A2A Catalogue: Joan Courtenay, wife of Nicholas Carew and Robert Vere
Douglas Richardson
The following three items dated 1461 were recently found in the
helpful online A2A catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
They concern a settlement made in 1461 by Joan Courtenay (died 1501),
wife successively of Sir Nicholas Carew, Baron Carew (died 1448), and
Sir Robert Vere (living 1475), of Haccombe, Devon. The manors listed
in these documents appear to involve properties which were Joan
Courtenay's own inheritance, the chief property being Haccombe, Devon.
Of these manors, three of them (Roseworthy, Bejowan, and Tregenna)
were given before 1473 to Joan's younger son by her 2nd marriage, John
Vere, Esquire, who died before 1488. These three manors were
subsequently held by John Vere's descendants, the Earls of Oxford.
Interestingly, in the first document below, Joan Courtenay is styled
widow of Sir Robert Vere, and, in the latter two documents, she is
styled his wife. I believe the latter two documents are correct, as
elsewhere I've found a record which indicates that Sir Robert Vere was
living in 1475.
For interest sake, I've listed below the names of the New World
colonists who descend from Lady Joan (Courtenay) (Carew) Vere:
l. Mary Launce (descends from Carew marriage)
2. William Bladen (descends from Vere marriage).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
- - - - - - - - - - -
A2A CATALOGUE ITEMS
Item #1:
Devon Record Office: Buckland in the Moor, Reference: 74/9/2/2 -
Creation dates: 12 November 1461; Thurs. after St. Martin; 1 Edward IV
Scope and Content
BUCKLAND in the MOOR; HACCOMBE; MILTON, South; PLYMOUTH (St. Andrew);
RINGMORE (? Ermington 100); SHOBROOKE; TAWTON, South (all Devon)
ANTONY; EGLOSHAYLE; GWINEAR; KEA; ST.BREOCK (all Cornwall)
Charter
Johanna, late the wife of Robert Veer, knt. and who was the wife of
Nicholas Carrew, knt.
To
Nicholas Gosse and William Godde, clerks, Henry Prywe and John More
Manors of Haccomb, Ryngmore, Milton, Lyham, Manedon, [? in St.Andrew,
Plymouth], Combhall, Suthtauton, East antony, Shoggebroke, Landegy [?
Landegea in Kea], Wychebande, Wydebrygge [in Egloshayle and St.
Breock], Bokelond, Bledevagh, Roseworthy [in Gwinear], Bosew,
Tregennewe and all her lands, tenements
To the use of Nicholas Carew, esq., son of Nicholas Carew, knt. and
his heirs, then to Hugh Carew and heirs, etc.
Item #2:
Plymouth and West Devon Record Office: Woollcombe of Hemerdon,
Reference: 710/53
Creation dates: 12 November 1461
Scope and Content
Power of attorney
1 -, wife of Robert Veer, knight, and -, widow of Nicholas Carew,
knight
2 Thomas (Blatche), clerk and Thomas S[-]
To deliver seisin of manors of Haccomb, Ryngmore, Milton, Lynham,
Manedon, Comblyall, Grantonn, Shortchbroke, Landegy, Wychebaude,
Wydebrygge, Bokelond, Bledevagh, Roseworthy, Bosewen and Treggenewe to
Nicholas Gosse, William Godde, clerks, Henry Drywe and John More
Witnesses: John Dynham, Roger Dynham, his brother, John Boneville,
William Champernon, Walter Ralegh, esqs
Item #3:
Cornwall Record Office: Rashleigh of Menabilly, Tywardreth, Reference:
R/3026,
Creation dates: 12 Nov. 1461
Physical characteristics: (Badly decayed).
Scope and Content
Deed of entail.
Lady Joan, w. of Sir Rob. Vere, late w. of Sir Nich. Carew, decd., to
Nich. Goffe, Wm. Godde, clerk, Hen. Drywe and Jn. More.
Manors of Haccomb, Ryngmore, Milton, Wovedon, Combhall, Bosewen,
Tregennew, Roseworthy, Antony and others.
Brad Verity
> The following three items dated 1461 were recently found in the
> helpful online A2A catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
> They concern a settlement made in 1461 by Joan Courtenay (died 1501),
Douglas,
I don't know what your source is for Joan Courtenay dying in 1501, but
she actually died in 1465.
On 3 August 1465, a writ of diem clausit extremum was issued to the
counties of Cornwall, Worcester, Southampton, Devon and Berkshire for
"Joan late the wife of Robert Veer knight".
This is supported by an entry in the Register of Archbishop Bourchier:
"9 August [1465], Knole. Commission to John Whiteacre, citizen of
Exeter, to administer the goods of the lady Joan Veer, late wife of
Robert Veer, knight, intestate. Inventory by 11 November."
> wife successively of Sir Nicholas Carew, Baron Carew (died 1448), and
> Sir Robert Vere (living 1475), of Haccombe, Devon. The manors listed
> in these documents appear to involve properties which were Joan
> Courtenay's own inheritance, the chief property being Haccombe, Devon.
> Of these manors, three of them (Roseworthy, Bejowan, and Tregenna)
> were given before 1473 to Joan's younger son by her 2nd marriage, John
> Vere, Esquire, who died before 1488. These three manors were
> subsequently held by John Vere's descendants, the Earls of Oxford.
>
> Interestingly, in the first document below, Joan Courtenay is styled
> widow of Sir Robert Vere, and, in the latter two documents, she is
> styled his wife. I believe the latter two documents are correct, as
> elsewhere I've found a record which indicates that Sir Robert Vere was
> living in 1475.
You may wish to check the Calendar of Fine Rolls for the 1470s and
1480s (unfortunately, the volumes covering 1471-1485 are missing from
the UCLA Library) and see if a writ of diem clausit extremum was
issued for Sir Robert Vere.
Cheers, -----Brad
Janet Ariciu
My Friend Sandra Walker received your wonderful book. I got hold for few
minutes and was so glad to read a little about my ancestors.
Thank you for wonderful work.
Janet
marshall kirk
-- makes good nightstand reading.
But make it a solidly constructed nightstand, as this is a big, heavy
book. As a physical artifact, it pleases: durably bound, big pages,
and paper far enough off-white to be easy on the eyes, without seeming
at all dingy. (I originally failed to note, by the way, the several
illustrations.)
Sketches are dense with information, and often approach biography.
(Part of the reason it's good bedtime reading.)
Altho' the lumping together of source citations at the end of each
generation has been censured, I disagree. Two main reasons: first,
altho' it would, in theory, have been possible to key some assertions
to specific sources, such a procedure would not have been possible
with others, which emerge as part of a general pattern of evidence
from many sources. This is what Paul Bulkley -- of whose research I
have no opinion, BTW -- referred to as the 'jigsaw puzzle,' and while
that was predictably derided, the phrase is apropos: genealogy
depends not merely on the teasing of deductions from documents, but on
the induction of patterns from the same -- that is,
pattern-recognition, seeing the big picture. This doesn't seem a very
popular way of looking at things, and few people post here on the
subject, except when alluding to 'circumustantial evidence,' possibly
because it isn't nearly as rule-governed as is deduction, and where
one person sees a mountain, another may see a molehill. Induction is,
however, half of what it means to think, and it's how we form
hypotheses in the first place.----_NCP_ has been cited as superior in
its citational style, but IIRC -- perhaps I don't -- _NCP_ was the
work of many compilers over a period of decades. For one man, such an
approach doesn't seem feasible.
Second, my reaction to the complaint that one is forced to go thru a
great many citations to find the basis for an assertion is the same as
Gary's. As we shouted in chorus, "GOOD!" People *should* go thru all
the sources, to judge the validity of a proposed connection for
themselves. I can think of few better ways to gain an understanding
of the materials and techniques of medieval genealogy than a steady
regimen of such exercise.----It may be retorted, "But I don't have
access to all those sources!" While I sympathize, a cruel fact of
life is that if you really don't have such access, *via* either a
university or genealogical library or the financial wherewithal to
hire researchers and/or order many documents, what you can accomplish
in medieval genealogy is quite limited. (And I speak as one who
knows, from personal experience.) Again, one of Gary's dicta comes to
mind: "If you want to do genealogy, don't live in Keokuk! Live in
Boston, or better, yet, Salt Lake City!"
One other point about those citations: I often have genealogical
questions that have nothing directly to do with Doug's lines. Quite
typically, however, I can find a place in his book where the family
I'm interested in does pop up, and I usually find a slug of helpful
sources listed at that point. Had I had, a decade back, his array of
sources on the Lumleys, I'd have been spared much time and effort.
This is thus an excellent research tool.
I've followed this genre of publications from Weis's early efforts,
thru WLS, Faris, and Richardson. (With a few unfortunate
side-developments, such as _RFC_.) Improvement has been steady --
and, when you look at _PA3_, *massive*. Are there errors? Almost
certainly; _NCP_ has a good many errors, too. *I* make mistakes.
*Everybody* who posts here makes mistakes. Any book that contains, at
a minimum estimate, 100,000 stated facts will have a few errors.
They'll be noted, and corrected. The *process* continues, and the
results get better and better. Doug's book is the best of its kind,
and I deeply appreciate his time, labor, and expense.
mon...@getgoin.net ("Janet Ariciu") wrote in message news:<005b01c44890$663ed1e0$1171a00c@janety74ccy4ld>...
Douglas Richardson
This looks very good - almost concrete in fact. Also, the statement
that Lady Joan Vere was "late the wife" of Sir Robert Vere means she
was his widow at the time of her death in 1465. If it can proved that
Sir Robert Vere died before 1461, it will mean that two of the three
items I cited in the A2A Catalogue will need to be re-checked and
corrected. Had Sir Robert Vere been living in 1461, it seems odd to
me that his wife would settle her properties without his involvement
and consent.
On the other hand, there is a secondary source on the Carew family
which states that Lady Joan Vere was living 26 May 1501, being
mentioned in the will of her son, William Carew. Also, I note that
Dr. Faris states that Joan was living 24 Jan. 1488, but he does not
provide his source for this statement.
When I have a chance, I'll check William Carew's will and see what
else I can find. On the whole, I would think you are correct that
Joan died in 1465 and that the context of Joan's mention in her son,
William Carew's will has been misunderstood. As for Sir Robert Vere,
I know for certain that he was living in 1450, as he obtained a
license to marry his wife, Joan, in that year.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.04060...@posting.google.com>...
Peter Stewart
> Dear Brad ~
>
> This looks very good - almost concrete in fact. Also, the statement
> that Lady Joan Vere was "late the wife" of Sir Robert Vere means she
> was his widow at the time of her death in 1465.
No, it doesn't mean this - "late the wife" means only that she was no
longer Sir Robert's wife, no matter which of them was "late" at the
time in the sense of mortality, as obviously the marriage was over
when either spouse died.
"The late wife" on the other hand would mean that she specifically had
died, just as "the late widow" would mean that she had died after her
husband.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
mkk...@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote in message news:<1c74a9e5.04060...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> Altho' the lumping together of source citations at the end of each
> generation has been censured, I disagree. Two main reasons: first,
> altho' it would, in theory, have been possible to key some assertions
> to specific sources,
Surely it would be possible - and indeed quite easy - in practice, and
not just in theory.
> such a procedure would not have been possible
> with others, which emerge as part of a general pattern of evidence
> from many sources.
And precisely how are these cases differentiated in PA3, as in a
scholarly work they clearly should be?
> This is what Paul Bulkley -- of whose research I
> have no opinion, BTW
What research is that? Nil, as we have seen - but then such a mere
bagatelle as non-existence doesn't normally stop your having opinions
and expressing these at length.
> -- referred to as the 'jigsaw puzzle,' and while
> that was predictably derided, the phrase is apropos: genealogy
> depends not merely on the teasing of deductions from documents, but on
> the induction of patterns from the same -- that is,
> pattern-recognition, seeing the big picture.
People are who they are, and were related as they were, in particular,
not in general under the alleged pattern of some imaginary "big
picture". The accretion of probabilities may indeed contribute to a
speculative filiation - but what use is this in scholarly terms if the
reader can find no means of distinction from more certain information?
> This doesn't seem a very
> popular way of looking at things, and few people post here on the
> subject, except when alluding to 'circumustantial evidence,' possibly
> because it isn't nearly as rule-governed as is deduction, and where
> one person sees a mountain, another may see a molehill. Induction is,
> however, half of what it means to think, and it's how we form
> hypotheses in the first place.----_NCP_ has been cited as superior in
> its citational style, but IIRC -- perhaps I don't -- _NCP_ was the
> work of many compilers over a period of decades. For one man, such an
> approach doesn't seem feasible.
Why? Is one man not capable of keeping a record of his own alleged
researches? If he is depending on predecessors, why can't he smiply
cite their work and rest on their laurels? This would seem a good deal
more honest than claiming, for instance, to have provided Dr Faris
with a line for which _Gallia christiana_ was cited, and then
demonstrating by ignorance that the purported "researcher" had never
personally opened that work.
> Second, my reaction to the complaint that one is forced to go thru a
> great many citations to find the basis for an assertion is the same as
> Gary's. As we shouted in chorus, "GOOD!" People *should* go thru all
> the sources, to judge the validity of a proposed connection for
> themselves. I can think of few better ways to gain an understanding
> of the materials and techniques of medieval genealogy than a steady
> regimen of such exercise.
I can - the reader could go and find the sources for himself or
herself in the first place. This would be far more strenuous &
beneficial exercise, and would save the purchase price of PA3.
> ----It may be retorted, "But I don't have
> access to all those sources!" While I sympathize, a cruel fact of
> life is that if you really don't have such access, *via* either a
> university or genealogical library or the financial wherewithal to
> hire researchers and/or order many documents, what you can accomplish
> in medieval genealogy is quite limited.
And if you do hire researchers, what you may accomplish is nil - they
do it for you. If you are going to undertake it for yourself, why use
PA3 as a crib or finding aid when we know that the author over-uses a
limited range of often outdated secondary works, or partially
superceded editions of primary sources such as Rymer (in preference,
for instance, for some evidence of kings' kinship statements to Pierre
Chaplais' 1964 edition of early diplomatic documents held by the PRO).
> (And I speak as one who
> knows, from personal experience.)
Well, you often seem to speak primarily as one who speaks just for the
sake of it, without applying commonsense first.
> Again, one of Gary's dicta comes to
> mind: "If you want to do genealogy, don't live in Keokuk! Live in
> Boston, or better, yet, Salt Lake City!"
But this precious Gary doesn't DO genealogy - by his own reported
admission he just compiles other people's work. Why on earth couldn't
he do that in Keokuk?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> Comments interspersed:
>
> mkk...@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote in message news:<1c74a9e5.04060...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > mind: "If you want to do genealogy, don't live in Keokuk! Live in
> > Boston, or better, yet, Salt Lake City!"
>
> But this precious Gary doesn't DO genealogy - by his own reported
> admission he just compiles other people's work. Why on earth couldn't
> he do that in Keokuk?
>
> Peter Stewart
"Precious" Gary isn't a Keokuk kinda guy. That's why.
Peter Stewart
Once again you can't comprehend everyday English - the question was why
COULDN'T he do his work in Keokuk, not why DOESN'T he.
But if you will try to practice genealogy working from mostly English
sources without recognising a difference between the adverbial usage in
"late the wife" and the adjectival in "the late wife", I suppose we
can't expect you to distinguish between two plainly different verbs.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > p_m_s...@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:<88abeaa.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>Comments interspersed:
> >>
> >>mkk...@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote in message news:<1c74a9e5.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Again, one of Gary's dicta comes to
> >>>mind: "If you want to do genealogy, don't live in Keokuk! Live in
> >>>Boston, or better, yet, Salt Lake City!"
> >>
> >>But this precious Gary doesn't DO genealogy - by his own reported
> >>admission he just compiles other people's work. Why on earth couldn't
> >>he do that in Keokuk?
> >>
> >>Peter Stewart
> >
> >
> > "Precious" Gary isn't a Keokuk kinda guy. That's why.
>
> Once again you can't comprehend everyday English - the question was why
> COULDN'T he do his work in Keokuk, not why DOESN'T he.
>
Gary doesn't fit into a small town like Keokuk for the simple reason
that he is an international treasure. He really is "precious." When
people visit the library here in Salt Lake City, the person who is
named most often by average genealogists as the one who has helped
them the most is Gary Boyd Roberts. I hear his name mentioned all the
time. I have no doubt that many people here on the newsgroup have
similarly been helped by Gary Boyd Roberts at some point in their
genealogical research. I know I have.
Douglas Richardson
With respect to your earlier post regarding the alleged death of Joan
(Courtenay) (Carew) Vere in 1485, I find that Joan was still living in
1488, when John Eweyn of Ayssh (in Stoke Fleming), Devon was pardoned
for not appearing in court to answer Joan late wife of Robert Veer,
knight, touching a trespass [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1485–1494 (1914): 247]. Joan was presumably still living in 1501,
when she was named in her son, William Carew's will.
As for Sir Robert Vere, I show that he was living as late as 12 May
1468 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1467–1477 (1900): 72]. I
presume he was a Lancastrian supporter, as I find he served as a
justice of the peace for Devonshire in 1455, 1457–1458, but not
afterwards. This would make sense, as he was chamberlain to Henry
Holand, Duke of Exeter, whose support for the Lancastrian house is
well known. Sir Robert Vere was evidently deceased in or before 1488,
when his widow, Joan, occurs in the pardon record given above.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.04060...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
post below. I've decided to repost it with the correct date to avoid
unnecessary confusion. DR
Dear Brad ~
With respect to your earlier post regarding the alleged death of Joan
(Courtenay) (Carew) Vere in 1465, I find that Joan was still living in
brad verity
>As for Sir Robert Vere, I show that he was living as late as 12 May
>1468 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 14671477 (1900): 72].
From Patent Rolls: "12 May 1468, Westminster. [Pardon of outlawry to] John
Bynde of the parish of Lansalwys, co. Cornwall, 'yoman,' for not appearing
in the court of the late king to answer Robert de Veer, knight, touching a
debt of 53s. 4d. Devon."
Douglas, you really need to read the entries rather than just cite to them.
This, again, refers to an 'outlawry' committed by Bynde that took place in
the reign "of the late king", which would be Henry VI, which means this took
place before 1461. So the only one who we can deduce to be alive from this
1468 entry is John Bynde.
>I
>presume he was a Lancastrian supporter, as I find he served as a
>justice of the peace for Devonshire in 1455, 14571458, but not
>afterwards.
This may be due to his dying between 1458 and 1461 (when his wife Joan, who
it seems, did indeed survive him, was styled his widow in the A2A Catalogue
abstract you posted).
Cheers, ----Brad
Peter Stewart
>> From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
>
>
>> As for Sir Robert Vere, I show that he was living as late as 12 May
>> 1468 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 14671477 (1900): 72].
>
>
> From Patent Rolls: "12 May 1468, Westminster. [Pardon of outlawry to]
> John Bynde of the parish of Lansalwys, co. Cornwall, 'yoman,' for not
> appearing in the court of the late king to answer Robert de Veer,
> knight, touching a debt of 53s. 4d. Devon."
>
> Douglas, you really need to read the entries rather than just cite to
> them. This, again, refers to an 'outlawry' committed by Bynde that took
> place in the reign "of the late king", which would be Henry VI, which
> means this took place before 1461. So the only one who we can deduce to
> be alive from this 1468 entry is John Bynde.
Perhaps one of the supporters of the trustworthiness of PA3 will explain
to the newsgroup how they think readers can distinguish when Richardson
has mistaken his evidence, as above, from when he has got it right -
surely I'm not the only SGM participant who is completely at a loss to
understand the disregard of others for such frequent & fundamental
blunders in his posts.
Peter Stewart