Complete Peerage Addition: Marriage of Edward Hastings and Mary Hungerford
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 622-623 (sub Hungerford) has a useful
account of the lives of Edward Hastings, Lord Hastings (died 1506) and
his wife, Mary Hungerford, Lady Botreaux. Regarding their marriage,
the editor states: "m[arried], between this date [8 June 1478] and 18
Feb. 1480/1" [when Mary and her husband had license of entry into her
great-grandmother's inheritance].
I previously posted regarding the papal dispensation for the marriage
of Edward Hastings and Mary Hungerford, which dispensation is dated 4
September 1475 (see copy of my earlier post below). Edward and Mary
needed a dispensation to marry, they being related in the 3rd and 3rd
degrees of kindred by common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of
Westmorland, and his 2nd wife, Joan (or Jane) Beaufort.
As a followup to my original post, I've since located a catalogue
reference to the marriage settlement of Edward Hastings and Mary
Hungerford dated 1474 in the papers of the Eart of Radnor at the
Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office on the helpful A2A website
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office: The Earl of Radnor
EARL OF RADNOR
Catalogue Ref. 490
Creator(s):
Pleydell-Bouverie family of Wiltshire
Bouverie, Pleydell- family of Wiltshire
HUNGERFORD FAMILY
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS
FILE [no title] - ref. 490/1465 - date: 1474
Agreement concerning the marriage of Mary Hungerford, baroness
Betreaux, and Edward, son of William lord Hastings. Including
memoranda relating to bequests made by Robert, lord Hungerford, d.
1459.
END OF CATALOGUE ITEM.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
COPY OF EARLIER POST:
From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
Subject: Hastings-Hungerford and the Camoys-Mortimer connection
Date: 9 Apr 2002 22:52:18 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <5cf47a19.0204...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.232.48.31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1018417938 11067 127.0.0.1 (10 Apr 2002
05:52:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Apr 2002 05:52:18 GMT
Dear Newsgroup ~
In recent weeks, we've discussed and analyzed the evidence regarding
the parentage of Anne Percy, wife of Thomas Hungerford. The evidence
has mounted to prove that Anne was the daughter of Henry Percy, 2nd
Earl of Northumberland, not Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland,
as claimed in Complete Peerage. I'm happy to report that new evidence
has now turned up which conclusively proves that Anne Percy was in
fact the daughter of the 2nd Earl.
In 1479, Anne's daughter, Mary Hungerford, received a dispensation to
marry her cousin, Edward Hastings. A transcript of this dispensation
is set forth in Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers: Papal
Letters, vol. 13 Pt. 2 (1955): 687-693. The printed record quotes the
exact testimony of several witnesses who were called to give evidence
regarding the kinship between Mary and Edward.
The record commences as follows:
"Confirmation, etc., as below. Lately, on its being set forth to the
pope by Edward Hasting', layman, of the diocese of Lincoln, and Mary
Hungerford, puella, of the diocese of Salisbury, and their parents,
that for the preservation and increase of good will between their said
parents and their kinsmen and friends they desired to marry, but that
inasmuch as they were related in the third and third degrees of
kindred they could not do so without papal dispensation, the pope
ordered three judges, or two or one of them, if they found the facts
to be as stated, and if the said Mary had not been ravished, to
dispense the said Edward and Mary, who were in the ninth and seventh
year of their age, respectively, notwithstanding the said impediment
of kindred and the said Mary's defect of age, forthwith to contract
espousals, and, after they reach the lawful age, to contract marriage,
etc., as is contained in the pope's letters [dated at St. Peter's,
Rome, 1475, Prid. Non. Sept. (4 Sept.), anno 5], two of which said
judges, proceeding to the execution of the said letters, have, as the
pope has learned, dispensed the said Edward and Mary in accordance
therewith, as is more fully contained in the letters of the said
judges... viz. the letters."
The letters of the judges are then presented. They state the facts
and outline the testimony they took from various witnesses regarding
the proposed marriage. The following deposition was made by John
Audley, Lord Audley:
"John Audeley, lord of Audeley, knight, of the diocese of Salisbury,
aged fifty years and more, sworn and asked whether he knows any
impediment of kindred between Edward Hastyng', knight (natural and
lawful son of Sir William hastyng', knight, lord of Hastyng', and the
lady Catherine his wife) and Mary Hungerford, natural and lawful
daughter of the lady Anne Hungerford, says and deposes that Richard
Nevell' late earl of Salisbury, and Eleanor, countess of
Northumberland, were brother and sister, and were commonly called and
reputed to be son and daughter of the late Ralph, earl of
Westmoreland, and Joan his wife, that the said Richard [late] earl of
Salisbury had a daughter the lady Catherine, who married the said Sir
William Hastyng', and that they have a son the said Sir Edward
Hastyng'. He also deposes that the lady Eleanor, sister of the lord
Richard, late earl of Salisbury, had a daughter the lady Anne, who
married [the late] Thomas Hungerford, esquire, and that they had a
daughter the said Mary Hungerford. Asked concerning the age of the
said Edward and Mary, he says and deposes that they are over the
eleventh and ninth year of their age, respectively. Also asked
whether the said Mary has been ravished by the said Edward, he says
and deposes that she has not been ravished, but has been under the
best and most honourable keeping of her friends ["amicorum"].
The above deposition makes it clear that Mary Hungerford's mother,
Anne Percy, was the daughter of Eleanor Neville. As such, there can
be no question that Anne Percy was the daughter of Henry Percy, 2nd
Earl of Northumberland, by his known wife, Eleanor Neville.
Interestingly, while this dispensation can be used as positive
evidence to prove Anne (Percy) Hungerford's parentage, it can also be
used as negative evidence to prove that Edward Hastings' grandmother,
Alice Camoys, was not the daughter of Elizabeth Mortimer, as sometimes
alleged in print. For had Edward Hastings' great-grandmother been
Elizabeth Mortimer, there would have been a double 3rd and 3rd degree
kinship between him and Mary Hungerford, not just the one indicated in
the record. As such, I have since removed Alice Camoys as the
daughter of Elizabeth Mortimer from the manuscript of the forthcoming
book, Plantagenet Ancestry.
I'm thankful to Chris Phillips for bringing the aspect of the negative
evidence regarding the alleged Camoys-Mortimer descent to my
attention. I also wish to thank Robert Battle who e-mailed me a
transcript of the above dispensation for my use for the newsgroup. As
usual, collegiality has provided the desired answers that we all seek.
Comments invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Douglas Richardson
Given the newly discovered marriage agreement dated 1474 and the papal
dispensation for marriage dated 1475, it seems to me that the editor
of Complete Peerage is wrong to assume that Edward Hastings and Mary
Hungerford were married after 8 June 1478, when Mary's "wardship and
marriage" were granted to Edward's father, Sir William Hastings, Lord
Hastings. Clearly this couple were contracted to marry several years
before the 1478 date. Rather, it appears the only thing we know for
certain is that the actual marriage took place prior to 18 February
1480/1, when Edward and Mary had license of entry into her
great-grandmother's inheritance. Mary was approximately 14 years old
in 1481, which is the typical age a young girl in this period would
have formalized her marriage contract to her betrothed spouse.
Nonetheless, this is yet another example of a guardian marrying his
ward to his own child, as we earlier saw was the case with Sir Edward
Stradling and his ward, Maurice Dennis, Esquire.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0404...@posting.google.com>...
Brad Verity
[snip]
> it seems to me that the editor
> of Complete Peerage is wrong to assume that Edward Hastings and Mary
> Hungerford were married after 8 June 1478, when Mary's "wardship and
> marriage" were granted to Edward's father, Sir William Hastings, Lord
> Hastings.
> Nonetheless, this is yet another example of a guardian marrying his
> ward to his own child, as we earlier saw was the case with Sir Edward
> Stradling and his ward, Maurice Dennis, Esquire.
'We' didn't see this earlier at all - you, of course, have the right
to see whatever you wish.
If CP is correct in its reading (and I've learned that CP often
misreads Chancery documents) that whatever document it was dated 8
June 1478 indeed granted both wardship and marriage of Mary Hungerford
to William, Lord Hastings, then it is also correct to interpret this
to mean that Mary was not married to Edward prior to that date, even
though a contract and negotiations seemed to be underway as early as
1474.
'We' can interpret this to mean that Hastings was granted custody of
Mary Hungerford in 1478 with the intention of marrying the heiress to
his own heir because the marriage of Mary was included in the grant of
wardship [of the Hungerford lands], per CP.
In July 1422, Sir Edward Stradling was granted wardship of the lands
of Sir Gilbert Dennys. Full stop. No marriage of the heir was
included. 'We' cannot conclude from this that the wardship was
granted to Stradling in order to marry his daughter to the Dennys
heir, nor can we conclude that the wardship was granted to Stradling
because his daughter was already married to the heir. There's not
enough evidence to determine either scenario.
Nor can we conclude that the Stradling first wife of Maurice Dennys
was the daughter of Sir Edward Stradling, since the only evidence that
makes this statement - a 17th century manuscript copy of a Visitation
pedigree - conflicts in the wife's given name with an earlier
16th-century Dennys family pedigree, calling into some doubt the
reliability of the 17th-century evidence.
You have demonstrated sufficient evidence that a Hastings/Hungerford
marriage was being planned prior to Lord Hastings receiving wardship
and marriage of the Hungerford heiress in 1478 to conclude that this
is an example of a guardian marrying a ward to his child.
You have not provided any concrete evidence that a Stradling/Dennys
marriage was being planned or occurred prior or subsequent to Edward
Stradling receiving wardship of the Dennys lands (but not the marriage
of the heir) in 1422, though pedigrees from a century or two later
indicate that some form of Stradling/Dennys marriage probably did
occur. You cannot then conclude that the Stradling/Dennys match is
another example of a guardian marrying a ward to his child.
Cheers, -----Brad
richard browning
not made it through the gateway to the Google archives, after more
than 4h hours. I assume that it also did not make it to the SGM
newsgroup. I apologize to those who receive a duplicate message.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 05:25
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Marriage of Edward
> Hastings and Mary Hungerford
>
>
> Dear Everyone ~
>
> Given the newly discovered marriage agreement dated 1474 and the papal
> dispensation for marriage dated 1475, it seems to me that the editor
> of Complete Peerage is wrong to assume that Edward Hastings and Mary
> Hungerford were married after 8 June 1478, when Mary's "wardship and
> marriage" were granted to Edward's father, Sir William Hastings, Lord
> Hastings. Clearly this couple were contracted to marry several years
> before the 1478 date. Rather, it appears the only thing we know for
> certain is that the actual marriage took place prior to 18 February
> 1480/1, when Edward and Mary had license of entry into her
> great-grandmother's inheritance. Mary was approximately 14 years old
> in 1481, which is the typical age a young girl in this period would
> have formalized her marriage contract to her betrothed spouse.
>
> Nonetheless, this is yet another example of a guardian marrying his
> ward to his own child, as we earlier saw was the case with Sir Edward
> Stradling and his ward, Maurice Dennis, Esquire.
>
<snip to avoid truncation>
Douglas,
As point to further my medieval education in these matters, would a
father be granted "wardship and marriage" of a minor who was already
married his minor son? Is there evidence that this occurred in other
families? I can understand being granted wardship, but if they were
already married, (not just having a contract in place), why would
granting the marriage be necessary? Can the marriage of a married
person (not divorced), whose spouse is still living be granted?
If I understand the situation, Thomas Hungerford and William Hastings
were negotiating their children's marriage as early as 1474 and
recognized that a papal disposition would be necessary by 1475.
According to you data then Mary would have been approximately 7 and 8
at these times respectively. By your own admission she would have
been 11, a little young to have been married, by 1478. I grant you
that it is not impossible, but again why the grant of marriage and not
just the wardship?
As to your comment concerning Stradling/Dennis, I was under the
impression that we had agreed to disagree until further evidence was
provided.
Thanks in advance for you clarification and assistance.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, Tx.
Douglas Richardson
You've asked a rather technical question. It's possible that the
grant of the marriage of Mary Hungerford to Lord Hastings was a
clerical error, especially since we know Lord Hastings contracted for
his son, Edward, to marry Mary Hungerford long before Lord Hastings
was granted Mary's wardship and marriage. Still, I know of another
case where the wardship and marriage were granted together, when the
ward in question was already contracted to marry someone. So, perhaps
this matter is more complex than we suppose.
My chief point is that Mary Hungerford's marriage to Edward Hastings
fits the pattern of a guardian marrying his ward to his own child.
This is a very common pattern in this time period. If you wish to see
additional examples of this pattern, I'm sure posters on the newsgroup
can oblige you with such evidence.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
richard....@direcway.com (richard browning) wrote in message news:<27058bd4.04043...@posting.google.com>...
> Douglas,
>
> As point to further my medieval education in these matters, would a
> father be granted "wardship and marriage" of a minor who was already
> married his minor son? Is there evidence that this occurred in other
> families? I can understand being granted wardship, but if they were
> already married, (not just having a contract in place), why would
> granting the marriage be necessary? Can the marriage of a married
> person (not divorced), whose spouse is still living be granted?
>
> If I understand the situation, Thomas Hungerford and William Hastings
> were negotiating their children's marriage as early as 1474 and
> recognized that a papal disposition would be necessary by 1475.
> According to you data then Mary would have been approximately 7 and 8
> at these times respectively. By your own admission she would have
> been 11, a little young to have been married, by 1478. I grant you
> that it is not impossible, but again why the grant of marriage and not
> just the wardship?
>
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> From: Douglas Richardson [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 14:51
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Marriage of Edward
> Hastings and Mary Hungerford
>
>
>
> You've asked a rather technical question. It's possible that the
> grant of the marriage of Mary Hungerford to Lord Hastings was a
> clerical error, especially since we know Lord Hastings contracted for
> his son, Edward, to marry Mary Hungerford long before Lord Hastings
> was granted Mary's wardship and marriage. Still, I know of another
> case where the wardship and marriage were granted together, when the
> ward in question was already contracted to marry someone. So, perhaps
> this matter is more complex than we suppose.
>
> My chief point is that Mary Hungerford's marriage to Edward Hastings
> fits the pattern of a guardian marrying his ward to his own child.
> This is a very common pattern in this time period. If you wish to see
> additional examples of this pattern, I'm sure posters on the newsgroup
> can oblige you with such evidence.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas,
I will try to address you response logically. Yes it is possible that
the grant of marriage was a clerical error, and would definitely be if
they were already married, but what evidence have we seen to support
this. Without further evidence and given your estimate of the age of
the bride, I would consider this improbable. I would take the cleric at
his word that Lord Hastings was granted Mary's wardship and marriage.
I am sure there are many other cases where the wardship and marriage
were granted to the father of the surviving minor, and involved in a
contract of marriage. What I would find more unusual in a case where a
contract of marriage was involved is the marriage of a surviving minor
being granted to someone else. Are you aware of any case where this has
happened? Would the granting of marriage of a minor, invalidate an
existing contract of marriage?
Also, what is the meaning of your statement that this matter may be more
complex than we thought. It seem pretty straight forward if all the
information we have seen is correct, a man was given the wardship and
marriage of a minor that was contracted to marry his son.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post. I based my assumption as
to the purpose of the post on the title and your statement that CP was
in error. I actually thought you were trying to present evidence to
support the statement that CP was "wrong to assume that Edward Hastings
and Mary Hungerford were married after 8 June 1478, when Mary's
"wardship and marriage" were granted to Edward's father, Sir William
Hastings, Lord Hastings.", and also provide additional information
concerning the contract of marriage and the papal dispensation. I was
trying to understand the logic you used to declare the CP wrong. I am
trying to learn more about this period and how the documents, contracts
and edicts relate to genealogy and don't really learn unless I can
understand the logic behind a conclusion. I guess the comes from having
an engineering background. I didn't realize that the point was merely
to provide one more case where a gardian married his child to his ward.
I would still like to know what information has convinced you that CP is
wrong in establishing the earliest date of marriage for Edward and Mary,
as I can't see anything in your posts that indicates that the marriage
occurred earlier, or anything that actually clarifies the date given by
CP.
As to a guardian marrying his ward to his own child being a common
pattern in this time period, I have no doubt about it. I do not need
any further evidence that this occurred.
Thank you for your continuing effort in helping me understand this
period.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Douglas Richardson
No, there is nothing to indicate exactly when Mary Hungerford and
Edward Hastings were married. However, it was customary for high born
women in this period to marry around aged 14. Mary was aged 7 in
1475, 8 in 1476, 11 in 1478. Since Mary was approximately aged 14 in
1481 when she and Edward were granted livery of her
great-grandmother's lands, it seems a good bet that the marriage took
place about that time. But we really don't know for sure. All we can
say is that they were married in or before 1481.
Actually a better limit for the earliest date for the marriage is not
8 June 1478 when Lord Hastings had the grant of Mary's wardship and
marriage, but rather 25 June 1478, when the inquisition post mortem
was taken of the estates of Mary's great-grandmother, Margaret
Hungerford, Lady Botreaux [see Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 622,
footnote b]. According to Complete Peerage, Mary is styled "Mary
Hungerford" in this record. No mention is made of any marriage to
Edward Hastings in the inquisition.
As for the possibility of clerical or technical error in the granting
of Mary's marriage with her wardship to her father-in-law in 1478, I
run into human errors in medieval legal documents on an occasional
basis. I find, for example, they often quarrelled over misspelled
names in writs. I also find mistakes in modern databases such as A2A
and PROCAT catalogues. Has anything changed in all these centuries?
I doubt it. I used to work in the title insurance industry. My boss
told me that about 1% of modern deeds have a problem with them. I
imagine that the same percentage is true with medieval title
documents. What is the old saying - "To err is human, to forgive is
divine." The human race still makes mistakes. To forgive is still
divine.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bro...@anet-dfw.com ("Richard C. Browning, Jr.") wrote in message news:<000001c42f04$4ebd73f0$8a0c020a@MyNotbook>...
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> From: Douglas Richardson [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 22:21
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Hastings and Mary Hungerford
>
>
Dear Douglas,
Thank you for helping me understand. I believe the better phrase for
establishing a marriage date would be between 25 June 1478 and 18
February 1480/1
As to the awarding the marriage along with the wardship to Lord
Hastings, if you think as do I, that the marriage didn't take place
until later, then the grant of marriage would only be confirming the
contract, one to which one of the two parties entering into it could no
longer attest. I still cannot see why the reference to a clerical or
even a technical error. I understand the propensity for error, but
assuming an error without a reason is also a mistake. Do you have other
information concerning this that would indicate that was no grant of
marriage, or is it only that there was an existing contract for the two
minors involved? Could be that Lord Hastings was only ensuring the
marriage would occur and that there would be no future problem in any
inheritance.
Again, Thank you for your help in furthering my understanding.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
The other day I ended my response to this post with a couple of
questions concerning the grant of marriage of Mary Hungerford the Lord
Hastings and a possible clecrical error. As I am still trying to
understand the use of grants of wardship and marriage and contracts of
marriage, I would appreciate an answer to these questions. In case you
might have missed my post I repeat the questions below.
Do you have other information concerning this that would indicate that
was no grant of marriage, or is it only that there was an existing
contract for the two minors involved?
Could be that Lord Hastings was only ensuring the marriage would occur
and that there would be no future problem in any inheritance?
Thank you for your help.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 22:21
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com