Clemence de Verdun and Steeple Lavington
Chris Phillips
as far as the ancestry of Clemence de Verdun is concerned.
So far, it's been assumed that Clemence was the daughter of Roger Dauntsey -
this identification was apparently made by Paget on the basis that Roger
Dauntsey had a grant of £11.17.0 rent in Steeple Lavington in free marriage
with his wife, the daughter of Peter (or Robert) de la Mare, and Clemence
later settled Steeple Lavington on Maud (described as her daughter) on her
marriage to Sir John Fitz Alan. (However, as discussed previously, it seems
that this Maud must have been Clemence's granddaughter, not her daughter.)
I've had a look at a couple of the records concerned today, and it seems
that Paget has made a blunder.
The settlement of the rent in Steeple Lavington (later known as Market
Lavington) is mentioned in the inquisition post mortem of Peter de la Mara
(Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Henry III, no 927). It is stated that
he gave 11£.17s rent in the same town ("Stuppellavinton") to Sir Roger de
Dantese in free marriage with his daughter. His heir is said to be Sir
Robert de la Mara, aged 40.
The inquisition is undated, but its reference number is C. Hen. III File 47
(20), and the printed edition gives a cross-reference to "Rot. Fin. 38 Hen.
III. m.11" [1253 or 1254]. (Unfortunately I wasn't able to look at the Rot.
Fin. reference today.)
The Victoria County History of Wiltshire, vol.10, p.87 examines the descent
of the manor of Market Lavington through a long sequence of alternating
Robert de la Mares and Peter de la Mares. It refers the inquisition quoted
above to a Peter de la Mare who was succeeded in 1254 by his son Robert.
This Peter had succeeded by 1211, when he was a minor.
To add to the confusion, the manor was later leased to William Dauntsey, in
1522.
Clearly it's impossible that the daughter of Peter de la Mare, on whom the
rent in Steeple Lavington was settled (who would have been born perhaps in
the 1210s), was the mother of Clemence de Verdun, as it's previously been
argued that Clemence's daughter Rohese was born around 1205. If this is the
only evidence on which the identification of Clemence as a daughter of Roger
Dauntsey relies - and I think it's the only evidence I've seen cited - then
that identification is incorrect.
The VCH identifies the estate held by the de Verdun family (which was
settled by Clemence de Verdun on Maud) as a different manor, called
Fiddington, which was subsequently part of West Lavington, but which
possibly formed part of Market Lavington at an early date (VCH Wilts vol.10,
p.93). VCH points out that Ralph de Verdun held land in Wiltshire in 1175-6,
but the first definite reference to a de Verdun holding in Lavington comes
in 1216, when land there, formerly of Nicholas de Verdun, a rebel, was
committed by the king to Ralph de Harang. It is added that the land must
have been subsequently have been restored to the Verduns, saying that Maud
Whitechurch, daughter of Lady Clemence de Verdun, conveyed it in 1269 to
Robert Walrond (citing Cal. Feet of Fines Wilts, ed. Fry, p.59 - which I was
also unable to look at today), and then referring to the inquisition of 1273
that we've already heard of, which mentions that Clemence had settled it on
Maud in marriage.
It seems that this evidence disposes of the identification of Clemence as a
daughter of Roger Dauntsey by a de la Mare wife. But it still seems that
Clemence was the mother of Nicholas de Verdun's daughter Rohese, and that
the Maud "de Albo Monasterio" who had married John Fitz Alan was Rohese's
daughter. So much of the chronological argument that Paul Reed put forward
would still be against Clemence being the mother of King John's daughter
Joan, as would the argument about consanguinity of Maud's son John Fitz Alan
and his wife Isabel.
But Clemence's identity seems to be unknown. The only clue we should be left
with is the "dau. (1178) of Walter de Lacy" mentioned by Todd Farmerie - I'm
not sure what the source is for that.
Chris Phillips
Paul C. Reed
> I'm sorry to say it looks as though we've all been barking up the wrong tree
> as far as the ancestry of Clemence de Verdun is concerned.
Chris, this is interesting, and her ancestry may well be wrong. But even if she
wasn't "de Dauntsey" she was still Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun, and
all the factual statements we've made which influence our judgment of chronology
(based on the marriage of Rohese, etc.) are still valid. I would wonder, then,
if no
record involving Roger de Dauntsey named a daughter Clemence. Otherwise it's
just coincidence that both families had lands in Steeple Lavington.
>
> So far, it's been assumed that Clemence was the daughter of Roger Dauntsey -
> this identification was apparently made by Paget on the basis that Roger
> Dauntsey had a grant of £11.17.0 rent in Steeple Lavington in free marriage
> with his wife, the daughter of Peter (or Robert) de la Mare, and Clemence
> later settled Steeple Lavington on Maud (described as her daughter) on her
> marriage to Sir John Fitz Alan. (However, as discussed previously, it seems
> that this Maud must have been Clemence's granddaughter, not her daughter.)
>
> I've had a look at a couple of the records concerned today, and it seems
> that Paget has made a blunder.
>
> The settlement of the rent in Steeple Lavington (later known as Market
> Lavington) is mentioned in the inquisition post mortem of Peter de la Mara
> (Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Henry III, no 927). It is stated that
> he gave 11£.17s rent in the same town ("Stuppellavinton") to Sir Roger de
> Dantese in free marriage with his daughter. His heir is said to be Sir
> Robert de la Mara, aged 40.
This would account for the connection between de La Mare and Dauntsey.
> The inquisition is undated, but its reference number is C. Hen. III File 47
> (20), and the printed edition gives a cross-reference to "Rot. Fin. 38 Hen.
> III. m.11" [1253 or 1254]. (Unfortunately I wasn't able to look at the Rot.
> Fin. reference today.)
Usually the Fine Rolls just record a writ to the sheriff.
> The Victoria County History of Wiltshire, vol.10, p.87 examines the descent
> of the manor of Market Lavington through a long sequence of alternating
> Robert de la Mares and Peter de la Mares. It refers the inquisition quoted
> above to a Peter de la Mare who was succeeded in 1254 by his son Robert.
> This Peter had succeeded by 1211, when he was a minor.
>
> To add to the confusion, the manor was later leased to William Dauntsey,
> in
> 1522.
>
> Clearly it's impossible that the daughter of Peter de la Mare, on whom the
> rent in Steeple Lavington was settled (who would have been born perhaps in
> the 1210s), was the mother of Clemence de Verdun, as it's previously been
> argued that Clemence's daughter Rohese was born around 1205. If this is the
> only evidence on which the identification of Clemence as a daughter of Roger
> Dauntsey relies - and I think it's the only evidence I've seen cited - then
> that identification is incorrect.
It does at least make it likely that this ROger de Dauntsey was the same man
who married, second, in 1220.
> The VCH identifies the estate held by the de Verdun family (which was
> settled by Clemence de Verdun on Maud) as a different manor, called
> Fiddington, which was subsequently part of West Lavington, but which
> possibly formed part of Market Lavington at an early date (VCH Wilts vol.10,
> p.93). VCH points out that Ralph de Verdun held land in Wiltshire in 1175-6,
> but the first definite reference to a de Verdun holding in Lavington comes
> in 1216, when land there, formerly of Nicholas de Verdun, a rebel, was
> committed by the king to Ralph de Harang. It is added that the land must
> have been subsequently have been restored to the Verduns, saying that Maud
> Whitechurch, daughter of Lady Clemence de Verdun, conveyed it in 1269 to
> Robert Walrond (citing Cal. Feet of Fines Wilts, ed. Fry, p.59 - which I was
> also unable to look at today), and then referring to the inquisition of 1273
> that we've already heard of, which mentions that Clemence had settled it on
> Maud in marriage.
It would be very interesting if this source [Feet of Fines] also called Maud
"Whitechurch", daughter of Lady Clemence de Verdun. It would make me
think that Clemence might have had a daughter who was not daughter of
Nicholas de Verdun [thus, that she was second wife of Nicholas and had a
daughter by a previous marriage to a Blanchminster/Whitchurch].
> It seems that this evidence disposes of the identification of Clemence as a
> daughter of Roger Dauntsey by a de la Mare wife. But it still seems that
> Clemence was the mother of Nicholas de Verdun's daughter Rohese, and that
> the Maud "de Albo Monasterio" who had married John Fitz Alan was Rohese's
> daughter.
If two independent sources state that Maud Whitchurch /Albo Monasterio was
DAUGHTER of Lady Clemence de Verdun, but Maud was not daughter of
Nicholas de Verdun (Rohese was his heir), then Clemence might be a
relatively late wife of Nicholas de Verdun, and a different wife might be
mother of Rohese. Wasn't it the gift Clemence made in Steeple Lavington to
Maud that made us think Clemence was mother of Rohese? But if we separate
Maud and Clemence from Nicholas and Rohese... (am I thinking this out
correctly?). Also, do we indeed have evidence that the Maud Blanchminster
was Maud FitzAlan? If Nicholas de Verdun independently held land in
Steeple Lavington, and Clemence had land there of his own right, it might
explain how Nicholas and Clemence came together.
> So much of the chronological argument that Paul Reed put forward
> would still be against Clemence being the mother of King John's daughter
> Joan, as would the argument about consanguinity of Maud's son John Fitz Alan
> and his wife Isabel.
Yes, unless Clemence were not the mother of Rohese. Then the chronology
becomes even more implausible, but the impediment of consanguinity
disappears.
> But Clemence's identity seems to be unknown. The only clue we should be left
> with is the "dau. (1178) of Walter de Lacy" mentioned by Todd Farmerie - I'm
> not sure what the source is for that.
I'd wondered, given a Lacy intermarriage with Verdun a little later, if there
could have been confusion.
>
> Chris Phillips
Thanks, Chris, for keeping us on track. This is why I believe we should
always scrutinize things this carefully. I hope that as the APSG web site
becomes available that we will eventually exhaust sources for each
generation [such as Rohese and Nicholas]. That will not happen immediately,
but I believe it will be the eventual outcome.
Paul
[PS The above is just from memory, so reign me in if I'm wrong.]
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> But Clemence's identity seems to be unknown. The only clue we should be left
> with is the "dau. (1178) of Walter de Lacy" mentioned by Todd Farmerie - I'm
> not sure what the source is for that.
It was an uncited comment in a privately printed compilation that
attempted to bring together, without evaluation, genealogical
information found in various English prosopographical,
biographical, and local historical sources (i.e. CP, Eyton, VCH,
Burke, etc.). Being uncited, I have little faith that it
represents anything more than a mistaken interpretation of the
fact that Nicholas de Verdun and Hugh de Lacy were
brothers-in-law. This is a perfect example where process of
elimination produces a result perhaps inferior to "no idea".
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> If two independent sources state that Maud Whitchurch /Albo Monasterio was
> DAUGHTER of Lady Clemence de Verdun, but Maud was not daughter of
> Nicholas de Verdun (Rohese was his heir), then Clemence might be a
> relatively late wife of Nicholas de Verdun, and a different wife might be
> mother of Rohese. Wasn't it the gift Clemence made in Steeple Lavington to
> Maud that made us think Clemence was mother of Rohese? But if we separate
> Maud and Clemence from Nicholas and Rohese... (am I thinking this out
> correctly?). Also, do we indeed have evidence that the Maud Blanchminster
> was Maud FitzAlan? If Nicholas de Verdun independently held land in
> Steeple Lavington, and Clemence had land there of his own right, it might
> explain how Nicholas and Clemence came together.
Maybe I missed something. Why are we separating Rohese from
Clemence here? The chronology I worked up for Whitchurch
(assuming it is the same Whitchurch) actually works better with
an earlier birth of Maud, wife of William de Whitchurch. Thus
she could have been born to the mother of Rohese prior to her
marriage with Nicholas. The prior impediment was that Rohese was
thought to be Clemence's heiress, because of the Lavington
descent, but as there was no Lavington descent, Rohese need not
have been the eldest daughter of Clemence.
I present this scenario as a tool for further understanding. I
have no presumptions about it being right.
Clemence could have married first, ca. 1190/5 to a nobleman of
Welsh extraction, having a daughter Maud b. ca. 1196. This Welsh
lord d. ca. 1198, and Clemence then remarried Nicholas de Verdun,
having Rohese b. ca. 1205. Maud married William de Whitchurch,
having William b. ca. 1215, and Griffin, b.ca. 1218. The older
William d. ca. 1240. The "Maud de Whitchurch, dau. of Clemence"
was then either this widow, marrying late in life to a Fitz Alan,
or else represents confusion between aunt and niece, mistakenly
calling Maud (daughter of Rohese de Verdun) Maud de Whitchurch.
It works chronologically, but since the Whitchurch material isn't
all that solid, I don't know how far we want to use it in
reconstructing things.
Bartrum doesn't happen to show a Clemence married to any Welsh
lord at this time, does he?
taf
Paul C. Reed
phrased--not his fault) if there were two sources which called Maud "de
Whitechurch." There was only the one, which we already know about.
I checked Fry's abstracts of Wiltshire Feet of Fines. The fine in question
reads, "Westm. Easter in 3 weeks, 53 Edw. III. 1269. Robert Walerand,
quer. And Matilda de Verdon, imped. Messuage & lands in
Stepellavinton. [Market Lavington]."
[Chris wrote:]
[VCH 10:94] "It is added that the land must
have been subsequently have been restored to the Verduns, saying that Maud
Whitechurch, daughter of Lady Clemence de Verdun, conveyed it in 1269 to
Robert Walrond (citing Cal. Feet of Fines Wilts, ed. Fry, p.59 - which I was
also unable to look at today), and then referring to the inquisition of 1273
that we've already heard of, which mentions that Clemence had settled it on
Maud in marriage."
In none of these early records is reference made to Fiddington, it is only
described as land in Steeple Lavington. We don't know how this land came
into the family of Nicholas de Verdun, only that land in Steeple Lavington
was given to Ralph de Harang when Nicholas sided with the barons in
1216, but restored the following year. Thus it could have come into the
hands of Nicholas de Verdun in marriage with Clemence. Though Ralph
de Verdun held land in Wiltshire in 1175-6, the Verdun family had other
holdings in the county. There is nothing to tie that entry to this manor.
Where the VCH Wilts. states that the land [the manor of Fiddington, in
Market Lavington] passed before 1273 from Lady Clemence de Verdun
to her daughter Maud Whitechurch, it cites only CIPM 2:6 [Edw. I, no. 6].
This was the IPM of Robert Walrond in 1272. So it is ONLY this
IPM--of a family not descended from Maud de Verdun--which calls her
Albo Monasterio [Whitechurch]. In 1269 she was called "Matilda de
Verdon." Her first husband, John FitzAlan, died Oct-Nov. 1267.
(I doubt that if she had married a Whitechurch before 1242, she would
have been called WHitechurch in 1272; it would be more likely that
if this is not an error, that she married a WHitechurch after 1269 and
before 1272.)_ She had married Richard d'Amundeville by the time
she died on 27 Nov. 1283.
There is a difference between rents in Steeple Lavington [which
Roger de Dauntsey had in marriage with his wife] and the messuage
and lands in Steeple Lavington which Lady Clemence de Verdun
gave her [grand]daughter Maud in free marriage, which Maud
then sold to Robert Walrond. I didn't write down the Latin entry in
the Close Rolls in 1231, but I thought it said that Clemence,
widow of Nicholas de Verdun, was given land she had of her
own name in 1231 [it is an interesting coincidence that this entry
was immediately next to the entry which gave Rohesia de
Verdun her dower in the lands of Theobald the Butler].
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > If two independent sources state that Maud Whitchurch /Albo Monasterio was
> > DAUGHTER of Lady Clemence de Verdun, but Maud was not daughter of
> > Nicholas de Verdun (Rohese was his heir), then Clemence might be a
> > relatively late wife of Nicholas de Verdun, and a different wife might be
> > mother of Rohese. Wasn't it the gift Clemence made in Steeple Lavington to
> > Maud that made us think Clemence was mother of Rohese? But if we separate
> > Maud and Clemence from Nicholas and Rohese... (am I thinking this out
> > correctly?). Also, do we indeed have evidence that the Maud Blanchminster
> > was Maud FitzAlan? If Nicholas de Verdun independently held land in
> > Steeple Lavington, and Clemence had land there of his own right, it might
> > explain how Nicholas and Clemence came together.
>
> Maybe I missed something. Why are we separating Rohese from
> Clemence here?
If there had been two independent sources which called her Clemence's
"daughter" I would have looked on it differently, rather than being
inclined to think it was a mistake. But as there is only the one source....
> The chronology I worked up for Whitchurch
> (assuming it is the same Whitchurch) actually works better with
> an earlier birth of Maud, wife of William de Whitchurch. Thus
> she could have been born to the mother of Rohese prior to her
> marriage with Nicholas.
There was a Whitechurch in Devon, a Whitechurch in Wiltshire,
and a Whitechurch in Hampshire. Maud is a fairly common name.
> The prior impediment was that Rohese was
> thought to be Clemence's heiress, because of the Lavington
> descent, but as there was no Lavington descent, Rohese need not
> have been the eldest daughter of Clemence.
But the Calendar of Close Rolls states that Rohese was daughter
and heir of Nicholas de Verdun, so if Maud were daughter of
Rohese....
> I present this scenario as a tool for further understanding. I
> have no presumptions about it being right.
>
> Clemence could have married first, ca. 1190/5 to a nobleman of
> Welsh extraction, having a daughter Maud b. ca. 1196. This Welsh
> lord d. ca. 1198, and Clemence then remarried Nicholas de Verdun,
> having Rohese b. ca. 1205. Maud married William de Whitchurch,
> having William b. ca. 1215, and Griffin, b.ca. 1218.
But we now have no reason to believe that Maud married a
Whitechurch before 1269, and we have no reason to believe that IF
the jury were not mistaken, that the Whitechurch she married was
from that family, other than that this William had a wife named Maud.
If we find records to show that William Whitechurch had a wife
named Maud bewteen 1242 and 1267 [when our Maud was
married to Sir John FitzAlan], it would prove they were two
different Mauds.
> The older
> William d. ca. 1240. The "Maud de Whitchurch, dau. of Clemence"
> was then either this widow, marrying late in life to a Fitz Alan,
> or else represents confusion between aunt and niece, mistakenly
> calling Maud (daughter of Rohese de Verdun) Maud de Whitchurch.
>
> It works chronologically, but since the Whitchurch material isn't
> all that solid, I don't know how far we want to use it in
> reconstructing things.
I'd like to look at things more closely before thinking this likely.
> Bartrum doesn't happen to show a Clemence married to any Welsh
> lord at this time, does he?
>
> taf
I don't have a copy of Bartrum here.
CIPM 1:260-1 (no. 787), is the IPM of Robert de la Mare, writ 25
July 56 Hen. III [1272]. His son Peter, aged 24, was his heir [b.
ca.. 1248]. He held 1/7 of the manor of Steeple Lavington, held
of the king in socage of the castle of Devises.
CIPM 1:311 (no. 927 [in a group of IPMs which do not ave
surviving dates]), the IPM of Peter de la Mare, writ missing
and inq. undated, concerns demesne held of the king in chief by
service of 1 shield. His heir was is son Sir Robert de la Mare,
aged 40 or more. [Note here that this Robert was called knight
[or possibly chivaler] but that the IPM of the Robert who died
in 1272 did not style that Robert a knight.]
This is the IPM which states that Peter gave 11 l. 17 s. rent in
the town of Steeple Lavington to Sir Roger de Dantese in free
marriage with his daughter [referring to Rot. Fin. 38 Hen. III,
m. 11 (1253-4)].
This land is therefore described differently than the land in the
IPM of Robert father of Peter [d. 1272]. Note that these
records do not call the land "Lavington Baynton" or
"Lavington Dauntsey," and though VCH Wilts. 10:87
concludes that the above IPMs refer to the same manor, I
wonder if they have confused things. I have not yet
checked Wilts. IPMs published by the Index Library,
and a careful study of the Pipe Rolls for 1202, 1210, and
1211 needs to be made, in conjunction with entries from
the Red Book of the Exchequer 1:246, Rot. Litt. Claus.
1:298, and Curia Regis Rolls 9:65. I think this needs
to be done before we could feel safe about drawing
conclusions about this de la Mare family and Roger
de Dauntsey.
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> But we now have no reason to believe that Maud married a
> Whitechurch before 1269, and we have no reason to believe that IF
> the jury were not mistaken, that the Whitechurch she married was
> from that family, other than that this William had a wife named Maud.
> If we find records to show that William Whitechurch had a wife
> named Maud bewteen 1242 and 1267 [when our Maud was
> married to Sir John FitzAlan], it would prove they were two
> different Mauds.
The only source I have naming Maud dates her to 1237. I could
return to my earlier suggestion - that Maud was a late and young
second wife of William d. 1240, and that she subsequently married
John Fitz Alan, but in truth I think the whole Warenne of
Whitchurch sub-thread has been a red herring. Note that the last
known male member of this clan was dead ca. 1260, so any widow of
John Fitz Alan could not have married into this family.
I am still interested in working out the Warenne of Whitchurch
chronology, (particularly with the Warenne of Ightfield descent)
but it appears unrelated to the Clemence question.
taf
Paul C. Reed
died in 1230.
Nicholas de Verdun left a will, but I am unaware that it has survived [any abstract
or transcription would likely be in the British Library, Department of
Manuscripts]. The Memoranda Rolls, 16-17 Henry III [1231-33], p. 95, calls
her "Roysie de Verdon' filie et heredi dicti Nicholai...."
The Calendar of Close Rolls records a fairly thorough series of entries were
Rohese de Verdon was called by that name and acting on her own behalf, in
1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1238, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245 and 1247.
Rohese had paid 70 marks for her relief and livery of the lands of her
inheritance, as also taht she might not be compelled to marry; and in case she
should make coise of a husband, it was to be with the king's approbation
[Nichol's Leicester 3:638; MI 647].
10 Dec. 1241, Inspeximus and confirmation of a charter of Rohesia de Verdun
granting to St. Mary and th church of Holy Trinity de la Grace Deu at Belton
he manor and advowson of Belton [Cal. Charter Rolls 1:265].
The actual charter reads [Dugdale's Mon, Angl. 6:567]: "Sciant praesentes et
futuri quod ego Roesia de Verdun concessi et hac praesenti carta mea
confirmavi...
pro me et haeredibus meis, et animabus parentum meorum, et omnium
antecessorum meorum, ac maritorum...."
The Curia Regis Roll, 1243 [17:281-2 (no. 1462)] records that the Abbess
of Wilton was summoned to respond to Roesie de Verdun. Later in the suit
it mentions "Philippo le Butiller avo predicte Roesie" and "Clemencia de
Verdun filia ipsius Philippi".
Now if avo is from avus, -i [grandfather], and Roesia's mother Clemence
was daughter of the same Philip le Butiller.... [I did not think to copy out
the whole entry at the time.]
Paul
Rosie Bevan
The following is from the Edington Cartulary (Wiltshire Record Society,
1987), p.88-89.
Notification by Peter de Mara to Henry II that he holds Laventon in demesne
by grace of the king for the service of two knights but has no knight of
either old or new feoffment [1166 Red Bk Exch, i 246]
Richard de la Rokele holds a knight's fee in chief of the king in
Stepullavynton [1242-3 Bk of Fees, ii. 732]
Peter de la Mare holds a knight's fee in chief of the king in the same
township [1242-3 Bk of Fees, ii. 732]
Pain de Brenkewurth holds half knight's fee in Gara of Andrew le Blund and
his wife Helen who hold of Rbert de la Mare and Richard de Rokele, who hold
in chief [1242-3 Bk of Fees ii 732]
Roger Gernoun holds a knight's fee at Lavington of William le Blund who
holds in chief [1242-3 Bk of Fees, ii 736]
Patrick de Charwurtes holds a carucate of land in Lavynton of the heirs of
William Bruere, who hold in chief for an unknown service [1242-3 Bk of Fees,
ii 742]
Patrick de Chawars holds half knights fee at Stepullavynton in chief, which
Henry of Lancaster now holds of the inheritance of his wife, Patrick's heir.
c.1315.
In 1225 there was a dispute betwen William de Rokele pl. and Peter de la
Mare def.
"27 Jan 1225. Final concord made quin. Hil. 9 Henry III on a plea of wager
of battle, between William de Rokele, pl. and Peter de la Mare, def. of the
entire township of Lavynton viz. the advowson of the church there, the
messuage which belonged to William de la Rokele, father of William (pl) and
the moiety of the remainder of the township without any reservation except
the capital messuage, its garden, the mill which stands in front of its
gate, and the stewpond, and granary near the courtyard, which are to remain
to Peter and his heirs. By this fine the following lands and tenements
remain to William, to be held in chief for a moiety of the services
pertaining to the entire estate." It then goes on to describe in fine detail
every parcel of land and its tenant.
No mention of Verduns, Blancminsters or Butlers
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun and Steeple Lavington
> Never mind what I said while wondering (from the way Chris's post was
> phrased--not his fault) if there were two sources which called Maud "de
> Whitechurch." There was only the one, which we already know about.
>
> I checked Fry's abstracts of Wiltshire Feet of Fines. The fine in
question
> reads, "Westm. Easter in 3 weeks, 53 Edw. III. 1269. Robert Walerand,
> quer. And Matilda de Verdon, imped. Messuage & lands in
> Stepellavinton. [Market Lavington]."
>
> [Chris wrote:]
> [VCH 10:94] "It is added that the land must
> have been subsequently have been restored to the Verduns, saying that Maud
> Whitechurch, daughter of Lady Clemence de Verdun, conveyed it in 1269 to
> Robert Walrond (citing Cal. Feet of Fines Wilts, ed. Fry, p.59 - which I
was
> also unable to look at today), and then referring to the inquisition of
1273
> that we've already heard of, which mentions that Clemence had settled it
on
> Maud in marriage."
>
> But we now have no reason to believe that Maud married a
> Whitechurch before 1269, and we have no reason to believe that IF
> the jury were not mistaken, that the Whitechurch she married was
> from that family, other than that this William had a wife named Maud.
> If we find records to show that William Whitechurch had a wife
> named Maud bewteen 1242 and 1267 [when our Maud was
> married to Sir John FitzAlan], it would prove they were two
> different Mauds.
>
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> The Curia Regis Roll, 1243 [17:281-2 (no. 1462)] records that the Abbess
> of Wilton was summoned to respond to Roesie de Verdun. Later in the suit
> it mentions "Philippo le Butiller avo predicte Roesie" and "Clemencia de
> Verdun filia ipsius Philippi".
>
> Now if avo is from avus, -i [grandfather], and Roesia's mother Clemence
> was daughter of the same Philip le Butiller.... [I did not think to copy out
> the whole entry at the time.]
That looks pretty clear. Any idea who this Philip le Buttiler is
(and whether he could have had a 12-year old daughter ravaged by
John)?
taf
Chris Phillips
trying to digest.
But I think we do have a much clearer picture of the central de Verdun
genealogy now, particularly thanks to Paul's discovery of the Curia Regis
evidence.
That seems clear evidence that Clemence's father was one Philip le Boteler,
and that Rohese was her daughter. Given that Rohese is also known to be
Nicholas de Verdun's only child, and given Maud's use of the surname "de
Verdun" (which if the Complete Peerage is correct, Rohese's sons also used),
it seems she must fit in as Rohese's daughter. (The fact that she is called
Clemence's daughter in the inquisition perhaps arising from her use of the
de Verdun surname.)
And as Paul points out, the unique reference to her as Maud "de Albo
Monasterio" in c.1273, combined with the fact she's just called "de Verdun"
in the record of the fine in 1269, suggests that she married someone of that
surname between these years - and thus between John Fitz Alan and Richard
d'Amundeville. (And there's no doubt that this is the same Maud all the
time, as the inquisitions always refer to her as the widow of John Fitz
Alan, whether they are calling her de Verdun, de Albo Monasterio or
d'Amundeville.)
Although there are a lot of side issues, are we all agreed on these three
generations?
(1) Nicholas de Verdun = Clemence, daughter of Philip le Boteler
(2) Rohese de Verdun = Theobald le Boteler*
(3) (with others) Maud "de Verdun" = (i) John Fitz Alan, (ii) .... de Albo
Monasterio, (iii) Richard d'Amundeville.
[*According to CP, it was ths Theobald's father who was first known as "le
Boteler"]
Chris Phillips
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/21/01 12:47:50 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< The Curia Regis Roll, 1243 [17:281-2 (no. 1462)] records that the Abbess
of Wilton was summoned to respond to Roesie de Verdun. Later in the suit
it mentions "Philippo le Butiller avo predicte Roesie" and "Clemencia de
Verdun filia ipsius Philippi". >>
This looks like a Clemence that could actually be the mother of Joan. Is
there any more information about this family?
- Ken
Todd A. Farmerie
This is the same Clemence we have been talking about, just given
a different surname. How is it then more likely that Clemence le
Boteler de Verdun is any more likely than Clemence de Dauntsey de
Verdun?
taf
Douglas Richardson
If Clemence de Verdun gave her property at Steeple Lavington,
Wiltshire to her "daughter" Maud, this would surely have been her
maritagium or inheritance, not property previously held by the Verdun
family. If Clemence did hold this property in dower, she could have
released her right of dower which she held during her lifetime to her
"daughter." However, records of such conveyances usually stipulate
that the property being conveyed was held in dower, not outright
ownership. Since the inquisition which mentions the conveyance by
Clemence makes no reference to Clemence's right of dower, I would have
to assume this was Clemence's own property. Please note that the
operable word here is "assume." As a general rule, when a widow made
a gift of property in this time period, she usually conveyed property
she held outright, rather than property she held in dower. Also,
maritagiums were often used for successive generations of women in a
family. Given these facts, it seems more likely the Wiltshire
property was Clemence's own property, not property she held in dower.
Douglas Richardson
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<018701c17224$e56560a0$671f86d9@oemcomputer>...
> Chris Phillips
Paul C. Reed
[until we get more evidence] if Maud did marry a Whitechurch/Blancminster
in the period 1269-83. More a bit later.
Rohese de Verdun was heiress of substantial lands in both England and
Ireland. Her husband would have held the lands by curtesy during his
lifetime, as an heir was produced, since after their marriage it was he
who technically would have rendered homage to the King, but after his
death, Rohese would have been assigned her dower and the heir would
have had the lands.
It is no wonder that her children would have taken the surname Verdun.
It was a surname derived from Normandy and in England since
Domesday. Butler, le Boteler [Latin: pincerna] was a new surname,
deriving from the position of servant [butler] to a great lord. If Rohese's
male issue died without issue, Maud would have become the heir [do
we have knowledge of any other sisters?]. No wonder she also chose to use the
surname Verdun at various times.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Chris ~
>
> If Clemence de Verdun gave her property at Steeple Lavington,
> Wiltshire to her "daughter" Maud, this would surely have been her
> maritagium or inheritance, not property previously held by the Verdun
> family. If Clemence did hold this property in dower, she could have
> released her right of dower which she held during her lifetime to her
> "daughter." However, records of such conveyances usually stipulate
> that the property being conveyed was held in dower, not outright
> ownership. Since the inquisition which mentions the conveyance by
> Clemence makes no reference to Clemence's right of dower, I would have
> to assume this was Clemence's own property. Please note that the
> operable word here is "assume." As a general rule, when a widow made
> a gift of property in this time period, she usually conveyed property
> she held outright, rather than property she held in dower. Also,
> maritagiums were often used for successive generations of women in a
> family. Given these facts, it seems more likely the Wiltshire
> property was Clemence's own property, not property she held in dower.
>
> Douglas Richardson
It was not unusual at that early time for the marriage contract to include specific clauses that would provide for
the bride after her husband's death, and this land later to be included in the dower settlement. Thus, it could have
served both functions. If you'd like me to go into more detail, I will.
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> The three prominent Boteler/Butler families of that period were (1) the
> descendants of Ralph le Boteler (pincerna of Robert de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester
> and Count of Meulan), of Oversley, Warw., who founded Alcester Priory in 1140, (2)
> the family of Roesia's husband, Theobald le Botiler, son of Theobald Walter,
> Butler of Ireland, and (3) the descendants of Richard, butler to the Earl of
> Chester, lord of Pulton in 1086. Of course, Henry I conferred the office of Chief
> Butler on William d'Aubigny, whose son became Earl of Arundel.
I don't have the origins of these families mapped out, but at or
near the time I have:
Boteler of Wem, Salop (this would be your #1)
Boteler/Butler of Ireland (your #2)
Boteler of (Bewsey in) Warrington (is this your #3?)
John le Boteler, "tennant in chief in Ireland", maternal
grandfather of the first Lord Multon. (I haven't linked him to
any of the above, but it may well be for want of trying.)
taf
Arthur Murata
> clue we should be left
> with is the "dau. (1178) of Walter de Lacy" mentioned by
> Todd Farmerie - I'm
> not sure what the source is for that.
>
> Chris Phillips
>
>
This may be of extremely limited help, but I have spent a
long time researching the Butler family (far too little of
it cited by myself). What I have for the Butler-de Verdon
marriage and their in-laws is this (and, incidentally,
Theobald probably did not use the surname "Butler" at this
point; he was only the 2nd hereditary pincharna in the
line). His son, John de Verdon, Lord of Westmeath, d. Oct.
21, 1274 on May 14, 1244, married Margaret/Margery de Lacy,
d. 1244, daughter of Gilbert de Lacy of Ewyas, Earl of
Meath, d. 1236 and Isabel Bigod. Gilbert was the son of
Walter de Lacy, 2nd Earl of Meath, c. 1772-1241. The mother
of Gilbert was unclear to me and I have seen two people
mentioned: Maud/Margaret de St. Hilary, d. 1195, daughter
of James de St. Hilary of Harcourt and Avelina NN. Also
Margaret de Braose, 1177-1255,, daughter of William de
Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber; Sheriff of Herefordshire, b.
c. 1140-d. Aug. 9, 1211, who in 1170 mar. Maud de St.
Valery. It is likely that some of this material is from the
de Braose website; some is undoubtedly from Burke's
Peerage; some from CP; and who knows...? I wish I had been
more conscientious about citations when I started doing the
genealogy!
If we go back one more generation,to Walter's parents, I
have always been confused about his mother. I have seen
"Rose O'Conor" and "Rose of Monmouth" (this last from
Hull). Can anyone comment on whether or not these would be
the same "Rose"? Good thoughts, Bronwen Edwards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Paul C. Reed
"de Albo Monasterio," Blancminster or Whitechurch during the 1269-83
period. What I did find leads me more strongly in the direction I thought
about before.
Sir John Fitz Alan was feudal lord of Clun and Oswestry, Shropshire.
He died in 1267. His only son and heir, John FitzAlan, b. 1246, succeeded
as feudal lord of Oswestry and died in 1272. His only son and heir, Richard
FitzAlan, was then a boy, b. 1267. It is this Richard who was supposed to be
created Earl of Arundel. Richard's father and grandfather are never known as
Earl.
The IPM of Robert Walrond which mentioned Maud de Albo Monasterio
stated she was wife of John son of Alan [John FitzAlan]. The jury at that time
would likely not have given her the surname "son of Alan" though we have in
the feet of fine in 1269 her being referred to as "de Verdun."
The IPM of "John son of Alan" in 56 Hen. III [1272], found his heir to be "Richard
son of John of Alan, aged 5" and he held "Oswaldestre [Oswestry], which is called
Blancmostre, castle and town" with members. Other records of that period [Close
Rolls, Patent Rolls, etc.] state frequently that at that period Oswaldestre/
Oswestry is called "de Albo Monasterio."
It is thus my conclusion that Maud de Verdun only had two husbands, John son
of Alan [feudal lord of Oswestry/Albo Monasterio], and Richard de
Amundeville/Mandeville. She was called de Albo Monasterio [then
the equivalent of Oswaldestre] because it was an important holding of her
husband and the jury would have found it difficult at that time to call her
"son of Alan."
The IPM of John FitzAlan in 1272, states that Maud, wife of "Richard de
Mandeville [sic]" held dower in Sussex, etc. Thus it is certain that Maud
de Verdun, apparently single in 1269, had already married Richard de
Amundeville by 1272.
I have been unable to determine who Philip le Butiller, father of Clemence,
is yet. The manor in question in the Curia Regis suit was Stoke Farthing,
in Broad Chalk, Wiltshire, which had already been given to and become part
of the holdings of the Abbey of Wilton by 1225. The grants to Wilton given
in Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum mainly pertain to the Anglo-Saxon kings,
etc. There was a cartulary published, _Registrum Wiltunense_ (1827), but
I do not have access to it (to see if Philip le Boteler/Butiller [pincerna] is
mentioned).
Mathew FitzHerbert held 1 fee at Stoke, Wilts., in 1210-12 [Red Book, 483].
There was a Philip le Butelyr who held part of Tottheford, Hants., in 1242-3
[Book of Fees, 701].
The three prominent Boteler/Butler families of that period were (1) the
descendants of Ralph le Boteler (pincerna of Robert de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester
and Count of Meulan), of Oversley, Warw., who founded Alcester Priory in 1140, (2)
the family of Roesia's husband, Theobald le Botiler, son of Theobald Walter,
Butler of Ireland, and (3) the descendants of Richard, butler to the Earl of
Chester, lord of Pulton in 1086. Of course, Henry I conferred the office of Chief
Butler on William d'Aubigny, whose son became Earl of Arundel.
Cristopher Nash
the swift-rolling collaboration that's brought so much into the open
on this line, I'd never normally push for more here (especially since
my pressing for 'Who is Nicholas de Verdon?' is probably as much to
blame as any for all their hard labours since -- who could have
expected so much gratifying ground to be gained in 6 days?!). But I
can't help asking for any observations as to the foreseeable
relations between Phillip le Boteler, prob. fa. of Clemence who m.
Nicholas de Verdon, and Theobald le Boteler who m. their da. Rohese.
With consanguinuity issues so high on this discussion's recent
horizon you can see where I'm going.
Cris
--
Rosie Bevan
Just by coincidence (?) the next IPM of John de Mandeville, son of Geoffrey
de Mandeville, reveals that his wife is called Clementia and was petitioning
for her dower!
Also Dru de Barentyne had given the manor of Sutton, Wiltshire in free
marriage to Agnes his daughter and John de Mandeville, and their son John
was their heir. I wonder if any relation to William Barentyne as mentioned
in the IPM of Bertraya filia Willielmi de Blauminster.
Matilda's IPM in 1283 (12 Edw I) names her as Matilda uxor Ricardi de
Amundville, vel Matilda de Verdoun
Cheers
Rosie
Paul C. Reed
Cristopher Nash wrote:
> So impressed and grateful to Chris, Paul, Rosie, Todd and others for
> the swift-rolling collaboration that's brought so much into the open
> on this line, I'd never normally push for more here (especially since
> my pressing for 'Who is Nicholas de Verdon?' is probably as much to
> blame as any for all their hard labours since -- who could have
> expected so much gratifying ground to be gained in 6 days?!). But I
> can't help asking for any observations as to the foreseeable
> relations between Phillip le Boteler, prob. fa. of Clemence who m.
> Nicholas de Verdon, and Theobald le Boteler who m. their da. Rohese.
> With consanguinuity issues so high on this discussion's recent
> horizon you can see where I'm going.
>
> Cris
Theobald le Boteler was only the second person in his family of that name. It was
his father that was appointed to the office of Butler [pincerna]. The surname in
this instance, thus, would not indicate any distant ancestry, or consanguinity. It
is possible that Philip descended from someone else who attained that position, or
even that he himself was butler to some lord.
Paul
Chris Phillips
> It is thus my conclusion that Maud de Verdun only had two husbands, John
son
> of Alan [feudal lord of Oswestry/Albo Monasterio], and Richard de
> Amundeville/Mandeville. She was called de Albo Monasterio [then
> the equivalent of Oswaldestre] because it was an important holding of her
> husband and the jury would have found it difficult at that time to call
her
> "son of Alan."
That seems like a neat resolution of the problem.
> The IPM of John FitzAlan in 1272, states that Maud, wife of "Richard de
> Mandeville [sic]" held dower in Sussex, etc. Thus it is certain that Maud
> de Verdun, apparently single in 1269, had already married Richard de
> Amundeville by 1272.
I did use the indexes of the printed volumes of inquisitions post mortem to
check for d'Amundevilles - but of course I missed that "Mandeville"!
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
There was yet another early le Boteler family. In early Ireland a
Henry le Boteler shows up with a wife, Juliane, which Juliane was the
sister of Geoffrey de Marsh (Latin form: Marisco), Justiciar of
Ireland. Juliane and Geoffrey were niece and nephew to John Comyn,
Archbishop of Dublin. The Marsh family derived originally from
Somerset, so I suspect Henry le Boteler was from that part of England
as well. If so, it would put Henry in the same region as Steeple
Lavington, Wiltshire where Clemence le Boteler, wife of Nicholas de
Verdun, had her maritagium or inheritance. Henry and his wife,
Juliane, were important people. And, as best I can determine, they
were unrelated to Rohese de Verdun's husband, Theobald le Boteler. I
do show, however, that Theobald le Boteler's lst wife, Joan de Marsh,
was the daughter of Geoffrey de Marsh, brother of Juliane (de Marsh)
le Boteler. So clearly these families knew each other extremely well.
Henry and Juliane le Boteler had a son and heir, John, who in turn
left a daughter and heiress, Edmunda, who married into the Multon
family of England and left many descendants. If this family is
connected to Philip le Boteler, father of Clemence de Verdun, one
might want to check Irish records as well as English records,
particularly since we know that the Verdun family held large estates
in Ireland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
P.S. Checking your list of Boteler families again, I see you refer to
John le Boteler who was a tenant in chief in Ireland. This John was
the son of Henry and Juliane le Boteler who I have mentioned above.
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3BFCA927...@interfold.com>...
Roz Griston
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
"Paul C. Reed" wrote:
>
> The Curia Regis Roll, 1243 [17:281-2 (no. 1462)] records that the
Abbess
> of Wilton was summoned to respond to Roesie de Verdun. Later in the
suit
> it mentions "Philippo le Butiller avo predicte Roesie" and "Clemencia
de
> Verdun filia ipsius Philippi".
>
> Now if avo is from avus, -i [grandfather], and Roesia's mother
Clemence
> was daughter of the same Philip le Butiller.... [I did not think to
copy out
> the whole entry at the time.]
That looks pretty clear. Any idea who this Philip le Buttiler is
(and whether he could have had a 12-year old daughter ravaged by
John)?
taf
who says this clemence is 12? different person, most likely a different
age. the 12 year old clemence was only a plausible theory, not an
absolute theory.
i have not been debating that the other clemence is the clemence in
question..only that there are most likely young teen mothers during the
medieval era.
regards
roz
Todd A. Farmerie
> There was yet another early le Boteler family. In early Ireland a
> Henry le Boteler shows up with a wife, Juliane, which Juliane was the
> sister of Geoffrey de Marsh (Latin form: Marisco), Justiciar of
> Ireland. Juliane and Geoffrey were niece and nephew to John Comyn,
> Archbishop of Dublin. The Marsh family derived originally from
> Somerset, so I suspect Henry le Boteler was from that part of England
> as well. If so, it would put Henry in the same region as Steeple
> Lavington, Wiltshire where Clemence le Boteler, wife of Nicholas de
> Verdun, had her maritagium or inheritance. Henry and his wife,
> Juliane, were important people. And, as best I can determine, they
> were unrelated to Rohese de Verdun's husband, Theobald le Boteler. I
> do show, however, that Theobald le Boteler's lst wife, Joan de Marsh,
> was the daughter of Geoffrey de Marsh, brother of Juliane (de Marsh)
> le Boteler. So clearly these families knew each other extremely well.
>
> Henry and Juliane le Boteler had a son and heir, John, who in turn
> left a daughter and heiress, Edmunda, who married into the Multon
> family of England and left many descendants. If this family is
> connected to Philip le Boteler, father of Clemence de Verdun, one
> might want to check Irish records as well as English records,
> particularly since we know that the Verdun family held large estates
> in Ireland.
Am I following this right? (non-proportional font required)-
|---------------------|
John Comyn X Philip
- - - - - - | le Boteler
|---------+--------| |
Henry = Juliana Geoffrey Nicholas=Clemence
le Boteler | de Marsh/Marisco | de Verdun|le Boteler
| | |
John Joan=Theobald=Rohese
le Boteler Walter/ de Verdun
le Boteler
Could you fill in more details on the "X" above, and how/if
Archbishop John Comyn is linked to his famous and colorful
namesakes?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Any idea who this Philip le Buttiler is
> (and whether he could have had a 12-year old daughter ravaged by
> John)?
>
> age. the 12 year old clemence was only a plausible theory, not an
> absolute theory.
Further evidence that irony is wasted on USENET.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Griston.
One has to pick one's audience carefully. <g>
That's one principal reason why I make it quite clear that I'm simply
NOT writing to the poguenoscenti.
I don't talk to guinea pigs, myna birds and mongooses either. Your
tastes may vary.
The pogues and poguettes may READ me ---- that is certainly their
prerogative, Freedom of Choice. ---- But I'm not writing to them ----
because they are not in my intended audience ---- as I've made clear in
the past. Vide SGM Archives.
Verbum Sapienti.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3BFD8286...@interfold.com...
Kay Allen AG
K
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
> Roz Griston wrote:
> >
> > Any idea who this Philip le Buttiler is
> > (and whether he could have had a 12-year old daughter ravaged by
> > John)?
> >
> > who says this clemence is 12? different person, most likely a different
> > age. the 12 year old clemence was only a plausible theory, not an
> > absolute theory.
>
Roz Griston
were both one the same person.
so..you had a little inside joke going.
cya
roz
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:56 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun and Steeple Lavington
Roz Griston
motto.."Kick 'em while they're down" or "Wait til their back is
turned"?
roz
Well, not wasted on ALL ---- but certainly wasted on SOME ---- e.g.
Griston.
One has to pick one's audience carefully. <g>
That's one principal reason why I make it quite clear that I'm simply
NOT writing to the poguenoscenti.
I don't talk to guinea pigs, myna birds and mongooses either. Your
tastes may vary.
The pogues and poguettes may READ me ---- that is certainly their
prerogative, Freedom of Choice. ---- But I'm not writing to them ----
because they are not in my intended audience ---- as I've made clear in
the past. Vide SGM Archives.
Verbum Sapienti.
Deus Vult.
snip the longwinded blatherskite.
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3BFD8286...@interfold.com...
| Roz Griston wrote:
Roz Griston
Vital
Information
Transfer
Allowing
More
Intelligent
Networking
aka V*I*T*A*M*I*N deficiency.
regards
roz
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Allen AG [SMTP:all...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 1904 8:49 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun and Steeple Lavington
Yes, Todd, it's called "irony deficiency".
K
Douglas Richardson
Hi Todd ~
Yes, you have constructed the pedigree exactly as I gave it. Geoffrey
and Juliane de Marsh are believed to be the children of a Geoffrey de
Marsh (Latin form: Marisco), who held Huntspill, Somerset in 1166 (see
Red Book of the Exchequer). Geoffrey de Marsh, living 1166, would be
your "X" above.
As for Archbishop John Comyn, there is some debate about his place in
the larger Comyn family. As I recall, the book, Sir Christopher
Hatton's Book of Seals, places him as a member of the Comyn family of
Warwickshire. This could well be true. The Comyns of Warwickshire
used the same arms as the Scottish family. The exact link between the
two branches of the Comyn family has never been established, though.
The relationship between the Scottish Comyn families and Archbishop
John Comyn can't have been too distant as the Archbishop's nephew,
Geoffrey de Marsh, stayed with his Scottish Comyn cousins at one point
after he fled Ireland. For details of Geoffrey de Marsh's life and
his stay in Scotland, see his biography in DNB under Marisco. There
was also a Comyn family in Worcestershire that likewise had
possessions in Ireland. That branch eventually daughtered out and
one of its co-heiresses married a Dyneley. For details of the
Worcestershire family, see the the Victoria County History for that
county.
As for the Boteler family, if I gauge the chronology above correctly,
I would guess that Philip le Boteler was of the same generation as
Henry le Boteler who married Juliane de Marsh. Given the Verdun
family's extensive holdings in Ireland, it wouldn't surprise me if
Philip le Boteler lived in Ireland, rather than England. My guess is
that Philip and Henry le Boteler were brothers. That would make sense
given the associations of the various families with one another.
To date I haven't been able to locate Henry le Boteler's origin in
England. As I recall, a Henry le Boteler appears in the Curia Regis
Rolls with a wife Juliane. This Henry was from Essex, not the West
Country of England. The given names Henry and Juliane are common
enough and this could simply be a coincidence of names. Given the
fact that Juliane de Marsh, wife of Henry le Boteler, of Ireland, was
from Somersetshire, my guess is that Henry was also from Somersetshire
and its environs, rather than Essex. If Philip le Boteler held land
in Wiltshire, and, if he and Henry were brothers, then surely
Wiltshire would be a good place to look for this family. I should add
that Henry le Boteler's granddaughter and heiress, Edmunda le Boteler,
married into the Multon family of Lincolnshire, which family had
possessions in Somerset and Devon.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
D. Spencer Hines
"Spoon-feed me information in small easily digestible bites, so I can
argue with you."
"Educate Me!" ---- she whines.
How Sweet It Is!
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
news:01C17392.C3E3...@dccnet.com...
Paul C. Reed
Douglas Richardson wrote:
[snip] My guess is
> that Philip and Henry le Boteler were brothers. That would make sense
> given the associations of the various families with one another.
Is that merely a guess, or is it based on more than the surname and the
Verdun holdings in Ireland (aside from Staffordshire, Warwickshire,
Leicestershire, Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire, etc.)?
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
le Boteler/Pincerna floating around in the Pipe Rolls and other records of
that period, and I wondered if there is enough information to hazzard a
guess.
Roz Griston
that gets rid of fleas.
this is a rootsweb list. its mandate is to share and learn from each
other..if you don't like it complain to the list owner and have him
close the gateway to the usenet group.
until then..you and your ilk are just going to have to suffer with us
newbies asking the unknown. you can choose to withhold info and laugh.
or act like you have the info.
hmm why do i get the feeling you were the type of moron who taught
exchange students vulgar words..snickering and giggling as they went up
to the teacher innocently saying you stink and worse.
oh and before you go into some long speil about you only share with the
worthy..should i go dig up your posting where you state you never
withhold info?
you know the curse of a liar..is not that they aren't trusted..its that
they can not trust anyone else. you have got to be one of the most
insecure males i've ever met. have you stopped beating your wife yet?
you really are rather boring..not at all challenging..now toddle off
and do some more everso essential proof reading.
ta-ta
roz
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:06 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun and Steeple Lavington
Hilarious!
"Spoon-feed me information in small easily digestible bites, so I can
argue with you."
"Educate Me!" ---- she whines.
How Sweet It Is!
just another repetive snip of more boring crud. you really do need to
update your sig file.
D. Spencer Hines
snip the propaganda
Francisco Antonio Doria
I don't know if it's one of those two, or a third le
Boteler (Botiller) family, that inherited from the
Sudeley family. One of the Boteler-Sudeley moved to
Portugal with Philippa of Lancaster and originated the
Sodré (pronounced more or less like Sawdray) family,
extant until today.
chico
--- "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
Kay Allen AG
K
D. Spencer Hines
And petulant whining.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Kay Allen AG" <all...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3BFE7155...@pacbell.net...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>
> I don't know if it's one of those two, or a third le
> Boteler (Botiller) family, that inherited from the
> Sudeley family.
This is a junior branch of the Botelers of Wem, which Paul and I
mentioned in our earlier lists.
taf
Roz Griston
next time please try to advise when we are about to dine on
M*I*N*E*R*A*L supplements vital to snide inside jokes. you know the
ones...they are:
Mockingly
Ideal.
Not
Everyone
Recognises
All
Leads.
TIA
Renia
> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > The three prominent Boteler/Butler families of that period were (1) the
> > descendants of Ralph le Boteler (pincerna of Robert de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester
> > and Count of Meulan), of Oversley, Warw., who founded Alcester Priory in 1140, (2)
> > the family of Roesia's husband, Theobald le Botiler, son of Theobald Walter,
> > Butler of Ireland, and (3) the descendants of Richard, butler to the Earl of
> > Chester, lord of Pulton in 1086. Of course, Henry I conferred the office of Chief
> > Butler on William d'Aubigny, whose son became Earl of Arundel.
>
> I don't have the origins of these families mapped out, but at or
> near the time I have:
>
> Boteler of Wem, Salop (this would be your #1)
>
> Boteler/Butler of Ireland (your #2)
Ancestors of Butler, Dukes of Ormonde.
Renia
Arthur Murata
>
>
> |---------------------|
> John Comyn X Philip
> - - - - - - | le
> Boteler
> |---------+--------| |
> Henry = Juliana Geoffrey
> Nicholas=Clemence
> le Boteler | de Marsh/Marisco | de Verdun|le
> Boteler
> | | |
> John Joan=Theobald=Rohese
> le Boteler Walter/ de Verdun
> le Boteler
hereditary royal butler/pincerna of England (c.1200-Jul.19,
1230) and an ancestor of both the Ormond and Dunboyne
branches of the Butler family in Ireland, had at least two
marriages. The marriage to Rohese de Verdun led to this
line:
Theobald Butler + Rohese de Verdun
John de Verdun + Margaret/Margery de Lacy
Theobald de Verdun, Lord of Westmeath & Constable of
Ireland, 1248-1309 + Margery Eleanor of Bisley (Gloucester)
Theobald de Verdun, Lord of Westmeath, 1278-1316 + Maud de
Mortimer
Elizabeth de Verdun, d. 1360 + Bartholomew de Burghersh
etc. etc. etc. etc.
The other marriage was to Joan de Marisco and led in two
generations to the progenitors of both Ormond and Dunboyne
Butler lines. I have been assuming that this is whose name
has been consistently appearing as "de Marsh". I have also
seen it "de Marreis".
Joan de Marisco was the daughter of Geoffrey de Marisco,
1171-1245 + his 1st wife, surnamed Esserby;
Geoffrey was the son of Robert de Marisco, fl. 1180, and
the sister of John Comyn, Archbishop of (accord. to my
records) Edinburgh. This would also make her a direct
descendant of Donald Bane, King of Scotland, through the
Tynedale line.
I don't know how this may or may not fit into what the
question was. Good thoughts, Bronwen Edwards
>
> Could you fill in more details on the "X" above, and
> how/if
> Archbishop John Comyn is linked to his famous and
> colorful
> namesakes?
>
> taf
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Joan de Marisco was the daughter of Geoffrey de Marisco,
> 1171-1245 + his 1st wife, surnamed Esserby;
> Geoffrey was the son of Robert de Marisco, fl. 1180, and
> the sister of John Comyn, Archbishop of (accord. to my
> records) Edinburgh.
This, I think, is wrong. If you do a google search for "John
Comyn" and Archbishop, there is a reasonably large body of
material on his nomination as first Anglo-Norman Archbishop of
Dublin.
> This would also make her a direct
> descendant of Donald Bane, King of Scotland, through the
> Tynedale line.
I am not so sure of this. The best I can do is from Scots
Peerage, and with the caveat IF he belongs to this same family at
all, he would seem to be an older contemporary of William Comyn,
husband of the Countess of Buchan. This William Comyn was son of
the Richard Comyn by the Scottish heiress, but some time between
the years 1152 and 1159, Richard granted to the monks of St.
Mary's of Kelso in memory of his son John who was buried there.
It is possible that they had two Johns, (the second born after
this grant). Still, Richard had at least two brothers (William
k. 1142, and Walter), so I see no particular reason to force
Archbishop John in as son of Richard.
I do think it not unlikely that there was a tie. That King John
would give to John Comyn such an important position suggests a
degree of influence either in the church or lay community, which
in turn may label him as the "heir" to the legacy of William
Comyn, Chancellor of Scotland, named to (but never able to take
the mantle of) the Bishopric of Durham.
taf
Douglas Richardson
"Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:<3BFB58C6...@uswest.net>...
> It does not appear that Rohese de Verdun married after her husband Theobald
> died in 1230.
>
> > The Calendar of Close Rolls records a fairly thorough series of entries were
> Rohese de Verdon was called by that name and acting on her own behalf, in
> 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1238, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245 and 1247.
>
> Rohese had paid 70 marks for her relief and livery of the lands of her
> inheritance, as also that she might not be compelled to marry; and in case she
> should make choise of a husband, it was to be with the king's approbation
> [Nichol's Leicester 3:638; MI 647].
>
> 10 Dec. 1241, Inspeximus and confirmation of a charter of Rohesia de Verdun
> granting to St. Mary and the church of Holy Trinity de la Grace Dieu at Belton
> the manor and advowson of Belton [Cal. Charter Rolls 1:265].
>
> The actual charter reads [Dugdale's Mon, Angl. 6:567]: "Sciant praesentes et
> futuri quod ego Roesia de Verdun concessi et hac praesenti carta mea
> confirmavi...
> pro me et haeredibus meis, et animabus parentum meorum, et omnium
> antecessorum meorum, ac maritorum...."
> Paul
Can someone please comment on the meaning of the word "maritorum"
which is used in Rohese de Verdun's charter above? I believe the
charter quoted above is Rohese's charter in which mentions her
husbands (plural). If "maritorum" is a reference to Rohese's
husbands, then Rohese presumably had a marriage prior to the one in
1225 to Theobald le Boteler. This appears to be the case as Mr. Reed
has shown above that Rohese likely didn't remarry after Theobald le
Boteler's death in 1230.
If so, it would explain why the king directed Rohese's marriage to
Theobald le Boteler in 1225. If she was a widow of a tenant in chief
in 1225, the king would have control over her marriage, not her
father. The specific terminology for the widow of a tenant in chief
is being in "the king's gift," as the king had the right to marry such
a widow to anyone of his choice. Had Rohese's marriage to Theobald le
Boteler been her first marriage, then under normal circumstances, her
father would have controlled her first marriage, not the king.
A hitherto unknown first marriage of Rohese de Verdun would push her
likely birth back in time by 5-10 years (the early limit of her birth
presumably being Theobald le Boteler's approximate birth date of
1200). It would in turn greatly narrow the indicated chronology
between her and her putative sister, Joan, wife of Prince Llywelyn.
If so, then it would appear that only 10-15 years separate the two
women, not 20 years as I earlier estimated. A difference of 10-15
years between two half-sisters in this period is perfectly acceptable
chronology.
Paul C. Reed
> Can someone please comment on the meaning of the word "maritorum"
> which is used in Rohese de Verdun's charter above? I believe the
> charter quoted above is Rohese's charter in which mentions her
> husbands (plural). If "maritorum" is a reference to Rohese's
> husbands, then Rohese presumably had a marriage prior to the one in
> 1225 to Theobald le Boteler. This appears to be the case as Mr. Reed
> has shown above that Rohese likely didn't remarry after Theobald le
> Boteler's death in 1230.
>
Could it be that she was including any husband she might also have in the
future, as well as her past husband? Thus, even husbands. aside from all
her heirs, the souls of her parents, and in fact all her predecessors? If I
were founding an institution to pray for the souls of my relatives, I'd
cover all the bases.
>
> If so, it would explain why the king directed Rohese's marriage to
> Theobald le Boteler in 1225. If she was a widow of a tenant in chief
> in 1225, the king would have control over her marriage, not her
> father. The specific terminology for the widow of a tenant in chief
> is being in "the king's gift," as the king had the right to marry such
> a widow to anyone of his choice. Had Rohese's marriage to Theobald le
> Boteler been her first marriage, then under normal circumstances, her
> father would have controlled her first marriage, not the king.
>
Following Magna Carta, no woman could be compelled to marry. Those
who happened to inherit a barony, or like status, would have their marriage
closely negotiated by the king.
Paul