Maud de Verdun, wife of John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Wilton
Douglas Richardson
Below is a copy of the fine by which Eleanor de Bohun, widow of John
de Verdun, settled a "messuage" in Debden, Essex on her daughter,
Maud, and son-in-law, John de Grey, in Trinity 5 Edward I (1276-1277).
This property was evidently part of the property which earlier formed
Eleanor's own maritagium. That Maud was Eleanor's daughter is
indicated by the fact that the property was settled on John and Maud
and "the heirs of Maud."
The property conveyed may not have been the entirety of Eleanor de
Bohun's land holdings in Debden, for in 1328, Eleanor's grandson,
Henry de Grey, 3rd Lord Grey of Wilton, sued his brother, Roger de
Grey, lst Lord Grey of Ruthin, regarding the "manor" of Weldebernes in
Debden, Essex [Reference: Index of Placita de Banco, 1327-1328 Pt. 1
(PRO, Lists and Indexes, No. 32) (repr. 1963):143]. This suit was
triggered by John de Grey's attempt to settle part of the family
holdings on his younger son, Roger, which action was challenged by his
older son, Henry, following John de Grey's death. The 1328 suit
suggests that both Henry and Roger were sons of Maud de Verdun, as the
property in Debden was settled as noted above on Maud and "her issue."
This correct the badly flawed 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire.
I should add that when I first posted my discovery of the 1276/7 fine,
I was of the impression that John and Maud de Grey were small children
when the fine was recorded. I held this view because Complete Peerage
stated that John was said to be aged 40 at the time of his father's
death in 1308, or born about 1268. However, it now appears that that
John was actually closer to age 50 in 1308, which is indicated by
John's first appearance as an adult in the records in the late 1270's,
as shown by Moor's Knights of Edward I. I have also since located the
Grey pedigree in Blore's History of Rutland which states that John de
Grey married Maud, daughter of John de Verdun. Since Blore never saw
the fine below, it would appear he relied on another source for the
marriage of John and Maud de Grey.
best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Feet of Fines for Essex, vol. 2 (1913-1928), pg. 13:
Date: 5 Edward I. 1276-1277.
68. Trin. John de Grey and Matilda his wife, plaintiffs, the former
by John de Lengareston. Eleanor, who was the wife of John de Verdun,
defendant, by John Fraunceys. One messuage, 412 acres of land, 25
acres of meadow, 152 acres of wood, 29 acres of pasture and 4s. 6d. of
rent with appurtenances in Depedene. Plea of covenant. Defendant
granted to plaintiffs 5 quarters (?) of land with appurtenances in the
same town, to wit, one messuage and 10 acres of land with
appurtenances which Beatrice, who was the wife of Richard Body held in
villenage of defendant in the same town on the day on which this
agreement was made; and likewise all that tenement with appurtenances
which William Aylward, Alfred de Pyriton, Florence who was the wife of
Henry de Snewedon(?), Geoffrey Kyllehog and John Kyllehog held in
villenage of defendant in the said town on the same day, with their
villains, chattels and sequels; plaintiffs and the heirs of Matilda to
hold of the chief lords of that fee, by the services appertaining to
that tenement. This agreement was made in the presence of Beatrice,
William, Alfred, Florence, Geoffrey and John and they ackowledged
themselves to be villains.
Cristopher Nash
be another extremely helpful contrib. Thanks, Douglas.
Cris
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote on 13 Feb 2002 --
--
Bryant Smith
<SNIP>
> Below is a copy of the fine by which Eleanor de Bohun, widow of John
> de Verdun, settled a "messuage" in Debden, Essex on her daughter,
> Maud, and son-in-law, John de Grey, in Trinity 5 Edward I (1276-1277).
Douglas (or anyone), can you explain why, to a lawyer
of the XX-XXI centuries, this "fine" reads more like a
lawsuit than a grant? We have the "grantees" as "plaintiffs,"
the "grantor" as "defendant," both sides [represented] by
[lawyers?], then "plea of covenant" ... then a recital that
"defendant granted ... on the same day on which this agreement
was made ..." and "this agreement was made in the presence of
[the villains described as the tenants of the lands granted]
[who] acknowledged themselves to be villains." Was it customary
in the XIII century to record conveyances in this manner, like
an adversary proceeding, or was there an actual problem of
enforcing a previous agreement? Or is it something like what
we might call a "Quiet Title" action today, intended to bind the
rest of the world?
Thanks
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
Chris Dickinson
>Was it customary in the XIII century to record conveyances in
>this manner, like an adversary proceeding, or was there an
>actual problem of enforcing a previous agreement?
see:
http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/ExternalRequest.asp
?RequestReference=ri2220
[combine the two lines]
Bryant Smith
For convenient future reference, and for the convenience
of other readers, the URL is to a section of the UK
Public Records online catalog, and the introduction to
the section gives a good answer to my original question:
"Fines, or final concords, were conveyances of land by
means of a legal action (normally fictitious after 1300),
that resulted in a copy of the final agreement, or
concord, between the purchaser, known as the querent,
and the seller, known as the deforciant, being filed
with the records of the king's court and open to public
inspection. This final agreement was normally written
out three times on a single sheet of parchment - two
copies side by side and one copy across the bottom of
the sheet, separated by an indented or wavy line. The
purchaser kept one copy, the seller the other and the
final copy - 'the foot of the fine'- was kept by the
court as a central record of the conveyance. It was a
means of having title registered to guard against
subsequent fraud or forgery as copies if this three
piece jig-saw would only fit together if genuine. There
was no legal obligation to have title registered in
this way. Often the fine is one of a series of
conveyancing deeds some of which may give more detail
about the property - such private deeds are less likely
to have survived with the public records."
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
"Chris Dickinson" <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message news:<a4gqro$jn9$1...@paris.btinternet.com>...