King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As I've continued reading through book, The Diplomatic Correspondence
of Richard II, it's quite interesting to see King Richard II's
references to his various kinsfolk, both foreign and domestic.
One surprising kinship which has turned up is Richard II's references
to his kinsman, Edmund Stafford, then keeper of the privy seal,
afterwards Bishop of Exeter. There are six such references to Edmund
Stafford being the king's kinsman in the diplomatic correspondence:
pp. 80-81 Letter of Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1390: "...
quod consanguineus noster carissimus Magister Edmundum de Stafford,
legum doctor eximius ac licenciatus in decretis et custos nostri
privati sigilli, ..."
pg. 93. Petition from Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1391.
Petition asking for an episcopal promotion for "consanguineum nostrum
Magistrum E. de Stafford, legum doctorem eximium et licenciatum in
decretis, nostri privati sigilli custodem ..."
pg. 113. Petition from Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1392.
Petition asking for promotion for "egregium virum magistrum Edmundum de
S[tafford], consanguineum nostrum carissimum, qui profecto legum doctor
eximius et licenciatus in decretis ac sigilli nostri privati custos
existit."
pp. 152-153. Letter from Richard II to Adam Easton, Cardinal of
England dated 1391-1395: "... quod ipsa paternitas vestra carissimos
clericos nostros magistrum Edmundum Stafford, nostrum consanguineum et
custodem nostri privati sigilli super decanatu suo Ebor', et Johannem
Boore, ...."
pp. 153-154. Letter from Richard II to Adam Easton, Cardinal of
England dated 1391-1395: "... carissimos clericos nostros magistrum E.
de S[tafford], consanguineum nostrum et custodem nostri privati
sigilli, super decanatu Ebor', et Johannem Boore, ..."
pp. 157-158. Letter from Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1395:
"... carissimi consanguinei nostri magistri E[dmundi] de S[tafford],
legum doctoris eximii et licenciati in decretis, nostri privati sigilli
custodis ..."
Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, was a younger son of Sir Richard de
Stafford, Lord Stafford, by his 1st wife, Isabel, daughter of Richard
de Vernon, Knt., of Haddon, Derbyshire. For particulars on the
Stafford family, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), pp.
6-7. The most likely place for Edmund Stafford to be related to King
Richard II would seemingly be through Edmund's great-grandmother,
Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset (died 1300), 1st Lord Basset of Drayton.
Hawise's identity is presently unknown. But, if she is the same person
as Hawise, daughter of Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, as recently
theorized by the learned John Ravilious, then she would be near related
to King Richard II. King Richard II's great-grandmother, Hawise de
Quincy, was a first cousin to Hawise de Vere. If Hawise Basset was a
Vere, it would also explain the subsequent rise to power of her
descendants, the Bassets of Drayton and the Staffords.
Due to the fact that the king's ancestry is largely Continental, Edmund
Stafford's ancestry presumably connects to the king through only three
English families found in the king's ancestry: Wake, Quincy, or
Fiennes. So, the circle of possibilities of kinship is extremely
narrow.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
An alternative theory to the identity of Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset,
1st Lord Basset, would be for her to be King Richard II's own
great-grandmother, Hawise de Quincy, who was widowed in 1282 and died
in 1285. Hawise was born about 1250 (being aged 14 in 1264). There is
barely enough time for her to have been the wife of Ralph Basset in the
period, 1282-1285, and given birth to his two children, Ralph and
Margaret, and then died in 1285.
This scenario seems doubtful, however, as I've found three references
to Hawise de Quincy as widow of Baldwin Wake: (1) in 1282 following her
husband's death; in 1283 when she was named heiress to her sister, Joan
de Quincy, wife of Humphrey de Bohun; and in 1285 at her death. These
records make it unlikely but not impossible for Hawise de Quincy to
have contracted a marriage to Ralph Basset in the period, 1282-1285.
All the same, I've found the following record in the helpful online A2A
Catalogue which shows that Ralph Basset of Drayton alienated rents out
of his manor of Drayton Basset, Staffordshire in August 1285 for a
chaplain at Farley. This may well have been done to celebrate the
anniversary of his wife's death. Since we know that Hawise de Quincy,
widow of Baldwin Wake, died early in 1285, the dating of this gift
would fit for Hawise de Quincy to have been Ralph Basset's lately
deceased wife.
Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds Branch: The Bunbury Family,
Reference: E 18/220/2: royal licence for the alienation in mortmain of
100s. rent from the manor of Drayton Basset from Ralph Basset of
Drayton to the chaplain at Farley. Date: 14 August 1285. END OF
QUOTE.
Regardless, if Hawise Basset was either Hawise de Quincy (widow of
Baldwin Wake) or Hawise de Vere (as suggested by John Ravilious), it
would make her descendant, Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, related
to King Richard II within the 5th degree on at least one side. Either
solution would give the Basset and Stafford families a descent from the
Quincy family.
Either solution would also work well with John Ravilious' own theory
that the Despenser family were descendants of the baronial Quincy
family. I find that Hugh le Despenser the younger referred to Hawise
Basset's son, Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of Drayton, as his "cousin"
[Reference: Chaplais, War of Saint-Sardos 1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd
Ser. 87) (1954): vi, 75 & 80]. If Ralph Basset's mother was a Quincy
or a Vere (whose mother was a Quincy) and if the Despensers had a
Quincy connection, it would explain this otherwise unresolved kinship.
This matter deserves further study.
In further support of a Quincy connection, I find that the Quincy manor
of Long Buckby, Northamptonshire was afterwards in the hands of Ralph
Basset, 2nd Lord Basset. I'm uncertain how he obtained possession of
this manor. I suspect, however, that he was granted the manor by
Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose wife, Alice de Lacy, was heiress to
various Quincy family estates.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125172277.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
How precisely do you reckon that the endowment of a chaplaincy dated 14
August 1285 "may well" have been transacted to mark an anniversary that had
occurred before 27 March in the same year? Failing a plausible explanation,
it would seem at this rate that any business of any unhitched baron later in
the same calendar year "may well" have indicated that he had recently
completed twelve months of mourning for Hawise de Quincy.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset, 1st
Lord Basset (he died 1300). As noted earlier today, Hawise Basset's
great-grandson, Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, was styled "kinsman"
on several occasions by King Richard II of England. It is thought that
the kinship between Bishop Stafford and King Richard II of England
comes through Hawise Basset, whose parentage is unknown.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Charles
Barnes, Richard & William Bernard, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah
Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert
Brent, Thomas Bressey, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert,
Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, St. Leger Codd,
Henry Corbin, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, Agatha, Alice,
Eleanor, Jane & Martha Eltonhead, William Farrer, John Fenwick, Henry
Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John
Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes
Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne &
Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More,
John Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge,
Robert Peyton, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney,
Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, Anthony
Savage, William Skepper, Mary Johanna Somerset, James Taylor, Samuel &
William Torrey, John & Lawrence Washington, Olive Welby, Amy Willis,
Thomas Wingfield, Mary Wolseley, Hawte Wyatt.
joe
Sutton/Dudley line which you removed from your latest book, (MCA) ?
Thanks,
Joe C
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As a followup to my original post, I believe I've determined the nature
of the kinship between King Richard II of England and Edmund Stafford,
Keeper of the Privy Seal, Bishop of Exeter.
As I stated earlier, Edmund Stafford can only have been related to King
Richard II through one of three families: Wake, Quincy, and Fiennes.
So far, I've examined the Wake and Quincy families, and have not found
any specific indication that Edmund Stafford was related through those
families. Also, we may deduce that the kinship to King Richard II came
through Edmund Stafford's mother, Isabel de Vernon, as, to my
knowledge, none of Edmund Stafford's father's relatives, the Staffords
and Bassets, were called kinsfolk by King Richard II.
Reviewing the Vernon ancestry, I find that Edmund Stafford's
great-grandfather, Richard de Vernon, married Eleanor de Fiennes,
daughter of Giles de Fiennes, in or about 1290. This is indicated by
the following information in VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90, citation
kindly provided to me by Matthew Connelly:
"In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed his son Richard and Eleanor
daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott Manor (25), and in 1292 it was
granted to her father in custody during their minority (26). Richard
Vernon, the father, regained seisin of this manor, however, before 1302
(27) "
References: Footnote 25: Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 223; Footnote 26:
Cal. Pat. 1281-92, p.470; Footnote 27: Feud. Aids, i, 93; see also De
Banco R. 178, m. 218; 204, m. 103d.; Feud. Aids, i, 113. END OF QUOTE.
Vernon family genealogists have commonly assumed that the marriage of
Richard de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes was childless. However, there
doesn't appear to be any evidence to suggest this. As such, I believe
there is every reason to think that Eleanor (de Fiennes) de Vernon is
ancestral to Bishop Edmund Stafford. I understand this arrangement of
the Vernon family (or something similar) is presented in Farrer's book,
Honors and Knights' Fees, vol. 1, which source I haven't yet seen.
As for Sir Giles de Fiennes (father of Eleanor), records show that he
was a younger brother of Sir William de Fiennes, seigneur of Fiennes,
died 1302. Sir William de Fiennes in turn was the great-great-
grandfather of King Richard II of England. If so, this would make
Eleanor de Fiennes' presumed descendant, Bishop Edmund Stafford, and
King Richard II related in the 5th and 5th degrees of kindred by common
descent from Enguerrand de Fiennes, seigneur of Fiennes (living 1261),
as follows:
1. Enguerrand de Fiennes, seigneur of Fiennes, m. _____ de Conde.
2. William de Fiennes, Knt., seigneur of Fiennes, married Blanche de
Brienne.
3. Joan de Fiennes, married John Wake, Knt., 1st Lord Wake.
4. Margaret Wake, married Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent.
5. Joan of Kent, married Edward the Black Prince, Prince of Wales.
6. Richard II, King of England.
1. Enguerrand de Fiennes, seigneur of Fiennes, m. _____ de Conde.
2. Giles de Fiennes, Knt., occurs 1270-1314, married Sibyl de Filliol.
3. Eleanor de Fiennes, married 1290 Richard de Vernon.
4. Richard de Vernon, died 1333, married before 1313 Maud de Camville.
5. Isabel de Vernon, married Richard de Stafford, K.B., Lord Stafford.
6. Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants who are descended from Richard de Vernon and Eleanor
de Fiennes.
Robert Abell, Thomas Booth, Obadiah Bruen, Henry Corbin, Muriel Gurdon,
Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Anthony Savage, Amy Willis.
I might note that the above immigrants are descended through the
Fiennes family from Faramus of Boulogne, brother of Rohese of Boulogne,
wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of England.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Todd A. Farmerie
> Reviewing the Vernon ancestry, I find that Edmund Stafford's
> great-grandfather, Richard de Vernon, married Eleanor de Fiennes,
> daughter of Giles de Fiennes, in or about 1290. This is indicated by
> the following information in VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90, citation
> kindly provided to me by Matthew Connelly:
>
> "In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed his son Richard and Eleanor
> daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott Manor (25), and in 1292 it was
> granted to her father in custody during their minority (26). Richard
> Vernon, the father, regained seisin of this manor, however, before 1302
> (27) "
>
> References: Footnote 25: Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 223; Footnote 26:
> Cal. Pat. 1281-92, p.470; Footnote 27: Feud. Aids, i, 93; see also De
> Banco R. 178, m. 218; 204, m. 103d.; Feud. Aids, i, 113. END OF QUOTE.
>
> Vernon family genealogists have commonly assumed that the marriage of
> Richard de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes was childless. However, there
> doesn't appear to be any evidence to suggest this.
This is hardly a fair assessment. Those researching the family have not
"assumed" any such thing. They have _concluded_ it, an entirely
different animal. Likewise, since when is the priority put on evidence
showing that there are no children, when there is no evidence that such
a child existed.
Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, the father, was born ca. 1262 (15 in
1278), and Richard the son hence was hardly more than 10 or 12 at the
time of this engagement. As you well know, engagements performed at
this age cannot be assumed to have resulted in a fertile marriage a
decade on. Is there any suggestion that it came to naught? The manor
in question reverted from Giles de Fenes back to the father Richard de
Vernon, well before the date of Giles's death. The next solid date is
of William, son of Richard (whose wife was Maud de Camville), and
grandson and heir of another Richard, who was born ca. 1313 (10 in 1323).
Your solution, making William the grandson of Richard and Eleanor, would
make him great grandson of Richard, b. 1262, and hence 3 generations in
51 years, or 17 years per generation. While possible, this is terribly
tight for three successive generations. The alternative would be to
conclude that the Richard who married Eleanor de Fenes _was_ the Richard
who married Maud de Camville. This would give you just two generations
in 51 years, or 25 1/2 years per generation, which seems more
comfortable. I note that when William succeeded his grandfather in
1330, his mother Maud and grandmother Isabella claimed dower. This
would appear to add weight to the latter reconstruction, as the eldest
Richard (great-grandfather by your reconstruction, grandfather by the
alternative) married Isabella de Hartcla, unless you would like to
introduce another undocumented Isabella, married to the younger Richard
after Eleanor.
Now the shoe is on your foot. Given this tight chronology, given that
Pitchcott referted to the father, what evidence is there that Richard de
Vernon and Eleanor de Fenes had any children?
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I don't have a problem with the tight chronology you have set forth,
especially since we know that the person in the middle generation,
Richard de Vernon, was married as a minor to Eleanor de Fiennes in
1290, and that Richard and Eleanor were both still minors in 1292.
Assuming that Richard and Eleanor consummated their marriage in or
after 1292, it is perfectably acceptable for them to have had a son and
heir, Richard de Vernon, born say 1295. It would also perfectly
acceptable for Richard de Vernon, born say 1295, to have married Maud
de Camville, by whom he had his own son and heir, William, born about
1313.
I show that Maud de Camville's own father, William de Camville, was
born about 1268 (aged 40 in 1308). As such, a birthdate for Maud de
Camville of 1295 would also be quite acceptable.
We know for a fact that King Richard II of England was extremely well
informed as to his Fiennes cousins. My research shows that King
Richard II referred to the following Fiennes cousins as his kinsfolk:
Thomas Beauchamp, William Beauchamp, Joan de Burghersh, Elizabeth
Mohun, Elizabeth Burghersh, Edward Cherleton, Thomas Clifford, and
Edmund de Mortimer.
Bishop Edmund Stafford would be just one more Fiennes kinsman to add to
the list.
In a related vein, I find no evidence that any of Edmund Stafford's
father's family, the Staffords and the Bassets, were addressed as
"kinsfolk" by King Richard II. As such, I think it is safe to deduce
that the kinship between Bishop Edmund Stafford and King Rihard II came
through Bishop Stafford's mother's family, the Vernons.
One last thing on the Vernon-Fiennes marriage: The father of Eleanor
(de Fiennes) de Vernon was Sir Giles de Fiennes, of White Waltham,
Berkshire, and Old Court (in Wartling) and Marsham (in Fairlight),
Sussex. He occurs in the records as an adult from 1270 to 1314. The
spelling Fenes is merely an archaic form of Fiennes. I don't know
when Sir Giles de Fiennes married his wife, Sibyl de Filliol, but given
that Giles was a grown adult in 1270, it is reasonable for him to have
had his daughter, Eleanor de Fiennes, born say 1280.
With regard to my earlier discussion regarding the parentage of Bishop
Stafford's father's maternal grandmother, Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset,
1st Lord Basset (he died 1300), I think we will eventually find that
Hawise Basset was a daughter of Hugh le Despenser [II], of
Loughborough, Leicestershire (died 1265), by his wife, Aline Basset,
and that she was named for Aline Basset's mother, Hawise de Lovaine.
This parentage would explain Bishop Edmund Stafford's cousin, Ralph
Basset, Lord Basset of Drayton, being called cousin by Hugh le
Despenser [IV](usually styled Hugh the younger) (died 1326).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
the Richard of Vernon who then married Maud of Camville ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
In my proposed reconstruction of the Vernon family, the Richard de
Vernon who married Eleanor de Fiennes would be the father of the
Richard de Vernon who married Maud de Camville. This arrangement is
the only way that Eleanor de Fiennes could be ancestral to Bishop
Edmund Stafford. This in turn would explain how Bishop Stafford was
related to King Richard II (himself a descendant of the Fiennes
family).
We know for certain that Maud de Camville is in Bishop Stafford's
ancestry, as Edmund's own parents were given much, if not all, of Maud
de Camville's inheritance.
I might mention that at least one other historian has treated the two
Richard's as two persons. However, other than a tight chronology, I
don't think there is any reason to suppose that there are either one or
two Richard's. When you have short generations with the same names, it
is very easy to collapse two generations into one. This is the bane of
records in the medieval period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
mj...@btinternet.com
Burke's Peerage 107th Edition (2003) - i.e. after the Vernon entry was
"sorted out" at Volume III p 3996 (Vernon of Kinderton) says that
Richard Vernon dvp 1322/3 married "Maud daughter & coheir of William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville of the 1295 creation".
Dugdale's Baronage of 1676, Volume 1, page 159 says that "Sir Richard
Stafford of Clifton, knight, which Lordship he possessed by reason of
his marriage with Maud the daughter & heir to Richard Camvile of that
place" [quoting as his reference "Ex. Col. S. Erdswike"].
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Todd ~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> I don't have a problem with the tight chronology you have set forth,
> especially since we know that the person in the middle generation,
> Richard de Vernon, was married as a minor to Eleanor de Fiennes in
> 1290, and that Richard and Eleanor were both still minors in 1292.
What ever happened to your rule of thumb? You certainly aren't going to
make it fit with this chronology. If a rule of thumb only applies when
convenient to one's argument, and is freely set aside when inconvenient,
it isn't of much use. Yes, you can shoehorn three generations into 51
years, but should you? What basis do you have for prefering this to a
solution with just 2 generations in that time.
> Assuming that Richard and Eleanor consummated their marriage in or
> after 1292, it is perfectably acceptable for them to have had a son and
> heir, Richard de Vernon, born say 1295. It would also perfectly
> acceptable for Richard de Vernon, born say 1295, to have married Maud
> de Camville, by whom he had his own son and heir, William, born about
> 1313.
And it would be equally acceptable for that Richard never to have
consumated his marriage to Eleanor, and to have remarried to Maud.
> I show that Maud de Camville's own father, William de Camville, was
> born about 1268 (aged 40 in 1308). As such, a birthdate for Maud de
> Camville of 1295 would also be quite acceptable.
Given that (presumably) your "aged 40 in 1308" is an example of "aged 40
and more" from an ipm (where older people were frequently aged in terms
of decade brackets), how does his age differ appreciably from the 1262
birthdate of Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon? It looks to me like
Richard and William were of the same generation, with Richard a little
older, which would be fitting if his son married William's daughter as a
second wife. All we know is that William was born in 1313, but Richard
could have married Maud a decade or more earlier. Would not 1288 be an
equally acceptable birthdate, and couldn't someone born in 1288 marry a
man born 1278 or 1280 as his second wife?
You have also ignored two important points. First, Pitchcott reverted
from Giles de Fines to Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon by 1302. Second,
William de Vernon's grandmother was Isabella.
> We know for a fact that King Richard II of England was extremely well
> informed as to his Fiennes cousins. My research shows that King
> Richard II referred to the following Fiennes cousins as his kinsfolk:
>
> Thomas Beauchamp, William Beauchamp, Joan de Burghersh, Elizabeth
> Mohun, Elizabeth Burghersh, Edward Cherleton, Thomas Clifford, and
> Edmund de Mortimer.
>
> Bishop Edmund Stafford would be just one more Fiennes kinsman to add to
> the list.
And here the argument becomes circular. The Edmund Stafford was related
via the Vernons because the Vernons descended from Eleanor Fines. We
know the Vernons descended from Eleanor Fines because the of the
relationship.
Do you have any actual evidence that there were progeny of the
Vernon/Fines marriage, other than that a descendant generations later
was called kinsman of the king, which could have applied to this or some
other connection? Were the later Vernons holding Fines land? Is a
later Vernon called a kinsman of some other Fines descendant?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Could the Richard of Vernon who married Eleanor Fiennes be the same person as
> the Richard of Vernon who then married Maud of Camville ?
That was the point I was trying to get across.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> When you have short generations with the same names, it
> is very easy to collapse two generations into one. This is the bane of
> records in the medieval period.
. . . or expand one generation into two. What we have are two
documented marriages (or rather, one documented engagement, and one
documented widow).
What basis is there to say there are two grooms and short chronology,
unless we start with the assumption that each person only married once,
an assumption we all know is invalid? Umm . . .
What evidence do we have that there was only one generation and normal
chronology? Well, for starters William's grandfather's widow, Isabella,
has the same name as the documented wife of Richard le Fraunceys,
William's grandfather under a one generation scenario, but
great-grandfather under your alternative. Now, you could ad hoc into
existence another Isabella, second wife of Eleanor's husband, but if you
are to now allow a single man to marry two wives in sequence, doing so
with a single Richard, married to Eleanor and Maud, would seem more
parsimonious.
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your posts. You've made some excellent points.
One immediate comment: The passage of the manor of Pitchcott,
Buckinghamshire in 1292 to Giles de Fiennes was surely a trust position
on behalf of his daughter and son-in-law, Eleanor and Richard de
Vernon, both then minors. The allegation that it was back in the hands
of the Vernon family by 1302 doesn't preclude the marriage of Richard
de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes from having produced issue. I'm sure
it was intended that Giles de Fiennes only hold the manor for a short
period until his son-in-law came of age. By my arrangement, Eleanor de
Fiennes' husband, Richard de Vernon, was of age by 1302, which would
explain the end of Giles de Fiennes' trusteeship. In short, I think
this is a non-issue. I "trust" you agree.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< Well, for starters William's grandfather's widow, Isabella,
has the same name as the documented wife of Richard le Fraunceys,
William's grandfather under a one generation scenario, but
great-grandfather under your alternative. >>
I think I missed that proof that William had a wife of his grandfather named
Isabella. I suppose there is some dower claim? I saw it mentioned, but I
didn't see the specific text with citation mentioned. Perhaps it was, I'll go
check again.
Will
Luke Potter
raised.
Firstly I believe that the passage that Douglas mentions in Vol 1 of
Farrer's _Honors and Knights Fees_ is that on p.165. Here Farrer states:
"Before 1290 Richard de Vernun gave to Richard, his son, and Eleanor,
daughter of Giles de Frenes, and their issue the manors of Pitchcott and
Adstock, Bucks., and the manor of Baslow, Derbyshire. In 1292 Richard de
Vernun, the father, appears to have died, leaving Richard his son a
minor, for in the year Giles de Frenes had a grant of the custody of
those manors during the minority of the said heirs."
This however was just an assumption by Farrer. Richard the father did
not die in 1292, but he was imprisoned for a couple of years (see
Staffordshire Historical Collections, Vol 6, Pt.1, pp.210,240, 245). The
grant to Giles de Frene/Fiennes seems to have simply been taking care of
business in preparation for his impending incarceration! Elsewhere in
his entry for Harlaston Farrer does not repeat this belief that Richard
died.
Yet did this younger Richard have a son Richard by Eleanor as Douglas
suggests? The chronology could be argued either way. If there were three
Richards though, we only have details of the deaths of two of them, and
no record of another third of the Vernon lands being provided for the
upkeep of any further widow beyong Isabel de Harcla, Eleanor de Frenes,
and, later in the 1330s, Joan widow of William.
However the key evidence is the IPM of Richard husband of Maud Camville
in 1324. In this it states that he was Richard son of Richard de Vernon
and that he held his lands of his father. Was this father Richard
husband of Eleanor? The answer is given by the charter of William de
Freford later that year. In this William returned the manors of Mauds
Meaburn and Newby to Richard de Vernon and Isabel his wife. As Richard
husband of Isabel de Harcla was still alive he must be identified with
Richard de Vernon the elder and father of Richard husband of Matilda
Camville.
I feel that this genealogy is fairly secure and there is much more
evidence which refers to Richard de Vernon the elder and Richard de
Vernon the younger, including settlements of the dower agreement between
Matilda de Camville and Richard de Vernon the elder in 1324. If anyone
wants to look at this I can probably send them some files separately.
There is however one further avenue for a possible connection to the
Fiennes family which needs to be mentioned (and removed!)
We know that Richard de Vernon and Matilda Camville were married before
4th February 1312/3 as on this date they collectively received a grant
from Henry Curzon [HMC, _Rutland MSS_, Vol.IV, p.28]. We also know from
Richard's IPM in 1324 that his heir William was aged ten in that year.
William was therefore certainly a product of the marriage of Richard and
Matilda. This does not mean that Isabella was also a product of this
marriage. Perhaps Isabella was a daughter born to Richard's first
marriage to Eleanor? This would mean that the Staffords had Fiennes
blood.
This argument though does not seem to stand up to the evidence in a
final concord between Matilda de Vernon (nee Camville) and Richard de
Pewes and Alianora his wife of a knights fee in Stotfold and Haselore
and the manor of Clifton Camville. [SHC, Vol.11, p.185] In this the
right was to descend after the death of Matilda to Richard de Stafford
and Isabella his wife, then to Matilda daughter of Richard de Vernon
junior, and then to the next heirs of Matilda de Vernon (nee Camville).
It seems therefore that Isabella was of Matilda's blood and not a child
of Richard's first marriage to Eleanor.
Luke Potter
--
Sent via Genealogy Newsgroups
http://www.genealogynewsgroups.com
WJho...@aol.com
lwrp...@gmail.com writes:
<< we only have details of the deaths of two of them, and
no record of another third of the Vernon lands being provided for the
upkeep of any further widow beyong Isabel de Harcla, Eleanor de Frenes,
and, later in the 1330s, Joan widow of William. >>
Are you sure that there is record of a widow Eleanor (of Frenes) de Vernon?
I don't recall seeing that yet. Just the marriage betrothal stuff in
1290-ish.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Todd ~
>
> Thank you for your posts. You've made some excellent points.
>
> One immediate comment: The passage of the manor of Pitchcott,
> Buckinghamshire in 1292 to Giles de Fiennes was surely a trust position
> on behalf of his daughter and son-in-law, Eleanor and Richard de
> Vernon, both then minors. The allegation that it was back in the hands
> of the Vernon family by 1302 doesn't preclude the marriage of Richard
> de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes from having produced issue. I'm sure
> it was intended that Giles de Fiennes only hold the manor for a short
> period until his son-in-law came of age. By my arrangement, Eleanor de
> Fiennes' husband, Richard de Vernon, was of age by 1302, which would
> explain the end of Giles de Fiennes' trusteeship.
Why, when Giles's trusteeship ended would it revert to Richard the
father, as is indicated by the quote? It would also be consistent if
Richard was younger - was engaged in early childhood, and was still a
minor in 1302, but that the trusteeship of Giles became inconvenient and
was terminated in favor of the father when his daughter died, perhaps
even before the nuptuals could be celebrated. Keep in mind we don't
have a single record in which a Richard de Vernon has wife Eleanor - not
one. Again, you can argue this either way, so why is yours the prefered
solution, seeing as it requires the short chronology and the ad hoc
creation of a second Isabella?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Yet did this younger Richard have a son Richard by Eleanor as Douglas
> suggests? The chronology could be argued either way. If there were three
> Richards though, we only have details of the deaths of two of them, and
> no record of another third of the Vernon lands being provided for the
> upkeep of any further widow beyong Isabel de Harcla, Eleanor de Frenes,
> and, later in the 1330s, Joan widow of William.
Don't you mean Maud (Matilda) de Camville (instead of ELeanor) - I know
of no evidence of a moity going to Eleanor, but in the 1330 ipm which
found William heir of his grandfather, dower claims were made by Isabel,
widow of the grandfather, and by Maud, widow of the father.
> However the key evidence is the IPM of Richard husband of Maud Camville
> in 1324. In this it states that he was Richard son of Richard de Vernon
> and that he held his lands of his father. Was this father Richard
> husband of Eleanor? The answer is given by the charter of William de
> Freford later that year. In this William returned the manors of Mauds
> Meaburn and Newby to Richard de Vernon and Isabel his wife. As Richard
> husband of Isabel de Harcla was still alive he must be identified with
> Richard de Vernon the elder and father of Richard husband of Matilda
> Camville.
It really seems to fit well together, and so far the only argument that
favors an alternative is that Richard II was related to Edmund Stafford.
I don't find that weighty in overturning this body of documentation.
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Under normal conditions, when a father, in this case Richard de Vernon,
Sr. (born ca. 1262), settled lands on his son and his son's wife, in
this case, Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say 1278/80, and Eleanor de
Fiennes, and to their issue, the property would NOT revert back to the
father, unless BOTH the son and his wife died without issue.
Are you telling us then that both Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say
1278/80, and his wife, Eleanor de Fiennes, died without issue before
1302?
If this is not what you are saying, then you should explain to us why
the manor of Pitchcott reverted back to the father before 1302, when
the property had been settled on the son and his wife back in 1290?
And, if the reason you are claiming that the property reverted back to
the father is because the son's marriage was childless, surely the land
would remain in the son's hands for his life, regardless of his wife's
early death without issue. A settlement is a settlement.
It seems necessary therefore that you examine the documents that you
claim show that Richard de Vernon the father re-possessed the manor of
Pitchcott before 1302. These records are:
Feudal Aids, i, 93;
De Banco R. 178, m. 218; 204, m. 103d.;
Feudal Aids, i, 113.
I think we can safely assume that Richard de Vernon, Jr., and Eleanor
de Fiennes who were married in 1290 likely consummated their marriage
in or before 1292. The fact that Richard de Vernon was a minor under
21 in 1292 does not preclude he and his wife from having a raft of
children before he became 21. Producing a large number of children was
the whole point of such early childhood marriages. Surely the
historian Farrer was aware of this. One of his versions of the Vernon
family pedigree had three Richard de Vernons in rapid succession, just
as I have done. This is nothing new.
As for the chronological issues, we know for a fact that we have one
short generation between Richard de Vernon I and Richard de Vernon II.
We also know for a fact that Richard de Vernon II was married when he
was married very young when his own father was 28. These facts are
well documented in the records. Suffice to say that this totals up to
a short chronology to me.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> And here the argument becomes circular. The Edmund Stafford was related
> via the Vernons because the Vernons descended from Eleanor Fines. We
> know the Vernons descended from Eleanor Fines because the of the
> relationship.
>
>
> taf
We can be reasonably sure that Bishop Edmund Stafford was related to
King Richard II of England through one of only three families: Wake,
Quincy, and Fiennes. When looking for possible routes of kinship, I
believe it is noteworthy that Bishop Stafford's great-grandfather,
Richard de Vernon, was married to a member of the Fiennes family. This
is elementary logic.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>
>
>>And here the argument becomes circular. The Edmund Stafford was related
>>via the Vernons because the Vernons descended from Eleanor Fines. We
>>know the Vernons descended from Eleanor Fines because the of the
>>relationship.
>
> King Richard II of England through one of only three families: Wake,
> Quincy, and Fiennes.
Say it enough times, and you convince yourself it is true. Considering
that you are allowing relationships up to the 8th degree (as long as the
other branch is short), I suspect there are more possibilities.
> When looking for possible routes of kinship, I
> believe it is noteworthy that Bishop Stafford's great-grandfather,
> Richard de Vernon, was married to a member of the Fiennes family. This
> is elementary logic.
By this elementary logic, we would conclude that Richard II was related
to the Kings of Navarre through the marriage of Richard I. Logic does
not override contraindicatory evidence.
taf
Luke Potter
Eleanor de Frenes/Fiennes instead of Matilda de Camville as one of the
Vernon widows whom we know to have had dower in the 14th century.
I hope that did not confuse things too much further!
Luke
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
The first is correct, the second misplaced. The early antiquaries had
trouble explaining to themselves (as it didn't in fact happen by
descent alone) how the Staffords came to hold Clifton Campville, and
you will find various different versions of the pedigree as a result
(Burke's extinct peerage and the old DNB also get in a muddle). There
is plenty of scope for confusion as Sir Richard Stafford (d.1380)
married (1) Isabel Vernon and (2) Maud, widow of Edmund Vernon and
daughter of Sir John Stafford of Bramshall. He also had an eldest
(legitimate) son called Richard, who dvpsp in 1370.
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
1. Edmund Stafford
2. Sir Richard Stafford
3. Isabel Vernon
4. Edmund 1B Stafford
5. Margaret Basset
6. Richard Vernon
7. Maud Camvill
8. Nicholas Stafford
9. --- Langley
10. Ralph 1B Basset
11. Hawise ---
12. Richard Vernon (ne le Fraunceys)
13. Isabel de Hartcla
14. William (2B) Camvill
15. NN
Wouldn't this last lacuna be another possible route for any connection
to Richard II?
Leo van de Pas
but then seems to use them alternately.
By last lacuna do you mean 14 NN ?
In my system that 14 NN would have a name = Maud de Brian,
29.Eve de Tracy
59.Maud de Braose
118.William de Braose
237.Matilda/Maud de St.Valery and her brother is Thomas de St.Valery
Thomas de St.Valery
/
Aenor de St.Valery
/
Yolande de Dreux
/
Adelheid/Alix/Adelaide de Bourgogne
/
Marie of Brabant
/
Marguerite de France
/
Edmund of Kent
/
Joan 'the Fair Maid' of Kent
/
Richard II
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Hello Leo,
As to the spelling, there are plenty of variations- Camvile, Camvyle,
Camvill, Camville, Canvill and so on. As so often the spelling wasn't
fixed- eg you may come across Vernon as Vernun, Varnam etc. The family
are derived from Canville-les-Deux-Eglises, nr. Yvetot, Upper Normandy
(per ODNB) so one might expect Canville to be the correct form, but
Camvill seems to be the most used version. Note also that their village
is now spelt Clifton Campville, with a p!
The lacuna I meant was the unknown wife of William- Maud de Brian was
William's mother, being first wife of Geoffrey, lord Camvill (d.1308).
William's wife was postulated to be a Pype, to explain how the
Staffords got that manor, but in fact it came by a different (and
counter-intuitive) route. William's wife is unknown in CP.
But thanks for pointing out the St Valery link-
Matthew
mj...@btinternet.com
Thanks for those details Matthew. I suspected the Stafford link, as
there is no corresponding reference by Dugdale in his Camville article
- which is rather confused and apparently contradicts this, at least
inasmuch as it doesn't show a Richard de Camville amongst the Clifton
Camvilles (it is awash with alternative Mauds as well)
Leo van de Pas
link shown remains. At least in my data base I have it correct.
Leo
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. You've made some excellent points. Much
appreciated.
My observations are based on the evidence of hundreds of other examples
of king's kinsfolk culled from thousands of pages of original source
materials both English and French over several centuries.
Regarding this specific case, I might note that if the kinship ran
short (5th degree on one side), it was usually on the king's side.
That is why we can be virtually certain that Bishop Stafford was
related to King Richard II through the Fiennes, Quincy, or Wake
families. These three families are the only ones available at the 5th
degree on the king's side, other than the English royal family itself.
Since I've never seen any of the Staffords, Bassets, Camvilles, or
Vernons addressed as king's kinsfolk, I have to assume none of these
families are related to the English royal family. And, since none of
Bishop Stafford's paternal relatives were called king's kinsfolk by
King Richard II, I have to assume that Bishop Stafford was related to
King Richard II through his mother's family, the Vernons. In short,
this means that the possibilities are quite limited. You have Fiennes,
Quincy, or Wake on the king's side and Vernon and possibly Camville on
the Bishop's side. That's it.
This is why we need to pay close attention to the marriage of Bishop
Stafford's great-grandfather, Sir Richard de Vernon, to Eleanor de
Fiennes. This marriage could simply be a coincidence, but I doubt it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
In my post below and the one preceding it, I inadvertedly stated that
Hawise de Quincy was the great-grandmother of King Richard II of
England. Hawise de Quincy was actually his great-great-grandmother.
My apologies if I confused anyone by the slip.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> An alternative theory to the identity of Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset,
> 1st Lord Basset, would be for her to be King Richard II's own
> great-grandmother, Hawise de Quincy, who was widowed in 1282 and died
> in 1285. Hawise was born about 1250 (being aged 14 in 1264). There is
> barely enough time for her to have been the wife of Ralph Basset in the
> period, 1282-1285, and given birth to his two children, Ralph and
> Margaret, and then died in 1285.
>
> This scenario seems doubtful, however, as I've found three references
> to Hawise de Quincy as widow of Baldwin Wake: (1) in 1282 following her
> husband's death; in 1283 when she was named heiress to her sister, Joan
> de Quincy, wife of Humphrey de Bohun; and in 1285 at her death. These
> records make it unlikely but not impossible for Hawise de Quincy to
> have contracted a marriage to Ralph Basset in the period, 1282-1285.
>
> All the same, I've found the following record in the helpful online A2A
> Catalogue which shows that Ralph Basset of Drayton alienated rents out
> of his manor of Drayton Basset, Staffordshire in August 1285 for a
> chaplain at Farley. This may well have been done to celebrate the
> anniversary of his wife's death. Since we know that Hawise de Quincy,
> widow of Baldwin Wake, died early in 1285, the dating of this gift
> would fit for Hawise de Quincy to have been Ralph Basset's lately
> deceased wife.
>
> Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds Branch: The Bunbury Family,
> Reference: E 18/220/2: royal licence for the alienation in mortmain of
> 100s. rent from the manor of Drayton Basset from Ralph Basset of
> Drayton to the chaplain at Farley. Date: 14 August 1285. END OF
> QUOTE.
>
> Regardless, if Hawise Basset was either Hawise de Quincy (widow of
> Baldwin Wake) or Hawise de Vere (as suggested by John Ravilious), it
> would make her descendant, Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, related
> to King Richard II within the 5th degree on at least one side. Either
> solution would give the Basset and Stafford families a descent from the
> Quincy family.
>
> Either solution would also work well with John Ravilious' own theory
> that the Despenser family were descendants of the baronial Quincy
> family. I find that Hugh le Despenser the younger referred to Hawise
> Basset's son, Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of Drayton, as his "cousin"
> [Reference: Chaplais, War of Saint-Sardos 1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd
> Ser. 87) (1954): vi, 75 & 80]. If Ralph Basset's mother was a Quincy
> or a Vere (whose mother was a Quincy) and if the Despensers had a
> Quincy connection, it would explain this otherwise unresolved kinship.
> This matter deserves further study.
>
> In further support of a Quincy connection, I find that the Quincy manor
> of Long Buckby, Northamptonshire was afterwards in the hands of Ralph
> Basset, 2nd Lord Basset. I'm uncertain how he obtained possession of
> this manor. I suspect, however, that he was granted the manor by
> Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose wife, Alice de Lacy, was heiress to
> various Quincy family estates.
>
> Comments are invited.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
> Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
> >
> > As I've continued reading through book, The Diplomatic Correspondence
> > of Richard II, it's quite interesting to see King Richard II's
> > references to his various kinsfolk, both foreign and domestic.
> >
> > One surprising kinship which has turned up is Richard II's references
> > to his kinsman, Edmund Stafford, then keeper of the privy seal,
> > afterwards Bishop of Exeter. There are six such references to Edmund
> > Stafford being the king's kinsman in the diplomatic correspondence:
> >
> > pp. 80-81 Letter of Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1390: "...
> > quod consanguineus noster carissimus Magister Edmundum de Stafford,
> > legum doctor eximius ac licenciatus in decretis et custos nostri
> > privati sigilli, ..."
> >
> > pg. 93. Petition from Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1391.
> > Petition asking for an episcopal promotion for "consanguineum nostrum
> > Magistrum E. de Stafford, legum doctorem eximium et licenciatum in
> > decretis, nostri privati sigilli custodem ..."
> >
> > pg. 113. Petition from Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1392.
> > Petition asking for promotion for "egregium virum magistrum Edmundum de
> > S[tafford], consanguineum nostrum carissimum, qui profecto legum doctor
> > eximius et licenciatus in decretis ac sigilli nostri privati custos
> > existit."
> >
> > pp. 152-153. Letter from Richard II to Adam Easton, Cardinal of
> > England dated 1391-1395: "... quod ipsa paternitas vestra carissimos
> > clericos nostros magistrum Edmundum Stafford, nostrum consanguineum et
> > custodem nostri privati sigilli super decanatu suo Ebor', et Johannem
> > Boore, ...."
> >
> > pp. 153-154. Letter from Richard II to Adam Easton, Cardinal of
> > England dated 1391-1395: "... carissimos clericos nostros magistrum E.
> > de S[tafford], consanguineum nostrum et custodem nostri privati
> > sigilli, super decanatu Ebor', et Johannem Boore, ..."
> >
> > pp. 157-158. Letter from Richard II to Pope Boniface IX dated 1395:
> > "... carissimi consanguinei nostri magistri E[dmundi] de S[tafford],
> > legum doctoris eximii et licenciati in decretis, nostri privati sigilli
> > custodis ..."
> >
> > Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, was a younger son of Sir Richard de
> > Stafford, Lord Stafford, by his 1st wife, Isabel, daughter of Richard
> > de Vernon, Knt., of Haddon, Derbyshire. For particulars on the
> > Stafford family, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), pp.
> > 6-7. The most likely place for Edmund Stafford to be related to King
> > Richard II would seemingly be through Edmund's great-grandmother,
> > Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset (died 1300), 1st Lord Basset of Drayton.
> > Hawise's identity is presently unknown. But, if she is the same person
> > as Hawise, daughter of Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, as recently
> > theorized by the learned John Ravilious, then she would be near related
> > to King Richard II. King Richard II's great-grandmother, Hawise de
> > Quincy, was a first cousin to Hawise de Vere. If Hawise Basset was a
> > Vere, it would also explain the subsequent rise to power of her
> > descendants, the Bassets of Drayton and the Staffords.
> >
> > Due to the fact that the king's ancestry is largely Continental, Edmund
> > Stafford's ancestry presumably connects to the king through only three
> > English families found in the king's ancestry: Wake, Quincy, or
> > Fiennes. So, the circle of possibilities of kinship is extremely
> > narrow.
> >
> > Comments are invited.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125502258.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> My observations are based on the evidence of hundreds of other examples
> of king's kinsfolk culled from thousands of pages of original source
> materials both English and French over several centuries.
How strange then that the novelty hasn't worn off yet, that you are still
breathlessly relating every last discovery of factoids that have been known
& readily available for decades if not centuries, and moreover that you are
just now getting round to _The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II_
published in 1933, that ought to have been a starting point for any
systematic research in this subject.
> Regarding this specific case, I might note that if the kinship ran
> short (5th degree on one side), it was usually on the king's side.
> That is why we can be virtually certain that Bishop Stafford was
> related to King Richard II through the Fiennes, Quincy, or Wake
> families. These three families are the only ones available at the 5th
> degree on the king's side, other than the English royal family itself.
But you have no way of establishing that this specific relationship occurred
at the fifth degree. Until you can at the very least come up with convincing
examples to show that KNOWN relationships beyond a particular degree were
consistently (better yet invariably) NOT acknowledged by kings, it can't
matter how many examples you produce where their UNKNOWN relationships were
mentioned, since we are left in the dark about the import of this. Mere
repetition is not probative, without direct evidence or comprehensive
analysis.
> Since I've never seen any of the Staffords, Bassets, Camvilles, or
> Vernons addressed as king's kinsfolk, I have to assume none of these
> families are related to the English royal family.
Why not, given the patchy reading you have clearly undertaken, just assume
that you don't know? Or tell us where you have seen members of these
families addressed by kings & princes WITHOUT mention of kinship.
> And, since none of Bishop Stafford's paternal relatives were called
> king's
> kinsfolk by King Richard II, I have to assume that Bishop Stafford was
> related to King Richard II through his mother's family, the Vernons.
But how many & which paternal relatives of the bishop were addressed by
Richard II WITHOUT reference to kinship?
> In short, this means that the possibilities are quite limited. You have
> Fiennes,
> Quincy, or Wake on the king's side and Vernon and possibly Camville on
> the Bishop's side. That's it.
>
> This is why we need to pay close attention to the marriage of Bishop
> Stafford's great-grandfather, Sir Richard de Vernon, to Eleanor de
> Fiennes. This marriage could simply be a coincidence, but I doubt it.
There are knots if intermarriage between many families at this time that
would give rise to such coincidences. What circumstantial evidence is there
for presupposing a doubt in this specific case?
If you won't answer the points I have raised, you may as well stop reading
my posts altogether and spare us the childish & smarmy refain about the
newsgroup being for "making friends". Surely even you are not insanely
narcissistic enough to miss the obvious: it is not for you to determine what
value or purpose the newsgroup has for me, or anyone but yourself.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> But how many & which paternal relatives of the bishop were addressed by
> Richard II WITHOUT reference to kinship?
Dear Peter ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
The answer to your question: To my knowledge, none of Bishop
Stafford's paternal relatives were addressed as kinsfolk by King
Richard II of England. That includes all of his Stafford kinsfolk and
all of his Basset kinsfolk.
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart wrote:
> > But how many & which paternal relatives of the bishop were addressed
> > by Richard II WITHOUT reference to kinship?
>
> Dear Peter ~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> The answer to your question: To my knowledge, none of Bishop
> Stafford's paternal relatives were addressed as kinsfolk by King
> Richard II of England. That includes all of his Stafford kinsfolk and
> all of his Basset kinsfolk.
That doesn't answer my question - the issue is, were they only the
bishop's kinfolk or also the king's. How many of them were ADDRESSED by
Richard II yet NOT called his kin?
If he simply never addressed any of them, and never otherwise referred
to these people, then there would be NO evidence for the point at issue
except that he had called one, the bishop, his blood relative - so that
he may or may not have been related to others.
Your answer above is not definitive & unambiguous, so we still have
nothing much to go on. Little more than a puff of chicken-fried air, so
far.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> My observations are based on the evidence of hundreds of other examples
> of king's kinsfolk culled from thousands of pages of original source
> materials both English and French over several centuries.
Such experience is good for formulating rules of thumb, but in this very
thread we see that these can be readily discarded if they fail to match
the specific instance. Thus the question must be solved genealogically,
not through the application of rules of thumb.
> Regarding this specific case, I might note that if the kinship ran
> short (5th degree on one side), it was usually on the king's side.
How about some statistics here - it should be a real simple to compile -
in what proportion was the king's line longer, in what proportion
shorter? (better, you should be able to categorize the displacement
quantitatively, not just qualitatively)
Anyhow, what makes you think it is 'short' here?
> That is why we can be virtually certain that Bishop Stafford was
> related to King Richard II through the Fiennes, Quincy, or Wake
> families.
Again, why must it be 5th degree and not 6th on the kings side? This
would in turn open up additional possibilities.
There certainly was no codified rule as to what degree of relationship
is or is not close enough for the king to call kin. What proportion of
the king's named relatives are related in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc.?
What proportion of the time is someone related in the 3rd, 4th, etc.
refered to as cousin? Is someone in the 3rd always called the king's
kinsman, vs. someone in the 6th only so called a quarter of the time the
king refers to them, or is it an always or never phenomenon? Was this
constant down the line from Henry II to Henry III to Edward III to
RIchard II, or were some more willing to accept into the fraternity of
kinship the more distant? What proportion are called kinsman with no
known documented relationship? And the big one - what is the
probability that the nobility likely to occur in a royal charter was so
interbred that for virtually anyone you can find a relationship within
this degree, and hence this is all coincidence writ large?
None of these questions can be answered with the citation of specific
instances or generic reference to experience. It takes hard numbers.
It takes statistics. That is the difference between a rule and a rule
of thumb, and we know the fate of a rule of thumb when it proves
inconvenient.
> These three families are the only ones available at the 5th
> degree on the king's side, other than the English royal family itself.
Why 5th? (This is a common pattern to domiciliary card architecture.
First a guess is presented as a possibility, then a probability, then a
certainty, without there being added supporting evidence. No a shred
has been presented that they were related in the 5th, yet this has now
gone from working hypothesis to the cut and dried fact on which you base
your entire reconstruction, or at least that is how it is presented.)
> Since I've never seen any of the Staffords, Bassets, Camvilles, or
> Vernons addressed as king's kinsfolk, I have to assume none of these
> families are related to the English royal family.
You do realize that if you have failed to find Vernons refered to as
royal relatives, that tells against a theory that would have the link
come to the Staffords through the Vernons, don't you?
> And, since none of
> Bishop Stafford's paternal relatives were called king's kinsfolk by
> King Richard II,
Are there any known kinsman within the 6th degree that Richard fails to
call kinsman in any records? If so, this argument loses force. More
importantly, unless the king called a Vernon his kinsman, the argument
from absence of evidence applies equally to the Bishop's maternal side,
and congratulations: you have just eliminated both sides. To only apply
a stringent criterion to opposing theories, while exempting your
prefered guess from the same benchmark isn't all that sound of an approach.
I have to assume that Bishop Stafford was related to
> King Richard II through his mother's family, the Vernons.
Curious - it was just four days ago when you wrote the following:
"The most likely place for Edmund Stafford to be related to King
Richard II would seemingly be through Edmund's great-grandmother,
Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset (died 1300), 1st Lord Basset of Drayton.
Hawise's identity is presently unknown. But, if she is the same person
as Hawise, daughter of Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, as recently
theorized by the learned John Ravilious, then she would be near related
to King Richard II. King Richard II's great-grandmother, Hawise de
Quincy, was a first cousin to Hawise de Vere."
Now this is completely out the window, and you "have to assume" it is
through the Vernons. What happened in between is that you stumbled upon
a possibility and convinced yourself that it could be, so it must be,
and poor Hawise is out in the cold. What do you know now that you
didn't know four days ago that makes Hawise an unlikely candidate? The
discovery of a novel alternative should have no bearing on the viability
of Hawise as a possible conduit, yet you have thrown her over entirely.
taf
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
link to Richard II via Wales, given his descent from Llywelyn Fawr.
Douglas showed that Geoffrey de Camvill (i) married Leuca ferch
Gruffudd ap Rhys, and we know their grandson Geoffrey (ii) married Maud
de Brian. Both these wives were apparently descended from the Braose
family, and it seems possible that the same Marcher gene pool might
have provided a missing wife- between the two Geoffreys was William
(d.1260) whose wife was Lucy, surname unknown; and William, son of the
latter Geoffrey, had the altogether unidentified wife. Can we be sure,
for instance, that she was not herself descended from Llywelyn? The
last William dspm in 1338 so no Camvills could have been addressed as
cousins by Richard II; presumably there are no references at all to
Vernons - as they must have shared the ancestry of Edmund Stafford's
mother in any case.
On Edmund Stafford's father Sir Richard, "in 1355 he went with the
Prince of Wales to Gascony; returned with the Prince's letters in
December 1355; but rejoined his army and fought at Poictiers in
September 1356." [SHC 1917 p84]. So Edmund Stafford's and Richard II's
fathers were brothers-in-arms (not that that need make their sons
cousins); and Sir Richard, by then a baron, "was added to the Council
of State on the accession of Richard II". As a control, are there any
specific references to Richard Stafford by Richard II?
mj...@btinternet.com
sources in which "king's kinsman" frequently appears; this is dated 18
September 1378:
"Windsor: Licence for Richard de Stafford, knight, to enfeoff John de
Wytynton, parson of the church of Newynton de la Wolde, and Richard de
Drayton, parson of the church of Sekynton, co Warwick, of a moiety of
the manor of Caumpdene, Co Gloucester, and advowson of its chapel, and
for the feoffees, after seisin had, to grant the premises to the said
Richard and Matilda, his wife, in tail male, with remainder to the said
Richard's heirs."
The term "king's kinsman" is not used in this instance.
MAR
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1125568275.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
By "frequently" do you mean that every time a kinsman of the king is
mentioned in this calendar of documents, the term "king's kinsman" was in
the original record and included in the English summary of it?
If not, I can't see the point. If so, how do you know?
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
No; I simply mean that "king's kinsman" is a term that is often used in
the printed text of the Patent Rolls Calendar. I am not in a position
to venture an opinion as to its significance (or lack thereof) as a
term.
I'm not seeking to make any point from the reference; I posted it in
response to Matthew's request in the preceding post:
"As a control, are there any specific references to Richard Stafford by
Richard II?"
This is one such reference, from a source where the term "king's
kinsman" is frequently to be found. Whether there are any inferences
to be drawn from it I leave for others more learned than I.
Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
No; I simply mean that "king's kinsman" is a term that is often used in
the printed text of the Patent Rolls Calendar. I am not in a position
to venture an opinion as to its significance (or lack thereof) as a
term.
I'm not seeking to make any point from the reference; I posted it in
response to Matthew's request in the preceding post:
"As a control, are there any specific references to Richard Stafford by
Richard II?"
This is one such reference, from a source where the term "king's
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Thanks very much for posting that, Michael. I won't make assumptions
from it either, but it helps to see what's there.
Matthew
Peter Stewart
<mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125578244.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, this is far better than the approach we have seen on the matter so
far, based on shaky or illogical assumptions, treating genealogy as a kind
of Rubik's cube to play with, finding one or two out of an unassertained
number of possible solutions to a puzzle that by itself has no real value,
then deciding that whatever novel outcome most takes the fancy must be THE
answer, and the trivial game must be meaningful after all because of this
fake "discovery".
There are lots of details that we simply can't know, and get no closer to
knowing through wishful rules of thumb applied to disconnected bits of
information, no matter how many loose ends the phoney process may seem to
gather up. I suggest this is a kind of thread worth dropping, as they always
start from next-to-nothing & achieve no more. If there is any hint of
evidence for a particular relationship or degree of consanguinity, fine; but
where there is just a statement that some unverifiable blood connection
existed, why not leave it at that? Richard II was related to Bishop
Stafford, but fom the available evidence we can't know how.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for posting this record. Much appreciated.
For those who wish to further examine the records of King Richard II
for references to members of the Stafford, Vernon, and Basset families,
the Patent Rolls for his reign are available online at this website:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls
Good luck in your sleuthing!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Janet
Janet
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
For interest's sake, I've posted below all the kinsfolk references I
have in my files for Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of Stafford
(died 1372). Earl Ralph was the paternal uncle of Bishop Edmund
Stafford, Bishop of Exeter. As you can see, there are no references
whatsoever to Earl Ralph being called "king's kinsman." Rather, all
four citations I show below are to Earl Ralph's own relatives.
1. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 421 (John de Peyto
styled "kinsman" of Ralph).
2. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 20 (Humphrey Hastang, clerk, styled
"brother[-in-law]" by Ralph), 164 (Alan de Crophill, son of Ralph
de Crophill, Knt., styled "kinsman"), 233 (James de Pipe, Knt., and
John de Pipe styled "brothers" [i.e., half-brothers] by Ralph).
Other than the reference I've already posted to Bishop Stafford being
called "kinsman" by King Richard II, the only other references I have
to Staffords in this period being called "king's kinsman" are for Earl
Ralph de Stafford's son, Hugh de Stafford, K.G., 2nd Earl of Stafford
as follows:
l. Rymer, Fœdera 7 (1728): 45 (Hugh styled "kinsman" by King
Edward III of England), 348 (Hugh styled "kinsman" by King Richard
II of England).
A study of Earl Hugh's pedigree shows that he was near related to these
two monarchs through his maternal grandmother, Margaret de Clare, a
granddaughter of King Edward I of England. Bishop Edmund Stafford does
not share this connection.
I don't have any references in my files to any members of the Basset
family being called "king's kinsman." I do have two references to
Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of Drayton, being styled kinsman by other
people:
1. Colls. Hist. Staffs. 15 (1894): 38 (Ralph Basset, of Drayton,
Staffordshire styled "kinsman" by Ralph Basset, of Weldon, knight
in deed dated 16 Edward II [1322-23]).
2. Chaplais, War of Saint-Sardos 1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 87)
(1954): vi, 75 & 80 (Ralph Basset of Drayton styled "cousin" by
Hugh le Despenser the younger).
Todd A. Farmerie
> Under normal conditions, when a father, in this case Richard de Vernon,
> Sr. (born ca. 1262), settled lands on his son and his son's wife, in
> this case, Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say 1278/80, and Eleanor de
> Fiennes, and to their issue, the property would NOT revert back to the
> father, unless BOTH the son and his wife died without issue.
>
> Are you telling us then that both Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say
> 1278/80,
Well, for starters, I am certainly not telling you that he was born,
say, 1278/80. That is you telling us that.
> and his wife, Eleanor de Fiennes, died without issue before
> 1302?
Let's see. I said "It would also be consistent if Richard was younger -
was engaged in early childhood, and was still a minor in 1302." Now
that you have had another chance to read it, what do you think? Am I
telling you that Richard Jr. died without issue before 1302? Hmmmm:
"still a minor in 1302"; "died without issue before 1302". Are these
two the same?
(You do realize that intentionally mischaracterizing another's post is
not an approach likely to "make friends", as you keep telling us is the
purpose of this group?)
> If this is not what you are saying, then you should explain to us why
> the manor of Pitchcott reverted back to the father before 1302, when
> the property had been settled on the son and his wife back in 1290?
I asked how you justify it in light of your belief that Junior and
Eleanor survived, and rather than answer the question, you simply
pretend that you thought of it as a challenge to what I had suggested
(conveniently, in the process, ignoring that I addressed the very
issue). The old "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach to answering a
question directed at you.
> And, if the reason you are claiming that the property reverted back to
> the father is because the son's marriage was childless, surely the land
> would remain in the son's hands for his life, regardless of his wife's
> early death without issue. A settlement is a settlement.
Yes, a settlement is a settlement, yet, in the paragraph you cited, it
states that the property was back with dear old dad by 1302. If that
devolution is hard to explain with one of the pair still living, how
much harder is it with BOTH still living, as you insist was the case?
Let's go back over it. Giles was holding it in trust for his daughter
and her (prospective ?) husband in 1292. Then Richard Senior, as you
reported, was holding it in 1302 while Giles was still alive. Under
your hypothesis, Giles must have either transfered the trust back to
Senior in spite of him having a vested interest in protecting the rights
of his blood kin, his daughter and grandson, or else the trusteeship
must have terminated itself upon the majority of Junior, and then Junior
must have granted it back to his father in spite of it being the
couple's only documented holding. Your theory _requires_ one of these
two options. Mine requires Giles to have transfered the trusteeship to
Senior after his daughter died childless, perhaps even prior to
consumation, and his family interest was thereby nill. I trust you can
see a difference between Giles's potential interests under these two
scenarios: a living daughter and grandson vs. a daughter dead s.p.
> It seems necessary therefore that you examine the documents that you
> claim show that Richard de Vernon the father re-possessed the manor of
> Pitchcott before 1302.
Funny how _you_ entered the claim into the discussion (via the VCH
quote), but when I point out that it conflicts with your own theory, it
miraculously becomes _my_ claim and my responsibility to confirm its
accuracy. I can't say I am surprised, just amused.
(Now tomorrow when you are at the FHL, or Sunday at UU, just stroll on
over to the appropriate shelf - you know which one just as well as I do
- and DO YOUR OWN LOOKUP rather than insisting on the necessity of me
driving several hours to do it for you.)
> I think we can safely assume that Richard de Vernon, Jr., and Eleanor
> de Fiennes who were married in 1290 likely consummated their marriage
> in or before 1292.
Considering that there is not a shred of evidence that Richard and
Eleanor were married in 1290, nor that they ever consumated their
marriage, you must have a unique concept of safety. (Although I am not
sure what to make of it being safe to assume that something is likely -
a high probability estimate of the accuracy of a probability estimate?)
The fact that Richard de Vernon was a minor under
> 21 in 1292 does not preclude he and his wife from having a raft of
> children before he became 21.
. . . nor does it preclude his wife from being a corpse by Christmas, 1292.
> Producing a large number of children was
> the whole point of such early childhood marriages.
Certainly not the whole point - otherwise, the bride would have been
selected for fecundity, independent of social status, family connections
or dowery.
Anyhow, it is much harder to produce a "raft of children" when you are
looking up at the grass - when you have relocated to the bottom of the
food chain. Death invariably results in infertility.
> Surely the
> historian Farrer was aware of this. One of his versions of the Vernon
> family pedigree had three Richard de Vernons in rapid succession, just
> as I have done. This is nothing new.
Is the fact that you must qualify this statement with "One of his
versions" not the least bit disconcerting? "I agree with _one_ of
Farrer's versions" is an argument in support of your hypothesis, but the
implicit, "I disagree with _the other_" is incidental, not worth
mentioning? I guess there is comfort in numbers to be able to say that,
"if I'm wrong, so was he". Still, I would think "the evidence supports
my reconstruction over the alternative" would be a more preferable
argument than "Farrer couldn't agree with himself, but one of his
versions agrees with me".
Bear in mind that, as Luke pointed out, Farrer erred in supposing that
Richard I died in 1292. That would have forced the Richards who died
1330 and 1324 to be II & III respectively: his error mandated a
three-Richard reconstruction. Knowing that Richard I did not die in
1292, we are not so constrained.
> As for the chronological issues, we know for a fact that we have one
> short generation between Richard de Vernon I and Richard de Vernon II.
I guess it depends on your definition of "fact" - we know that Richard I
married by 16, that Richard II was affianced by his father in 1290 and
was not holding his land (presumably due to minority) in 1292 (when his
father was 30), and that William was born in 1314. Those are
chronological _facts_. The rest is hypothesis or spin.
> We also know for a fact that Richard de Vernon II was married when he
> was married very young when his own father was 28.
We know that when Richard I was 28, he and Giles agreed that their
children should marry. That is the fact. We can only speculate when
Richard II married Eleanor, if at all.
> These facts are
> well documented in the records.
I am still waiting for a "fact" that is actually a _fact_. You have
taken actual documented facts, interpreted them in light of your
reconstruction, and then presented these interpretations as if they were
the actual facts.
That being said, here are some actual documented facts:
1. William's father was named Richard.
2. William's grandfather was named Richard.
3. The widow of William's father in 1324 was named Maud.
4. The widow of William's grandfather in 1330 was named Isabella.
5. Immediately prior to his 1324 death, William's father was holding of
his father, and the primary holders at that time were named Richard and
Isabella.
6. Richard I married Isabella de Hartcla
7. Richard I and Giles de Fenes agreed that Richard II should marry
Eleanor de Fenes.
The problem is in how to relate the 'top-down facts', #s 6 and 7, to the
'bottom up ones' #s 1-5. Specifically, is Richard II William's father
or grandfather. One tool is chronology, which favors Richard the
grandfather being Richard I (only favors, mind you - don't twist this
into suggesting I am calling your tight chronology impossible, just less
likely). A second possible clue is more obvious - too obvious to
ignore, as you have done to date. Look at #s 4, 5 and 6. Why are these
not references to the same woman? This is not the first time you have
had this brought to your attention and been asked how you reconcile it,
yet no answer has been forthcoming.
> Suffice to say that this totals up to
> a short chronology to me.
I am not surprised, but the the addition of irrational numbers produces
a total that is also irrational. When you make up your mind and then
recast the evidence to fit the conclusion, it is no wonder that the
evidence looks like what you wish it to look like.
Simply put, you found a possible route for the connection in question,
based on a well-known marriage agreement. Without a shred of supporting
evidence, you threw out all other possible avenues, and advanced this
one from being possible to it being a fact, glossing over the
significant difference between possibility (including everything down to
the infinitely improbable) and certainty. Without doing a detailed
study of the Vernons, you jumped to an uninformed conclusion, claiming
that modern researchers had dismissed the possibility of issue based on
simple assumption, not the evidence of the case - an unwarrented
assumption on your part. However, once adopted, it would seem, the
position cannot be abandonned or even reconsidered in an unbiased
manner, but rather must be advocated with all of the tricks of the
trade. So we now see you dig in your heals, entrench your position and
fortify it with 'facts' while ducking legitimate shots from the other
side. Unfortunately, your 'facts' are of the nature of Quaker guns -
superficially formitable, but on close examination not facts at all, and
unable to disguise the weakness of the position.
taf
John Steele Gordon
has the same etymology as the word "cheap." I understand the word is still
used in British English to designate what Americans call a peddler.
""Janet"" <mon...@getgoin.net> wrote in message
news:01c901c5af01$4c810880$0371a00c@George...
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
'On August 18th, 1294, the manor of Rockcliff was in the king's hand,
"on account of the gift and feoffment of Richard de Vernon the elder,"
and, by letters patent of that date, the king granted it to Richard de
Vernon the elder for life, with remainder to his son, Richard the
younger, and his wife, Eleanor, daughter of Giles de Fiennes, and their
heirs, or to the right heirs of Richard the elder (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 22
Edward I., p.84).'
[C&WAS Trans, NS xxiv p.62]
So, it looks like the marriage did take place; however, this also
proves that Richard the elder did not die in 1292. Eleanor also wins a
reprieve- but the writer (THB Graham) does then state 'Eleanor
disappears from view'.
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
I should clarify, that although nobody here has suggested the elder
Richard died in 1292, it was only Farrer's assumption that he had that
caused the three-Richard pedigree to come into being in HKF 1. However,
as Luke has pointed out, Farrer had dropped this assumption by the time
of the second volume, and in fact he references this same 1294 charter.
R. Battle
in official documents without being called king's kinsmen, it should be
pointed out that such incidences would not necessarily preclude them from
being such.
Unless the custom had changed drastically by the time of Richard II, such
that every kinsman of the king was always recognized as such, I would
expect such acknowledgments to be hit-and-miss (and perhaps more often
the latter). In the one example I am familiar with several decades
earlier (Richard de Cornwall, clerk), only in a few of the references to
him was he called a kinsman of the king. For instance, out of the twelve
Patent Roll references to him I have found, only two call him a kinsman of
the king.
-Robert Battle
WJho...@aol.com
farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< Giles was holding it in trust for his daughter and her (prospective ?)
husband in 1292. Then Richard Senior, as you reported, was holding it in 1302
while Giles was still alive. Under your hypothesis, Giles must have either
transfered the trust back to Senior in spite of him having a vested interest in
protecting the rights of his blood kin, his daughter and grandson, or else
the trusteeship must have terminated itself upon the majority of Junior, and
then Junior must have granted it back to his father in spite of it being the
couple's only documented holding. >>
1) Giles' daughter died while Junior was still a minor. The trusteeship gets
transferred back to Senior.
2) Giles' daughter and Junior both died, without issue.
3) Giles' himself died.
4) Giles' as trustee being wholey incompetent, attainted, insane, unable to
properly manage, transfers or is forced to transfer control back to Senior.
5) In another agreement which we don't possess, Giles and Senior agree to the
transfer for one reason or another.
Any other possibilities?
Will
WJho...@aol.com
bat...@u.washington.edu writes:
<< Unless the custom had changed drastically by the time of Richard II, such
that every kinsman of the king was always recognized as such, I would
expect such acknowledgments to be hit-and-miss >>
And looking at the Patent Rolls (thank you Douglas for the link)
Richard II, Volume 5, 1391-6, page 617
16 Jul 1395 "... king's kingman John de Bello Monte ...."
and then on the very same page we see
18 Jul 1395 "... the supplication of John de Bello Monte ...."
Nowhere in the second item does it refer to this person as king's kingman.
So this is an example of the usage of this term not being applied
consistently to one person.
Will Johnson
Ginny Wagner
[Damietta, Dametta] and marries a man surnamed Broc early 13 century
in England.
Until I followed the link to royal family of Syracuse, I had believed
that she must have been the daughter of one of the Crusading Gorhams
who came back with the memory of the battle at Damietta and spoke of
it and a child was eventually named that ... or something similar.
But now I've seen a Damarata as daughter of Hiero BC and wonder if
that name enjoyed any popularity in the middle ages or if my first
assumption is more probable.
Thanks for any feedback on this. Ginny Wagner
Todd A. Farmerie
> This is pertinent-
>
> 'On August 18th, 1294, the manor of Rockcliff was in the king's hand,
> "on account of the gift and feoffment of Richard de Vernon the elder,"
> and, by letters patent of that date, the king granted it to Richard de
> Vernon the elder for life, with remainder to his son, Richard the
> younger, and his wife, Eleanor, daughter of Giles de Fiennes, and their
> heirs, or to the right heirs of Richard the elder (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 22
> Edward I., p.84).'
> [C&WAS Trans, NS xxiv p.62]
>
> So, it looks like the marriage did take place;
Good. At least that answers one question (or a couple - it not only
proves marriage but provides a range, between 1290 and 1294).
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 9/1/05 9:49:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << Giles was holding it in trust for his daughter and her (prospective ?)
> husband in 1292. Then Richard Senior, as you reported, was holding it in 1302
> while Giles was still alive. Under your hypothesis, Giles must have either
> transfered the trust back to Senior in spite of him having a vested interest in
> protecting the rights of his blood kin, his daughter and grandson, or else
> the trusteeship must have terminated itself upon the majority of Junior, and
> then Junior must have granted it back to his father in spite of it being the
> couple's only documented holding. >>
>
> 1) Giles' daughter died while Junior was still a minor. The trusteeship gets
> transferred back to Senior.
> 2) Giles' daughter and Junior both died, without issue.
Possible, but it would seemingly have required two sons named Richard -
not impossible, but not one's first choice when looking to reconstruct.
> 3) Giles' himself died.
We know this was not the case - Giles lived a decade past 1302.
> 4) Giles' as trustee being wholey incompetent, attainted, insane, unable to
> properly manage, transfers or is forced to transfer control back to Senior.
> 5) In another agreement which we don't possess, Giles and Senior agree to the
> transfer for one reason or another.
Possible, but sort of defeat the purpose of the original arrangement,
which was intended to protect the rights of Giles' daughter
(particularly in case Junior died). I guess there could have been an
exchange of some sort.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if VCH wasn't reading a bit more
into the 1302 entry than perhaps is warrented by the original
documentation, but I will leave that for Mr. Richardson to address after
he answers the Isabella question.
taf
Peter Stewart
"R. Battle" <bat...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.63a.05...@dante74.u.washington.edu...
This is a consideration that has been urged on Richardson again and again
since he started his ill-researched & useless posts on the subject of kings'
kin.
Even IF he had been right all along on the bogus "rules" that he has
formulated, it's still going nowhere for specific relationships - and these
are what genealogy is about.
Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
It's very refreshing to see that your analysis agrees with what I find:
there is no room for an additional Richard de Vernon - evidence shows
that there were only two - and Isabella was the daughter of Maud de
Camville.
In 1310/1311 Richard de Vernon claimed next presentation to the church
of Pitchcott and gave the following pedigree [Wm Salt 1st series 9:27]
1. Matilda de Vernon
2. Richard de Vernon d.s.p.
2. Robert de Vernon
3. Hawise de Vernon
+ Gilbert de Franceys
4. Richard de Vernon claimant in 1310/11
The obvious inference of this is that Richard de Vernon, snr, who was
born c 1268 was still living in 1310/11 and had not died in 1292 as
Farrer assumed, mistakenly adducing other evidence to give the family
three generations of Richards.
On 3 February 1323 a writ of diem clausit was sent out for Richard son
of Richard de Vernon who had recently died. His IPM [CIPM 6 no 406]
reveals that
a) Richard jnr's son and heir was aged 10 and more i.e. born about
1313,
b) Richard jnr's father had settled moieties of the manor of Nether
Haddon and Baslow on Richard his son and his wife Maud in 1309.
William was Maud's son.
c) In 1314/15 Richard snr had given the manors of Harlaston and Little
Appleby to his son, Richard jnr, who had demised them back to his
father for his life, with reversion to himself and heirs.
d) Richard jnr and Maud his wife held jointly the manor of Clifton
Camville by feoffment of William de Camville.
By Trinity 1329 Richard snr had died, so Isabella his widow sued
William de Vernon for dower in Nether Haddon and Baslow. A year later
she sued for dower in Harlaston.[Wm Salt 11:9,18]
In 1329 Maud, Richard jnr's widow, also claimed the third part of
Pitchcott as her dower, for which she'd sued shortly after her
husband's death but had not received. Now that her father-in-law was
dead the sheriff was ordered to summon the tenants of Pitchcott to
court to give reason why she should not have her dower. [Wm Salt 11:9]
By 1339 William had died and his son, Richard, ("Richard son of William
de Vernon, chiv, kinsman and heir of Richard de Vernon the younger, who
was under age") was called to warrant for Maud, widow of Richard de
Vernon the younger.[Wm Salt 11:87]
In 1339 a fine was made between Maud de Vernon and her sister Alianora
with her husband Richard de Peures, of a knight's fee in Stotfold,
Haselore, and the manor of Clifton Campvill. Maud acknowledged that
they belonged to Alianor, for which Alianor granted them to Maud for
her life with remainder to Richard de Stafford and Isabella his wife
and their issue, failing such remainder to Maud daughter of Richard de
Vernon and her issue, failing such the right heirs of Maud de Vernon.
Maud and Eleanor and their three sisters put in their claims. [Wm Salt
11: 185].
The clear inference is that Isabella was daughter of Maud, not Eleanor
de Fiennes. The fact that Isabella's eldest daughter was named Maud,
would support this.
In 1346 Henry de la Pole sued Joan formerly wife of William Vernon of
Nether Haddon [Wm Salt 12:58]
In 1365 Richard de Vernon was sued for the next presentation of the
church of Appleby. He said that Richard de Vernon his great grandfather
("proavus") was seised of the manor of Parva Appleby to which the
advowson was appurtenant, in the time of King Henry, and from the said
Richard the manor descended to one Richard as son and heir, and from
the last Richard to one William his son and heir, who was under age,
and from the said William to Richard the plaintiff as son and heir. [Wm
Salt 13:50]
Although the claim that his great grandfather, Richard de Vernon, was
seised of the manor in the time of Henry III must be made in error, the
Richard de Vernon in question cannot be anyone other than son of Hawise
de Vernon.
If we collate the above information the following pedigree is what we
get.
1. Matilda de Vernon
2. Richard de Vernon d.s.p.
2. Robert de Vernon
3. Hawise de Vernon
+ Gilbert de Franceys
4. Richard de Vernon, snr, c.1268-c.1329
+ Isabella, survived husband
5. Richard de Vernon, jnr, d. 1323
+ Eleanor de Fiennes, dead by 1309
+ Maud de Camville
6. William de Vernon b. c 1313- c.1339
+ Joan fl 1346
7. Richard de Vernon, minor in 1339
6. Isabella de Vernon
+ Richard de Stafford
6. Maud de Vernon
The interpretation that the manors of Pitchcott, Adstock and Baslow
which had been settled on Richard and Eleanor, had reverted back to
Richard senior by 1302, is Farrer's, but there is no indication of this
in 'Feudal Aids' which simply lists "Richard Vernon and his tenants".
Richard de Vernon, snr was in prison between 1292 and 1295 so Giles de
Fiennes was clearly holding the manors as 'custos' or guardian during
the minority of his son-in-law. Richard jnr would have taken possession
as soon as he reached his majority whether his first wife was living or
not. There is no indication that Eleanor ever had children and was
clearly dead by 1309.
Typically Mr Richardson seems to be too ready to resort to genealogy by
crystal ball gazing rather than doing the proper groundwork. As always
he's very fortunate that others are willing to do it for him even if it
means putting the spotlight on his shortcomings.
Cheers
Rosie
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have one nagging problem with your analysis of the Vernon family.
You appear to have based your pedigree of the Vernon family on a law
suit dated 1365, in which Richard de Vernon, then head of the family,
claimed that his great-grandfather, Richard de Vernon, was living in
the time of King Henry III. Then, in the next breath, you announce
"the claim that his great grandfather, Richard de Vernon, was seised of
the manor in the time of Henry III must be made in error." If you're
going to lean on this pedigree for its accuracy, then admit it contains
an error, this is a flimsy foundation on which to build your house of
cards. We need a better foundation than a flawed lawsuit on which to
build the Vernon pedigree.
Laying aside the problems with the 1365 lawsuit, reading through the
rest of your evidence, I don't find any particular problem with a
pedigree with either two or three successive Richard de Vernons, except
for the settlement in 1309. If there were three Richard's, the
inference is that all three would have been living in 1309. As I
stated in an earlier post, it is the bane of medieval research when you
have successive individuals with the same name, especially if they are
living at the same time. Multiple individuals with the same names can
easily be confused when one is attempting to reassemble a reliable
pedigree.
As such, I think it is advisable that we examine further records before
we confidently assert that the Vernon pedigree consists of two or three
successive Richard de Vernons. I'd especially like to see an abstract
of the De Banco Roll item which VCH Buckingham cited as evidence of the
marriage of Richard de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes.
One other comment: In your post, you state that Maud de Camville's
sister, Eleanor, was the wife of Richard de "Peures." The correct name
of Eleanor de Camville's husband is Richard de Penris, not Peures. For
further information on the Camville family, you may wish to consult the
following source:
Arch. Cambrensis, 6th Ser. 7 Pt. 1 (1907): 108-118.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Luke
>
> It's very refreshing to see that your analysis agrees with what I find:
> there is no room for an additional Richard de Vernon - evidence shows
> that there were only two - and Isabella was the daughter of Maud de
> Camville.
>
> In 1310/1311 Richard de Vernon claimed next presentation to the church
Specifically, at an assize, "Mich[aelmas] 4 Edw 2"
> of Pitchcott and gave the following pedigree [Wm Salt 1st series 9:27]
>
> 1. Matilda de Vernon
> 2. Richard de Vernon d.s.p.
> 2. Robert de Vernon
> 3. Hawise de Vernon
> + Gilbert de Franceys
> 4. Richard de Vernon claimant in 1310/11
A detailed account of this De Banco pleading is found in Pedigrees from
the Plea Rolls. It has been discussed here at various times here due to
its implications for the early pedigree of the Vernons. Just to be
clear, it is explicit in that Richard, son of Hawise and Gilbert, was
seised of the manor of Pychecote at the time.
While we are at it, in Jan. 1311 (de Banco Hill. 4 Ed II) the executors
of Michael de Harcla claimed against Richard le Fraunceys a L19 6s debt.
This Richard le F is none other than the same Richard de Vernon, who
had married Isabel de Harcla. Likewise, Richard le Fraunceys was
holding Meaburn in 1314.
> The obvious inference of this is that Richard de Vernon, snr, who was
> born c 1268 was still living in 1310/11 and had not died in 1292 as
A writ of 6 Mar. 1278 indicates that Richard, son of Gilbert le Franceys
(deceased), would be 15 "on the day of St. Dunstan to follow" - that is,
he was born 19 May 1263.
> On 3 February 1323 a writ of diem clausit was sent out for Richard son
> of Richard de Vernon who had recently died. His IPM [CIPM 6 no 406]
> reveals that
>
> a) Richard jnr's son and heir was aged 10 and more i.e. born about
> 1313,
> b) Richard jnr's father had settled moieties of the manor of Nether
> Haddon and Baslow on Richard his son and his wife Maud in 1309.
> William was Maud's son.
This probably represents a marriage settlement.
[snip]
> By Trinity 1329 Richard snr had died, so Isabella his widow sued
> William de Vernon for dower in Nether Haddon and Baslow. A year later
> she sued for dower in Harlaston.[Wm Salt 11:9,18]
Isabel sued in 1342 over encroachment onto Meaburn Maud - it looks like
she had a pretty good run.
> The interpretation that the manors of Pitchcott, Adstock and Baslow
> which had been settled on Richard and Eleanor, had reverted back to
> Richard senior by 1302, is Farrer's, but there is no indication of this
> in 'Feudal Aids' which simply lists "Richard Vernon and his tenants".
But there certainly is an indication of 'reversion' in the De Banco
claim, above - Richard, the father, was seised of Pitchcott in 1310/1,
which is too late for him to have been acting as trustee for minor son.
If Richard jr was contracted to marry in 1290, and married (as we have
seen) by 1294, he had to have reached majority by 1310. While the
reasons remain unclear, it must be takes as proven that Pitchcott was
returned to the father. (Likewise, I see no mention of Pitchcott in the
1223 IPM, again suggesting that the father held it.)
> Richard de Vernon, snr was in prison between 1292 and 1295 so Giles de
> Fiennes was clearly holding the manors as 'custos' or guardian during
> the minority of his son-in-law. Richard jnr would have taken possession
> as soon as he reached his majority whether his first wife was living or
> not.
Yet at a time when the son must have reached majority, the father _was_
holding it. We must be missing something, a transaction in which young
Richard grants Pitchcott back to his father.
taf
mj...@btinternet.com
consider using his razor to slit his wrists.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> If he were able to read this thread, I suspect William of Occam might
> consider using his razor to slit his wrists.
Dear Michael ~
Occam might pull out a few hairs, but I'd doubt he'd slit his wrists.
Why, given the chance, I imagine he'd open up a barber shop and put his
razor to productive use. Smart man, that Occam.
Janet
here is why I ask
This my ancestor, John Maysey. You see they say William Burge was chapman. One more thing was William ever in America. Oh yes, John is not his only servant found that William had many servants
Indentured Servants Basic Search Results
Servant Information Agent Information
Name: John Maysey Name: William Burge
Gender: male Gender: male
Occupation: Occupation: chapman
Place of Origin: Chiswick, Mddx Place of Origin: London
Age: 19
Spouse's Name: Single
Indenture Information
Date of Indenture: February 17 1730
Indenture Length: 5
Destination: Virginia or Maryland
Record Signed or Marked: signed
Janet
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/86 - Release Date: 8/31/2005
Rosie Bevan
> Rosie Bevan wrote:
> > Dear Luke
> >
> > It's very refreshing to see that your analysis agrees with what I find:
> > there is no room for an additional Richard de Vernon - evidence shows
> > that there were only two - and Isabella was the daughter of Maud de
> > Camville.
> >
> > In 1310/1311 Richard de Vernon claimed next presentation to the church
>
> Specifically, at an assize, "Mich[aelmas] 4 Edw 2"
1310
>
> > of Pitchcott and gave the following pedigree [Wm Salt 1st series 9:27]
> >
> > 1. Matilda de Vernon
> > 2. Richard de Vernon d.s.p.
> > 2. Robert de Vernon
> > 3. Hawise de Vernon
> > + Gilbert de Franceys
> > 4. Richard de Vernon claimant in 1310/11
>
> A detailed account of this De Banco pleading is found in Pedigrees from
> the Plea Rolls. It has been discussed here at various times here due to
> its implications for the early pedigree of the Vernons. Just to be
> clear, it is explicit in that Richard, son of Hawise and Gilbert, was
> seised of the manor of Pychecote at the time.
>
> While we are at it, in Jan. 1311 (de Banco Hill. 4 Ed II) the executors
> of Michael de Harcla claimed against Richard le Fraunceys a L19 6s debt.
> This Richard le F is none other than the same Richard de Vernon, who
> had married Isabel de Harcla. Likewise, Richard le Fraunceys was
> holding Meaburn in 1314.
Thanks. In which case Richard le Franceys of 1314 can only be Richard
de Vernon, snr, who settled Harlaston and Little Appleby onto his son
the same year taking into account the pedigree of 1365 and the IPM of
1223. If there had been three Richards extant at the time the middle
one would not have been called Richard snr.
>
> > The obvious inference of this is that Richard de Vernon, snr, who was
> > born c 1268 was still living in 1310/11 and had not died in 1292 as
>
> A writ of 6 Mar. 1278 indicates that Richard, son of Gilbert le Franceys
> (deceased), would be 15 "on the day of St. Dunstan to follow" - that is,
> he was born 19 May 1263.
Thanks - a careless mistake on my part.
>
> > On 3 February 1323 a writ of diem clausit was sent out for Richard son
> > of Richard de Vernon who had recently died. His IPM [CIPM 6 no 406]
> > reveals that
> >
> > a) Richard jnr's son and heir was aged 10 and more i.e. born about
> > 1313,
> > b) Richard jnr's father had settled moieties of the manor of Nether
> > Haddon and Baslow on Richard his son and his wife Maud in 1309.
> > William was Maud's son.
>
> This probably represents a marriage settlement.
Agreed.
Yes. A simple explanation is that it had been demised for life in a
similar manner as Harlaston and Little Appleby, as shown in Richard
jnr's ipm.
Cheers
Rosie
Rosie Bevan
> Dear Rosie ~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> I have one nagging problem with your analysis of the Vernon family.
> You appear to have based your pedigree of the Vernon family on a law
> suit dated 1365, in which Richard de Vernon, then head of the family,
> claimed that his great-grandfather, Richard de Vernon, was living in
> the time of King Henry III.
Only the latter part of the pedigree I produced is based on that
lawsuit. I said that Richard de Vernon said his great-grandfather was
seised of the manor in the time of Henry III, not that he was living in
that reign - he did in fact live during part of Henry's reign, and was
clearly the only one within four generations of Richard's ancestors who
had.
Then, in the next breath, you announce
> "the claim that his great grandfather, Richard de Vernon, was seised of
> the manor in the time of Henry III must be made in error." If you're
> going to lean on this pedigree for its accuracy, then admit it contains
> an error, this is a flimsy foundation on which to build your house of
> cards.
Flimsy? The only flaw in the evidence of the lawsuit is Richard de
Vernon's knowledge of the year his great grandfather was seised of
Pitchcott. He appears to have paid relief for the manor around 1276
four years into Edward I's reign. I think we can give him credit for
knowing who his great-grandfather was.
We need a better foundation than a flawed lawsuit on which to
> build the Vernon pedigree.
The lawsuit is not flawed
>
> Laying aside the problems with the 1365 lawsuit,
There is no problem with the lawsuit
reading through the
> rest of your evidence, I don't find any particular problem with a
> pedigree with either two or three successive Richard de Vernons, except
> for the settlement in 1309. If there were three Richard's, the
> inference is that all three would have been living in 1309.
And that four generations were produced within a 50-year timeframe
(1263-1313), giving an average of 16 years per generation? Name
another family which achieved this remarkable precociousness.
As I
> stated in an earlier post, it is the bane of medieval research when you
> have successive individuals with the same name, especially if they are
> living at the same time. Multiple individuals with the same names can
> easily be confused when one is attempting to reassemble a reliable
> pedigree.
It requires effort
>
> As such, I think it is advisable that we examine further records before
> we confidently assert that the Vernon pedigree consists of two or three
> successive Richard de Vernons.
Yes, I agree your announcement of three Richards was premature.
I'd especially like to see an abstract
> of the De Banco Roll item which VCH Buckingham cited as evidence of the
> marriage of Richard de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes.
Go for it. The couple appear in the Patent Rolls of 1272 and 1274.
Rosie
Sally Laine
Asa peddler it would be extremely unlikely a chapman had servants unless
your sources are using the word "chapman" as "merchant"
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet" <mon...@getgoin.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Todd A. Farmerie
Yes, but there is a distinction, in that the IPM makes it appear that H
and LA were each done as a single transaction - granted to Richard jnr
who immediately granted it back for life to snr. In the case of P, it
would have had to have been two distinct transactions, separated by at
least two year and maybe longer.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
This does not move it forward that much - his great-grandfather would be
Richard by a two or three-generation solution. It is just that it would
be in E I vs E II, and hence the placement of it H III does not
distinguish (although it does suggest it was earlier rather than later).
It should be noted that the other party in the suit put forward a
Vernon pedigree that agreed back to the same Richard, but then gave the
great-grandfather a brother William who had a son William who was
holding in the reign of John. As this man would be nephew of the
Richard who died in 1329 (by either reconstruction), chronology was
certainly not their strong suit.
That being said, when did Gilbert le Franceys die? We know that he was
dead by 1278, and enough before that that the Harclas had married their
daughter to the kid. I don't have my sources handy, but could he have
died at the very end of Henry III's reign. Perhaps the 1310 suit would
help - it apparently delineates the presentations to Pitchcott back to
the time of King John, and Richard indicated that one was made while
Gilbert held P under pleasure of the king (as widower of the heiress),
and subsequently two presentations were made during Richard's minority.
Are the episcopal registers readily available so that these
presentations can be dated?
> We need a better foundation than a flawed lawsuit on which to
>
>>build the Vernon pedigree.
And the fact that two people 6 and more generations down were somehow
related is a 'better foundation'?
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
You have me utterly confused, which isn't easily done. You state that
Richard le Fraunceys is the Richard de Vernon, Senior, mentioned in a
record in 1314. But wasn't Richard known as Richard de Vernon since
at least 1290? Why would he revert back to his former birth name in
1314? If he adopted his mother's maiden name as a adult, he would
surely appear in all subsequent records under that name, not his birth
name. I think you've made an assumption which may be faulty. Or was
this man known under two names?
Next, in your latest post, you've alleged that the lawsuit of 1365 is
not flawed. Yet, in your former post, you said "the claim that his
great grandfather, Richard de Vernon, was seised of the manor in the
time of Henry III must be made in error." You can't have it both ways.
The lawsuit is either sound chronologically, or it isn't. You've
already admitted that it is flawed chronologically. This is like
causing a car accident and then backing up and pretending it never
happened.
Next, you state that "The interpretation that the manors of Pitchcott,
Adstock and Baslow which had been settled on Richard and Eleanor, had
reverted back to Richard senior by 1302, is Farrer's, but there is no
indication of this in 'Feudal Aids' which simply lists "Richard Vernon
and his tenants".
So far, so good.
Then you say: "But there certainly is an indication of 'reversion' in
the De Banco claim, above - Richard, the father, was seised of
Pitchcott in 1310/1, which is too late for him to have been acting as
trustee for minor son."
Why would a son convey property back to his father that had been
settled on him and his wife in lawful marriage? This is most irregular
to say the least. Do you have evidence to show this occured? My guess
is that he settled the manor on his son, Richard, and his wife,
Eleanor, in 1290, but retained the advowson. This would explain why
Richard de Vernon, Sr. (formerly Richard le Fraunceys) was suing
regarding the advowson only and not the manor in 1310/11. The
documents relating to this settlement would need to be examine to
verify this. As far as I can tell, you've made an assumption without
seeing the documents. This isn't good, Rosie.
Next, you state that Richard de Vernon and his wife, Eleanor de
Fiennes, "appear in the Patent Rolls of 1272 and 1274." I don't know
how this is possible, if Richard's own father was born in 1263, as you
claim. Have you made another error?
Next, I notice you skipped over your error about Eleanor de Camville's
husband's name, Richard de Penris, who you called "Peures." Why is
that? This error tells me that you are unfamiliar with the Camville
family. Otherwise, you would have known the correct surname, Penris.
Finally, you state: "And that four generations were produced within a
50-year timeframe (1263-1313), giving an average of 16 years per
generation? Name another family which achieved this remarkable
precociousness." In answer to that statement, we know for a fact that
Richard de Vernon, Jr., was born when his father, Richard, Sr., was a
very young man. And we know that Richard, Jr., was very young when he
married Eleanor de Fiennes. It only takes one more early birth to
achieve a short chronology over 4 generations, namely the birth of
Richard de Vernon, III, at about 1296. This date is perfectly
acceptable, as we know Richard's parents were married in 1290. Richard
de Vernon III would have married at age 13 in 1309 to Maud de Camville
and had his son and heir at age 17 in 1313. These dates are very
consistent with the pattern in this family. Early births and early
marriages equal short chronology.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Rosie ~
>
> You have me utterly confused, which isn't easily done. You state that
> Richard le Fraunceys is the Richard de Vernon, Senior, mentioned in a
> record in 1314.
It was me that mentioned this.
> But wasn't Richard known as Richard de Vernon since
> at least 1290? Why would he revert back to his former birth name in
> 1314? If he adopted his mother's maiden name as a adult, he would
> surely appear in all subsequent records under that name, not his birth
> name. I think you've made an assumption which may be faulty. Or was
> this man known under two names?
Exactly that. He appears under either name - I don't know if he used
them interchangably, or if it depended on context, but he appears both
ways, as shown by the Meaburn records. Perhaps a little bit more
familiarity with the Vernon/Fraunceys records of this period would save
you some confusion.
> Next, you state that "The interpretation that the manors of Pitchcott,
> Adstock and Baslow which had been settled on Richard and Eleanor, had
> reverted back to Richard senior by 1302, is Farrer's, but there is no
> indication of this in 'Feudal Aids' which simply lists "Richard Vernon
> and his tenants".
>
> So far, so good.
>
> Then you say: "But there certainly is an indication of 'reversion' in
> the De Banco claim, above - Richard, the father, was seised of
> Pitchcott in 1310/1, which is too late for him to have been acting as
> trustee for minor son."
That was me, too. (Not reading too closely, are we?)
> Why would a son convey property back to his father that had been
> settled on him and his wife in lawful marriage? This is most irregular
> to say the least. Do you have evidence to show this occured?
Umm, perhaps a closer look at the same post will show this - in the 1310
de Banco suit Richard states the he was holding Pitchcott - not that he
was holding the advowson, but that he was holding the manor (with which
the advowson was associated). At least as related in the summary in
Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls, it is unambiguous that he was holding the
manor. Now, we can speculate as how it came to pass, but denying it is
no longer an option. (He also names his father and mother, so there is
no question to which Richard this refers.)
> My guess
> is that he settled the manor on his son, Richard, and his wife,
> Eleanor, in 1290, but retained the advowson. This would explain why
> Richard de Vernon, Sr. (formerly Richard le Fraunceys) was suing
> regarding the advowson only and not the manor in 1310/11.
The priest in question knew he had no right to the manor, so had no
reason to sue for it, and Richard had no reason then to defend. The
holding of the manor was not in question - he was using the holding of
the manor as evidence of the holding of the advowson. The priest argued
that his house had made the last several presentations, Richard
countered that this was because he had been a minor. And before you
cavil, it doesn't really matter if his was a legitimate argument with
respect to the linkage, the legitimacy of his right to the advowson is
incidental to our purposes: he said he was seised of the manor, end of
story.
> The
> documents relating to this settlement would need to be examine to
> verify this. As far as I can tell, you've made an assumption without
> seeing the documents. This isn't good, Rosie.
Still making friends are we? As far as I can tell, you haven't examined
a single Vernon document with regard to this entire period, yet you
repeatedly accuse others of making assumptions because you are
unfamiliar with the readily available material. It is very tiresome.
> Finally, you state: "And that four generations were produced within a
> 50-year timeframe (1263-1313), giving an average of 16 years per
> generation? Name another family which achieved this remarkable
> precociousness." In answer to that statement,
Which you then fail to answer. She asked for another family with
chronology like you are demanding of this one. Rehashing this family
does not fulfill her request.
>we know for a fact that
> Richard de Vernon, Jr., was born when his father, Richard, Sr., was a
> very young man.
This will not simply become true if you retell it enough times. We don't
have any date for when Richard II was born, we just have a date for when
his parents were married.
And we know that Richard, Jr., was very young when he
> married Eleanor de Fiennes.
Again, this proves what?
It only takes one more early birth to
> achieve a short chronology over 4 generations, namely the birth of
> Richard de Vernon, III, at about 1296. This date is perfectly
> acceptable, as we know Richard's parents were married in 1290.
No, we don't. We know they were married by 1294.
> Richard
> de Vernon III would have married at age 13 in 1309 to Maud de Camville
> and had his son and heir at age 17 in 1313.
Oh, would he? Or would he have remarried to Maud at the age of, say,
27, having had no children by his first marriage?
What about Isabel? What do you make of Isabel de Harcla and her husband
Richard de Vernon appearing through the 1220s, after the husband of Maud
was dead?
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As a followup to my earlier post, I've located yet another record of
King Richard II's great-great-grandmother, Hawise de Quincy, in the
period of her widowhood following the death of her husband, Baldwin
Wake, in 1282. The record below comes from the interesting book,
Rotuli Parliamentorum Angliae Hactenus Inediti 1274-1373, edited by H.
G. Richardson and George Sayles (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 51) (1935). The
record involves a list of people whose petitions and claims were heard
in the Parliament held at Acton Burnel in Michaelmas, 1283. This list
includes the following name:
"Hawisia Wake."
This person is surely Hawise de Quincy, widow of Baldwin Wake, who was
probably requesting some resolution regarding her dower rights.
Since this is the fourth record in which she is called Wake as a widow,
not Basset, it is clear she can not have married Ralph Basset, of
Drayton, Staffordshire between the death of her husband, Baldwin Wake,
in 1282, and the time of her own death in 1285.
This in turn appears to remove the Quincy family as the route by which
Bishop Stafford might have been related to King Richard II of England.
Hawise de Quincy stood in the 5th generation back from King Richard II
and she had no siblings who left issue. That leaves us Fiennes and
Wake as possible routes of kinship between Bishop Stafford and King
Richard II, if the kinship was within the 5th degree on the king's
side.
As for the correct identity of Bishop Stafford's great-grandmother,
Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset, 1st Lord Basset of Drayton (he died
1300), I've elsewhere stated my theory that she was the daughter of
Hugh le Despenser [II], died 1265, of Loughborough, Leicestershire, by
his wife, Aline Basset. This newly suggested parentage would not
provide Bishop Stafford any near kinship to King Richard II, at least
through Hawise Basset.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> An alternative theory to the identity of Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset,
> 1st Lord Basset, would be for her to be King Richard II's own
> great-grandmother, Hawise de Quincy, who was widowed in 1282 and died
> in 1285. Hawise was born about 1250 (being aged 14 in 1264). There is
> barely enough time for her to have been the wife of Ralph Basset in the
> period, 1282-1285, and given birth to his two children, Ralph and
> Margaret, and then died in 1285.
>
> This scenario seems doubtful, however, as I've found three references
> to Hawise de Quincy as widow of Baldwin Wake: (1) in 1282 following her
> husband's death; in 1283 when she was named heiress to her sister, Joan
> de Quincy, wife of Humphrey de Bohun; and in 1285 at her death. These
> records make it unlikely but not impossible for Hawise de Quincy to
> have contracted a marriage to Ralph Basset in the period, 1282-1285.
>
> All the same, I've found the following record in the helpful online A2A
> Catalogue which shows that Ralph Basset of Drayton alienated rents out
> of his manor of Drayton Basset, Staffordshire in August 1285 for a
> chaplain at Farley. This may well have been done to celebrate the
> anniversary of his wife's death. Since we know that Hawise de Quincy,
> widow of Baldwin Wake, died early in 1285, the dating of this gift
> would fit for Hawise de Quincy to have been Ralph Basset's lately
> deceased wife.
>
> Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds Branch: The Bunbury Family,
> Reference: E 18/220/2: royal licence for the alienation in mortmain of
> 100s. rent from the manor of Drayton Basset from Ralph Basset of
> Drayton to the chaplain at Farley. Date: 14 August 1285. END OF
> QUOTE.
>
> Regardless, if Hawise Basset was either Hawise de Quincy (widow of
> Baldwin Wake) or Hawise de Vere (as suggested by John Ravilious), it
> would make her descendant, Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, related
> to King Richard II within the 5th degree on at least one side. Either
> solution would give the Basset and Stafford families a descent from the
> Quincy family.
>
> Either solution would also work well with John Ravilious' own theory
> that the Despenser family were descendants of the baronial Quincy
> family. I find that Hugh le Despenser the younger referred to Hawise
> Basset's son, Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of Drayton, as his "cousin"
> [Reference: Chaplais, War of Saint-Sardos 1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd
> Ser. 87) (1954): vi, 75 & 80]. If Ralph Basset's mother was a Quincy
> or a Vere (whose mother was a Quincy) and if the Despensers had a
> Quincy connection, it would explain this otherwise unresolved kinship.
> This matter deserves further study.
>
> In further support of a Quincy connection, I find that the Quincy manor
> of Long Buckby, Northamptonshire was afterwards in the hands of Ralph
> Basset, 2nd Lord Basset. I'm uncertain how he obtained possession of
> this manor. I suspect, however, that he was granted the manor by
> Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose wife, Alice de Lacy, was heiress to
> various Quincy family estates.
>
> Comments are invited.
WJho...@aol.com
rbe...@paradise.net.nz writes:
<< In 1310/1311 Richard de Vernon claimed next presentation to the church
of Pitchcott and gave the following pedigree [Wm Salt 1st series 9:27]
1. Matilda de Vernon
2. Richard de Vernon d.s.p.
2. Robert de Vernon
3. Hawise de Vernon
+ Gilbert de Franceys
4. Richard de Vernon claimant in 1310/11
<snip>
4. Richard de Vernon, snr, c.1268-c.1329
+ Isabella, survived husband
5. Richard de Vernon, jnr, d. 1323
+ Eleanor de Fiennes, dead by 1309>>
I'm not too clear on the relationship between these two things.
I was reading Rosie's post trying to figure out how you determine that
Eleanor was dead by 1309. The only thing I saw that seemed relevant was this "next
presentation". I'm not too clear on what a "next presentation" exactly is,
but maybe this is why we know Eleanor was dead by 1309 ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
rbe...@paradise.net.nz writes:
<< 5. Richard de Vernon, jnr, d. 1323
+ Eleanor de Fiennes, dead by 1309
+ Maud de Camville
6. William de Vernon b. c 1313- c.1339
+ Joan fl 1346
7. Richard de Vernon, minor in 1339
6. Isabella de Vernon
+ Richard de Stafford >>
And Leo is showing that Richard and Isabella were married in 1337.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< > Richard de Vernon, III, at about 1296. This date is perfectly
> acceptable, as we know Richard's parents were married in 1290.
No, we don't. We know they were married by 1294. >>
VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90, citation kindly provided to me by Matthew
Connelly:
"In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed his son Richard and Eleanor
daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott Manor (25), and in 1292 it was granted to her
father in custody during their minority (26). Richard Vernon, the father,
regained seisin of this manor, however, before 1302 (27) "
WJho...@aol.com
farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< What about Isabel? What do you make of Isabel de Harcla and her husband
Richard de Vernon appearing through the 1220s, after the husband of Maud
was dead? >>
You mean 1320s ?
Will
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90: "In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed
his son Richard and Eleanor daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott
Manor."
This settlement was almost certainly done at the time of Richard and
Eleanor's marriage.
Assuming Richard de Vernon, Jr., was 13 at the time of his marriage to
Eleanor de Fiennes (which is typical for the period), it suggests that
Richard, Jr., was born when his father, Richard de Vernon, Sr., was
aged 14. This is very short chronology indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Luke Potter
>
>Next, I notice you skipped over your error about Eleanor de Camville's
>husband's name, Richard de Penris, who you called "Peures." Why is
>that? This error tells me that you are unfamiliar with the Camville
>family. Otherwise, you would have known the correct surname, Penris.
I can hold my hand up to this error. In my original post I mentioned
this reference from notes I had made from the Staffordshire Historical
Collections. Either I noted the name down incorrectly from the
publication or the publication had an error in the transcription from
the original rolls...paleographical an n and an u are similar in early
fourteenth century records and I suspect this might have resulted the
error. Either that or I need to pop in for an eye test due to an
inability to notate correctly from neatly printed volumes.
I don't profess to have any great expertise in the Camville genealogy so
did not pick this error in the name up before it was pointed out on this
forum.
Luke
--
Sent via Genealogy Newsgroups
http://www.genealogynewsgroups.com
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< Assuming Richard de Vernon, Jr., was 13 at the time of his marriage to
Eleanor de Fiennes (which is typical for the period), it suggests that
Richard, Jr., was born when his father, Richard de Vernon, Sr., was
aged 14. This is very short chronology indeed. >>
In my database I am currently showing, after reading through this entire
thread, that I agree with the idea that Richard who m Eleanor Fiennes is the same
Richard who later married Maud Camville. I feel, after reviewing all the
evidence presented, that it's a more realistic reconstruction.
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
[Presentation refers to the right, originally linked to lordship of the
manor but which developed into a separately transferable entity, to
nominate (present) the candidate of one's choice to become priest of the
parish church. "Next presentation" would be the exercise of that right
the next time the parish priestship became vacant.]
This is based on the fact that Richard and Maud were married by that
date. Of course, this would only apply to this reconstruction, wherein
the same Richard is given as husband of both Eleanor and Maud, and would
not apply if the two were in successive generations (Mr. Richardson's
reconstruction), in which case Eleanor must have died by 1329, as Maud's
widowed mother-in-law was named Isabel.
Free from any extrapolation, interpretation or advocacy, the data we
have allow two unambiguous family groups to be compiled:
bef.
1278
Richard = Isabel de Harcla
b. 1263 | fl. 1321
fl. 1321 |
|
| 1290-
| 1294
Richard=Eleanor de Fenes
and
Richard=Isabel
d. 1329 fl.1342
|
|
| bef. 1309
Richard=Maud de Camville
d. 1320| fl. 1339
v.p. |
|
|
William
b.1313
(note that in the second grouping, Isabel is widow of the first Richard,
but not necessarily mother of the second)
The question is how the two of these should be combined. Either way,
Richard son of Richard and Isabel de Harcla must have married twice, and
from this flows the dates for Eleanor's death. Briefly, this is Mr.
Richardson's reconstruction spelled and filled out with all that is
implicit, and with only known dates and information taken into account:
1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Both died 1221-1229. (there is a caveat here that I will
address in another post later today)
2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. By the time
of his death in 1329, Eleanor had died and Richard had remarried Isabel,
who lived through at least 1342.
3. Richard de Vernon, m. by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died v.p., 1320,
she died some time after 1339.
4. William de Vernon, b. 1313.
The reconstruction others have been favoring is:
1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Richard died in 1329, while Isabel still lived in 1342.
2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. Eleanor died
bef. 1309, and Richard remarried by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died
v.p., 1320, she died some time after 1339.
3. William de Vernon, b. 1313.
I hope this clarifies the conflict.
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
account of the two possible pedigrees of the Vernon family.
I do have two slight changes to make to the pedigree. Unless I missed
something, I believe Richard de Vernon (husband of Maud de Camville)
died died shortly before 3 February 1322/3, not 1320. Also, my
research shows that Maud de Camville was still living as late as 1348
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1345-1348 (1903): 448]. She
was apparently dead before 1351, when her daughter and son-in-law,
Isabel and Richard de Stafford, appointed attorneys to represent them
in Ireland, presumably on behalf of the Camville inheritance there.
Todd A. Farmerie
Yes - 1321 to be precise.
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 9/2/05 11:15:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << > Richard de Vernon, III, at about 1296. This date is perfectly
> > acceptable, as we know Richard's parents were married in 1290.
>
> No, we don't. We know they were married by 1294. >>
>
>
> VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90, citation kindly provided to me by Matthew
> Connelly:
>
> "In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed his son Richard and Eleanor
> daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott Manor (25),
Note it doesn't say, "his wife". This is usually interpreted as an
indication of their engagement, not necessarily of their marriage (for
which they may have been too young).
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Will ~
>
> VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90: "In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed
> his son Richard and Eleanor daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott
> Manor."
>
> This settlement was almost certainly done at the time of Richard and
> Eleanor's marriage.
No basis for this near certainty.
> Assuming Richard de Vernon, Jr., was 13 at the time of his marriage to
> Eleanor de Fiennes (which is typical for the period), it suggests that
I suspect "typical" translates, as usual, to "I have seen this
elsewhere". And as usual, I will ask you for the statistics, and as
usual, you will not have compiled them, so as usual, the statement is of
no actual value over a population, let alone applied to a specific case
(for which statistics can be nothing more than a guide even when
actually properly compiled - 50% of all data falls above the average,
and 50% below).
> Richard, Jr., was born when his father, Richard de Vernon, Sr., was
> aged 14. This is very short chronology indeed.
So, we take a marriage based on invalid "near certainty" and subtract
from that an age based on untabulated statistics, and you get chronology
that is "very short indeed". Is it any wonder?
What about Isabel? Do you have any plans to address her, or are you
just hoping that the biggest downside of your reconstruction will escape
notice as long as you ignore it long enough?
taf
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125684763.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As a followup to my earlier post, I've located yet another record of
> King Richard II's great-great-grandmother, Hawise de Quincy, in the
> period of her widowhood following the death of her husband, Baldwin
> Wake, in 1282. The record below comes from the interesting book,
> Rotuli Parliamentorum Angliae Hactenus Inediti 1274-1373, edited by H.
> G. Richardson and George Sayles (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 51) (1935). The
> record involves a list of people whose petitions and claims were heard
> in the Parliament held at Acton Burnel in Michaelmas, 1283. This list
> includes the following name:
>
> "Hawisia Wake."
>
> This person is surely Hawise de Quincy, widow of Baldwin Wake, who was
> probably requesting some resolution regarding her dower rights.
>
> Since this is the fourth record in which she is called Wake as a widow,
> not Basset, it is clear she can not have married Ralph Basset, of
> Drayton, Staffordshire between the death of her husband, Baldwin Wake,
> in 1282, and the time of her own death in 1285.
So now that they weren't even married, how is it that the endowment of a
chaplaincy by Ralph Basset dated 14 August 1285 "may well" have marked the
anniversary of Hawise Wake's death before 27 March in the same year? You
still haven't offered any plausible explanation of this proposal.
As far as I can see, it is all of a piece with your foggy thinking on other
matters in this & other threads. The purpose of the newsgroup for most
people is to find & share information. Credible information. Honestly
presented information.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
If you recall, I said it was "doubtful" that Hawise de Quincy, widow of
Baldwin Wake, was the wife of Ralph Basset, 1st Lord Basset of Drayton.
The evidence I've produced shows that this marriage is virtually
impossible. I have cited four records, all of which indicate that
Hawise de Quincy was known as Hawise Wake following her husband's
death. Instead, I have theorized that Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset,
was a possible daughter of Hugh le Despenser (died 1265), of
Loughborough, Leicestershire, by his wife, Aline Basset. This is based
on a known kinship which existed between the Basset of Drayton and
Despenser families.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125706430.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter ~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> If you recall, I said it was "doubtful" that Hawise de Quincy, widow of
> Baldwin Wake, was the wife of Ralph Basset, 1st Lord Basset of Drayton.
> The evidence I've produced shows that this marriage is virtually
> impossible. I have cited four records, all of which indicate that
> Hawise de Quincy was known as Hawise Wake following her husband's
> death. Instead, I have theorized that Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset,
> was a possible daughter of Hugh le Despenser (died 1265), of
> Loughborough, Leicestershire, by his wife, Aline Basset. This is based
> on a known kinship which existed between the Basset of Drayton and
> Despenser families.
This doesn't even touch on the question I asked - SINCE you now admit that
this marriage is impossible, it remains to be explained HOW you explain that
the endowment by Ralph Basset "may well" (YOUR words, NB not "may possibly",
"may conceivably" or even "may at a stretch") have been made to mark the
anniversary of Hawise's death, that had occurred more than four moths
earlier. This question is equally valid whether you believe their marriage
to be actual or doubtful - YOU adduced this in support of a theory that you
have now abandoned.
Does this mean you equally abandon any & all supports that you imagined for
it, and the bogus way you presented these? If so, what reliance can be
placed on anything you have to say about any doubtful issue?
As I also asked before, why - at the rate of implausibility that you were
ready to settle for - should not any transaction of any baron without a
known wife living in the same calendar year be taken as evidence that he was
marking the anniversary of Hawise's death?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
You were questioning whether or not Hawise de Quincy married (2nd)
Ralph Basset. I said it was "doubtful" and then proved it was nearly
impossible. Is that a problem for you?
By the way, who do you think Hawise Basset's parentage was? I'd like
to know your thoughts on the matter. You have a brilliant mind. Your
input is much appreciated.
Todd A. Farmerie
> However the key evidence is the IPM of Richard husband of Maud Camville
> in 1324. In this it states that he was Richard son of Richard de Vernon
> and that he held his lands of his father. Was this father Richard
> husband of Eleanor? The answer is given by the charter of William de
> Freford later that year. In this William returned the manors of Mauds
> Meaburn and Newby to Richard de Vernon and Isabel his wife. As Richard
> husband of Isabel de Harcla was still alive he must be identified with
> Richard de Vernon the elder and father of Richard husband of Matilda
> Camville.
I do find one thing disconcerting about this. I assume you are
reporting this from TC&WA&AS, n.s. 12, pp. 312-394, where it appears as
Charter XV, p. 362.
Dated 6 Aug. 1324, it reports that William de Freford, James de Harcla
and his brother Henry de Harcla (both now deceased) had been granted
Maud Meaburn, Newby, and some lands in Little Strickland and Thrimby by
Richard de Vernon, to be held for the lifetime of Isabel, wife of
Richard [de Vernon] for the support of Isabel and her children. It then
indicates that, having lost interest in fulfilling this charge, Freford
had granted and given up [concessi et reddidi] these lands (which had,
it reports, originally come to Richard and Isabel through a final
concord from Michael de Harcla) back to Richard and Isabel, and swore
off any hereditary claim.
(Just as an aside, there can be no doubt that the Isabel in question
was, in fact, Isabel de Harcla, and not some other hypothetical Isabel,
daughter-in-law of the first, suggested by me as a way for Mr.
Richardson to rescue his theory.)
However, look at Charter XIV - in it, William de Freford reports that he
had granted back to Richard de Vernon "whatever I [i.e. William]
possessed in the manors of Meaburn Maud and Newby," and swears off any
family claim. While stripped down compared to the other, leaving out
the history, the purpose of his holding, the various and sundry other
properties, and even mention of Isabel, at its heart it seems to be the
same transaction - William returning Meaburn and Newby to Richard. Here
is the thing, though - it is dated Trinity, 1303.
Is there any possibility that the 1324 charter was simply a confirmation
that at an unspecificed time in the past [known from the other to be
pre-1303] this transaction had taken place, in which case it only
implies that Richard sen was still alive at that past time? There is
certainly no indication in the 1324 document that suggest the manors had
been previously granted to William, back to Richard in 1303, then back
to William, so he could again give them back to Richard in 1324.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
date - ten years after, a year after that . . ., then when I corrected
the reference date I failed to readjust the others), so I will repeat
the appropriate section:
Free from any extrapolation, interpretation or advocacy, the data we
have allow two unambiguous family groups to be compiled:
bef.
1278
Richard = Isabel de Harcla
b. 1263 | fl. 1324
fl. 1324 |
|
| 1290-
| 1294
Richard=Eleanor de Fenes
and
Richard=Isabel
d. 1329 fl.1342
|
|
| bef. 1309
Richard=Maud de Camville
d. 1323| fl. 1348
v.p. |
|
|
William
b.1313
(note that in the second grouping, Isabel is widow of the first Richard,
but not necessarily mother of the second)
The question is how the two of these should be combined. Either way,
Richard son of Richard and Isabel de Harcla must have married twice, and
from this flows the dates for Eleanor's death. Briefly, this is Mr.
Richardson's reconstruction spelled and filled out with all that is
implicit, and with only known dates and information taken into account:
1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Both died 1224-1229. (there is a caveat here that I will
address in another post later today)
2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. By the time
of his death in 1329, Eleanor had died and Richard had remarried Isabel,
who lived through at least 1342.
3. Richard de Vernon, m. by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died v.p., 1323,
she died some time after 1339.
4. William de Vernon, b. 1313.
The reconstruction others have been favoring is:
1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Richard died in 1329, while Isabel still lived in 1342.
2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. Eleanor died
bef. 1309, and Richard remarried by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died
v.p., 1323, she died some time after 1339.
3. William de Vernon, b. 1313.
taf
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125711351.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter ~
>
> You were questioning whether or not Hawise de Quincy married (2nd)
> Ralph Basset. I said it was "doubtful" and then proved it was nearly
> impossible. Is that a problem for you?
I was questioning your statement that Ralph Basset "may well" have been
marking the anniversary of Hawise's death some 17 months or so after this
occurred. This would be equally peculiar whether or not he had ever been her
husband. Are you still too obtuse to recognise this?
> By the way, who do you think Hawise Basset's parentage was? I'd like
> to know your thoughts on the matter.
I don't have any thoughts on the matter - there is apparently no evidence on
the point, and I think there's no value in merely guessing at all much less
in switching guesses & then trying to fill in the blanks to suit the second
guess.
Maybe you haven't noticed that I'm not perturbed by things I can't know, and
don't feel bound to promote myself through bogus "solutions" to intractable
but quite unimportant puzzles.
Peter Stewart
Luke Potter
This is an interesting point Todd.
Richard de Vernon does seem to have frequently handed over his manors to
trustees - as has been mentioned in this thread Giles de Frenes received
Pitchcott for a while, and Michael de Harcla held Richard's land in the
manors of Haddon and Appelby prior to 1302. Hence I would not be too
surprised if there were two grants to William de Freford; one prior to
1303, and a second at a later date between 1303 and 1324.
Regarding the grant to Freford prior to 1303, FW Ragg in the article you
cite noted that there is a fine on the day after St Martin 1302 between
Richard de Vernon & Isabel his wife and Michael de Harcla. Richard
recognised that the manor of Mauds Meaburn was the right of Michael as
it had been gifted to him by the said Richard. Michael though restored
it in this fine to Richard and his heirs by Isabel.
Thus the grant which William de Freford was returning to Richard in 1303
must have been made between the date of this Vernon/Harcla fine in
November 1302 and the Freford/Vernon charter dated the Vigil of Holy
Trinity 1303 (1st June).
In his article Ragg also points out that in 1311, the Sheriff of
Westmorland was unable to distrain Richard de Vernon to answer the
executors of the estate of Michael de Harcla. He suggests that this was
due to the manor of Meaburn being held by the trustees mentioned in the
1324 charter by this time.
Thus I think that the 1324 charter refers to a second grant by Richard.
As the first grant was for such a short period there was no relevance to
mention it in the 1324 charter. Likewise it appears that both Richard
and Isabel are alive in 1324 as the grant states that the rights are
given back to 'the aforesaid Richard and Isabel his wife' (prefatis
Richardo et Isabelle uxori sue). There is no indication that Richard was
deceased.
As for the date of this second grant, it seems that it was in place in
1311 from the reference mentioned above. However do we know anything
about the dates of death of James and Henry de Harcla? If we can
identify a date of death for either of these two before 1311, it would
push the dating of the grant back prior to 1311.
Jwc...@aol.com
We still have William, 2nd Lord Camville`s missing wife
to account for this connection.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA