UFFORD/FITZALAN (CONNECTING THE DOTS)
Bryant Smith
have been a grandson of Robert de Ufford ca 1298 - 1369
m. Margaret of Norwich. I have for them only two sons,
Robert (m. Elizabeth Botetourt) dvp dsp bef 29 Jun 1368
and William about whom I have nothing but the name.
Was this William the father of Robert m. Eleanor?
Anyone have any vital statistics on him? If he
was not the father of Robert m Eleanor, then who was?
Thanks
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
Robert O'Connor
"Bryant Smith" <ski...@racsa.co.cr> wrote in message
news:a9b2ce02.01110...@posting.google.com...
Yes he was the son of William, 2nd Earl of Suffolk.
From my own files I have the following:
3.William, 2nd Earl of Suffolk., M Joan (Died 1375), d. of Edward, 1st Baron
Montagu, & his wife Alice, d. of Thomas "of Brotherton", Earl of Norfolk.
Died 1381. He had issue:
(Ref: CP XII:1, pp 432-4)
1a.Robert, M Eleanor, d. of Richard Fitz Alan, 3rd Earl of Arundel (See FITZ
ALAN). Died 1375. s.p. (Ref: Leese, p 127)
2a.William.
3a.Thomas.
4a.Edmund. (Ref: Leese, p 127)
5a.Margaret.
I can forward my full Ufford file to you should you wish.
Best wishes
Robert O'Connor
Christchurch
New Zealand
malinda
Thomas de HOLAND Earl of Kent (desc of Edward I, Henry III and King John).
They are ancestors of President George Washington via
Col John Washington
~malinda
Robert O'Connor wrote:
> "Bryant Smith" <ski...@racsa.co.cr> wrote in message
> news:a9b2ce02.01110...@posting.google.com...
Bryant Smith
> "Bryant Smith" <ski...@racsa.co.cr> wrote in message
> news:a9b2ce02.01110...@posting.google.com...
> > Anyone have any vital statistics on him? If he
> > was not the father of Robert m Eleanor, then who was?
> Yes he was the son of William, 2nd Earl of Suffolk.
>
> From my own files I have the following:
>
> 3.William, 2nd Earl of Suffolk., M Joan (Died 1375), d. of Edward, 1st Baron
> Montagu, & his wife Alice, d. of Thomas "of Brotherton", Earl of Norfolk.
> Died 1381. He had issue:
>
> (Ref: CP XII:1, pp 432-4)
>
> 1a.Robert, M Eleanor, d. of Richard Fitz Alan, 3rd Earl of Arundel (See FITZ
> ALAN). Died 1375. s.p. (Ref: Leese, p 127)
> 2a.William.
> 3a.Thomas.
> 4a.Edmund. (Ref: Leese, p 127)
> 5a.Margaret.
>
> I can forward my full Ufford file to you should you wish.
>
Thank you very much. I blushingly accept your over-generous offer.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
> Alice (also d/o Richard Fitz Alan, 3rd Earl of Arundel) married
> Thomas de HOLAND Earl of Kent (desc of Edward I, Henry III and King John).
>
> They are ancestors of President George Washington via
> Col John Washington
>
> ~malinda
>
eight times removed. You seem focussed on G Washington lately.
If you're a Washington buff you might enjoy the piquant passage
in Gore Vidal's _The Smithsonian Institution_ in which the First
President challenges F.D.R. over the causes of WWII. It's
vintage Vidal, and better history than Hume.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
> Robert O'Connor wrote:
>
> > "Bryant Smith" <ski...@racsa.co.cr> wrote in message
> > news:a9b2ce02.01110...@posting.google.com...
> > > Robert de Ufford, dsp, m Eleanor Fitzalan, is said to
> > > have been a grandson of Robert de Ufford ca 1298 - 1369
> > > m. Margaret of Norwich.
[SNIP]
Douglas Richardson
Robert de Ufford's wife, Eleanor, was actually the daughter of Richard
de Arundel (or Fitz Alan), 4th Earl of Arundel, by his wife, Elizabeth
de Bohun. As such, she was granddaughter (not daughter) of Richard de
Arundel (or Fitz Alan), 3rd Earl of Arundel, by his 2nd wife, Eleanor
of Lancaster.
For evidence of Eleanor de Arundel's correct parentage, see Calendar
of Patent Rolls, 1370-1374 (published 1914), pp. 150-151, and Calendar
of Patent Rolls, 1374-1377 (published 1916), pg. 299. This
information corrects the Arundel chart which appeared in the
periodical, Collectanea Genealogica et Topographica, vol. 6 (published
1840), pp. 16-17. This information may also correct the Complete
Peerage information for Ufford found in vol. 12, Part 1, pg. 434 (sub
Suffolk). However, I haven't double checked Complete Peerage to
verify whether a correction is necessary.
Eleanor, wife of Robert de Ufford, is sometimes confused with her
bastard aunt, Eleanor de Arundel, who married in or before 1348 John
de Bereford, Knt., bastard son of Edmund de Bereford. For proof of
the existence of the other Eleanor, see Warwickshire Feet of Fines,
1345-1509, by Lucy Drucker (published in 1943 as Dugdale Society, vol.
18), pg. 15. That the second Eleanor was a bastard is clear, as papal
petitions make it plain that her father had only one legitimate child,
Edmund, when his first marriage to Isabel le Despencer was dissolved
in 1344.
It appears that both Eleanor de Arundel's died without issue.
Hopefully this information has helped connect the desired dots.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote in message news:<a9b2ce02.01110...@posting.google.com>...
Bryant Smith
> Dear Bryant and Robert ~
>
> Robert de Ufford's wife, Eleanor, was actually the daughter of Richard
> de Arundel (or Fitz Alan), 4th Earl of Arundel, by his wife, Elizabeth
> de Bohun. As such, she was granddaughter (not daughter) of Richard de
> Arundel (or Fitz Alan), 3rd Earl of Arundel, by his 2nd wife, Eleanor
> of Lancaster.
>
>
> Eleanor, wife of Robert de Ufford, is sometimes confused with her
> bastard aunt, Eleanor de Arundel, who married in or before 1348 John
> de Bereford, Knt., bastard son of Edmund de Bereford. For proof of
> the existence of the other Eleanor, see Warwickshire Feet of Fines,
> 1345-1509, by Lucy Drucker (published in 1943 as Dugdale Society, vol.
> 18), pg. 15. That the second Eleanor was a bastard is clear, as papal
> petitions make it plain that her father had only one legitimate child,
> Edmund, when his first marriage to Isabel le Despencer was dissolved
> in 1344.
But I have a dau Mary, b. ca 1332, m John le Strange with issue. If
she was also illegitimate, did she have the same mother as Isabel,
or don't we know?
Thanks for all the dot connections! Really interesting correction.
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage sub Arundel states that Richard Fitz Alan, 3rd Earl
of Arundel, had three children by his first marriage to Isabel le
Despenser. However, a close examination of the various papal
petitions regarding the dissolution of this marriage proves this
couple had only one child, Edmund de Arundel.
The other two children assigned to Isabel le Despenser are as follows:
(1) Philippe, wife of Sir Richard Sergeaux. This woman was actually
one of the daughters and co-heirs of Edmund de Arundel, and thus was a
granddaughter of Isabel le Despenser. For proof of Philippe's
parentage, see Calendar of Close Rolls, 1396-1399 (published 1929),
pp. 72, 84.
(2) Isabel, wife of John le Strange. This woman was actually named
Mary and she was the wife of John le Strange, Lord Strange of
Blackmere. Mary was the sister of Richard Fitz Alan, 3rd Earl of
Arundel, as proved by her papal petition found in the following
source: W. H. Bliss, ed. Cal. Papal Registers: Petitions, 1342-1419 1
(1896): 484. Another source to consult is Margaret Aston Thomas
Arundel (1967), chart following p. 431.
Speaking of Edmund de Arundel, it has come to my attention that
following the death of his father, Richard, 3rd Earl, that Edmund
evidently had a quarrel of some nature with his younger half-brother,
Richard, 4th Earl. Edmund ended up in the Tower of London and was
released in 1377 on the mainprise of his brothers-in-law, Guy de Bryan
[Lord Bryan] and John de Montagu [Lord Montagu] [see Calendar of Close
Rolls, 1374-1377 (published 1913), pg. 551]. See also Calendar of
Poatent Rolls, 1374-1377 (published 1916), pg. 492.
I found a reference to a source which presumably documents this
quarrel but I haven't looked for it to see what it says. If someone
would like to look this up and post the particulars, I'd very much
appreciate it.
Rep. on a Dignity of a Peer, 4 pg. 672.
Without knowing the particulars, I'd venture to guess that Edmund
claimed to be his father's lawful heir, in spite of his parents'
divorce which bastardized him. Presumably his claim was denied.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote in message news:<a9b2ce02.01110...@posting.google.com>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage sub Arundel states that Richard Fitz Alan, 3rd Earl
> of Arundel, had three children by his first marriage to Isabel le
> Despenser.
In Vol XIV, p. 38 this is corrected to 2 children.
> However, a close examination of the various papal
> petitions regarding the dissolution of this marriage proves this
> couple had only one child, Edmund de Arundel.
>
> The other two children assigned to Isabel le Despenser are as follows:
>
> (1) Philippe, wife of Sir Richard Sergeaux. This woman was actually
> one of the daughters and co-heirs of Edmund de Arundel, and thus was a
> granddaughter of Isabel le Despenser.
Vol XIV, p. 38 states precisely this.
> For proof of Philippe's
> parentage, see Calendar of Close Rolls, 1396-1399 (published 1929),
> pp. 72, 84.
>
> (2) Isabel, wife of John le Strange. This woman was actually named
> Mary and she was the wife of John le Strange, Lord Strange of
> Blackmere. Mary was the sister of Richard Fitz Alan, 3rd Earl of
> Arundel, as proved by her papal petition found in the following
> source: W. H. Bliss, ed. Cal. Papal Registers: Petitions, 1342-1419 1
> (1896): 484. Another source to consult is Margaret Aston Thomas
> Arundel (1967), chart following p. 431.
Isabel is the one that CP retains in Vol XIV as the dau. of Richard and
Isabel. This is confirmed in the Strange article in Vol XII/1, p. 344,
though she is indeed there called Mary. But CP adds a note in Vol
XIV, p. 596 that Margaret Ashton in "Thomas Arundel" argues that Mary
was the daughter of Edmund and not of Richard the 10th earl.
It looks like CP was fairly up-to-date on all this. Remember that
Arundel was in Volume I, the first to be produced, around 1910, of the
second edition, and thus the one susceptible, as we find, to the
greatest number of corrections by the time that volume XIV came out in
1998.
<snip>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
D. Spencer Hines
| > of Arundel, had three children by his first marriage to Isabel le
| > Despenser.
|
| In Vol XIV, p. 38 this is corrected to 2 children.
|
| > However, a close examination of the various papal
| > petitions regarding the dissolution of this marriage proves this
| > couple had only one child, Edmund de Arundel.
| >
| > The other two children assigned to Isabel le Despenser are as
follows:
| >
| > (1) Philippe, wife of Sir Richard Sergeaux. This woman was
actually
| > one of the daughters and co-heirs of Edmund de Arundel, and thus was
a
| > granddaughter of Isabel le Despenser.
|
| Vol XIV, p. 38 states precisely this.
Hmmmmm.
And exactly how are you pulling all this out of page 38 in CP Volume
XIV?
Please cite the notes and line numbers you are referring to.
"It looks like CP was fairly up-to-date on all this. Remember that
Arundel was in Volume I, the first to be produced, around 1910, of the
second edition, and thus the one susceptible, as we find, to the
greatest number of corrections by the time that volume XIV came out in
1998."
<snip>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
----------------------------
Yes, good point.
Volume I did appear in 1910 and was edited by Vicary Gibbs, G.E.C.'s
nephew.
This proves, once again, that CP Volume XIV is quite essential for any
serious student of British Mediaeval Genealogy to check. What we *find*
is up for discussion.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:5332e0d...@southfrm.demon.co.uk...
wprokasy
wife of John le Strange, was the sister, not the daughter, of Richard
Fitzalan, 3rd Earl of Arundel, and Elizabeth le Despenser.
My question is this: what does this mean about the parentage of
Elizabeth given in CP 12, pt. 1, p. 432, note i as the sister of Isabel?
That Elizabeth married Thomas de Ufford, source above.
Richard FitzAlan and Elizabeth le Despenser had a duaghter named
Elizabeth, but my notes indicate that she married William Latimer.
Was Elizabeth married twice?
Bill
--
William F. (Bill) Prokasy
Home Page: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~wprokasy/home.htm
Other Pages Maintained:
Haverhill: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~wprokasy/haverhill/Haverhill.htm
Methuen: http://members.home.net/williampro/index.htm
Athena Grand Opera Company: http://athenagrandoperacompany.org
Athena Opera Guild: http://members.home.net/williampro/Opera/operag.htm
Chris Phillips
<<
In a recent post Douglas Richardson pointed out that Isabel (or Mary),
wife of John le Strange, was the sister, not the daughter, of Richard
Fitzalan, 3rd Earl of Arundel, and Elizabeth le Despenser.
My question is this: what does this mean about the parentage of
Elizabeth given in CP 12, pt. 1, p. 432, note i as the sister of Isabel?
That Elizabeth married Thomas de Ufford, source above.
>>
I don't think the way the Complete Peerage presents this is the clearest
possible (not least by calling John le Strange's Fitzalan wife Isabel,
rather than Mary).
But it seems that the Elizabeth who is thought to have married Thomas de
Ufford was the sister of Isabel (Beauchamp), the wife of John Lestrange, 2nd
or 5th Lord Strange (d.1375), not Mary (Fitzalan), the wife of his father
John Lestrange, 1st or 4th Lord Strange (d.1361).
The main evidence for these marriages of two Beauchamp sisters to two Ufford
brothers is a window from St Mary's, Warwick, recorded by Dugdale, which
shows 10 daughters of Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, of which Isabel and
Elizabeth bear the arms of Ufford on their mantles, indicating they both
married Uffords.
Chris Phillips