Another C. P. Correction: Death date of Iseult Pantolf
Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal)
states that the much-married Iseult Pantolf, wife successively of Hugh
de Munpincun, Walter de Tateshale, Walter de Baskerville, Henry Biset,
and Amaury de Saint Amand, died about 1222, citing as its source, Book
of Fees, pg. 341.
I haven't seen the record cited in Book of Fees. However, it is
doubtful that Complete Peerage's interpretation of this record is
correct, as in Hilary Term, 1223, Iseult Pantolf and her 5th husband,
Amaury de Saint Amand, were involved in a legal action concerning
Kidderminster, Worcestershire against her former daughter-in-law,
Sarah de Huntingfield, widow of Iseult's son, William Biset, and then
wife of Richard de Keynes [Reference: F.W. Maitland, ed., Bracton's
Note Book, 3 (1887):458-459].
The above cited reference to Bracton's Note Book may be found at the
following weblink:
In the abstract of the 1223 lawsuit provided by Bracton, Iseult, wife
of Amaury de Saint Amand, is incorrectly identified as the widow of
William Biset. Actually it was Sarah, wife of Richard de Keynes, who
was William Biset's widow. Iseult Pantolf was William Biset's
mother. For further particulars regarding Sarah de Huntingfield, see
Stenton, Rolls of Justices in Eyre (Selden Soc. 59) (1940): 105-106,
and Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
In an exchange with Iseult's younger son, John Biset, Iseult's
husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, held the entire manor of
Kidderminster, Worcestershire, instead of the third which would have
been his wife's normal dower. On 16 January1228, Amaury de Saint
Amand had a grant of free warren and a yearly fair at Kidderminster,
Worcestershire [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1225-1232, pg.
175]. The grant of fair was subsequently confirmed to Iseult
Pantolf's son, John Biset, on 4 March 1238 [Reference: Calendar of
Charter Rolls, 1226-1257, pg. 235].
Taken together, these records prove that Iseult Pantolf was living in
Hilary Term 1223. She was evidently still alive on 16 January 1228,
when her last husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, had the grant of free
warren and a fair at Kidderminster, Worcestershire. As stated above,
Amaury held this property in right of his wife's dower, rather than by
her inheritance, this being Biset family property. Iseult Pantolf
must have died sometime before 4 March 1238, when her younger son,
John Biset, was confirmed in the fair at Kidderminster. This would be
the normal train of event on the death of John Biset's mother. Amaury
de Saint Amand was still living in 1238, but his rights in
Kidderminster would automatically have been extinguished on the death
of his wife, Iseult. John Biset certainly had full possession of the
manor by 1240, when he came to an agreement with the Prior and Convent
of Worcester as to the bounds of their respective lands on the heath
between Wolverley and Kidderminster [Reference: Annales Monastici.
(Rolls Ser.), vol. 4, pg. 431].
So, it would appear that Iseult Pantolf died 1228/1238, not c. 1222 as
stated by Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardon, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
There appears to have been two women who were called Iseult de
Tateshale (or Tattershall). The first person so named was Iseult
Pantulf, who was married early in her life as her second husband
Walter de Tateshale. As I explained in my earlier post, Iseult
Pantolf appears to have died sometime in the period, 1228/1238, she
then being the wife of Amaury de Saint Amand her fifth husband.
The source, Liber Albus, pg. 89, however, indicates that there was a
certain Iseult (or Isabel) de Tateshale, presumably a separate and
distinct person, who was living in London in 24 Henry III
[1239-1240]. For the reference to this lady, please see the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HRQjAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=Isolda+Tateshale#PPA89,M1
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
WJhonson
That just maybe this is a bad interpretation of what occurred.
Douglas Richardson
As indicated in an earlier post, Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296,
footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953):
648, footnote d (sub Tateshal), states that Iseult Pantolf (died
1228/1238) was married five times:
(1) Hugh de Munpincun, of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex, who may
have been dead in 1186.
(2) Walter de Tateshale (or Tattershall), died 1199 or 1200.
(3) Walter de Baskerville.
(4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died before 4 April
1211.
(5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
The Saint Amand article cited above in Complete Peerage, however,
reverses the order of the 3rd and 4th husbands; otherwise it stands in
agreement with the Tateshal article.
It appears that the original Saint Amand article had the correct order
of Iseult Pantolf's husbands after all, and that the revised order of
husbands given in the Tateshal article is in error. Henry Biset was
actually Iseult's 3rd husband and Walter de Baskerville was her 4th
husband, not the other way around.
Here is the exact train of events:
In 1199 Roger Pantolf was plaintiff against Walter de Tateshale and
Iseult his wife and Eustache, Iseult's sister, for a knight's fee in
Abkettleby and Holwell, Leicestershire [Reference: Early Yorkshire
Charters, 7 (1952): 27, citing Rot. Cur. Regis, i, 432]. Walter de
Tateshale was Iseult Pantolf's 2nd husband. In an subsequent action
dated Trinity term 1200, it is stated that Iseult's husband, Walter de
Tateshale, had died; Iseult's sister is called Constance, not
Eustachia, in this record [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 1 (1922):
196]. Iseult married (3rd) by Trinity term 1200 (date of lawsuit) (as
his 2nd wife) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire and
Rockbourne, Hampshire, son and heir of Manasser Biset. In Trinity
term 1200 Henry and Iseult claimed the third part of lands in
Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex in dower, which lands were formerly
owned by Hugh de Munpincun [Iseult's first husband] [Reference: Curia
Regis Rolls, 1 (1922): 214]. In 1201 Roger Pantolf continued the
lawsuit against Iseult alone regarding 1 knight's fee in Abkettleby
and Holwell, Leicestershire; presumably Iseult's sister, Eustache or
Constance, was then deceased [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 1 (1922):
214; see also Stenton, Pleas before the King or his Justices (Selden
Soc. 67) (1948): 333]. Iseult's husband, Henry Biset, of
Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died shortly before Michaelmas 1208,
when Iseult is named as his widow [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe,
Michaelmas 1208 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 23 (1947): 116, 170, 197-189].
In Michaelmas 1211 Richard de Neville offered 20 palfreys and found
pledges for payment that the king should ask Iseult, widow of Henry
Biset, to take Richard as her husband; however, before the roll was
closed for the year, John Baalun offered 100 pounds to have the lands
of Richard de Neville until the right heir should come, which record
suggests that Richard de Neville had died before he could marry Iseult
[Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1210 (Pipe Roll Soc.
n.s. 26) (1951): xxiv, 80, 98]. Iseult married (4th) before
Michaelmas 1211 Walter de Baskerville, of Herefordshire [Reference:
Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1211 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 28)
(1953): 196]. In 1208 Walter gave 3 palfreys for having respite of
the fine of 10 pounds owed to the king and 25 pounds owed to the Jews
[Reference: VCH Warwick, 6 (1951): 240]. In Michaelmas 1211 William
Tilli of Northampton and Robert of Leicester owed the king 3 marks
regarding a legal matter involving Walter de Baskerville and Iseult
his wife [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1211 (Pipe
Roll Soc. n.s. 28) (1953): 196; see also Great Roll of the Pope,
Michaelmas 1212 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 30) (1955): 134]. In the period,
1211-1213, Walter de Baskerville and Iseult Pantolf his wife demised
to Thomas de Neville all their land in Braidon [place uncertain] and
Harlaston, Staffordshire, together with all their right in Tutbury and
Smershill [Middleton and Smerril], Derbyshire [Reference: Landon, ed.,
Cartae Antiquae Rolls 1-10 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 17) (1939): 126-127].
In 1212 Iseult Biset is recorded as holding Rockbourne, Hampshire, as
part of the barony of Henry Biset her late husband [Reference: Book of
Fees, 1 (1920): 75]. Walter de Baskerville died shortly before
October 1213 [References: Rot. et Fin., pp. 500, 512-513; Rot. Lit.
Claus, Vol. i, pg. 162]. In 1214 Iseult widow of Walter de
Baskerville paid 100 marks and 1 palfrey to have possession of her
inheritance and her dower [Reference: Barnes, Great Roll of the Pipe,
Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s 35) (1962): 113; VCH Warwick, 6
(1951): 240. In 1214, and evidently in 1217, as Iseult Biset, she
sued Ralph Tyrrell and Clemence de Munpincun his wife in a plea of
dower regarding half the vill of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex,
which Iseult claimed in right of dower of her 1st marriage to Hugh de
Munpincon [References: Curia Regis Rolls, 7 (1935): 193, 263, 318; VCH
Sussex, 6 Pt. 1 (1980): 195-199; Maitland, ed., Bracton's Note Book, 3
(1887): 316-317]. In 1215 Iseult Biset, former wife of Walter de
Baskerville, is mentioned [Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1204-1224,
pg. 191]. In 1218 Iseult, widow of Walter de Baskerville, was
assigned the land of Cumb in dower [presumably Combe, Gloucestershire
is intended] [References: R.W. Banks, ed., Cartularium prioratus s.
Johannis evangelistæ de Brecon (Arch. Cambrensis 4th ser. 14) (1883):
161, citing Charter Rolls, pp. 286, 289; J.C. Holt, Magna Carta
(1992): 198, citing Rot. de Ob. et Fin. pg. 500; S.D. Church,
Household Knights of King John (1999): 101]. In Michaelmas 1219
Iseult Biset owed 60 marks and 1 palfrey to have an unspecified vill
in Ireland [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1219 (Pipe
Roll Soc. n.s. 42 (1976): 16]. Iseult married (5th) before 1220 (as
his 2nd wife) Amaury de Saint Amand. In 1220 Sarah widow of William
Biset (Iseult's step-son) sued Iseult and her husband, Amaury de Saint
Amand, for a third part of the vill of Kidderminster, Worcestershire
and for a third part of lands in Rockbourne, Hampshire; Sarah also
sued John Biset (Iseult's younger step-son) for dower in the vill of
Shamblehurst (in South Stoneham), Hampshire [Reference: Curia Regis
Rolls, 9 (1952): 76, 129-130, 239, 247, 293, 324]. Sometime in or
after 1220, in an exchange with her step-son, John Biset, Iseult's
husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, held the entire manor of
Kidderminster, Worcestershire, instead of a third part which would
have been his wife's normal dower. In 1223 land in Leicestershire
held by Iseult Pantolf, mother of Robert de Tateshal, which had been
taken into the king's hands for debt, was ordered to be delivered to
the said Robert [Reference: Early Yorkshire Charters, 7 (1952): 27,
footnote 3, citing Exc. e Rot. Fin., i, 105]. In Michaelmas 1224 her
son, Robert de Tateshale, paid 36 pounds and a half mark for his
mother, Iseult, to have her dower; this was presumably a restoration
of the lands previously taken into the king's hands for her debt
[Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Mciahelmas 1224 (Pipe Roll Soc.
n.s. 54) (2005): 199]. Iseult Pantulf was last known to be living 16
January 1228, when her 5th husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, was granted
free warren and a fair at Kidderminster, Worcestershire. Amaury held
this property strictly in right of his wife's dower from her Biset
marriage; thus Iseult must have been living when Amaury had this grant
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1225-1232, pg. 175]. Iseult
appears to have died soon afterwards, however, as her son, Robert de
Tateshale, is called grandson and heir of William Pantulf in a lawsuit
dated 1228-1229 [Reference: VCH Rutland, 2 (1935): 54, citing Extracts
from the Curia Regis Rolls, 1211-1231 (Leic. Arch. Soc.), 101].
Iseult was certainly dead before 4 March 1238, when her step-son, John
Biset, was confirmed in the grant of the fair at Kidderminster,
Worcestershire, which fair was formerly granted to Iseult's husband,
Amaury de Saint Amand [Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls,
1226-1257, pg. 235]. John Biset could only have taken possession of
Kidderminster on the death of his step-mother, Iseult. In 1240 John
Biset, then owner of Kidderminster, came to an agreement with the
Prior and Convent of Worcester as to the bounds of their respective
lands on the heath between Wolverley and Kidderminster [Reference:
Annales Monastici (Rolls Ser.), vol. 4, pg. 431; for John Biset's
ownership of Kidderminster, also see Curia Regis Rolls, 16 (1979):
384].
Further Corrections:
John Biset is called "filius Isolde" (that is, son of Iseult) in the
lawsuit cited above dated 1220. John Biset can only have been
Iseult's step-son. John Biset was of age in or before Michaelmas
1220, when he was granted the lands of his older brother, William
Biset, whose heir he was [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe,
Michaelmas 1220 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 47 (1987): 191]. Thus, John
Biset was born in or before 1199. Iseult Pantolf, on the other hand,
was still married to her 2nd husband, Walter de Tateshale, as late as
1199, and did not marry John Biset's father, Henry Biset, as her 3rd
husband until about Trinity term 1200. The chronology does not permit
Iseult Pantolf to be the mother of any of Henry Biset's known
children, either William or John, or his probable daughter, Margaret
(wife of Roger la Zouche).
VCH Rutland 2 (1935): 54, footnote 7, states that William Pantulf,
acting for Walter de Baskerville and Isolda his wife, brought an
action in 1202 against the prior of Launde to recover the advowson of
Wardley church, citing Assize R. 613, m. 13. This lawsuit has
clearly been misdated, as Iseult Pantolf did not marry Walter de
Baskerville until after 1211, as stated above.
Horrox & Ormrod, eds., A Social History of England (2006): 197-198
states Iseult Pantolf "outlived all five of her husbands between 1180
and 1223." At the present time, I have no particulars as to when
Iseult's 1st husband, Hugh de Munpincun, died, only that he "may have
been dead" in 1186. Iseult certainly survived her first four
husbands. However, as shown above, Iseult Pantolf must have died in
1228-1229. Thus, she clearly predeceased her final husband, Amaury de
Saint Amand, who survived until 1241 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 11
(1949): 296].
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296, footnote b (sub Saint Amand) states
that Iseult Pantolf was still living in 1267, when she was prosecuting
her rights of dower against her grandson, Robert de Tateshale.
Complete Peerage, Vol. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal)
correctly states that Iseult Pantolf "can not be the Iseult living in
1265 [recte 1267]." The evidence cited above confirms the correction
provided in the Tateshal account in Complete Peerage.
tallbloke
news:1185066599....@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As indicated in an earlier post, Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296,
> footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953):
> 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal), states that Iseult Pantolf (died
> 1228/1238) was married five times:
>
> (1) Hugh de Munpincun, of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex, who may
> have been dead in 1186.
> (2) Walter de Tateshale (or Tattershall), died 1199 or 1200.
> (3) Walter de Baskerville.
> (4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died before 4 April
> 1211.
> (5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
>
> The Saint Amand article cited above in Complete Peerage, however,
> reverses the order of the 3rd and 4th husbands; otherwise it stands in
> agreement with the Tateshal article.
>
> It appears that the original Saint Amand article had the correct order
> of Iseult Pantolf's husbands after all, and that the revised order of
> husbands given in the Tateshal article is in error. Henry Biset was
> actually Iseult's 3rd husband and Walter de Baskerville was her 4th
> husband, not the other way around.
>
> Here is the exact train of events:
>
> In 1199 Roger Pantolf was plaintiff against Walter de Tateshale and
> Iseult his wife and Eustache, Iseult's sister, for a knight's fee in
> Abkettleby and Holwell, Leicestershire [Reference: Early Yorkshire
> Charters, 7 (1952): 27, citing Rot. Cur. Regis, i, 432]. ....In the
> period, 1211-1213, Walter de Baskerville and Iseult Pantolf his wife
> demised to Thomas de Neville all their land in Braidon [place uncertain]
This could well be Breedon, where Iseult inherited Land from her Father
William
>
> Horrox & Ormrod, eds., A Social History of England (2006): 197-198
> states Iseult Pantolf "outlived all five of her husbands between 1180
> and 1223." At the present time, I have no particulars as to when
> Iseult's 1st husband, Hugh de Munpincun, died, only that he "may have
> been dead" in 1186.
Which would push Iseults birth date back further than the 1177 mentioned
on some websites. If correct, it would sertainly make the likelihood of
The same Iseult suing Walters grandson for dower in 1265-7? very unlikely.
However, the question raised by Michael concerning the fact that Iseult
states in the 1267 lawsuit that she was the wife of Walter de Tateshal is
still unanswered.
When was Hugh de Munpincun born?
--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie
Tony Ingham
Many thanks for providing us with such a clear concise and collegial
answer to my earlier mail under the subject line ' Husbands of
Iseult/Isolde Pantolf '
I hope to comment more fully after examining the wealth of information
and source material provided.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As indicated in an earlier post, Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296,
> footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953):
> 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal), states that Iseult Pantolf (died
> 1228/1238) was married five times:
>
> (1) Hugh de Munpincun, of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex, who may
> have been dead in 1186.
> (2) Walter de Tateshale (or Tattershall), died 1199 or 1200.
> (3) Walter de Baskerville.
> (4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died before 4 April
> 1211.
> (5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
>
> snip , snip, snipsnip.