Margaret Courtenay - again, please help.
Louise Staley
Please help me with this. I have a theory and I am willing to pay someone
in England to research it but not if it is obviously flawed. I just
need some comfort that I am not proposing something completely beyond
the bounds of possibility before I go and spend many A$ on a few £ to
test it.
Last month there was a discussion about the parents of Margaret Courtenay
who married Theobald Grenville. This proved inconclusive due to a lack of
new documentary proof. However as a result of that discussion I have
tentatively surmised that Margaret was the daughter of Hugh Courtenay
who married Elizabeth de Vere. This does not accord with any published
source however every published source (eg Roskell, the Visitations of
both Cornwall and Devon, Burke (yes I know!)) say she was the daughter
of a Hugh Courtenay. That she was a Courtenay is also noted in passing
in MC 22-10 which is the Grenville line.
1) her son Sir John Grenville was an adult by 1388 (1), meaning he was
born before 1367 so his mother was born before 1351 (2). Margaret
cannot be the daughter of Sir Hugh Courtenay who married Maud Beaumont
in 1417(3) as this Hugh was born after 1358(4).
2) Visitations of Cornwall, pp. 84-85 shows "Sir Theobald Grenvile, kt.
temp. Rich II = Margaret Da. of Hugh Courtenay." It could be any Hugh
Courtenay.
3) another Hugh Courtenay having children in the right period is
Hugh, Earl of Devon who married Margaret Bohun(5). They had 17 children
including a daughter named Margaret who was married as a child to Sir John
Cobham. This Margaret died in 1385, predeceasing her husband(6).
4) Yet another Hugh is Hugh Courtenay who married Margaret
Bryan and Maud Holand(7). This Hugh Courtenay was born around 1350 (too
late to be Margaret's father) and is known to have died s.p. in 1374. On
this theory, the Margaret who married Theobald Grenville would be this
Hugh's sister.
5) the other Hugh Courtenay of the times is Hugh Courtenay, son of
Hugh Courtenay and Margaret Bohun, b 22 Mar 1326 d bef. 2 Sep 1349,
married Elizabeth de Vere before September 1341 and who had one known
child, Hugh Courtenay who married Margaret Bryan and Maud Holand. C.P.
IV, 325. This is the Hugh Courtenay left as a possible father for Margaret.
I would really appreciate any flaws in this being pointed out so I can
start again rather than pursuing a blind alley.
thanks,
Louise
Notes:
(1) Roskell "History of Parliament": according to Roskell, he first
became an MP in Sep 1388. He was knighted before Aug 1386, and married
to Margaret Burghersh (whose birth Roskell estimates at 1376) before
Sep 1391. That he is her son is asserted by Roskell in his article on
Sir John GRENVILLE (d. 1412) of Stow in Kilkhampton, Cornwall and
Bideford, Devon. Sir John, Roskell states, was the son and heir of Sir
Theobald Grenville of Stow and Bideford by Margaret, daughter of Hugh
Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon and Margaret de Bohun, granddaughter of
Edward I.
(2) Assumes Margaret was at least 16 when she had John.
(3) That Hugh Courtenay married Maud Beaumont with licence dated 16
October 1417 appears in Faris p101.
(4) Hugh was the younger son of Edward Courtenay and Emeline Dauney.
Their eldest son Edward "the blind Earl" was born in 1357 so Hugh must
have been born in or after 1358.
(5) That Hugh Courtenay, Earl of Devon married Margaret Bohun appears
in Magna Charta Sureties 126-5, quoting C.P. IV, 324
(6) Margaret Courtenay who married John Cobham appears in C.P.
According to CP, John, 3rd Lord Cobham married "when a minor, and apparently
very young, in 1332-3" Margaret Courtenay, whom CP states was the "1st"
daughter of the 2nd Earl of Devon and Margaret de Bohun. The 3rd Lord
Cobham's parents were married in 1314, and his father the 2nd Lord died 25
Feb 1354/5. Margaret Courtenay, Lady Cobham, died 2 Aug 1385, and was
buried at Cobham. CP states there is a Brass and Monument Inscription for
her. Her husband the 3rd Lord died "at an advanced age (74 years after his
marriage), 10 Jan 1407/8. His brass, probably set up in his lifetime, is in
Cobham Church, but he was buried at the Grey Friars, London." CP cites
'Coll. Top. et Gen., vol. v, p.387' as a source. The 3rd Lord Cobham and
Margaret Courtenay's only surviving child, a daughter Joan, was married in
1362, "contract dated 21 Oct," according to CP. (from a post to soc.gen.med
by Brad Verity 23 Apr 2001)
(7) Hugh Courtenay who married Margaret Bryan and Maud Holand was
the son of Hugh Courtenay and Elizabeth de Vere. Hugh Courtenay
d 20 Feb 1373/74 m (1) by 1361 Margaret de Bryan and (2)after
5 Sep 1363 Maud de Holand. C.P. IV p325. This Hugh must have been
born before June 1350 given his father's death date but more likely
earlier, say 1347 (when his father was 20). So at his marriage to
Margaret de Bryan he would have been aged between 11 and 14. This
Hugh received Papal dispensation to marry Maud de Holand,
C.P. IV p325 on 5 Sep 1363 so Margaret de Bryan must have died
before then, when, according to the reasoning above, Hugh was aged
between 13 and 16. This would make a child from this first marriage
unlikely. C.P. says he died s.p.
brad verity
I think your suggestion is very logical - given the evidence we've uncovered
so far.
I also have thought Sir Hugh Courtenay (one of the original Knights of the
Garter and the eldest son of the 2nd Earl of Devon), and his wife, the
former Lady Elizabeth de Vere, made better candidates as parents for
Margaret Courtenay Grenville, than the 2nd Earl of Devon himself.
Especially when you consider the early death of Sir Hugh in 1349 meant that
his children were likely raised by his parents the Earl and Countess of
Devon.
But there becomes a problem of inheritance. Sir Hugh the Knight of the
Garter was the heir to the Earldom of Devon and the vast majority of the
family estates. When he died in 1349, his only son Hugh then became the
heir apparent of his grandfather the 2nd Earl of Devon. When this younger
Hugh died without issue a few months before his grandfather the Earl, the
next heir was his first cousin Edward Courtenay, who succeeded as 3rd Earl
of Devon.
If Margaret Courtenay Grenville was indeed the daughter of Sir Hugh
Courtenay the Garter Knight, I believe she would have inherited the bulk of
the Courtenay estates after the death of her brother and her grandfather the
2nd Earl of Devon. The title of Earl of Devon would pass to the next heir
male (and it did), but the lands would have passed to Margaret and her sons,
since she would have been the only surviving descendant of Garter Knight Sir
Hugh Courtenay, the 2nd Earl of Devon's ELDEST son?
If there were any inquisitions post mortem taken on the 2nd Earl of Devon or
on his grandson Hugh (son of the Garter Knight and brother-in-law of King
Richard II), they could probably prove definitively if Margaret Courtenay
Grenville was Garter Knight Hugh's daughter? I don't know how to find out
if there were inquisitions, but maybe someone else from the list can shed
more light?
On another note, I still intend to look up the Calendar Rolls next time I'm
at the UCLA Library to see if our Sir Theobald Grenville appears in any of
them.
Take care and good luck with the search! --------Brad Verity
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Louise Staley" <sta...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> Please help me with this. I have a theory and I am willing to pay someone
> in England to research it but not if it is obviously flawed. I just
> need some comfort that I am not proposing something completely beyond
> the bounds of possibility before I go and spend many A$ on a few £ to
> test it.
>
> Last month there was a discussion about the parents of Margaret Courtenay
> who married Theobald Grenville. This proved inconclusive due to a lack of
> new documentary proof. However as a result of that discussion I have
> tentatively surmised that Margaret was the daughter of Hugh Courtenay
> who married Elizabeth de Vere. This does not accord with any published
> source however every published source (eg Roskell, the Visitations of
> both Cornwall and Devon, Burke (yes I know!)) say she was the daughter
> of a Hugh Courtenay. That she was a Courtenay is also noted in passing
> in MC 22-10 which is the Grenville line.
>
> 1) her son Sir John Grenville was an adult by 1388 (1), meaning he was
> born before 1367 so his mother was born before 1351 (2). Margaret
> cannot be the daughter of Sir Hugh Courtenay who married Maud Beaumont
> in 1417(3) as this Hugh was born after 1358(4).
>
> 2) Visitations of Cornwall, pp. 84-85 shows "Sir Theobald Grenvile, kt.
> temp. Rich II = Margaret Da. of Hugh Courtenay." It could be any Hugh
> Courtenay.
I have just acquired a CDROM with facsimiles of the pages of Vivian's
Visitations of Cornwall; I wonder if it is the same animal as yours?
Anyhow the pages for Grenvile are 190-197. On page 190 your quotation
in italics has after it "Earl of Devon" in normal type. As you probably
know Vivian used the convention of italics to indicate items on the
Visitation record itself. The normal type he may have found from
anywhere and you know he has a (probably) real fact when he quotes a
surviving document. Much of the Grenvile record for that period is in
italics and thus lifted from the Visitation books.
The Courtenay record for that period in the same volume has a host of
detail errors, mostly in who was or was not KG (compared with Crace
Holmes' "The Order of the Garter") and in the wife of Hugh
(c.1327-1373/4), the eldest son of the 2nd Courtenay earl.
Odd comments by Vivian throughout the volume indicate that he was
wrestling with the Visitation records as they were so internally
inconsistent and, in places, at variance with the facts. Regrettably
the Visitation records seem unreliable for generations that were more
than a couple away from the person who signed the record.
Possibly Vivian was aware that he had not squared the circle with his
account of Margaret Courtenay, wife of Theobald Grenvile. His comments
elsewhere show that he did indeed refer from one record to another (see
the footnote on page 267 on Killigrew). A further thought is that
Margaret seems to have married slightly beneath her position as daughter
of an earl, judging by the majority of husbands for Courtenay daughters.
This all leads me to a suspicion that Margaret may have been
illegitimate, was acknowledged by her father and had an unknown mother.
<snip of an interesting discussion of related matters>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org