Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 2

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Brad Verity

Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 2

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 27 aug 2004 17:12:46

jimweber@nwintl.com (Jim Weber) wrote (on 12-02-2003) in message news:

FWIW,

Faris' Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd Edition, p. 382, states that Joan's
father (John de la Pole) died "shortly before 20 Aug 1367", which
would more or less require her to be born in or before 1368.

[snip]
It
is unclear which of the indicated sources were used for the two
conflicting pieces of information. Nigel Saul's date of 1380 for John
de la Pole's death might solve the conflict.

I replied (on 12-07-2003):

I don't know what Faris's source was for John de la Pole's death as
"shortly before 20 Aug. 1367".

Unfortunately, the volume of the Calendar of Fine Rolls covering the
year 1380 was not on the shelf at the UCLA Library, so I could not see
if there was a writ of diem clausit extremum issued for Sir John de la
Pole that year.

**********

I was able to take a look at the relevant Fine Rolls volume while at
the National Archives. Nigel Saul was correct in placing the death of
Sir John de la Pole of Crishall, husband of Joan de Cobham, in 1380.

On 9 March 1380, writs of diem clausit extremum were issued to the
escheators of Northampton and Rutland regarding "John de la Pole,
knight", and to the escheators of Essex, Oxford, Huntingdon, Bedford,
Norfolk and Suffolk regarding "John de la Pole, 'chivaler'".

These counties match to the lands that were inherited by Joan, Lady
Cobham, only daughter and heiress of Sir John de la Pole.

I don't know if the writs resulted in any IPMs that survive, which
would give us a clearer date of death for John de la Pole and a better
estimate of the birthdate of Joan (de la Pole), Lady Cobham, but I
still believe 1370 is a fairly good estimate for her birth.

As for the John de la Pole who died in 1367 - he may have been a
relative, but he definitely was not the husband of Joan de Cobham.

Cheers, ----Brad

Brad Verity

Re: Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 2

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 28 aug 2004 05:24:35

batruth@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:

I don't know if the writs resulted in any IPMs that survive, which
would give us a clearer date of death for John de la Pole and a better
estimate of the birthdate of Joan (de la Pole), Lady Cobham, but I
still believe 1370 is a fairly good estimate for her birth.

Rosie Bevan was kind enough to forward me the IPMs for Sir John de la
Pole:

John de la Pole , knight
256. NORTHAMPTON. Inq taken at Northampton, Saturday before Palm
Sunday, 3
Richard II.
He held no lands etc. in the county, because 7 years and more ago he
demised
in fee all his manors and lands etc to John Moubray, knight, Robert
Charwelton, John batayle and others.
He died on Sunday in Mid-Lent last. William de la Pole, his son, aged
5
years and more, is his heir."
[CIPM XV, no. 256]

"John de la Pole, knight
Commission in the form of a writ of Mandamus to Edmund Bardolf, clerk,
Robert Bardolf and the escheator in co. Oxford. The commissioners are
also
to enquire whether any enfeoffments have been made fraudulently in
order to
exclude the king from any custody of lands which ought to pertain to
him on
account of the death of the said John and by reason of the minority of
his
heir; as the king is given to understand that divers men of those
parts have
in times past defrauded him of such custody and other rights, and are
still
striving to do so. 28 June, 4 Richard II.
406. OXFORD. Inq taken at Boreford, Tuesday before St. margaret, 4
Richard
II, before Robert Bardolf and the escheator.
He held no lands, rents or services in the county on the day of his
death;
but on Sunday the feast of the Assumption, 46 Edward III, he gave the
under-mentioned manors to John Moubray, knight, William Ermys, clerk,
John
Battaill, William Lyndeslegh, Robert Antany, Martin Cranesham, John
atte
More, and Peter Knesworth, chaplain, in fee simple, and the said
feoffees
have taken the issues and profits thereof ever since. The said
feoffments
were made bona fide, and not by collusion or fraud in order to exclude
the
king from any services.
Westhall and Fulbrok. The manors, held of the king, as of the honor of
St
Valery; by service of rendering to the bailiff of the said honour 2s.
yearly
rent and 6s. yearly of hidage, and by service of doing suit to the
court of
the said honor of Northosneye every three weeks, and by homage and
fealty.
He died on 3 March, 3 Richard II. William his son, aged 7 years on 20
July
next, is his heir."
[CIPM XV, no.406]

So we know he died on 3 (or 4th, which was a Sunday) March 1380, and
that he had a son, William de la Pole, born on 20 July 1374, who must
have died before 1388, when his sister Joan de la Pole, then married
to her first husband, Sir Robert Hemenhale, of Polstead, Norfolk, was
in possession of the de la Pole lands.

Nigel Saul says young William de la Pole died prematurely in 1380, but
doesn't provide a source. The IPM above has him alive on Tuesday
before St. Margaret, 4 Richard II (1381).

Cheers, --------Brad

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»