Chamberlains and de Gatesdens: two incompatible narratives

[P Nielsen Hayden]

Anne Chamberlain (d. >1529) was the umbilical great-great-grandmother
of the Marbury sisters, Katherine (Marbury) Scott and Anne (Marbury)
Hutchinson. She was a daughter of Richard Chamberlain, son of Richard,
son of Richard, son of Richard, son of John, son of Richard Chamberlain
of Petsoe, Buckinghamshire (among other holdings) who married, in about
1285, Joan de Gatesden. Two reputable secondary sources in the last 21
years give very different versions of Anne Chamberlain's Gatesden
ancestry.

Here is the Gatesden line to the Chamberlains as shown in THE ANCESTRY
OF DOROTHEA POYNTZ by Ronny O. Bodine and Bro. Thomas Spalding, Jr.
(fourth preliminary edition, 2013):

Adulf de Gatesden d. 1225 = Ermengarde de Bidun d. >1241
|
John de Gatesden d. 1236-1254
|
John de Gatesden b. >1215 ("minor in 1236"), d. 1258 = Hawise d. 1269
|
Margaret de Gatesden b. 1246 = John de Gatesden d. 1291
|
Joan de Gatesden b. 1268 = Richard Chamberlain

According to Bodine and Spalding, the John de Gatesden who d. 1291 was
"perhaps a cousin, perhaps a _filius terrae_ who took his name from the
place"; his wife Margaret, not he, was the heir to the Gatesden line.

In "Chamberlains in the Ancestry of the Marbury Sisters", in THE
GENEALOGIST 13:189, Fall 1999, F. N. Craig shows a different picture.
The John de Gatesden who d. 1291 and whose daughter Joan married
Richard Chamberlain is the Gatesden heir, not his wife. No mention is
made of a wife named Margaret, or any wife. Also, there are fewer
generations between Joan and Adulf:

Adulf de Gatesden d. 1214-1225 = Ermengarde de Bidun d. <1254
|
John de Gatesden d. <1254
|
John de Gatesden b. >1215 ("minor in 1236"), d. bef 11 Dec 1291
|
Joan de Gatesden b. 1268 = Richard Chamberlain

According to F. N. Craig, the John who was son of Adulf de Gatesden and
Ermengarde de Bidun, "did not occur in the records during his lifetime
nor did his wife." We can determine his approximate date of death
because in 1254 Ermengarde de Bidun "was dead, for after the death of
Maud de Rocheford, the heirs of Ermengard were found to be John de
Gatesden, then living, son of her elder son John, then dead". Further
according to Craig, in 1236 "custody during minority of the lands and
heirs of John, son of Adulf de Gatesden, with the marriage of the
heirs, was granted to John de Gatesden, king's clerk."

Now. In a lengthy footnote, Craig explains that "John de Gatesden,
king's clerk" _was a different individual_ from any of the descendants
of Adulf de Gatesden, and that he "appears to be the representative of
the senior branch of the family of Adulf de Gatesden." He was sheriff
of Surrey in 1228 and the queen's chamberlain in 1238. He died by 1262
and was survived by his wife Hawise de Nevil, who was dead in 1269.

Craig's footnote goes on to explain that the son of this John de
Gatesden, king's clerk, also named John de Gatesden, predeceased him in
1258/59. This younger John de Gatesden left a daughter Margaret, born
about 1245. Remember the Margaret born 1246 in the Bodine/Spalding
version, daughter of a John de Gatesden who died in 1258? In Craig's
version, this Margaret married John de Camoys, who died in or after
1285. This John de Camoys was a brother of Ela de Camoys, who married
Piers Goushill and was an ancestor of Olive Welby. After the death of
John de Camoys, Margaret (Gatesden) (Camoys) married William Paynell.

To chart the above narrative from Craig's footnote:

John de Gatesden, king's clerk, d. <1262 = Hawise de Nevil, d. <1269
|
John de Gatesden d. 1258/59
|
Margaret de Gatesden b. 1245 = John de Camoys d. >1284
= William Paynell

According to Craig, none of these people are part of the line from
Adulf and Ermengarde to Joan who married Richard Chamberlain. But note
that several of these combinations of names and dates -- for instance,
Hawise who d. 1269; and Margaret, b. 1245 or 1246 -- appear in the
Bodine/Spalding version of the Gatesden-to-Chamberlain line. In Craig,
a single John de Gatesden is born after 1215 and dies before 11 Dec
1291; in Bodine and Spalding, an older John de Gatesden is born after
1215 and is the father of Margaret de Gatesden who marries a younger
John de Gatesden, possibly a cousin of some sort, or possibly just a
man who took his wealthier wife's name, who dies in 1291.

To sum up, these are obviously incompatible narratives. At least one of
them is in significant error, if not both. The Marbury sisters have
many modern descendants, so any insight into this would be welcome.

[Jason Quick]

I would check out the parish of Lathbury at BHO for more answers. I think its three Johns. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp372-379

I looked into this family a while back but focused on Walter de Gatesden who married Matilda daughter of Ingeram de Farthingstone.

[Douglas Richardson]

There were at least two contemporary John de Gatesden's in this time period. This has confused more than one author.

The first Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262) was of Broadwater, Barcombe, Didling, Dumpford, Elsted, and Trotton, Sussex, Stockholt (in Akeley), Buckinghamshire, Eling and Lasham, Hampshire, Bradford-on-Tone, Somerset, Compton, Surrey, etc. He married Hawise de Courtenay (died 1269), widow of John de Neville. He left a daughter and heiress, Margaret (or Margery) de Gatesden, wife of John de Camoys, Knt., of Flockthorpe (in Hardingham), Norfolk, and William Paynel, Knt., Lord Paynel. For further particulars of Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262), see my book, Royal Ancestry.

My research indicates that about 1256 he was summoned to appear before the Bishop of Chichester to hear sentence in a case between himself and Amfrey de Beckenham, rector of Hoathley, Sussex. Sometime before 1262 he granted the Dean and Chapter of Chichester one acre of land in Didling, Sussex.

The second John de Gatesden left a daughter and heiress, Joan, wife of Richard le Chamberlain.

He presumably is the John son of John de Gatesden living 1269 to whom Ermengarde de Bidun, widow of Andulf de Gatesden, passed the manor of Lathbury, Buckinghamshire before 1254.

Regarding descent of the manor of Lathbury, Buckinghamshire, VCH Buckingham 4 (1927): 372-379 states that "after prolonged lawsuits between 1310 and 1318, Richard Chamberlain and his wife Joan, daughter and heir of John de Gatesden, and afterwards with their son John Chamberlain, finally secured a verdict" in 1321.

VCH Buckingham gives the following sources for the lawsuits:

"De Banco R. 183, m. 9; 184, m. 25; 188, m. 223; 192, m. 10; 195a, m. 289; 201, m. 69; 211, m. 76 d.; 214, m. 52; 216, m. 158 d.; 225, m. 99 d. The last two references are the most important."

The above references can all be viewed on the Anglo-American Legal Tradition (AALT) website under Court of Common Pleas.

The last two references can be converted as follows:

216, m. 158 d =

In Michaelmas term 1316 the Abbot of Lavendon sued John de Hanlo [Haudlo] and Maud his wife in the Court of Common Pleas that they warrant to him the manor of Lathbury, Buckinghamshire, which Richard le Chamberleyn and Joan his wife have claimed as their right.

Reference:
Court of Common Pleas, CP40/216, image 319d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no216/bCP40no216dorses/IMG_0319.htm).
+ + + + + + + + + + +

225, m. 99 d. =

In Michaelmas term 1318 Richard le Chaumberleyn and Joan his wife sued the Abbot of Lavendon in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Lathbury, Buckinghamshire, which they claimed as the right of Joan, and which Walter de Gatesden unjustly disseised John de Gatesden, father of the said Joan, whose heir she is. The Abbot called to warranty John de Haudlo and Maud his wife. Reference is made to an earlier fine between Jordan, then Abbot of Lavendon, and Robert Burnel, ancestor of the said Maud, whose heir she is. More particulars are given.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/225, image 199d (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no225/bCP40no225dorses/IMG_0199.htm).

Robert Burnel mentioned here is, of course, the famous Robert Burnell [died 1292], Bishop of Bath and Wells, Chancellor of England.

I trust this helps. All for now.

DR

[Douglas Richardson]

I see there is further material on John de Gatesden, of Lathbury, Buckinghamshire, in Honors and Knights' Fees at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3GO7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA13

This John de Gatesden appears to have been active from 1255 to 1284. I believe he is the John de Gatesden who was the father of Joan de Gatesden, wife of Richard le Chamberlain.

DR

[P Nielsen Hayden]

Thank you, both Jason and Douglas; this was all very helpful. VCH
Buckingham and Honors and Knights' Fees both seem to harmonize with F.
N. Craig's version far more than with The Ancestry of Dorothea Poyntz.
Farrar in particular makes the same point about John de Gatesden, the
king's clerk, being entirely separate from the descendants of Arnulf de
Gatesden and Ermengarde de Bidun.

As far as I can tell, the idea that Joan de Gatesden, wife of Richard
Chamberlain, inherited her portion of the Bidun inheritance from her
mother, and that her father John de Gatesden was either a "son of the
earth" or at most a distant cousin to the descendants of Arnulf de
Gatesden and Ermengarde de Bidun, originates in John Henry Cussans's
1870-81 History of Hertfordshire, volume 3, page 120, where he refers
to "John de Gatesdene, who died in 1258, leaving a daughter and heir,
Margaret, who was married to a John de Gatesdene, who was perhaps a
cousin, perhaps a _filius terrae_ who took his name from the place."
This was later repeated, footnoted to Cussans, in the Great Gaddensden
section of VCH Hertfordshire (volume 2).

In the left-hand margin next to the bit quoted above, Cussans cites
"Inq. p. mort. 43 Hen. III. No. 40" and "Ib 20 Ed. I No. 20." I don't
know what the second citation refers to, but I was able to find what is
at least an abstract of the IPM for "John de Gatesdene, the younger"
who "died on the feast of St. Catherine, 43. Hen. III" (i.e.
1258-1259), at British History Online at
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol1/pp122-129. It
says that Margaret was his heir, but the abstract says nothing about
her being "married to a John de Gatesdene".

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Reviewing secondary sources, it appears that there were at least three John de Gatesden's.

The first was Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262), who married Hawise de Courtenay (died 1269), widow of John de Neville. He left a daughter and heiress, Margaret (or Margery) de Gatesden, minor in 1269, wife of John de Camoys, Knt., of Flockthorpe (in Hardingham), Norfolk, and William Paynel, Knt., Lord Paynel.

The second was John de Gatesden (died 1258), who is called "the younger." He is identified by VCH Sussex as being the son of the first John de Gatesden (died 1262). I believe they were closely related but they were not father and son (as will be seen below). The younger John left a widow, Margery (living 1259), and a daughter Margaret, born about 1246 (aged 13 in 1259). John de Gatesden the younger at his death held the manors of Trotton and Didling, Sussex, and Gaddesden and Stanbridge (in Leighton Buzzard), Bedfordshire.

VCH Sussex 4 (1953): 32-39 (sub Trotton) states that Margaret daughter of John de Gatesden the younger is the one who married John de Camoys. But this is an error. I say that because Margaret daughter of John the younger was born about 1246, whereas Margaret (wife of John de Camoys) the known daughter of Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262) was still a minor in 1270.

Elswehere Cussans, History of Hertfordshire, Dacorum Hundred, pg.120 states that Margaret daughter of John de Gatesden the younger married another John de Gatesden (died 1290). This could be correct. Whatever the case, it appears it was this third John de Gatesden who died in 1290, who left a daughter, Joan (born about 1267, aged 23 in 1290), wife of Richard le Chamberlain. I assume he is the John de Gatesden who gave a quittance to the manor of Lathbury, Buckinghamshire sometime before 1282, which property Joan Chamberlain later claimed as her right in 1316.

That John (died 1262) and John (died 1258) were closely related is indicated by the fact that the manors of Trotton and Didling, Sussex went to Margaret, daughter of John (died 1262), who married John de Camoys, whereas the manors of Gaddesden and Stanbridge (in Leighton Buzzard), Bedfordshire descended to the Chamberlain family. Lathbury, Buckinghamshire was also claimed by the Chamberlain family.

Besides the difference in ages between the two Margaret de Gatesdens, I find that there are two lawsuits which involve Margaret de Gatesden, wife of John de Camoys, with the other heirs of her mother, Hawise de Courtenay.

1. In 1274 Walter de la Hyde and Joan his wife sued John de Camoys and Margaret his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Norton [Fitzwarren], Somerset, excepting one virgate of land, etc..

Note: Joan de Neville, wife of Walter de la Hyde, named above was the daughter of Hawise de Courtenay by her 1st husband, John de Neville.

2. In 1280 Peter de Montfort and Maud his wife and her half-sister, Hawise le Veel, sued John de Camoys and Margaret his wife regarding the manor of Norton [Fitzwarren], Somerset, which John and Margaret they said had no entry except by John de Gatesden (father of Margaret) who unjustly disseised Joan de la Mare, mother of the said Maud and Hawise.

Note: Maud and Hawise were daughters of Joan de Neville, wife of Henry de la Mare and Walter de la Hyde.

Procs. Somerset Arch. & Natural Hist. Society 28 (1882): 197–200 includes a discussion of the manor of Bradford-on-Tone, Somerset, which proves that John de Gatesden [the husband of Hawise de Courtenay] who held the manor of Bradford, Somerset, is the father of Margaret de Gatesden, wife of John de Camoys. This John de Gatesden also held moieties of the manors of Norton and Heckford, Somerset, which explains the two lawsuits above. Regardless, the Somerset proceedings account confuses Margaret, wife of John de Camoys, who was a minor in 1270, with the other Margaret de Gatesden, daughter of John the younger, who was born about 1246. Conversely, Carthew, Hundred of Launditch & Deanery of Brisley 1 (1877): 238–241 correctly identifies that Margaret de Gatesden, wife of John de Camoys, is the daughter of John de Gatesden who married Hawise de Courtenay.

Cathew can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=inFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA238

So far, I haven't seen any evidence which confirms Cussans' claim that Margaret, daughter of John de Gatesden the younger, married another John de Gatesden. If the couple were near related, such a marriage would typically be banned by church laws concerning consanguinity. However, it would explain how this John de Gatesden's daughter, Joan Chamberlain, would be heir to the Gatesden family manors of Gaddesden, Lathbury, and Stanbridge. However, I have another possible theory which should be explored. It appears that John de Gatesden the younger (died 1258) had a full brother named Richard de Gatesden. If Margaret daughter of John de Gatesden the younger died without issue, her inheritance would fall to her nearest heir of the full blood, namely her uncle Richard de Gatesden. If Richard de Gatesden had a son and heir, John de Gatesden, he could be the one who was the father of Joan de Gatesden, wife of Richard le Chamberlain. As far as I can tell from Honors and Knights' Fees, Joan Chamberlain's father, John de Gatesden, first surfaces in 1282. As such, there is plenty of time for the Gatesden properties to go from Margaret daughter of John de Gatesden the younger to her uncle. Richard de Gatesden, and thence onto Richard's son, John de Gatesden. I like this theory as it explains how the Gatesden properties at Gaddesden, Lathbury, and Stanbridge remained in the Gatesden family, although supposedly there was a female heiress in the chain of descent.

That Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262) was still a minor in 1270 is proven by a record of that date found in the Court of the King's Bench. In Easter term 1270, Richard, chaplain of Bradford, Somerset, was summoned to answer the king that the king permit him to present a suitable person to the church of Bradford, which was vacant and in the king's gift by reason of the custody of Margaret, daughter and heir of John de Gatesden, being then in the king's hands. Richard further said that whereas the church was vacant and was moved by an action in the King's court regarding the advowson of the said church between Thomas de Audham and Isabel his wife and Hawise, widow of John de Gatesden, who held the manor of Bradford in dower, and that during the contention between them, he worked from the time of the voidance of the same [which] the Bishop conferred on him the said church.

The above record is abstracted in Notes & Queries for Somerset & Dorset 14 (1915): 254–257. The original can be found at the following weblink:

Court of the King’s Bench, KB26/198, image 1585d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H3/KB26no198/bKB26no198dorses/IMG_1585.htm).

The fact that Margaret daughter of Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262) is styled his "daughter and heir" in 1270, it is clear that she was his only surviving heir in 1270 and that the other Margaret (born c.1246) can not have been his grand-daughter as has been frequently alleged in print.

So how was Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262) related to John de Gatesden the younger (diedc 1258)? Below is a record which may explain their relationship.

In 1236 John de Gatesden made the fine of 25 marks that the king grant to him the custody of the land and heirs of John de Gatesden, his nephew. Reference: Henry III Fine Rolls Project, E 371/4, 21 HENRY III , 21/8 (available at https://finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_004E.html#it008_010).

I believe that the adult John de Gatesden named here in 1236 is Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262). The unnamed heir of John de Gatesden the nephew named here would be John de Gatesden the younger (died 1258). If so, this arrangement would make SIr John de Gatesden (died 1262) the great-uncle of John de Gatesden the younger (died 1258) and his brother, Richard de Gatesden (living 1259).

Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist