Identification of Margery [Margaret], Wife of Sir Michael de Poynings (d. 1314)
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
As in many instances, The Complete Peerage provides only fragmentary
notice as to the wife of Sir Michael de Poynings (said to have been k. at
Bannockburn, 24 June 1314 - CP X:659 ), stating simply
_He m., sometime before 8 June 1298, Margery ( - ). _
In his work _The Manors of Suffolk_, W. A. Copinger provides the
information necessary to make the identification. In Vol. I, with regard to
the manor of Bures, Suffolk, Copinger states as follows:
In 1312 Isabella Lady Bardolf released to Sir
Michael de Poynings knight and Margaret his wife all
her right in the Manor of Bures by deed dated at
Barcomb in Sussex on the feast of the Annunciation
of the Virgin Mary 25 March 1312. The seal attached
to it was of red wax, the impress a cinquefoil, each
leaf of it charged with a fleur-de-lis, the
cinquefoils being her husband's arms, and gules, a
fleur-de-lis argent, her paternal arms. [1]
The release referred to probably represented either (A) the finalization
of a transfer of property representing Margaret's [aka Margery's] maritagium,
or (B) part of Isabel, Lady Bardolf's dispersal of her landed estate during
her lifetime. Certainly as she was of the (then) advanced age of 54, and
Sir Michael and his wife Margaret were possessed of a growing family (their
son Thomas was already a young man, to be knighted in 1315), such a transfer
prior to her passing would have been a rational step. Given that the
marriage in question is stated to have occurred before 8 June 1298, if a
requirement related to transferring marital property was being met, the gap
in time prior to the release certainly merits an explanation [forthcoming or
not].
There is no reference in CP (under Bardolf) to a dispensation being
obtained in connection with the marriage of William, 4th Lord Bardolf, to
Agnes de Poynings on 10 Feb 1365/6. There are a number of reasons why there
would be no mention in CP (including the frequent gaps in this regard in CP
noted in previous SGM posts). It is reasonable to assume that such a
dispensation was sought, either before or after the marriage, as (based on
the relationship identified above) the parties were related in the 3rd-4th
degrees as shown below:
Hugh Bardolf = Isabel Aguillon
Lord Bardolf I
d. 1304 I
______________________I__________
I I
Sir Thomas = Agnes Margery = Sir Michael
Bardolf I [Margaret] I de Poynings
2nd Lord Bardolf I I k. 1314
d. 1328 I I
____________I I
I I
John Bardolf = Elizabeth Sir Thomas = Agnes
3rd Lord Bardolf I Damory Poynings I
d. 1363 I I
I ______________I
I I
I Sir Michael = Joan
I lst Lord Poynings I [widow of
I d. 7 Mar 1368/9 I John de
I I Moleyns]
I ______________I
I I
William Bardolf = Agnes de Poynings
4th Lord Bardolf I d. 12 June 1403
d. 29 Jan 1385/6 I
I
V
There are many individuals whose ancestries are modified by the above
identification. Amongst those who can be readily identified are the
emigrants to North America listed below (as documented in PA, 2nd edition).
Any and all comment, criticism or confirmatory documentation welcome.
* John
.1. George Brent
.2. Robert Brent
.3. Nathaniel Burrough
.4. Christopher Calthorpe
.5. William Clopton
.6. St. Leger Codd
.7. Edward Digges
.8. Muriel Gurdon
.9. Elizabeth Harleston
10. John Harleston
11. Elizabeth Haynes
12. Edmund Kempe
13. Robert Peyton
14. George Reade
15. Katherine St. Leger
16. Richard Saltonstall
17. Maria Johanna Somerset
NOTES
[1] W. A. Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk, I:49.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
* John P. Ravilious
Tim Powys-Lybbe
The...@aol.com wrote:
<snip of the excellent account of the common ancestor>
> John Bardolf = Elizabeth Sir Thomas = Agnes
> 3rd Lord Bardolf I Damory Poynings I
> d. 1363 I I
> I ______________I
> I I
> I Sir Michael = Joan
> I lst Lord Poynings I [widow of
> I d. 7 Mar 1368/9 I John de
> I I Moleyns]
> I ______________I
> I I
> William Bardolf = Agnes de Poynings
> 4th Lord Bardolf I d. 12 June 1403
> d. 29 Jan 1385/6 I
> I
> V
I took the above to heart and checked up on my files only to find a
mystery.
Agnes, wife of Sir Thomas Poynings, is down in CP X, 660 as "yr da. and
coh. of Richard de Rokesley". No-one seems to have any problem with
this; nor do I.
But Joan, wife of Michael, 1st lord Poynings, is a different matter:
1. In CP IX, 39, published in 1936, she is "Joan, da. of Sir Richard
Rokesley" and wife of John Moleyns, of course.
2. In CP X, 661, published in 1945, she is just "Joan, widow of John s.
and h. of John (de Moleyns) lord Moleyns". She is not given a
father.
3. In CP XIV, 479, published in 1998, we are told to delete from
line 20 of page 39 of Vol IX the "da. of Sir Richard Rokesley" and
replace by "(__)". Much the same on page 65 of the same volume.
4. In Plantagenet Ancestry, p. 62, published in 1999, we find old
Rokesley back in again as the father of this Joan, and of baronial
descent to boot. And a note shows that they were aware of CP XIV.
Please, what does 2002 say?
I cannot believe that father and son Poynings should each have
married daughters of apparently the same Rokesley father.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org