Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: Florence de Akeny's paramour, Peter Fitz Matthew [died 1254]
172 views
Skip to first unread message
celticp...@gmail.com
Feb 13, 2019, 7:15:43 PM2/13/19
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 463–464 (sub Mare) has a good account of John de la Mare, Lord de la Mare [died 1313]. Regarding his parentage, the following information is provided on page 463:
"John de la Mare, of Bradwell, Essex, son of Matthew de la Mare, by Florence, eld. daughter and coheiress of Roger de Akeni or Akeny (Acquiny), of Bradwell, and of Garsington, Oxon, and Whittlesford, Cambs, &c." END OF QUOTE.
In a pedigree chart following page 464, John de la Mare's mother, Florence de Akeny, is shown to have had two husbands, John de Leyburn and Matthew de la Mare.
"Florence [de Akeni] died before 1284, [married 1st] by 1241 John de Leyburn, d. 1242 or 1243; [she] married 2ndly Matthew de la Mare, witness in 1245-6 to a charter of William, Earl of Salisbury; lord of Bradwell, Essex; Keeper of Essex and Herts, 1261; Sheriff 1262; died shortly before August 1270." END OF QUOTE.
The pedigree chart further indicates that Florence de Akeni had two sons by her marriage to Matthew de la Mare, namely John [Lord de la Mare] [died 1313] and Thomas [living 1309]. The elder son John de la Mare was evidently Florence de Akeny's heir.
Curia Regis Rolls indicates that Florence de Akeni and her 2nd husband, Matthew de la Mare, were married before Hilary term 1250 [see Curia Regis Rolls, 19 (2002): 199, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ehf3UwrBYtAC&pg=PA199
This all seems pretty straightforward. A woman marries lawfully twice and has legitimate children by one of her marriages. All of this is duly recorded in the records of the period and by Complete Peerage.
Recently, however, I located a lawsuit in the Court of the King's Bench dated 1267 which indicates that Florence de Akeny was the mother of two other sons, namely Reynold Fitz Peter and his brother, Philip. Curiously the 1267 lawsuit (which is brief) does not indicate the name of Florence's husband. Of itself, this is not particularly unusual. But given that at least one of these sons survived Florence and was not her heir, it seems a good bet that these sons were illegitimate. Studying other available records, it appears that Florence de Akeny was in fact the mistress of Peter Fitz Matthew [died 1254], of Yatesbury, Wiltshire, Eastney (in Portsmouth) and Warblington, Hampshire, etc., younger son of Matthew Fitz Herbert [died 1231], of Yatesbury, Wiltshire, Warblington, Hampshire, etc., Sheriff of Sussex, by Joan de Mandeville. The affair between Florence and Peter would appear to date from between 1242 and 1243, when her first husband died, and 1250, by which date she is known to have married her 2nd husband. The affair may also have predated Florence's first marriage.
Below is a brief abstract of the 1267 lawsuit:
In 1267 an assize was held to determine if Anselm Basset, Nicholas Fitz Martin, John le Clerk, unjustly disseised Reynold Fitz Peter and Philip his brother of their free tenement in Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire. In the testimony which follows, the jurors stated that Florence de Akeny, mother ["mater"] of the said Reynold and Philip, gave the said tenement to the said Reynold and Philip. Reference: Court of King’s Bench, KB26/181, image 1977f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H3/KB26no181/aKB26no181fronts/IMG_1977.htm). [Note: Anselm Basset was the 2nd husband of Margaret de Berkeley, widow of John Fitz Matthew [died 1261]. John Fitz Matthew in turn was the brother and heir of Peter Fitz Herbert (died 1254)].
Florence de Akeny is elsewhere mentioned by name in a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1313. A full transcript of the lawsuit is published in Year Books of Edward II 13 (Selden Soc. 34) (1918): 37–44, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?num=43&u=1&seq=145&view=image&size=100&id=uc1.b3453268&q1=%22Florence+of+Dageny%22
In the lawsuit, Peter Fitz Matthew is stated to have granted Florence de Akeny his manor of Yatesbury, Wiltshire for the purposes of her "promotion." When that settlement failed, he in turn granted her the manor of Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire. No where is Peter Fitz Matthew styled the husband of Florence de Akeny, who is here called "Florence of Dageny." Nor are Reynold or Philip styled "Fitz Peter" [i.e., son of Peter] as in the earlier 1267 lawsuit. Florence, however, is specifically stated to have given the manor Eastney, Hampshire to Reynold "her elder son" and Philip father of Philip the complainant [presumably her 2nd son]. The latter agrees with the 1267 lawsuit. No mention is made of Florence's husband.
The plaintiff in the 1313 lawsuit is Eleanor widow of Matthew Fitz John, who demanded against Master Gilbert Lovel, whom Philip of Esteneye and Alice his wife vouched to warranty, and who warranted them, a third part of the manor of Esteneye with the appurtenances as her dower etc. Eleanor's husband, Matthew Fitz John, was the nephew of Peter Fitz Matthew [died 1254].
Below is the testimony of the lawsuit which concerns the descent of the manor of Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire:
"The jurors say upon their oath that in the time of King John, grandfather of our Lord the present King, one Robert of Corey held in chief from the said Lord the King the manor of Warblington with appurtenances, the manor of Esteny being an appurtenance and a member of the above. And a war having broken out between the said Lord the King and the King of France, the said Robert went to the King of France and became adherent to his side against our Lord the King of England. Therefore the said King of England seised the said manor of Warblington entirely with all its appurtenances into his hand as his escheat, because the said Robert had become his enemy and against his peace. And afterwards the same King granted the said manor entirely to one Matthew the son of Herbert, to be held for the term of his life only, rendering thereof
something certain every year; and that Matthew did thus hold it, and died
thereof seised. After his death, Lord Henry the King, father of our Lord the present King, did by his ministers and bailiffs entirely seise that manor into his, the said Lord the King's, hand. So that afterwards one Herbert, son and heir of the said Matthew, approached our Lord the King and prevailed upon the King that the said Lord Henry the King granted the said Herbert, and held it from the same Lord the King by the same services by which his brother had previously held it. And afterwards the said Peter, desiring the promotion of one Florence of Dageny, gave her a manor of his, (to wit, the manor) of Yatesbury in the County of Wiltshire, to be held to her, Florence, and to her heirs from the said Peter and his heirs, by the service of one pair of gilt spurs or of six pence a year for all services, and he bound himself to warranty. And afterwards, after the said Florence had thus been in the seisin of the said manor of Yatesbury she was impleaded by someone for the same manor in the King's Court, so that the said Florence vouched thereof to warranty the said Peter, who did by judgment of the Court lose that manor of Yatesbury. Therefore it was considered that the demandant should recover his seisin of the said manor against the said Florence, and that Florence should have of the land of the said Peter to the value etc. By reason of that judgment the said Peter assigned to the said Florence the said manor of Esteny with the appurtenances, to be held to her and to her heirs in lieu of the value of the said manor of Yatesbury, and by the same services by which the said Florence had formerly held the manor of Yatesbury. And they (the jurors) say that the same manor of Esteny had all the time before then been a member and of the appurtenances of the said manor of Warblington. Afterwards the said Florence, after she had been in the seisin of the said manor of Esteny, gave the same manor with the appurtenances to one Reginald her elder son and to the said Philip father of the said Philip who now complains, sons of her the said Florence, to be held to them, Reginald and Philip, and to their heirs from the said Peter, and his heirs by the said service, by which she had held it formerly. And by that gift the said Reginald continued his seisin all his time and died thereof seised; and after his death the said Philip father etc. entered into the said manor of Esteney, according to the form of the said gift. And after the same Philip had thus been seised thereof, one Nicolas Martyn, in whose wardship the said Matthew the son of John was at that time by reason of his non-age, ejected the said Philip from the said manor. Therefore the said Philip arraigned before the King at Winchester an assize of novel disseisin against the said Nicolas for the said manor, and recovered it there by recognition of the same assize; and afterwards he held it all his time and died seised thereof in his demesne as of fee. And after his death the said Philip who now complains, and the executors of the said Philip, his father, in the name of the said Philip the son, entered into the same manor, affirming that manor to be the right and inheritance of the said Philip; and they stayed there one night and one day as in the right and inheritance of the said heir. And afterwards the said executors with the said Philip, son etc., left there and sent the said heir to Portsmouth. And they (the jurors) say that afterwards one de la Pomeray, bailiff of one Margaret la Mahewe, meaning his said lady to have a right in the wardship of the said manor, seised that manor into his lady's hand and approached the body of the said heir and took the same heir and sent him to his lady, who admitted that heir and held him until afterwards the said Matthew the son of John, seeing this, did go with force and arms to the said manor and with force and arms ejected as well the men of the said heir as those of the said lady, who were on the said manor; and he took that tenement into his hand and afterwards, having kept the same manor for two years, leased it to the said John Flauel who thus now holds it." END OF QUOTE.
VCH Hampshire 3 (1908): 192-202 gives an account of the manor of Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire, which is available at the following weblink.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol3/pp192-202
The author identifies"Philip son of Peter de Eastney" simply as the "tenant" of Peter Fitz Matthew and makes no mention of Florence de Akeny. The 1267 and 1313 lawsuits and other pieces of evidence, however, make it clear that "Philip son of Peter de Eastney" was almost certainly the younger illegitimate son of Peter Fitz Matthew.
"EASTNEY is a fast-growing suburb of Southsea lying to the south of Milton. The farm at the head of Eastney creek or fleet probably represents Eastney manor-house. Like Milton, Eastney was originally a member of Warblington manor. (fn. 82) Herbert son of Matthew, who received a royal grant of Warblington, with its hamlet of Eastney, in 1231, had free warren granted to him in Portsea in 1239. (fn. 83) Some years later he was returned as holding four hides in Eastney. (fn. 84) His brother and heir, Peter son of Matthew, was said to have permitted his tenant at Eastney to exercise manorial rights in the hamlet. (fn. 85) This tenant, Philip son of Peter of Eastney, added to his holding there an acre of land which he purchased from Ralph Lumpe and his wife Cecily. (fn. 86) The land was doubtless a part of the farm known latterly as Lumpstead. (fn. 87) The manor of Eastney was settled on Philip, evidently son and heir of Philip of Eastney, and his wife Alice in 1308. (fn. 88) Four years later, Eleanor widow of Matthew son of John, late lord of Warblington, sued Philip and Alice for dower from Eastney, and it having been found that Philip of Eastney had usurped the lordship there (fn. 89) the lands were seized by the king's escheator. (fn. 90) Philip then came into Chancery and proved that he and his ancestors had held the hamlet in demesne, and that Matthew son of John had had no right therein save the wardship of himself during his minority, and the lands were restored to him in 1314. (fn. 91) Two years later Alice of Eastney was holding the manor in accordance with the settlement of 1308; (fn. 92) she married as her second husband Sir Robert Norton, to whom Gilbert son and heir of Philip of Eastney quitclaimed the manor for life, receiving in return during the life of Alice a robe of an esquire's suit at Christmas, 40s. yearly, and maintenance for himself, his horse, and his groom so often as he was entitled to stay with his stepfather. After the death of Alice the yearly allowance was to be increased to £10. (fn. 93) Eastney suffered with Portsmouth from French attacks during the Hundred Years' War. (fn. 94) In 1339, Sir Robert Norton evidently being dead, the manor was settled on Gilbert of Eastney and his wife Joan. (fn. 95)." END OF QUOTE.
VCH Wiltshire 17 (2002): 172-181 gives an account of the other Fitz Matthew manor of Yatesbury, Wiltshire, which is available at the following weblink:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/wilts/vol17/pp172-181
As with VCH Hampshire, the author makes no mention of Florence de Akeny, although as shown above, the 1313 lawsuit makes it clear that Florence had been granted the manor by Peter Fitz Matthew for her "promotion."
"Part of the estate disputed in 1086 was probably the origin of a manor which came to be called YATESBURY HOUSE farm; much of the manor lay in the east part of the parish and probably derived from demesne land of the estate. Matthew FitzHerbert (d. 1231) held the manor c. 1217 and it passed to his son Herbert FitzMatthew. (fn. 48) In 1239 Herbert was granted free warren in his demesne at Yatesbury, (fn. 49) in 1242–3 he held the manor in chief, (fn. 50) and at his death in 1245 he was succeeded by his brother Peter. (fn. 51) By 1250 the king had taken the manor from Peter as the land of a Norman, and in 1252 he granted it to Robert Waleran (fn. 52) (d. 1273)." END OF QUOTE.
A more detailed account of Peter Fitz Matthew and his extended ancestry is featured in an interesting article entitled "Erlestoke and its Manor Lords" published in Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, 34 (1906): 42–72. No mention is made of Florence de Akeny in that article.
Peter Fitz Matthew [died 1254] is also mentioned in Nicolas, Historic Peerage of England (1857): 193, which can be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5HwaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA193
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 463–464 (sub Mare) has a good account of John de la Mare, Lord de la Mare [died 1313]. Regarding his parentage, the following information is provided on page 463:
"John de la Mare, of Bradwell, Essex, son of Matthew de la Mare, by Florence, eld. daughter and coheiress of Roger de Akeni or Akeny (Acquiny), of Bradwell, and of Garsington, Oxon, and Whittlesford, Cambs, &c." END OF QUOTE.
In a pedigree chart following page 464, John de la Mare's mother, Florence de Akeny, is shown to have had two husbands, John de Leyburn and Matthew de la Mare.
"Florence [de Akeni] died before 1284, [married 1st] by 1241 John de Leyburn, d. 1242 or 1243; [she] married 2ndly Matthew de la Mare, witness in 1245-6 to a charter of William, Earl of Salisbury; lord of Bradwell, Essex; Keeper of Essex and Herts, 1261; Sheriff 1262; died shortly before August 1270." END OF QUOTE.
The pedigree chart further indicates that Florence de Akeni had two sons by her marriage to Matthew de la Mare, namely John [Lord de la Mare] [died 1313] and Thomas [living 1309]. The elder son John de la Mare was evidently Florence de Akeny's heir.
Curia Regis Rolls indicates that Florence de Akeni and her 2nd husband, Matthew de la Mare, were married before Hilary term 1250 [see Curia Regis Rolls, 19 (2002): 199, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ehf3UwrBYtAC&pg=PA199
This all seems pretty straightforward. A woman marries lawfully twice and has legitimate children by one of her marriages. All of this is duly recorded in the records of the period and by Complete Peerage.
Recently, however, I located a lawsuit in the Court of the King's Bench dated 1267 which indicates that Florence de Akeny was the mother of two other sons, namely Reynold Fitz Peter and his brother, Philip. Curiously the 1267 lawsuit (which is brief) does not indicate the name of Florence's husband. Of itself, this is not particularly unusual. But given that at least one of these sons survived Florence and was not her heir, it seems a good bet that these sons were illegitimate. Studying other available records, it appears that Florence de Akeny was in fact the mistress of Peter Fitz Matthew [died 1254], of Yatesbury, Wiltshire, Eastney (in Portsmouth) and Warblington, Hampshire, etc., younger son of Matthew Fitz Herbert [died 1231], of Yatesbury, Wiltshire, Warblington, Hampshire, etc., Sheriff of Sussex, by Joan de Mandeville. The affair between Florence and Peter would appear to date from between 1242 and 1243, when her first husband died, and 1250, by which date she is known to have married her 2nd husband. The affair may also have predated Florence's first marriage.
Below is a brief abstract of the 1267 lawsuit:
In 1267 an assize was held to determine if Anselm Basset, Nicholas Fitz Martin, John le Clerk, unjustly disseised Reynold Fitz Peter and Philip his brother of their free tenement in Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire. In the testimony which follows, the jurors stated that Florence de Akeny, mother ["mater"] of the said Reynold and Philip, gave the said tenement to the said Reynold and Philip. Reference: Court of King’s Bench, KB26/181, image 1977f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H3/KB26no181/aKB26no181fronts/IMG_1977.htm). [Note: Anselm Basset was the 2nd husband of Margaret de Berkeley, widow of John Fitz Matthew [died 1261]. John Fitz Matthew in turn was the brother and heir of Peter Fitz Herbert (died 1254)].
Florence de Akeny is elsewhere mentioned by name in a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1313. A full transcript of the lawsuit is published in Year Books of Edward II 13 (Selden Soc. 34) (1918): 37–44, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?num=43&u=1&seq=145&view=image&size=100&id=uc1.b3453268&q1=%22Florence+of+Dageny%22
In the lawsuit, Peter Fitz Matthew is stated to have granted Florence de Akeny his manor of Yatesbury, Wiltshire for the purposes of her "promotion." When that settlement failed, he in turn granted her the manor of Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire. No where is Peter Fitz Matthew styled the husband of Florence de Akeny, who is here called "Florence of Dageny." Nor are Reynold or Philip styled "Fitz Peter" [i.e., son of Peter] as in the earlier 1267 lawsuit. Florence, however, is specifically stated to have given the manor Eastney, Hampshire to Reynold "her elder son" and Philip father of Philip the complainant [presumably her 2nd son]. The latter agrees with the 1267 lawsuit. No mention is made of Florence's husband.
The plaintiff in the 1313 lawsuit is Eleanor widow of Matthew Fitz John, who demanded against Master Gilbert Lovel, whom Philip of Esteneye and Alice his wife vouched to warranty, and who warranted them, a third part of the manor of Esteneye with the appurtenances as her dower etc. Eleanor's husband, Matthew Fitz John, was the nephew of Peter Fitz Matthew [died 1254].
Below is the testimony of the lawsuit which concerns the descent of the manor of Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire:
"The jurors say upon their oath that in the time of King John, grandfather of our Lord the present King, one Robert of Corey held in chief from the said Lord the King the manor of Warblington with appurtenances, the manor of Esteny being an appurtenance and a member of the above. And a war having broken out between the said Lord the King and the King of France, the said Robert went to the King of France and became adherent to his side against our Lord the King of England. Therefore the said King of England seised the said manor of Warblington entirely with all its appurtenances into his hand as his escheat, because the said Robert had become his enemy and against his peace. And afterwards the same King granted the said manor entirely to one Matthew the son of Herbert, to be held for the term of his life only, rendering thereof
something certain every year; and that Matthew did thus hold it, and died
thereof seised. After his death, Lord Henry the King, father of our Lord the present King, did by his ministers and bailiffs entirely seise that manor into his, the said Lord the King's, hand. So that afterwards one Herbert, son and heir of the said Matthew, approached our Lord the King and prevailed upon the King that the said Lord Henry the King granted the said Herbert, and held it from the same Lord the King by the same services by which his brother had previously held it. And afterwards the said Peter, desiring the promotion of one Florence of Dageny, gave her a manor of his, (to wit, the manor) of Yatesbury in the County of Wiltshire, to be held to her, Florence, and to her heirs from the said Peter and his heirs, by the service of one pair of gilt spurs or of six pence a year for all services, and he bound himself to warranty. And afterwards, after the said Florence had thus been in the seisin of the said manor of Yatesbury she was impleaded by someone for the same manor in the King's Court, so that the said Florence vouched thereof to warranty the said Peter, who did by judgment of the Court lose that manor of Yatesbury. Therefore it was considered that the demandant should recover his seisin of the said manor against the said Florence, and that Florence should have of the land of the said Peter to the value etc. By reason of that judgment the said Peter assigned to the said Florence the said manor of Esteny with the appurtenances, to be held to her and to her heirs in lieu of the value of the said manor of Yatesbury, and by the same services by which the said Florence had formerly held the manor of Yatesbury. And they (the jurors) say that the same manor of Esteny had all the time before then been a member and of the appurtenances of the said manor of Warblington. Afterwards the said Florence, after she had been in the seisin of the said manor of Esteny, gave the same manor with the appurtenances to one Reginald her elder son and to the said Philip father of the said Philip who now complains, sons of her the said Florence, to be held to them, Reginald and Philip, and to their heirs from the said Peter, and his heirs by the said service, by which she had held it formerly. And by that gift the said Reginald continued his seisin all his time and died thereof seised; and after his death the said Philip father etc. entered into the said manor of Esteney, according to the form of the said gift. And after the same Philip had thus been seised thereof, one Nicolas Martyn, in whose wardship the said Matthew the son of John was at that time by reason of his non-age, ejected the said Philip from the said manor. Therefore the said Philip arraigned before the King at Winchester an assize of novel disseisin against the said Nicolas for the said manor, and recovered it there by recognition of the same assize; and afterwards he held it all his time and died seised thereof in his demesne as of fee. And after his death the said Philip who now complains, and the executors of the said Philip, his father, in the name of the said Philip the son, entered into the same manor, affirming that manor to be the right and inheritance of the said Philip; and they stayed there one night and one day as in the right and inheritance of the said heir. And afterwards the said executors with the said Philip, son etc., left there and sent the said heir to Portsmouth. And they (the jurors) say that afterwards one de la Pomeray, bailiff of one Margaret la Mahewe, meaning his said lady to have a right in the wardship of the said manor, seised that manor into his lady's hand and approached the body of the said heir and took the same heir and sent him to his lady, who admitted that heir and held him until afterwards the said Matthew the son of John, seeing this, did go with force and arms to the said manor and with force and arms ejected as well the men of the said heir as those of the said lady, who were on the said manor; and he took that tenement into his hand and afterwards, having kept the same manor for two years, leased it to the said John Flauel who thus now holds it." END OF QUOTE.
VCH Hampshire 3 (1908): 192-202 gives an account of the manor of Eastney (in Portsmouth), Hampshire, which is available at the following weblink.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol3/pp192-202
The author identifies"Philip son of Peter de Eastney" simply as the "tenant" of Peter Fitz Matthew and makes no mention of Florence de Akeny. The 1267 and 1313 lawsuits and other pieces of evidence, however, make it clear that "Philip son of Peter de Eastney" was almost certainly the younger illegitimate son of Peter Fitz Matthew.
"EASTNEY is a fast-growing suburb of Southsea lying to the south of Milton. The farm at the head of Eastney creek or fleet probably represents Eastney manor-house. Like Milton, Eastney was originally a member of Warblington manor. (fn. 82) Herbert son of Matthew, who received a royal grant of Warblington, with its hamlet of Eastney, in 1231, had free warren granted to him in Portsea in 1239. (fn. 83) Some years later he was returned as holding four hides in Eastney. (fn. 84) His brother and heir, Peter son of Matthew, was said to have permitted his tenant at Eastney to exercise manorial rights in the hamlet. (fn. 85) This tenant, Philip son of Peter of Eastney, added to his holding there an acre of land which he purchased from Ralph Lumpe and his wife Cecily. (fn. 86) The land was doubtless a part of the farm known latterly as Lumpstead. (fn. 87) The manor of Eastney was settled on Philip, evidently son and heir of Philip of Eastney, and his wife Alice in 1308. (fn. 88) Four years later, Eleanor widow of Matthew son of John, late lord of Warblington, sued Philip and Alice for dower from Eastney, and it having been found that Philip of Eastney had usurped the lordship there (fn. 89) the lands were seized by the king's escheator. (fn. 90) Philip then came into Chancery and proved that he and his ancestors had held the hamlet in demesne, and that Matthew son of John had had no right therein save the wardship of himself during his minority, and the lands were restored to him in 1314. (fn. 91) Two years later Alice of Eastney was holding the manor in accordance with the settlement of 1308; (fn. 92) she married as her second husband Sir Robert Norton, to whom Gilbert son and heir of Philip of Eastney quitclaimed the manor for life, receiving in return during the life of Alice a robe of an esquire's suit at Christmas, 40s. yearly, and maintenance for himself, his horse, and his groom so often as he was entitled to stay with his stepfather. After the death of Alice the yearly allowance was to be increased to £10. (fn. 93) Eastney suffered with Portsmouth from French attacks during the Hundred Years' War. (fn. 94) In 1339, Sir Robert Norton evidently being dead, the manor was settled on Gilbert of Eastney and his wife Joan. (fn. 95)." END OF QUOTE.
VCH Wiltshire 17 (2002): 172-181 gives an account of the other Fitz Matthew manor of Yatesbury, Wiltshire, which is available at the following weblink:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/wilts/vol17/pp172-181
As with VCH Hampshire, the author makes no mention of Florence de Akeny, although as shown above, the 1313 lawsuit makes it clear that Florence had been granted the manor by Peter Fitz Matthew for her "promotion."
"Part of the estate disputed in 1086 was probably the origin of a manor which came to be called YATESBURY HOUSE farm; much of the manor lay in the east part of the parish and probably derived from demesne land of the estate. Matthew FitzHerbert (d. 1231) held the manor c. 1217 and it passed to his son Herbert FitzMatthew. (fn. 48) In 1239 Herbert was granted free warren in his demesne at Yatesbury, (fn. 49) in 1242–3 he held the manor in chief, (fn. 50) and at his death in 1245 he was succeeded by his brother Peter. (fn. 51) By 1250 the king had taken the manor from Peter as the land of a Norman, and in 1252 he granted it to Robert Waleran (fn. 52) (d. 1273)." END OF QUOTE.
A more detailed account of Peter Fitz Matthew and his extended ancestry is featured in an interesting article entitled "Erlestoke and its Manor Lords" published in Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, 34 (1906): 42–72. No mention is made of Florence de Akeny in that article.
Peter Fitz Matthew [died 1254] is also mentioned in Nicolas, Historic Peerage of England (1857): 193, which can be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5HwaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA193
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
celticp...@gmail.com
Feb 14, 2019, 2:03:03 PM2/14/19
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my post yesterday I referred to a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1313. I pulled up the original lawsuit today and found it is actually dated Michaelmas term 1312. Below is a weblink to the original lawsuit:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no195A/aCP40no195Afronts/IMG_0735.htm
A full transcript of the 1312 lawsuit is published in Year Books of Edward II 13 (Selden Soc. 34) (1918): 37–44, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?num=43&u=1&seq=145&view=image&size=100&id=uc1.b3453268&q1=%22Florence+of+Dageny%22
I find that there is additional material on Florence de Akeny in Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 640 (sub Leyburn).
On page 640, footnote b, the following information is provided:
"The manor of Great Berwick, Salop, was part of the estate of Roger de Leyburn (d. circa 1251) in right of his wife, Eleanor de Thurnham (see ante, p. 630, and Eyton up supra). Roger appears to have given the manor to John de Leyburn, probably a younger son, and John and his wife Florence levied a fine in 1241 (Essex Fines, p. 137; Roger de Leyburn was their guardian). Richard de Clare and Isabel his wife, then in the custody of Bernard de Savoy, were vouched to warranty together with the said John and Florence. John [de Leyburn] died between Michaelmas 1241 and Easter 1243 (Coram Rege Rolls, resp. rot. 25d and I). In 1244 Florence (who later married Matthew de Mara) resigned her dower right to Roger de Leyburn, eldest brother of her late husband. In 1245 Roger sold Berwick to Geoffrey le Despenser (deed printed in Eyton ut supra; see also Cal. Charter Rolls, vol. i, p. 286) ..." END OF QUOTE.
This information indicates that Florence de Akeny was a minor, though married, in 1241. Her first husband, John de Leyburn, died before Easter term 1243. Florence was still a widow in 1244. I assume therefore that her affair with Peter Fitz Matthew took place following the death of her husband, John de Leyburn, sometime in the mid-1240's.
In my post yesterday I referred to a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1313. I pulled up the original lawsuit today and found it is actually dated Michaelmas term 1312. Below is a weblink to the original lawsuit:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no195A/aCP40no195Afronts/IMG_0735.htm
A full transcript of the 1312 lawsuit is published in Year Books of Edward II 13 (Selden Soc. 34) (1918): 37–44, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?num=43&u=1&seq=145&view=image&size=100&id=uc1.b3453268&q1=%22Florence+of+Dageny%22
I find that there is additional material on Florence de Akeny in Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 640 (sub Leyburn).
On page 640, footnote b, the following information is provided:
"The manor of Great Berwick, Salop, was part of the estate of Roger de Leyburn (d. circa 1251) in right of his wife, Eleanor de Thurnham (see ante, p. 630, and Eyton up supra). Roger appears to have given the manor to John de Leyburn, probably a younger son, and John and his wife Florence levied a fine in 1241 (Essex Fines, p. 137; Roger de Leyburn was their guardian). Richard de Clare and Isabel his wife, then in the custody of Bernard de Savoy, were vouched to warranty together with the said John and Florence. John [de Leyburn] died between Michaelmas 1241 and Easter 1243 (Coram Rege Rolls, resp. rot. 25d and I). In 1244 Florence (who later married Matthew de Mara) resigned her dower right to Roger de Leyburn, eldest brother of her late husband. In 1245 Roger sold Berwick to Geoffrey le Despenser (deed printed in Eyton ut supra; see also Cal. Charter Rolls, vol. i, p. 286) ..." END OF QUOTE.
This information indicates that Florence de Akeny was a minor, though married, in 1241. Her first husband, John de Leyburn, died before Easter term 1243. Florence was still a widow in 1244. I assume therefore that her affair with Peter Fitz Matthew took place following the death of her husband, John de Leyburn, sometime in the mid-1240's.
0 new messages