Lucy le Bret, wife of Hugh de Vautort/Valletort and Richard de Champernoun

1344 views
Skip to first unread message

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 4:15:24 AM10/14/18
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

William Pole in his book, Collections towards a Description of Devon (1791), reports that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon [died 1338] married Elizabeth de Vautort, daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Vautourt, by his wife, Lucy, daughter of Adam le Bret.

On pages 309–310, he writes:

“Modbiry … Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard, wch had twoe wiefes, 1, Alis, daughter of Thomas Lo. Astelegh, by whom hee had issue Alexander, of Beer Ferrers; his 2 wief was Katerin, daughter of Sr Giles Dawbeney, by whom hee had issue Richard, of Modbiry, & John, of Inswerke, thancestor of Trevilian, Fortescue, of Woode, & Munke, of Poderige." END OF QUOTE.

On page 426, he gives additional information:

"Hugh de Valletort, by Lucia, daughter of Adam le Bret, had issue Egelina, wife of Oliver Champernon, Lucia, wief of Geffrey Lyff, Katherine wief, 1, of William Lucy, &, 2, of Sr Henry, Frances, Beatrix, wife of Simon Bradeney, Elisabeth, wief of Sir Richard Champernon, of Modbiry, & Jone." END OF QUOTE.

Recently I encountered an assize record dated 1317 which concerns these families. Below is a brief abstract of the beginning of the lawsuit:

In 1317 an assize was held to determine of Richard de Champernoun and Lucy his wife and Ralph Thurston unjustly disseised James Tryvet of his free tenement in Baggedrip [Bawdrip], Somerset.

Reference: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1371, image 2910d,
available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1371/bJUST1no1371dorses/IMG_2910.htm
In the ensuing testimony, it is stated that Hugh Tryvet father of the said James had previously leased the property in question to Adam le Bret for the term of his life. Portions of the remaining text are illegible. The text appears to say that Adam le Bret granted the reversion of the property to Hugh de Vautort [then [tunc] husband of the said Lucy] and to Lucy his wife and the heirs of Hugh, and that after the death of Adam le Bret, Richard de Champernoun and his wife Lucy took possession.

The implication is that Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun, is the same person as Lucy, wife of Hugh de Vautort, although this is not directly stated. If correct, it would appear that Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautout/Valletort, married (2nd) before 1317 Richard de Champernoun the elder, father of Sir Richard de Champernoun who married Lucy's daughter, Elizabeth de Vautort.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 7:18:02 PM10/14/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:15:24 AM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> The implication is that Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun, is the
> same person as Lucy, wife of Hugh de Vautort, although this is not
> directly stated. If correct, it would appear that Lucy le Bret, widow
> of Hugh de Vautout/Valletort, married (2nd) before 1317 Richard de
> Champernoun the elder, father of Sir Richard de Champernoun who married
> Lucy's daughter, Elizabeth de Vautort.

For context, Hugh was still alive 10 February 1309/10, when "Hugh de Valla Torta" acknowledged a debt (CCR), but dead "in a month of Easter" that year, when Lucy, "who had been the wife of Hugh de Valle Torta", was granting a manor and an advowson by her father (Som. Fines). Curiously, the king was slow on the uptake here - he issued a writ for Hugh's lands to be taken into the king's hand, but not until April 1315 (CFR - assuming this is the same Hugh, as there was at least one other at this time).

If Lucy did marry as suggested, it seemingly came after Christmas, 1312, when James de Mertone was installed at Highampton under patronage of "Lucy, relict of Hugh de Valletort". Under the supposition that the marriage of the elder Richard to Lucy put him in a position to control her daughters' marriages, and thus that of the younger Richard to Elizabeth soon followed (as well as that of Egeline to Oliver Champernoun) this fits well with the chronology I laid out a few weeks ago, in which I put the birth of Thomas Champernoun in the 1310-1320 range - this would place Thomas's birth in the later part of that range (and possibly as early as 1314 if they married shortly after the 1312 notice and Thomas was their first-born).

taf

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 8:15:39 PM10/14/18
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my previous post, due to the damaged condition of the original document, I was a bit tentative in my analysis of the 1317 assize which involved Richard de Champernoun and his wife, Lucy.

I stated that it was indirectly implied that Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun, was the same person as Lucy, wife of Hugh de Vautort. Actually the assize spells it out in very clear terms. First, the assize record starts by reference to Richard de Champernoun and Lucy his wife. Then as the record progresses, reference is made to Hugh de Vautort who is called the previous husband of "the said Lucy." Since there is only one Lucy mentioned in this document, "the said Lucy" wife of Hugh de Vautort can only be the same person as Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun. As such, we can be certain that Lucy le Bret married (1st) Hugh de Vautourt, died 1310, and (2nd) before 1317 (date of assize) Richard de Champernoun.

Back in 1999 Ronny Bodine posted a long discussion on the newsgroup regarding the Champernoun of Modbury, Devon family. He assigned Richard de Champernoun, living 1286, as the husband of Joan, half-sister of James de Okeston, of Modbury, Devon. He presumed that Richard de Champernoun's wife, Joan, survived him and married before 1300 Peter de Fishacre. Joan was still living in 1316. Bodine assigned Richard de Champernoun (living 1286) and his wife, Joan, as the parents of Richard de Champernoun, died 1338, husband of Elizabeth de Vautourt.

However, given the evidence of the 1317 assize, there must have been another Richard de Champernoun in between Richard, living 1286, and Richard, died 1338. Otherwise Joan, sister of James de Okeston, living 1316, can not be the widow of Richard de Champernoun, living 1286, as indicated by Bodine.

Indeed the newsgroup archives reveal that Vivian, the Devonshire historian, claimed that there were in fact three Richard de Champernoun's in a row in this family, not two. Benson, who is someone I hold in extremely low esteem, stated there wasn't room for three Richard's, but he didn't support his conclusion with dates (typical for him).

Given the new evidence of the 1317 Assize, the Champernoun descent must include three Richard's in a row. Below is a revised reconstruction of this family line with speculative dates:

1. Richard de Champernoun, occurs 1280-1 through 1286. He married before 1280-1, Joan, half-sister of James de Okeston, of Modbury, Devon. She married (2nd) before 1300 Peter de Fishacre. She was living in 1316.

2. Richard de Champernoun, born say 1265-70, living 1317. He married 1st, an unknown wife. They had one son, Richard. He married (2nd) before 1317 Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort (died 1310), and daughter and heiress of Adam le Bret. According to Bodine, in 1285, by commandment of Edward I, James de Okeston conveyed Modbury, Devon to him.

3. Richard de Champernoun, born say 1295, died 1338. He is presumably the man who was Knight of the Shire for Devon in 1324 and 1331 (Parliaments, pp. 71, 94). He married Elizabeth de Vautort, widow of Richard Tremenet, and daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Vautort (died 1310), by his wife, Lucy le Bret (living 1317).

4. Thomas de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, son and heir, born say 1320/5, living 1387, Sheriff of Devonshire, 1362, 1367, Escheator of Devonshire, 1369–71. He married Eleanor Lovel.

taf

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 9:05:35 PM10/14/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:15:39 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:


> 1. Richard de Champernoun, occurs 1280-1 through 1286. He married before 1280-1, Joan, half-sister of James de Okeston, of Modbury, Devon. She married (2nd) before 1300 Peter de Fishacre. She was living in 1316.
>
> 2. Richard de Champernoun, born say 1265-70, living 1317.

Clearly something fishy here, but given what we think we know about the elder Joan's chronology with prince Richard, this chronology you propose is impossible.

taf

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 9:08:50 PM10/14/18
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

In his account of the Champernoun family in the newsgroup archives, Ronny Bodine stated that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, died 1338, married Elizabeth de Vautort, widow of Richard Tremenet. He provided no further particulars or dates for Elizabeth.

The record below indicates that Elizabeth survived her husband and was living in 1342.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Reference: C 241/117/277
Description:
Debtor: John de Trejage {Treiagu}, knight, [held fee in Fentongollen, Powder Hundred, and half a fee in Trevorder, Pyder Hundred] Stephen de Treiagu, and Stephen de Trewythynek, of Cornwall.

Creditor: Elizabeth, who was the wife of Richard de Champernon {Chambernoun}, knight [family held several fees in Powder Hundred, Cornwall]

Amount: £40.

First term: 29/09/1342

Last term: 29/09/1342

Writ to: Sheriff of Cornwall

Sent by: Serlo Queynte, Keeper of the Mayor's Seal at Lostwithiel; Thomas de Dingley, Clerk.

Endorsement: Cornub' Coram Justic' de Banco.

Date: 1343 Apr 30
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Language: Latin

taf

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 9:12:36 PM10/14/18
to
Just to amplify this, the bar you see to the previous reconstruction comes down to one thing - in your words, Joan is 'presumed' to have survived Richard and remarried to Peter Fishacre, perhaps that presumption should be evaluated as well.

taf

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 9:17:31 PM10/14/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 7:05:35 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
< Clearly something fishy here, but given what we think we know about the elder < Joan's chronology with prince Richard, this chronology you propose is
< impossible.

< taf

My reconstructed Champernoun pedigree attempts to harmonize what is known about the early generations about the Champernoun family of Modbury. It is subject to revision.

As you know, with most medieval problems, one record such as the 1317 assize can change an entire pedigree.

DR

taf

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 9:18:47 PM10/14/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 6:08:50 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In his account of the Champernoun family in the newsgroup archives, Ronny Bodine stated that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, died 1338, married Elizabeth de Vautort, widow of Richard Tremenet. He provided no further particulars or dates for Elizabeth.
>

Yeah, that came from the DCNQ article on the Vautorts, but has to be wrong, since Tremenet was still living in 1246. It seems the order of the marriages got reversed. Elizabeth is seen as late as 1362 as widow of William de Willoughby.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 14, 2018, 9:28:33 PM10/14/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 6:17:31 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

> My reconstructed Champernoun pedigree attempts to harmonize what is known about the early generations about the Champernoun family of Modbury. It is subject to revision.
>

Yet apparently no attempt was made to harmonize with what we think we know of the Joans.


> As you know, with most medieval problems, one record such as the 1317 assize can change an entire pedigree.
>

Yes, it can, but when that happens it is best to look again at EVERYTHING and not just try to fudge it with a chronology that 'breaks' other things we think we know.

It has been two decades since I looked at it, so I could be misremembering, but I think the Fishacre connection is a supposition based on a fine that does not make any relationships explicit. That seems a weak basis on which to take a wrecking ball to better-supported aspects of the reconstruction, doncha think?

taf

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 1:05:41 AM10/15/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 7:28:33 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
< It has been two decades since I looked at it, so I could be misremembering,
< but I think the Fishacre connection is a supposition based on a fine that does < not make any relationships explicit. That seems a weak basis on which to take < a wrecking ball to better-supported aspects of the reconstruction, doncha
< think?
<
< taf

No wrecking ball, taf. Just hard core evidence.

DR

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 1:14:41 AM10/15/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 7:28:33 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:

< It has been two decades since I looked at it, so I could be misremembering,
< but I think the Fishacre connection is a supposition based on a fine that
< does not make any relationships explicit. That seems a weak basis on which
< to take a wrecking ball to better-supported aspects of the reconstruction,
< doncha think?

By all means, cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them. Otherwise you're no better than John Schmeeckle.

DR

taf

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 2:53:14 AM10/15/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:05:41 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

> No wrecking ball, taf. Just hard core evidence.

You still haven't looked at the Joan chronology then - you are obliterating it even if you haven't realized it yet.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 2:55:46 AM10/15/18
to
That makes no sense whatsoever. You are the one using the Fishacre relationship to draw a conclusion. How is it then my responsibility?

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 3:21:26 AM10/15/18
to
Just to be clear, I am talking about Joan the elder, Champernoun's mother-in-law, and hence the timing of Joan the younger's birth. As it is currently understood, your timing would place your extra Richard's birth when the younger Joan was no older than 13, and perhaps as young as 8. To make your chronology work, you have to take a wrecking ball to the elder Joan's timing with Earl Richard.

I realize you just threw your new chronology together without looking at the bigger picture - that is obvious. As much as your gut instinct is to dig in and insist the problem is with everybody else, now would be a good time to actually think about the big picture, to go beyond your simplistic first approach of just tossing in another Richard and fudging the dates.

And for heaven's sake, look into the Fishacre presumption - if that connection isn't supported, there isn't even anything that needs fixing in the Champernoun line.

taf

Patrick Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 7:23:40 AM10/15/18
to
On 2018-10-15 00:15:37 +0000, celticp...@gmail.com said:

> 4. Thomas de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, son and heir, born say
> 1320/5, living 1387, Sheriff of Devonshire, 1362, 1367, Escheator of
> Devonshire, 1369–71. He married Eleanor Lovel.

Wait, I thought Thomas Champernoun's wife was Eleanor Rohaut. Eleanor
Lovel was his mother-in-law.

CP on Sir Richard Lovel d. 1351 says that his "daughter, Eleanor, was
wife of Roger Rouhaut (of Aston Rowant) in 1326". VCH Oxfordshire,
volume 8 ("Parishes: Aston Rowant") says "Henry [Fitz Alan's] son
Roger, known as Sir Roger Rohant, married Eleanor the daughter of
Richard Lovel of Wincanton (Som.), and in 1326 entailed Aston manor on
his heirs male. He was still alive in 1340 when he again put the manor
in trust. In 1360 a Lady Eleanor Rohant, presumably his widow, was
administering the estate. Rohant's property passed to his daughter
Eleanor and her husband Thomas Champernowne. Eleanor also had died by
1369, when Thomas Champernowne, lord of Modbury (Devon), quitclaimed
his rights in certain of Eleanor's estates to Richard Champernowne
their son, described elsewhere as great-grandson of Richard Lovel."


--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
http://nielsenhayden.com
http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/

taf

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 10:02:27 AM10/15/18
to
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:23:40 AM UTC-7, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> On 2018-10-15 00:15:37 +0000, celticp...@gmail.com said:
>
> > 4. Thomas de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, son and heir, born say
> > 1320/5, living 1387, Sheriff of Devonshire, 1362, 1367, Escheator of
> > Devonshire, 1369–71. He married Eleanor Lovel.
>
> Wait, I thought Thomas Champernoun's wife was Eleanor Rohaut. Eleanor
> Lovel was his mother-in-law.

Yeah, I assume that was just a slip, since his own book has it as you describe.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 11:22:17 AM10/15/18
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> If Lucy did marry as suggested, it seemingly came after Christmas,
> 1312, when James de Mertone was installed at Highampton under
> patronage of "Lucy, relict of Hugh de Valletort".

Notable to this, Domini Ric. de Campo Arnulphi was at Highampton on 30 November 1319.

taf

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 15, 2018, 5:38:21 PM10/15/18
to
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 5:23:40 AM UTC-6, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote:

> Wait, I thought Thomas Champernoun's wife was Eleanor Rohaut. Eleanor
> Lovel was his mother-in-law.

You're entirely correct Patrick. My mistake. Thank you for your comment.
Message has been deleted

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 18, 2018, 2:54:44 AM10/18/18
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

This current thread is basically a continuation in a long series of posts made over many years by numerous newsgroup members concerning the Champernoun family of Modbury, Devon, chief among them Ronny Bodine and taf.

Buried behind the Champernoun family has been an alleged descent from Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, who died in 1272. This connection is based on a statement by the venerable Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole, who indicated that he saw a grant dated 1280-1 in which Edmund of Almain, Earl of Cornwall, died 1300, legitimate son of Earl/King Richard, referred to Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, as his "sister." Pole's comments are as follows:

pages 309-310: “Modbiry was thancient land of the Valletorts, Barons of Hurberton. Roger de Valletort conveyed it, amongst other lands, unto Sr Alexander Okeston, wch had married Jone, the widow of Raph de Valletort, wch woman (as it is probable) was the concubine of Richard Erle of Cornwall, & Kinge of Almayne, or of ye Romans; they had issue Sr James de Okeston, wch died wthout issue; wthth commandement of Kinge Edw. 2, [hee] conveyed Modbiry, & all other lands, formerly granted unto his father by Roger de Valletort unto Sr Richard Chambernon, wch was sonne of Richard Chambernon, & Jone, daughter of Jone before mentioned, whom Edmund Erle of Cornwall, calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by hym unto the said Richard and Jone, of thassise of breade & ale, dated anno 12 Edward I. The said Richard the father was younger sonne of Sr Henry Chambernon, of Clist Chambernon. Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard ...” [Reference: Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 309].

The original comments of Pole may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=WF4OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA309

We see above that Vivian proposed that Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, was the illegitimate daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans [died 1272], by his mistress, Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort [he died 1256], and subsequently wife of Sir Alexander de Okeston [Oxton].

As far as I know, I don't think anyone has seriously questioned Pole's account of this family. Certainly his arrangement displayed an excellent working knowledge of the people of this time period. All the people he mentions in his account certainly lived in the time period in question and the chronology behind his statements appears to be sound. Vivian was a sober historian and, if he says he saw a grant by Earl Edmund in which Joan de Champernoun was called his sister, I'm sure he was telling the truth.

Even so, until now there has been no independant confirmation of the grant of Earl Edmund to his sister, Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun. Nor, to my knowledge, has there been any record located which links Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, to her reputed mother, Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort.

Recently I recently found a reference to an Exchequer of Pleas action which involves Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans. I decided to search for the record and this past week I was able to find it on the Anglo-American Legal Tradition (AALT) website.

Below is a brief abstract of the record. The information in brackets has been added by me for clarity:

In 1278 Andrew de Treslok and Joan de Valletort his wife, tenants of part of the lands of Ralph de Valletort [died 1256] and Reynold de Valletourt [died 1270], sued Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, Richard de Chambernon, and the Bishop of Exeter, tenants of the other part of the said lands in Exchequer of Pleas.

Reference: Exchequer of Pleas, E13no6, image 14, Date: 1278 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E1/E13no6/IMG_0014.htm).

Elsewhere I found another legal action involving these same parties:

In 1280–1 Andrew Trellok and Joan his wife arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Richard de Campo Arnulfi [Champernoun] and Joan his wife regarding a tenement in Meyswerk, Cornwall. Reference: Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 50 (1889): 155, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rv4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA155

We see two records above involving Joan de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, and her third husband, Andrew de Trelosk, a royal justice. In the first record, the defendants include Edmund, Earl of Cornwall [son of King Richard], and Richard de Champernoun. In the second record, the defendants are Richard de Champernoun and Joan his wife.

Both of these two records associated Joan de Valletort with her reputed son-in-law, Richard de Champernoun. While it doesn't conclusively prove the connections between these people, it certainly offers excellent evidence that these people were closely associated with one another. The eventual passage of Joan de Valletort's lands in Cornwall and Devon to the Champernoun family adds additional support that she was indeed the mother of Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun.

For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of Joan de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, Earl of Cornwall.

Comments are invited. When replying, please cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

JOAN _____ married (1st) RALPH DE VALLETORT (or VAUTORT), Knt., of Trematon, Cornwall, Harberton, Devon, etc. They had one son, Reynold (died without issue in 1270). SIR RALPH DE VALLETORT died in 1256. In 1257 Lady Joan, widow of Sir Ralph de Valletort, reached agreement with W., Abbot of Buckfast, regarding the land which Joan held in her dower in the manor of Holne, Devon; this agreement was witnessed by “Alexander de Hokkeston” (later her husband). During her 1st widowhood, Joan is alleged to have been the mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, Earl of Cornwall [died 1272], by which liaison she had one daughter, Joan (wife of Richard de Champernoun and Sir Peter de Fishacre). Joan married (2nd) before 16 Jan. 1270 (date of inquisition post mortem) ALEXANDER DE OXTON (or OKESTON), Knt., of Bridford and Modbury, Devon. They had one son, James, Knt. He witnessed a charter of Richard, Prior of Bodmin in 1269. In 1269 and 1270, at the request of Roger de Valletort, Richard, King of Romans granted Alexander the manor of Insworke (in Millbrook) and 200 acres of wood in the manor of Calstock, Cornwall, which property was formerly held by Joan, wife of Alexander, in dower by the gift of her 1st husband, Ralph de Valletort. In 1270 Roger granted the same property by fine to Alexander and Joan his wife and their heirs. In 1270 Roger de Valletort granted Alexander and Joan his wife the manor of Modbury and one-half knight’s fee in Sheepham (in Modbury) and West, Devon, together with the advowson of Modbury Priory. In 1274 he had the assize of bread and ale in Modbury, Devon. In 1274–5 he had a commission of goal delivery. SIR ALEXANDER DE OXTON died before 1275–6 (date of lawsuit). In 1275–6 Margery de Sackville ("Sicca Villa") arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Joan de Valletort and others touching a tenement in Tamerton, Devon. His widow, Joan, married (2nd) before 1278 (date of lawsuit) ANDREW DE TRESLOK (or Trelosk, Trellosk, Trellok, Trellek, Trelluk, Trilosk, Trolosk), Knt., of Dunterton, Devon, Knight of the Shire for Devon, 1290, 1302, Justice of Oyer and Terminer for Devon, 1300. He witnessed a charter of Richard, Prior of Bodmin, in 1269. In 1278 Andrew de Treslok and Joan de Valletort his wife, tenants of part of the lands of Ralph de Valletort [died 1256] and Reynold de Valletourt [died 1246], sued Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, Richard de Chambernon, and the Bishop of Exeter, tenants of the other part of the said lands in Exchequer of Pleas. In 1280–1 Andrew Trellok and Joan his wife arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Richard de Campo Arnulfi [Champernoun] and Joan his wife regarding a tenement in Meyswerk, Cornwall. In 1283 he was appointed an assessor and collector for Cornwall. In 1292 Roger de Nonaunt, Knt., of Devon, owed him a debt of 100s., because of a loan. In 1293 Roger de Lincoln and Robert de Malston, of Devon, owed him a debt of £20, on account of a loan. The same year John de Boyville, of Devon, owed him a debt of £8 3s. 2d., because of a loan. In 1294 he was appointed an assessor and collector for Devon. In 1295 Stephen de Beaupré, Knt., of Cornwall, owed him a debt of 16 marks, for one horse bought from him. In 1297 Luke _____ owed him a debt of £16. In 1297 John de Beaumond [Beaumont], of Devon, owed him a debt of 50s., on account of a loan. The same year Thomas de Shillingford and Walter Taundefer, of Devon, owed him a debt of 200 marks. In 1300 Geoffrey de la Pomeray, of Devon, owed him a debt of 2 marks. In 1302 he and Sir Peter de Fishacre were among the witnesses to a quiclaim by Robert de Stokheye to John de Benstede regarding the hundred of Ermington, Devon. He married (2nd) ISABEL _____. SIR ANDREW DE TRESLOK died in or before 1305, in which year William Boyville, of Devon, owed his widow, Isabel, a debt of £10, on account of a loan.

References:

Willis, Notitia Parliamentaria (1715): 249. Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 51, 309–310 (“Modbiry was thancient land of the Valletorts, Barons of Hurberton. Roger de Valletort conveyed it, amongst other lands, unto Sr Alexander Okeston, wch had married Jone, the widow of Raph de Valletort, wch woman (as it is probable) was the concubine of Richard Erle of Cornwall, & Kinge of Almayne, or of ye Romans; they had issue Sr James de Okeston, wch died wthout issue; wthth commandement of Kinge Edw. 2, [hee] conveyed Modbiry, & all other lands, formerly granted unto his father by Roger de Valletort unto Sr Richard Chambernon, wch was sonne of Richard Chambernon, & Jone, daughter of Jone before mentioned, whom Edmund Erle of Cornwall, calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by hym unto the said Richard and Jone, of thassise of breade & ale, dated anno 12 Edward I. The said Richard the father was younger sonne of Sr Henry Chambernon, of Clist Chambernon. Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard ...”). Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (Record Commission) (1812): 56 (sub Hundred of East Wivelshire: “It dnt qd Rogs de Valle Torta dedit com’ Ric’o castrū de Trematon cum s’vic & feod ... It dcs Rog’s dedit dco com’ Ric’o man’iū de Calistec scilt x libr’ annui redd un’ com’ Ric’s dedit illud man’iu Alex’o de Oxton & Johe ux’ sue ad t’minū vita amoz eozdē ... It Alex’ de Oxton habet man’iū de Mobirs [Modbury] de dono Rog’i de Valle Torta & est in Devon sz nesciut quid valet & fuit de baronia de Trematon.”), 96 (sub Modbury: “Jur’ illius dnt q’d Rog’s de Valle Torta dedit castellū de Tremeton Ric’o com’ Cornub’ & burgū de Modbye Alex’o de Okeston qui nūc tenet de p’dco com’ in sogagiū & habet assis’ pan’ & c’visie in eadē set nefciut quo war’.").. Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs & Writs of Military Summons 1 (1827): 870. Concanen, Rpt. of the Trial at Bar, Rowe v. Brenton (1830): Appendix, 11–12. Oliver, Monasticon Diocesis Exonienses (1846): 18, 297n, 327. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 44 (1883): 99; 45 (1885): 327; 50 (1889): 155. Hingeston-Randolph, Regs. of Walter Bronescombe & Peter Quivil (1889): 212. C.P.R. 1301–1307 (1898): 126, 151, 233. Hingeston-Randolph, Reg. of John de Grandisson Bishop of Exeter 3 (1899): 1574, 1579–1580, 1580–1581 (charter of Ralph de Valletort), 1586–1590 (charters of Ralph de Valletort), 1591–1592, 1601–1603 (undated charters of Ralph de Valletort), 1627. Cal. IPM 1 (1904): 231–232. C.Ch.R. 3 (1908): 36. Reade, House of Cornewall (1908): 31 (“By Beatrix de Fauquemont [Richard] the Earl-King had no issue, but by Joan, daughter of Sir Reginald de Valletort, he had an illegitimate family, consisting of at least two sons, Richard and Sir Walter, with apparently Sir Lawrence, and as is affirmed two daughters, Isabella and Joan. The date of this prolonged liaison cannot be determined ... It seems, for example, uncertain as to whether Joan de Valletort was widow of Sir Alexander, or Sir Andrew, Okeston when she is said to have been mistress of Earl Richard, or whether after the Earl tired of her, she married Sir Alexander, to whom she bore a son and successor.”). Reichel, Devon Feet of Fines 1 (1912): 352, 372–373. Rowe, Cornwall Feet of Fines 1 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc.) (1914): 116–117, 121–122. Exchequer of Pleas, E13no6, image 14, Date: 1278 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E1/E13no6/IMG_0014.htm). National Archives, C 241/24/2; C 241/25/210; C 241/27/115; C 241/31/44; C 241/35/227; C 241/36/115; C 241/42/43; C 241/45/116 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

taf

unread,
Oct 18, 2018, 12:42:33 PM10/18/18
to
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 12:21:26 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> And for heaven's sake, look into the Fishacre presumption - if that
> connection isn't supported, there isn't even anything that needs
> fixing in the Champernoun line.

The Fisshacre marriage was based on speculation by Frances Rose-Troop, published in 1935, and as best I can tell is primarily based on three documents involving two properties that passed from the Valletorts to the Oxtons to the Champernouns, but the Fisshacres developed some claim in between. In her article, she mischaracterizes the manner by which Joan, as wife of Alexander de Oxton, held the lands in question, but perhaps not a fatal mischaracterization.

First the background. Jane as widow of Ralph de Valletort resided at Inceworth, with her lands, guardianship of her minor son, and permission for her to remarry being vested in the queen. Her son, Reginald, died by January 1269/70, at which point the Valletort lands went to her brother-in-law Roger de Valletort. No sooner than 1257, and as has been argued, perhaps as late as 1262, she had a short-lived liaison with Richard, Earl of Cornwall and titular King of Germany, before remarrying by 1264 to Alexander de Oxton (who was long known to her, being her former husband's tennant and witness of a donation she made to Buckfast Abbey - the first two witnesses were de Alneto - could this be a clue to her origin?).

No sooner had the childless, and soon to be found non compos sui sensus, Roger de Valletort received his nephew's lands in 1269/70, and he began alienating it, including making grants or enfeoffments to both Earl Richard and to Alexander and Joan de Oxton. For our purposes, the properties of interest are Modbury, Devon and Inceworth, in Maker, Cornwall. First, in January 1269/70, he sold Modbury to Alexander and Joan, in exchange for 100 pounds, settling it on Alexander and Joan and the heirs of their body, followed by a second grant a year later in which for 10 marks, Roger transferred further Modbury lands and the advowson of Modbury priory to Alexander, Joan and the heirs of their body.

Inceworth came to them in a more convoluted manner. It had been held by Joan as part of her dower rights by direct grant of her first husband, and had been her residence throughout this period; their son James seems to have been born in Inceworth in the second half of 1264. In February 1269/70, Roger transferred Tremeton and Calstock to Earl Richard for L300, with the stipulation that he in turn enfeoff some Calstock woodlands as well as Inceworth to Alexander and Joan. Roger also separately executed a fine directly enfeoffing Inceworth and the Calstock woods to the Oxtons and the heirs of their body, with remainder to the right heirs of Alexander. In both of these Peter Corbet and Henry de Pomerai put in a claim, respectively son and grandson of the two sisters of Ralph and Roger and hence the rightful Valletort heirs.

Next we enter a period of obscurity with regard to both properties, with the scant surviving documentation showing that Peter de Fisshace became vested in at least a claim to both. Modbury was seized by the crown following the death of Alexander de Oxton but in March 1275/6 Joan challenged this with regard to Modbury, along with Bridford, 1/3 of Brixham and lands in Hurberton, and it was determined she held them in her own right as joint grantee and not simply as widow of Alexander. In 1286, James de Oxton gained seizin of his mother's lands, although these are not specified, and the same year was recognized as having custody (the advowson) of Modbury priory. In 1299, Modbury belonged to Hawise, widow of Joan's son Reginald de Valletort, held of James de Oxton, to whom it was to revert. We next see Modbury in 1315, when James received royal licence to transfer it, as he would later do in a January 1315/6 fine, wherein James de Oxton gave manor and priory advowson to Henry de Lappelode, and in turn Henry gave it back to James and his wife Ida for life, with remainder to Richard de Champernoun. Claims were put in by Robert de Oxton, son of Alexander (and, apparently, Joan), as well as by Peter de Fisshace, and by Joan, wife of Peter de Fisshacre. The nature of their claim is obscure. The path we have mapped out is Valletort to Alexander and Joan, to James to Hawise de Valletort and back to James, for him to transfer in 1315/6. The only transfer not documented is the undated enfeoffment to Hawise that nonetheless left James as residual heir. It would seem that there was a secondary reversion attached to this transaction, that it was a grant to Hawise for life, with reversion to James de Oxton and the heirs of his body, and failing heirs, to Joan (whom we see in 1315 as wife of Peter de Fisshacre).

Inceworth is more obscure, in part because the forms the toponym take vary so widely. Perhaps notably, perhaps not as the complaint dealt exclusively with Devon lands, it was not part of Joan's 1276 complaint to the crown. In a survey into those holding lands of the Valletort inheritance, apparently compiled at some point between 1275 and 1282, it was the property of Richard de Champernoun. I think we have to conclude it is the Meyswerk (sic, for which I would suggest recte Ineyswerk) in the 1280/1 Patent Roll entry Mr. Richardson has just drawn attention to, again showing 'a tenement' there held by Richard de Campo Arnulphi. Then in 1300 when Edmund, Earl of Cornwall died, as 'Inheswork' it was in possession of 'Peter de Fissake', before returning to the Champernouns for the remainder of the 14th century and being given by Sir Richard (d. 1418) to John, his second son by Alice de Astley.

It is perhaps also relevant, perhaps not, that in 1303, Sir Andrew de Trelosk and Sir Peter de Fishacre appear as sequential witnesses to a quitclaim.

So, what do we take from this? There is no direct testimony of a Fisshacre remarriage for Joan. Were such associations present for just one of the properties, it could be a life lease or other transaction that need not represent a genealogical relationship. However, seeing a Fisshacre connection with two distinct properties that were to pass from the Oxtons to the Champernouns, and that seem not to have passed together but independently, would definitely make most likely the scenario that Joan de Cornwall remarried to Peter de Fisshacre after the death of Richard de Champernown, and thereby that the Richard de Champernown who married Joan was not the same as the one who later married Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort.

Revised chronology:

1. Joan (surname unknown) m.1 Ralph de Valletort, d. 1256. Relationship with Richard, Earl of Cornwall, perhaps 1262; m.2 by 1264, Alexander de Oxton, d. 1274/5- March 1275/6. m.3 by 1278, Sir Andrew de Trellock (Treloosk, etc). Joan d. 1286 when James gained seizen of her lands.

i. Reginald de Valletort, d. 1269/70
ii. Joan de Cornwall, b. 1257-1263, perhaps 1262-1263 (2)
iii. James de Oxton, b. 2nd half 1264 at Inceworth
iv. Robert de Oxton, claimant in 1315

2. Joan de Cornwall, b. 1257-1263 (perhaps 1262-1263) must have been born more than 9 months after the death of Ralph de Valletort, else she would have been legal daughter of Ralph and heir to brother Reginald. As I mentioned in my chronology a month ago, Earl Richard was known as a devoted husband, and John Carmi Parsons suggested many years ago in this group that that it may have been after the death of his wife Sancia in November 1261 that he began his relationship with Joan. If so, their daughter Joan was b. 1262/3, but she was born no earlier than 1257. She was married by 1278 to Richard (I) de Champernoun, son of Henry de Champernoun, and received Inceworth, as well as some sort of right or reversion to Modbury. He was living 1285, dead by 1300, when Inceworth was in the hands of Peter de Fisshacre. She was still living in 1315/6 when she put in a claim against the transfer of Modbury to Richard de Champernoun (II): Rose-Troop portrays this as a preemptive claim against that or Robert de Oxton, son of Alexander.

i. Richard de Champernoun (II), b. say 1280 (3)

3. Richard de Champernoun (II), b. say 1280, received Modbury in 1315/6. m.1 (?), m.2 Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort. Richard was still living in 1319.

i. Richard de Champernoun (III), b. say 1302 (4)
ii. (specul.) Oliver de Champernoun, b. say 1304

4. Richard de Champernoun (III), b. say 1302, married, Elizabeth de Vautort

i. Thomas, b. say 1322 (5)
ii. Richard (IV), on whom small reversion settled by parents, 1336/7

5. Thomas de Champernoun, b. say 1322, m. Eleanor de Rohaut

i. (Sir) Richard (V), b. 1244, shown by proof of age, d, 1418 - see last month's discussion for his marriages, children and death.

This chronology involves shorter than typical male generations, but has the benefit of not requiring Joan (II) to give birth as a preteen. Each of the birth guestimates in the Champernoun line has about a 2-year plus-minus. (While I have numbered the Richard's here for clarity, I do not encourage such usage: any change in understanding, as has happened here, and the same number ends up being applied to a different man).

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 18, 2018, 4:26:23 PM10/18/18
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 9:42:33 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> She was married by 1278 to Richard (I) de Champernoun, . . .
> He was living 1285, dead by 1300

This is an overly-broad bracket. As Sir Richard de Chambernon, he was received Devon rents as security for a loan in 1287, the agreement extended in 1288. He also witnessed Cornwall gifts in 1289 and 1290.

Note that the first of these indicates that the first Richard, Joan's husband, was indeed a knight.

And while we are sorting out Richards, this was the name of a Sheriff of Devon in 1355. With Richard, Elizabeth's husband already dead, and their grandson, the son of Thomas, only born in 1344, this leaves only two possibilities. There was a little-known Richard who was younger son of Richard and Elizabeth, but given that his elder brother Thomas only served as sheriff only a decade later, this seems unlikely. That leaves the Richard of North Tawton who was son of Oliver and father of Otho/Otes. His birth I had tentatively placed about 1325, and he died 1377.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 18, 2018, 7:16:27 PM10/18/18
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 1:26:23 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> There was a little-known Richard who was younger son of Richard
> and Elizabeth,

This Richard is perhaps the Richard de Campo Arnulphi, "domicello Exoniensi" appearing in the Registrum collegii exoniensis in 1349.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 18, 2018, 7:25:02 PM10/18/18
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 9:42:33 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> 3. Richard de Champernoun (II), b. say 1280, received Modbury in 1315/6. m.1 (?), m.2 Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort. Richard was still living in 1319.
>
> i. Richard de Champernoun (III), b. say 1302 (4)
> ii. (specul.) Oliver de Champernoun, b. say 1304

If this speculated relationship is correct then there is likely a third brother. The fine rolls report that in 1322 Richard, Hugh and Oliver de Chaumbernoun were traveling to court in the retinue of the Bishop of Exeter (with Hugh and Oliver being named consecutively).

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 18, 2018, 11:40:26 PM10/18/18
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 9:42:33 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> It is perhaps also relevant, perhaps not, that in 1303, Sir
> Andrew de Trelosk and Sir Peter de Fishacre appear as sequential
> witnesses to a quitclaim.

Two other such coincident appearances:

1. In December 1292, Henry de Raleigh, Peter de Fisshacre and Andrew de Treylurk received a commission of oyer and terminer regarding a poacher on the park of Simon de Monte Acuto (Montague).

2. In 1303 in a second transaction relating to the one witnessed by Trelosk and Fishacre, we find among successive witness the brothers-in-law, Sir Peter de Fishacre and Sir James de Oston (i.e. Oxton).

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 20, 2018, 6:17:41 PM10/20/18
to
I need to revisit this. First a correction. In one document it is erroneously recorded that Elizabeth married William, but the actual name of her husband was Richard de Willoughby (d. 1362, often Wylughby in primary documents). His previous wife died in 1342, while Elizabeth was a widow at least in October 1342 (and perhaps the following April). I have first found Richard and Elizabeth together on 19 October 1344 when they received a quitclaim. At Richard's death he held via Elizabeth 1/3 of Modbury and 1/3 of 'Enyswork' / 'Eniswork' (Inceworth) and 'Ludvoyn' (Ludgvan), her dower of the inheritance of Thomas de Chaumpernoun, as assigned by said Thomas. Elizabeth was still living 2 September 1263, when her step-son Richard de Wilughby made a grant "to John le Webster de Thulston and Alice his wife, for the life of Elizabeth widow of Richard de Wilughby the elder, and in perpetuity if John and Alice survive Elizabeth". Elizabeth is mentioned 1 October 1363, but the reference is to a historical grant and not a contemporary event. There is no mention of her holding a dower in the 1369 ipm of the step-son, Richard de Willoughby the younger.

Now, this is inconsistent with the chronology I suggested earlier, with a marriage to Richard Tremenet fl. 1246. It means two things with regard to the claimed marriage of Elizabeth to Richard Tremenet: first, the husband cannot be the same Richard Tremenet who fl. 1246; second, there appears not to have been time between when she last appears as Richard Champernoun's widow and as Richard de Wylughby's wife for an intervening marriage. It would seem, then, that the Tremenet marriage must either have come before that to Champernoun, or after that to Willoughby. It will take more digging to sort this out.


Additional notes:

Elizabeth was not the only widow occupying dower property in 1362. Ida de Raleigh held Bridford in dower in that year, it having belonged to the Champernouns both before and after. This could, I guess, be an otherwise unknown third wife of the RIchard who married Lucy. Otherwise, either Bridford had been given to a Champernoun younger son who d.s.p., of whom she was widow, or there had been a gift, enfeoffment, etc. for life, and she was widow of the recipient.

The holding of Ludgvan by Elizabeth appears to reveal an error in its accepted history. Lyson would say it was transferred by Richard, Earl of Cornwall, to Ferrers, then by heiresses to Champernown and Willoughby, Lord Brook. This seems to be relating to Alexander Champernowne's marriage to the heiress of Beer Ferres, and then that of his granddaughter to Willoughby, and Alexander did hold Ludgvan in 1428, but it was in the hands of the Champernoun family much earlier. Richard de Champernoun held it 1235/6, Thomas held it in 1255/6 and Richard's widow and son Thomas held it in 1362. Before that, in 1303, it appears to have been in the hands of William de Campo Arnulphi. So, however the Champernouns got it, it wasn't via the marriage of Alexander, and the Modbury branch seems to have gotten it through a transfer from Champernoun kin and not via marriage.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 20, 2018, 11:22:09 PM10/20/18
to
I have been thinking about the Tremenet marriage, and have come to the conclusion that the evidence that Elizabeth married Richard Tremenet is wanting. It seems to derive from Westcote's summary of a suit:

"Symon de Bradney, Ricardus de Tremenet, et Godefridus de Lieffe, Heredes propinquiores Hugonis de Vautort, recuperant versus Oliverum Camponulphum, et Egelinam uxorem ejus, certa messuagia et carucatas terrae in Bikeberri et Sutton Vautort.”

Simon de Bradney is known to have married Beatrix, daughter of Hugh de Vautort, and Geoffrey de Lyf is known to have married Juniana, another daughter, while Egelina, wife of Oliver de Champernoun was another daughter. On its face, it would then seem reasonable that Richard de Tremenet was the husband of Elizabeth de Vautort, better documented as wife of Richard de Champernoun. Here is the problem though. There were at least two other daughters, Cecily and Katherine. The above document clearly dates from the life of Oliver de Champernoun, yet there is a fine from 1344 involving Katherine de Lucy and Egelina de Cambernon, without either of their husbands being named, which suggests that both Katherine and Egelina outlived Oliver. We also know that Elizabeth outlived the date of this fine, so both Katherine and Elizabeth were alive at the time of Westcote's suit, which has just one male without a known Vautort wife. He could have been husband of either, or of the poorly-documented Cecilia, or he could even have been serving as representative / proxy / guardian for the unmarried daughters. I don't currently have access to the article that sets out this first Tremenet marriage for Elizabeth, so there may be other evidence brought to bear I am unaware of, but Westcote's lawsuit alone is insufficient to conclude there was a marriage, let alone which daughter was involved.

As an aside, he earliest I have yet found Oliver married to Egelina is in Michaelmas term 1328, when they were sued by Richard de Campo Arnulphi (unfortunately the Common Pleas case is very short, completely devoid of genealogical detail).

taf

deca...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2018, 10:06:33 AM10/21/18
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 2:54:44 AM UTC-4, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> This current thread is basically a continuation in a long series of posts made over many years by numerous newsgroup members concerning the Champernoun family of Modbury, Devon, chief among them Ronny Bodine and taf.
>
> Buried behind the Champernoun family has been an alleged descent from Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, who died in 1272. This connection is based on a statement by the venerable Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole, who indicated that he saw a grant dated 1280-1 in which Edmund of Almain, Earl of Cornwall, died 1300, legitimate son of Earl/King Richard, referred to Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, as his "sister."
>

So what does this all mean? That Douglas Richardson now concurs with the statement the "VENERABlE" Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole, made about 414 years ago?! Finally, after all of these years, it's refreshing to see Richardson take Pole's words for what they were, historical fact. At least in this instance, until another statement by Pole contradicts a long-held theory of Richardson's on another matter.

taf

unread,
Oct 21, 2018, 12:05:47 PM10/21/18
to
On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 7:06:33 AM UTC-7, deca...@aol.com wrote:

> So what does this all mean? That Douglas Richardson now concurs with
> the statement the "VENERABlE" Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole,
> made about 414 years ago?! Finally, after all of these years, it's
> refreshing to see Richardson take Pole's words for what they were,
> historical fact. At least in this instance, until another statement
> by Pole contradicts a long-held theory of Richardson's on another
> matter.

Yes, back in the day, Mr. Richardson vehemently refused to accept Pole's statement that he had seen a (since-lost) grant containing this direct characterization of the relationship, insisting that Pole was (generically) unreliable by modern standards and thus nothing he said could not be trusted.

One can only presume that Mr. Richardson has now accepted the argument others made at the time (and have been making since the 1940s, at least), that Pole's statement on the Cornwall-Champernoun connection is not just your typical Pole relationship claim. It is a direct attestation of having seen a document that reported the relationship, and thus its acceptance depends on Pole's reliability as a witness alone, that he is accurately relating what he had seen with his own eyes, and not his reliability as an antiquarian, his ability to correctly synthesize uncited information to produce his accounts of manorial descent. It is really a classic example of how a single source can have differential levels of reliability for different facts reported. It likewise means, though, that anyone is free to accept this Pole statement while still denying the accuracy of other statements by the same author that aren't similarly backed up.

Anyhow, better late than never.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 21, 2018, 5:11:43 PM10/21/18
to
In an earlier post I indicated that there were other daughters and so we could not assume that Richard de Tremenet was husband of Elizabeth. One of those other daughters, Cecilia, was only known not to have had issue. I can now add that she married. The source is a little odd - an index to an AALT series was placed on the AALT Wiki, which is now reporting a 404 error and with no cached copy, so the best I can do is string together some text from the inaccessible index page. Still it is revealing. What it reports is:

"H1334 B, Certiorari. Justices Itinerant. 5 Edward III, Novel Disseisin, Richard de Trevynor; Simon de Bradeneye & Beatrice his wife; John de Trenaga & Cecilia his iwfe; Godfrey le Lyff & Juliana his wife; and John de Lucy & Katherine his wife. Link [94]."

With Beatrice, Katherine and Juliana all known to be Vautort daughters with a known sibling named Cecilia, there can be little doubt that in the "John de Trenaga and Celicia" here we have the husband of that sister. They are certainly the John de Trevaga and wife Cecily involved in a Cornwall fine in 1331. I have to think the Richard de Trevynor of this document is the same as Richard de Tremenet (sic) of Westcote. Note: the date of this is noteworthy. Any widow of the Richard de Trevynor in this document could not be the mother of Thomas de Champernoun, whose son was born in 1344. As before, though, particularly in the absence of a named wife, we cannot be sure he was acting as husband of a Vautort daughter. And for that matter, we don't have an IPM or other declaration of heirs, so we may have an incomplete listing of the daughters.


Some more dates.

Simon de Bradeneye was born ca. 1299 per his father's ipm. In 1323, Simon held Currypool, "Hescombe, Saunford, etc.", in Somerset, held of John de Beauchamp at his death. In 1330, Simon de Bradeneye and Beatrix, his wife sold Currypool, Somerset. Godfrey le Lyf and his wife Juliana put in a claim. In 1342, he made presentation to Charlinch, and in 1347/8 to Thornefagon. In 1351 he was named in a guardianship dispute.

In 1374, John Fidleton and wife Joan (born de Gothurste) sued Beatrice, late wife of Simon de Bradeneye over old Bradeneye lands claimed too have been alienated temp. Edw I.

In 1360, Richard Lyf, son of Godfrey Lyf, was pardoned due to his long service at Calais, for the killing of John Lyf in 1359.

taf

Matt A

unread,
Oct 21, 2018, 8:33:53 PM10/21/18
to
A fine analysis.

I believe the index can be found here:

http://www.uh.edu/waalt/index.php/RevPro_1330s

and the original case can be found here:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/KB27no295/bKB27no295dorses/IMG_0049.htm

Hope this helps,

-Matt Ahlgren

taf

unread,
Oct 21, 2018, 8:44:31 PM10/21/18
to
On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 5:33:53 PM UTC-7, Matt A wrote:

> I believe the index can be found here:
>
> http://www.uh.edu/waalt/index.php/RevPro_1330s


Still giving me a page-unavailable error.


> and the original case can be found here:
>
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/KB27no295/bKB27no295dorses/IMG_0049.htm


Thanks. I had been working my way through but was still on the frontes.

taf

taf

unread,
Oct 21, 2018, 9:55:33 PM10/21/18
to
On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 5:33:53 PM UTC-7, Matt A wrote:

> and the original case can be found here:
>
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/KB27no295/bKB27no295dorses/IMG_0049.htm
>
> Hope this helps,

It does, indeed. But what a mess it makes,

It is a claim of Richard de Trevynor, Simon de Bradeneye & Beatrice his wife,
John de Trenaga & Cecilia his wife, Godfrey le Lyff & Juliana his wife, and John de Lucy & Katherine his wife, against Oliver de Champo Arnulphi & Egelina his wife, to lands in Bikebyry and Sutton Vautort, which had belonged to Hugonis de Vautorot, who had assigned them to the said Egelina, Beatrice, Cecilia, Juliana, Katherine, and Elizabeth wife of petitioner Richard de Trevynor.

[Note: I would appreciate another set of eyes to confirm this reading, as I am out of practice.]

The implications of this are rather striking.

1. This seems to be the same Bikeberry lawsuit to which Westcote refers, confirming my suspicion that Westcote's Tremenet is this document's Trevynor,

2. If I am reading it right, the non-participation of Elizabeth tells me that Richard is her widower. That means that, by definition, Elizabeth could not have been widow of Richard Trevynor/Tremenet.

3. In turn, this means that the Elizabeth married to Richard de Champernoun at the time of his death and subsequently to Richard de Wylughby was not Elizabeth Vautort.

4. Even if I am reading it wrong and Elizabeth was not dead at this time, and hence she could have later been the wife of Richard de Champernoun and Richard de Wylughby, the fact that Richard de Trevynor was still living at this time means that Elizabeth Vautort was not the mother of Thomas de Champernoun. This in spite of the fact that Thomas de Champernoun ended up in possession of Vautort lands. It is possible that there was another daughter who was Thomas' mother, but one might have expected her to be involved in this suit; otherwise, it would seem that either Richard de Champernoun and his wife, the former Lucy (le Bret) Vautort, or else Oliver and Egelina transferred some family land to Thomas by grant or adjusted reversion.

At the start of this thread, Mr. Richardson intimated that the discovery of a new document can completely change our understanding of things. I think here we have another example. It is also an example why it is worth tracking down the 'other husband' and similar peripheral relationships, because things may not be as they have been portrayed.

taf

Matt A

unread,
Oct 22, 2018, 1:25:23 AM10/22/18
to
A few more miscellaneous notes:

On Nov. 5, 1330, Simon de Bradeny received a license of alienation of land to a chaplain in exchange for prayers for the soul of himself, his wife Beatrice, Master Anthony de Bradeny, Joachim de Bradeny and Joan his wife (Cal. Pat. EIII v2, 17).

Collinson appears to have read the foundation charter for that same chantry, which only mentions prayers for the souls of himself and his father Joachim de Bradeny. He cites as his source "Except. e Regist. Wellen. Inq. ad Damn. necnon ap. Cart. Antiq." If the first source is as I suspected the Register of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, I could find no reference to this document in the published register (Hist. & Ant. Som., v3, 93). Perhaps the second source Collinson cited is identical to C 143/210/16? (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7572923)

The only reference I can find to the effigy of Simon de Bradeny besides Collinson, providing any more detail, including a supposed death date of 1375 (perhaps from the inscription?) is the Historic England listing, citing a printed guide to the Church of St. Michael and All Angels, Bawdrip (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1060158). Does anyone know if there are any church notes, perhaps visitation-era, available for Somerset that can be consulted?

Apparently as early as 1332, the right to present a clerk to the parish church of Bawdrip had already passed to one John de Durreburgh by reason of the dower of his wife Joan (Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, 141), but perhaps this right and the right to establish a chantry are distinct and no connection can be inferred.

celticp...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2018, 2:52:21 AM10/22/18