info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: Death date of Eleanor de Brewes [died 1252], wife of Sir Humphrey de Bohun the younger
949 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Nov 20, 2020, 6:43:41 PM11/20/20
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 462–463 (sub Hereford) includes a good account of Sir Humphrey de Bohun the younger [died 1265], son and heir apparent of Sir Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex [died 1275]. This account gives the following information about Sir Humphrey the younger’s first marriage to Eleanor de Brewes:
“He married, 1stly, Eleanor, daughter and coheir of William de Briouze, of Brecknock, &c., lord of Abergavenny, by Eve, daughter and (in her issue) coheir of William (Marshal), Earl of Pembroke. She was buried at Llanthony by Gloucester.” END OF QUOTE.
As we can see, Complete Peerage gives no death date for Eleanor. It simply states that she was buried at Llanthony by Gloucester.
In footnote “n” on page 463-464, Complete Peerage implies that Eleanor, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, was living 24 Feb. 1251/2, when a commission was appointed “for the partition of the lands of William de Briouze to his three daughters and coheirs. (Cal. Patent Rolls).”
The record referenced in Patent Rolls can be found in Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 156. It reads as follows:
24 Feb. 1252. Commission to the Abbot of Persore [Pershore], the Prior of Hurle [Hurley], and Walerand le Tieis to extend all the lands late of William de Brause, father of Maud wife of Roger de Mortuomari, Eve wife of William de Cantilupo and Eleanor wife of Humphrey de Boun, and to make a partition thereof according to the form of the concord made between them before the king.” END OF QUOTE.
The above record definitely proves that Eleanor, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, was living 24 February 1252.
Elsewhere I find there is an interesting article on the Bohun family by John Spence entitled “The Identity of Rauf de Boun, Author of Petit Bruit,” published in Reading Medieval Studies 31 (2005): 57–76. This article may be read at the following weblink:
https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/GCMS/RMS-2005-03_J._Spence,_The_Identity_of_Rauf_de_Boun,_Author_of_the_Petit_Bruit.pdf
In footnote 21 on page 71, the author states the following regarding the death date of Eleanor de Brewes, wife of Humphrey de Bohun:
“Eleanor was alive on 5 June 1252 (Calendar of Close Rolls , 1251 - 1253 , London , HMSO , 1927 , pp . 221 - 3), but had died before 7 December 1264 , when Joan [Humphrey’s 2nd wife] is first mentioned as Humphrey ' s wife (Calendar of Close Rolls , 1264-1268, London, HMSO, 137, p. 5).” END OF QUOTE.
The record cited by Mr. Spence in the Close Rolls is actually dated 2 June 1252, and, for some reason was later “corrected” to 13 July. In this record, Eleanor is specifically mentioned as the wife of Humphrey de Bohun. That 2 June 1252 was the original date of this record seems clear due to the fact this document is wedged between other documents dated 5 June 1252.
Recently I came across a further contemporary record in a lawsuit in the Court of King's Bench dated 25 June 1252. This lawsuit involves Humphrey de Bohun and the other Brewes co-heirs. Eleanor’s sisters are listed in the lawsuit with their husbands. But Humphrey is listed without Eleanor. This would typically be a clear signal that Eleanor was then dead.
This lawsuit can be viewed at the following weblink:
Court of the King’s Bench, KB26/147A, image 12d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H3/KB26_147A/0012d.htm).
The lawsuit is immediately followed by the following notation:
Ide dies datus est Will'o de Ebroicis p' att[ornate] suu[m]' in banco. Et testatus q’d Alyenora que fuit Humfr' de Boun mortua est."
The above can be translated to read as follows:
“The same day [25 June 1252] was given to William de Ebroicis [Devereux] [appearing] by his attorney in the Bench And he attests that Eleanor, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, is dead. “
Thus it would appear that Eleanor de Brewes, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, was living 24 Feb. 1252 (Patent Rolls) and 2 June 1252 [as per Close Rolls cited above], and that she died shortly before 25 June 1252.
Other modern secondary sources have been checked. One source states Eleanor “probably” died in 1251. Others just say she died 1251. Obviously they are wrong.
For interest’s sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes:
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Margaret Domville, Rowland Ellis, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, Thomas Greene, Muriel Gurdon, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Matthew & Richard Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Henry, Jane, Nicholas, & Vincent Lowe, Percival Lowell, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John West, Mary Wolseley, Frances & Sarah Woodward, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 462–463 (sub Hereford) includes a good account of Sir Humphrey de Bohun the younger [died 1265], son and heir apparent of Sir Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex [died 1275]. This account gives the following information about Sir Humphrey the younger’s first marriage to Eleanor de Brewes:
“He married, 1stly, Eleanor, daughter and coheir of William de Briouze, of Brecknock, &c., lord of Abergavenny, by Eve, daughter and (in her issue) coheir of William (Marshal), Earl of Pembroke. She was buried at Llanthony by Gloucester.” END OF QUOTE.
As we can see, Complete Peerage gives no death date for Eleanor. It simply states that she was buried at Llanthony by Gloucester.
In footnote “n” on page 463-464, Complete Peerage implies that Eleanor, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, was living 24 Feb. 1251/2, when a commission was appointed “for the partition of the lands of William de Briouze to his three daughters and coheirs. (Cal. Patent Rolls).”
The record referenced in Patent Rolls can be found in Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 156. It reads as follows:
24 Feb. 1252. Commission to the Abbot of Persore [Pershore], the Prior of Hurle [Hurley], and Walerand le Tieis to extend all the lands late of William de Brause, father of Maud wife of Roger de Mortuomari, Eve wife of William de Cantilupo and Eleanor wife of Humphrey de Boun, and to make a partition thereof according to the form of the concord made between them before the king.” END OF QUOTE.
The above record definitely proves that Eleanor, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, was living 24 February 1252.
Elsewhere I find there is an interesting article on the Bohun family by John Spence entitled “The Identity of Rauf de Boun, Author of Petit Bruit,” published in Reading Medieval Studies 31 (2005): 57–76. This article may be read at the following weblink:
https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/GCMS/RMS-2005-03_J._Spence,_The_Identity_of_Rauf_de_Boun,_Author_of_the_Petit_Bruit.pdf
In footnote 21 on page 71, the author states the following regarding the death date of Eleanor de Brewes, wife of Humphrey de Bohun:
“Eleanor was alive on 5 June 1252 (Calendar of Close Rolls , 1251 - 1253 , London , HMSO , 1927 , pp . 221 - 3), but had died before 7 December 1264 , when Joan [Humphrey’s 2nd wife] is first mentioned as Humphrey ' s wife (Calendar of Close Rolls , 1264-1268, London, HMSO, 137, p. 5).” END OF QUOTE.
The record cited by Mr. Spence in the Close Rolls is actually dated 2 June 1252, and, for some reason was later “corrected” to 13 July. In this record, Eleanor is specifically mentioned as the wife of Humphrey de Bohun. That 2 June 1252 was the original date of this record seems clear due to the fact this document is wedged between other documents dated 5 June 1252.
Recently I came across a further contemporary record in a lawsuit in the Court of King's Bench dated 25 June 1252. This lawsuit involves Humphrey de Bohun and the other Brewes co-heirs. Eleanor’s sisters are listed in the lawsuit with their husbands. But Humphrey is listed without Eleanor. This would typically be a clear signal that Eleanor was then dead.
This lawsuit can be viewed at the following weblink:
Court of the King’s Bench, KB26/147A, image 12d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H3/KB26_147A/0012d.htm).
The lawsuit is immediately followed by the following notation:
Ide dies datus est Will'o de Ebroicis p' att[ornate] suu[m]' in banco. Et testatus q’d Alyenora que fuit Humfr' de Boun mortua est."
The above can be translated to read as follows:
“The same day [25 June 1252] was given to William de Ebroicis [Devereux] [appearing] by his attorney in the Bench And he attests that Eleanor, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, is dead. “
Thus it would appear that Eleanor de Brewes, wife of Humphrey de Bohun, was living 24 Feb. 1252 (Patent Rolls) and 2 June 1252 [as per Close Rolls cited above], and that she died shortly before 25 June 1252.
Other modern secondary sources have been checked. One source states Eleanor “probably” died in 1251. Others just say she died 1251. Obviously they are wrong.
For interest’s sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes:
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Margaret Domville, Rowland Ellis, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, Thomas Greene, Muriel Gurdon, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Matthew & Richard Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Henry, Jane, Nicholas, & Vincent Lowe, Percival Lowell, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John West, Mary Wolseley, Frances & Sarah Woodward, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
Bronwen Edwards
Nov 21, 2020, 2:56:18 AM11/21/20
to
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 3:43:41 PM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
>
> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
I don't have the hang of this format yet, so I apologize in advance for any awkward moments.
> Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
>
> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
As you requested, here is my most direct descent from Sir Humphrey & Eleanor de Brewes.
Sir Humphrey de Bohun, 1222-1265 & Eleanor de Brewes 1230-?1252 (I had d. 1275)
Sir Humphrey de Bohun, 1249-1298 & Maud de Fiennes 1252-1298
Sir Humphrey de Bohun, 1276-1321 & Elizabeth of England [Plantagenet], 1282-1316
Eleanor de Bohun 1304-1363, & James Butler, 1305-1338
James Butler, 1331-1382, & Elizabeth d'Arcy, d. 1390
James Butler, 1361-1405, & Anne Welles, b. 1396
Sir Richard Butler of Paulstown, 1395-1445, & Katherine O'Reilly
Sir Edmund Butler of Paulstown, d. 1464, & Katherine O'Carroll
Sir James Butler of Paulstown, 1434-1487, & Sadbh Kavanaugh mac Murrough, d. 1503
Piers Ruadh Butler, 8th Earl of Ormond, 1467-1539, & Margaret O'Brien (5 descents from this couple)
Joanna Butler of Ormond, & James Butler, 10th Lord Dunboyne, d. 1538
Sir Edmund Butler, 11th Lord Dunboyne, 1514-1566, & Cecilia McCarthy
James Butler, 12th Lord Dunboyne, 1547-1624, & Margaret O'Brien, 1568-1636
Theobald Butler, 1610-1652, & Margaret Blake, 1612-1628
James Butler, 1648-1714, & Margaret Burke, 1658-1711
James Butler, 1684-1740, & Marjory Dalton, 1687-1734
Richard Butler, 1710-1773, & Margaret O'Brien, 1712-1767
Theobald "Big Toby" Butler, d. 1795, & Bridget Butler, d. 1774
William Butler, d. 1812, & Caroline Massy, 1768-1837
Caroline Butler, 1795-1874, & Hugh Massey Barrett, 1791-1868
Joseph Barrett, 1824-1904, & Henrietta MacInnes, 1832-1915
Elizabeth Barrett, 1859-1945, & Maurice Emil Newman, 1860-1903
Clair Newman, 1887-1960, & Sidney Valdes Webb, 1976-1958
Elizabeth Webb, 1912-2004 - my mother
Bronwen Edwards
Jan Wolfe
Nov 29, 2020, 12:39:40 PM11/29/20
to
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
...
Here is my descent, but it does not include a 17th century immigrant to the Americas (corrections or suggestions welcome):
1 Humphrey de Bohun = Eleanor de Brewes
2 Margery de Bohun = Theobald I de Verdun
3 Theobald II de Verdun = Elizabeth de Clare
4 Isabel de Verdun = Henry de Ferrers
5 William de Ferrers = Margaret de Ufford
6 Henry de Ferrers = Joan de Poynings
7 William Ferrers = Philippa Clifford
8 Thomas Ferrers = Elizabeth Freville
9 Henry Ferrers = Margaret Hexstall
10 Edward Ferrers = Constance Brome
11 Anne Ferrers = Valentine Knightley
12 Richard Knightley = Mary Fermor
13 Mary Knightley = Thomas Barnardiston
14 Thomas Barnardiston = Anne Polsted
15 Samuel Barnardiston = Jane Adams
16 John Barnardiston = Miriam Saunders
17 Joseph Barnardiston = Frances Harris
18 Mary Barnardiston = Samuel Howes
19 Elizabeth Howes = John Joseph Marshall
20 Mary Ann Marshall = Charles William Meakins (19th century immigrants to Canada)
21 Eliza Howes Meakins = John Harte
22 Ada Elinor Harte = Francis Frederick Miles
23 Ella Frances Miles (my grandmother)
...
> Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
>
> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
Thanks for posting information about the death date of Eleanor de Brewes. If the 2 June 1252 order was cancelled and reissued on 13 July 1252 with Eleanor still listed as Humphrey's wife, do you think that we can we conclude she was still living on 2 June or simply that the information from the 25 June lawsuit was still unknown by the issuer at the time of the reissue? Wouldn't Humphrey have received the property for his lifetime whether Eleanor was living or not and then passed it on to his heir by her?
>
> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
Here is my descent, but it does not include a 17th century immigrant to the Americas (corrections or suggestions welcome):
1 Humphrey de Bohun = Eleanor de Brewes
2 Margery de Bohun = Theobald I de Verdun
3 Theobald II de Verdun = Elizabeth de Clare
4 Isabel de Verdun = Henry de Ferrers
5 William de Ferrers = Margaret de Ufford
6 Henry de Ferrers = Joan de Poynings
7 William Ferrers = Philippa Clifford
8 Thomas Ferrers = Elizabeth Freville
9 Henry Ferrers = Margaret Hexstall
10 Edward Ferrers = Constance Brome
11 Anne Ferrers = Valentine Knightley
12 Richard Knightley = Mary Fermor
13 Mary Knightley = Thomas Barnardiston
14 Thomas Barnardiston = Anne Polsted
15 Samuel Barnardiston = Jane Adams
16 John Barnardiston = Miriam Saunders
17 Joseph Barnardiston = Frances Harris
18 Mary Barnardiston = Samuel Howes
19 Elizabeth Howes = John Joseph Marshall
20 Mary Ann Marshall = Charles William Meakins (19th century immigrants to Canada)
21 Eliza Howes Meakins = John Harte
22 Ada Elinor Harte = Francis Frederick Miles
23 Ella Frances Miles (my grandmother)
Peter Stewart
Nov 29, 2020, 4:11:02 PM11/29/20
to
On 30-Nov-20 4:39 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> ...
>> Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
>>
>> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
>
> Thanks for posting information about the death date of Eleanor de Brewes. If the 2 June 1252 order was cancelled and reissued on 13 July 1252 with Eleanor still listed as Humphrey's wife, do you think that we can we conclude she was still living on 2 June or simply that the information from the 25 June lawsuit was still unknown by the issuer at the time of the reissue? Wouldn't Humphrey have received the property for his lifetime whether Eleanor was living or not and then passed it on to his heir by her?
>
Why do you not apply the same caution as for 13 July to the order
> On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> ...
>> Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
>>
>> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
>
> Thanks for posting information about the death date of Eleanor de Brewes. If the 2 June 1252 order was cancelled and reissued on 13 July 1252 with Eleanor still listed as Humphrey's wife, do you think that we can we conclude she was still living on 2 June or simply that the information from the 25 June lawsuit was still unknown by the issuer at the time of the reissue? Wouldn't Humphrey have received the property for his lifetime whether Eleanor was living or not and then passed it on to his heir by her?
>
drafted on 2 June, that unknown to the chancery clerks she may have
already died before then?
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Nov 29, 2020, 10:39:30 PM11/29/20
to
Jan Wolfe
Nov 30, 2020, 12:01:09 AM11/30/20
to
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:39:40 PM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> ...
CPR 1272-81, p. 165, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081063&view=1up&seq=209, confirms that Margery and Theobald were married by 6 Nov 1276 but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 257, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924082447990&view=1up&seq=289&size=125 (middle right), indicates that Theobald holds land in "Biselegh" of the inheritance of his wife Margerie, but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
Mark S. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family, The Verduns in England, Ireland, and Wales, 1066-1316, p. 110, states, "The only other additions to the Verduns' estates made by Theobald were the lands in the manors of Saffron Waldon (Essex) and Bisley (Gloucestershire) which had been gained on his marriage to Matilda de Bohun which had taken place by 1274." Hagger cites CIPM, vol. 5, no. 187 and WS, 6/1, p. 106. WS is William Salt Archaeological Society, Collections for a History of Staffordshire.
CIPM, vol. 5. no. 187 (p. 96), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158002929130&view=1up&seq=124, the IPM for Theobald mentions Byseleye in Gloucester held in free marriage but doesn't name the wife.
WS, 6/1, p.106, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3547861&view=1up&seq=122, states:
Banco Roll, Easter, 8 E. I. ...
Essex . Henry de Bohun sued Theobald de Verdon and Margaret his wife for the manor of Castell Waledene , excepting £10 of rent , and the advowson of the Church ; and he sued Joan de Bohun for £10 of rent in the same, in which they had no entry except through Humphrey de Boun formerly Earl of Hereford, who had unjustly disseised him of them. ( A long and interesting suit, by which Henry at length recovered seisin.) m. 44, dorso.
So finally this last source provides a connection to Humphrey de Bohun. And we appear to have three given names for Theobald's wife, Margery, Margaret, and Matilda.
Perhaps someone in the group can explain how the above evidence shows that Margery/Margaret/Matilda, wife of Theobald de Verdun, was one person and the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun and Eleanor de Brewes.
> ...
> 1 Humphrey de Bohun = Eleanor de Brewes
> 2 Margery de Bohun = Theobald I de Verdun
In the line of descent I posted, I indicated that Margery de Bohun was the daughter of Humphrey and Eleanor, but I am curious about the evidence for this link. This is what is shown on Leo's website, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177623&tree=LEO. He cites CP 12 (pt. 2) p. 249. On p. 250, CP states that Theobald married Margery but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents. CP cites CPR 1272-81, p. 165 and Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 257.
> 2 Margery de Bohun = Theobald I de Verdun
CPR 1272-81, p. 165, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081063&view=1up&seq=209, confirms that Margery and Theobald were married by 6 Nov 1276 but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 257, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924082447990&view=1up&seq=289&size=125 (middle right), indicates that Theobald holds land in "Biselegh" of the inheritance of his wife Margerie, but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
Mark S. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family, The Verduns in England, Ireland, and Wales, 1066-1316, p. 110, states, "The only other additions to the Verduns' estates made by Theobald were the lands in the manors of Saffron Waldon (Essex) and Bisley (Gloucestershire) which had been gained on his marriage to Matilda de Bohun which had taken place by 1274." Hagger cites CIPM, vol. 5, no. 187 and WS, 6/1, p. 106. WS is William Salt Archaeological Society, Collections for a History of Staffordshire.
CIPM, vol. 5. no. 187 (p. 96), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158002929130&view=1up&seq=124, the IPM for Theobald mentions Byseleye in Gloucester held in free marriage but doesn't name the wife.
WS, 6/1, p.106, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3547861&view=1up&seq=122, states:
Banco Roll, Easter, 8 E. I. ...
Essex . Henry de Bohun sued Theobald de Verdon and Margaret his wife for the manor of Castell Waledene , excepting £10 of rent , and the advowson of the Church ; and he sued Joan de Bohun for £10 of rent in the same, in which they had no entry except through Humphrey de Boun formerly Earl of Hereford, who had unjustly disseised him of them. ( A long and interesting suit, by which Henry at length recovered seisin.) m. 44, dorso.
So finally this last source provides a connection to Humphrey de Bohun. And we appear to have three given names for Theobald's wife, Margery, Margaret, and Matilda.
Perhaps someone in the group can explain how the above evidence shows that Margery/Margaret/Matilda, wife of Theobald de Verdun, was one person and the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun and Eleanor de Brewes.
Peter Stewart
Nov 30, 2020, 2:29:35 AM11/30/20
to
circumstance that Eleanor may have died before it was to be carried out,
and this appears to not to have been rewritten but only redated on 13
July at Clarendon, so I wondered why her death was being placed after
the earlier date in Douglas Richardson's original post in this thread.
She was evidently living at the time she had given consent along with
her husband and the other two couples, but how close before the 2 June
drafting this had been done is not clear - presumably she was known to
be ailing at that date.
Peter Stewart
mk
Nov 30, 2020, 2:54:22 PM11/30/20
to
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Do you descend from Sir Humphrey de Bohun and his wife, Eleanor de Brewes? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsroup.
>
> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
here are the ones I think most easily supported
>
> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
Sir Humphrey de Bohun = Elizabeth Plantagenet
Eleanor de Bohun = James le Boteler, Earl of Ormond
Petronella le Boteler = Sir Gilbert Talbot
Sir Richard Talbot = Ankaret le Strange
Alice le Strange = Sir Thomas Barre
Elizabeth Barre = Sir Edmund Cornwall
Elynor Cornwall = Sir Richard Croft
Jane Croft = Sir Edward Darell
Jane Darell = Sir Anthony Hungerford
Edmund Hungerford = Ursula Ferrers
Bridget Hungerford = John Hitchcock
Agnes Hitchcock = William Bennett
William Bennett = Jenevora Franke
William Bennett = Elizabeth Coles
John Bennett = Ann Burgis
Frances Bennett = Robert Parham
William Parham = Elizabeth Latty
William Parham = Martha Pike
Mary Parham = Edward Burridge
Thomas Burridge = Kate Helen Creeth
Grace Burridge = Albert John Rodd
Daphne Grace Rodd (my mum)
Margery de Bohun = Theobald de Verdun
Theobald de Verdun = Matilda Mortimer
Elizabeth Mortimer = Sir Bartholomew de Burghersh
Joan Burghersh = Sir John de Mohun
Maud de Mohun = John le Strange
Aline le Strange = Sir Edward Burnell
Margaret Burnell = Sir Edmund Hungerford
Sir Thomas Hungerford = Christian Halle
Sir John Hungerford = Margaret Blount
Sir Anthony Hungerford = Jane Darell
As above
Mary de Bohun = Ralph de Toeni
Alice de Toeni = Sir Guy de Beauchamp
Elizabeth de Beauchamp = Thomas de Astley
Sir William Astley = Joan Willoughby
Joan Astley = Reynold de Grey
Robert de Grey = Eleanor Lowe
Humphrey de Grey = Ann Fielding
Margery Grey = Richard St. Barbe
Thomas St. Barbe = Joan ?
Alice St. Barbe = Christopher Batt
John Batt = Katherine Brotherton
Christopher Batt = Alice Wastfield
Katherine Batt = William Coles
Elizabeth Coles = William Bennett
As above
best regards,
Monica
Peter Stewart
Nov 30, 2020, 8:21:36 PM11/30/20
to
On 30-Nov-20 4:01 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:39:40 PM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
>> ...
>> 1 Humphrey de Bohun = Eleanor de Brewes
>> 2 Margery de Bohun = Theobald I de Verdun
>
> In the line of descent I posted, I indicated that Margery de Bohun was the daughter of Humphrey and Eleanor, but I am curious about the evidence for this link. This is what is shown on Leo's website, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177623&tree=LEO. He cites CP 12 (pt. 2) p. 249. On p. 250, CP states that Theobald married Margery but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents. CP cites CPR 1272-81, p. 165 and Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 257.
>
> CPR 1272-81, p. 165, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081063&view=1up&seq=209, confirms that Margery and Theobald were married by 6 Nov 1276 but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
>
> Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 257, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924082447990&view=1up&seq=289&size=125 (middle right), indicates that Theobald holds land in "Biselegh" of the inheritance of his wife Margerie, but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
>
> Mark S. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family, The Verduns in England, Ireland, and Wales, 1066-1316, p. 110, states, "The only other additions to the Verduns' estates made by Theobald were the lands in the manors of Saffron Waldon (Essex) and Bisley (Gloucestershire) which had been gained on his marriage to Matilda de Bohun which had taken place by 1274." Hagger cites CIPM, vol. 5, no. 187 and WS, 6/1, p. 106. WS is William Salt Archaeological Society, Collections for a History of Staffordshire.
>
> CIPM, vol. 5. no. 187 (p. 96), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158002929130&view=1up&seq=124, the IPM for Theobald mentions Byseleye in Gloucester held in free marriage but doesn't name the wife.
Hagger relied on this record, see p. 219 note 78: "Theobald's wife is
> On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:39:40 PM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
>> ...
>> 1 Humphrey de Bohun = Eleanor de Brewes
>> 2 Margery de Bohun = Theobald I de Verdun
>
> In the line of descent I posted, I indicated that Margery de Bohun was the daughter of Humphrey and Eleanor, but I am curious about the evidence for this link. This is what is shown on Leo's website, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177623&tree=LEO. He cites CP 12 (pt. 2) p. 249. On p. 250, CP states that Theobald married Margery but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents. CP cites CPR 1272-81, p. 165 and Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 257.
>
> CPR 1272-81, p. 165, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081063&view=1up&seq=209, confirms that Margery and Theobald were married by 6 Nov 1276 but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
>
> Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 257, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924082447990&view=1up&seq=289&size=125 (middle right), indicates that Theobald holds land in "Biselegh" of the inheritance of his wife Margerie, but doesn't state her family name or the names of her parents.
>
> Mark S. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family, The Verduns in England, Ireland, and Wales, 1066-1316, p. 110, states, "The only other additions to the Verduns' estates made by Theobald were the lands in the manors of Saffron Waldon (Essex) and Bisley (Gloucestershire) which had been gained on his marriage to Matilda de Bohun which had taken place by 1274." Hagger cites CIPM, vol. 5, no. 187 and WS, 6/1, p. 106. WS is William Salt Archaeological Society, Collections for a History of Staffordshire.
>
> CIPM, vol. 5. no. 187 (p. 96), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158002929130&view=1up&seq=124, the IPM for Theobald mentions Byseleye in Gloucester held in free marriage but doesn't name the wife.
identified in the inquisition post mortem of 1309". You neglected to
quote the information he evidently focused on, "held in free marriage of
the earl of Her(e)ford ...".
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 1, 2020, 11:54:05 AM12/1/20
to
In a case such as this, how do we rule out the possibility that in the early 1270s someone else held Byseleye of the earl of Hereford and that someone gave it in free marriage with his daughter to Theobald I de Verdun?
What is the evidence for the given name Matilda for Theobald's wife?
I also wondered about the date of the marriage, which Hagger says was by 1274. Is that because the item in Placita de quo Warranto implies that the holding of Biselegh by Theobald must have appeared in the rolls resulting from the inquisitions ordered by Edward I on 11 October 2E1 (1274)?
John P. Ravilious
Dec 1, 2020, 3:01:49 PM12/1/20
to
Checking in after a prolonged absence, I hope this message finds everyone well this early winter (and summer, in Peter's case !)
It appears Hagger's naming of Theobald de Verdun's wife as Matilda is an unfortunate error. Collections for a History of Staffordshire 6/1, p. 106 concerns in part the suit of Henry de Bohun concerning Saffron Walden, and names the defendants as Theobald de Verdon and Margaret his wife. I have no other notes providing a name other than Margaret or Margery, so there appears to be no other evidence for a 2nd/different wife.
The history of the tenure of Bisley is nicely laid out in the VCH for Gloucestershire, and accords with the evidence showing that Margery or Margaret de Bohun brought 1/4 knight's fee and the advowson of Bisley to her marriage with Theobald de Verdun [1]. Theobald's IPM notes that at his death in 1309 he held at Bisley " A capital messuage, 50a. arable, 1/2a. meadow, 5a. wood, and 101s. 5d. rents, &c., held in free marriage of the earl of Her[e]ford by service of rendering 1lb. cummin yearly " [2]. That Theobald, son and heir of Theobald was also the son and heir of Margery (Margaret) de Bohun and inherited his parent's rights in Bisley is shown in his father's IPM, and also in the evidence of his granting seisin in his lands of Bisley to Hugh le Despenser the elder for the term of 5 years on 24 Oct 1313 [3]. Evidently Theobald's heirs never sought, or succeeded, in recovering the rights in Bisley, which given the history of the many lands acquired and then lost by the Despensers is not terribly surprising.
Cheers,
John
[1] VCH Gloucester, vol. 11 (1976), pp. 11-20. For online access, see URL below:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/glos/vol11/pp11-20
See also the evidence provided by Theobald de Verdun vs. the Earl of Hereford in Alfred J. Horwood, ed., Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the First (London 1879), pp. 170-171.
[2] CIPM V:96, no. 187.
[3] Letter of attorney, dated at Lambeth, 24 Oct 1313:
A. 5798. Letter of attorney by Theobald de Verdoun, authorising Thomas de Wyncelade to deliver to Sir Hugh le Despenser, the elder, for five years, seisin of the manor of Biselegh, the advowson of the church there, and of all Theobald's share of the hundred of Biselegh. Lambeheth, Wednesday before the apostles Simon and Jude, 7 Edward [II]. [Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds (London, 1900), vol. 3, no. A.5798]
Agreement dated at Lambeth, 24 Oct 1313:
A. 12031. Indenture being the memorandum of an agreement made at Lamheth, Wednesday before the feast of the Apostles Simon and Jude, 7 Edward [I], between Sir Theobald de Veredoun and Sir Hugh le Despenser, the elder, to wit, Theobald demises to the said Hugh his whole manor of Byselegh, with the advowson of the church of the said manor, and all his part of the Hundred of Byselegh, for the term of five years, from the day of date, to hold as completely as the ancestor of the said Sir Theobald had them of the ancestor of the earl of Hereford. [Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds (London, 1906), vol. 5, no. A.12031]
Note: the dating of A. 12031 above by the editor to the reign of Edward I was clearly erroneous.
Peter Stewart
Dec 1, 2020, 4:35:06 PM12/1/20
to
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Dec 1, 2020, 5:18:31 PM12/1/20
to
notable that he posits a double Verdon-Bohun marriage in the same
generation - Humphrey de Bohun's daughters Alienor and M[atilda/Margery]
marrying respectively John de Verdon (died 1274) and Theobald (died
1309), his son by Margery de Lacy.
According to CP vol 4 p. 202, Robert de Ferrers, earl of Derby, married
secondly '26 June 1269, Alianore, da. of Sir Humphrey DE BOHUN ... by
his 1st wife, Alianore, 4th da. and coh. of Sir William DE BRAIOSE'.
There is no correction to this in vol. 14.
Obviously the Alianore who was the widow of John de Verdon in 1274
cannot have been somebody else's wife since June 1269. CP adds, ibid
note (b): 'She is usually said to have been "Alianore, da. of Ralph,
Lord Basset."'
Has this problem been resolved?
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 1, 2020, 5:29:55 PM12/1/20
to
Footnote 20 in the VCH article [Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), i. 170; cf. Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), 257] does tie together the entry in Placita de quo Warranto with the inquisition ordered by Edward I in 1274. Rot. Hund. i, 170, https://books.google.com/books?id=_BtDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA170 (lower right), states that Bisleye was in the hands of Peter Corbet, Theobald le Botiler and Richard le Heyer.
Peter Stewart
Dec 2, 2020, 4:46:23 PM12/2/20
to
been clarified by an expert correspondent off-list.
Hagger has presented fairly good circumstantial evidence that Eleanor
(whom he called Alianor) the second wife of John de Verdon and Margery
(whom he misnamed Matilda) the wife of Theobald I de Verdon (John's son
by a prior marriage) were Bohuns.
However, I think he has probably misplaced them both within the family
by a generation in making them daughters of Humphrey (died 1265) and his
wife Eleanor de Braiose.
There is no question that this couple did have a daughter named Eleanor,
but she was the second wife of Robert de Ferrers, 6th earl of Derby,
from June 1269 whereas the other Eleanor de Bohun, wife of John de
Verdon, was widowed in 1274. The latter couple had a son named Humphrey
- presumably after her father - born on 4 June 1267, and she had the
Verdon and Bohun bearings on her seal. The Eleanor married to Robert de
Ferrers was described as sister to Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd earl of
Hereford (son of Humphrey who died in 1265 by Eleanor de Braiose) in the
close roll for 1290 (Edward I, vol 3 p. 119: "Humphrey de Bohun, earl of
Hereford, and Eleanor de Ferrariis, his sister, acknowledge that they
owe to Robert de Tibotot and Matthew de Columbariis, the king’s butler,
200l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of their lands and chattels
in cos. Hereford and Essex"). Two witnesses at the IPM of this Eleanor's
son John, 1st lord Ferrers of Chartley, quoted in CP vol. 5 pp. 305-306
note (d), placed her as the granddaughter of Humphrey de Bohun who was
clearly the 2nd earl of Hereford and 7th of Essex.
The most likely answer seems to me that John de Verdon's wife Eleanor de
Bohun was a paternal half-sister of Humphrey the husband of Eleanor de
Braiose, i.e. a daughter of the 2nd earl of Herford by his second wife,
Maud de Avenbury. This would account for her evident family connection
as well as the chronology placing her apparently around 20 years younger
than the daughters of the 2nd earl by his first wife, Maud de Lusignan.
The double Verdon-Bohun marriages posited by Hagger, including his
Matilda who was actually named Margery or Margaret to John's son
Theobald I, are somewhat downscale socio-politically from the Ferrers
marriage of the 3rd earl's sister. Maybe Margery was also a
near-contemporary half-blood aunt of the 3rd earl, another daughter of
the 2nd earl by Maud de Avenbury. At any rate Hagger's placing her as a
sister of the third earl would entail a second-cousin marriage between
her son Theobald II de Verdon and Maud de Mortimer, both in that case
great-grandchildren of William de Braiose and Eve Marshal.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 3, 2020, 3:13:53 PM12/3/20
to
On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 4:46:23 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 02-Dec-20 9:18 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 02-Dec-20 8:35 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
...
> On 02-Dec-20 9:18 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 02-Dec-20 8:35 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
I think that Hagger does not clearly state the generation(s) of the de Bohun family to which he thinks Alianore and Matilda [sic, recte Margery] belonged, and I think that the evidence that Hagger presents that these two women were members of the de Bohun family is silent about where to place them in the family. It appears that the claim that they were daughters of Eleanor de Brewes/Braose and her husband Humphrey de Bohun were inferences made by others, and I think you have shown that neither inference can be correct.
Douglas, it appears that you can now ignore the descent I posted in response to your request and likewise, the second of Monica's three descents.
Perhaps someone can suggest a correction to Leo's database https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177623&tree=LEO correcting the placement of Margery according to Peter's suggestion.
Leo's database places John de Verdun's second wife Eleanor de Bohun as a daughter of Humphrey de Bohun and his first wife Maud de Lusignan, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177621&tree=LEO. Leo's citations suggest that there has previously been some discussion of where Eleanor should be placed in the de Bohun family by Brice Clagett, Douglas Richardson, Rosie Bevan, and John Ravilious. CP does not place Eleanor but mentions her seal and comments that the name, Humphrey, of her son may be significant.
Peter Stewart
Dec 3, 2020, 4:08:29 PM12/3/20
to
daughter of Humphrey who died in 1265 - on p. 251: "John de Verdun's ...
second marriage to Alianor de Bohun also seems to have produced a son,
called Humphrey after the bride’s father. He was born in 1267 and died
in Paris in 1285, presumably without an heir, these details being
provided by the Croxden chronicler who took an unusual and inexplicable
interest in Humphrey’s brief life." Eleanor de Braiose's husband is the
only brief-lived Humphrey he can have meant.
>
> Douglas, it appears that you can now ignore the descent I posted in response to your request and likewise, the second of Monica's three descents.
>
> Perhaps someone can suggest a correction to Leo's database https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177623&tree=LEO correcting the placement of Margery according to Peter's suggestion.
>
> Leo's database places John de Verdun's second wife Eleanor de Bohun as a daughter of Humphrey de Bohun and his first wife Maud de Lusignan, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177621&tree=LEO. Leo's citations suggest that there has previously been some discussion of where Eleanor should be placed in the de Bohun family by Brice Clagett, Douglas Richardson, Rosie Bevan, and John Ravilious. CP does not place Eleanor but mentions her seal and comments that the name, Humphrey, of her son may be significant.
>
early-modern chronicle of Llanthony Secunda priory in Gloucestershire as
transcribed by Robert Glover in the 16th century, printed in Monasticon
vol. 6 pp. 134-136. No medieval manuscript of this is known as far as
I'm aware (it is certainly not a direct continuation of the chronicle of
Llanthony Prima in Monmouthshire written in the 13th century), but the
style and inaccuracy appear to place it in the 15th century. According
to this Humphrey the 2nd earl had Humphrey (died 1265) and four
daughters by Maud de Lusignan and a son John by Maud de Avenbury - he is
also ascribed a grandson named Oliver de Bohun, whose paternity is not
specified. This is unreliable: Maud de Avenbury had at least one other
son, Miles, to the 2nd earl, whose son Henry may have been by either
wife for all I know. The alleged four daughters are confused in the
account, with the two marriages of one of them ascribed to two different
women, and one of them left unnamed - if there were indeed four, two may
have been born to each wife.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Dec 3, 2020, 4:20:59 PM12/3/20
to
almost certainly did mean the brief life of Alianor's son Humphrey, not
of her father. The Croxden chronicle is evidently as yet published in
full, but from the extracts printed in Monasticon vol. 5 I can't follow
what is meant by "an unusual and inexplicable interest" since the only
entry included about him states that he was born on 4 June 1267.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Dec 3, 2020, 7:27:27 PM12/3/20
to
Dear Jan ~
The parentage of Margery de Bohun, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, 1st Lord Verdun, has been discussed numerous times in the past here on the newsgroup. A review of that information can be found on Chris Phillips' excellent website, Some Notes on Medieval Genealogy, at the following weblink:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_verdun.shtml
The basis for the identification of Margery de Bohun's parentage is based on four pieces of evidence:
1. Cal. IPM 5 (1908): 96 (inquisition states Thebaud de Verdun held a capital messuage and lands at Bisley, Gloucestershire “in free marriage of the earl of Hereford”).
2. Horwood, Year Books of Edward I: Years XXXIVII–XXXV 5 (Rolls Ser. 31a) (1879): 170–171 (In a lawsuit dated 1306 “Theobald de Verdun vouched the Earl of Hereford, and said that one Humphrey his father [i.e., deceased father of Earl of Hereford] gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter, and bound himself; and by this deed … Since the deed is admitted, and Theobald and Margery were seized on the day of the making thereof, and Robert was never seised, and it states a simple warranty &c., judgment &c.…”).
The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=1KFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170
The discussion of the judges appears to indicate that Humphrey de Bohun [died 1265] who is here called "one Humphrey" first gave the certain unspecified tenements to Robert W. and Margery his daughter in frank-marriage. If Humphrey had been an earl, the record should have said so. I assume this gift is referring to a marriage settlement, not an actual enfeoffment. It appears that Robert W. died before the actual enfeoffment was made, as it states he was "never seised." It further states that Thebaud and Margery were "seized on the day of the making thereof," which presumably was when the promised gift of a marriage portion for Margery was formally confirmed by her grandfather, Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275).
There should be a corresponding lawsuit in Easter term 1306 which spells out the details of this lawsuit. The lawsuit will likely specify the actual property given in frank-marriage to Margery de Bohun.
3. Collections for a History of Staffordshire 6 Pt. 1 (1885): 106, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gmg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA106
Court of Common Pleas, Easter term 1280. Essex. Henry de Bohun sued Thebaud de Verdon and Margery his wife regarding the manor of Castellwaledene [Walden Castle], Essex, excepting 10 librates of land, and the advowson of the church; and he sued Joan de Boun for 10 librates of land in the same, in which they had no entry except through Humphrey de Boun formerly Earl of Hereford, who had unjustly disseised him of them.
The original lawsuit can be viewed at the following:
Court of Common Pleas, CP40/33, image 2452d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no33/bCP40no33dorses/IMG_2452.htm).
This record was cited by Hagger. He erroneously gave the name of Margery, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, as Margaret. The plaintiff in the above lawsuit was Henry de Bohun, the brother of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265). Joan de Bohun was the widow of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265). Humphrey de Bohun, late Earl of Hereford, would presumably be Earl Humphrey who died in 1275.
I find that there were other lawsuits between Thebaud and Margery de Verdun and her uncle, Henry de Bohun:
In 1275–6 and again in 1278–9 Thebaud and Margery his wife arraigned an assize of novel dissesin against Henry de Bohun regarding a tenement in Nuthampstead, Hertfordshire.
4. In 1305 Richard son of William de Bysele sued Thebaud de Verdun the elder in the Court of Common Pleas regarding ¼th part of the manor of Bisley, Gloucestershire and the advowson of the said church. Thebaud came and said that Humphrey de Bohun, late Earl of Hereford and Essex, gave the said property to Thebaud and Margery his wife and the heirs of their bodies and Thebaud called to warranty Humphrey de Bohun, current Earl of Hereford and Essex, kinsman and heir of the earlier Humphrey.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 133f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0133.htm).
The above lawsuit is an all new record. It concerns the maritagium of Margery de Bohun which consisted of a one-fourth interest in the manor and hundred of Bisley, Gloucestershire. Thebaud states here that he and Margery were granted this property by Earl Humphrey de Bohun, who presumably would be her grandfather who died in 1275. We can be sure that the grandfather was the donor as we know that Thebaud and Margery were married before 6 Nov. 1276 (appointment of attorneys). Concerning the earlier history of this land holding, I find that the property at Bisley, Gloucestershire was granted about 1170–73, to Margery's ancestor, Humphrey de Bohun. For further particulars, see F.M. Stenton, First Century of English Feudalism, 1066–1166 (Oxford, 1932): 257–258; Geoffrey Barraclough, ed.,The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c.1071–1237 (Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire 126) (Gloucester, 1988): 184–185.
Given the above records, it seems abundantly clear that Margery, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265), by his 1st wife, Eleanor de Brewes.
The parentage of Margery de Bohun, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, 1st Lord Verdun, has been discussed numerous times in the past here on the newsgroup. A review of that information can be found on Chris Phillips' excellent website, Some Notes on Medieval Genealogy, at the following weblink:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_verdun.shtml
The basis for the identification of Margery de Bohun's parentage is based on four pieces of evidence:
1. Cal. IPM 5 (1908): 96 (inquisition states Thebaud de Verdun held a capital messuage and lands at Bisley, Gloucestershire “in free marriage of the earl of Hereford”).
2. Horwood, Year Books of Edward I: Years XXXIVII–XXXV 5 (Rolls Ser. 31a) (1879): 170–171 (In a lawsuit dated 1306 “Theobald de Verdun vouched the Earl of Hereford, and said that one Humphrey his father [i.e., deceased father of Earl of Hereford] gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter, and bound himself; and by this deed … Since the deed is admitted, and Theobald and Margery were seized on the day of the making thereof, and Robert was never seised, and it states a simple warranty &c., judgment &c.…”).
The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=1KFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170
The discussion of the judges appears to indicate that Humphrey de Bohun [died 1265] who is here called "one Humphrey" first gave the certain unspecified tenements to Robert W. and Margery his daughter in frank-marriage. If Humphrey had been an earl, the record should have said so. I assume this gift is referring to a marriage settlement, not an actual enfeoffment. It appears that Robert W. died before the actual enfeoffment was made, as it states he was "never seised." It further states that Thebaud and Margery were "seized on the day of the making thereof," which presumably was when the promised gift of a marriage portion for Margery was formally confirmed by her grandfather, Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275).
There should be a corresponding lawsuit in Easter term 1306 which spells out the details of this lawsuit. The lawsuit will likely specify the actual property given in frank-marriage to Margery de Bohun.
3. Collections for a History of Staffordshire 6 Pt. 1 (1885): 106, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gmg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA106
Court of Common Pleas, Easter term 1280. Essex. Henry de Bohun sued Thebaud de Verdon and Margery his wife regarding the manor of Castellwaledene [Walden Castle], Essex, excepting 10 librates of land, and the advowson of the church; and he sued Joan de Boun for 10 librates of land in the same, in which they had no entry except through Humphrey de Boun formerly Earl of Hereford, who had unjustly disseised him of them.
The original lawsuit can be viewed at the following:
Court of Common Pleas, CP40/33, image 2452d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no33/bCP40no33dorses/IMG_2452.htm).
This record was cited by Hagger. He erroneously gave the name of Margery, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, as Margaret. The plaintiff in the above lawsuit was Henry de Bohun, the brother of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265). Joan de Bohun was the widow of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265). Humphrey de Bohun, late Earl of Hereford, would presumably be Earl Humphrey who died in 1275.
I find that there were other lawsuits between Thebaud and Margery de Verdun and her uncle, Henry de Bohun:
In 1275–6 and again in 1278–9 Thebaud and Margery his wife arraigned an assize of novel dissesin against Henry de Bohun regarding a tenement in Nuthampstead, Hertfordshire.
4. In 1305 Richard son of William de Bysele sued Thebaud de Verdun the elder in the Court of Common Pleas regarding ¼th part of the manor of Bisley, Gloucestershire and the advowson of the said church. Thebaud came and said that Humphrey de Bohun, late Earl of Hereford and Essex, gave the said property to Thebaud and Margery his wife and the heirs of their bodies and Thebaud called to warranty Humphrey de Bohun, current Earl of Hereford and Essex, kinsman and heir of the earlier Humphrey.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 133f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0133.htm).
The above lawsuit is an all new record. It concerns the maritagium of Margery de Bohun which consisted of a one-fourth interest in the manor and hundred of Bisley, Gloucestershire. Thebaud states here that he and Margery were granted this property by Earl Humphrey de Bohun, who presumably would be her grandfather who died in 1275. We can be sure that the grandfather was the donor as we know that Thebaud and Margery were married before 6 Nov. 1276 (appointment of attorneys). Concerning the earlier history of this land holding, I find that the property at Bisley, Gloucestershire was granted about 1170–73, to Margery's ancestor, Humphrey de Bohun. For further particulars, see F.M. Stenton, First Century of English Feudalism, 1066–1166 (Oxford, 1932): 257–258; Geoffrey Barraclough, ed.,The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c.1071–1237 (Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire 126) (Gloucester, 1988): 184–185.
Given the above records, it seems abundantly clear that Margery, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265), by his 1st wife, Eleanor de Brewes.
Peter Stewart
Dec 3, 2020, 9:31:22 PM12/3/20
to
On 04-Dec-20 11:27 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Jan ~
>
> The parentage of Margery de Bohun, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, 1st Lord Verdun, has been discussed numerous times in the past here on the newsgroup. A review of that information can be found on Chris Phillips' excellent website, Some Notes on Medieval Genealogy, at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_verdun.shtml
>
> The basis for the identification of Margery de Bohun's parentage is based on four pieces of evidence:
>
> 1. Cal. IPM 5 (1908): 96 (inquisition states Thebaud de Verdun held a capital messuage and lands at Bisley, Gloucestershire “in free marriage of the earl of Hereford”).
>
> 2. Horwood, Year Books of Edward I: Years XXXIVII–XXXV 5 (Rolls Ser. 31a) (1879): 170–171 (In a lawsuit dated 1306 “Theobald de Verdun vouched the Earl of Hereford, and said that one Humphrey his father [i.e., deceased father of Earl of Hereford] gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter, and bound himself; and by this deed … Since the deed is admitted, and Theobald and Margery were seized on the day of the making thereof, and Robert was never seised, and it states a simple warranty &c., judgment &c.…”).
>
> The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=1KFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170
>
> The discussion of the judges appears to indicate that Humphrey de Bohun [died 1265] who is here called "one Humphrey" first gave the certain unspecified tenements to Robert W. and Margery his daughter in frank-marriage. If Humphrey had been an earl, the record should have said so. I assume this gift is referring to a marriage settlement, not an actual enfeoffment. It appears that Robert W. died before the actual enfeoffment was made, as it states he was "never seised." It further states that Thebaud and Margery were "seized on the day of the making thereof," which presumably was when the promised gift of a marriage portion for Margery was formally confirmed by her grandfather, Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275).
Your reading of this is not at all convincing to me - as far as I can
> Dear Jan ~
>
> The parentage of Margery de Bohun, wife of Thebaud de Verdun, 1st Lord Verdun, has been discussed numerous times in the past here on the newsgroup. A review of that information can be found on Chris Phillips' excellent website, Some Notes on Medieval Genealogy, at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_verdun.shtml
>
> The basis for the identification of Margery de Bohun's parentage is based on four pieces of evidence:
>
> 1. Cal. IPM 5 (1908): 96 (inquisition states Thebaud de Verdun held a capital messuage and lands at Bisley, Gloucestershire “in free marriage of the earl of Hereford”).
>
> 2. Horwood, Year Books of Edward I: Years XXXIVII–XXXV 5 (Rolls Ser. 31a) (1879): 170–171 (In a lawsuit dated 1306 “Theobald de Verdun vouched the Earl of Hereford, and said that one Humphrey his father [i.e., deceased father of Earl of Hereford] gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter, and bound himself; and by this deed … Since the deed is admitted, and Theobald and Margery were seized on the day of the making thereof, and Robert was never seised, and it states a simple warranty &c., judgment &c.…”).
>
> The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=1KFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170
>
> The discussion of the judges appears to indicate that Humphrey de Bohun [died 1265] who is here called "one Humphrey" first gave the certain unspecified tenements to Robert W. and Margery his daughter in frank-marriage. If Humphrey had been an earl, the record should have said so. I assume this gift is referring to a marriage settlement, not an actual enfeoffment. It appears that Robert W. died before the actual enfeoffment was made, as it states he was "never seised." It further states that Thebaud and Margery were "seized on the day of the making thereof," which presumably was when the promised gift of a marriage portion for Margery was formally confirmed by her grandfather, Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275).
see, the reason "one Humphrey's" gift in free marriage to Robert W. was
later held to have been void is that Theobald de Verdon and his wife
Margery held the tenement at the time of the purported gift, not "one
Humphrey".
In other words, the Margery who married Robert W. was daughter of
Humphrey (died 1265) and another Margery de Bohun (by my suggestion a
paternal half-sister to "one Humphrey") was already married to Theobald
de Verdon beforehand.
This seems consistent with all the other evidence cited in your post,
though not with the uncle-niece relationship you have asserted (rather
than brother-sister) between Theobald's wife and Henry de Bohun.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Dec 3, 2020, 10:19:21 PM12/3/20
to
Hereford in 1306 when Theobald de Verdon said that the earl's father
(i.e. Humphrey the 3rd earl, who died in 1298) had given his daughter
Margery in marriage to Robert W.
This was then presumably a great-niece of the Margery de Bohun married
to Theobald, though these namesakes were evidently closer to each
chronologically than that relationship would otherwise suggest assuming
Theobald's wife was a daughter of Maud de Avenbury as I think necessary
to avoid the second-cousin marriage in the next generation mentioned
upthread.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 4, 2020, 11:11:45 AM12/4/20
to
On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 7:27:27 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
...
...
> 2. Horwood, Year Books of Edward I: Years XXXIVII–XXXV 5 (Rolls Ser. 31a) (1879): 170–171 (In a lawsuit dated 1306 “Theobald de Verdun vouched the Earl of Hereford, and said that one Humphrey his father [i.e., deceased father of Earl of Hereford] gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter, and bound himself; and by this deed … Since the deed is admitted, and Theobald and Margery were seized on the day of the making thereof, and Robert was never seised, and it states a simple warranty &c., judgment &c.…”).
>
> The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=1KFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170
>
> The discussion of the judges appears to indicate that Humphrey de Bohun [died 1265] who is here called "one Humphrey" first gave the certain unspecified tenements to Robert W. and Margery his daughter in frank-marriage. If Humphrey had been an earl, the record should have said so. I assume this gift is referring to a marriage settlement, not an actual enfeoffment. It appears that Robert W. died before the actual enfeoffment was made, as it states he was "never seised." It further states that Thebaud and Margery were "seized on the day of the making thereof," which presumably was when the promised gift of a marriage portion for Margery was formally confirmed by her grandfather, Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275).
>
> There should be a corresponding lawsuit in Easter term 1306 which spells out the details of this lawsuit. The lawsuit will likely specify the actual property given in frank-marriage to Margery de Bohun.
...
>
> The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=1KFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170
>
> The discussion of the judges appears to indicate that Humphrey de Bohun [died 1265] who is here called "one Humphrey" first gave the certain unspecified tenements to Robert W. and Margery his daughter in frank-marriage. If Humphrey had been an earl, the record should have said so. I assume this gift is referring to a marriage settlement, not an actual enfeoffment. It appears that Robert W. died before the actual enfeoffment was made, as it states he was "never seised." It further states that Thebaud and Margery were "seized on the day of the making thereof," which presumably was when the promised gift of a marriage portion for Margery was formally confirmed by her grandfather, Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275).
>
> There should be a corresponding lawsuit in Easter term 1306 which spells out the details of this lawsuit. The lawsuit will likely specify the actual property given in frank-marriage to Margery de Bohun.
Thank you, Douglas, for the additional information, discussion history, and your interpretation of the 1306 case, and thank you, Peter, for your interpretation of this information.
Do you think that the 1306 case was about the Bisley property in Gloucestershire? Would the CP40 record most likely have "Glouc" written in the left hand margin?
Would it be likely that a dispensation would have been granted for a second cousin marriage in this time and place if someone important requested it?
Peter Stewart
Dec 4, 2020, 4:51:28 PM12/4/20
to
possible - the pope at the time of the Verdon-Mortimer marriage in 1302
was Boniface VIII, who in January of the same year had issued a
dispensation for Marguerite of Burgundy to marry her first cousin once
removed, either Louis or Philippe the two eldest sons of her mother's
nephew Philippe IV of France (she subsequently married Louis).
However, Boniface noted that a good reason was needed in such cases and
in this instance he accepted the benefit that would come for the kingdom
from the consanguineous match.
The Verdons and Mortimers were not in a league where this sort of reason
could be proposed, but in any case I think we can't safely assume that
any marriage was dispensed by Boniface VIII when there is no record of
it in his registers, which are published in 4 volumes (Bibliothèque des
Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 1907-1939).
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 4, 2020, 5:55:48 PM12/4/20
to
On Friday, December 4, 2020 at 4:51:28 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 05-Dec-20 3:11 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
...
> On 05-Dec-20 3:11 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> > Would it be likely that a dispensation would have been granted for a second cousin marriage in this time and place if someone important requested it?
> >
> I'm not sure that this would have been "likely" but certainly it was
> possible - the pope at the time of the Verdon-Mortimer marriage in 1302
> was Boniface VIII, who in January of the same year had issued a
> dispensation for Marguerite of Burgundy to marry her first cousin once
> removed, either Louis or Philippe the two eldest sons of her mother's
> nephew Philippe IV of France (she subsequently married Louis).
>
> However, Boniface noted that a good reason was needed in such cases and
> in this instance he accepted the benefit that would come for the kingdom
> from the consanguineous match.
>
> The Verdons and Mortimers were not in a league where this sort of reason
> could be proposed, but in any case I think we can't safely assume that
> any marriage was dispensed by Boniface VIII when there is no record of
> it in his registers, which are published in 4 volumes (Bibliothèque des
> Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 1907-1939).
>
> Peter Stewart
Could local church authorities grant a consanguinity dispensation, or was approval by the Pope required?
> >
> I'm not sure that this would have been "likely" but certainly it was
> possible - the pope at the time of the Verdon-Mortimer marriage in 1302
> was Boniface VIII, who in January of the same year had issued a
> dispensation for Marguerite of Burgundy to marry her first cousin once
> removed, either Louis or Philippe the two eldest sons of her mother's
> nephew Philippe IV of France (she subsequently married Louis).
>
> However, Boniface noted that a good reason was needed in such cases and
> in this instance he accepted the benefit that would come for the kingdom
> from the consanguineous match.
>
> The Verdons and Mortimers were not in a league where this sort of reason
> could be proposed, but in any case I think we can't safely assume that
> any marriage was dispensed by Boniface VIII when there is no record of
> it in his registers, which are published in 4 volumes (Bibliothèque des
> Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 1907-1939).
>
> Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Dec 4, 2020, 6:09:37 PM12/4/20
to
including consanguineous marriage.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 4, 2020, 11:12:15 PM12/4/20
to
On Friday, December 4, 2020 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
...
...
> Only the pope could grant dispensations in matters of canon law,
> including consanguineous marriage.
>
> Peter Stewart
In the social group of Theobald de Verdun and the Mortimer family in the early 1300s would a second cousin marriage without a dispensation have been accepted by their colleagues?
> including consanguineous marriage.
>
> Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Dec 5, 2020, 12:45:44 AM12/5/20
to
clergy - I doubt that there could have been sufficient inducement for
either side to enter into negotiation for a marriage that they might
expect to be forbidden in advance, or dissolved after a lot of wasted
angst if they went ahead anyway.
Defiance of canon law was not undertaken lightly in that era. The upside
of trying, at the Verdon-Mortimer stratum of rank and power anyway, was
hardly worth the very foreseeable downside.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Dec 5, 2020, 12:58:22 AM12/5/20
to
between (as it later turned out) Louis X of France and Marguerite of
Burgundy illustrates how seriously the impediment of consanguinity was
taken at that time. A dispensation had already been granted for the
relationship as first cousins once removed, and this was repeated - but
another, more distant, relationship within the forbidden degrees had
since come to light and the pope issued the new dispensation so that it
too was explicitly covered.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 5, 2020, 1:21:25 AM12/5/20
to
Thank you for these explanations, Peter.
There is something about Humphrey de Bohun and Theobald de Verdun near the top of this folio (CP40, Easter term 1306):
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no159/CP40no159dorses/IMG_1157.htm
There is something about Humphrey de Bohun and Theobald de Verdun near the top of this folio (CP40, Easter term 1306):
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no159/CP40no159dorses/IMG_1157.htm
Jan Wolfe
Dec 5, 2020, 9:51:29 AM12/5/20
to
Douglas Richardson
Dec 5, 2020, 12:24:11 PM12/5/20
to
Thanks for sharing this information. Much appreciated.
The item reads as follows (names of attorneys deleted):
In Easter term 1306 Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, whom Thebaud de Verdoun called to warranty, against Richard son of William de Biseleye in the Court of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding land.
A better reference for this item would be:
Court of Common Pleas, CP40/159, image 1157d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no159/CP40no159dorses/IMG_1157.htm).
The above record appears to be a short abstract of a continuation of the 1305 lawsuit which I reported in my last post. There is probably a more detailed account of this continuation elsewhere in the Common Pleas lawsuits of Easter term 1306.
The item above dated 1306 does not indicate the property involved in the lawsuit, but the earlier 1305 action indicates that the lawsuit involved 1/4 part of the manor of Bisley, Gloucestershire and the advowson of the church there.
Douglas Richardson
Douglas Richardson
Dec 5, 2020, 12:58:53 PM12/5/20
to
I left out one word in my abstract of the 1306 item. Here is the corrected abstract:
In Easter term 1306 Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, whom Thebaud de Verdoun the elder called to warranty, against Richard son of William de Biseleye in the Court of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding land.
DR
In Easter term 1306 Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, whom Thebaud de Verdoun the elder called to warranty, against Richard son of William de Biseleye in the Court of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding land.
DR
Message has been deleted
joseph cook
Dec 5, 2020, 10:10:47 PM12/5/20
to
"(Richardson) also suggested that Maud, the wife of John de Grey, was Eleanor's daughter, and that if so, this would explain the consanguinity between two couples later said to be related in the 4th degree of kindred - (i) John de Bohun, earl of Hereford (d. 1335/6) and his wife Margaret Basset (a granddaughter of John de Grey) and (ii) John de Lisle, Lord Lisle (d. 1355) and his wife Maud de Grey (another granddaughter of John). If this explanation is correct, ** it suggests that Eleanor [wife of John de Verdon] was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford (d. 1275), rather than his son Humphrey (d. 1265) **, because if she were daughter of the latter the second couple would be related in the 4th and 5th degrees."
Given her age, being a child of the second marriage to Avenbury fits everything.
Is anything known at all about Maud Avenbury's family other than a claimed relationship to Eleanor Avenbury, wife of Roger le Rous?
Joe C
Peter Stewart
Dec 5, 2020, 10:33:09 PM12/5/20
to
to guesswork - no information is given on this by Lucia Pascual in her
2017 Royal Holloway PhD thesis on the Bohuns, where she wrote that
"Humphrey IV’s second wife was Matilda of Avenbury, a woman of no
apparent significance of whom little is known", see p. 33 in the pdf
file available here:
https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-de-bohun-dynasty-power-identity-and-piety-10661399(a5023ec3-6097-4238-8696-0159359ed752).html
She was definitely the mother of John, and thus presumably of his
evidently younger brother Miles. She died at Sorges in Gascony in 1273
and John had her reburied at Llanthony secunda priory in 1290, see p. 126.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 2:07:52 PM12/7/20
to
If Margery de Bohun was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d. 1265) and Eleanor de Braose, then I think that she and Theobald I de Verdun would have common ancestors William de Braose and Maud de St. Valéry (4 generations from each of them) and William Marshal and Isabel de Clare (4 generations from Theobald and 3 generations from Margery). In my counting of generations, a person is 0 generations from herself, 1 generation from her father or mother, 2 generations from a grandparent, etc. What is the standard way to count and what was prohibited? By my reckoning, Theobald and Margery would have been both 3rd cousins and 2nd cousins once removed.
Were these acceptable degrees of consanguinity in 1274?
Were these acceptable degrees of consanguinity in 1274?
Peter Stewart
Dec 7, 2020, 3:53:37 PM12/7/20
to
On 08-Dec-20 6:07 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> If Margery de Bohun was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d. 1265) and Eleanor de Braose, then I think that she and Theobald I de Verdun would have common ancestors William de Braose and Maud de St. Valéry (4 generations from each of them) and William Marshal and Isabel de Clare (4 generations from Theobald and 3 generations from Margery). In my counting of generations, a person is 0 generations from herself, 1 generation from her father or mother, 2 generations from a grandparent, etc. What is the standard way to count and what was prohibited? By my reckoning, Theobald and Margery would have been both 3rd cousins and 2nd cousins once removed.
>
> Were these acceptable degrees of consanguinity in 1274?
From 1215 the forbidden degree of consanguinity was 4, counting in the
> If Margery de Bohun was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d. 1265) and Eleanor de Braose, then I think that she and Theobald I de Verdun would have common ancestors William de Braose and Maud de St. Valéry (4 generations from each of them) and William Marshal and Isabel de Clare (4 generations from Theobald and 3 generations from Margery). In my counting of generations, a person is 0 generations from herself, 1 generation from her father or mother, 2 generations from a grandparent, etc. What is the standard way to count and what was prohibited? By my reckoning, Theobald and Margery would have been both 3rd cousins and 2nd cousins once removed.
>
> Were these acceptable degrees of consanguinity in 1274?
way you have used, from either individual as 0 back to the numbered
common ancestor/s - for example, if the prospective bride was 5 degrees
removed (i.e. from any great-great-grandparent, the relationship did not
need to be full-blood) but the groom just 4 degrees (i.e. a
great-grandson of the same person/s, so that the pair were third cousins
although once removed), then a papal dispensation was required.
In 1286 a dispensation was granted to Edward I allowing for any of his
children to marry someone related in 4 degrees (i.e. third cousins), and
subsequently this was qualified to exclude the royal family of Aragon
because they were descendants of an enemy of the Church.
Third-cousin marriages no doubt did occur without permission from Rome,
deliberately or otherwise, but if the relationship became known to
clerical authorities there could be a forced separation unless a
dispensation was granted retrospectively.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 4:11:07 PM12/7/20
to
Do you think that the "transcription" in the year book is a complete transcription of the discussion by the justices in this case or an abstract of the discussion? Is seems rather incomplete, suggesting that perhaps it is an abstract rather than a complete transcription.
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 4:33:50 PM12/7/20
to
According to the information in my file, Theobald I de Verdun and Humphrey de Bohun (d. 1265) are also cousins many ways, but the closest shared ancestors that I see are at least 5 generations from Humphrey: Miles Fitz Walter of Gloucester and Sibyl de Neufmarché, 7 generations from Theobald I and 5 from Humphrey, and Isabel de Vermandois, 7 generations from Theobald I and 5 from Humphrey.
Thus a marriage between Theobald I and a half-sister of Humphrey (d. 1265) would have been acceptable.
Thus a marriage between Theobald I and a half-sister of Humphrey (d. 1265) would have been acceptable.
Peter Stewart
Dec 7, 2020, 5:31:34 PM12/7/20
to
the problem I see is not with this but only with the interpretation of
it in an earlier discussion.
According to the summary here
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_verdun.shtml:
"Douglas Richardson, in January 2002, produced evidence from a Year
Book, suggesting that Margery was the daughter of one Humphrey, the
father of an earl of Hereford, that she had previously been married to
"Robert de W." ... The entry in the Year Book is open to interpretation,
but taken at face value it implies that Margery's father was Humphrey de
Bohun (d. 1265), as no other Humphrey had a son who was earl of Hereford."
This is clearly wrong in my view - there is nothing in the record to
suggest that a Margery de Bohun was not still married to Robert de W. in
1306, or that she did not have a namesake married to Theobald de Verdon:
the nub of the matter was that through some error a holding of Theobald
by right of his marriage to a Margery de Bohun was - evidently decades
later - purportedly given to Robert de W. on his marriage to another
Margery de Bohun. This later gift to Robert was declared void precisely
because the Bisley tenements in question were already held by Theobald,
not because they had been given in turn to a deceased Robert and
subsequently to Theobald on marrying the same woman.
The "one Humphrey" who was father to the earl of Hereford in 1306 was
not the man who had died in 1265 but rather his son, the 3rd earl, who
died in 1298. There are many records that omitted titles for deceased
men when these were currently held by successors, especially namesakes,
and reading too much into this is not safe. There are also many records
where two women of the same name from the same family are not explicitly
distinguished, and arbitrarily making every mention of a Margery into
one and the same person is not warranted here.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 5:56:17 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 5:31:34 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 08-Dec-20 8:11 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
...
> On 08-Dec-20 8:11 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
In comparing the Year Book discussion to the record of the case on AALT, http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no382/aJUST1no382fronts/IMG_0505.htm, we discovered that the names and relationships of people mentioned in the case were somewhat mangled in the Year Book abstract.
taf
Dec 7, 2020, 8:17:37 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 2:56:17 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> In comparing the Year Book discussion to the record of the case on AALT,
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no382/aJUST1no382fronts/IMG_0505.htm,
> we discovered that the names and relationships of people mentioned in the case
> were somewhat mangled in the Year Book abstract.
It can go either way - I have seen original records where the yearbook left out genealogical details, and I have seen others where the year book summary is pretty much all that appears in the original. At a minimum, I would expect the original common pleas record to spell out what the 'W' in 'Robert de W' is for, and that may help establish a chronological framework for the marriage. There is really no getting around it - if it is important, then someone is going to have to search the whole term.
> In comparing the Year Book discussion to the record of the case on AALT,
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no382/aJUST1no382fronts/IMG_0505.htm,
> we discovered that the names and relationships of people mentioned in the case
> were somewhat mangled in the Year Book abstract.
taf
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 8:30:51 PM12/7/20
to
Peter Stewart
Dec 7, 2020, 8:34:33 PM12/7/20
to
paragraph in fifth post I can see from your link starts with "In 1313 or
1314 Margaret's grandsons brought a suit against Walter of Bathonia
concerning the same property in Ickham" and from there to the end I
can't see anything bearing on this discussion or on the yearbooks of
Edward I. Are readers to follow further links?
For simpletons like me, can you please copy-paste into this thread
whatever is relevant in the entry you referred to?
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 8:59:15 PM12/7/20
to
> Sorry, I'm not smart enough to follow what you mean - the third
> paragraph in fifth post I can see from your link starts with "In 1313 or
> 1314 Margaret's grandsons brought a suit against Walter of Bathonia
> concerning the same property in Ickham" and from there to the end I
> can't see anything bearing on this discussion or on the yearbooks of
> Edward I. Are readers to follow further links?
>
> For simpletons like me, can you please copy-paste into this thread
> whatever is relevant in the entry you referred to?
>
> Peter Stewart
The case mentioned in my post is not relevant to the question of who was the father of Margery de Bohun. It is simply an example in which the discussion of a case in one of the yearbooks (in this example, a case during the reign of Edw II) omitted and mangled some of the genealogical relationships that are stated clearly in the case as recorded in the image at AALT. To me this suggests that authors of the yearbooks may have been more interested in the legal arguments than in the genealogical facts. Here is the 1313-1314 example case as discussed in a Year Book, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924084144322&view=1up&seq=224. Here is the AALT image of the 1313-1314 example case, http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no382/aJUST1no382fronts/IMG_0505.htm.
> paragraph in fifth post I can see from your link starts with "In 1313 or
> 1314 Margaret's grandsons brought a suit against Walter of Bathonia
> concerning the same property in Ickham" and from there to the end I
> can't see anything bearing on this discussion or on the yearbooks of
> Edward I. Are readers to follow further links?
>
> For simpletons like me, can you please copy-paste into this thread
> whatever is relevant in the entry you referred to?
>
> Peter Stewart
taf
Dec 7, 2020, 9:07:08 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 5:30:51 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> I did search the whole term, attempting to notice records that said Glouc.
> in the left margin as I flipped through the images. If it's there, so far I missed
> it. Fortunately, there are far fewer Gloucestershire cases than there are for
> several of the other counties. I hope that if someone has found it, they will
> post the link promptly.
Unfortunately, these were not always heard in the county where you think they would have been, so the _whole_ roll, not just scanning for Gloucs.
> I did search the whole term, attempting to notice records that said Glouc.
> in the left margin as I flipped through the images. If it's there, so far I missed
> it. Fortunately, there are far fewer Gloucestershire cases than there are for
> several of the other counties. I hope that if someone has found it, they will
> post the link promptly.
taf
taf
Dec 7, 2020, 9:09:53 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 5:59:15 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> To me this suggests that authors of the yearbooks may have been more interested
> in the legal arguments than in the genealogical facts.
Certainly the case - poor benighted souls just didn't have their priorities straight.
> To me this suggests that authors of the yearbooks may have been more interested
> in the legal arguments than in the genealogical facts.
taf
Peter Stewart
Dec 7, 2020, 9:19:39 PM12/7/20
to
facts would be set out in a full transcription of proceedings. The case
hinged on whether or not the earl's father Humphrey had retained the
right to give tenements to Robert de W., and it was decided that he did
not since Theobald de Verdon held these at the time. (Theobald
subsequently transferred his vindicated rights for five years to another
party.)
The question focused on "dedi" in the earl's charter for his daughter
Margery's maritagium. This was not conditional, the verb is perfect
indicative active so that the marriage took place but Theobald's prior
rights rendered the gift in Bisley void. The identity and parentage of
their respective wives, and any family circumstances around the void
"dedi" of Humphrey to Robert, would be barely even incidental to this
specific legal question.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 9:26:33 PM12/7/20
to
We can hope that Rosemary or Vance will index the pre 1349 CP40 cases someday.
I was hoping it would be in Gloucestershire since that is where Humphrey named his attorney.
By the way, for people who enjoy pretty images, a lovely image of the seal of Humphrey de Verdun is available (free) at TNA, see https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16100184
Peter Stewart
Dec 7, 2020, 10:22:07 PM12/7/20
to
of 18 would have had seals of their own in the late-13th century.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 11:09:05 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 8:17:37 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> It can go either way - I have seen original records where the yearbook left out genealogical details, and I have seen others where the year book summary is pretty much all that appears in the original. At a minimum, I would expect the original common pleas record to spell out what the 'W' in 'Robert de W' is for, and that may help establish a chronological framework for the marriage. There is really no getting around it - if it is important, then someone is going to have to search the whole term.
>
> taf
My guess about Robert de W. is that he is Richard son of William of Bisley. Perhaps he is the Richard de Biseley in these records:
>
> taf
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/b706daa1-58d8-4b7f-9ec9-cbc9d848a2e5
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/8cafc1ae-e183-491d-96b7-17afa2f9c4c7
https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal00byufitz/page/154/mode/2up?q=Biseleye
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 11:12:01 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 10:22:07 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 08-Dec-20 1:26 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
...
> On 08-Dec-20 1:26 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> > By the way, for people who enjoy pretty images, a lovely image of the seal of Humphrey de Verdun is available (free) at TNA, see https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16100184
> Thanks for this, Jan - I wonder if many younger sons who died by the age
> of 18 would have had seals of their own in the late-13th century.
>
> Peter Stewart
How do we know he died by the age of 18? This record suggests that he participated in a land swap, https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5686558
> Thanks for this, Jan - I wonder if many younger sons who died by the age
> of 18 would have had seals of their own in the late-13th century.
>
> Peter Stewart
taf
Dec 7, 2020, 11:17:27 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 8:09:05 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> My guess about Robert de W. is that he is Richard son of William of Bisley. Perhaps he is the Richard de Biseley in these records:
> https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/b706daa1-58d8-4b7f-9ec9-cbc9d848a2e5
> https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/8cafc1ae-e183-491d-96b7-17afa2f9c4c7
> https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal00byufitz/page/154/mode/2up?q=Biseleye
I guess it is possible, but I am always hesitant to hypothesize an error when there are so many men named Robert de W* it could have been. For example, Humphrey de Bohun witnessed the granting of a royal patent to Robert de Willoughby in 1305 (though he appears to have simply been doing so as a member of the royal court).
> My guess about Robert de W. is that he is Richard son of William of Bisley. Perhaps he is the Richard de Biseley in these records:
> https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/b706daa1-58d8-4b7f-9ec9-cbc9d848a2e5
> https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/8cafc1ae-e183-491d-96b7-17afa2f9c4c7
> https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal00byufitz/page/154/mode/2up?q=Biseleye
taf
taf
Dec 7, 2020, 11:22:27 PM12/7/20
to
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 8:12:01 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
"He was born in 1267 and died in Paris in 1285, presumably without an heir, these details being provided by the Croxden chronicler who took an unusual and inexplicable interest in Humphrey’s brief life."
taf
> On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 10:22:07 PM UTC-5, Peter wrote:
> > Thanks for this, Jan - I wonder if many younger sons who died by the age
> > of 18 would have had seals of their own in the late-13th century.
> >
> > Thanks for this, Jan - I wonder if many younger sons who died by the age
> > of 18 would have had seals of their own in the late-13th century.
> >
> How do we know he died by the age of 18? This record suggests that he participated in a
> land swap, https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5686558
Earlier in the thread, Peter posted the following quote from Hagger regarding Humphrey:
> land swap, https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5686558
"He was born in 1267 and died in Paris in 1285, presumably without an heir, these details being provided by the Croxden chronicler who took an unusual and inexplicable interest in Humphrey’s brief life."
taf
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 11:30:11 PM12/7/20
to
It appears that a Richard de Biseleye had a wife named Rose, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/59bf7193-d8be-4021-a3b7-d91aed2a33b9 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/f20f65f2-c63d-4e18-852a-3f321da9e63b.
Jan Wolfe
Dec 7, 2020, 11:37:54 PM12/7/20
to
taf
Dec 8, 2020, 12:30:24 AM12/8/20
to
taf
Peter Stewart
Dec 8, 2020, 12:52:45 AM12/8/20
to
The person in question was married to the sister of a Bohun earl of Hereford, which limits the candidates to men of a status to be eligible for such a match - and the circumstances of the case effectively limit the field to men of landholdings so extensive that inadvertently doubling up on Theobald's rights in Bisley went unnoticed for some while. This does not suggest to me a local who would be surnamed "de Biseley".
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 8, 2020, 1:43:09 AM12/8/20
to
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no159/CP40no159dorses/IMG_1157.htm.
Why would Richard initiate a petition about land that had been granted to a Robert de W.?
Here is another record about a Richard de Biselegh:
Close Rolls, Edward I: September 1291
Sept. 10.
Amesbury. To the sheriff of Gloucester. Order to cause a verderer for the forest of Den to be elected in place of Richard de Biselegh, lately elected, as he cannot attend to the duties of the office because he dwells continuously with Walter Helyun in his service, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-close-rolls/edw1/vol3/pp177-180 or https://books.google.com/books?id=UZBCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA178
Peter Stewart
Dec 8, 2020, 2:07:01 AM12/8/20
to
On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 5:43:09 PM UTC+11, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 12:52:45 AM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:09:05 PM UTC+11, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 8:17:37 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > It can go either way - I have seen original records where the yearbook left out genealogical details, and I have seen others where the year book summary is pretty much all that appears in the original. At a minimum, I would expect the original common pleas record to spell out what the 'W' in 'Robert de W' is for, and that may help establish a chronological framework for the marriage. There is really no getting around it - if it is important, then someone is going to have to search the whole term.
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > My guess about Robert de W. is that he is Richard son of William of Bisley. Perhaps he is the Richard de Biseley in these records:
> > > https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/b706daa1-58d8-4b7f-9ec9-cbc9d848a2e5
> > > https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/8cafc1ae-e183-491d-96b7-17afa2f9c4c7
> > > https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal00byufitz/page/154/mode/2up?q=Biseleye
> > I don't see a basis for making Robert de W. identical with a Richard fitz W.
> >
> > The person in question was married to the sister of a Bohun earl of Hereford, which limits the candidates to men of a status to be eligible for such a match - and the circumstances of the case effectively limit the field to men of landholdings so extensive that inadvertently doubling up on Theobald's rights in Bisley went unnoticed for some while. This does not suggest to me a local who would be surnamed "de Biseley".
> >
> > Peter Stewart
> In Trinity term 1305 in Gloucestershire, Theobald's attorney answered Richard son of William de Bysele's petition about the land in Bisley, claiming that Earl Humphrey (presumably the one who d. 1275) had given the land to Theobald and and his wife Margery and their heirs, and called the current Earl Humphrey to warrant, http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0133.htm. Then in Easter term 1306 in Gloucestershire Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, who had been called to warrant by Theobald de Verdun senior, put in his place attorneys against Richard son of William de Biseleye in a plea about land.
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no159/CP40no159dorses/IMG_1157.htm.
> Why would Richard initiate a petition about land that had been granted to a Robert de W.?
But it had not been granted legally to Robert W. - this was a mistake in "one Humphrey's" arrangements for his daughter Margery's maritagium that was presumably never effectuated before the duplication was rectified in Theobald's favour as summarised in the yearbook.
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 12:52:45 AM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:09:05 PM UTC+11, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 8:17:37 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > It can go either way - I have seen original records where the yearbook left out genealogical details, and I have seen others where the year book summary is pretty much all that appears in the original. At a minimum, I would expect the original common pleas record to spell out what the 'W' in 'Robert de W' is for, and that may help establish a chronological framework for the marriage. There is really no getting around it - if it is important, then someone is going to have to search the whole term.
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > My guess about Robert de W. is that he is Richard son of William of Bisley. Perhaps he is the Richard de Biseley in these records:
> > > https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/b706daa1-58d8-4b7f-9ec9-cbc9d848a2e5
> > > https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/8cafc1ae-e183-491d-96b7-17afa2f9c4c7
> > > https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal00byufitz/page/154/mode/2up?q=Biseleye
> > I don't see a basis for making Robert de W. identical with a Richard fitz W.
> >
> > The person in question was married to the sister of a Bohun earl of Hereford, which limits the candidates to men of a status to be eligible for such a match - and the circumstances of the case effectively limit the field to men of landholdings so extensive that inadvertently doubling up on Theobald's rights in Bisley went unnoticed for some while. This does not suggest to me a local who would be surnamed "de Biseley".
> >
> > Peter Stewart
> In Trinity term 1305 in Gloucestershire, Theobald's attorney answered Richard son of William de Bysele's petition about the land in Bisley, claiming that Earl Humphrey (presumably the one who d. 1275) had given the land to Theobald and and his wife Margery and their heirs, and called the current Earl Humphrey to warrant, http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0133.htm. Then in Easter term 1306 in Gloucestershire Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, who had been called to warrant by Theobald de Verdun senior, put in his place attorneys against Richard son of William de Biseleye in a plea about land.
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no159/CP40no159dorses/IMG_1157.htm.
> Why would Richard initiate a petition about land that had been granted to a Robert de W.?
Peter Stewart
Mark Jennings
Dec 8, 2020, 6:07:38 AM12/8/20
to
If this is the case, then there's no reason to believe that the property purportedly given to Robert de W and Margery de Bohun was in Bisley, or indeed in Gloucestershire - it could have been anywhere that the Bohuns had holdings.
Jan Wolfe
Dec 8, 2020, 11:27:48 AM12/8/20
to
Knowing that the Year Book abstracts sometimes garbled the names of the people and their relationships, I am not confident that the statement "one Humphrey his father gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter" correctly reflects the statements made by either Theobald or the current earl who was called to warrant.
Jan Wolfe
Dec 8, 2020, 12:15:27 PM12/8/20
to
On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
...
One Humphrey, ancestor of the current earl, gave the property demanded by Richard son of William to Theobald in frank-marriage [of Theobald] with Margery his [that Humphrey's] daughter and that fifteen years later the father of the current earl gave the same property to Robert de W. [possibly a mistake for Richard son of William?] for some unspecified reason.
If earl Humphrey's attorney came to court in Easter term 1306 and made some statements, would a summary of his statements necessarily appear in the records for that term (the images on AALT)? Perhaps the only remaining record of what was said in 1306 is what is stated in Additional MS 5925 at the British Museum. The preface to the Year Book states that this manuscript was described in the preface to the volume containing reports of cases in the 30th and 31st years of Edward I. Does anyone have a link to that Year Book? Or a link to a Year Book describing cases in the 32nd and first three terms of the 33rd year?
...
> Knowing that the Year Book abstracts sometimes garbled the names of the people and their relationships, I am not confident that the statement "one Humphrey his father gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter" correctly reflects the statements made by either Theobald or the current earl who was called to warrant.
Perhaps what the Easter term 1306 case discussed in the Year Book actually said was something like this:
One Humphrey, ancestor of the current earl, gave the property demanded by Richard son of William to Theobald in frank-marriage [of Theobald] with Margery his [that Humphrey's] daughter and that fifteen years later the father of the current earl gave the same property to Robert de W. [possibly a mistake for Richard son of William?] for some unspecified reason.
If earl Humphrey's attorney came to court in Easter term 1306 and made some statements, would a summary of his statements necessarily appear in the records for that term (the images on AALT)? Perhaps the only remaining record of what was said in 1306 is what is stated in Additional MS 5925 at the British Museum. The preface to the Year Book states that this manuscript was described in the preface to the volume containing reports of cases in the 30th and 31st years of Edward I. Does anyone have a link to that Year Book? Or a link to a Year Book describing cases in the 32nd and first three terms of the 33rd year?
Peter Stewart
Dec 8, 2020, 4:28:13 PM12/8/20
to
On 09-Dec-20 4:15 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> ...
>> Knowing that the Year Book abstracts sometimes garbled the names of the people and their relationships, I am not confident that the statement "one Humphrey his father gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter" correctly reflects the statements made by either Theobald or the current earl who was called to warrant.
>
> Perhaps what the Easter term 1306 case discussed in the Year Book actually said was something like this:
> One Humphrey, ancestor of the current earl, gave the property demanded by Richard son of William to Theobald in frank-marriage [of Theobald] with Margery his [that Humphrey's] daughter and that fifteen years later the father of the current earl gave the same property to Robert de W. [possibly a mistake for Richard son of William?] for some unspecified reason.
The reason for the void gift to Robert de W. is stated in 1306 - the
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> ...
>> Knowing that the Year Book abstracts sometimes garbled the names of the people and their relationships, I am not confident that the statement "one Humphrey his father gave the tenements demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter" correctly reflects the statements made by either Theobald or the current earl who was called to warrant.
>
> Perhaps what the Easter term 1306 case discussed in the Year Book actually said was something like this:
> One Humphrey, ancestor of the current earl, gave the property demanded by Richard son of William to Theobald in frank-marriage [of Theobald] with Margery his [that Humphrey's] daughter and that fifteen years later the father of the current earl gave the same property to Robert de W. [possibly a mistake for Richard son of William?] for some unspecified reason.
father of the then (4th) earl, i.e. "one Humphrey" the 3rd earl, gave
the tenements to Robert in frank-marriage with his daughter Margery ("le
Counte de Hereford e dist qe un Umfrey sun pere dona les tenements
demaundez a Robert de W. en franc-mariage ove Margerie sa fille").
However the clerk making the yearbook summary may be imagined to have
misstated the case, I don't see any room for ambiguity here - the
Margery in question was the 3rd earl's daughter and therefore not the
same Margery who had married Theobald de Verdon long before.
The 3rd earl's "dedi" of the tenements to Robert in the charter for his
daughter Margery's maritagium was held to be void because at the time he
issued it the earlier Margery (whether she was his aunt of half-blood or
otherwise) and her husband Theobald held the tenements and so Robert de
W. never legally received these. At some point a discrepancy came to
light, perhaps over exercising the advowson that would be more plainly
recognised by men of greater property in their own right than whether or
not they had been receiving annual dues from a minor holding in right of
marriage. Obviously the administration of holdings was not always
perfectly efficient and the rightful ownership manifest to all or we
would not have nearly so much litigation over such matters.
The only part of the text in the yearbook that appears messed-up to me
is that statement that "at the making of this deed [i.e. the 3rd earl's
charter] Margery [i.e. Theobald's wife] was seised and Humphrey [i.e.
the 3rd earl issuing the charter] had nothing, so that into the person
of Theobald nothing could pass by that charter". The editor has given an
accurate translation of the text, "a la confeccion de ceo fet Margerie
fust seisie, e Umfrey rien navoit; issint qen la person Tibaud par cele
chartre rien ne pout passer". It seems to me that either "qen" or
"Tibaud" in the last part of this must be a slip, and the meaning should
either be "so that from the person of Theobald nothing could pass by
that charter" or else "so that into the person of Robert [de W.] nothing
could pass by that charter".
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Dec 8, 2020, 4:37:36 PM12/8/20
to
On 09-Dec-20 4:15 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> ...
<snip>
> ...
> If earl Humphrey's attorney came to court in Easter term 1306 and made some statements, would a summary of his statements necessarily appear in the records for that term (the images on AALT)? Perhaps the only remaining record of what was said in 1306 is what is stated in Additional MS 5925 at the British Museum. The preface to the Year Book states that this manuscript was described in the preface to the volume containing reports of cases in the 30th and 31st years of Edward I. Does anyone have a link to that Year Book?
> Or a link to a Year Book describing cases in the 32nd and first three terms of the 33rd year?
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
Dec 8, 2020, 4:41:33 PM12/8/20
to
It is interesting that the court records (images at AALT) were written in Latin, but the manuscript about the discussion of the judges was written in French. I wonder what language the attorneys typically spoke in front of the judges at this time.
Jan Wolfe
Dec 8, 2020, 4:42:02 PM12/8/20
to
Peter Stewart
Dec 8, 2020, 5:10:16 PM12/8/20
to
On 09-Dec-20 8:41 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
<snip>
> It is interesting that the court records (images at AALT) were written in Latin, but the manuscript about the discussion of the judges was written in French. I wonder what language the attorneys typically spoke in front of the judges at this time.
>
In cases where attorneys are not all very likely to have spoken Latin
fluently, I would suppose French was normally used. The clerks who made
transcriptions were educated for their continuous work whereas attorneys
may never have put in the same study for occasional tasks.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> It is interesting that the court records (images at AALT) were written in Latin, but the manuscript about the discussion of the judges was written in French. I wonder what language the attorneys typically spoke in front of the judges at this time.
>
fluently, I would suppose French was normally used. The clerks who made
transcriptions were educated for their continuous work whereas attorneys
may never have put in the same study for occasional tasks.
Peter Stewart
0 new messages