C.P. Correction: Death date of Isabel de Mortimer, wife of John Fitz Alan, Ralph d'Arderne, and Robert Hastang
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 240 (sub Arundel) has an account of John
Fitz Alan (died 1272), lord of Clun and Oswestry, which individual is
ancestor of the later Earls of Arundel. Regarding his wife, Isabel de
Mortimer, the following information is provided:
"He married Isabel, daughter of Roger de Mortimer, of Wigmore, by
Maud, daughter and coheiress of William de Briouze, of Brecknock. He
died 18 March 1271/2, and was buried in Haughmond Abbey, Salop. His
widow [Isabel] married, before (1273) 1 Edw. I, Ralph d';Arderne,
(living April 1283), and married, 3rdly, 2 Sept. 1285, at Poling,
Sussex, (privately) Robert de Hastings, for which marriage, having
omitted to obtain the Royal lic., she was fined £1,000. He was living
June 1287. She was living in 1300." END OF QUOTE.
Other than the death date of John Fitz Alan, none of the above
statements have any documentation provided for them. This certainly
gives the reader a moment for pause.
For starters, the statement that John Fitz Alan's widow, Isabel de
Mortimer, was living in 1300, was evidently lifted from Tierney, Hist.
& Antiqs. of the Castle & Town of Arundel 1 (1834): chart foll. 192,
which source makes that claim.
However, the 1300 date is clearly in error as proven by a contemporary
Fine Rolls record. This record indicates that the heirs and executors
of Isabel, widow of John Fitz Alan, were discharged on 1 April 1292
from the payment of arrears of £115 which the said Isabel owed on the
farm of West Dean and Charlton (in Singleton), Sussex. Robert de
Hastang “sometime” her husband was ordered to pay £20 per year towards
the arrears.
This item may be viewed at Cal. Fine Rolls, 1 (1911): 309, which is
available at the following weblink:
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval&CISOPTR=35322
The only way for Isabel's heirs and executors to be discharged of a
debt and Robert Hastang to "sometime" be her husband is for Isabel to
have been deceased on or before 1 April 1292.
Another obvious error I note in the Complete Peerage account is the
name of Isabel's 3rd husband which is there given as "Robert de
Hastings." He occurs in most records as Robert Hastang (and
occasionally as Robert de Hastang). See, for example, Smith & London,
Heads of Religious Houses, England & Wales 2 (2001): 370, which shows
that "Lady Isabel de Mortimer" was patron of Cold Norton Priory in
1284–5, and that "Robert Hastang" was patron of the same priory in
1288–9. This information may be viewed at the following weblink:
The patronage of Cold Norton Priory was held by the Fitz Alan family.
As such, I assume Isabel de Mortimer held the patronage in 1284-5 in
right of her dower from her Fitz Alan marriage. Robert Hastang in
turn would have been patron in 1288-9 in right of his wife, Isabel's
dower.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
TJ Booth
Thank you for another one of your always appreciated well cited nuggets of
information.
To give CP partial credit, it did provide a xiv:38 correction: "for 'was
living in 1300' read 'd. shortly before 1 Apr. 1292." However, it did not
include a source citation, which you kindly supplied.
The quoted passage from CP i:240 (1910) below is at variance with my copy of
CP i:240 (1910), which contains the following quote regarding Isabel de
Mortimer's last husband : "m., 3rdly, 2 Sep. 1285, at Poling, Sussex,
(privately) Robert DE HASTANG, for which marriage, having omitted to obtain
the Royal lic., she was fined £1,000. He was living 1 Apr. 1292." CP thus
did NOT here call him 'Robert de Hastings', and they also had him living
later than Jun 1287.
It is always insightful to learn the history of CP's original mis-statement,
and reassuring when two careful and respected sources like yourself and CP
reach the same conclusion. I do not understand the misquote of CP, which is
more unsettling than the easily overlooked CP correction.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
Dear Newsgroup ~
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval&CISOPTR=35322
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
John
>
> The only way for Isabel's heirs and executors to be discharged of a
> debt and Robert Hastang to "sometime" be her husband is for Isabel to
> have been deceased on or before 1 April 1292.
>
> Another obvious error I note in the Complete Peerage account is the
> name of Isabel's 3rd husband which is there given as "Robert de
> Hastings." He occurs in most records as Robert Hastang (and
> occasionally as Robert de Hastang). See, for example, Smith & London,
> Heads of Religious Houses, England & Wales 2 (2001): 370, which shows
> that "Lady Isabel de Mortimer" was patron of Cold Norton Priory in
> 1284–5, and that "Robert Hastang" was patron of the same priory in
> 1288–9. This information may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
> The patronage of Cold Norton Priory was held by the Fitz Alan family.
> As such, I assume Isabel de Mortimer held the patronage in 1284-5 in
> right of her dower from her Fitz Alan marriage. Robert Hastang in
> turn would have been patron in 1288-9 in right of his wife, Isabel's
> dower.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Volume 1 of the [new] Complete Peerage is available on-line at the BYU
library website, so readers can confirm that Terry Booth is correct
that Douglas Richardson has misquoted CP in saying that it calls
Isabel de Mortimer's 3rd husband Robert de Hastings rather than Robert
de Hastang.
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval&CISOPTR=56275&REC=10
CP is certainly not without errors, as we are constantly reminded, but
apparently more recent compilers are also subject to mistakes as they
busily seek to find errors in others' work. In this case, two
errors: misquotation of the original source, and failure to check for
later revisions in vol. 14.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - John 8:7.
Robert Forrest
1292--
"1292. Membrane 10-cont.
April 8. Order to the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer...
"MEMBRANE 9.-Schedule.
April 1. Westminster--
Order to the same to cause enrolment to be made pursuant to the
king's grant to Robert de Hastang, sometime husband of Isabel late
the wife of John son of Alan, at the instance of the king's daughter
Margaret, consort of John de Brabancia, that of the 115L. 9s. 3d.
wherein Isabel was held to the king of arrears of the farm of the lands
in Westden and Charleton in the hundred of Sengelton and of the
hundred of Stokbrigg, late of the said John, which Isabel held of the
king's commitment, the said Robert pay 20L. a year ; and to discharge
the heirs and executors of the will of Isabel from the said arrears."
This entry is referenced in the paper. "The Burial of Noblewomen in
Thirteenth-Century Shropshire", by Emma Cavell, published in 'Thirteenth
Century England: Proceedings of the Gregynog Conference, 2005'.
Robert Forrest
Douglas Richardson
I have a copy of the page in question from the 1910 edition of
Complete Peerage. It says "Robert de Hastings," not "Robert de
Hastang." So no, I didn't make a mstkae. Ooops I mispelled
mistake. Dagnabit.
Everyone wait a minute. I'll run and get my reading glasses.
Mmmm .... the page from Complete Peerage still says "Robert de
Hastings." Oh my stars!
So,yes, I quoted Complete Peerage correctly.
AND yes, I checked Complete Volume 14 but they gave the correction
alright but they didn't quote the source for the correction. Ooops.
So yet another unsourced statement was piled on yet other unsourced
statements. Not very reliable, is it? Should I have mentioned this
latest omission by Complete Peerage in my post? In my opinion, it
wasn't necessary. My point is that you should verify every unsourced
statement in printed sources. I listed all my sources in my post.
Incidentally, Hastang is one of those names that has some interesting
variants like the name "de Seacourt" does. It usually shows up as
Hastang (or Hasteng), occasionally as de Hastang (or de Hasteng), and
occasionally as "de Hastings." As far as I can tell, the Hastang
family has a separate origin from the de Hastings family. Which I why
I mentioned Complete Peerage calling Isabel de Mortimer's husband
"Robert de Hastings." Robert Hastang (or de Hastang) is a more
accurate rendition of this man's name.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Lady Isabel de Mortimer:
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William
Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry, Thomas
& William Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford,
Richard & William Bernard, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen,
George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth
Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward
Bromfield, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm
Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd,
Henry Corbin, Elizabeth Coytemore, William Crymes, James Cudworth,
Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton,
Edward Digges, Robert Drake, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry
Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard,
William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye, Elizabeth & John Harleston,
Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey,
Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel &
Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne
Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow,
Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne,
Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine
Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph &
Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen
Newton, Joshua & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard
Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, William & Elizabeth Pole,
Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas
Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John
Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John &
Lawrence Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Mary Wolseley, Hawte
Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Do you see your ancestor (or ancestress) on the list above? If so,
I'd enjoy hearing from you here on the newsgroup.
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for posting a transcript of the record dated 1292 from the Fine
Rolls which relates to Isabel de Mortimer. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I have a copy of the page in question from the 1910 edition of
> Complete Peerage. It says "Robert de Hastings," not "Robert de
> Hastang." So no, I didn't make a mstkae. Ooops I mispelled
> mistake. Dagnabit.
>
> Everyone wait a minute. I'll run and get my reading glasses.
> Mmmm .... the page from Complete Peerage still says "Robert de
> Hastings." Oh my stars!
>
> So,yes, I quoted Complete Peerage correctly.
Theatrics aside, this is all ridiculous.
Page 240 of the 1910 Edition, as found on the BYU site says "DE
HASTANG":
Page 240 of the 1910 Edition, as found on the Internet Archive says
"DE HASTINGS":
http://www.archive.org/stream/completepeerageo01coka#page/240/mode/2up
Make of it all what you will.
> AND yes, I checked Complete Volume 14 but they gave the correction
> alright but they didn't quote the source for the correction.
So you pretend you are reporting an error no one had noticed before,
rather than sourcing a correction already published?
taf
CE Wood
you are BOTH correct,
The edition that John referenced (#1) includes an editor's note that
in NOT in the edition that Douglas referenced (#2 below).
EDITOR'S NOTE
While this volume was in the press it was found advisable to make a
change in the Appendices. Appendix A in this volume was originally to
have contained a list of the Irish Peerage before the 16th Century.
This
list is postponed to vol. xi. The references to it in the following
notes
consequently require to be cancelled, and the words " appendix A in
vol. xi " substituted.
Note " a " p. 24
Note " b " p. 290
Appendix E in volume ii has also been changed, Therefore, on
p. 281, note " c "
for vol. ii, Appendix E
read vol. iii, Appendix H
E R R A T U M
p. 74, note
for Appendix F
read Appendix E
#1: CP, new edition revised and much enlarged, edited by the Hon.
Vicary Gibbs, Vol I, AB-Adam to Basing. London, The Catherine Press
Ltd., 1910. Found at: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval&CISOPTR=56275&REC=10
"He m. Isabel, da. of Roger DE MORTIMER, of Wigmore, by
Maud, da. and coh. of William DE BRIOUZE, of Brecknock. He d.
18 Mar. I271/2,(d) and was bur. in Haughmond Abbey, Salop. His
widow m., before (1273) 1 Edw. I, Ralph D'ARDERNE, (living Apr.
1283) and m., 3rdly, 2 Sep. 1285, at Poling, Sussex, (privately)
Robert
DE HASTANG, for which marriage, having omitted to obtain the Royal
lic, she was fined £1,000."
#2: CP, new edition revised and much enlarged, edited by the Hon.
Vicary Gibbs, Vol I, AB-Adam to Basing. London, The Catherine Press
Ltd., 1910. Found at: http://www.archive.org/stream/completepeerageo01coka#page/240/mode/2up
"He m. Isabel, da. of Roger DE MORTIMER, of Wigmore, by
Maud, da. and coh. of William DE BRIOUZE, of Brecknock. He d.
18 Mar. I271/2,(d) and was bur. in Haughmond Abbey, Salop. His
widow m., before (1273) 1 Edw. I, Ralph D'ARDERNE, (living Apr.
1283) and m., 3rdly, 2 Sep. 1285, at Poling, Sussex, (privately)
Robert
DE HASTINGS, for which marriage, having omitted to obtain the Royal
lic, she was fined £1,000."
It does make one wonder how many CP "errors" have similar bases......
CE Wood
On Sep 6, 12:31 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
TJ Booth
Thank you for documenting that there are 2 versions of CP Vol 1, with some
spelling and date variations. Which causes one to wonder 1) how much else is
different, and 2) is there a preferred version.
Douglas,
I apologize for suggesting that you quoted incorrectly from CP. But since I
also quoted correctly, CP is the one with the problem - a problem that
apparently few people knew about until today.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
http://www.archive.org/stream/completepeerageo01coka#page/240/mode/2up
taf
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
Douglas Richardson
< So you pretend you are reporting an error no one had noticed before,
< rather than sourcing a correction already published?
<
< taf
What was that again? You lost me.
Douglas Richardson
< Todd,
<
< Thank you for documenting that there are 2 versions of CP Vol 1,
with some
< spelling and date variations. Which causes one to wonder 1) how much
else is
< different, and 2) is there a preferred version.
It was Carolyn, not Todd, who documented that there are two versions
of CP Vol. 1. Hats off to Carolyn.
Douglas Richardson
As I noted in my first post in this thread, Complete Peerage gives NO
documentation that John Fitz Alan's wife, Isabel, was the daughter of
Roger de Mortimer, of Wigmore. Since I'm certain that there is other
evidence in existence which proves Isabel's parentage, I wonder if
someone else can post evidence from a contemporary source which proves
Isabel's maiden name and/or parentage.
For starters, I've already cited evidence that Isabel was styled "Lady
Isabel de Mortimer" when acting as patron of Cold Norton Priory,
Oxfordshire in 1284-5 [see Smith & London, Heads of Religious Houses,
England & Wales 2 (2001): 370]. The patronage of Cold Norton Priory
was held by the Fitz Alan family which explains how and why Isabel was
acting as patron of this house in 1284-5. I should note that the fact
that she is called by her maiden name in this record is a clear
indication of her high station in medieval society.
John Watson
Hi Douglas,
These entries in the Close Rolls identify Isabel as a daughter of
Roger Mortimer:
10 November 1283, To Master Henry de Bray, escheator this side Trent.
Whereas in the assignment of dower made by the late king to Isabella
de Mortuo Mari, late the wife of John son of Alan, tenant in chief of
the said king, the dower falling to her from the towns of Obbel[eye],
Pertherodry, Obendrichf, Obbaris, Larquenhop, Eyleston, and Moneton,
which are under Portlok and are of the Welshery (Walescher') and
members of the manor of Clone, which belonged to John, and also her
dower from the waste of La Hethe, and 89 waste burgages in the borough
of Clone, eight carucates of land of demesnes and assarts and of the
waste lands of customary tenants pertaining to the said manor, were
not assigned to her because no extent of those towns, burgages and
wastes had been returned into the late king's chancery, and also her
dower from the Welshery of Temcestre with the forest of Clone, which
is above Portlok, was not assigned to her because Llewelyn son of
Griffin, sometime prince of Wales, who occupied them during John's
lifetime, held that Welshery in his hands until Roger de Mortuo Mari,
lately deceased, ejected him thence by the strong hand: the king,
wishing dower thereof to be assigned to Isabella, orders the escheator
to make extent of the premises, and to cause dower to be assigned to
her in accordance therewith. It is provided that 6l. 7s. 9¾d. yearly
of land in the town of Edeneston within the manor of Screwardyn and
11l. 2s. 9d. of the issues of the mills of Oswestry (de Albo
Monasterio), which the aforesaid Roger committed to Isabella to have
in tenancia until dower from the aforesaid manor of Clon should be
assigned to her, shall be restored to the executors of Roger's will.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 2: 1279-1288 (1902), pp.
225-228
15 April 1284, Assignment of dower of Isabella de Mortuo Mari of the
lands within the manor that belonged to John son of Alan.—Upon the
king sending his writ (set out in full) to Master Henry de Bray,
escheator this side Trent, dated at Hereford, 15 November, in his
eleventh year, notifying him that whereas in the assignment of dower
made by the late king to Isabella de Mortuo Mari, late the wife of
John son of Alan, tenant in chief, the dower falling to her of the
towns of Obbel[eye], Pertherodry, Obendrit, Obbarrys, Laquernhope,
Eyleston, and Moneton, which are below Portlok, and which are of the
Welshery (Walescheria) and members of the manor of Clone, which
belonged to John, and also [her dower] of the waste of La Heth and of
80 waste burgages in the borough of Clone, and of 8 carucates of land
of demesnes and assarts and of waste lands of customary tenants
pertaining to the same manor was not assigned to her because no extent
of those towns, burgages and wastes had been returned into the late
king's chancery, and also her dower from the Welshery of Themecestre
with the forest of Clone, which is above Portlok, was not assigned to
her because Llewelyn son of Griffin, sometime prince of Wales, who
occupied them during John's lifetime, held that Welshery in his hands
until Roger de Mortuo Mari, lately deceased, ejected him thence by the
strong hand; the king orders the escheator to make extent of the
premises, and to cause dower to be assigned to Isabella in accordance
therewith. It is provided that 6l. 7s. 9¾d. yearly of land in the town
of Edenesdon, within the manor of Schrewardyn, and 11l. 2s. 9d. of the
issues of the mills of Oswestry (de Albo Monasterio), which the
aforesaid Roger committed to Isabella to hold in tenancia until dower
from the aforesaid manor of Clon should be assigned to her, shall be
restored to the executors of Roger's will.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 2: 1279-1288 (1902), pp.
259-263
6 June 1287, To Master Henry de Bray, escheator this side Trent. Order
to restore to Robert de Hasteng' and Isabella, his wife, late the wife
of John son of Alan, tenant in chief of the late king, the lands,
goods and chattels of Isabella, which the king ordered the escheator
to take into the king's hands, believing that Isabella's marriage
pertained to him, because she had married the said Robert, as the king
afterwards ascertained by inspection of letters patent of the late
king that the late king granted Isabella's marriage or the forfeiture
pertaining to him if she married without the consent of the said king
or of Roger de Mortuo Mari, her father, to the said Roger, and also by
the letters of the abbot of Wyggemore and other executors of Roger's
will the king learns that Robert and Isabella made fine with the
executors for the marriage and forfeiture aforesaid. Witness: Edmund,
earl of Cornwall.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 2: 1279-1288 (1902), pp.
450-453
Regards,
John
John
> Todd,
>
> Thank you for documenting that there are 2 versions of CP Vol 1, with some
> spelling and date variations. Which causes one to wonder 1) how much else is
> different, and 2) is there a preferred version.
>
> Douglas,
>
> I apologize for suggesting that you quoted incorrectly from CP. But since I
> also quoted correctly, CP is the one with the problem - a problem that
> apparently few people knew about until today.
>
> Terry Booth
> Chicago IL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "taf" <t...@clearwire.net>
>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Death date of Isabel de Mortimer, wife of
> JohnFitzAlan, Ralph d'Arderne, and Robert Hastang
>
> On Sep 6, 12:31 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> > I have a copy of the page in question from the 1910 edition of
> > Complete Peerage. It says "Robert de Hastings," not "Robert de
> > Hastang." So no, I didn't make a mstkae. Ooops I mispelled
> > mistake. Dagnabit.
>
> > Everyone wait a minute. I'll run and get my reading glasses.
> > Mmmm .... the page from Complete Peerage still says "Robert de
> > Hastings." Oh my stars!
>
> > So,yes, I quoted Complete Peerage correctly.
>
> Theatrics aside, this is all ridiculous.
>
> Page 240 of the 1910 Edition, as found on the BYU site says "DE
> HASTANG":
>
>
> Page 240 of the 1910 Edition, as found on the Internet Archive says
> "DE HASTINGS":
>
> http://www.archive.org/stream/completepeerageo01coka#page/240/mode/2up
>
> Make of it all what you will.
>
> > AND yes, I checked Complete Volume 14 but they gave the correction
> > alright but they didn't quote the source for the correction.
>
> So you pretend you are reporting an error no one had noticed before,
> rather than sourcing a correction already published?
>
> taf
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Some light may be shed on the mystery of the two editions of CP vol. 1
by this comment in note 12 of the introduction to vol. 14:
"Volumes I-IV seem to have been reprinted in the mid-1920s (see HLRO,
CP 16, for various estimates of costs). Evidence of the reprinting
may be seen at various points in these volumes, e.g. in volume I,
where the last four lines on the 4th Earl of Abercorn were rewritten
to correct the mistaken statement in the first printing that the earl
died when re-embarking for France after the battle of the
Boyne." [end quote]
The reprinting of vols. I-IV is also alluded to in note 17 of the
introduction to vol. 14. The reduced-print edition of CP published in
2000 appears to be based on the reprinted editions, as it contains the
corrected Abercorn material mentioned above, as well as Hastang
instead of Hastings in the Arundel article. The latter instance, of
course, is what occasioned the announcement of a "CP error" that
started this thread.
The various editors of CP can perhaps be faulted for not providing
sufficient sources for their work (although they were diligent in
using footnotes to identify sources for specific facts when possible -
a practice not followed by some later compilers of genealogies who
prefer the "muddle of references" approach to identifying sources).
But, at least in the case of the two "errors" discussed in this
thread, it's clear that the editors of CP did catch and correct their
mistakes. So, as Todd has said, these are not errors "that no one had
noticed before", as the enthusiastic poster who started this thread
would have us believe.
Douglas Richardson
< Hi Douglas,
<
< These entries in the Close Rolls identify Isabel as a daughter of
< Roger Mortimer:
John ~
Thanks for sharing these items from the Close Rolls with the
newsgroup. Much appreciated. The evidence you posted has confirmed
that Isabel de Mortimer was the daughter of Roger de Mortimer. That's
a great start. By any chance, do you have weblinks to go with these
citations?
Anyone else have something more to share regarding Isabel de Mortimer
or her husbands? There's a lot of material out there.
Christine Czarnecki
Of the ones you have listed, my gateway lines are from Gabriel Ludlow and his
daughter Sarah, and William Randolph. Also, if you are going along with Gary
Boyd Roberts' yet-to-be-proven line for Benjamin Harrison I, progenitor of the
James River Harrisons, the Bernards in this line are also Plantagenet
descendants.
Lastly, Henry Isham, not a Plantagenet but a descendant of William the Lyon.
All of these gateway ancestors came to Tidewater Virginia, (although Gabriel
Ludlow's brother, Roger, became Deputy Governor of Massachusetts).
Christine
________________________________
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Mon, September 6, 2010 12:31:17 PM
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Death date of Isabel de Mortimer, wife of John
FitzAlan, Ralph d'Arderne, and Robert Hastang
Dear Newsgroup ~
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
taf
> On Sep 6, 3:27 pm, "TJ Booth" <terryjbo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> < Todd,
> <
> < Thank you for documenting that there are 2 versions of CP Vol 1,
> with some
> < spelling and date variations. Which causes one to wonder 1) how much
> else is
> < different, and 2) is there a preferred version.
>
> It was Carolyn, not Todd, who documented that there are two versions
> of CP Vol. 1. Hats off to Carolyn.
Mr. Richardson. Such distortions of the posting record do you no
honor.
Cochoit
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>
> For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
> World immigrants that descend from Lady Isabel de Mortimer:
>
>
> Do you see your ancestor (or ancestress) on the list above? If so,
> I'd enjoy hearing from you here on the newsgroup.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you for the correction Douglas. I do not have, and, after a bit
of looking around, cannot find the connection between Isabel De
Mortimer and Mary Gye. Can you (or anyone) outline the descent from
Isabel to Mary Gye?
Joe Cochoit
Douglas Richardson
< Thank you for the correction Douglas. I do not have, and, after a
bit
< of looking around, cannot find the connection between Isabel De
< Mortimer and Mary Gye. Can you (or anyone) outline the descent from
< Isabel to Mary Gye?
<
< Joe Cochoit
Dear Joe ~
I recently removed one of Mary Gye's lines in the manuscripts of the
2nd editions of Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry, but did
not adjust the corresponding footnotes. I have done that now. You
are correct. Mary Gye does not presently descend from Isabel de
Mortimer.
For your information, I've also removed two immigrants from the two
manuscripts: Thomas Wingfield, of Virginia (both PA and MCA) and
Edward Fitz Randolph (MCA), The Wingfield line was based on an
unsupported identification of the immigrant's parents. The Fitz
Randolph line has always had problems. However, I found yet another
problem in the line which proved fatal to the descent.
John
> On Sep 7, 9:54 am, Cochoit <coch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> < Thank you for the correction Douglas. I do not have, and, after a
> bit
> < of looking around, cannot find the connection between Isabel De
> < Mortimer and Mary Gye. Can you (or anyone) outline the descent from
> < Isabel to Mary Gye?
> <
> < Joe Cochoit
>
> Dear Joe ~
>
> I recently removed one of Mary Gye's lines in the manuscripts of the
> 2nd editions of Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry, but did
> not adjust the corresponding footnotes. I have done that now. You
> are correct. Mary Gye does not presently descend from Isabel de
> Mortimer.
>
"Recently removed"? An interesting choice of words.... It would be
more accurate to say "finally removed", as the purported connection
between Mary Gye and Isabel de Mortimer goes via the Baynton family
and depends on a connection between Baynton and Echingham (and thus to
Mortimer) which was shown by Louise Staley and others in June 2006 to
be entirely without support.
It's good to see that at least some of the mistakes in the first
editions of RPA and MCA have perhaps now been acknowledged and
rectified by their author - finally, after years of stonewalling and
silence.
Douglas Richardson
As I noted this past week, Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 240 (sub
Arundel) has an account of John Fitz Alan (died 1272), lord of Clun
and Oswestry, which individual is ancestor of the later Earls of
Arundel. Regarding his wife, Isabel de Mortimer, the following
information is provided:
"He married Isabel, daughter of Roger de Mortimer, of Wigmore, by
Maud, daughter and coheiress of William de Briouze, of Brecknock."
END OF QUOTE.
As I indicated last week, no evidence was advanced by Complete Peerage
to prove this marriage or any date provided for the marriage.
Likewise no contemporary sources were cited to prove Isabel's
parentage. Since my original post, John Watson has kindly posted
items from the Close Rolls which proves that Isabel was the daughter
of Roger de Mortimer.
Sometime ago, I located the following fine which indicates that John
Fitz Alan and Isabel, daughter of Roger de Mortimer, were married
before 14 May 1460.
"378. 44 Hen. III. Westm', morrow of the Ascension [14 May, 1260];
Rog. de Mortuo Mari quer., Ioh. fil. Alani deforc.; 100 marcates of
land in Norton [Chipping Norton] and Acton'; plea of covenant; Ioh.
recognized that if he outlives John his son who married Isabella, the
daughter of R. before he was 14 14 years old, the 100 marcates shall
remain to I. for life as dos; also if John when he reaches 14 years
refuses the contract of marriage, she shall have the money for life
for her maintenance; in return R. granted to Isabella 40 librates of
land in Andinton in Shropshire as matrimonium, to be held by John and
Isabella and the issue of the marriage; if there is no issue, it shall
revert aftet the death of Isabella to R. and his heirs." (C.P. 25.
283. 15) [Reference: Rev. H. E. Salter The Feet of Fines for
Oxfordshire, 1195-1291
(Oxfordshire Record Society, vol. 12)(1930), pp. 241-242]. END OF
QUOTE.
The wording of the above fine reflects the fact that by medieval
custom, couples betrothed as children were considered married,
regardless of the fact that their marriage had not yet been
consumated. The manor of Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire mentioned in
the above fine descended in the Fitz Alan family until about 1385,
when it was settled by Richard de Arundel, 11th Earl of Arundel, on
his niece, Philippe Arundel, wife of Richard Sergeaux, in satisfaction
of her claims on her grandfather, the 10th Earl's estate. The manor
was subsequently held by Philippe (Arundel) Sergeaux's descendants.
Hopefully members of the newsgroup can post additional items from
contemporary sources which relate to Isabel de Mortimer and her three
husbands.
Douglas Richardson
In my last post, for "were married before 14 May 1460," please read
"were married before 14 May 1260."
DR
Douglas Richardson
I've checked around for information pertinent to Ralph d'Arderne, the
second husband of Isabel de Mortimer. Complete Peerage gives
virtually no particulars regarding Ralph d'Arderne. My research
indicates that Ralph d'Arderne and Isabel de Mortimer were married
before 14 Feb. 1276, and that Ralph d'Arderne was living 4 April 1283.
The following deed indicates that a certain Ralph d'Arderne was dead
before 8 July 1284, when his "son and heir," Thomas d'Arderne,
quitclaimed the manor of the manor of Housham, Essex to Anice Horn:
[Essex.] A. 455. Acknowledgment at Westminster in the quinzaine of St.
John the Baptist, 12 Edward I., by Thomas de Arderne, son and heir of
Ralph de Arderne, that he has quit-claimed to Anice, who was wife of
John Horn, the manor of Ovesham, with the advowson of the chapel and
10l. yearly, to be held of Earl Warrenne, chief lord of the manor.
Witnesses:—Henry le Waleis, then Mayor of London, Stephen de Cornhull,
Adam de Fulham, the elder, and the younger, and others "in carta
contentis." 12 Edward I. [Reference:
Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 1 (1890): 47-59].
Elsewhere I note that Proceedings of Somerset Arch. & Natural History
Society, 44 (1898): 209-210 states there can be "no doubt" that Thomas
d'Arderne, who married Lucy de Say, was the father of Ralph d'Arderne,
of Essex, who inherited Lucy's lands at Yeovil, Somerset. Ralph
d'Arderne, of Essex, was succeeded by a son and heir, Thomas, who
occurs in 1294. See the following weblink for that information:
The seal of Ralph d'Arderne, Knt., of Essex is given in Birch, Birch
Cat. Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 427. This may be viewed at
the following weblink:
Yet VCH Essex 8 (1983): 196-206 indicates that Ralph de Arderne, of
Essex, was living in 1258, and was survived by a widow, Erneburga, and
a son and heir, Thomas d'Arderne.
If this information is correct, then Ralph d'Arderne, of Essex, can
not be the individual who married Isabel de Mortimer. Does anyone
have better particulars regarding Ralph d'Arderne who married Isabel
de Mortimer?
Alex Maxwell Findlater
doubt that the original seat of the Yeovil branch of the Ardernes was
at Horndean in Essex”. Here the author is talking about a branch of
the family, although his terminology could be improved!
I would think that there could easily have been two successions of
Ralph to Thomas in different branches of the same family. However,
this is only an observation and it doesn't provide any evidence.
Douglas Richardson
There's an interesting account of Isabel de Mortimer prepared by
"Kathryn" on the Edward II blog. See the following weblink:
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/search?q=Arderne
Kathryn says the following about Isabel de Mortimer's 2nd husband,
Ralph d'Arderne:
"Isabella had married her second husband Sir Ralph Arderne by 1 April
1283. [4] The Complete Peerage says that the couple married 'before
1273', but this is incorrect: Ralph Arderne was still married to his
previous wife in August 1275*, an inquisition of June 1276 calls
Isabella Mortimer 'late the wife of John Fitzalan' with no mention of
Ralph Arderne, and as Fitzalan died in 1272, it seems unlikely that
she would have married again 'before 1273'. [5] Ralph Arderne was lord
of Horndon in Essex and either he or his namesake father was sheriff
of that county in the 1250s; a son, Thomas, was named as Ralph's heir
in August 1272, and a Ralph Arderne, probably another son, was
summoned to go against the Scots in 1298. An inquisition of the 1260s
mentions a 'Dame Erneburg Crue, late the wife of Ralph de Arderne',
presumably Ralph's mother or stepmother. [6]
* Confusion arises because a) Ralph Arderne's first wife was yet
another Isabel and b) she was the widow of a man called 'John son of
Alan de Wolverton', and the name of Isabella Mortimer's first husband
John Fitzalan is usually given in the English translation of the
chancery rolls as 'John son of Alan' (which is annoying and confusing,
because Fitzalan had become the family surname and was no longer a
patronymic)." END OF QUOTE.
Kathryn appears to take the position that Ralph d'Arderne, husband of
Isabel de Mortimer, is the same person as Ralph d'Arderne, of Essex,
who had a wife, Erneburg, and a son and heir, Thomas. Yet if Thomas
was Ralph's heir in 1272 as stated by Kathryn, then Ralph d'Arderne of
Essex can not possibly have been Isabel de Mortimer's husband.
As for the confusion over Ralph d'Arderne's wife, Isabel, it appears
that some people have mistakenly thought John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton,
is the same person as John Fitz Alan, of Clun and Oswestry, who
married Isabel de Mortimer. This is false.
Kathryn questions Complete Peerage's statement that Isabel de Mortimer
and Ralph d'Arderne were married before 1273. I show they were
married before 14 Feb. 1276.
John Watson
>
> The seal of Ralph d'Arderne, Knt., of Essex is given in Birch, Birch
> Cat. Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 427. This may be viewed at
> the following weblink:
>
>
> Yet VCH Essex 8 (1983): 196-206 indicates that Ralph de Arderne, of
> Essex, was living in 1258, and was survived by a widow, Erneburga, and
> a son and heir, Thomas d'Arderne.
>
> If this information is correct, then Ralph d'Arderne, of Essex, can
> not be the individual who married Isabel de Mortimer. Does anyone
> have better particulars regarding Ralph d'Arderne who married Isabel
> de Mortimer?
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hi Douglas,
Perhaps one explanation is that Ralph d'Arderne, second husband of
Isabel Mortimer was a younger son of Ralph d'Arderne and Erneburga de
Assartis.
See: 'Parishes: Matching', A History of the County of Essex: Volume 8
(1983), pp. 196-206.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63853
Roger Mortimer, Isabel's father certainly had some dealings with
Erneburga and her second husband Richard de Coleworth around the time
that Isabel married Ralph d'Arderne, as shown by this entry in the
Close Rolls:
4 November 1274, Enrolment of agreement between Sir Roger de Mortuo
Mari and Richard de Coleworth and Erneburga his wife, whereby Richard
and Erneburga, for 350 marks in which they are indebted to Roger,
demise to Roger for twelve years 20l. yearly of land and rent in
Kyngeston and Jevele, which they held in Erneburga's dower of the free
tenement that belonged to Ralph de Ardene, her husband, in co.
Somerset and elsewhere. In case Roger be unable to have seisin thereof
for the said term, Richard and Erneburga bind themselves and their
lands in Ovesham and Borham, co. Essex, Coleworth, co. Northampton,
and elsewhere for payment of what shall be lacking of the aforesaid
350 marks. At the end of the term the land and rent shall revert to
Richard and Erneburga or to Thomas de Arden, her son. Witnesses:
Master Roger de Seyton; Ralph de Hengham; Brian de Brompton, the
younger; Grimbald Pauncefot; William de Ivelton; Richard de Haydon;
Peter de Bruges; John Daniel; Robert de Burcy of Blakemor.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 1: 1272-1279 (1900), p. 252
Regards,
John
John Watson
> that some people have mistakenly thought John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton,
> is the same person as John Fitz Alan, of Clun and Oswestry, who
> married Isabel de Mortimer. This is false.
>
[May 1262] For John fitz Alan of Wlureton’. To the barons of the
Exchequer. Whereas John son of Alan had lately been amerced before the
king (coram nobis) at £40 for a false claim, the king, then
understanding this had been the person of John fitz Alan of Arundel,
his baron, and later understanding for certain that it had not been
this person but John fitz Alan of Wlfreton’, the king has pardoned to
the same John fitz Alan of Wlfreton’ all but one mark of the aforesaid
£40. Order to cause him to be quit therefrom in the form aforesaid.
Fine Rolls 46 Henry III, No. 450
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_059.html
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
Great post. Thank you for sharing this information with the
newsgroup.
Yes, I agree that it is no coincidence that Roger de Mortimer (father
of Isabel de Mortimer) had dealings in 1279 with Erneburga, widow of
Ralph d'Arderne, and her second husband, Richard de Coleworth. I show
that Erneburg's first husband, Ralph d'Arderne was living in 1257, and
died before 1259.
I also agree with you that Ralph de Arderne, husband of Isabel de
Mortimer, was likely a younger son of Ralph d'Arderne (d. c.1259) and
his wife, Erneburga. Actually there is evidence which supports this
position. I find that the elder Ralph d'Arderne held the manor of
Souldern, Oxfordshire in 1255 [see VCH Oxford, 6 (1959): 301-213].
Following his death, he was succeeded at Souldern by his son and heir,
Thomas d'Arderne, who occurs there in the period, 1259-1285.
In 1279, the Hundred Rolls indicates a certain Ralph d'Arderne was a
tenant of two virgates of land at Souldern, Oxfordshire, he then
holding this property under Thomas d'Arderne, lord of the manor. An
abstract of the Hundred Rolls for Souldern, Oxfordshire is published
in Blomfield, History of Souldern (1893): 10. This record may be
viewed at the following weblink:
VCH Oxford 6 likewise mentions the Hundred Roll in question and states
that Ralph de Arderne, the tenant of 1279, "was no doubt a relative of
the lord of the manor" [that is, Thomas de Arderne]. I propose that
Ralph de Arderne, the tenant at Souldern, is identical with Ralph de
Arderne, husband of Isabel de Mortimer.
Douglas Richardson
There is additional information regarding Sir Ralph de Arderne and his
son, Thomas, in English Historical Review, Vol. 5 (1890), pg. 595,
which may be viewed at the following weblink:
The author states that Sir Ralph de Arderne was an itinerant justice
(but I suspect this was an earlier man in the pedigree). Ralph's son
and heir, Thomas de Arderne, owned two wards in London.
The author makes reference to Drummond's "elaborate" pedigree" of the
Arderne family, which sets forth the sons of Sir Ralph de Arderne.
Does anyone know where this pedigree is published? I assume
Drummond's book is entitled Histories of Noble British Families.
I should also note that the Arderne family manor of Souldern,
Oxfordshire was held in the late 1200's by Thomas de Lewknor and his
wife, Lucy, who presumably was the daughter of Thomas de Arderne, son
of Ralph de Arderne the elder. In 1287 a certain Erneburgha de Bray,
daughter of Ralph de Bray, registered her claim to property held by
Thomas and Lucy. See the following weblink to Fitznells Cartulary:
Erneburga de Bray evidently married a certain Richard de Limersey (or
Lymbotesey). She was also heiress of her brother, Ralph de Bray. See
the following weblinks:
Query: Was Erneburga de Bray the same person as Erneburga, living
1279, who was wife successively of Ralph de Arderne and Richard de
Coleworth? I ask because Ralph de Bray (father of Erneburga de Bray)
evidently had some interest in the manor of Souldern, Oxfordshire,
which property was held in the 1250's by Ralph de Arderne.
Here is a weblink to Essex Feet of Fines which mentions Erneburga,
wife of Ralph de Arderne, and Erneburga, wife of Richard de Coleworth,
which lady is the same woman.
Douglas Richardson
Lucy de Arderne, and Erneburga de Bray:
Douglas Richardson
Back in 2010, I started a discussion regarding the history of Isabel de Mortimer (died 1292), wife of John Fitz Alan, of Arundel, which lady is ancestral of the later Earls of Arundel and numerous 17th Century New World immigrants.
Complete Peerage 1 (1910): 240 (sub Arundel) states without documentation that Isabel de Mortimer, widow of John Fitz Alan, of Arundel, married (2nd) "before (1273) 1 Edw. I, Ralph d'Arderne, (living Apr. 1283)." A similar statement regarding Isabel de Mortimer's alleged 2nd marriage is made in Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire 7 (1858): 229 (Arundel ped.), 259-260. Cal. of Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (1900): 350 clearly shows, however, that Isabel, wife of Ralph d'Arderne, in 1276, was the widow of a completely different John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, Buckinghamshire, who died in 1271-2 [see VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 334; 4 (1927): 209-215].
The marriage of Ralph d'Arderne and Isabel, widow of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, Buckinghamshire is further indicated by a lawsuit dated 1276, whereby Roger de Radenham sued Maurice de Craon, custodian of the lands of John son of John Fitz Alan, in a plea that he warrant him in a third part of two messuages and 19 acres of land in Redenham (in Fyfield), Hampshire, which Ralph de Ardern and Isabel his wife claimed in dower [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/15, image 4910f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no15/aCP40no15fronts/IMG_4910.htm)]. The defendant in this lawsuit, Maurice de Craon, was granted custody of the lands and heir of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, Buckinghamshire in 1275 [see Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1272-1281 (1901): 93; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (1900): 502]. Ralph de Arderne and his wife, Isabel, "late the wife of John son of Alan" occur in 1283 and 1284 [see Cal. of Close Rolls, 1279-1288 (1902): 204; Feudal Aids 4 (1906): 5; VCH Northampton 5 (2002): 413-438]. Ralph and his wife, Isabel, were still alive in 1286, when an assize of novel disseisin was arraigned to ascertain if Ralph de Ardern and Isabel his wife unjustly disseised William Dyve of his free tenement in Wolverton, Buckinghamshire [see Boatwright, Buckinghamshire Eyre of 1286 (Buckinghamshire Rec. Soc. 34) (2006): 181, 199].
Kathryn Warner's Edward II blog takes the strange position that Ralph d'Arderne married both Isabel, wife of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, AND Isabel de Mortimer, of John Fitz Alan, of Arundel [see http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2010/02/isabella-mortimer.html]. The records cited above, however, for Isabel, wife of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, and Ralph d'Arderne, show that she was the wife of Ralph d'Arderne in 1276, 1283, 1284, and 1286.
As for Isabel de Mortimer, she occurs in various records as the unmarried widow of John Fitz Alan, of Arundel, from the time of his death in 1272 up through 1284-5, when she is on record as having presented to Cold Norton Priory, Oxfordshire. She subsequently married (2nd) on 2 September 1285, to Robert de Hastang, as indicated by the historian, Scott Waugh, Lordship of England (1988): 131-132, who states as follows:
"It turned out that Henry III had granted the right of her [Isabel's] marriage to her father, that after he died his executors accepted her fine for the right to marry whomever she pleased, and that she had married Robert de Hastang on 2 September 1285." END OF QUOTE.
Footnote 90 on page 132 adds the following references regarding Isabel de Mortimer's marriage to Robert de Hastang: PRO, SC 1/45/39 (5 October 1286); E. 169/60 mm. 2d, 7d (memoranda concerning Isabel's appearance before the barons and the proof of the grant of her marriage, November 1286); SC 1/45/48 (acknowledgement by Edward, 15 May 1287); CCR, 1279-1288, 451." END OF QUOTE.
Taken together, these facts utterly preclude Isabel de Mortimer from being the same person as Isabel, widow of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, who regularly occurs as the wife of Ralph de Arderne from 1276 to at least 1286. The two women have entirely separate histories.
Douglas Richardson
"Kathryn Warner's Edward II blog takes the strange position that Ralph d'Arderne married both Isabel, wife of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, AND Isabel de Mortimer, of John Fitz Alan, of Arundel ..."
I meant to say:
Kathryn Warner's Edward II blog takes the strange position that Ralph d'Arderne married both Isabel, widow of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, AND Isabel de Mortimer, widow of John Fitz Alan, of Arundel ..."
DR
Bill
It appears that you have precisely identified the problem within CP which confused the two Isabels. However I am confused as to how to correct my database. Could you please clarify how you would adjust each Isabel's ancestral and descent lines. What I took from CP is the following:
Isabel de Mortimer (1248-1292)
Father - Roger de Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore (c1231-<1282)
Mother - Maud de Braose (1222-<1301)
Married 1st John fitz Alan, 7th of Arundel in 1260
Daughter Maud c1264
Son Richard fitz Alan, 8th of Arundel in 1266
Married 2nd Ralph d'Arderne (aka Robert de Arderne) <1273 (Is this is the incorrect marriage which should actually be attributed to the Isabel who married John fitz Alan of Wolverton?)
Married 3rd Robert de Hastang 1285 (Should this also be attributed to the other Isabel?)
Any clarification of the above that you can provide would be very helpful. Also, do you have any detail on the parentage of the other Isabel?
Thanks
Bill
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
In answer to your question, you need to remove the marriage of Isabel de Mortimer and Ralph de Arderne from your database. The marriage is fictitious.
Ralph de Arderne married a entirely different woman, Isabel, widow of John Fitz Alan, of Wolverton, Buckinghamshire. At the present time, I have no particulars regarding the family name of this second Isabel.
As I indicated earlier this week, Ralph de Arderne and his wife, Isabel, were both living in 1286. As such, it would appear that he is an entirely different person than the Ralph de Arderne, of Essex, who died before 8 July 1284.
So we have two different women named Isabel, who were widows of a John Fitz Alan, and two different men named Ralph de Arderne. Who knew?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah