Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Complete Peerage correction: Joan, wife of Roger le Despenser, was not the wife of Sir Robert de Lumley
275 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Sep 8, 2016, 4:24:20 AM9/8/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268 (sub Lumley) includes an account of Sir Robert de Lumley, of Lumley (in Little Lumley), Durham [died 1325], which individual is the lineal ancestor of the later Lords Lumley. Sir Robert de Lumley is known to have married Lucy de Thweng, 3rd daughter of Marmaduke de Thweng, Knt., 1st Lord Thweng, by Isabel, daughter of William de Roos, Knt. Sir Robert and Lucy had one son, Marmaduke de Lumley, Knt.
Complete Peerage states that Sir Robert de Lumley “appears to have married, 2ndly, Joan, whose parentage is unknown. He died shortly before 20 July 1325. His widow married Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft.”
The Joan in question was the widow of Roger le Despenser at least as early as 1317. As such, she can't possibly have married Sir Robert de Lumley. The following is the abstract of a lawsuit dated 1317 which proves this point.
In Easter term 1317 Joan widow of Roger le Despenser sued William de Craven, of Langtoft, Yorkshire in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 100s. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/218, image 177f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no218/aCP40no218fronts/IMG_0177.htm)]).
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268, footnote h implies that Joan le Despenser's three children, John, Thomas, and Alice, were by Robert de Lumley. However, the record dated 1336 which mentions these children does not provide their surname. See, for example, Price, Transcript of the Court Rolls of Yeadon, 1361–1476 (1984): 221.
Regardless, we can be certain that Alice was the daughter of Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft, as indicated by a fine published in Roper, Feet of Fines for the County of York 1314–1326 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Recs. 158) (2006): 56.
In summary, we see that Joan, wife of Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft, was Roger's widow in 1317 and 1336. It is not possible for Joan to have been the wife of Sir Robert de Lumley (died 1325). Likewise, it is certain that Joan's known daughter, Alice, was the child of her husband, Roger le Despenser, not Robert de Lumley.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268 (sub Lumley) includes an account of Sir Robert de Lumley, of Lumley (in Little Lumley), Durham [died 1325], which individual is the lineal ancestor of the later Lords Lumley. Sir Robert de Lumley is known to have married Lucy de Thweng, 3rd daughter of Marmaduke de Thweng, Knt., 1st Lord Thweng, by Isabel, daughter of William de Roos, Knt. Sir Robert and Lucy had one son, Marmaduke de Lumley, Knt.
Complete Peerage states that Sir Robert de Lumley “appears to have married, 2ndly, Joan, whose parentage is unknown. He died shortly before 20 July 1325. His widow married Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft.”
The Joan in question was the widow of Roger le Despenser at least as early as 1317. As such, she can't possibly have married Sir Robert de Lumley. The following is the abstract of a lawsuit dated 1317 which proves this point.
In Easter term 1317 Joan widow of Roger le Despenser sued William de Craven, of Langtoft, Yorkshire in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 100s. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/218, image 177f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no218/aCP40no218fronts/IMG_0177.htm)]).
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268, footnote h implies that Joan le Despenser's three children, John, Thomas, and Alice, were by Robert de Lumley. However, the record dated 1336 which mentions these children does not provide their surname. See, for example, Price, Transcript of the Court Rolls of Yeadon, 1361–1476 (1984): 221.
Regardless, we can be certain that Alice was the daughter of Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft, as indicated by a fine published in Roper, Feet of Fines for the County of York 1314–1326 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Recs. 158) (2006): 56.
In summary, we see that Joan, wife of Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft, was Roger's widow in 1317 and 1336. It is not possible for Joan to have been the wife of Sir Robert de Lumley (died 1325). Likewise, it is certain that Joan's known daughter, Alice, was the child of her husband, Roger le Despenser, not Robert de Lumley.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John Watson
Sep 9, 2016, 4:30:50 AM9/9/16
to
There is another fine on the same page:
1320, Octave of Trinity, 13 Edward II. John son of Roger le Despenser of Langetoft, querent, and Joan widow of Roger le Despenser of Langetoft, deforciant, of 3 messuages, 5 bovates of land and a rent of 8s. in Overyedon. Covenant: John's right. For this she has granted the same to John and has rendered in court. John and the heirs of his body to hold of Joan and her heirs at a yearly rent of a rose at Midsummer, and doing services to the chief lords, etc. Successive remainders to (1) Thomas, John's brother and the heirs of his body; (2) Alice, Thomas's sister and the heirs of her body; (3) Cecily, Alice's sister and the heirs of her body; (4) Agnes, Cecily's sister and the heirs of her body; each to hold of Joan and her heirs. Reversion to Joan and her heirs to hold of the chief lords.
CP 25/1/271/94, number 91.
Michael Roper and Christopher Kitching, eds., Feet of Fines for the County of York: 1314-1326, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, 158 (2006), 56.
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
Sep 10, 2016, 3:38:50 PM9/10/16
to
Thanks so much for your message, John. Much appreciated.
The fine you've posted adds further evidence which proves that Complete Peerage was wrong to allege that Sir Robert de Lumley [died 1325] was survived by a 2nd wife, Joan, who afterwards married Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The fine you've posted adds further evidence which proves that Complete Peerage was wrong to allege that Sir Robert de Lumley [died 1325] was survived by a 2nd wife, Joan, who afterwards married Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
D. Spencer Hines
Sep 11, 2016, 1:20:29 AM9/11/16
to
These are VERY clever marketing posts by Douglas.
He posts little "corrections" to CP, which are, in the main, accurate and
well-received -- thereby allegedly proving that _The Complete Peerage_, a
previously highly respected icon of Mediaeval Genealogical studies -- cannot
really be "trusted" -- "to get it right".
...Which of course gets paying clients running to him for edification.
Capitalism In Action!
Well Done, Douglas!
DSH
"[If] the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be
led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington - Newburgh Address to Officers of the Continental Army, 15
March 1783, Headquarters, Newburgh, New York, United States of America
"Douglas Richardson" wrote in message
news:74a0f3e0-016e-49a3...@googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268 (sub Lumley) includes an account of Sir
Robert de Lumley, of Lumley (in Little Lumley), Durham [died 1325], which
individual is the lineal ancestor of the later Lords Lumley. Sir Robert de
Lumley is known to have married Lucy de Thweng, 3rd daughter of Marmaduke de
Thweng, Knt., 1st Lord Thweng, by Isabel, daughter of William de Roos, Knt.
Sir Robert and Lucy had one son, Marmaduke de Lumley, Knt.
Complete Peerage states that Sir Robert de Lumley "appears to have married,
2ndly, Joan, whose parentage is unknown. He died shortly before 20 July
1325. His widow married Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft."
The Joan in question was the widow of Roger le Despenser at least as early
as 1317. As such, she can't possibly have married Sir Robert de Lumley. The
following is the abstract of a lawsuit dated 1317 which proves this point.
In Easter term 1317 Joan widow of Roger le Despenser sued William de Craven,
of Langtoft, Yorkshire in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of
100s. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/218, image 177f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no218/aCP40no218fronts/IMG_0177.htm)]).
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268, footnote h implies that Joan le Despenser's
three children, John, Thomas, and Alice, were by Robert de Lumley. However,
the record dated 1336 which mentions these children does not provide their
surname. See, for example, Price, Transcript of the Court Rolls of Yeadon,
1361-1476 (1984): 221.
Regardless, we can be certain that Alice was the daughter of Roger le
Despenser, of Langtoft, as indicated by a fine published in Roper, Feet of
Fines for the County of York 1314-1326 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Recs. 158)
He posts little "corrections" to CP, which are, in the main, accurate and
well-received -- thereby allegedly proving that _The Complete Peerage_, a
previously highly respected icon of Mediaeval Genealogical studies -- cannot
really be "trusted" -- "to get it right".
...Which of course gets paying clients running to him for edification.
Capitalism In Action!
Well Done, Douglas!
DSH
"[If] the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be
led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington - Newburgh Address to Officers of the Continental Army, 15
March 1783, Headquarters, Newburgh, New York, United States of America
"Douglas Richardson" wrote in message
news:74a0f3e0-016e-49a3...@googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268 (sub Lumley) includes an account of Sir
Robert de Lumley, of Lumley (in Little Lumley), Durham [died 1325], which
individual is the lineal ancestor of the later Lords Lumley. Sir Robert de
Lumley is known to have married Lucy de Thweng, 3rd daughter of Marmaduke de
Thweng, Knt., 1st Lord Thweng, by Isabel, daughter of William de Roos, Knt.
Sir Robert and Lucy had one son, Marmaduke de Lumley, Knt.
Complete Peerage states that Sir Robert de Lumley "appears to have married,
2ndly, Joan, whose parentage is unknown. He died shortly before 20 July
1325. His widow married Roger le Despenser, of Langtoft."
The Joan in question was the widow of Roger le Despenser at least as early
as 1317. As such, she can't possibly have married Sir Robert de Lumley. The
following is the abstract of a lawsuit dated 1317 which proves this point.
In Easter term 1317 Joan widow of Roger le Despenser sued William de Craven,
of Langtoft, Yorkshire in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of
100s. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/218, image 177f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no218/aCP40no218fronts/IMG_0177.htm)]).
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 268, footnote h implies that Joan le Despenser's
three children, John, Thomas, and Alice, were by Robert de Lumley. However,
the record dated 1336 which mentions these children does not provide their
surname. See, for example, Price, Transcript of the Court Rolls of Yeadon,
Regardless, we can be certain that Alice was the daughter of Roger le
Despenser, of Langtoft, as indicated by a fine published in Roper, Feet of
joe...@gmail.com
Sep 11, 2016, 8:20:48 AM9/11/16
to
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:20:29 AM UTC-4, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> These are VERY clever marketing posts by Douglas.
>
> He posts little "corrections" to CP, which are, in the main, accurate and
> well-received -- thereby allegedly proving that _The Complete Peerage_, a
> previously highly respected icon of Mediaeval Genealogical studies -- cannot
> really be "trusted" -- "to get it right".
>
> ...Which of course gets paying clients running to him for edification.
This is absurd. If you read the FAQ, you will see that corrections to published sources is one of the primary goals of the group.
> These are VERY clever marketing posts by Douglas.
>
> He posts little "corrections" to CP, which are, in the main, accurate and
> well-received -- thereby allegedly proving that _The Complete Peerage_, a
> previously highly respected icon of Mediaeval Genealogical studies -- cannot
> really be "trusted" -- "to get it right".
>
> ...Which of course gets paying clients running to him for edification.
D. Spencer Hines
Sep 11, 2016, 4:17:40 PM9/11/16
to
These are VERY clever marketing posts by Douglas.
He posts little "corrections" to CP, which are, in the main, [with some
exceptions] accurate and well-received -- thereby allegedly proving that
_The Complete Peerage_, a previously highly respected icon of Mediaeval
Genealogical studies -- cannot really be "trusted" -- "to get it right".
...Which of course gets paying clients running to him for edification.
Capitalism In Action...
Genealogical studies -- cannot really be "trusted" -- "to get it right".
...Which of course gets paying clients running to him for edification.
0 new messages