RICHARD CHAMPERNOUN (1344-1419), OF MODBURY, DEVON
rbodi...@aol.com
Sir Richard Champernoun (1344-1419), of Modbury, Devonshire was married
1st
to Alice Astley and 2nd to Katherine Daubeney. By his 1st wife he had
Alexander (before 1366-1441) and by his 2nd he had Richard (d. 1420) and
John
(d. 1450). Who were the mothers of his daughters Joan and Margaret?
Joan,
traditionally called Alexander's daughter, was the daughter of Richard
based
upon the proof of age inquisition of Joan's son Philip de Courtenay in
1425
where Sir Richard is called "father of the mother of the infant Philip" at
Philip's birth 18 Jan 1404 at Ashton (presumably Ashton Rowhant,
Oxfordshire, one of the manors of Sir Richard). Joan married 1st James de
Chudlegh and 2nd John de Courtenay. Margaret, assigned by Vivian in his
1580 Visitation of Devonshire to the wrong Richard Champernowne of Modbury
(2 generations earlier), was married to Robert Hill (1392-1444), of
Shilston, Devonshire.
Many thanks for any help.
Ronny Bodine
RBodi...@aol.com
Todd A. Farmerie
rbodi...@aol.com wrote:
> Sir Richard Champernoun (1344-1419), of Modbury,
> Devonshire was married 1st to Alice Astley and 2nd
> to Katherine Daubeney. By his 1st wife he had
> Alexander (before 1366-1441) and by his 2nd he had
> Richard (d. 1420) and John (d. 1450).
>
First let me comment that in Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries the order
of the marriages of Sir Richard has been questioned. This was because
Modbury, the seat of the family, was later found in possession of the
descendants of his son Richard, ratehr than the (supposed) eldest son
Alexander, who held Beer Ferrers through his wife. However, a document
relating to the right to appoint the priest to the parish of Modbury
shows that Hugh (I think it was) son of Richard (Jr) held Modbury of
Roger, son of Alexander. Hence Alexander's line was senior, but he had
allowed his younger brother to hold Modbury under him while he took up
residence at his wife's estate. This is obvious from the chronology
anyhow. So if you see Alice given as second wife (as in Ancestral
Roots, 8th ed.) ignore it.
> Who were the mothers of his daughters Joan and Margaret?
>
> Joan, traditionally called Alexander's daughter,
> was the daughter of Richard based upon the proof
> of age inquisition of Joan's son Philip de Courtenay
> in 1425 where Sir Richard is called "father of the
> mother of the infant Philip" at Philip's birth 18
> Jan 1404 at Ashton (presumably Ashton Rowhant,
> Oxfordshire, one of the manors of Sir Richard).
> Joan married 1st James de Chudlegh and 2nd John de
> Courtenay.
The Ashton mentioned here is not Aston Rowhant, co.Oxon but Ashton
(Assheton), co.Devon, seat of the Chudleghs, of which Joan (and John)
continued in posession until her oldest son James Chudlegh reached his
majority.
That Joan was daughter of Alice is suggested from two directions. Based
on chronology, she was of similar age to Alexander. (I am curious about
your reference for him being born before 1366. Is this from his age in
the ipm of cousin Oddo (or whatever his name was)?) She seems to have
married James in the 1380s, which gives her a similar birthdate. Her
Chudlegh children appear (by age) to be of the same generation as
Richard (Jr) and John Champernowne. More convincingly, in a description
of heraldic glass in Devon churches found in Devon Notes & Queries
(later renamed D&CN&Q), the glass of one of the churches under control
of the Chudleghs (perhaps Ashton, but I don't recall clearly) includes
quarterings for both Champernowne and Astley. While we could discuss
the legality of this quartering, it at least suggests a genealogical
tradition of an Astley connection, but none of a Daubney one. (There is
no suggestion that there is an Astley marriage at any other point in the
Chudlegh pedigree, although Vivian butchers the marriages so badly that
they require complete revision.)
> Margaret, assigned by Vivian in his 1580 Visitation
> of Devonshire to the wrong Richard Champernowne of
> Modbury (2 generations earlier), was married to
> Robert Hill (1392-1444), of Shilston, Devonshire.
I wondered where Vivian came up with this one. If your age for Richard
is correct, then Margaret would clearly be daughter of Sir Richard's
second wife. Is she named in Sir Richard's will? I know that Richard,
John, and their mother are, but Alex, Joan, and theirs are not.
Note that Vivian has messed up the wives of the Champernownes too. John
and his son are both botched, as is (it would seem) that of Richard Jr's
son and heir. I would LOVE to discuss here the marriage of Richard,
great-grandfather of Sir Richard, to Joan, heiress of Modbury. If Pole
wasn't telling a big fib, then here we have a descent from King John for
all of these families.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
rbodi...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Many thanks for your valuable input. In the 1422 Inq. p.m. of Otho
> Champernoun it does refer to Alexander as being aged over 40, thus a
> birthdate of in or before 1382,
Have you seen the original ipm, or are you quoting from Vivian. I am
curious whether the ipm records the exact relationship between the two,
or just says Alex is cousin and heir (or, in other words, are there
REALLY three Richards at the start of the Modbury descent, or is Benson
right in concluding that there were only two).
> but look at the Calendar of the Close
> Rolls, 1381-1385, p. 587-588 for 3 Nov 1384, wherein Richard Chaumpernoun
> (sic), knight, in a deed, refers to his son Alexander and Joan his wife,
> daughter of Martin de Ferares (sic), and to the heirs of their bodies...
> Thus, by Nov 1384, Alexander was already married to Joan. Unless this was
> a child marriage, I estimated Alexander's age to be at least 18 in 1384,
> thus born say 1366.
Thanks for this reference. Normally, I would agree with this, but
particularly when their was an heiress to be had, as in this case, they
married young (even under 10), so this may or may not be a valid date.
(Based on the form of the document, naming her father and all, I suspect
that this represents a property settlement which accompanied the
marriage.)
> Robert Hill (1392-1444) is covered in Wedgwood's History of Parliament
> 1439-1509 (1: 454).
I really MUST get a look at this source :)
> Presuming Margaret was about of the same age as
> Robert, she was clearly not of the generation of the elder Richard
> Champernoun's children, but rather a daughter of his grandson, Sir Richard
> (1344-1419). Vivian, in the pedigree of Hill of Shilston (p. 486), dating
> to the Visitation of 1580 in that part of the pedigree, calls Margaret
> only a daughter of Sir Richard Champernowne of Modbury, but did not
> specify which one, grandfather or grandson? Since there is no other
> Richard of Modbury of this time period it could only be the grandson.
But what about the great grandson, Richard, Esq., (Vivian was never very
careful about keeping his titles straight) who married Isabel Boville?
If Margaret was a bit younger than her husband, she could even go
there. When were her children born?
> The will of Sir Richard Champernoun of 1444 is history as far as I know.
> The Exeter Registry was wiped out in 1944 in a bombing raid. Or was the
> will transcribed or abstracted beforehand??
The will of Sir Richard C (1344-1419) was published in the Exeter
Episcopal Registers. He names only his sons Richard and John, and his
wife Katherine. (I checked. No Margaret, no Joan, no Alex, no Alice).
(There is another contemporary will, of Matilda Latimer, which names "my
sister" Champernoun. Since the next name is Thomas Daubney, I suspect
that Matilda may have been sister of Katherine Daubney. Any clues?)
Sir Richard's birthdate is based on the ipm for Sir William Herle, of
whose wife, Elizabeth, Richard was the heir. Have you seen any
identification for her. I am wondering if she might be Elizabeth
Valletort, widow of the earlier Richard. (Either that or a childless
daughter of that Richard and Elizabeth, but it just has the feel of a
widow's dowery.)
Now, I can't resist the question of the first Richard's wife, but will
post a discussion separately.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
All this talk of Champernowne has me looking at my notes regarding the
Modbury line, and particularly the manner in which they got their seat.
Modbury was granted by Richard, King of Germany, (a.k.a. Richard
"Plantagenet", Earl of Cornwall, younger son of King John) to Joan,
widow of Ralph de Valletort, who was his mistress (hereafter Joan I).
She later (or perhaps even during) married Alexander de Okestone
(Oxton), and had by him an heir James. In 1285, James granted Modbury
to Richard Champernowne, who enfeoffed it back to James (for the service
of one rose annually), with reversion to Richard C and his right heirs.
(A similar transaction transfered Broxton to a third party, and back to
James with reversion to Richard and heirs.) Both of these appear to
indicate an attempt to ensure that these lands passed from James, at his
death, to (his nephew) Richard (Jr) Champernowne, who was son of an
earlier Richard (Sr) C by Joan (II), "sister" of James. The question at
hand is, who was Joan II's father.
Two historians wrestled with this during the early part of this century
in the pages of Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries. It ended when the
death of Col. Prideux left John Benson in possession of the field of
battle, unfortunately with several issues unsatisfactorily answered.
Col Prideux cited two lines of evidence for his conclusion that Joan II
was daughter of the King of the Germans.
1) the later heraldic displays of the Champernowne family included the
arms of Valletort and of the Earldom of Cornwall directly linked,
suggesting a descent from Cornwall that involved a Valletort
connection.
2) Pole describes that James granted Modbury to his nephew Richard (Jr)
Champernowne (clearly refering to the grant mentioned above) and he
(Pole, that is) quoted a deed reporting the transfer of some foodstuffs
to Richard (Sr) and Joan (II), in which Edmund, Earl of Cornwall calls
Joan II his "sister". Since Edmund was legitimate son of Earl Richard,
"it is probable" (Pole's words) that Joan II was Earl Richard's bastard.
Benson responded as follows:
1) any descent whereby Joan II might descend from the Earls of Cornwall
involving Valletort is surely invalid, since Joan I was widow of
Valletort and had no right to pass on the arms. Such descents as
Risdon's (in which Joan II is shown as daughter of Joan I, daughter of
Edmund, Earl of Cornwall) is obviously invented. Instead, Valletort
(Vautort) came into the family in the next generation, with the marriage
of the nephew Richard (Jr) to Elizabeth Vautort of North Tauton, and the
linkage of Cornwall to Valletort supports an independant hypothesis that
at the root of Elizabeth's Vautort/Valletort pedigree, a Valletort
married the daughter of the earlier royal Earl of Cornwall, the bastard
of Henry I.
2) the nugget of information from which Pole was working was that
Richard (Jr) was "nephew" of James Oxton, and the rest is simply a gloss
to fill out the dialogue, as shown by "it is probable". Pole's use of
the word "nephew" shows that Joan II was full sister of James, daughter
of Joan I by Alexander de Oxton. Anyhow, even if Pole DID see a
document in which Edmund calls Joan II his sister, we underestimate the
humor of our ancestors, and in this transaction among friends, Edmund
was simply making a joke as to the character of Joan II's mother, his
own father's mistress. He compared this to a document quoted by one of
the county histories (sorry, I forget which) in which, in a similar
humor, Richard Champernowne calls himself "King of Allemaigne."
The good Col. responded:
1) there were several of the Vautort coheiresses around, and it should
not be hard to find such a Valletort/Cornwall linkage in one of the
other families, if this is the nature of the Cornwall link.
2) "nephew", at the time, could as well refer to the son of a
half-sister as to the son of a sister, and (quoting a historically
oriented dictionary) in the 17th century, when Pole was writing, "it is
probable" meant 'it is provable', and since he had the document at hand,
he could prove it. Any document calling Richard Champernowne, King of
Allemaigne, is bogus, and the historian quoting it is confused, or
perhaps Richard was using the seal of his maternal grandfather, the
King.
Benson:
1) found the seal of Beatrice, sister of Elizabeth de Vautort, which
shows the arms of Valletort, Cornwall, and Valletort differenced by a
Cornwall bordure. This, he said, proves that the Cornwall arms came to
the family through Elizabeth Vautort, and thus Joan was daughter of Alex
de Oxton.
Col. Prideux:
1) "This just goes to show that if you look for something long enough,
you will find it" whatever that means.
At this point, the death of Col. Prideux ended the discussion.
Now, for my reaction:
1) Benson clearly won this one, but the point was not valid to begin
with. There is no way that a bastard daughter of Earl Richard and Joan
I(de Valletort) could have brought either of these arms to
Champernowne. However, Benson goes too far in his conclusions. The
fact that an early Valletort married a daughter of Henry I's bastard in
no way addresses the later Earl Richard/Champernowne connection. it
only removes this line of argument from consideration.
2) A JOKE? He really thinks the document was a JOKE? Prideux wins. I
am not familiar enough with the use of argumentative English in the late
17th century, but I know enough not to expect "half-nephew". IF
probable meant provable, it is hard to argue with Pole's evidence. Even
if it didn't, and Pole was simply being extremely cautious, the tone of
the texts suggests that Pole is sitting there looking at a document in
which Edmund calls Joan II his sister. It is too bad whatever the
document was, we don't still have it. It could be a forgery, I suppose,
but it does not involve a land transaction, and there is no particular
benefit to the relationship that would make it worth the effort of
forging it. (As to the Richard C, King of A quote, I suspect that the
historian was reading a document of the King, and mistakenly applying it
to the country squire who later held the same land.) Pole, in general,
was careful, (many of his "mistakes" are actually those of his readers,
who assume his lines of succession to property are actually pedigrees).
He uses a narative form for presenting information, and (unfortunately)
does not generally quote sources. That he stops to specifically comment
on the relationship tells us that he KNEW this was a debated
relationship, and his quote is his evidence for his conclusion.
3) The grants of Modbury and Broxton by James de Oxton, which served the
sole purpose of establishing a reversion to Richard (Jr) C, seem to add
evidence that Joan II was not daughter of Alexander de Oxton. Since
James inherited this land from his mother Joan I, and Joan II is the
only other known child of Joan I (except perhaps Earl Richard's other
bastard, Richard of Cornwall - Alex did have at least one child by
another wife, who put forward his claim when James made the Modbury
grant), her son Richard (Jr) C would have been the legal heir. However,
this would not have been the case had Joan II been bastard daughter of
Joan I, and some sort of grant would have been necessary to prevent the
land from falling to the general heirs of James (presumably his
half-brother, unless the original grant to Joan I included a
reversion). Since there was a fine accompanying these transactions,
(they appear in the Feet of Fines (Modbury) and Fine Roll (Broxton)) it
is unlikely that James would have gone to the expense had Richard been
the legal heir.
Based on this, I lean toward the position that Joan (II), wife of the
first Richard Champernowne of the Modbury line, was daughter of Joan (I)
de Valletort by Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Germans. I would
love comments on any/all of this.
taf
rbodi...@aol.com
Todd-
Many thanks for your valuable input. In the 1422 Inq. p.m. of Otho
Champernoun it does refer to Alexander as being aged over 40, thus a
birthdate of in or before 1382, but look at the Calendar of the Close
Rolls, 1381-1385, p. 587-588 for 3 Nov 1384, wherein Richard Chaumpernoun
(sic), knight, in a deed, refers to his son Alexander and Joan his wife,
daughter of Martin de Ferares (sic), and to the heirs of their bodies...
Thus, by Nov 1384, Alexander was already married to Joan. Unless this was
a child marriage, I estimated Alexander's age to be at least 18 in 1384,
thus born say 1366.
Robert Hill (1392-1444) is covered in Wedgwood's History of Parliament
1439-1509 (1: 454). Presuming Margaret was about of the same age as
Robert, she was clearly not of the generation of the elder Richard
Champernoun's children, but rather a daughter of his grandson, Sir Richard
(1344-1419). Vivian, in the pedigree of Hill of Shilston (p. 486), dating
to the Visitation of 1580 in that part of the pedigree, calls Margaret
only a daughter of Sir Richard Champernowne of Modbury, but did not
specify which one, grandfather or grandson? Since there is no other
Richard of Modbury of this time period it could only be the grandson.
The will of Sir Richard Champernoun of 1444 is history as far as I know.
The Exeter Registry was wiped out in 1944 in a bombing raid. Or was the
will transcribed or abstracted beforehand??
Ronny
RBodi...@aol.com
rbodi...@aol.com
I have not seen the original IPM of Otto Champernoun, Esq., as he is
addressed, but a lengthy transcription prepared by, I believe, the Devon
Record Society, in manuscript. In the IPM taken at Callington 2 April
1423
he is called "Alexander son of said Richard, aged 40." In the IPM taken
at
Exeter 13 April 1423 there are several references to Alexander including
"Alexander Chambernoun is over 40" and "Alexander son of Richard son of
Thomas Champernon" and "The said Alexander Champernon is aged 40 and
more."
As regards the deed of 3 Nov 1384 in CCR, you could be right. It begins
"Richard Chaumpernoun knight to Guy Briane knight the younger, William
Briane, John Daumarle knights and Thomas Chaumpernoun. Gift with warranty
for two years of a yearly rent of 40 (pounds?) of his manors, boroughs,
lands, etc. in Dodebroke, Wodelegh, Comb Roiel and Portelmuth, with
remainder
to Alexander his son and Joan his wife, daughter of Martin de Ferares, and
to
the heirs of their bodies, under condition for defeasance thereof, in case
the grantor shall outlive Thomas Chaumpernoun his father, and within a
year
after his father's death shall give to the said Alexander and Joan and to
the
heirs of their bodies lands in Devon and Cornwall to the value of 40
(pounds?)" etc., etc.
The Histories of Parliament are a marvelous reference. They have been
published at various times. Those I have used are The History of
Parliament
1439-1509 (Josiah C. Wedgwood, ed., 1936, 3 vols.), 1715-1754 (Romney
Sedgwick, ed., 1970, 2 vols.), 1558-1603 (P. W. Hasler, ed., 1981, 3
vols.),
1509-1558 (S. T. Bindoff, ed., 1982, 3 vols.), 1600-1690 (Basil D.
Henning,
ed., 1983, 3 vols.), and 1386-1421 (J. S. Roskell, Linda Clark & Carol
Rawcliffe, ed., 1992, 4 vols.). Wedgwood was not as precise as later
editions in the series.
Thanks for the info on the will of Sir Richard of 1419. I was unable to
locate the Exeter Episcopal Registers. I rely on my copy of Probate
Jurisdictions: Where to Look for Wills, 3rd Edition (1989) to tell me
where
to find any wills, and in this case it came up short.
I don't believe Margaret could have been a daughter of Richard
Champernowne
and wife Isabel Bonville. Of course I don't have a birthdate for Richard,
but at his death on 20 Jan 1420, his only son was Hugh, born 24 Nov 1419.
Margaret's children were John born in 1420, Robert in 1421, William in
1422,
Thomas in 1423, and two others, including a daughter, Elizabeth, married
to
Otho Gilbert, of Compton, who was born in 1419. Margaret's marriage to
Robert Hill may have taken place 1418/9.
Actually, Richard's age is based on the inquisition to take proof of his
age
as kinsman and heir of Elizabeth, late wife of Robert Herle (CIPM, 7: no.
91). I don't know the relationship between Richard and the Herles.
Something worth looking into.
Ronny
RBodi...@aol.com
Todd A. Farmerie
rbodi...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I have not seen the original IPM of Otto Champernoun, Esq., as he is
> addressed, but a lengthy transcription prepared by, I believe, the Devon
> Record Society, in manuscript.
Where did you have access to this? Devon? Or on the other side of the
pond?
> In the IPM taken at Callington 2 April 1423
> he is called "Alexander son of said Richard, aged 40." In the IPM taken
"said Richard"? This suggests an earlier mention of Richard. Is this
the case, and if so what is he called?
> Thanks for the info on the will of Sir Richard of 1419. I was unable to
> locate the Exeter Episcopal Registers. I rely on my copy of Probate
> Jurisdictions: Where to Look for Wills, 3rd Edition (1989) to tell me
> where to find any wills, and in this case it came up short.
I am surprise you couldn't come up with them, because I got them through
Inter-Library Loan. If you tell me where you are, I could use OCLC to
find the nearest copies (if you are interested).
> I don't believe Margaret could have been a daughter of Richard
> Champernowne
> and wife Isabel Bonville. Of course I don't have a birthdate for Richard,
> but at his death on 20 Jan 1420, his only son was Hugh, born 24 Nov 1419.
> Margaret's children were John born in 1420, Robert in 1421, William in
> 1422,
> Thomas in 1423, and two others, including a daughter, Elizabeth, married
> to
> Otho Gilbert, of Compton, who was born in 1419. Margaret's marriage to
> Robert Hill may have taken place 1418/9.
Ah, I didn't have the info on Margaret's marriage and children, which
clarifies things. Is this Otho Gilbert a descendant of one of the
sisters of Otho Champernoun? I remember one of them being a Gilbert.
rbodi...@aol.com
The IPMs for Devonshire from 1300 to 1600 are in typed manuscript form on
6
rolls of microfilm available from the LDS. They are arranged in
alphabetical
order, so all IPMs of one name are grouped chronologically.
The IPM of Otho Champernoun refers to many relatives, most cited by
Vivian,
some not. The exact relationships are not always clear. With regard to
the
"said Richard" the entry reads:
IPM taken at Callington, 2 April 1423:
"The jurors [named] say that Otho Champernoun esq. died seised of 5
messuages
and lands in Fursse, Carslake, Treyeowan [sic] and Myllebroke, by the gift
of
Simon Whitewell and John Hill of Tamerton to him and his heirs, with
remainder to Richard Champernoun, knt., deceased." This is followed by
"Otho
died without heir of his body, and they remain to Alexander son of said
Richard, aged 40."
All of the relationships stated by Vivian in which he cites this IPM are
accurate. There are others that he does not include because the
relationship
in the IPM is not stated, i.e. reference to a charter of 16 Oct 1385
granting
land to John Chambernon and his heirs, with remainders to Richard
Chambernoun
son of Joan Rauf; to William Chambernoun, son of said Joan; to Hugh
Chambernoun son of said Joan; to Otho aforesaid, son of Richard
Chambernoun,
and to Thomas Chambernon and his heirs. The said John, Richard, William
and
Hugh held the lands successively, and died without heirs; Otto succeeded
and
died without heir, and they remain to Alexander Champernoun, son of
Richard,
son of Thomas. [Clearly, male Champernouns were at a premium. When Otto
died, the escheator had to go back three generations and run down a
collateral line.]
Later on there is mention of land held by Otto Champernoun by gift of
Richard
Chambernon son of John. Also mention of Will. Chambernon clk. now dead,
holding land granted by charter dated 11 Rich. II [1387/8].
In the IPM of 12 Feb 1423 there is reference to land of Otto Champernon
held
of John Champernoun, lord of the manor of Insworth. It is this IPM that
gives the exact date of Otto's death as Saturday the morrow of
Circumcision,
which the abstractors have identified as 2 Jan 1422/3.
I would indeed like to see the Exeter Episcopal Registers and would very
much
appreciate knowing where they can be obtained. I live in Columbus,
Georgia.
Otho Gilbert, husband of Elizabeth Hill (daughter of Margaret Champernoun
and
Robert Hill) , both being one of my three Champernoun descents, was
sheriff
of Devonshire 1475, and was the son of William Gilbert, of Compton (bef.
1380-aft. 1428), son of William Gilbert, of Compton (died 1380) and his
wife
Elizabeth Champernoun, who on 6 July 1380 was granted administration of
her
husband's estate, she being the sister of Otto Champernoun (died 1422).
Ronny
RBodi...@aol.com
Todd A. Farmerie
rbodi...@aol.com wrote:
> The IPM of Otho Champernoun refers too many relatives, most cited by
> Vivian, some not. The exact relationships are not always clear.
So many Champernouns, so little time :)
> i.e. reference to a charter of 16 Oct 1385 granting land to
> John Chambernon and his heirs, with remainders to Richard
> Chambernoun son of Joan Rauf; to William Chambernoun, son of
> said Joan; to Hugh Chambernoun son of said Joan; to Otho
> aforesaid, son of Richard Chambernoun, and to Thomas
> Chambernon and his heirs. The said John, Richard, William
> and Hugh held the lands successively, and died without heirs;
> Otto succeeded and died without heir, and they remain to
> Alexander Champernoun, son of Richard, son of Thomas.
> [Clearly, male Champernouns were at a premium. When Otto
> died, the escheator had to go back three generations and run
> down a collateral line.]
Which reminds me. Is Vivian right about Oliver (Otho's grandpa) being
the son of John, son of William? I seem to recall one of the Devon
sources (Risdon?) making Oliver the brother of Richard (father of Thomas
- they did marry sisters, so that could have been the source of
confusion). Vivian quotes what appears to be a mss. pedigree for this,
and I know how reliable these can be (NOT), but other than this I have
seen little (read: zero) contemporary support for either version.
I think we have enough Champ's to deal with that we can probably draw
some connections. I think it is likely that the above Richard, William,
and Hugh were brothers of John (his parentage, as son of Joan Rauf,
would not be specified since he was the recipient of the grant).
Likewise, the Richard, son of John (below) could be son of this John
(but one might have expected mention of this when describing the
reversion), or alternatively, it could be this Richard, son of Joan Rauf
if the former husband of Joan was a John. Again William clk. could be
the same as this William, son of Joan.
Now for the really speculative part. If Risdon (or whoever) was right,
then Richard, (father of Thomas, father of Richard), Oliver (grandfather
of Otho), and the husband of Joan (John?) could have been brothers, and
the reversion simply traces the families of (John?), Oliver, and Richard
backwards, from youngest to oldest branch (which I have often seen).
(Evidence? You want Evidence? I don't need no stinking Evidence! :)
> Later on there is mention of land held by Otto Champernoun
> by gift of Richard Chambernon son of John. Also mention of
> Will. Chambernon clk. now dead, holding land granted by
> charter dated 11 Rich. II [1387/8].
>
> In the IPM of 12 Feb 1423 there is reference to land of Otto
> Champernon held of John Champernoun, lord of the manor of
> Insworth.
Well, at least he's easy, being the younger son of Richard (d.1419), son
of Thomas. The future division of the land is clear from the will of
Richard (written 1419), which grants no land, but does give Richard half
of the sheep at Modbury, and John half the sheep at Insworth, the
properties they later were to hold (Modbury of senior heir Alexander's
line, and presumably the same for Insworth).
> Otho Gilbert, husband of Elizabeth Hill (daughter of Margaret
> Champernoun and Robert Hill) , both being one of my three
> Champernoun descents,
Out of curiousity, what's the third? (My only one is through the Joan
(Champ) Chudley.)
> was sheriff of Devonshire 1475, and was
> the son of William Gilbert, of Compton (bef. 1380-aft. 1428),
> son of William Gilbert, of Compton (died 1380) and his wife
> Elizabeth Champernoun, who on 6 July 1380 was granted
> administration of her husband's estate, she being the sister
> of Otto Champernoun (died 1422).
I think I confused you on this one when I called her sister (the mind is
the second thing to go - and I forget what the first is). She was
Otto's aunt, wasn't she?
I do have one other question. Have you gone over the chronology of the
early Modbury branch? Vivian shows three, while (as you probably
already know) Benson simply says there isn't room for three, but doesn't
support this conclusion with dates. I am having problems with the
generation length between Richard, nephew of James Oxton, who was active
in the 1280s, and thus presumably born 1250/60s and his senior
"grandson" Richard, b. 1345. Could Vivian have been right? I note that
the Vautort heiress married Richard as her second husband. Maybe it was
Richard's second too, and allow us a longer generation length,
especially with Thomas being a younger son. (Also maybe my source for
Richard's activity in the 1280s has confused him with his father. I
note that his senior cousin Henry was born in or bef. 1273.)
As always, any comment would be appreciated.
taf
rbodi...@aol.com
You wrote:
Which reminds me. Is Vivian right about Oliver (Otho's grandpa) being
the son of John, son of William? I seem to recall one of the Devon
sources (Risdon?) making Oliver the brother of Richard (father of Thomas
- they did marry sisters, so that could have been the source of
confusion). Vivian quotes what appears to be a mss. pedigree for this,
and I know how reliable these can be (NOT), but other than this I have
seen little (read: zero) contemporary support for either version.
At the present I am unsure of this line, that is William (d.1304)-John-
Oliver- Richard-Otho (d. 1422). Otho's father, Richard, is named in
Otho's
1422 IPM as deceased. His mother is named as Agnes Dodescombe, widow of
Adam Braunscombe, by whom she had a daughter Ibota. Vivian shows
Ibota as the wife of Richard and mother of Otho which is wrong. I have
examined all Calendars of the Close Rolls for any mention to the
Champernownes. The only one referring to Otho was on 14 Aug 1377,
when Oto son of Richard Chambernoun was holding one knight's fee in
Northtaunton of Margaret, widow of Hugh de Courtenay, Earl of Devon
(CCR, 1377-81, p. 13-14). Oliver Champernowne as husband of Eglina
de Valletort is also mentioned in D&CN&Q, 20: 294 by John Benson as a
daughter of Hugh of North Taunton, but I have not yet encountered any
independent (from Vivian) mention of the line preceding Richard
Champernowne. I might also point out that Vivian identifies Margaret as a
daughter of Sir William de Campo Arnulphi (Champernowne) (died 1304) and
married to Sir Otho Bodrigan. Neither Complete Peerage (Bodrigan, 2: 199)
nor MacLean in his history of Trigg (p. 555) refer to Margaret, wife of
Otho
Bodrigan as a Champernowne.
You wrote:
I think we have enough Champ's to deal with that we can probably draw
some connections. I think it is likely that the above Richard, William,
and Hugh were brothers of John (his parentage, as son of Joan Rauf,
would not be specified since he was the recipient of the grant).
Likewise, the Richard, son of John (below) could be son of this John
(but one might have expected mention of this when describing the
reversion), or alternatively, it could be this Richard, son of Joan Rauf
if the former husband of Joan was a John. Again William clk. could be
the same as this William, son of Joan.
To be or not to be--that is the question!.
My three Champernoun descents are:
1. Margaret, daughter of Richard and presumably 2nd wife Katherine
Daubeny, and wife of Robert Hill, of Shilston.
2. Joan, daughter of Richard and 1st wife Alice Astley, and
wife of her 2nd husband, Sir John Courtenay.
3. Elizabeth, daughter of Oliver Champernowne, aunt of Otho,
and wife of William Gilbert. (Not Otho's sister as I mentioned
before, he being an only child.)
You wrote:
I do have one other question. Have you gone over the chronology of the
early Modbury branch? Vivian shows three, while (as you probably
already know) Benson simply says there isn't room for three, but doesn't
support this conclusion with dates. I am having problems with the
generation length between Richard, nephew of James Oxton, who was active
in the 1280s, and thus presumably born 1250/60s and his senior
"grandson" Richard, b. 1345. Could Vivian have been right? I note that
the Vautort heiress married Richard as her second husband. Maybe it was
Richard's second too, and allow us a longer generation length,
especially with Thomas being a younger son. (Also maybe my source for
Richard's activity in the 1280s has confused him with his father. I
note that his senior cousin Henry was born in or bef. 1273.)
I am still working out the generations on this line as well and have only
a
few facts to work with at the moment, essentially:
1. Sir Richard Champernowne, married to Joan, half-sister of James de
Okeston.
2. Sir Richard Champernowne, living 1336/7. MP 1324, 1331, fought at
Boroughbridge, 1322. Married Elizabeth Valletort, daughter of Hugh of
North
Tawnton, and widow of Richard Tremenet.
3. Sir Thomas Champernowne. In 1369 he quit-claimed his rights to the
Rohant lands to his son, Richard. Married Eleanor Rohant (dead in 1369),
heiress of Ashton Rohant.
Vivian inserts another Richard between 1 and 2, Benson says it is not
likely.
But look at the source that Vivian cites for this extra Richard--Burke's
Commoners (2: 271) who says this (extra) Richard acquired Modbury by
command of Edward I (and not the following Richard, husband of Elizabeth
Valletort.) I generally make a point not to accept any string of names
from
Burke's Commoners without substantiation from other sources. In bygone
days I was too often led astray.
I have only recently started to page through the Calendars of the Patent
Rolls, and expect to have Westcote's A View of Devonshire (1845) and
Polwhele's The History of Devonshire (3 vols., 1797-1806) available soon,
having never used these before. Maybe something surprising will turn
up. Maybe not.
Ronny
RBodi...@aol.com
rbodi...@aol.com
Earlier I wrote that the Close Rolls of 14 Aug 1377 reported Oto son of
Richard Chambernoun holding Northtauton for one knight's fee. Rooting
through my files I find the IPM of Hugh de Courtenay, Earl of
Devon-1377-wherein Northtauton, with the hundred is "Held by Richard
Chaumbernoun for one knight's fee. The said Richard died in the earl's
lifetime, and his son and heir is a minor and in wardship." (CIPM, 14,
p.
318). Putting the two pieces together, Richard died by July 1377 leaving
his
son Oto (Otho, Otto), a minor, as his heir. This date of 1377 clears up
the
misstatement in the Victoria History of the County of Oxford (8: 21) for
the
manor of Ashton Rohant wherein "Richard (I) had died by 1377 having
settled
Ashton Rowant on his son Richard, a minor, the son of his second wife
Katherine Daubeny." I had puzzled over this for awhile.
Another interesting note is in the IPM of John de Dynham held 20 June
1332,
where Richard le Chambernoun held "Motbury" for one knight's fee (CIPM, 7,
p.
327).
I might point out one other error in Vivian's account of the
Champernownes,
that is on page 161 wherein he calls Richard Champernowne, 2nd son, named
in
the Inq. taken on his father's death. Actually, the IPM of his father,
Henry
de Campo Arnulphi, chivaler, of 8 June 1329 (CIPM, 7, p. 156-157) names
only
his son, William de Campo Arnulphi, aged 16 in the Cornwall IPM and aged
18
in the Devon IPM.
Ronny
RBodi...@aol.com
Todd A. Farmerie
> wife of her 2nd husband, Sir John Courtenay.
I had mentioned heraldic evidence for this. It comes from DCNQ
7,pt2:22-30, in a description of the heraldic glass of Ashton (seat of
the Chudleghs). In a large glass showing a massive quartering, there
appears adjacent arms "azure, a cinqfoil ermine" identified as Ashley,
and then Champernowne, (not blazoned). A look at CP under Astley shows
these "Ashley" arms to really be those of Astley.
> I am still working out the generations on this line as well and have only
> a
> few facts to work with at the moment, essentially:
>
> 1. Sir Richard Champernowne, married to Joan, half-sister of James de
> Okeston.
"Richard de Chambernoun, son of Dom Henry de Chamb'noun", settled a
claim on 4 Oct. 1286. (DCNQ 8,pt2:132)
> 2. Sir Richard Champernowne, living 1336/7. MP 1324, 1331, fought at
> Boroughbridge, 1322. Married Elizabeth Valletort, daughter of Hugh of
> North Tawnton, and widow of Richard Tremenet.
Devon Lay Subsidy, 1332 (DCRS ns.vol.10) records Richard at Brixton,
Compton, Egg Buckland, Black Torrington, N. Buckland, Modbury and
Talaton. It also shows William at Coldridge, and Oliver at N. Tawton.
I note Benson cites a 1344 encroachment on Ilfracombe by William, John
son of Richard, and Oliver. A set of biographies of Devon Magnates in
1324 names Richard, Sir Henry, Hugh, and Oliver, who presented to
Ringmore in 1355. Richard also was granted the right to worship
privately, at the chapel of "Inneswerke" (Inceworth/Insworth) in 1331
(from Exeter Episc.Reg.), and is mentioned in 1328. Richard got the
reversions to Modbury and Brixton in 1315/6, and 1316.
> 3. Sir Thomas Champernowne. In 1369 he quit-claimed his rights to the
> Rohant lands to his son, Richard. Married Eleanor Rohant (dead in 1369),
> heiress of Ashton Rohant.
Thomas presented to Modbury 1375. His son Richard is first seen to
present in 1383/4, to E. Portlemouth and to Dodbroke.
> Vivian inserts another Richard between 1 and 2, Benson says it is not
> likely.
> But look at the source that Vivian cites for this extra Richard--Burke's
> Commoners (2: 271) who says this (extra) Richard acquired Modbury by
> command of Edward I (and not the following Richard, husband of Elizabeth
> Valletort.) I generally make a point not to accept any string of names
> from Burke's Commoners without substantiation from other sources. In
> bygone days I was too often led astray.
Yes, quite. I had not excluded Otho's ipm as a possible source for this
information prior to your earlier post. That excluded, Burke is trash,
and my 1280s fl. date for the younger Richard resulted from confusion.
Richard (I) was active in 1286, and likely dead by 1315/6. Richard (II)
first appears at that time, and died 1337 or 1338. Thomas was probably
b.ca. 1315, and was still living in 1384. Richard (III) was b. 1345,
and d. 1419. Richard (IV) in (say) 1390, and d. 1320.
Oliver fl. 1324-1355 making him younger than Richard (II) but older that
Thomas. His son Richard was dead by 1377, and Otho b.1356-1377 d. 1422,
perhaps slightly older than Alexander.
taf
rbodi...@aol.com
Based upon our earlier exchange wherein it is established
that Margaret, wife of Robert Hill was the daughter of Richard
Champernowne III, apparently by his 2nd wife, Katherine
Daubeney, I took a look at her ancestry and came across
something interesting---she too is descended from the
Champernownes. I cracked the books and assembled the
following:
The Inq. of Walter de Treverbyn and Andrew de Solenny
(CIPM, 4: no. 82), dated to 1302, refers to the manor of
Faweton, co. Cornwall and its division among the heirs
of Andrew de Solenny. The heirs included his aunt,
Emma de Sulenny. The IPM reads "From Emma the
younger sister issued one Oliver de Campo Arnulphi her
son and heir, from him one Joan his daughter and heir,
from her Ralph her son and heir, and from him one John
de Welynton, who now holds his pourparty and is off full
age and married.
Turning to Lord Hylton's History of the Parish of
Kilmersdon, Emma de Sulenny is better identified as
Emma de Soligny and her husband Jordan de Campo
Arnulphi, parents of Oliver de Campo Arnulphi.
Complete Peerage, 12(2): 645 says Ralph de Wilington
(died 1255/1260) married before 17 July 1238, Joan,
daughter and heiress of William or Oliver de Champernon,
by Eve, daughter of Rainald de Whitchurch, of Shrivenham,
Berkshire. Joan was living 1284/6. The editors of CP
acknowledge the above IPM, they also refer to "ancient
pedigrees" where the name is given as William, citing
Pole's Despription of Devon, p. 422, and Vivian, of course.
In a footnote, the editors add that Joan cannot have been the
daughter of Oliver, who died before 1242, for the lands in
Devon then held by Oliver's heirs, Birch Barton, Southcott and
Ilfracombe, were held in 1303 by his grandson, William de
Champernon and not by the Wilingtons.
In looking at Vivian's pedigree it appears he (or actually the
authors of Harleian MS 5185) misassigned Eva (heiress of
Isolda de Cardinham) to the wrong Oliver. That the wife of
Oliver de Champernowne (died before 1242), grandfather of
Sir William (died 1304), is not known, and Eva should
actually be the wife of Oliver de Campo Arnulphi, son of
Jordan de Campo Arnulphi and his wife Emma de Soligny.
I must admit I am momentarily confused at the note in
Vivian that Eva was an heiress of Isolda, daughter of
Andrew de Cardinham. English Baronies (p. 110) does
state that Andrew de Cardinham died 1252/4 and was
the father of Isolda (living 1301), wife first of Thomas de
Tracy, then of William de Ferrers, of Beer Ferrers, Devon.
Andrew de Cardinham was married to Isolda de Soligny,
sister of Emma, wife of Jordan de Campo Arnulphi, based
on Lord Hylton's History.
If this is the case, then the line should run as follows:
01. Jordan de Campo Arnulphi = Emma de Soligny
02. Oliver de Campo Arnulphi = [Eva, heiress of Cardinham]
03. Joan de Campo Arnulphi = Ralph de Wilington
living 1284/6 died 1255/1260
04. Ralph de Wilington = Juliane [de Lomene ?]
died 1294 died 1299/1323
05. Henry de Wilington = Margaret de Frevill
exec. after Boroughbridge,
1322
06. Henry de Wilington = Isabel de Walesbreu
d. 1349
07. Alianore de Wilington = Sir Giles Daubeney
d. 1400 d. 1396
08. Katherine Daubeney = Richard de Champernoun
1344-1419
Marlyn Lewis
> 05. Henry de Wilington = Margaret de Frevill
> exec. after Boroughbridge,
> 1322
Do you have an ancestry for Margaret de Freville?
> 06. Henry de Wilington = Isabel de Walesbreu
> d. 1349
Isabella de Whalesborough is the daughter of Sir John Whalesborough of
Lancarfe and Lamellen, Cornwall.
> 07. Alianore de Wilington = Sir Giles Daubeney
> d. 1400 d. 1396
Sir Giles is son of Sir Ralph Daubeney and Alice Montacute, daughter of
Sir William Montacute, 2nd Baron Montacute.