CP correction: the wife of Amauri de St Amand (d.1381)
Chris Phillips
concerns the wife of Amauri de St Amand (d.1381). In vol.11, p.300, CP
names his wife as Eleanor, and comments that in his Wiltshire inquisition
post mortem she is said to be one of the daughters and heirs of the Earl of
"Herford".
That inquisition post mortem had not been abstracted in print when vol.11 of
CP was published, but according to the Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem,
Eleanor, the daughter and coheir of the Earl of Hereford, was not Amauri's
wife at all, but the wife of his feudal overlord, the Earl of Buckingham
(Thomas of Woodstock). A strange mistake to make, but easier to do when
working from the original manuscript, I suppose.
That's as far as I've got with the online correction, but Douglas Richardson
has provided evidence which identifies Amauri's real wife, as follows:
(1) in 1331 John de Haudlo and Maud his wife settled various manors in
Essex, Surrey and Buckingham on their heirs male (not named), with reversion
to Joan, Elizabeth and Margaret daughters of Maud for life, with reversion
to John son of John Lovel and his heirs male, with reversion to the right
heirs of Maud (citing Feet of Fines for Essex, 3 (1929-1949), pg. 21).
(2) in 1340 the same John de Haudlo settled various manors in Essex, Surrey,
Oxford, and Staffordshire on his son, Nicholas, and his heirs. Some of the
manors in this fine were the same as those mentioned in the earlier fine. In
this fine, Almaric de Sancto Amando and Joan his wife, Walter son of John de
Norwico and Margaret his wife, and Elizabeth daughter of John de Haudlo "put
in their claim." (citing Feet of Fines for Essex, 3: 56).
So Joan, the wife of Amauri, and Margaret, the wife of John de Norwich, are
identified as daughters of Maud, the wife of John de Haudlo.
Maud was the daughter of Sir Philip Burnell, of Acton Burnell, and married
John de Haudlo in 1314 or 1315, as the widow of John, Lord Lovel of
Titchmarsh [Complete Peerage vol.8, p.217]. By her first husband she had a
daughter Joan, said to be aged 2 or 2 and more in October 1314, and a son
John, born posthumously about September 1314.
Perhaps the Joan mentioned in the fines could be Maud's daughter by her
first marriage to John Lovel, but the chronology suggests that Elizabeth and
Margaret would certainly be daughters of her second marriage to John de
Haudlo.
Margaret's husband, John de Norwich, is presumably the same mentioned in
Complete Peerage, vol.9, p.765 (said to have married "Margery, whose
parentage has not been proved"). If so, the chronology also suggests that
John de Norwich must have had a previous wife, who would have been the
mother of his heir Sir Walter, as the latter was married by January 1340/1,
although his son and heir was not born until 1351.
Chris Phillips
Patricia Junkin
Do you have knowledge in this family of a William St. Amand whose daughter
and heir may have married Sir John de Burstow living ca. 1270-80 of
Surrey-Sussex. This John's father is to have married Maud Chastillon.
It is suggested that William le Poure of Oxfordshire married a Margery ca.
1306 who may have been the daughter of of Richard Chasteleyn. "He held the
manor of Wendlebury 'of Nicholas Syfrewast who holds of Aymer de St. Amand,
who holds of the King', 1284/5. Died 1316/7." Seeking confirmation of both
these Burstowe marriages.
Thank you.
Pat
----------
>From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: CP correction: the wife of Amauri de St Amand (d.1381)
>Date: Sat, Feb 2, 2002, 8:11 AM
Chris Phillips
> (2) in 1340 the same John de Haudlo settled various manors in Essex,
Surrey,
> Oxford, and Staffordshire on his son, Nicholas, and his heirs. Some of the
> manors in this fine were the same as those mentioned in the earlier fine.
In
> this fine, Almaric de Sancto Amando and Joan his wife, Walter son of John
de
> Norwico and Margaret his wife, and Elizabeth daughter of John de Haudlo
"put
> in their claim." (citing Feet of Fines for Essex, 3: 56).
> Margaret's husband, John de Norwich, is presumably the same mentioned in
> Complete Peerage, vol.9, p.765 (said to have married "Margery, whose
> parentage has not been proved"). If so, the chronology also suggests that
> John de Norwich must have had a previous wife, who would have been the
> mother of his heir Sir Walter, as the latter was married by January
1340/1,
> although his son and heir was not born until 1351.
Douglas Richardson has pointed out that I've blundered in misreading "Walter
son of John" for "John" de Norwich.
If Margaret was the wife of Walter de Norwich (referred to in Complete
Peerage, vol.9, p.765, as "Margaret, whose parentage has not been
ascertained"), rather than the wife of his father John, the chronology fits
quite well.
Margaret, married by 1340, and surviving until 1395, would be the mother of
Walter's son and heir John de Norwich, b.1351, and probably of his daughter
Margaret, who married John de Playz. It seems both John and Margaret died
without issue - I'm not sure from reading CP who John's heir was.
Chris Phillips