is my
belief
that James de Audley was still living at that date and died between
then and
1334, as is stated by CP I p.339.

Cheers

Rosie






On Apr 21, 3:14 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1177076618.824031.200640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

snip

In my post tomorrow, I'll comment on the evidence concerning the
legitimacy of the marriage of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley.
Get ready: I'm about to throw a spanner in the works.

Apart from the unnecessary melodrama of this announcement, and the delay for
several days since you first insinuated that you are withholding something
important to the question, it is not at all likely to be delivered as
advertised: mere "comment" from you on the existing evidence cannot very
well be a "spanner in the works" at hand.

In this instance the work in process is a search for proof as to whether or
not the couple were canonically married. Either they were or they were not,
and if resolved either way the "works" of the issue are not disrupted by a
contribution.

Comment from you is not the same as proof for the rest of us. A "spanner" in
these works would have to produce some third alternative, and if there could
be such an outcome only evidence can subtantiate it, not comment.

Can you at least _try_ to think about what you write before you post
tomorrow?

Peter Stewart

Rosie Bevan

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 27 apr 2007 04:49:56

My apologies about the last post, which seems to have had problems
with the font I used. I'm reposting in the hope this will be easier to
read.


Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.

In my opinion the biggest stumbling block is the question of affinity
- and this must explain the circumspection of the author, Josiah
Wedgwood of the Audley of Helegh section in 'The Complete Peerage'.
Politically their marriage was not important enough for them to be
granted a dispensation at such a high level of consanguineous
affinity. At two degrees this would have meant a papal dispensation,
not one by a bishop, who only had discretion over fourth degree
dispensations at this period in time. Eve's father had alienated most
of his patrimony in 1311, so that there was precious little for her to
inherit, and James came from a minor cadet branch with a small estate.
It seems doubtful that they would have even considered applying for
one, in the knowledge that they had neither the resources or political
influence to carry through the process, which had no guarantee of
success anyway.

The 1319 deed bears closer examination. While Mr Richardson has
glossed over
it, saying it is indication that they had married by that time, the
evidence shows otherwise.

There were actually two deeds - one dated 1 November 1319 and the
other dated 11 November 1319.

The one dated 1 November was a deed of James de Audley leasing the
third part of the manor of Cold Norton, Eve's dower, to Peter de
Giffard for an annual rent of £23 6s 8d.,

"...covent entre Sir James Daudeleye de une parte et Sir Piers
Giffard
de autre part, cest-a-savoir que le dit Sir James par cest escrit ad
grante et a ferme Coldenorton ove tous les appurtenaunces saunt rein
retenir en le Countee de Estafford le quel le dite Sir James ad du
donn dame Eve Doufford a terme de la vie la dite dame Eve a avoir le
tenir la tierce partie du maner susdit ove les appurtenaunces a le
avaunt dit Sir Piers, ses heirs et ses assignes del dit Sir James a
terme de la vie la dite dame Eve. Rendaunt pures chescun an a dit Sir
James vint trois livres siz soutz vyt deners desterlings a deux termes
etc E si aveigne qe le dit Sir James devie. (No witnesses.) (1st
November, 1319)" [NCHS, Vol. 5, p. 224]

With the kind help of Peter Stewart the above translates to,

....agreement between Sir James de Audley on one part and Sir Peter
Giffard on the other part, notice that the said Sir James by this
writing has granted the fee farm to the said Sir Peter of the third
part of the manor of Cold Norton including all its appurtenances
without withholding anything in the County of Stafford, which the said
Sir James acquired by the gift of lady Eve Doufford for the term of
life of the said lady Eve, to have and to hold, the third part of
themanor aforesaid and its appurtenances to the aforesaid Sir Peter,
his heirsand assigns, of the said Sir James for the term of the life
of lady Eve.

Here we see that James held the third part manor by the GIFT of lady
Eve, not by right as her husband - "le quel le dite Sir James ad du
donn dame Eve Doufford". The nature of the tenure is reinforced by the
fact that lady Eve made a separate charter on 11 November 1319
confirming James' lease to Peter de Giffard. Had James de Audley been
married to Eve at this time there would have been one deed in which
both their names appeared as granting the lease. James would have had
automatic right de jure uxoris, and a confirmation charter by Eve
would have been superfluous.

The article in which the second charter is mentioned is by Josiah
Wedgwood himself - Parentage of Sir James de Audley, K.G., in Coll.
Hist. Staff. N.S. vol. IX, pp.246-268. This is a fairly detailed and
competent study of Sir James de Audley and worthreading. The author
included an illustration of the seal of Eve at the end of the article,
and from the description in Hedley, it is exactly the same one as was
used in 1334, with the arms of Ufford impaling Audley. They are of
Audley of Heighley, those of her first husband, not Audley of
Stratton.

The author gives another potentially important piece of evidence
showing that a James de Audley was alive on 23 Sept 1333 when Hugh de
Audley, brother of James de Audley, appointed him his attorney while
he was on a pilgrimage overseas. This pilgrimage is given in the
account of his life in CP V p.717.

Patent Rolls, 1333, p.467
"Simple protection, until a fortnight after Easter, for Hugh Daudele
going on pilgrimage beyond the seas.

The said Hugh has letters nominating James Daudele and John de Sancto
Paulo, clerk, his attorneys in England until the same date."

Although the entry does not specify that James is Hugh's brother,
there is no other known candidate of the same name within Hugh's
trusted family circle at that time. It could not have been James de
Audley of Heleigh, who was still a minor and not able to legally
conduct affairs on Hugh's behalf, even though he had been given early
seisin of his lands. It is my belief that James de Audley was still
living at that date and died between then and 1334, as is stated by CP
I p.339.

Cheers

Rosie

WJhonson

Re: Re: William de la Zouche

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 apr 2007 05:01:44

I'd suggest we could shave a year off the end of that.
Hugh, Baron /Mortimer/ , Lord of Richard's Castle d 1304
had a daughter Joan born 24 Nov 1291

So I'd like to think that Hugh himself was born at least in early 1274, making his parents married in 1273 at the latest.

Will



In a message dated 04/24/07 08:30:33 Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@bellsouth.net writes:
Well, Will, I re-read what I wrote and must amend this to say that she married Mortimer sometime AFTER 1267-8 and before 1275, if we assume that the sale of the property was in the lifetime of Nicholas who, because of his refusal to assume the properties his father wanted him to have confused disposition of Whelton properties.
Pat
From: wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: 2007/04/23 Mon PM 11:12:54 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: William de la Zouche

On Apr 23, 7:59 pm, <pajun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In 1275 there was an assize of mort d' ancestor brought by Robert de Mortimer and Jocosa his wife against John son of William la Zusche, touching possessions in Petworth and Ludgershall, Sussex. (Annual Report of the Duty Keeper of Public Records. GBPRO.)
Joyce's first husband, Nicholas de Whelton, by whom she had Felecia, was dead and Joyce/Jocosa had by ca. 1268 married de Mortimer.
[Snipped]

What is the basis of the statement that they married "ca 1268" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson


-------------------------------
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



-------------------------------
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

Gjest

Re: New Henry Project pages - Dál Riata

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 apr 2007 05:16:02

Thursday, 26 April, 2007


Dear 'Mississippienne',

There are those who believe there may be a generation
missing from the traditional pedigrees leading from Duncan
I of Scots to Hextilda of Tynedale, and/or Malcolm mac
Madadh of Athol. Even if not, the chart below shows that
Hextilda and Malcolm mac Madadh (her 2nd husband) were 2nd
cousins, or related in the 3rd degree of consanguinity.



Duncan I = Sibyl
K of Scots I (or Suthen)
___________________I_________________
I I I
Malcolm III Donald Ban Maelmure
'Ceann-mor' <Domnall Bán> <Máel Muire>
<Máel Coluim> K of Scots I
I d. 1099 I
V I I
I I
Bethoc Madadh
= Uhtred of Earl of Athol
Tynedale d. bef 1152
I I
I I
1) Richard = Hextilda = 2) Malcolm
Comyn I I Earl of Athol
I I
V V


This relationship would have required a dispensation in
order for the marriage to have been valid. Whether such a
dispensation was sought, or obtained, is unknown to the best
of my knowledge.

Cheers,

John




On 26 April, you wrote:

On the subject of the Scots royal family, have you seen Richard Oram's
"David I" (2004, Tempus)? In his notes he discusses whether or not
Mael Muire of Atholl was a son of Duncan I. Oram points out that Mael
Muire's son Malcolm married Hextilda, herself the granddaughter of
Donalban, and that if Mael Muire and Donalban were brothers (both
being sons of Duncan I) then this marriage would be within prohibited
degrees of consanguinity.




<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: New Henry Project pages - Dál Riata

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 apr 2007 05:17:02

Dear Will,
Your fourth sources is apparently Holinshed`s chronicles
which was written in 1577 by Raphael Holinshed together with William Harrison,
Richard Stanyhurst and John Hooker. It was very popular in the time of
Shakespeare and a source book for several of his" historical " plays.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 apr 2007 06:28:09

On 27 Apr., 04:49, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
My apologies about the last post, which seems to have had problems
with the font I used. I'm reposting in the hope this will be easier to
read.

Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.

Rosie

Excellent post! A good example of the use of logic, knowledge of
one's field and reliance on primary sources, rather than secondary
ones whose import (we have seen) can be seriously mis-interpreted.

In the absence of Douglas's "spanner", it seems we must conclude that
CP got it right - and is owed an apology.

MA-R

Brad Verity

Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicid

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 27 apr 2007 07:00:40

From: John Watson <WatsonJohnM@gmail.com

Hi Brad,

One small question. How exactly did the Askes gain the manor of
Aughton?

Apparently, by the use of legal shenanigans, if not outright force. They
came into Howdenshire and conquered it, as it were.

Alice Aske married German Hay who held the manor and presumably they
had no children. After his death she married Thomas Myton. After his
death the Hay's tried to regain the manor, apparently unsuccessfully.

It should, by right of blood, have returned to them on the death of German's
widow.

ca. 1415?: Nature of request: Roger Hay states that he was seised of
the manors of Aughton and Everthorpe in Yorkshire in his demesne as in
fee, until Alice, widow of Thomas Myton, disseised him through the
maintenance of her brother, John Ask. He asks the King to order Alice
to come before him to be examined on this, and that he might be
restored to possession of his manors. [PRO: SC 8/191/9519]

The Askes were local justices of the peace, and seneschals for the bishop of
Durham over the Howdenshire estates of that see. In other words, they
ruled. The following I found on the website:

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~pmcbride/rfc/gw3.htm

Notes on the Aske Family by Anne-Denise Warsnop,
regadw@leeds.ac.uk:

The story starts with Richard Aske, the 7th son of the Aske
family of Aske in the North Riding of Yorkshire. (The 14th
century pele tower is still there at Aske, altho now surrounded
by a Georgian manor house.)

As a 7th son Richard Aske has to find work as he would inherit
nothing. He went off to the French Wars. He took part in The
Hundred Years war, and was recognized for his bravery by Edward
III. By the 1360s he was back in this country, and well
rewarded by his king. He was recognized as the king's yeoman.
He moved from the North Riding to the East Riding when he
became steward of lands that the Bishop of Durham held in
Howden. At this time Richard de Aske lived at Ousethorpe, near
Howden. Sadly, altho Richard married he died without children.
His estate passed to his brother John, who married the
Shelvestrode woman. There is some mystery here. A man called
Shelvestrode owed Richard Aske an enormous sum of something
like 2,000 marks. I have no idea how or why the debt was
incurred but I wonder if he were ransomed in some way during
the French wars. I also wonder if he were unable to pay the
debt, and offered a daughter in marriage instead.

Anyway, John did marry this woman from, I think, Sussex. The
lands which came with her stayed in the family until the 1530s.
In the aftermath of the Pilgrimage of Grace (led by Robert
Aske, of course) another John Aske asked Henry VIII for
permission to swap his Sussex lands for lands in Yorkshire.
John Aske had a son, John. The two Johns were king's yeomen and
were held in high esteeem - Richard's exploits obviously lived
in legend. Richard, by the way, was a Justice of the Peace, as
were the Johns; Richard also had the distinction of being
pardoned for murder on a couple of occasions, because of his
good service in France. Richard's and John's servants were also
ruffians, and were also pardoned for murder.

Poor Roger Hay would just as soon have sued the archbishop of York for what
he was up against.

Will of Lady Aleisa Myton, dated 16 Apr 1440, at Aughton, proved 22
July 1440. Executor Richard Aske. [Testamenta Eboracensia Part III,
Surtees Society, Vol 30, Durham, 1855, p 76]

I couldn't access her will through Google Books.

What exactly does maintenance mean in this context?

Active assistance and involvement. Sadly this is yet another example of a
family/individual with greater power ignoring the rights of collateral, yet
lawful, heirs by blood and taking over property. No doubt the Askes had
some form of documents from German Hay giving them right to Aughton and
Everthorpe should he die childless. German needs to share the blame in
disinheriting his blood.

Thanks for looking into the Aughton acquisition further, John. It provides
interesting additional detail to the story of these Askes.

Cheers, ---------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John.  Enter to win today.
http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline

Peter Stewart

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 apr 2007 08:55:50

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1177651689.646507.8140@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Apr., 04:49, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
My apologies about the last post, which seems to have had problems
with the font I used. I'm reposting in the hope this will be easier to
read.

Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.

Rosie

Excellent post! A good example of the use of logic, knowledge of
one's field and reliance on primary sources, rather than secondary
ones whose import (we have seen) can be seriously mis-interpreted.

In the absence of Douglas's "spanner", it seems we must conclude that
CP got it right - and is owed an apology.

On this score, but don't forget that CP still has to answer for the death of
Phar Lap and for suppression of the truth about his private life.

We were told on 21 April to "Get ready" for Richardson's post, the very next
day, inserting a spanner into the works - but he has made himself scarce
since then. I wonder why....

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Ducketts/ Geoffrey Duckett Middle sex London

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 apr 2007 04:17:10

I'm going to make a wild guess and assume this Matthias is the son of Edward's aunt Mary (Meredith) Springham



In a message dated 04/27/07 20:06:07 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
C 2/Eliz/D10/50

Edward Duckett, a minor, son of Geoffrey Duckett, citizen and mercer
of London, deceased v Matthias Springham, kinsman of plaintiff.
Nondelivery to agent of plaintiff, for cancellation, of a bond under
statute staple procedure. London, Middlesex. Bill, answer. (1597)

WJhonson

Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress o

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 apr 2007 06:14:08

How is this Margaret de Norwich related to the other Norwich's discussed in this thread?
Thanks
Will Johnson


In a message dated 04/27/07 21:11:11 Pacific Standard Time, pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:


Dear Douglas

Once again I see that poor old James Cudworth seems to have missed out.

According to my database he descends, by Margaret de Norwich's husband
Robert de la Pole thus:

Margaret de Norwich

Margaret de la Pole

Margaret de Neville, Heiress of Hornby

John Harrington

Elizabeth Harrington

Roger Copley of Roughy, Sussex

Margaret Copley

Edward Lewknor

Mary Lewknor

Mary Machell

James Cudworth

Best wishes

Merilyn Pedrick

Aldgate, South Australia













From: Douglas Richardson

Date: 04/28/07 05:20:39

To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress of
Norwich,Ufford, Willoughby, & Scales families



Dear Newsgroup ~



Below is a slightly revised and expanded list the numerous 17th

Century New World colonists who descend from Margaret de Norwich, wife

of Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, Lord Ufford.



Elizabeth Alsop, Christopher Batt, Henry & Thomas Batte, Anne Baynton,

William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth

Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull,

Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward

Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew

Clarkson, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Francis Dade, Anne

Derehaugh, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Muriel Gurdon,

Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward,

Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Simon Lynde, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne,

Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth

Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton,

Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Thomas Rudyard,

Katherine Saint Leger, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel

and William Torrey, Margaret Tyndall, Jemima Waldegrave, John West,

Thomas Wingfield.



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



-------------------------------
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

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress o

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 28 apr 2007 07:36:02

NORWICH FAMILY
1. Walter de Norwich, Knt., Baron of the Exchequer, Treasurer of
England, died 1329, married Katherine de Hedersete. For a brief
account of Walter de Norwich, see Sainty, Judges of England (Selden
Soc. Supp. Ser. 10) (1993): 91.

Snipped from Douglas's post.

Margaret was this Walter's daughter, and sister of:

1.1. John de Norwich, 1st Lord Norwich, born c. 1299 (aged 30 &
more in 1329), d 1362 son and heir of Walter (1), m Margery _____ d.
1366.

Merilyn




From: WJhonson
Date: 04/28/07 14:45:16
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress of
Norwich,Ufford, Willoughby, & Scales families

How is this Margaret de Norwich related to the other Norwich's discussed in
this thread?
Thanks
Will Johnson


In a message dated 04/27/07 21:11:11 Pacific Standard Time, pedricks@ozemail
com.au writes:


Dear Douglas

Once again I see that poor old James Cudworth seems to have missed out.

According to my database he descends, by Margaret de Norwich's husband
Robert de la Pole thus:

Margaret de Norwich

Margaret de la Pole

Margaret de Neville, Heiress of Hornby

John Harrington

Elizabeth Harrington

Roger Copley of Roughy, Sussex

Margaret Copley

Edward Lewknor

Mary Lewknor

Mary Machell

James Cudworth

Best wishes

Merilyn Pedrick

Aldgate, South Australia













From: Douglas Richardson

Date: 04/28/07 05:20:39

To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress of
Norwich,Ufford, Willoughby, & Scales families



Dear Newsgroup ~



Below is a slightly revised and expanded list the numerous 17th

Century New World colonists who descend from Margaret de Norwich, wife

of Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk, Lord Ufford.



Elizabeth Alsop, Christopher Batt, Henry & Thomas Batte, Anne Baynton,

William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth

Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull,

Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward

Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew

Clarkson, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Francis Dade, Anne

Derehaugh, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Muriel Gurdon,

Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward,

Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Simon Lynde, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne,

Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth

Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton,

Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Thomas Rudyard,

Katherine Saint Leger, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel

and William Torrey, Margaret Tyndall, Jemima Waldegrave, John West,

Thomas Wingfield.



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



-------------------------------
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

-------------------------------
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

John P. Ravilious

Re: de Lindesay and Allerdale: a Pennington ascent?

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 28 apr 2007 13:33:47

Saturday, 28 April, 2007


Hello All,

Following is the Pennington pedigree as promised (6 generations
only). This indicates all known issue for these generations, and
reflects the marriages with Lacy of Cromwellbothum (known descents)
and Multon of Egremont (childless).

Cheers,

John

__________________________________

1 Gamel de Pennington
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1154[1]

of Muncaster, Pennington and Orton, Westmorland

' Between the years 1154 and 1163 Gamel de Pennington granted the
churches of Pennington, Muncaster and Sker-Overton, with the
appurtenances thereof to the priory of Conishead, and the same
was confirmed by John Bartholomew, prior of Carlisle, in the
time of Hugh, 3rd Bishop of Carlisle (1219-1223).'[1]

~ the above grant confirmed by King Edward II:
" Donationem, &c. quas Gamellus de Penygton fecit canonicis
ejusdem loci, de ecclesia de Penigton, cum pertinentiis, et
ecclesia de Molcastre, cum capellis et omnibus aliis pertinentiis;
et ecclesia de Wytebec cum pertinentiis, et ecclesia de
Skeroverton cum omnibus pertinentiis; et Pultone cum rectis
divisis. ' [confirmation by King Edward II, dated at York,
28 Sept 12 Edw II [1318] - Mon. Angl. VI(1):557, Num. I[2]]

his son Benedict granted a charter confirming the grant of the
church of Muncaster and the chapel of St. Aldeburg to the
hospital of St. Mary of Conishead, dated 1180x1199 [Farrer,
Lancashire Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary Series XII,
pp. 360-1, Charter No. III[3]]
__________________________________

' Gamel de Pennington, whose name occurs on the ancient
tympanum at Beckside, is supposed to have been the founder
of Conishead Priory in the time of Henry II (fn. 6) ; he gave
it the church of Pennington. (fn. 7) '
[VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[4]]

cf. VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[4]


Children: Benedict
Maldred


1.1 Benedict de Pennington
----------------------------------------

of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland

' B[e]n[e]dict[us] de Penytona ', one of the 30 ' persons by whose
verdict the division of the Fells was made ' between the monks
of Furness priory and William de Lancaster, confirmed by King
Henry II dated at Woodstock, July 1163 [Farrer, Lancashire Pipe
Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary Series IV, pp. 311-4, Charter
No. IX[3]; cites Duchy of Lanc., Royal Charters, Class X, No. 27.]

' Benedictus de Penitona, et Meldredus frater meus ', granted
his lands in Skeldou Moor [ 'mora de Skeldhou' ] to the
monastery of Russyn in the isle of Man [witnessed by Roger,
prior of Furness, Ivo, dean of Coupland, Adam, parson of
Millum, William de Essebi and others - Furness Coucher
II:510-511, no. CCCXVIII[5]]

" B[enedictus] de peni[n]gtu[na] ", granted a charter confirming
the grant of the church of Muncaster and the chapel of St.
Aldeburg to the hospital of St. Mary of Conishead, ' with the
consent of Alan my heir........for the health of my soul, and
of my wife Anneis (Anice) and of all our parents. This gift
was made in the face of the whole chapter of Lancaster ',
dated 1180x1199 and endorsed " benedicti d[e] penigtu[n]."
[Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary Series
XII, pp. 360-1, Charter No. III[3]]

~ the above grant confirmed by King Edward II:
" Concessionem etiam et confirmationem, quas B. de Penigton
fecit hospitali et fratribus ejusdem loci, de ecclesia de
Molecastre, et capella dicta Aldeburge, cum omnibus pertinentiis
suis. ' [confirmation by King Edward II, dated at York,
28 Sept 12 Edw II [1318] - Mon. Angl. VI(1):556, Num. I[2]]


fl. 1185:
' In the 31st Henry II., Benedict de Pennington (of Mulcaster)
occurs.' [Pipe Rolls, p. lxiii[6]]

record dated 33 Hen II [1186-87]:
' De his qui totum reddiderunt.
.....
Benedictus de Peninton r. c. de c. s. pro defalta.
In th'ro v. m. Et debet xxxiij. s. et iiij. d. '
[ " William de Craven, Benedict de Pennington, of Bolton
in Furness, Adam de Blakeburn, Richard de Harwood, and
Robert, Archdeacon of Chester, owed sundry fines for
default;... " - Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls,
pp. 63-64, Roll of 33 Henry II.[3]]


________________________

' Benedict de Pennington and Alan his son and heir occur in
the latter part of the 12th century (fn. 8) ' [VCH Lancaster,
VIII:338-342[4]]


Spouse: Anne (Agnes)
Father: [CONJECTURED] Ranulf de Lindsay
Mother: [CONJECTURED] Uhtreda of Allerdale

Children: Alan
David de Mulcaster


1.1.1 Alan de Pennington
----------------------------------------

of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland

DL 25/367
Letters of ratification of the settlement of a dispute between
Furness Abbey and Alan son of Benedict, referred to the oath
of twelve knights: whether the land of Ulvedale is held by
Alan of the abbot, or by the abbot in demesne (Lancs), dated
1189x1209 [National Archives, Records of the Chancellor and
Council of the Duchy of Lancaster[7]]

had grant of Ravenglass from Richard de Luci, 1208
__________________________________

' Benedict de Pennington and Alan his son and heir occur in
the latter part of the 12th century (fn. 8) ; in 1202 Alan
son of Benedict granted 2 oxgangs of land in Pennington to
Hugh son of Edward.' [VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[4]]

Children: Thomas (-<1248)
Alan


1.1.1.1 Thomas de Pennington
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 10 Dec 1248[5]

of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland

he d. before 10 Dec 1248:
' CCCIV. - Deed of Purchase from the Convent by Agnes, widow
of the late Thomas de Pennington, of the wardship of the
Pennington lands and the right of marriage of her sons by her
late husband.
Omnibus Christi, etc. Agnes, filia D'ni J[ohannis] de
Lungvilers, quondam uxor T[homae] de Peni[n]gton, s. in Domino.
Noveritis me, A.D. M'o CC'o XL'o VIII'o, mense Decembris, die
Jovis prox. praecedente festum S. Luciae, finem fecisse cum
Abbate et Conv. F[urnesii] pro warda t'rae de Peni[n]gton, cum
pert., simul et pro maritagiis mei ipsius et haer. meorum de
praedicto T[homa] de Penigton, quondam d'no meo, et me
procreatis - scil., pro c.li, de quibus prae manibus persolvi
praedictis Abbati et Conv....
Hiis Test: - D'nis J[ohanne] de Lungvilers, patre meo;
Mathaeo de Redmane, tunc Vicec. Lanc.; W[illelmo] Greindorge,
Militibus; J[ohanne] de Cancefelde; etc. ' [Furness Coucher
II:488-9, no. CCCIV[5]]


Spouse: Agnes de Longvillers
Father: Sir John de Longvillers (-<1254)
Mother: NN

Children: Sir Alan (>1233->1277)


1.1.1.1.1 Sir Alan de Pennington
----------------------------------------
Birth: aft 27 Mar 1233[5]
Death: aft 20 Sep 1277[8]

knt., of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland

a minor on succeeding his father
b. after 27 Mar 1233:
record of the following transaction dated 27 Mar 1254:
' CCCIII. - Surrender to the Convent by Thomas de Greystock
and his wife Agnes of the right of marrying the sons and heirs
of the late Thomas de Pennington, whose widow the said Agnes
was, the right specified being hers by purchase from the
Convent.' [Furness Coucher II:487-8, no. CCCIII[5]]


sought 2 parts of the manor of Pennington from his mother
Agnes and her then husband - record of a writ in the
Lancashire Assize Rolls, dated at Westminster, 11 Feb 47
Hen III [1262-3]:
' Justice assigned: Peter de Percy
Plaintiffs: Alan de Penynton
Defendant: Thomas de Creistok and Agnes his wife
Writ and subject: Mort d'Ancestor, 2 parts of the manor of
Penynton. ' [Lancs. Assize Rolls p. 238[9], cites Patent
Roll 47 Hen. III, No. 77, m. 20d.]

' D'no Alano de Penington, Militibus ' [" lord Alan de
Pennington, knight[s] " ], witness {together with Sir
Ranulf Dacre and others] to an agreement settling a dispute
between Furness Abbey and Roger de Lancaster concerning
pasture and other rights in Ulverston, dated at Ulverston,
29 June 1276 [ "in hac forma quievit in vigilia Apostolorum
Petri et Pauli apud Ulverston A'o r. Regis Edwardi
i. quarto.."] [Furness Coucher II:384-5, no. CCXXIV[5]]

record of protection, dated at Worcester, 6 Jul 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Michaelmas [unless
otherwise specified], for the following, going to Wales on
the king's service: -
Alan de Penington, going with Robert de Percy. ' [CPR 5
Edw. I (1272-1281), p. 219, mem. 8[8]]


record of protection, dated at Chester, 20 Sept 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Christmas [unless
otherwise specified], for the following, going to Wales on
the king's service: -
Alan son of Thomas de Penyngton. ' [CPR 5 Edw. I (1272-1281),
p. 222, mem. 8[8]]


record of a quitclaim, dated 1248x1293:
'DL 25/456
Alan son of Thomas de Penyngton to Furness Abbey: Quitclaim of
his villein Alan son of Waldev de Walthwayt: (Lancs) '[7]

identified as father of 'Alicia de Lascy of Crumwelbochyn,
widow, daughter of Alan de Pennington' [A2A, Pennington
papers at the Cumbria RO (D Pen/10/1)[10], courtesy Michael
Andrews-Reading[11]]
______________________________

' The custody of Alan son and heir of Thomas de Pennington was
in dispute in 1250. (fn. 10) The same Alan may still have been
in possession in 1292, when there were disputes between Alan
de Pennington and the Abbot of Furness and the Prior of
Conishead. The abbot, as head of the wapentake of Furness,
had made a distraint at Pennington for puture of a servant
and 'witnessman,' which Alan regarded as illegal, but he was
non-suited. ' [VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[4]]

Children: Alicia
Margaret
Sir William (->1318)


1.1.1.1.1.1 Alicia de Pennington
----------------------------------------

" (undated) Confirmation:
Alan de Pennington, son and heir of the late Thomas de
Pennington, to John de Lascy of Crumbewelbothum:
land in Bridtwisel, demised to Peter de Cestr' for his
life." [A2A, Cumbria RO, DDTO K1/18[10], courtesy Michael
Andrews-Reading[11]]

~ Michael Andrews-Reading noted,
'Perhaps this transaction was concerned with Alice Pennington's
marriage itself. '[11]

her maritagium or inheritance included land in Corney, Cumbs.:
"(Edward I) Charter of Alicia de Lascy of Crumwelbochyn, widow,
daughter of Alan de Pennington: to William de Wayburthwayt, granting
all her land with appurtenances in Wytewra in the territory of Cornay"
[A2A, Pennington papers at the Cumbria RO (D Pen/10/1)[10],
courtesy Michael Andrews-Reading[11]]

re: her husband:


' John de Lasci ', witness to a Grant, dated [13th cent.]:
' By Roger, son of Roger de Tornet, to Richard, son of Richard
de Fekisbi, of land in Staylande at an annual fee farm rent of 10d.
Witnesses John de Elande, Thomas de Morlande, John de
Lasci and others (named). Joperkick and Bradleygate are
mentioned. ' [Publication Note: Yorkshire Archaeological
Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol iii no 391] - A2A, West
Yorkshire Archive Service, Yorkshire Archaeological Society:
Clarke Thornhill of Fixby Collection, Ancient Deeds
[DD12/II/1-2/(m) Parcel 1], DD12/II/1/18(b)[10]

Spouse: John de Lacy
Death: bef 1292[12]
Father: Hugh de Lacy

Children: John de Lacy of Cromwellbothum (->1304)


1.1.1.1.1.2 Margaret de Pennington
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Thomas de Multon, of Egremont [possibly 3rd wife]
Death: 1294[13]
Father: Lambert de Multon (-<1246)
Mother: Amabel de Lucy


1.1.1.1.1.3 Sir William de Pennington
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1318[4]

knt., of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and
Orton, Westmorland


' William de Pennington, son of Alan, next appears.
He obtained a grant of free warren in his demesne lands of
Pennington in 1301, and served in the Scotch wars.
In 1317 a dispute between him and the Abbot of Furness was
tried concerning the services due from the manor.
The abbot had in 1314 at 'Quaildalflat' and the Moor in
Pennington seized a number of William's cattle by way of
distraint, alleging that the due reaping in autumn and
ploughing throughout the year had not been done.
The abbot in 1318 made an agreement about it with Sir
William, but the dispute was renewed, and in 1328 he
formally released the ploughing and reaping to John son
of William de Pennington, John acknowledging that he
held the manor of the abbot and convent by the service
of the tenth part of a knight's fee, doing suit at the
abbot's court at Dalton from three weeks to three weeks
and a rent of 30s. yearly. ' [VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[4]]

Children: John
Maud


1. Institute of Historical Research, "The Later Records
relating to North Westmorland: or the Barony of Appleby,"
'Parishes (East Ward): All Saints', Orton', pp. 195-213,
1932, online available, courtesy British History Online,
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=43513
2. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding
& Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830, Vol. VI,
Pt. 1 - Austin Abbey of Wigmore, in Herefordshire,
pp. 348-356 [Fundationis et Fundatorum Historia], Vol. VI,
Pt. 2 - Priory of Bullington, co. Lincs., pp. 951-954,
URL http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
3. William Farrer, ed., "The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of 31 Henry I.,
A.D. 1130, and of the Reigns of Henry II, Richard I and
King John," Liverpool: Henry Young and Sons, 1902, courtesy
Googlebooks.
4. "A History of the County of Lancaster," ' The parish of
Pennington ', Oxford: published for the Institute of Historical
Research, Oxford Univ. Press, 1914, Vol. VIII,
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=53324
courtesy University of London and History of Parliament Trust.
5. Rev. J. C. Atkinson, M.A., ed., "The Coucher Book of Furness
Abbey, Part II," Remains Historical and Literary connected with
the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Vol. 11
(New Series), Manchester: published for the Chetham Society,
1887, courtesy Googlebooks.
6. "The Pipe-Rolls, or Sheriff's Annual Accounts of the Revenues
of the Crown for the Counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, and
Durham, during the Reigns of Henry II., Richard I., and John,"
Newcastle: T. and J. Hodgson, published for the Society of
Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1847.
7. "National Archives,"
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
8. "Calendar of the Patent Rolls," preserved in the Public Record
Office, Edward I. A.D. 1272-1281, London: for the Public Record
Office.
9. J. W. R. Parker, "A Calendar of the Lancashire Assize Rolls
Preserved in the Public Record Office, London," London: printed
for the Record Society, 1904.
10. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
11. Michael Andrews-Reading, "Pennington and Lacy," 15 June 2006,
cites A2A record transcripts (13th cent.),
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com, email mjcar@btinternet.com.
12. "Some Early Lacys," E. Lacey, Rootsweb World Connect Project
(www. rootsweb.com), extracted 23 Aug 2000,
homepages.rootsweb.com/~elacey/delacy_wbg/.
13. I. J. Sanders, "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and
Descent, 1086-1327," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.


On Apr 28, 8:15 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Friday, 27 April, 2007

Hello All,

An interesting item provided by the Institute of Historical
Research, drawn evidently from the VCH for Cumberland, says in
part,

' The manor of Blennerhasset was given by Alan, Lord of
Allerdale, to his brother-in-law Ranulph de Lindsey, from
whom it passed by inheritance through the families of
Mulcaster, Tilliol, Moresby, and Pickering. The heiress
of the latter sold it in the reign of Henry VIII...' [1]

There exists a lineal descent from Mulcaster (a cadet of
Pennington) through and including the Pickering family, as
stated. If in fact the statement is entirely correct, there
is likely a line of descent as follows (conjectured connection
shown as ????? ):

Maldred of Cumbria = Ealdgyth of
(alleged brother of I Northumbria
Duncan, k of Scots) I (granddaughter of
I Æthelræd II of England
I
I
NN = Gospatric ~ NN
(possibly I E of Northumbria : (not married)
only wife) I d. 1075 :
______________I___ .......:................
I I : : : : :
Waldeve Etheldreda Dolfin Gospatric <siblings
lord of = Duncan II E of Dunbar
Allerdale k of Scots
= Sigrid
__I____________________________________
I I I
Alan Gunnhild = Uhtred Uhtreda = Ranulf
lord of I of ? de Lindesay
Allerdale I Galloway ?
_______________I_______ ?
I I I I ?
Roland Eve <siblings> Anne/Anneis
lord of = Benedict de
Galloway Pennington
______I__________ ___________I_________
I I I I I
Alan <siblings> Alan David
lord of de Pennington de Mulcaster
Galloway lord of Mulcaster I
Muncaster> I
I I
V V
a quo a quo
PENNINGTON MULCASTER

I will follow up on this post with a more detailed
pedigree of the Pennington descent; work is currently under
way concerning the Mulcaster branch.

Should anyone have further information, documentation or
comment on the conjectured Lindesay-Pennington/Mulcaster
relationship, that would be most appreciated.

Cheers,

John *

NOTES

[1] Institute of Historical Research, 'Parishes:
Thursby - Workington', Magna Britannia: volume 4:
Cumberland (1816), pp. 159-75.

URL:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=50694

Note: this is copyright of University of London
and the History of Parliament Trust.

* John P. Ravilious

wjhonson

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av wjhonson » 29 apr 2007 03:40:00

I've started a page on Eve de Clavering here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... umentation

just to try to get straight the various things cited and
interpretations of those. I've only started it, so it's missing quite
a lot.

However in this thread there was a reference to the citation of the
Close Rolls, cited and quoted from
Collectanea Topographica Et Genealogica", Vol VII, London: John Bower
Nichols and Son, 1841.

I've typed out the full quotation in Latin from the above work into my
page linked at the top of this posting. If anyone would like to give
us in English what this Latin states, I will add that translation to
my page.

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress o

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 apr 2007 03:59:05

That would be a modification to what Douglas has. So I imagine he doesn't
believe it or he would have stated it. I'm not sure.

So Marilyn what's your source that Margaret's father was a Walter at all?
And then is there a way to prove that he was *this* particular Walter?

Thanks
Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Weston Family

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 apr 2007 04:00:04

In a message dated 4/28/2007 12:52:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jimpup@aol.com writes:

I am researching the Weston family. I have Elizabeth Weston born abt 1455
in England and died bef 1489 in Slade, Devon, she married William Cole born
abt. 1439 in Slade, Devon. Her father was Richard Weston b. abt 1430.


Tell us what resources you used to get the above names and dates.
Thanks
Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: Who was Robert Whitney , gentleman of Thetford, Norfolk

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 apr 2007 17:19:03

Dear Ian, Michael and Martin,
Many thanks for your responses.
WRG (Whitney Research Group) has apparently obtained Paul C Reed and TAG`s
permission to show his 1994 John Whitney article on their site. Robert Whitney of
Thetford, born at Saffron Walden, Essex to Nicholas wasn`t the father of
Thomas of Westminster, indeed no certain conclusion has been reached regarding his
paternity although the marriage of his son Robert may indicate a close
connection to the Cheshire branch of the family seated at Coole Pilate.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re:Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Si

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 apr 2007 21:04:08

Will Johnson has helpfully posted some documentation on
_www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Eve_de_Clavering#Primary_documenta
tion_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... umentation)

I have ventured to add a translation of the Close Roll record to Will's page.
Hope that is ok, Will?
If I have got the translation right, it seems to show that Eve did indeed
marry Thomas Audley as her first husband, and Thomas de Ufford as her second.
Also that Thomas Audley apparently had a child and heir (not necessarily by
Eve), whose inheritance was in the custody first of Piers Gaveston and then
(by assignment) of Bertrand de Cayllou.
MM

Alan R Grey

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Alan R Grey » 29 apr 2007 22:03:38

wjhonson wrote:
I've started a page on Eve de Clavering here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... umentation

just to try to get straight the various things cited and
interpretations of those. I've only started it, so it's missing quite
a lot.


You might like to add the De Banco plea (Michaelmas Term, 7 Edward III,
1333) discussed in my previous post. Eva vs. Peter de Ty and Richard de
Lyng for the Manor of Burgh in Fleg (Norfolk). She was making the claim
as the daughter of John, brother of Alexander de Claveryng to whom the
manor had been granted in the reign of Edward I, but referred to herself
as "formerly wife of Thomas de Ufford" [CHS, Vol. 11 (1890), p.49].

This claim had nothing whatsoever to do with any of her husbands, so it
is notable that she referenced herself to her second husband, not to
James de Audley (with whom by this stage she had had many children).

Alan R Grey

Gjest

Re: Re: William de la Zouche

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 apr 2007 01:31:42

Forgive me if this is redundant.
Will,

Found the following interesting, although not helpful in answering your question. It appears that William la Zouche of Essex had a son, William who died without heirs.

"Norht. Hugh de Mortimer sued Felicia formerly wife of Philip de Monte Gomery for two parts of the manor of Whelton, by a writ of right, (fn. 3) which John Wake the capital landlord remitted to the King's Court, and he pleaded that one William his ancestor was seised of the tenements in demesne in the time of King Henry the King's father, and from William the right descended to another William as son and heir, and from this William who died s.p. to Jocosa his sister and heir, and from Jocosa to Hugh the plaintiff as son and heir. Felicia denied the seisin of the original ancestor, and appealed to a great assize, and a day is given to the parties at three weeks from Easter. m. 139."
Banco Roll. Michaelmas, 24 E. I. (BHO)

This is 1296 and Felicia is of age and had been married to Philip de Montgomery, therefore born sometime prior to 1276.

Three years later:
"North. A writ superseding a Great Assize which Hugh de Mortimer had arraigned against Felicia formerly wife of Philip de Monte Gomery, respecting two parts of the manor of Whelton, and which Hugh claimed as his inheritance, giving the following pedigree from one William his ancestor, who was seised of it temp. Henry III. (fn. 2)

Pedigree of Hugh de Mortimer
William Temp Hen III
|
William son and heir-------Jocasa sister and heir
|
________________________Hugh de Mortimer,
the plaintiff, son and heir

The King's writ states that Robert Burnel formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells had granted the manor to Philip de Monte Gomery and Felicia his wife, and to the issue of Felicia; and if Felicia should die s. p., to remain to Philip and the issue of his body, and if Philip should die s.p., to revert to the heirs of Robert. Felicia had a daughter Anne, who was under age and in ward to the King; and if the issue of Felicia should fail, the manor would revert to Edward son of Philip Burnel the kinsman and heir of Robert, who was also under age and in ward to the King. The Justices are therefore not to take the assize or proceed in any other manner which might be to the injury of the King's wards whilst they are under age. Dated 11th April, 27 E. I. m. 131." (Plea Rolls for Staffordshire
27 Edward I BHO)

Pat


From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: 2007/04/27 Fri AM 12:01:44 EDT
To: pajunkin@bellsouth.net, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Re: William de la
Zouche

I'd suggest we could shave a year off the end of that.
Hugh, Baron /Mortimer/ , Lord of Richard's Castle d 1304
had a daughter Joan born 24 Nov 1291

So I'd like to think that Hugh himself was born at least in early 1274, making his parents married in 1273 at the latest.

Will



In a message dated 04/24/07 08:30:33 Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@bellsouth.net writes:
Well, Will, I re-read what I wrote and must amend this to say that she married Mortimer sometime AFTER 1267-8 and before 1275, if we assume that the sale of the property was in the lifetime of Nicholas who, because of his refusal to assume the properties his father wanted him to have confused disposition of Whelton properties.
Pat

From: wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: 2007/04/23 Mon PM 11:12:54 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: William de la Zouche

On Apr 23, 7:59 pm, <pajun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In 1275 there was an assize of mort d' ancestor brought by Robert de Mortimer and Jocosa his wife against John son of William la Zusche, touching possessions in Petworth and Ludgershall, Sussex. (Annual Report of the Duty Keeper of Public Records. GBPRO.)
Joyce's first husband, Nicholas de Whelton, by whom she had Felecia, was dead and Joyce/Jocosa had by ca. 1268 married de Mortimer.
[Snipped]

What is the basis of the statement that they married "ca 1268" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson


-------------------------------
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



-------------------------------
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


Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress o

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 30 apr 2007 03:44:02

Dear Will
Thankyou for drawing my attention to this.
I seem to have conflated two women, Margaret and Catherine de Norwich, both
of whom, according to Genealogics have fathers named Sir Walter, for whom
Leo has no dates.
1. Margaret de Norwich, daughter of Sir Walter de Norwich (Treasurer and
Chief Baron of the Exchequer), was the wife of Robert de Ufford, 1st Earl
of Suffolk, 2nd Earl of Ufford born 9 Aug 1298.
2. Catherine Norwich, daughter of Sir Walter Norwich (presumably a
different one), was the wife of Sir William de la Pole.
I have now amended my records accordingly.
Merilyn








-------Original Message-------

From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: 04/29/07 11:27:35
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress of
Norwich,Ufford...

That would be a modification to what Douglas has. So I imagine he doesn't
believe it or he would have stated it. I'm not sure.

So Marilyn what's your source that Margaret's father was a Walter at all?
And then is there a way to prove that he was *this* particular Walter?

Thanks
Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


-------------------------------
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

Gjest

Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress o

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 apr 2007 04:01:02

On Apr 29, 7:42 pm, "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedri...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Dear Will
Thankyou for drawing my attention to this.
I seem to have conflated two women, Margaret and Catherine de Norwich, both
of whom, according to Genealogics have fathers named Sir Walter, for whom
Leo has no dates.
1. Margaret de Norwich, daughter of Sir Walter de Norwich (Treasurer and
Chief Baron of the Exchequer), was the wife of Robert de Ufford, 1st Earl
of Suffolk, 2nd Earl of Ufford born 9 Aug 1298.
2. Catherine Norwich, daughter of Sir Walter Norwich (presumably a
different one), was the wife of Sir William de la Pole.
I have now amended my records accordingly.
Merilyn

The parentage of Katherine, wife of Sir William de la Pole, is
presently unknown. Although she has sometimes been identified in
print as a daughter of Sir Walter de Norwich, Knt., Chief Baron of the
Exchequer, Treasurer of England, I know of no evidence to support this
parentage for Katherine.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress o

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 apr 2007 04:08:53

The parentage of Katherine, wife of Sir William de la Pole, is
presently unknown. Although she has sometimes been identified in
second sources as a daughter of Sir Walter de Norwich, Knt., Chief
Baron of the Exchequer, Treasurer of England, I know of no evidence to
support this parentage for Katherine.

DR

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress o

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 30 apr 2007 05:16:02

Thanks for this Douglas.
Merilyn



-------Original Message-------

From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 04/30/07 12:40:39
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Lady Joan Peche of Dalham Suffolk: Possible ancestress of
Norwich,Ufford...

The parentage of Katherine, wife of Sir William de la Pole, is
presently unknown. Although she has sometimes been identified in
second sources as a daughter of Sir Walter de Norwich, Knt., Chief
Baron of the Exchequer, Treasurer of England, I know of no evidence to
support this parentage for Katherine.

DR



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 apr 2007 05:26:20

Dear Alan ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

A woman in medieval times could employ as her own surname that of her
father's, or use the surname of any husband. She could also use the
surname of a deceased husband, although she was remarried to another
husband. On rare occasions, she could use her mother's maiden name..
Modern genealogists find this flexibility in surnames quite baffling.
In the case of Eve de Clavering, I find that she was known
indifferently throughout her adult life either as Eve de Audley or Eve
de Ufford. Either name would be acceptable by the naming patterns of
the day.

However, if Eve was married at the time of the 1333 pleading which you
found, she would almost certainly have been joined by her husband in
such a pleading. We know that her last husband, Sir James de Audley,
was living in 1332 (Staffordshire subsidy roll - see my earlier
postings). And, he was evidently deceased before 1 March 1333/4, when
the manor of Brucebury (in Kempston), Bedfordshire which he held for
life was regranted by the king to another party. It is not strecthing
the imagination that Sir James de Audley was deceased at the time of
the lawsuit which you found which is dated Michaelmas Term, 1333.
Michaelmas term, 1333 began 6 October 1333 and ended 1 December 1333.
Thus, Sir James de Audley would appear to have died sometime before 1
December 1333.

Having said that, I should point out that Sir James de Audley had
letters issued to him 21 April 1331, to nominate attorneys in England
for two years, he then going on pilgrimage to Santiago in Spain. The
term of two years means he was expecting to be gone for a rather
extended period of time. If he was still living in 1333, he could
well have been out of the country or dead overseas when Eve de
Clavering filed her lawsuit, which in either case would explain why he
failed to join her as her spouse in the lawsuit.

At some point, it appears that the legitimacy of Eve's marriage to Sir
James de Audley was challenged. But I have seen no ervidence of this
in the records until 1342. As noted in a previous post, she presented
to Blythborough, Suffolk as Eve de Audley in 1332. Certainly as late
as 1335 she was called the widow of James de Audley by her own
steward. And, she was not disseised of her interest in some of James
de Audley's property until 1357, which action she protested. As late
as 1368 (the year before her death), she was called Lady Eve de
Audley, when found in a record with her son, James de Audley the
younger. And, at her death in 1369, the king issued a writ for her
inquisition post mortem as "Eve late the wife of James de Audeleye,
the elder."

Having said that, I think it would be good, Alan, if you posted the
exact language of the 1333 pleading. The abstract you have supplied
so far only indicates that she was called Eve in the suit, without a
reference to any surname. If she was suing regarding property she
held in dower from her former marriage, it would be acceptable for her
to use the surname of that husband when suing another party, even if
she was remarried to another husband. In this instance, she was suing
regarding property which was part of her father's estate. Normally
she would have used the surname of her last or current husband in such
a pleading, or her father's surname. My impression, however, is that
Eve de Clavering was not in any sense your garden variety medieval
wife.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Alan R Grey wrote:

< You might like to add the De Banco plea (Michaelmas Term, 7 Edward
III,
< 1333) discussed in my previous post. Eva vs. Peter de Ty and
Richard de
< Lyng for the Manor of Burgh in Fleg (Norfolk). She was making the
claim
< as the daughter of John, brother of Alexander de Claveryng to whom
the
< manor had been granted in the reign of Edward I, but referred to
herself
< as "formerly wife of Thomas de Ufford" [CHS, Vol. 11 (1890), p.49].
<
< This claim had nothing whatsoever to do with any of her husbands, so
it
< is notable that she referenced herself to her second husband, not
to
< James de Audley (with whom by this stage she had had many children).
<
< Alan R Grey

Alan R Grey

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir J

Legg inn av Alan R Grey » 30 apr 2007 07:10:04

Dear Douglas

Thank you for clarifying the issue of marriage somewhat. Such
flexibility is curious to modern eyes, and in her case, the use of a
previous husband's name comes across (to me) as a slight on the present
husband. Of course, if the husband was deceased then the slight was
less obvious (except, perhaps, to the children!).

Below is further information taking your post as a basis.

deletion

However, if Eve was married at the time of the 1333 pleading which you
found, she would almost certainly have been joined by her husband in
such a pleading. We know that her last husband, Sir James de Audley,
was living in 1332 (Staffordshire subsidy roll - see my earlier
postings). And, he was evidently deceased before 1 March 1333/4, when
the manor of Brucebury (in Kempston), Bedfordshire which he held for
life was regranted by the king to another party. It is not strecthing
the imagination that Sir James de Audley was deceased at the time of
the lawsuit which you found which is dated Michaelmas Term, 1333.
Michaelmas term, 1333 began 6 October 1333 and ended 1 December 1333.
Thus, Sir James de Audley would appear to have died sometime before 1
December 1333.


It is conceivable that this can be narrowed down further. It appears
that he was alive around 29 September 1333, when the king granted
protection until the following Easter to James's brother Hugh Daudele
for "going on pilgrimage beyond the seas" [CPR 7 Edw III, m.21, p.467].
Hugh had letters nominating James Daudele and John de Sancto Paulo,
clerk, as his attornies until his return. I am supposing (i) that the
attorney James was the James de Audley of this thread, and (ii) that
James was not yet dead (or at least that Hugh thought he was still
alive). If correct, then that places James's death sometime between 29
September 1333 and 1 March 1334 (1333/4), and possibly before 1 December
1333 (as above).



deletion

At some point, it appears that the legitimacy of Eve's marriage to Sir
James de Audley was challenged. But I have seen no ervidence of this
in the records until 1342. As noted in a previous post, she presented
to Blythborough, Suffolk as Eve de Audley in 1332. Certainly as late
as 1335 she was called the widow of James de Audley by her own
steward. And, she was not disseised of her interest in some of James
de Audley's property until 1357, which action she protested. As late
as 1368 (the year before her death), she was called Lady Eve de
Audley, when found in a record with her son, James de Audley the
younger. And, at her death in 1369, the king issued a writ for her
inquisition post mortem as "Eve late the wife of James de Audeleye,
the elder."


That the IPM was issued by the king to her as the widow of James seems
to suggest that whatever question over the legitimacy of her
relationship to James de Audley had been clarified. She was not said to
be the widow of her first, second or last marriage, but was said to be
the widow of James. It could be politics, though, I suppose.


Having said that, I think it would be good, Alan, if you posted the
exact language of the 1333 pleading. The abstract you have supplied
so far only indicates that she was called Eve in the suit, without a
reference to any surname.

The plea reads as follows:

"Norf[olk]. Eva, formerly wife of Thomas de Ufford, sued Peter de Ty,
Chivaler and Magister, Richard de Lyng, Parson of the Church of St.
Margaret of Burgh, for the Manor of Burgh in Fleg, which Henry de
Claveryng, and John Walran, Parson of the Church of Lyng, had given to
Alexander de Claveryug and Joan his wife, and the heirs of their bodies,
and in default of such heirs, then to the said Alexander and his heirs,
and by virtue of which grant the said Alexander and Joan were seised of
the manor as of fee, etc., in the reign of Edward I., and from them, as
they died s.p., the right passed to her, as cousin and heir, viz., as
daughter of John, the brother of the said Alexander. The defendants
denied that the said Henry and John had granted the manor to the said
Alexander and Joan as stated above, because it had been granted to them
and to their heirs for ever, and they appealed to a jury, which is to be
summoned for the Quindene of Hillary. m. 52."

In my last post I think I was technically incorrect in saying that Eve
referred to herself as the former wife of Thomas de Ufford in this
plea. I suppose that in reality it might have been the recording clerk
that described her thus. Whether he did so at her instigation or made
the reference himself is open to interpretation.


My impression, however, is that Eve de Clavering was not in any sense your garden variety medieval wife.


So it would seem!

What is not clear to me is why, if James was married and had legitimate
offspring, his brother Hugh was described as his nearest heir. This
seems to indicate that the question over the marriage of James and Eva
was coincident with James's death.

For example, on 1 August 1334, Hugh, son of Hugh de Audelegh, was
claiming land in Alsacher, "as heir of his brother James, son of Hugh de
Audelegh" [CHS Vol. 16, p.5]. Then, during the Trinity Term, 8 Edward
III (1334), an assize was held to, inter alia, make recognition if Hugh
de Audelegh, the brother of James son of Hugh de Audelegh, was James's
nearest heir [CHS Vol. 11, p.54]. Hugh (the younger) was then clearly
occupying lands in Alsacher on the basis of being his brother's nearest
heir, and he appeared before the court (and so obviously felt that he
could defend his position). If some other arrangement had been made,
for example, if the land had been granted to James for life, and then
reverted to Hugh as a younger brother (for whatever reason), then I
would have thought the case would describe Hugh's possession in terms
other than "nearest heir" (because Hugh would be claiming under other
terms). Presumably his claim as heir upheld, for by Easter 16 Edw III
(1342) Hugh de Audele, Earl of Gloucester, was still described as "the
brother and heir of James de Audele" [CHS Vol. 12, p.9].


Regards

Alan R Grey

Brad Verity

Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicid

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 30 apr 2007 15:56:54

From: mjcar@btinternet.com

I just wanted to thank you for your continued posts on the descendants
of Edward III, and for your detailed Aske post in particular. They
are very soundly researched, well-written, and extremely interesting;
I have enjoyed them immensely.

Thank you, Michael. I was out-of-town over the weekend, but am now home so
hope to have more Yorkshire/Joan Beaufort posts soon.

Cheers, --------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Download Messenger. Join the i’m Initiative. Help make a difference today.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?s ... AGHM_APR07

Gjest

Re: CP Addition: Elizabeth de Tiliol, wife of Anthony, Lord

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 mai 2007 15:49:01

John,
Could you identify Joan de Greystoke? Harrison's History of Yorkshire has the follwwing:
"1322 William de Vipont, Lord of Alston, etc., who, with Peter Tilliott and others were defendants in a plea at the suit of Henry son of Hugh de Ravensworth for forcibly entering plaintiff's house at Dent in Richmondshire..." Is this the same as your Peter Tilliol? And one further question, if I may, could this Lucy family be related to the Richard de Lucy who married Ada, co-heiress of Hugh de Morville of Burgh.
Thank you for posting this information.
Pat
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
Date: 2007/04/30 Mon PM 10:11:27 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: CP Addition: Elizabeth de Tiliol, wife of Anthony, Lord Lucy (d. 1343)

Monday, 30 April, 2007


Hello All,

The account in Complete Peerage concerning Anthony de Lucy, Lord
Lucy (d. bef 10 June 1343) identifies his wife only as Elizabeth.

No direct evidence as to her identity has been found to date,
but two secondary sources identify her as Elizabeth de Tiliol (or
Tilliolf), daughter of Sir Robert de Tiliol of Scaleby, Cumberland,
and his wife Maud de Lasceles (widow of Sir William de Hilton of
Swine and Winestead, co. Yorks.):

1. In a pedigree of the Tilliol family, Rev. James Wilson
shows one daughter of Sir Robert de Tilliol and his wife
Maud as ' Elizabeth wife of Anthony de Lucy ' [1].

2. In 1671, Sir Daniel Fleming of Rydal wrote concerning
the "Tylliolf" lords of Scaleby: ' Geoffrey had issue Robert
Tylliolf who died 18 Ed. 2nd, he purchased the third part
of Levington, and had issue Peter or Piers and a daughter
Elizabeth wife of Anthony Lucy' [2].

We certainly find Sir Peter de Tiliol and Sir Anthony de Lucy
closely associated, including letters of protection granted on
8 June 1322 at Haddlesey for ' Andrew de Hartcla, earl of Carlisle,
staying in the Marches of Scotland on the king's service ' as well
as for those individuals (including John de Haverington, Anthony de
Lucy, Ralph de Nevill, Ranulf de Dacre, Peter de Tilliolf and
others) ' staying in his company ' [3].

Elizabeth de Tiliol was evidently named for her maternal
grandmother, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William fitz Ralph, of
Grimthorpe and Hildreskelf, co. York (d. aft June 1269) and his
wife Joan de Greystoke. This identification provides some modest
increase in the known ancestry of the Tilliols, as well as the
Lords Lucy (incl. the later Lords Lucy of the Melton family) and
their descendants of the Pierrepont, Lowe and other families.

I will post a limited AT for Elizabeth de Tiliol in a
subsequent post. Should anyone have any further relevant
documentation, comment or criticism, that would be most
welcome.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] Rev. James Wilson, Some Extinct Cumberland Families: The
Tilliols. The Ancestor: A Quarterly Review of County and
Family History, Heraldry and Antiquities (London: Archibald
Constable & Co. Ltd., Jan. 1903), Num. IV, p. 100.

[2] Sir G. F. Duckett, Bart., ed., Description of the County of
Westmoreland, by Sir Daniel Fleming of Rydal, A.D. 1671
(London: Bernard Quaritch; Kendal: T. Wilson, 1882), p. 154.

[3] CPR 16 Edw. II, p. 130, mem. 9.


* John P. Ravilious


-------------------------------
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

WJhonson

Re: Descents From Edward III For Mary Appleby & Margaret App

Legg inn av WJhonson » 01 mai 2007 23:59:19

For the name of Helen Gascoigne's mother Anne Symonds, her surname may be Symeon, daughter of John Symeon of Baldwin's Brightwell d 1618/9 by his wife Anne Mollins dau of Anthony Mollins of Chilworth

Will



In a message dated 05/01/07 15:40:37 Pacific Standard Time, royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
On May 1, 2:33 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

In particular on your post, I note a curious thing.
Although there is an Ambrose Appleby bap 1 Oct 1587 at Romaldkirk who
*could* be your attorney, there are also a number of children starting
22 Nov 1601 which seems a bit young unless Ambrose was particularly
precocious. These baptisms with father Ambrose go 1601, 1603, 1605,
1607, 1611
and then your two in 1619, 1622

Possibly we are seeing two different men at Romaldkirk both named
Ambrose Appleby. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Dear Will,

The Applebys came from Romaldkirk, so there must have been several
branches. The 1665 Visitation pedigree of the family starts with
Ambrose Appleby (d. 1649), the attorney, and his wife Mary Crompe, and
gives them only two children, Thomas and Francis.

I don't have information on any other branches, unfortunately.

Thanks, also, for pointing out another 12-year-old mother. This time
Helen Gascoigne (b. 1639) as mother of Mary Appleby (b. 1651). Since
Mary's birthyear was taken from the Visitation pedigree, and Helen's
from a website 'Descendants of Edward III: Ruvigny Plus', it is
definitely Helen's birthyear that is not correct.

Cheers, ------Brad


-------------------------------
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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»