C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Eudes la Zouche, Knt. [died 1279] & Milicent de Cantelowe

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 12(1) (1959): 937-938 (sub Zouche) has a good account of Sir Eudes la Zouche [died 1279], of Harringworth, Northamptonshire.

Regarding his marriage, the following information is provided:

"He married, before 13 Dec. 1273, Milicent, widow of John de Mohaut, sister and co-heiress of George de Cauntelo, lord of Abergavenny, &c. (d.s.p. 18 Oct. 1273), da. of William de Cauntelo, of Calne, Wilts, Aston Cantlow, co. Warwick, by Eve, 3rd da. and co-heiress of William de Briouze, lord of Abergavenny aforesaid." END OF QUOTE.

We see above that Complete Peerage indicates that Sir Eudes la Zouche and his wife, Milicent de Cantelowe, were married before 13 December 1273 [Reference: Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. ii, no. 17 (pp. 19-20)]. However, given that Milicent de Cantelowe's first husband, John de Mohaut (on Montalt), died in 1258, I've always assumed that Sir Eudes and his wife Milicent were married some time before 1273, possibly as early as 1260.

Recently I located a lawsuit dated Easter term 1269 [53 Henry III], in which Eudes la Zouche sued William Hamelyn and others regarding a trespass [vi et armis] in Clipsham, Rutland. Reference: Justice Itinerants, JUST1, no. 1201, Image 1744f, Year: 1269, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1201/aJUST1no1201fronts/IMG_1744.htm.
My research indicates that the manor and advowson of the church of Clipsham, Rutland were earlier acquired in 1243 by Milicent de Cantelowe's grandfather, Sir William de Cantelowe, from Peter de Fraxineto [Freney] [Reference: VCH Rutland 2 (1935): 41–45; Cal. of Charter Rolls, 1 (1903): 276]. In 1245 Sir William de Cantelowe was granted free warren in the demesne lands and woods in his manor of Clipsham, Rutland [Reference: Cal. of Charter Rolls, 1 (1903): 284].

Given that Clipsham was earlier a Cantelowe family property, it seems likely that it formed part of the maritagium of Milicent de Cantelowe and was brought by her in marriage to Sir Eudes la Zouche. As such, it seems certain that Sir Eudes and Milicent were married sometime before Easter term 1269, the date of the lawsuit.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Eudes la Zouche [died 1279] and his wife, Milicent de Cantelowe:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Frances Baldwin, Charles Barnes, Christopher Batt, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Anne Baynton, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Edward Bromfield, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Jeremy Clarke, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth Covert, William Crymes, James Cudworth, Thomas Culpeper, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Anne Derehaugh, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, John Ireland, Henry Isham, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, James Taylor, Samuel & William Torrey, Jemima Waldegrave, John & Lawrence Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Mary Wolseley, Hawte Wyatt, Henry Wyche.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Patricia Junkin]

I would agree that Eudes married Millicent a bit earlier but still grapple with the theory Eudes was the brother of Alan who may have been married previously. Children from the early marriage could account for the closeness of Roger of Lubbesthorpe.
Pat

Sent from my iPhone

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

You say that John de Mohaut died in 1258. Do you have a source for this statement? I have been unable to find any record for him after October 1257, but assumed that he died about 1267.

Regards,
John

[Patricia Junkin]

I believe that date is assumed from a document of Millicent's father.

Sent from my iPhone

[John Watson]

Which is a bit strange, because Millicent's father, Sir William died on 25 September 1254.

Regards,

John

[gdco...@gmail.com]

For his death before 1260, try CP 9:13-14 notes. k & a. See also TAG 70:99-101 ("Lady Millicent's Cat")

Greg

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

In a note in G. Herbert Fowler "Tractatus de Dunstaple and
de Hocton" in Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record
Society, vol. 19 (1937): 92, John de Mohaut [husband of Milicent de
Cantelowe] is identified as the son [probably eldest] of Roger de
Mohaut, by his wife, Cecily, daughter of William d'Aubeney, 3rd Earl
of Arundel. John de Mohaut was living in 1257 [see Cal. of Close Rolls,
1256-1259, pg. 157], and is recorded to have died in 1258 [see Ann.
Cestr., 77, 78].

Christie, Annales Cestrienses, or, Chronicle of the Abbey of S. Werburg at Chester (Lancashire & Cheshire Rec. Soc. 14) (1887): 78–79 (sub A.D. 1258: 747–8 (“Rogerus de Monte Alto tunc Justitiarius Cestriae graviter infestans D[omi]num Thomam Abbatem et Conventum S. Werburgae de Cestria ... Obiitq. dicti Rogeri primogenitus infra quinde’'am illam.”).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

The reason that I asked you for a source that John de Mohaut died in 1258 is that his death date is a bit of a conundrum and it is not easy to make sense of the contemporary records.

On the one hand, a 1257 entry in the Close Rolls, states that Roger de Mohaut and John his son had quittance from the common summons in Nottingham and Derby. From which it might be inferred that John was his eldest son.

20 October 1257, Isti habent quietanciam communis summonicionis in comitatibus Not' et Dereb':— Rogerus de Monte Alto, Johannes filius ejus.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: vol.10: 1256-1259 (1932), 156.

The Chester Annals, transcribed in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century from earlier documents, state that Roger's eldest son (not named) died sometime in 1258:

1258, At that time Henry [III.], king of England, [enriched] his four half-brothers. Roger de Montalt, then justiciary of Chester, having violently attacked [and laid claim to the possessions of] the lord Thomas the abbot and the convent of S. Werburg at Chester, extorted from them the manor of Bretton in consideration of his confirmation of the manors of Lawton and Goosetree, and the advowsons of the churches of Neston, Bruera, and Coddington. And the eldest son of the said Roger died within fifteen days. Many other notable misfortunes befell the said Roger not long afterwards. Roger himself died in poverty within two years, the common people being ignorant of the place of his burial.
Richard C. Christie, ed., Annales Cestrienses; or, Chronicle of the Abbey of S. Werburg, at Chester, The Record Society for the Publication of Original Documents Relating to Lancashire and Cheshire, 15 (1886), 75, 77.

On the other hand, Farrer (HKF, ii, 113) states that John de Mohaut was probably living in October 1265, citing this entry in the inquisitions miscellaneous:

3 October 1265, Inquisition into lands and tenements taken into the king's hand. Hampshire, Hundred of Manesbrug. John de Mohaud seized Sir Andrew Peverel's manor of Berthon and still has seisin, and received the Michaelmas rent of 4s. 8d. The manor is worth £10. Andrew Peverel was never an enemy of the king or of Sir Edward his son in Hampshire or elsewhere. The jury know not by what warrant John seized the manor.
Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (Chancery), vol. 1 (1916), 212, no. 693.

Farrer also argues that John can hardly have been elder brother of Robert de Mohaut III, who obtained possession of Hawarden castle in 1265:

21 June 1265, Order to the constable of the castle of Hawordin [Hawarden], as he loves himself and his possessions, to deliver the said castle to Robert de Monte Alto, the heir thereof, for him to keep lest any of the rebels be received therein to maintain their rebellion against the king.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry III, vol. 5: 1258-1266 (1910), 488.

Farrer also states that not one instance of Milisent de Cantelupe dealing with land of the fee of Mohaut has been found, which would argue against John being the eldest son who died in 1258 and CP states that in the inquisitions after the death of Robert de Mohaut in 1275 there is no reference to dower of this Millicent, who lived till 1299 (CP, ix, 14, note (a)).

So it's a bit of a puzzle and the entry in the Chester Annals does not necessarily prove that John de Mohaut, husband of Millicent de Cantelowe, died in 1258.

Regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:46:15 PM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:

> Dear Douglas,
>

> The reason that I asked you for a source that John de Mohaut died in 1258 is that his death date is a bit of a conundrum and it is not easy to make sense of the contemporary records.

There is no conundrum. It is actually easy to understand the contemporary records.

<On the one hand, a 1257 entry in the Close Rolls, states that Roger de Mohaut <and John his son had quittance from the common summons in Nottingham and Derby. <From which it might be inferred that John was his eldest son.

That is a correct inference.

< 20 October 1257, Isti habent quietanciam communis summonicionis in comitatibus <Not' et Dereb':— Rogerus de Monte Alto, Johannes filius ejus.
< Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: vol.10: 1256-1259 (1932), 156.
>

> The Chester Annals, transcribed in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century from earlier documents, state that Roger's eldest son (not named) died sometime in 1258.

That is also correct. This record is telling is that John de Mohaut, living in 1257, died as a young man in 1258, just as Fowler suggested.

< On the other hand, Farrer (HKF, ii, 113) states that John de Mohaut was <probably living in October 1265, citing this entry in the inquisitions <miscellaneous:

Farrer evidently confused a second John de Mohaut living in 1265 with the earlier John de Mohaut who died in 1258. The second John de Mohaut is presumably the Sir John de Mohaut who died in 1293.

It is the bane of the medieval period to have two men of the same name occur in records in the same time period, be they father and son, uncle and nephew, or distant cousins. If Farrer confused two men of the same name, such an error is human.

< Farrer also argues that John can hardly have been elder brother of Robert de <Mohaut III, who obtained possession of Hawarden castle in 1265:

John de Mohaut, eldest son of Roger de Mohaut, died in 1258. As such, there is no conflict whatsoever with Roger de Mohaut having been succeeded by his younger son, Robert de Mohaut, in 1260.

<Farrer also states that not one instance of Milisent de Cantelupe dealing with <land of the fee of Mohaut has been found, which would argue against John being <the eldest son who died in 1258 and CP states that in the inquisitions after <the death of Robert de Mohaut in 1275 there is no reference to dower of this <Millicent, who lived till 1299 (CP, ix, 14, note (a)).

I understand Farrer's frustration in not locating Milicent de Cantelowe's dower lands from her Mohaut marriage. On the other hand, I don't think anyone doubts that Milicent had such dower lands. The fact that Farrer could not find them means nothing.

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

I'm afraid that we must agree to disagree again on this. Although monastic annals are often our only contemporary sources for many events in medieval England and Scotland, they can't be regarded as reliable. This particular Chester entry under 1258 concerning Roger Mohaut was written as a dire warning to those who disputed the rights of the church. That his eldest son died two weeks later may well have been invented by the monks to amplify the warning. False news has been around for a long time.

Regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my original post, I should mention that I recently learned that Eudes la Zouche and his brother, Henry la Zouche, served as manucaptors (or sureties) for their niece, Joyce, daughter and heiress of William la Zouche in 1272-3.

Reference: LTR Memoranda Rolls, E368no46, image 2128 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/E368no46/IMG_2128.htm).

For evidence that Henry la Zouche was the brother of William la Zouche, see Jenkinson & Formoy, Select Cases in the Exchequer of Pleas (Selden Soc. 48) (1932): 80–81.

[Patricia Junkin]

Thank you very much, Douglas. I knew Henry was a brother but did not have this. As I mentioned, I am more convinced that we are dealing with one Eudes. I do realize at some time you found Eudes dealing with land that would have been de Quincy. Could that not have been acquired by means other than inheritance?
Cordially,
Pat

Sent from my iPhone