Another C.P. Addition: Maud de Holand, wife of Sir John de Mowbray and Sir Thomas de Swinnerton
Douglas Richardson
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936):380-383 (sub Mowbray) has
a good account of the life history of Sir John de Mowbray, Knt., 3rd
Lord Mowbray, who died in 1361. His marriages to Joan of Lancaster
and Elizabeth de Vere are well known, and are well documented by
Complete Peerage.
However, it appears that Complete Peerage was unconvinced that John de
Mowbray had earlier married and divorced Maud de Holand, daughter of
Robert de Holand, Knt., 1st Lord Holand. No mention is made of the
marriage in the main text. In fact, all discussion of this possible
marriage was discretely placed in a footnote of the text on page
383. As a consequence, as recently as this year, Gary Boyd Roberts
cast doubt on Maud de Holand's subsequent remarriage to Sir Thomas de
Swinnerton, by stating that "Mr. Brayton rejects the Holand-Swinnerton
marriages [sic] on pp. 452, 454-455." [Reference: Gary Boyd Roberts,
The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants (2008): 875]. The Mr. Brayton
in question is John Anderson Brayton. No reason is given for his
alleged rejection of Maud de Holand's marriage to Sir Thomas de
Swinnerton.
Certainly,.Complete Peerage was aware of claims that John de Mowbray
had married Maud de Holand. In a footnote c on page 383 of Mowbray
account, it indicates that The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Chetham
Soc.), ii., p. 292 specifically states that John de Mowbray had in
fact been married to and divorced from a daughter of Sir Robert de
Holand, Knt., 1st Lord Holand. The actual passage in question in the
Coucher Book reads in Latin as follows:
"Qui quidem Johannes duxit uxorem filiam Roberti de Holand, sed
divortio inter eos celebrato legitime postea duxit in uxorerm Johannem
sororem Henrici primi ducis Lancastrie ....:"
This quoted material may be viewed at the following weblink:
In the same footnote on page 383 of the Mowbray account, Complete
Peerage further reveals that John de Mowbray had license in 1332 to
settle two manors on Maud de Holand, daughter of Robert de Holand for
life, citing Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, pg. 368.
The Patent Rolls item in question may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0368.pdf
While Complete Peerage admits that there may have been "some contract
of marriage," it seems to have determined the evidence was
insufficient to conclude that John de Mowbray and Maud de Holand had
actually been married. And, no mention whatsoever was made by
Complete Peerage of Maud de Holand's later marriage to Sir Thomas de
Swinnerton, 3rd Lord Swinnerton. Indeed, in its later treatment of
the Swinnerton family, Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 588 (sub
Swynnerton) says only that Sir Thomas de Swinnerton is "said to have
married Maud." Regarding the identification in print by Canon
Bridgeman of the wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton being Maud, daughter
of Sir Robert de Holand, Lord Holand, Complete Peerage curtly
dismisses Bridgeman by saying: "There does not seem to be any record
of evidence of this marriage."
In truth, John de Mowbray did marry and divorce Maud de Holand,
daughter of Sir Robert de Holand, 1st Lord Holand. And, Maud de
Holand did subsequently marry Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, 3rd Lord
Swinnerton, just as claimed by Canon Bridgeman. The evidence of these
two marriages can be found in three documents which are available in
the helpful online A2A Catalogue. These documents are labelled #1,
2, and 3 below. All are drawn from the Berkeley Castle Muniments
catalogue.
In the first document, John de Mowbray the elder grants his son and
heir, John de Mowbray the younger, and Maud his wife three manors in
Yorkshire, which manors are named. This document is undated. In the
second document dated 1332, Maud daughter of Robert de Holand releases
the three manors in question in Yorkshire back to John de Mowbray the
younger, in return for a grant of two manors for life, namely Ryarsh,
Kent and Crick, Northamptonshire. In the third document dated 1342,
Maud, then wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, is stated to be holding
the manors of Ryarsh, Kent and Crick, Northamptonshire for life. That
Maud de Swinnerton is the same person as Maud de Holand is confirmed
by Canon Bridgeman who reported that there was formerly in Swinnerton
Church an effigy of a woman over whom was written, Mati[l]dis de
Swynnerton [that is Maud de Swinnerton], with a shield giving the arms
of Holand, viz: Azure, sémée of fleurs-de-lys argent, a lion rampant
guardant argent.
Maud de Holand, widow of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, was known to be
living in 1364–1365. My research indicates that Maud must have died
sometime before 10 May 1380, when the manor of Crick, Northamptonshire
which had been assigned to her for life was back in the possession of
the Mowbray family [see Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1377–1381 (1895):
488].
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Maud de Holand and her second
husband, Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, 3rd Lord Swinnerton:
Robert Abell, Thomas Bressey, Obadiah Bruen, Agatha, Alice, Eleanor,
Jane & Martha Eltonhead, John Fenwick, Thomas Gerard, Oliver
Manwaring, Thomas Owsley, Anthony Savage, James Taylor, Amy Wyllys.
Do you see your immigrant ancestor in this list? If so, I'd
appreciate hearing from you here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Document #1:
Berkeley Castle Muniments
Reference: BCM/D/1/1/1
Creation dates: [c. 1319]
Scope and Content
John de Moubray, lord of the Isle of Axholme and of Gower; and John
his eldest son and Maud, the son's wife. n.d.
John has granted to John and Maud the manors of Kyrkeby Malasart,
Burtone in Lounesdale and Hovyngham, to them and their issue, saving
to John [the father] the right to hunt when he wishes.
Witnesses: Sir Thomas earl of Lancaster, Sir William de Roos of
Helmsley, William le Latymer, Edmund Dayncourt, Henry son of Hugh,
William son of William, John Beek.
[Please quote GC3253 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
file]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Document #2:
Berkeley Castle Muniments
Reference: BCM/D/1/1/2
Creation dates: [1332]
Language: French
Scope and Content
Sir John Moubray, lord of the Isle of Axholme, and Maud daughter of
Sir Robert de Holand.
Dated: 26 Oct. 6 Edward III [1332].
In the presence of Sir Ralph de Neville, Sir Robert de Ufford, Sir
Roger Swynnertone, and Sir John Darcy, the dispute between John and
Maud has been settled, viz. that Maud has quitclaimed to John the
manors of Hovyngham, Kyrkebymalasart, Burtone en Lounesdale and all
other lands and holdings which he has in England and Wales, and for
this John has granted to her for her life the manors of Ryesse (Kent),
and Crek (Northants.).
At: York.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Document #3:
Berkeley Castle Muniments
Reference: BCM/D/1/1/9
Creation dates: [1343]
Language: French
Scope and Content
William de Mountagu, earl of Salisbury, Sir Edward de Mountagu his
brother, and Lady Alice, Edward's wife; and Sir John lord of Moubray
and Lady Joan his wife. 13 March 1342
An agreement has been made for a double marriage between John, son and
heir of John de Moubray, and Audrey, eldest daughter of Edward, and
between Edward son and heir of Edward, and Blanche, daughter of John
de Moubray, in this manner, viz. that the solemnities will be
performed at the nativity of John the Baptist next [24 June 1343] at
Moubray's expense, and Moubray will grant to John and Audrey and their
issue 300 marks of land, viz. the manor of Melton Mowbray to the value
of £90 and the remainder from the reversion of the manors of Creke
(Northants.) and Ryasshe (Kent) which Maud wife of Sir Thomas de
Swynarton holds for life, and Schidestoke (Warws.) which Sir Richard
de Pessale holds for life; and Edward will grant to Edward and Blanche
and their issue 100 marks of land and 200 marks of cash a year; and
William and Edward will pay to Moubray £1,000 at terms, and both
fathers promise that none of their lands will be eloined from the
right heirs.
At: Knepp.
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my earlier post, I should note that the National
Archives catalogue has an entry for an inquisition post mortem for
Maud widow of Thomas de Swynnerton as follows:
Item details C 135/164/20
Context
C Records created, acquired, and inherited by Chancery, and also of
the Wardrobe, Royal Household, Exchequer and various commissions
Division within C Records of the Chancery as central secretariat
C 135 Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Edward III
Record Summary
Scope and content
Maud late the wife of Thomas de Swynnerton: Northamptonshire
Covering dates 35 Edw III [1361-1362]
Availability Open Document, Open Description, Normal Closure before
FOI Act: 30 years
Held by
The National Archives, Kew
Inasmuch as Maud de Holand, wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, held a
manor at Crick in Northamptonshire for the term of her life which was
granted to her by her first husband, John de Mowbray, I imagine this
inquisition may well be for her. If so, a transcript of this
inquisition should be in print.
Douglas Richardson
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< As a followup to my earlier post, I should note that the National
< Archives catalogue has an entry for an inquisition post mortem for
< Maud widow of Thomas de Swynnerton as follows:
<
< Item details C 135/164/20
<
I checked the published transcript of the IPM of Maud, widow of Thomas
de Swinnerton, mentioned above. The IPM indicates that this woman was
previously the wife of John le Latimer, of Northamptonshire, hence her
interest in properties in that county. John le Latimer was identified
in the inquisityion as her first husband. Complete Peerage sub
Latimer and Canon Bridgeman elsewhere indicate that this lady was a
different person than Maud de Holand, who was the wife successively of
John de Mowbray, Knt., 3rd Lord Mowbray, and Sir Thomas de Swinnerton,
Knt., 3rd Lord Swinnerton.
When you have a minute, I'd certainly appreciate hearing from a few
of you newsgroup members who descend from Maud de Holand. I'm
distantly related to you, as I descend from Maud de Holand's sister,
Elizabeth de Holand, who married Sir Henry Fitz Roger, of Somerset.
Peter G R Howarth
Peter G R Howarth
-----Original Message-----
On 05 May 2008 03:34 "Douglas Richardson" <royalan...@msn.com>
wrote:
Please would you check the last two words in the second line, they don't
look right. Living outside the US, I am not permitted access to your link.
>This quoted material may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>http://books.google.com/books?id=PkYJAAAAIAAJ&dq=editions%3A0l2bpcdgGaDZlVR
>QAmydzl7&q=Holand&pgis=1#search
>
Why did C.P. choose to reject this evidence, which on the face of it seems
pretty clear about the unnamed daughter? And presumably Brayton and Roberts
also rejected it, since they would both have known about the reference in
C.P. Did they have information we do not? Or is it just that the Coucher
Book is not to be trusted? It leaves a niggle in the back of the mind.
>In the same footnote on page 383 of the Mowbray account, Complete
>Peerage further reveals that John de Mowbray had license in 1332 to
>settle two manors on Maud de Holand, daughter of Robert de Holand for
>life, citing Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, pg. 368.
>
>The Patent Rolls item in question may be viewed at the following
>weblink:
>
>http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0368.pdf
>
>While Complete Peerage admits that there may have been "some contract
>of marriage," it seems to have determined the evidence was
>insufficient to conclude that John de Mowbray and Maud de Holand had
>actually been married. And, no mention whatsoever was made by
>Complete Peerage of Maud de Holand's later marriage to Sir Thomas de
>Swinnerton, 3rd Lord Swinnerton.
C.P. vi. p 530 note (i) mentions Maud, daughter of Sir Robert de Holand, who
married Sir Thomas de Swynnerton, citing W. Salt Soc., vol vii. pt 2, p 40.
It should be worthwhile following up.
> Indeed, in its later treatment of
>the Swinnerton family, Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 588 (sub
>Swynnerton) says only that Sir Thomas de Swinnerton is "said to have
>married Maud." Regarding the identification in print by Canon
>Bridgeman of the wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton being Maud, daughter
>of Sir Robert de Holand, Lord Holand, Complete Peerage curtly
>dismisses Bridgeman by saying: "There does not seem to be any record
>of evidence of this marriage."
>
>In truth, John de Mowbray did marry and divorce Maud de Holand,
>daughter of Sir Robert de Holand, 1st Lord Holand. And, Maud de
>Holand did subsequently marry Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, 3rd Lord
>Swinnerton, just as claimed by Canon Bridgeman. The evidence of these
>two marriages can be found in three documents which are available in
>the helpful online A2A Catalogue. These documents are labelled #1,
>2, and 3 below. All are drawn from the Berkeley Castle Muniments
>catalogue.
>
>In the first document, John de Mowbray the elder grants his son and
>heir, John de Mowbray the younger, and Maud his wife three manors in
>Yorkshire, which manors are named.
Their modern names are Kirby Malzeard, Hovingham and Burton in Lonsdale (all
in the North Riding - in the case of Burton only just!).
> This document is undated. In the
>second document dated 1332, Maud daughter of Robert de Holand releases
>the three manors in question in Yorkshire back to John de Mowbray the
>younger, in return for a grant of two manors for life, namely Ryarsh,
>Kent and Crick, Northamptonshire. In the third document dated 1342,
Shouldn't this be 1343? (13 March 1342 O.S. = 1343 N.S.)
>Maud, then wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, is stated to be holding
>the manors of Ryarsh, Kent and Crick, Northamptonshire for life. That
>Maud de Swinnerton is the same person as Maud de Holand is confirmed
>by Canon Bridgeman who reported that there was formerly in Swinnerton
>Church an effigy of a woman over whom was written, Mati[l]dis de
>Swynnerton [that is Maud de Swinnerton], with a shield giving the arms
>of Holand, viz: Azure, sémée of fleurs-de-lys argent, a lion rampant
>guardant argent.
>
What is the citation for Canon Bridgeman's report? Does he give a source
and, if so, what? What sort of date was the shield and was it really
coloured? Or were the tinctures added by Bridgeman? Presumably there would
have been other coats of arms, e.g. a cross flory for Swinnerton.
>Maud de Holand, widow of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, was known to be
>living in 1364–1365.
What is the evidence for this please?
Leticia Cluff
<pgrho...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Please see my comments and queries interspersed below.
>>"Qui quidem Johannes duxit uxorem filiam Roberti de Holand, sed
>>divortio inter eos celebrato legitime postea duxit in uxorerm Johannem
>>sororem Henrici primi ducis Lancastrie ....:"
>>
>
>Please would you check the last two words in the second line, they don't
>look right. Living outside the US, I am not permitted access to your link.
Don't worry, Peter, he did in fact marry a woman, not another man
named John. Those two words in the book are actually uxorem and
Johannam.
Tish
Alan Grey
> C.P. vi. p 530 note (i) mentions Maud, daughter of Sir Robert de Holand, who
> married Sir Thomas de Swynnerton, citing W. Salt Soc., vol vii. pt 2, p 40.
> It should be worthwhile following up.
Or not. He records the marriage, but does not cite any source.
> >Maud, then wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, is stated to be holding
> >the manors of Ryarsh, Kent and Crick, Northamptonshire for life. That
> >Maud de Swinnerton is the same person as Maud de Holand is confirmed
> >by Canon Bridgeman who reported that there was formerly in Swinnerton
> >Church an effigy of a woman over whom was written, Mati[l]dis de
> >Swynnerton [that is Maud de Swinnerton], with a shield giving the arms
> >of Holand, viz: Azure, sémée of fleurs-de-lys argent, a lion rampant
> >guardant argent.
> >
>
> What is the citation for Canon Bridgeman's report? Does he give a source
> and, if so, what? What sort of date was the shield and was it really
> coloured? Or were the tinctures added by Bridgeman? Presumably there would
> have been other coats of arms, e.g. a cross flory for Swinnerton.
For what it is worth, Bridgeman cites "Staffordshire Collections ;
being MS. No. 383 in the William Salt Library." as his source.
> >Maud de Holand, widow of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, was known to be
> >living in 1364–1365.
>
> What is the evidence for this please?
This statement would seem to be based on a grant in 38 Edw. III. by
Robert de Swynnerton to his trustees "of two parts of the manor of
Barowe, and of the advowson of the chapel of that manor, and the
reversion of the third part then held in dower by Matilda de
Swynnerton." This is reported in Canon Bridgeman's, Account of the
Family of Swynnerton, Staff. Hist. Coll., Vol. VII, Part II, p.42. He
cites "Ormerod's "Cheshire," Vol. II., p. 185, from Grosvenor MSS.
XXI., 5, p. 9." as his source .
For what it is worth, Bridgeman does not identify this woman as the
widow of Sir Thomas de Swynnerton. He states, "Whether this was the
same Matilda who held the manor of Rushton Spencer in dower in 1356,
and presented to Swynnerton Church in 1358, or another Dame Matilda,
the relict of Sir Thomas, I am unable to determine. I rather think
that there were three widows Matilda de Swynnerton living about this
time, who were respectively the relicts of Sir Roger, the father, and
his two sons, Sir Roger and Sir Thomas de Swynnerton, if, indeed, the
wife of Sir Thomas survived him."
Alan R Grey
al...@mindspring.com
So Sir Thomas Swynnerton may well have married Maud Holand (after her
marriage with Mowbray apparently did not happen) and then have married
another Maud who had been the wife of John le Latimer?
Doug Smith
Douglas Richardson
not necessarily at the same time.
The first Maud de Swinnerton was Maud, widow of Roger de Swinnerton,
Knt. She held a third part of the manor of Swinnerton, Staffordshire
in dower. She occurs in deeds dated 1326–27 and 1356–57, and bore a
bend as her arms—see Bridgeman, Fam. of Swynnerton (Colls. Hist.
Staffs. 7(2)) (1886): 26–27, 39, 41–42). I presume she is the Lady
Maud Swinnerton who presented to Swinnerton church in 1358.
The second Maud de Swinnerton was Maud de Holand, wife successively of
John de Mowbray, Knt., 3rd Lord Mowbray, and Thomas de Swinnerton,
Knt., 3rd Lord Swinnerton. This Maud's husband Thomas de Swinenrton
was was the brother of Roger de Swinnerton, Knt. named above. Maud
de Holand was living in 1342, as stated in my first post. There is no
evidence that she survived her husband, Thomas de Swinnerton, who died
in 1361. For all I know, she could well have predeceased him.
Finally there was a Maud, wife successively of John le Latimer (died
1356) and Thomas de Swinnerton. She died as Thomas' widow in 1360.
Canon Bridgeman identified her husband, Thomas de Swinnerton, as
probably the son of Richard, son of Roger de Swinnerton, of
Swinnerton. For particulars of this lady, see Complete Peerage, 7
(1929): 454 (sub Latimer).
Alan Grey is correct that it is impossible to tell which Maud de
Swinnerton is the one that is mentioned in the record dated 38 Edward
III (i.e., 1364-1365). It could be either Maud#1 or Maud#2. However,
since we have no evidence that Maud#2 survived her husband, my guess
is that the lady living in 1364-1365 was Maud#1. That's purely a
guess.
Peter G R Howarth
wrote:
>
>There were three Maud de Swinnerton's who occur in this time period,
>not necessarily at the same time.
>
>The first Maud de Swinnerton was Maud, widow of Roger de Swinnerton,
>Knt. She held a third part of the manor of Swinnerton, Staffordshire
>bend as her arms-see Bridgeman, Fam. of Swynnerton (Colls. Hist.
>Staffs. 7(2)) (1886): 26-27, 39, 41-42). I presume she is the Lady
>Maud Swinnerton who presented to Swinnerton church in 1358.
>
>The second Maud de Swinnerton was Maud de Holand, wife successively of
>John de Mowbray, Knt., 3rd Lord Mowbray, and Thomas de Swinnerton,
>Knt., 3rd Lord Swinnerton. This Maud's husband Thomas de Swinenrton
>was was the brother of Roger de Swinnerton, Knt. named above. Maud
>de Holand was living in 1342, as stated in my first post. There is no
>evidence that she survived her husband, Thomas de Swinnerton, who died
>in 1361. For all I know, she could well have predeceased him.
>
>Finally there was a Maud, wife successively of John le Latimer (died
>1356) and Thomas de Swinnerton. She died as Thomas' widow in 1360.
>Canon Bridgeman identified her husband, Thomas de Swinnerton, as
>probably the son of Richard, son of Roger de Swinnerton, of
>Swinnerton. For particulars of this lady, see Complete Peerage, 7
>(1929): 454 (sub Latimer).
>
>Alan Grey is correct that it is impossible to tell which Maud de
>Swinnerton is the one that is mentioned in the record dated 38 Edward
>III (i.e., 1364-1365). It could be either Maud#1 or Maud#2. However,
>since we have no evidence that Maud#2 survived her husband, my guess
>is that the lady living in 1364-1365 was Maud#1. That's purely a
>guess.
>
>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I too found Alan Grey's extremely full details most helpful. So have I
understood your comments here correctly: we should now amend your previous
suggestion for the date of death of Maud de Holand to some time between 13
March 1342/3 and 10 May 1380?
Many thanks for your work on her life and marriages.
Peter G R Howarth
Douglas Richardson
wrote:
< I too found Alan Grey's extremely full details most helpful. So
have I
< understood your comments here correctly: we should now amend your
previous
< suggestion for the date of death of Maud de Holand to some time
between 13
< March 1342/3 and 10 May 1380?
<
< Many thanks for your work on her life and marriages.
<
< Peter G R Howarth
Yes, that's correct. Maud de Holand died some time between 13 March
1342 [?1342/3 intended] and 10 May 1380.
The first date comes Item #3 from the A2A Catalogue whichI presented
in my first post in this thread.
The second date (10 May 1380) comes from Cal. of Patent Rolls,
1377-1381 (1895): 488, which item is found at the following weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r2v1/body/Richard2vol1page0488.pdf
This is the date when the manor of Crick, Northamptonshire, which Maud
de Holand held for life, was back in possession of the Mowbrary
family.
I believe with a bit more research, the above two dates for the time
frame of Maud de Holand's death can be narrowed further.