CP Correction: The Earls of Warwick and the Bohun family
Rosie Bevan
As the reply has turned out to be rather long, this first one is to present
the case that there were only two Henry D'Oillys, and to discuss the
marriages of the respective widows named Maud. The second post is an attempt
to provide a solution to the problematic Bohun/d'Oilly/Newburgh pedigree.
In recent times, the d'Oilly pedigree has been rewritten to include a third
Henry d'Oilly - the one who died in 1232. Both Sanders (54) and Keats-Rohan
(DD 621) have upheld this version, but without regard to the weighty
evidence for the case that there were only two Henrys.
As founding patrons, only two Henrys were documented in the Oseney annals,
which say of Henry II d'Oilly, "Item eodem anno [1232] Henricus de Oyli
secundus, advocatus noster, defunctus est, et cum magna veneratione ut
dignum fuit, in novo opere Oseneyae tumulatus". [Annales Monasterii de
Osneia (A.D. 1016-1347)(Annales Monastici v. IV ), p.73]. This annalist had
the evidence of the tombs of benefactors to assist him in such details.
Sanders claims that Henry II d'Oilly died in 1198, and this may be related
to the evidence in a Harleian MS stating that the heir of the d'Oilly family
accompanied Richard I overseas and died in Austria. William Bayley argued
that the identity of this person was in fact Fulk d'Oilly (whom Sir Walter
Scott immortalized in 'Ivanhoe'), the last of his line [Topographer and
Genealogist, v.1 pp.366-378]. To further complicate matters, an entry for
the scutage into Normandy levied in 1199, has "Henricus de Oyli viijs. xd.
ob'' recorded [Red Book of the Exchequer, p.119]. It is possible that
Sanders took this to mean 'obiit', but perhaps there is another
interpretation for the abbreviation, for between 1194-99, Henry d'Oilly was
sheriff of Oxfordshire (therefore could not have simultaneously accompanied
king Richard to Austria and died there.).
Perhaps the most convincing evidence that Henry II d'Oilly did not die in
1198, is that in 1225 Henry d'Oilly impleaded William Basset, son of John,
son of Osmund Basset, for half a knight's fee in Ipsden, Oxon. Henry gave
the following pedigree in the suit
Rob'tus de Oilly
|
Henricus de Oilly
|
Henricus nunc petens
[Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, v.1 p.269. Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls]
The daughter and heir of Henry II d'Oilly was named Maud. That Sybil was her
mother, not Maud his second wife, is demonstrated by his a gift and
confirmation charter to Oseney Abbey, dated around 1200, for the souls of
himself, his wife Sybil and daughter Maud, presumably when they were all
still alive. A later gift for the souls of Sybil and Maud his daughter, was
made after they had died. [Andrew Clark (ed.), The English Register of
Oseney Abbey, by Oxford (London, 1907) p. 45. 94]. In 1213 Henry had granted
the manor of Weston to his daughter and her husband Maurice de Gaunt of
Were, Somerset, on the proviso that Maurice settled a debt of 1200 marks
owed by Henry to the king. Maud had died without issue by 1220 when Henry
tried to recover the manor because the debt had not been paid, and the suit
went before the king's court. The judgement was that, as Maurice had twelve
years in the original agreement to make the payment, he could hold the manor
until 1225 when Henry should repossess it, if the money had not been paid
[CRR v.IX p. p.334-335].
Maud de Bohun's first husband, Henry I d'Oilly, died in 1163, according to
Oseney annals [Annales Monasterii de Osneia, p. 33], and her second husband
was Walter fitz Robert of Woodham Walter and Daventry, whose first wife had
been Maud de Lucy. Between 1174 and 1195, Walter gave the church of
Kedington, Suffolk to Daventry priory "pro animabus patris et matris mee et
Matildis de Luci uxoris mei iam defuncte et pro salute anime mee et Matildis
de Bohun uxoris mee..." [M.J. Franklin (ed), The Cartulary of Daventry
Priory (Northampton, 1988) no.13]. Maud's daughter, Joan d'Oilly, married
Simon fitz Walter, lord of Daventry, second son of her second husband,
Walter. Henry II d'Oilly attested a confirmation charter of his
brother-in-law, Simon, to Daventry priory sometime between 1189 and 1203
[Franklin, no. 15]. Maud de Bohun survived Walter in 1198, and was still
living in 1200 having been involved in a suit for several years over her d'
Oilly dower in the manor of Swereford against Cecily, wife of Ralph fitz
Wigan. This is documented in the curia regis rolls. [William Bayley, The
History of the House of Doyly (London, 1845) p. 11]
Considering Henry's step brother, Robert fitz Walter, was one of the leaders
of the insurrectionary barons against king John, it was perhaps only natural
that Henry became a partisan. Consequently, the king confiscated his estates
in 1215 and gave them to Englard de Cygoni. They were restored by King Henry
III in September 1217 and when Henry d'Oilly died in 1232 s.p.s., they
passed to his heir, Thomas, Earl of Warwick who died without issue in 1242.
By the time Margery, Thomas' sister and heir had died without issue in 1253,
the d'Oilly estates had escheated to the crown following an inquisition
which determined that there were no heirs to it and that the barony of
Hooknorton was an escheat to the king, "ratione Normannorum" [Calendarium
Genealogicum v.1. p.50]. This effectively blocked any potential claimants to
the lands and Henry III was thus able to ensure his favourite, John de
Plessis, retained possession of the Hooknorton barony. On his death in 1263,
it eventually passed to his son, Hugh, who had no blood relationship with
the d'Oillys.
Ironically, the 1263 inquisition for John de Plessis determined that in fact
there were d'Oilly heirs living. An inquiry into his Buckinghamshire
holdings stated the following about Maud de Bohun's maritagium, Bradenham
manor.
"Bradenham manor was not the escheat of Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford
and Essex, through the death of Margery, sometime countess of Warwick ; for
Humphrey de Bohun his grandfather gave the manor in free marriage to Henry
de Oylly with Maud his sister, who had a son Henry and two daughters : Henry
the younger had the manor for life and died without heir of himself, and the
right of the manor descended to the daughters, from the elder of whom issued
Thomas earl of Warwick and one Margery ; the said Thomas had the manor for
life and died without heir of himself, and the said Margery also ; but from
the younger sister, aunt of the younger Margery, came one Walter de
Daventre, and the jury believe that whilst there are any heirs of the
younger sister the manor cannot be the escheat of the said Humphrey. After
the death of the said Margery the said Humphrey obtained seisin of the manor
for 15 days, because he understood that it was his escheat, and by his grant
at the king's instance the late earl of Warwick held it for life."
[CIPM v.I no. 558].
Walter de Daventry who claimed descent from Maud de Bohun was Walter fitz
Simon, son of Simon fitz Walter and Joan d'Oilly. Joan's descendants in the
male line continued well into the late fourteenth century but were
permanently disinherited from the d'Oilly estates [M.J. Franklin, The
Cartulary of Daventry Priory (Northampton, 1988)].
Maud, who was widow of Henry II D'Oilly, is stated in Worthy's Hundred Roll
to have married secondly William de Cantilupe, as his second wife. She was
still living in 1253 when Margery, Countess of Warwick died, and believed to
have been dead in 1261 when John de Plessetis was confimed the manor of
Kidlington, which she held in dower, but she may have still been alive in
1264, when it was stated that John de Newton was holding 3 virgates in
Bulwick of "Lady Maud de Cantelow" at his death [CIPM v. no.567]. William
Cantilupe had gained an interest in Bulwick, Northants., which was the caput
of the fitzUrse barony by 1217, after Roger Gernet sold his share in the
barony of Boulers to him. The three virgates may represent the 1/12 of a
knight's fee, for which the Cantilupes continued to answer in Bulwick
[Sanders, 23]. Keats-Rohan in DD 621does not give any evidence for making
Maud a member of the Cantilupe family, and on balance, there is more
evidence to indicate that she was a Cantilupe widow.
See next post.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: CP Correction: The Earls of Warwick and the Bohun family
> Saturday, 24 May, 2003
>
>
>
> Dear Chris, Rosie, Cris, Douglas, Kay, et al.,
>
> Another piece of evidence (or allusion to same) has been found which
> should lead towards a more correct reconstruction of these families.
>
> Pat Patterson provides the following text (transcription ?) from
Worthy's
> Devonshire Parishes:
>
> " This marriage is proved by the "Hundred Roll" = "Milo de Bohun
holds
> the manor of Gussich Dynaunt, which was at some time forfeited to the
> lord, the King, through a certain Roland Dynaunt, a Norman; and the
king
> gave the said manor to Matilda D'Oyly, but they know not why, which
> Matilda was afterwards the wife of William de Cantilupe, and which
manor
> after Matilda's death came to the hands of Humphrey de Bohun, the son
of
> the sister of the said Matilda." Gussich Dynaunt was situated in the
> county of Dorset." [1]
>
> The foregoing is difficult to relate to the known facts of these
> families,
> unless
>
> 1. 'Matilda D'Oyly' was actually a wife of Walter de Cantilupe,
father
> of William (d. 1239), and
>
> 2. Humphrey de Bohun was the son of the brother (not sister) of
Matilda.
>
> The following chart is my rendering of the relationships between the
de
> Bohun, d'Oilly and de Cantilupe (de Cantelou) families based on this
> understanding. The names of those individuals referred to above as
holding
> 'Gussich Dynaunt' in 1166 or before are capitalized.
>
>
> Humphrey de Bohun = Maud of Salisbury
> d. before 1130 I
> ___________I_________________________
> I I
> I <1> <2> I
> 1) NN = Henry = 2) MAUD DE = Walter de = NN Humphrey = Margaret
of
> I d'Oilly BOHUN Cantilupe I d bef 1166 I
Gloucester
> I d.1163 'D'OYLY' I I d.
1187
> I d.bef 1166 I I
> I _________________________I_ _________I_______
> I I I I I
> 1)Henry = Maud de = 2) Henry de William de HUMPHREY MILO
DE
> d'Oilly I Cantilupe I Longchamp Cantilupe DE BOHUN BOHUN
> d. 1196 I I d.1212 d.1239 d.ca.1187 ( cf DD
> I I I I 332 )
> I V V I
> I 2) Margery de = Waleran
de
> I___________ Bohun I
Newburgh
> I I E of
> Warwick
> ______________I______________ I d. bef
> I I ____________I Oct
1204
> I I I
> Henry d'Oilly Margery d'Oilly = Henry de Newburgh
> dsp 1232 I E of Warwick
> V d bef 17 Oct 1229
>
>
> This reconstruction does include one tight chronological sequence,
the
> descent from Humphrey de Bohun (d. ca. 1187) and Margaret of Huntingdon
to
> Henry de Newburgh, Earl of Warwick (born say 1190) as noted by Chris
Phillips
> earlier in this thread. This would, however, explain the inheritance of
> 'Gussich Dynaunt' by Humphrey de Bohun (from whom his brother Milo de
Bohun
> evidently held same in 1166, according to Worthy), as Maud (de Bohun)
d'Oilly
> evidently dsp in 1166 or before. It also identifies Maud de Cantelou
(wife
> of
> Henry II d'Oilly according to Keats-Rohan, DD) as being first wife of
Henry
> d'Oilly, secondly wife of Henry de Longchamps, by whom she was the
ancestress
> of the subsequent holders of Wilton (Longchamps and de Grey).
>
> ~ This further removes the problematic Bohun descent for Margery
d'Oilly,
> wife of Henry de Newburgh (d. 1229), as the return of 'Gussich
Dynaunt'
> to the Bohun family indicates that Maud de Bohun had no surviving
issue
> (d'Oilly or de Cantelou).
>
> Should anyone have access to Worthy, or any other relevant
documentation,
> any and all contributions will be greatly appreciated. Comments and
> criticism
> are welcome as always.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John *
>
>
>
>
> NOTES
>
> [1] Ahnentafel for Pat Patterson, located at:
>
> http://www.patpnyc.com/ahn-27.shtml
>
> Text evidently derived from
> Devonshire Parishes, or the Antiquities, Heraldry and Family History
of
> Twenty-Eight Parishes in the Archdeaconry of Totnes by Charles WORTHY,
Esq.,
> Late H.M. 82nd Regiment (Exeter: William Pollard & Co, Printers North
Street
> London: George Redway, York Street, Covent Garden, 1889), II:31-34
>
> ' Gussich Dynaunt ' may be an earlier name for either Gussage All
> Saints or Gussage St. Michael (or another manor/parish subsequently
> renamed).
>
>
>
> * John P. Ravilious
>
>
>
>
Rosie Bevan
d'Oilly. This post takes the discussion further to provide a solution to the
problematic Bohun/d'Oilly/Newburgh pedigree.
As Chris Philips has commented, the citation from Worthy is written from the
perspective of the end of the thirteenth century. William Bayley, in "The
History of the House of Doyly" (London, 1845) also quoted the same evidence
as Worthy and said, "the manor of Gussich Dynaunt, co. Dorset, which the
same king had conferred on herself, descended to her heir at law (her nephew
ex parte sororis), the said Earl Humphrey de Bohun". If these specific
details are correct, then the Count Humphrey de Bohun living in 1261 at his
aunt's death, must be son of Humphrey de Bohun and Maud fitz Geoffrey. If
so, could Maud have had a previously unknown sister or half sister, also
called Maud? As the manor descended to her nephew, Maud had evidently died
without issue by either husband.
The Miles de Bohun mentioned at this time is most likely the son of Humphrey
V de Bohun who died in 1275, as shown by the following abstracted record
from the PRO, not son of Humphrey III de Bohun and Margaret de Gloucester
listed on DD 332. Miles de Bohun would have also been Maud d'Oilly/Cantilupe
's great nephew.
PRO DL 25/19
Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Constable of England to Miles de
Bohun his son: Grant of his land in Waresley; remainder to John de Bohun his
son: (Hunts.) [1239 :-: 1274] .
With regard d'Oilly/Newburgh pedigree, the chronology of a 48+ year old
Margery d'Oilly (Henry I d'Oylly died c.1163) married to a teenager and
giving birth to Thomas, Earl of Warwick in 1208 is clearly absurd. On closer
examination, the least substantiated link in the pedigree seems to be the
marriage of Waleran de Newburgh and Margery de Bohun. CP XII p. 364 note (a)
gives three sources in connection with the marriage. The latter two give no
mention of Margery de Bohun at all. I am not familiar with the first, which
is 'Rows Rol, no.34.' (Is anyone familiar with or have access to this
source?). However, there is evidence that Waleran's wife was definitely
named Margery.
Could this Margery have been Margery d'Oilly, not Margery de Bohun? Going
back to the wording of the inquisition into Bradenham manor, the key phrase
in the inquisition is a "unde de filia primogenita exierunt quidam Thomas
Comes Warewici et quaedam Margeria", which is translated as 'from the elder
of whom issued Thomas earl of Warwick and one Margery'. The phrase has
enough ambiguity about it to raise doubts as to whether this means Henry's
elder daughter was mother of Thomas and Margery. It may just as well be
taken to mean that they were her descendants.
If we accept Margery d'Oilly was married to Waleran, Earl of Warwick, it
must follow that Philippa Basset must have been the mother of Thomas and
Margery de Newburgh, as would be expected by the original purchase in 1204
by her father, Thomas Basset of Headington, of the marriage and wardship of
Henry de Newburgh in order to marry him to one of his daughters. The proof
which CP gives that Philippa was not mother of Thomas and Margery, is this
very inquisition. I believe that there is sufficient doubt as to its
interpretation, to allow us rearrange the pedigree.
1. Henry I d'Oilly d.c.1163
+ Maud de Bohun d.aft 1200=2nd Walter fitz Robert d.1198
2. Henry II d'Oilly b.c 1162 d.s.p.s. 1232
+ Sybil
3.Maud d.s.p. bef 1220
+ Maurice de Gaunt
+ Maud d.c. 1261 married secondly William de Cantilupe d.1239
2.Margery d'Oilly
+ Waleran de Newburgh, Earl of Warwick d.1203
3.Henry de Newburgh d. 1229
+ Philippa Basset d.1265 married secondly Richard Siward
4. Thomas de Newburgh, Earl of Warwick d.s.p.1242
+ Ela Longespee married 2nd Sir Philip Basset
4.Margery, Countess of Warwick d.s.p. 1253
+ John Marshall d.1242
+ John du Plessis de jure earl of Warwick d. 1263
2. Joan d'Oilly
+ Simon fitz Walter, Lord of Daventry
3. Walter fitz Simon, Lord of Daventry
As a result of this simple reinterpretation, the awkward chronology
disappears; there is no problematic 2nd degree consanguinous marriage; the
reason for Waleran's son being named Henry (after his maternal grandfather)
makes sense; Henry's son being named Thomas (after his maternal
grandfather) makes sense. It would also follow that when Philippa died in
1265, the Headington barony was divided between her sister's issue, because
her children had both predeceased her without issue.
The major implication of this restructuring is that Edith d'Oilly was not
the mother of Thomas Basset who died in 1182 as traditionally claimed.
To sum up, in the two posts, what I have attempted to clarify is
1. That there were only two Henry d'Oillys (DD error).
2. Which Maud was the subject of Worthy's narrative.
2. The misinterpretation of the inquisition into Bradenham manor has led to
mistakes in the d'Oilly/Newburgh pedigree (CP error)
4. That Maud fitz Geoffrey may have been the (half)sister of Maud, widow of
Henry II d'Oilly.
Further comments, evidence, opinions etc. most welcome.
Cheers
Linda Jack
Regarding your question about the 'Rows Rol, no.34.' It is likely John
Rous's history of the Earls of Warwick, "The Rous Roll." I think it has
been reprinted more than once. I have the 1980 Alan Sutton reprint with
a historical introduction by Charles Ross (ISBN 0 904387 43 7). Section
34 does deal with "Wallaranus." Of the whole work, Ross says it "is
arguably much more important for its heraldic and artistic, rather than
for its historical interest." ( p. v).
Linda
Rosie Bevan
Thank you very much for your message. If it is not too much trouble, would
you be able to confirm whether there is any reference to a Margery de Bohun
in the section?
If there isn't, then the Waleran/Margery Bohun marriage is totally
unsubstantiated by CP.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Jack" <linda...@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <rbe...@paradise.net.nz>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: CP Correction: The Earls of Warwick and the Bohun family
Linda Jack
Sorry, I was on my way out the door earlier, but here is the
transcription of the section from the "Rous Roll," no. 34. As you can
see the spelling and punctuation within the section is creative and
inconsistent but this should be right. Linda
"Wallaranus-Eorl of Warwik a noble man brodyr to Eorl William myche
trowbul he had for hys lyuelode in the daies of kuyng Richard the furst
that was born at Oxnford floer of knyghtode callyd for his manhode and
hardynes Rychard cor de leon. Thys lord Walleran for mayntenes gaue to
bishop hubert arbishop of Canterbury chaunsler of England for mayntenans
the collacon of al the probends in his the College of Warrewik dyryng
his dayes and aftre to return to his Eyrys Eorls of Warrwik Thys lord
weddid furst margerite the dowghter of the Eorl of Herford and had no
issw by her and aftyr a noder lady dam Maud and aftyr dam alice harcowt
by wiche lady he had grete issw herry his Eyr Eorl aftyr sir Willerad
and dam Alyce wyfe un to sir William maudut baron of hampsape with whos
mariage as geue the manor of Walton maudut besyde Warwik and at kyng
Johnis corronacion as for his homage of the Eorldom of Warrewik he bere
a swerd on the ryght hond of the kyng and he confermyd teh gift of his
foder of Gybelyf (to the) to priory of sepulchres and he died the xxiiij
day of decembyr the yere of our lord m (superscript 1) cc iij the iiij
yer of the reign of kyng John and then his lady and wyfe dame Alce of
the hartcowt blode a greyd with kyng John for her selfe to be maryed at
her will and the warde of her children m (superscropt 1) li & x white
stedys or plfreys."
Rosie Bevan
Thank you very much for posting the text - it has been useful in
establishing its reliability.
A comment is made on CP XII/2 p.357 by the author on the section of the
earls of Warwick, that the Rows Rol was compiled between 1477 and 1485 which
is nearly 300 years after the events in question. I tend to agree that it's
historical accuracy is of variable quality for this time period. For
example, John Rows says that Alice Harcourt was the mother of Henry, but
Waleran paid 100m to marry her in 1196, and assuming Henry was of age in
1213 when he was granted the third penny, this means he was born in or
before 1192.
It is interesting to note that although the CP author has heavily leaned on
the 'Rows Rol' as a source, in this case they have selectively chosen to
ignore Rows' version, saying that Henry was Waleran's son and heir by his
first wife, and have also chosen to ignore the second marriage to Maud.
Unfortunately we still don't have any independant contemporary evidence
which identifies Margery. I wouldn't be surprised if the identification has
come about through the transfer of Bohun property as maritagium.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Jack" <linda...@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: CP Correction: The Earls of Warwick and the Bohun family
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> This is the first of two posts discussing the issues which John has
raised.
> As the reply has turned out to be rather long, this first one is to
present
> the case that there were only two Henry D'Oillys, and to discuss the
> marriages of the respective widows named Maud. The second post is an
attempt
> to provide a solution to the problematic Bohun/d'Oilly/Newburgh pedigree.
Thanks for those excellent posts.
The proposed Oilly-Newburgh-Basset revision certainly seems to solve the
problem of consanguinity noted by John previously, and removes the strange
scenario suggested by CP in which Henry de Newburgh's marriage was bought by
Thomas Basset for one of his daughters, but the marriage didn't take place
until Henry had been married to and widowed by another woman!
I still find the passage from the Hundred Rolls posted by John, about
Humphrey de Bohun being the nephew of Matilda de Oilly/Cantilupe, very
puzzling. Comparing the text from Worthy with te extract from William
Bayley, it looks as though it's his interpretation that makes Humphrey Bohun
an earl. I wonder if it could be a different man from Earl Humphrey (d.
1275). But it seems equally hard to make this work for his son or even his
grandson of the same name (though the latter did indeed have an aunt - Eve
de Briouze - who married a William de Cauntelo!).
I wondered whether Humphrey could even belong to another branch of the
Bohuns, but the PRO catalogue shows:
DL 25/1418
Thomas de Pudele to William de Boon, Earl of Northampton, and Isabel his
wife: Grant of his land, etc., in Gussage St. Michael (Gussych Booun): Dors.
26 Edw. III.
[Presumably this is the Gussich Dynaunt in the Hundred Roll]
Chris Phillips