Clifford of Mapledurham?

[Tony Ingham]

Mr. Gurney asserts that Maud, widow of Hugh de Gournay married Roger de
Clifford and offers the following.

The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney. p.220. (1843)
In the same year as this deed was made 22 Hen. III. 1238, Hugh de
Gurnay, the last male of the family, lords of Mapledurham-Gurnay, was
deceased, leaving and only daughter and his wife, Matilda de Gurnay,
surviving ; upon which occurrence William de Cantilupe, junior, gave
five hundred marks as a fine for having the custody of the lands and
wardship of his said daughter and heir, and also of the child unborn
wherewith Maud, his widow, did then travail.
In the following year the King by writ with his own teste at Windsor
27th Aug. 1239, commanded the Sheriff of Oxfordshire to respite the
demand of 230£. half a mark, and of two casks of wine, which under a
summons from the royal Exchequer he sought to recover from the manor of
Mapledurham, of which Matilda, the relict of Hugh de Gurnay, was a
tenant in dower, of the debts which the same Hugh owed to the King,
until fifteen days from the feast of St. Michael, in order that it might
then be discussed before the Barons of the Exchequer, whether it ought
to answer thereof or not. The wife of William de Cantilupe, junior, was
sister of the deceased Hugh de Gurnay, and relict of Aumary Comte of
Evreux in Normandy, and Earl of Gloucester in England ; and from such
connection he readily obtained the wardship of his wife's niece, who, it
is probable, was quite an infant, scarcely a year old, when this
succession vested. Prior to 38 Hen. III. 1254, this heiress was the
wife of William Bardulf, junior, and the above debt of her father
continued still unliquitated, as appears from this entry upon the Fine
Rolls of that year : Rex respectum dedit Willelmo Bardulf juniori et
Juliane uxori ejus de ccxxiii libris et duobus doliis vini que ab eis
exigunter per summonitionem scaccarii usque sd festum Sancti Johannis
Baptiste proximo futurum. Et mandatum est Baronibus de Scaccario quod
predictum respectum eis habere facias. Testibus, A. Regina et R. Com.
Cornubie apud Windlesorum xiii die Februarii. During her tenancy of
the manor of Mapledurham-Gurnay as her dower, Matilda de Gurnay obtained
the wardship of land of the heir of Roger de Kingston, who had held in
Kingston, com. Berks, one fief of the Honour of Dudley belonging to
Roger de Someri, and she took to her second husband Roger de Clifford,
of Bridge Sollers, com. Heref.

The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney. p.221.
* In the Rotuli Hundredorum we have the Inquests made before the
justices itinerent in the county of Oxford, 39 Hen. III. 1255, of the
rights and liberties, and other matters appertaining to the King ; where
under Hundredum de Langden we have these names among twelve knights and
others jurors of the Hundred aforesaid : Sir Robert de Mapeldurham,
William Morin, William de Beche, John de la Hulle de Whitchurche, and
Ralph Druval ; and in the finding, respecting such as did not come in
obedience to the precept, among them were Geoffrey de Chanse, John de
Trethorn, Geoffrey de Codray, the prior of Okeburn, Alan Basset, and
William de Huntercombe ; also the Earl of Oxford and Ralph Fitz-Nicholas
did not come. The said twelve knights and others jurors reported that
Geoffrey de Chanse held in capite of the lord of the honour of
Wallingford three hides of land with the appurtenances in Mapledurham
parva by the service of half a knight's fee, and which were worth
annually 10£., and they do suit at the court of the honour of
Wallingford. They also note the tenure of Geoffrey de Bodre of two
carucates of land in Gatehampton, of Henry Dravel in Garinges, of
William de Huntercombe in Newenham, and of Alan Basset in Yppesden, of
the same honour
The verdict of the hundred of Benefeld, inclusive of William de
Juvene of Caversham and Thomas de Englefield among the jurors, was to
this effect ; "they say that Mapeldurham is of the fief of Gorney, and
does suit to the hundred court ; and they say, that four years ago
malefactors came into the park of Mapledurham, who after hue and cry
fled, so that no one knew where they went, nevertheless suspicion fell
upon a certain individual, named Nicholas de Mongewell, who gave to Sir
Roger de Clifford, who is lord of the vill and the park, a falcon to
have his peace." The jurors of the hundred of Langtre also reported
that John de Can.la, the liegeman of Nicholas de Mangevelle, and
Nicholas chaplain of Mungewell, entered the park of Roger de Clifford in
Mapeldurham without his license, wherefor Nicholas de Mungewell made
fine of 20 s. to the said Roger for his man. From these entries we have
ample proof that Matildis, the widow of the last Hugh de Gornay,
remarried this Roger de Clifford, who was lord not only of Mapeldurham
in her right, but also of Kingston, com. Berks, a manor in her custody
during the minority of the heir.
In other extracts of Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I. 1276, the jurors of the
hundred of Benfield report that the Earl of Cornwall, has view of
frank-pledge at Benfield, Lachebroke, and Mapuldurham, which view
customarily belonged to the manor of Bessington; and in reply to the
inquiry as to such as had newly appropriated to themselves free chace or
warren, they answer that William Bardolf has warren in Mapledurham, but
they know not by what warranty or from what time.


Supplement to The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney. (1858)
Tony Ingham

[Volucris]

I did some Google search on this newsgroep. It seems that some answers
were already there. I would like to refer to the following message
strings. The information below and more can be found in the following
URL's. There will probably more but one has to stop somewere as a
catalyst. Happy reading:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 00694bb250

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 01cd1444a1

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... edc4649e5c

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... c3dd47f5e0

The marriage between Roger II de Clifford and Mathilde (Maud) widow of
Hugh de Gournay can be pinpointed between after ... 1241 and
before ... 1242.

His widow, Maud, married (2nd) after 1241 (as his lst wife) ROGER DE CLIFFORD,
Knt. (died 1286), of Tenbury and Severn Stoke, co. Worcester. She was
living in 1255, but dead prior to 1272.

an abstract of a lawsuit which provides concrete evidence to
prove the given name of Roger de Clifford's wife, Maud. The abstract
of this lawsuit is found in Curia Regis Rolls, vol. 18 (1999), pp. 79,
217, a copy of which reads as follows:
Trinity Term, 27 Henry III (1242). 418. Northampton.
Rogerus de Clifford' et Matillis uxor ejus per attornatum ipsius
Matillidis per breve domini regis nunc optulerunt se quarto die versus
Cristianam Ledet de placito averiorum Rogeri et Matillidis captorum et
injuste detentorum etc.; et Cristiana non venit etc., et habuit diem
per essoniatorem suum ad hunc diem. Judicium. Attachietur quod sit
in octabis sancti Michaelis, quia alium diem etc.

This last quote comes from a post of Douglas Richardson from 2002.

From John P. Ravilious (2003) comes the following clue with regards to
the ancestry of Maud:

Two strong possibilities:
1. Maud was the daughter of Gerard de Furnival, and was not her
father's heir due to Christian having produced a son.
2. Maud was a daughter of Sir Henry de Braibroc (whether by Christian
or not). This at least would explain (with no details to date)
the property dispute occurring in Northants.

With regards to the marriage year 1269 for Roger III de Clifford that
can be seen quoted many times, Will Jhonson (2008) informed me that
there is yet no factual basis for this assumption. From him too comes
the wisdom that Robert de Clifford was indeed born in 1274 (if you
forget the day and month) because somewhere in 1283 Robert is named as
being 9 years old.

So we can draw the following resume:

Roger II de Clifford (in c 1230 eldest son of sir Roger I)
+ after 26-10-1284 (testament) Lord of Mapledurham 1254
x (1) c 1241/1242
Maud N. (widow of Hugh de Gournay) ,held the tenancy of
the manor of Mapledurham-Gurnay as her dower,
+ before 1272
x (2) < 1272/3 N. countess of Loret
+ 1301

son (ex 1)
Roger III de Clifford + 6-11-1282 drowned
x Isabel de Vipont, lady of Appleby,
dr. of Robert II de Vipont & Isabel Fitz John,
c 1254 - + 14-5-1292

Robert de Clifford
born 1274
died 24-6-1314 Lord Appleby
x 1295
Maud de Clare,
dr. of Thomas
born c 1279
died 1324/25

With thanks to Douglas, John, Will and Tony,
Hans Vogels

On 20 feb, 08:09, Tony Ingham <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Gurney asserts that Maud, widow of Hugh de Gournay married Roger de
Clifford and offers the following.
[snip]

[wjhonson]

On Feb 19, 11:09 pm, Tony Ingham <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Gurney asserts that Maud, widow of Hugh de Gournay married Roger de
Clifford and offers the following.

The record of the house of Gournay.  By Daniel Gurney.  p.220.  (1843)
   The verdict of the hundred of Benefeld, inclusive of William de
Juvene of Caversham and Thomas de Englefield among the jurors, was to
this effect ; "they say that Mapeldurham is of the fief of Gorney, and
does suit to the hundred court ; and they say, that four years ago
malefactors came into the park of Mapledurham, who after hue and cry
fled, so that no one knew where they went, nevertheless suspicion fell
upon a certain individual, named Nicholas de Mongewell, who gave to Sir
Roger de Clifford, who is lord of the vill and the park, a falcon to
have his peace."  The jurors of the hundred of Langtre also reported
that John de Can.la, the liegeman of Nicholas de Mangevelle, and
Nicholas chaplain of Mungewell, entered the park of Roger de Clifford in
Mapeldurham without his license, wherefor Nicholas de Mungewell made
fine of 20 s. to the said Roger for his man.  From these entries we have
ample proof that Matildis, the widow of the last Hugh de Gornay,
remarried this Roger de Clifford, who was lord not only of Mapeldurham
in her right, but also of Kingston, com. Berks, a manor in her custody
during the minority of the heir.

Supplement to The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney.  (1858)
Tony Ingham

Thanks Tony for this.
I think this is quite possibly the same underlying document from where
we get that Roger de Clifford was made Lord of Mapledurham *in* 1255.
Obviously this should be only that he was Lord in 1255, not that he
was made Lord that year.

I find the reasoning however to be a bit bizarre. First the author
points out quite clearly that Maud was pregnant. Then he blithely
ignores that and presumes that since he knows that Maud held
Mapledurham in dower, then it must be that she married Roger de
Clifford, since he was said to be lord of that Manor in 1255.

That's a bit of a leap, imho.
I'm still not comfortable with the concept that Roger would marry a
woman who was *at least* 13 and at most 30 years older than himself,
rather than the more palatable idea, that he married the child she was
pregnant by, and that's how he came to be lord of mapledurham in 1255.

If he did in fact marry the widow, instead of her infant, then we have
the additional issue, that Roger's heir needs to be born to a rather
aged crone, at the very least 44 years old, and at the most 65 which
of course is impossible.

Perhaps I'm building my own house of cards here, but it still doesn't
look tidy.

Will Johnson

[Volucris]

Will,

Previous contributions and discussions (1999, 2003 and 2004) from
Mardi Carter, Paul, Cristopher Nash, Chris, John P. Ravilious, Douglas
Richardson, Tim Powys-Lybbe and others bring to our attention to the
following:

Hugh de Gournay, lord of Mapledurham,
dead before 23-7-1238,
was previously thought to be married 3 times (mix-up between 2
generations)
x (1) before ... 1222
Lucy N.
niece [neptis] of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
born 1200/1206
died 18 Jan. 1234
widow (married 1218) of Robert de Berkely (died 13 May 1220), is is
also being mentioned as daughter of Robert de Berkely
x (2) (c 1234/35 HV)
Mathilde (Maud) N.
dead before c 1272,
held manor of Mapledurham in dower (1239)
widow (x 2) 1241/42 Roger II Clifford,

two children:
1. Juliana de Gournay
(minor heiress 1238 of her father)
(born c 1236, HV)
dead before 29 Nov 1295
x before ... 1255
William Bardolf
died 1 Dec 1289
Baron of Wormegay

Children:
a. Hugh Bardolf (c 1259-<1304)
b. Roger Bardolf (-<1305)
c. John Bardolf (-?1331)
d. William Bardolf

2. N.N. de Gournay
unborn child 23-7-1238,
born 1238/39, nothing further known.

The result of the past discussion was that Juliana de Gournay became
regarded as the daughter of Hugh's second marriage. As her first
married state dates from a mentioning in 1255 this seems not
unreasonable. Hugh's first wife died early 1234. He probably would
have remarried 1234/35.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... f18ab2c999

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 70a8704970

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d+clifford

With regards,
Hans Vogels

On 20 feb, 01:27, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 19, 11:09 pm, Tony Ingham <[email protected]> wrote:





Mr. Gurney asserts that Maud, widow of Hugh de Gournay married Roger de
Clifford and offers the following.

The record of the house of Gournay.  By Daniel Gurney.  p.220.  (1843)
   The verdict of the hundred of Benefeld, inclusive of William de
Juvene of Caversham and Thomas de Englefield among the jurors, was to
this effect ; "they say that Mapeldurham is of the fief of Gorney, and
does suit to the hundred court ; and they say, that four years ago
malefactors came into the park of Mapledurham, who after hue and cry
fled, so that no one knew where they went, nevertheless suspicion fell
upon a certain individual, named Nicholas de Mongewell, who gave to Sir
Roger de Clifford, who is lord of the vill and the park, a falcon to
have his peace."  The jurors of the hundred of Langtre also reported
that John de Can.la, the liegeman of Nicholas de Mangevelle, and
Nicholas chaplain of Mungewell, entered the park of Roger de Clifford in
Mapeldurham without his license, wherefor Nicholas de Mungewell made
fine of 20 s. to the said Roger for his man.  From these entries we have
ample proof that Matildis, the widow of the last Hugh de Gornay,
remarried this Roger de Clifford, who was lord not only of Mapeldurham
in her right, but also of Kingston, com. Berks, a manor in her custody
during the minority of the heir.

Supplement to The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney.  (1858)
Tony Ingham

Thanks Tony for this.
I think this is quite possibly the same underlying document from where
we get that Roger de Clifford was made Lord of Mapledurham *in* 1255.
Obviously this should be only that he was Lord in 1255, not that he
was made Lord that year.

I find the reasoning however to be a bit bizarre.  First the author
points out quite clearly that Maud was pregnant.  Then he blithely
ignores that and presumes that since he knows that Maud held
Mapledurham in dower, then it must be that she married Roger de
Clifford, since he was said to be lord of that Manor in 1255.

That's a bit of a leap, imho.
I'm still not comfortable with the concept that Roger would marry a
woman who was *at least* 13 and at most 30 years older than himself,
rather than the more palatable idea, that he married the child she was
pregnant by, and that's how he came to be lord of mapledurham in 1255.

If he did in fact marry the widow, instead of her infant, then we have
the additional issue, that Roger's heir needs to be born to a rather
aged crone, at the very least 44 years old, and at the most 65 which
of course is impossible.

Perhaps I'm building my own house of cards here, but it still doesn't
look tidy.

Will Johnson- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

[Volucris]

Will,

On 20 feb, 21:55, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]

two children:
1. Juliana de Gournay
(minor heiress 1238 of her father)
(born c 1236, HV)
dead before 29 Nov 1295
x before ... 1255
William Bardolf
died 1 Dec 1289
Baron of Wormegay

Juliana was already married before ... 1254. See the initial post of
Tony Ingham in this string.

Prior to 38 Hen. III. 1254, this heiress was the
wife of William Bardulf, junior, and the above debt of her father
continued still unliquitated, as appears from this entry upon the Fine
Rolls of that year : Rex respectum dedit Willelmo Bardulf juniori et
Juliane uxori ejus de ccxxiii libris et duobus doliis vini que ab eis
exigunter per summonitionem scaccarii usque sd festum Sancti Johannis
Baptiste proximo futurum. Et mandatum est Baronibus de Scaccario quod
predictum respectum eis habere facias. Testibus, A. Regina et R. Com.
Cornubie apud Windlesorum xiii die Februarii.
[snip]

The birthdate of mother Mathilde (Maud) and her parents are still
unknown. As her daughter Juliana de Gourney was born c 1236 we may
assume that Mathilde was at least born around c 1220 to be of
procreative age in the mid thirties. Roger Clifford II, second husband
of Mathilde, must have of the same age as she or slightly elder. His
parents, Roger I de Clifford and Sibyl de Ewyas, are first mentioned
as being married on 13 Feb 1217. Sibyl's first husband was dead
somewhere in of shortly before 1215. When in 1241/42 Roger II de
Clifford and Mathilde married they would and could still have been in
their twenties.

Hans Vogels

On 20 feb, 01:27, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 19, 11:09 pm, Tony Ingham <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Gurney asserts that Maud, widow of Hugh de Gournay married Roger de
Clifford and offers the following.

The record of the house of Gournay.  By Daniel Gurney.  p.220.  (1843)
   The verdict of the hundred of Benefeld, inclusive of William de
Juvene of Caversham and Thomas de Englefield among the jurors, was to
this effect ; "they say that Mapeldurham is of the fief of Gorney, and
does suit to the hundred court ; and they say, that four years ago
malefactors came into the park of Mapledurham, who after hue and cry
fled, so that no one knew where they went, nevertheless suspicion fell
upon a certain individual, named Nicholas de Mongewell, who gave to Sir
Roger de Clifford, who is lord of the vill and the park, a falcon to
have his peace."  The jurors of the hundred of Langtre also reported
that John de Can.la, the liegeman of Nicholas de Mangevelle, and
Nicholas chaplain of Mungewell, entered the park of Roger de Clifford in
Mapeldurham without his license, wherefor Nicholas de Mungewell made
fine of 20 s. to the said Roger for his man.  From these entries we have
ample proof that Matildis, the widow of the last Hugh de Gornay,
remarried this Roger de Clifford, who was lord not only of Mapeldurham
in her right, but also of Kingston, com. Berks, a manor in her custody
during the minority of the heir.

Supplement to The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney.  (1858)
Tony Ingham

Thanks Tony for this.
I think this is quite possibly the same underlying document from where
we get that Roger de Clifford was made Lord of Mapledurham *in* 1255.
Obviously this should be only that he was Lord in 1255, not that he
was made Lord that year.

I find the reasoning however to be a bit bizarre.  First the author
points out quite clearly that Maud was pregnant.  Then he blithely
ignores that and presumes that since he knows that Maud held
Mapledurham in dower, then it must be that she married Roger de
Clifford, since he was said to be lord of that Manor in 1255.

That's a bit of a leap, imho.
I'm still not comfortable with the concept that Roger would marry a
woman who was *at least* 13 and at most 30 years older than himself,
rather than the more palatable idea, that he married the child she was
pregnant by, and that's how he came to be lord of mapledurham in 1255.

If he did in fact marry the widow, instead of her infant, then we have
the additional issue, that Roger's heir needs to be born to a rather
aged crone, at the very least 44 years old, and at the most 65 which
of course is impossible.

Perhaps I'm building my own house of cards here, but it still doesn't
look tidy.

Will Johnson-

[Tony Ingham]

G'day Will,

Some good news for you!!!

Firstly:

From: Douglas Richardson (royalancestry AT msn.com)
Subject: Gournay Family Pedigree [Corrected Post]
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2003-01-20 07:48:21 PST

HUGH DE GOURNAY, of Wendover, co. Buckingham, Caister and Cantley,
Norfolk, Mapledurham, co. Oxford, benefactor of Langley Abbey,
Norfolk, and Clairruissel Abbey, Normandy, younger son. He was heir
before 1216 to his older brother, Gerard de Gournay. He married (lst)
before 1222 LUCY _____, widow of Robert de Berkeley (died 13 May
1220), Baron of Berkeley, co. Gloucester, and niece [neptis] of
William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury. They had no issue. He joined the
barons against King John. In 1216 his manor of Wendover was granted to
William de Fiennes, and in 1218 his lands in Lincolnshire to William
de Cantelowe. His lands were restored on 2 May 1222 (excepting
Wendover). In 1223 the king ordered his lands in cos. Gloucester,
Warwick, and Leicester be taken for attending a tournament without
leave at Blyth, co. Nottingham. The same year he lost all his land in
the jurisdiction of the Constable of Bristol for hunting in the royal
forest without leave. He fought against the Welsh in 1228 and in
Brittany in 1234. His wife, Lucy, died 18 January 1234, and was buried
at St. Augustine's. He married (2nd) MAUD _____. They had one
daughter, Juliane (or Gillian). HUGH DE GOURNAY died shortly before 23
July 1238, and was buried at Langley Abbey. His widow, Maud, married
(2nd) after 1241 (as his lst wife) ROGER DE CLIFFORD, Knt. (died
1286), of Tenbury and Severn Stoke, co. Worcester. They had issue. She
was living in 1255 but dead prior to 1272.

And secondly:

Also for Douglas Richardson.

Interestingly, this past month I encountered an abstract of a lawsuit
which provides concrete evidence to prove the given name of Roger de
Clifford's wife, Maud. The abstract of this lawsuit is found in Curia
Regis Rolls, vol. 18 (1999), pp. 79, 217, a copy of which reads as
follows:


Trinity Term, 27 Henry III (1242).
418. Northampton.
Rogerus de Clifford' et Matillis uxor ejus per attornatum ipsius
Matillidis per breve domini regis nunc optulerunt se quarto die versus
Cristianam Ledet de placito averiorum Rogeri et Matillidis captorum et
injuste detentorum etc.; et Cristiana non venit etc., et habuit diem
per essoniatorem suum ad hunc diem. Judicium. Attachietur quod sit
in octabis sancti Michaelis, quia alium diem etc.


27-28 Henry III (1243-1244).
1050. Northampton. Rogerus de Cliford' et Matillis uxor ejus per
attornatum suum optulerunt se iiij. die versus Cristianam Leydet de
placito averiorum ipsius Rogeri et Matillidis captorum et injuste
detentorum etc.; et Cristiana non venit etc., et plures fecit defaltas
etc. Et ideo preceptum est vicecomiti quod distringat eam per terras
etc., ita quod habeat corpus ejus in octabis sancte Trinitatis etc.

You've just gotta be happy with that.

Regards,

Tony

P.S.

Publication date for 'The record of the house of Gournay.' should be 1845.

wjhonson wrote:

On Feb 19, 11:09 pm, Tony Ingham <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Gurney asserts that Maud, widow of Hugh de Gournay married Roger de Clifford and offers the following.

The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney. p.220. (1843)
The verdict of the hundred of Benefeld, inclusive of William de
Juvene of Caversham and Thomas de Englefield among the jurors, was to
this effect ; "they say that Mapeldurham is of the fief of Gorney, and
does suit to the hundred court ; and they say, that four years ago
malefactors came into the park of Mapledurham, who after hue and cry
fled, so that no one knew where they went, nevertheless suspicion fell
upon a certain individual, named Nicholas de Mongewell, who gave to Sir
Roger de Clifford, who is lord of the vill and the park, a falcon to
have his peace." The jurors of the hundred of Langtre also reported
that John de Can.la, the liegeman of Nicholas de Mangevelle, and
Nicholas chaplain of Mungewell, entered the park of Roger de Clifford in
Mapeldurham without his license, wherefor Nicholas de Mungewell made
fine of 20 s. to the said Roger for his man. From these entries we have
ample proof that Matildis, the widow of the last Hugh de Gornay,
remarried this Roger de Clifford, who was lord not only of Mapeldurham
in her right, but also of Kingston, com. Berks, a manor in her custody
during the minority of the heir.

Supplement to The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney. (1858)
Tony Ingham


Thanks Tony for this.
I think this is quite possibly the same underlying document from where
we get that Roger de Clifford was made Lord of Mapledurham *in* 1255.
Obviously this should be only that he was Lord in 1255, not that he
was made Lord that year.

I find the reasoning however to be a bit bizarre. First the author
points out quite clearly that Maud was pregnant. Then he blithely
ignores that and presumes that since he knows that Maud held
Mapledurham in dower, then it must be that she married Roger de
Clifford, since he was said to be lord of that Manor in 1255.

That's a bit of a leap, imho.
I'm still not comfortable with the concept that Roger would marry a
woman who was *at least* 13 and at most 30 years older than himself,
rather than the more palatable idea, that he married the child she was
pregnant by, and that's how he came to be lord of mapledurham in 1255.

If he did in fact marry the widow, instead of her infant, then we have
the additional issue, that Roger's heir needs to be born to a rather
aged crone, at the very least 44 years old, and at the most 65 which
of course is impossible.

Perhaps I'm building my own house of cards here, but it still doesn't
look tidy.

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message