Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 1
Brad Verity
book 'Death, art, and memory in medieval England: the Cobham family
and their monuments, 1300-1500' (thanks to Douglas Richardson for
referring this). So far it is a wealth of information - and I haven't
yet reached the chapters on the Cobhams of Sterborough.
Saul's information corrects and fleshes out most of the accounts of
the Lords Cobham in CP Volume 3, pp. 344-345. In this first post,
I'll focus on John de Cobham, 3rd Lord Cobham, his daughter, and their
spouses.
CP: "He [3rd Lord Cobham] m., when a minor, and apparently very young,
in 1332-33, Margaret, 1st da. of Hugh (Courtenay), Earl of Devon..."
Saul [p. 18]: "Lastly, and by way of fitting climax, in 1341 a match
was arranged between John, son of John, 2nd Lord Cobham, and Margaret,
daughter of Hugh Courtenay, earl of Devon. [footnote: In Glover's
notes from the College of Arms, the marriage is variously dated 5 Edw.
III and 6 Edw. III (i.e. 1331, 1332): Nichols, 'Memorials of the
Family of Cobham', 323, 324. However, these dates are probably
misreadings for 15 and 16 Edw. III (i.e. 1341, 1342). 15 Edward III
is the date of a grant of herbage in Chisbury [a Cobham manor] by Sir
John to his son and daughter-in-law (BL, Harley Ch. 48 E9); and the
grant may have coincided with the marriage. A further point is that
Sir John himself had not entered into his inheritance in 1331 or 1332,
whereas he had done so ten years later."]
Saul [p. 23]: "By now [1395] he [3rd Lord Cobham] was getting old--he
was probably in his sixties [footnote: Waller, 'The Lords of Cobham',
84, and DNB, II, 156, make him a nonagenarian. Waller, whom the DNB
followed, was misled by Glover's note to the effect that John was
married in 5 Edw. III (Nichols, 'Memorials of the Family of Cobham',
323). But this note is probably an error of transcription (above, n.
46). It is more likely that John was married in 15 Edw. III (i.e.
1341). On the assumption that in that year he was aged around ten to
fifteen, he would have been in his seventies in the 1390s.]"
This of course has an effect on the chronology and birth order of
Margaret Courtenay, Lady Cobham. CP states that the 2nd Earl of Devon
and his wife were married on 11 Aug. 1325, and that their eldest son
Hugh was born 22 Mar. 1326/7 - these dates would make the son the
firstborn child of the couple. He was married in 1341 "before Sep."
to Elizabeth, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. Meanwhile, Hugh's
sister Elizabeth Courtenay was married "probably in July 1341
[footnote: On 24 July his father had licence to make a settlement on
the marriage ('Cal. Patent Rolls', 1340-43, p. 254)]" [CP, Vol. 10, p.
225] - probably at the same time - to John de Vere, eldest son and
heir of the Earl of Oxford.
Most genealogies, including CP, make Margaret, Lady Cobham, older than
her sister Elizabeth, Lady Vere, and indeed the eldest daughter of the
2nd Earl of Devon. This must be based on her 1331-32 marriage date to
John de Cobham, which Saul has shown to be faulty. It seems
Elizabeth, who made the grander match in 1341, would be the eldest
daughter, followed closely by Margaret.
At any rate, the 1331/2 marriage date of John de Cobham and Margaret
de Courtenay is virtually impossible. The second son of the 2nd Earl
of Devon - Thomas Courtenay - was born in 1329 ["12 Kal. Dec. 1344,
Avignon. To Thomas son of Hugh, earl of Devon and kinsman of king
Edward, in his fifteenth year. Indult to hold a sinecure dignity or
office, and, on attaining his twentieth year, any other benefice."
Cal. Papal Registers]. This leaves 1328 as the only possible year
Margaret could've been born if the 1331/2 marriage date were true.
Rushing to marry a three-year-old to the Cobhams, a lesser baronial
family, seems highly unlikely. In 1331/2, Margaret's grandfather had
not yet been created Earl of Devon, but 10 years later, her father
succeeded as 2nd Earl. It's likely that both Elizabeth and Margaret
Courtenay were born between 1330 and 1335.
CP: "She [Margaret Courtenay, Lady Cobham] d. 2 Aug. 1385, and was
bur. at Cobham."
Saul [p. 100-101]: "When his wife Margaret died in August 1395, he
laid on the most lavish funeral for her at Cobham. [footnote: He
ordered four sets of heraldic banners and 100 pennons from a London
painter: BL, Harley Ch.54 G 48. It is evident from this that the
church was to be decked out with all the emblematic display of lineage
and descent.]" Later [p. 121]: "Cobham also wanted [for his wife's
funeral in 1395] the arms of Edward Courtenay, earl of Devon, of other
members of the Courtenay family, and of Lord Grey of Codnor, who was
related to the Cobhams of Sterborough."
CP: "He [John, 3rd Lord Cobham] d.s.p.m., at an advanced age (74 years
after his marriage), 10 Jan. 1407/8."
Saul [p. 196]: "...and her father, the 3rd Lord, [was betrothed] to
his wife when he had been around twelve." Saul earlier [p. 21]
estimates the 3rd Lord's birthdate to be 1330/5, which would make him
under age 12 in 1341. Even if born as late as 1335, the 3rd Lord
Cobham was well into his 70s at his death.
CP: "His [3rd Lord Cobham's] brass, probably set up in his lifetime,
is in Cobham Church, but he was bur. at the Grey Friars, London."
Saul [p. 24]: "According to an account of his household expenses, he
[3rd Lord Cobham] died at the Augustinian house of Maiden Bradley
(Wilts.) in January 1408. [footnote: H.C. Maxwell Lyte, 'An Account
Relating to Sir John Cobham, A.D. 1408', "Antiquaries Journal", 2
(1922), 339-43. This account settles the doubt over John's place of
interment. A puzzling reference in a sixteenth-century list of
burials at Grey Friars, London, suggests that he was buried there: 'in
a tomb raised up at the end of that altar by the door under the cross
(transept) lies John de Cobham, Baron of the County of Kent' (J.G.
Nichols, 'Register of the Sepulchral Inscriptions in the Church of the
Grey Friars', "Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica", 5, 1838, 274;
see also 387). Since there is absolutely no doubt that John was
buried at Cobham, it is unclear whose tomb the note refers to. One
possibility is that it was that of Sir John Cobham, 'son of the
Countess Marshal' (d. 1378), a collateral kinsman who was active in
the military affairs of the day. This John, being childless, left his
estates to the crown 'out of love and affection' for the Black Prince:
'Rotuli Parliamentorum', iii, 8-9. His connections with Kent were
few--which would explain his burial in London.]"
CP: "Sir John de la Pole, of Chrishall, Essex (s. of Sir William de la
Pole, of Castle Ashby), by Joan, only child of John, Lord Cobham
abovenamed, which last named Joan (who m. in 1362, cont. dat. 21
Oct.)..."
Saul [p. 26]: "The couple's only child--or, at least, their only
surviving child--was a daughter, Joan. While the girl was still an
infant, John secured her betrothal to Sir John de la Pole of Castle
Ashby (Northants.)." Later [p. 196] Saul states "Joan Cobham was
betrothed to John de la Pole when she was seven".
If the 1362 date was what Saul was working from, then Joan Cobham was
born in 1355.
Saul [p. 26]: "The match was a promising one. Sir John was a wealthy
man. He owned six manors in Northamptonshire and Suffolk, and another
seven elsewhere. [footnote: L.H. Butler, 'Robert Braybrooke, Bishop of
London (1381-1404), and his Kinsmen' (Univ. of Oxford D.Phil. thesis,
1952), 94-6.]"
If CP's 1362 marriage date is correct, Sir John de la Pole had not yet
inherited the family estates - his father Sir William de la Pole was
still alive in 1364. John was, apparently, of age in 1362, though,
for Saul states [p. 202]: "Sometime before 1361, Sir William granted
the manor of Potton (Beds.) to his son and heir Sir John. [footnote:
'CPR 1358-61', 584.]"
Of John's heritage, Saul goes into further detail [p. 200]: "Sir John
de la Pole was the grandson of the Hull wool merchant Richard de la
Pole, the elder brother of the better-known Sir William de la Pole.
The two de la Poles both made immense fortunes from trading. William
was probably the more innovative of the two, reaping huge rewards from
lending to Edward III. But Richard was also heavily involved with the
crown, serving both Edward II and Edward III as butler. [footnote: For
the de la Poles, and Richard in particular, see R. horrox, 'The de la
Poles of Hull' (East Yorkshire Local History Society; Hull, 1983).]
Both brothers were anxious to establish themselves in the ranks of the
gentry. In 1333 Richard acquired the manor of Milton (Northants.),
which became his main residence. Towards the end of his life he
arranged for his son and heir William to be married to a
Northamptonshire lady. Through the influence of Ralph, Lord Basset, a
courtier of local origin, a match was arranged with Margaret, the
sister of John Peverel of Castle Ashby. The match offered the promise
of respectability but little financial gain. Peverel might well sire
a son and heir, and in that case the inheritance would pass down
through the Peverel line. But in 1349 John unexpectedly died without
issue, perhaps a victim of the plague. [footnote: 'CIPM', ix, no.180.]
Margaret was named as his heir. Contrary to their expectation, the de
la Poles suddenly found themselves the possessors of a substantial
inheritance. In addition to the main manor of Castle Ashby, the
estate comprised the manors of Ashley and Chadstone (Northants.),
Arlesey, Everton, and Potton (Beds.), Fulbrook and Westhall (Oxon.),
Seething (Norfolk), Aspall, Debenham, and Grimston (Suffolk), and
Chrishall (Essex). This far-flung string of manors had been assembled
by dubious means by Bishop Walter Langton. On his death in 1321 they
had passed to his nephew Edward Peverel and on the latter's death to
his son, John, whose sister married William de la Pole."
CP: "...Which last named Joan ... d.v.p., about 1388."
Saul has Sir John de la Pole's year of death as 1380 throughout the
book, but unfortunately does not cite a source. [p. 194]: "On
stylistic grounds, it [the de la Pole memorial brass at Chrishall] can
be dated to very shortly after John's death in 1380."
There is no date of death for Joan, Lady de la Pole. Saul [p. 256]:
"By the late 1380s his [3rd Lord Cobham's] granddaughter, Joan, was
heiress to both the Cobham and the de la Pole inheritances ... She had
had possession of the de la Pole estates since 1388." Earlier [p.
236]: "Until her death in the mid-1380s his [3rd Lord Cobham's]
heiress was his daughter, Joan, Lady de la Pole".
Sir John de la Pole and Joan Cobham had had a son. "Joan bore her
husband only one son, William, who died prematurely in 1380. The heir
to the combined fortunes of the two families was their daughter,
another Joan." [Saul, p. 26.]
Finally, before I end the post, Douglas Richardson had posted back on
8-13-2002, in the thread 'CP Addition: Death of Joan Cobham, wife of
John de la Pole':
"I haven't found any satisfactory death date for Joan Cobham, wife of
Sir John de la Pole. However, she was clearly deceased before January
1393/4, when a chapel for a chantry founded by her father was
dedicated in St. Clement's parish, Rochester. The arrangements
creating this chantry stipulate that the chaplains there were to pray
for Lord Cobham's soul "and for the souls of the dead, viz., John atte
Pole and his wife Joan, and Margaret wife of John de Cobham."
[Reference: Arthur Hussey, Kent Chantries, Kent Archaeological Society
Records Branch, 12 (1936): 234-235]. From this document, it is
evident that Joan Cobham, wife of John de la Pole, died sometime prior
to January 1393/4."
The date of January 1393/4 for the foundation of a chantry in St.
Clement's parish, Rochester, is incorrect. For Margaret (Courtenay),
Lady Cobham, was not dead until August 1395.
Saul [p. 25]: "From 1387 he [3rd Lord Cobham] was involved with Sir
Robert Knolles in the rebuilding of Rochester bridge, and in 1395 he
undertook the endowment of a chantry in the bridge chapel. [footnote:
R. Britnell, 'The New Bridge', in N. Yates and J.M. Gibson (eds.),
"Traffic and Politics: The Construction and Management of Rochester
Bridge, AD 43-1993" (Woodbridge, 1994), 43-59.]" Later [p. 235]: "In
a move utterly characteristic of him, Cobham provided for a chantry
chapel to be included in the design [of the bridge]. According to his
letters of instruction, transcribed in the Rochester register, prayers
were to be said for the souls of his wife, his daughter and
son-in-law, Robert Knolles, and others. [footnote: 'CPR 1391-6', 550;
BL, MS Faustina C V, fos. 91r-92r (Rochester priory letter book).]"
As there are many descended from these families, I hope this
information is useful. In a following post, I'll detail Joan (de la
Pole), Lady Cobham, and her five(!) husbands.
Cheers, ----Brad
Cristopher Nash
>I've had a chance this week to delve into Historian Nigel Saul's 2001
>book 'Death, art, and memory in medieval England: the Cobham family
>and their monuments, 1300-1500' (thanks to Douglas Richardson for
>referring this). So far it is a wealth of information - and I haven't
>yet reached the chapters on the Cobhams of Sterborough.
>
>Saul's information corrects and fleshes out most of the accounts of
>the Lords Cobham in CP Volume 3, pp. 344-345.
It _is_ a wealth of information, and for that reason some may find it
rather frustrating for genealogical studies unless, as you've
instinctively and very helpfully done, it's accompanied by careful
reading of collateral sources and commentaries like CP. Saul's
essentially (and naturally) politically orientated social-historian's
approach -- and with his energies further dispersed in this
particular text by his devotion of much attention specifically to
'Art and Memory' as expressed in monumental brasses -- tends to leave
his actual account of each Cobham generation extremely patchy.
Personally anyway, I was left with the distinct impression that - as
his highly schematic and unusually information-free geneal.tables
suggest - he records only those children showing clearcut
relationships with figures significant to his historical narrative or
to his intriguing review of surviving brasses. But Brad, your closer
study may well show I was wrong about this, and I'd love to hear of
it if so.
Just by way of clarification, an example I have in mind is a case
I've mentioned before regarding CP's citation of Close Rolls in which
"it appears ... that Philip le Despenser (who m. Joan), and John de
Cobham, son of Henry, were arranging a marriage in June 1339" [IV,
289 (b)]. According to CP, Sir Philip Despenser (b. 6 Apr 1313, d.
22/23 Aug 1349) m. "(most probably) Joan [d. sh. bef. 15 May 1357],
da of Sir John de Cobham, of Cobham, Kent". (Material in brackets
mine.) My guess has been that intended here was Sir John (s. of
Henry) who d. 25 Feb 1354/5, m. in 1314 Joan, da. of John Beauchamp
of Hache / Stoke-under-Hamden (per CP III, 344). I've been unable
to identify in Saul's account any Joan de Cobham fitting this
description (or any mention of a Cobham/Despenser connection) and of
course CP IV's supposition (in admittedly one of the notoriously
vulnerable early volumes) may have been wrong. But so long as the
two Close Rolls contain what's claimed, a genealogist might be a bit
surprised to see Saul unaware of them &/or a social historian might
be unsettled to find him disinclined to explore their intimation of a
Cobham in line for a marriage to a Despenser. (For my money,
evidence of any more positive kind identifying the parents of Joan w.
of Sir Philip Despenser is yet to be found and the mystery of the
purported Cobham/Despenser connection remains unresolved.)
Again, though, I'm sure you'll put me straight about this. And I
need to add not only that I've thorough respect for Saul as a
historian (and gratitude for his earlier work on C14-15 Sussex gentry
in particular) but that many of us owe him special appreciation for
his generosity in making time to collaborate with at least one
frequent poster here (Charlotte Smith, in her Echingham family
history research). I've 'written loudly' and often here about the
value - if not in fact the urgency - of genealogists' and historians'
pooling their resources, and Saul's case is a model example of what I
mean.
Cheers,
Cris
--
Brad Verity
> Saul [p. 26]: "The couple's only child--or, at least, their only
> surviving child--was a daughter, Joan. While the girl was still an
> infant, John secured her betrothal to Sir John de la Pole of Castle
> Ashby (Northants.)." Later [p. 196] Saul states "Joan Cobham was
> betrothed to John de la Pole when she was seven".
>
> If the 1362 date was what Saul was working from, then Joan Cobham was
> born in 1355.
1362 was the date that Saul was working from.
Saul [p. 133]: "There is no evidence that the de la Poles were
acquainted with the Cobhams before the marriage: their estates lay in
different parts of the country and they had few associations in
common. The initiative for the match almost certainly came from
Reginald [1st Lord Cobham of Sterborough]. Reginald was known to the
de la Poles through their involvement in war finance in the 1330s.
But he was also linked with them by a more precise connection: Robert
Bradeston, the son of his friend Thomas, Lord Bradeston, was married
to Isabel Peverel, whose brother-in-law and sister were William and
Margaret de la Pole, John's parents. [footnote: Nichols, 'Memorials of
the Family of Cobham', 327-8; 'Victoria County History of
Northamptonshire', iv, ed. L.F. Salzman (London, 1937), 233.] Reginald
was therefore particularly well placed to sponsor a deal. Detailed
terms were agreed in 1362 when a couple of indentures were enrolled.
[footnote: 'CCR 1360-4', 425-6.] Reginald himself had died a few
months before this. But there can be little doubt that the
responsibility for the match was his."
Cheers, -------Brad
Brad Verity
Cris, your post touched on a subject near and dear to my own heart -
combining history and genealogy for a bigger picture.
> It _is_ a wealth of information, and for that reason some may find it
> rather frustrating for genealogical studies unless, as you've
> instinctively and very helpfully done, it's accompanied by careful
> reading of collateral sources and commentaries like CP. Saul's
> essentially (and naturally) politically orientated social-historian's
> approach -- and with his energies further dispersed in this
> particular text by his devotion of much attention specifically to
> 'Art and Memory' as expressed in monumental brasses -- tends to leave
> his actual account of each Cobham generation extremely patchy.
I would agree with this assessment.
Part of the issue - as you point out - is the focus a historian like
Saul brings into a project. Family relationships and dates of birth,
death and marriage are simply tools used to tie the subject(s) of the
study into the greater social/historical picture.
Three other works spring to mind along a similar vein - Jeffrey
Hamilton's Piers Gaveston biography, Margaret Aston's biography of
Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and GL Hariss's biography of Cardinal
Beaufort. All three works are groundbreaking in the sense of putting
these medieval figures into the greater socio-political world of their
time, and are excellently researched. But when it comes to details
that a genealogist needs, they each come up short.
In Hamilton's case, he presents a relationship (such as Piers as son
of Arnaud de Gaveston, or Arnaud having an illegitimate son) as a fact
without citing a contemporary source that demonstrates this to be so.
That it turned out to be true was no surprise, but it took a
genealogist - Paul Reed - to find a 14th-century document that
confirmed it.
Aston states we cannot be sure when Thomas's sister and brother were
married to the son and daughter of the Earl of Northampton, but that
Thomas was likely to be there. A dip into the Calendar of Patent
Rolls turns up that the Bohun/Arundel marriages were in October 1359 -
probably at Sandwich - so its unlikely the six-year-old Thomas
would've been sent for to attend them.
Hariss states Cardinal Beaufort had an affair with Alice Fitzalan,
Lady Cherleton, niece of the Archbishop Thomas, that resulted in an
illegitimate daughter Jane. A more thorough look into Alice's
chronology eliminates her as a candidate for the mother of the
Cardinal's natural daughter.
Of course, Aston and Hariss (and to a lesser extent Hamilton) were
using CP and DNB as sources for their genealogical information. And
historians rarely have time to correct the accounts of those venerable
sources unless they come across new information in their own research.
Saul himself falls prey to this in his Cobham book. [p. 140]
"Reginald [2nd Lord Cobham of Sterborough] married his second wife
probably in late 1380. [footnote: 'Complete Peerage', iii, 354.] This
lady was even wealthier than the first--she was Eleanor, the daughter
and coheiress of John, Lord Maltravers of Lytchett (Dorset)...How the
match was arranged is a mystery. Cobham and his bride apparently had
little or no previous association; and there is no evidence of
affection between them, and none developed."
The historian used CP and Eleanor's will (in which she styles herself
'Eleanor Arundel' instead of 'Eleanor Cobham' throughout) as his only
sources for the above information and conclusion. But a genealogist -
who on average has looked at hundreds more medieval widow's wills than
a historian - could point out that using the style of one husband's
surname over another's was a mark of status rather than affection.
And a look into the Calendar of Miscellaneous Inquisitions reveals the
full tale of Cobham's second marriage to Eleanor, which involved an
annullment and remarriage, and paints a fuller picture than CP's
account.
> Personally anyway, I was left with the distinct impression that - as
> his highly schematic and unusually information-free geneal.tables
> suggest - he records only those children showing clearcut
> relationships with figures significant to his historical narrative or
> to his intriguing review of surviving brasses. But Brad, your closer
> study may well show I was wrong about this, and I'd love to hear of
> it if so.
I think you're correct. I love Saul's biography of Richard II (Yale
English Monarch series), but you'll find nothing about the king's two
sisters in there, when there is much evidence (Garter robes granted to
them, they accompanied him on progressions) that he was close to both.
Saul basically started with the many Cobham brasses and researched the
individuals associated with those. If he came across a family member,
he added/discussed the individual. But he doesn't seem to have gone
searching for new ones.
> Just by way of clarification, an example I have in mind is a case
> I've mentioned before regarding CP's citation of Close Rolls in which
> "it appears ... that Philip le Despenser (who m. Joan), and John de
> Cobham, son of Henry, were arranging a marriage in June 1339" [IV,
> 289 (b)]. According to CP, Sir Philip Despenser (b. 6 Apr 1313, d.
> 22/23 Aug 1349) m. "(most probably) Joan [d. sh. bef. 15 May 1357],
> da of Sir John de Cobham, of Cobham, Kent". (Material in brackets
> mine.) My guess has been that intended here was Sir John (s. of
> Henry) who d. 25 Feb 1354/5, m. in 1314 Joan, da. of John Beauchamp
> of Hache / Stoke-under-Hamden (per CP III, 344).
From the chronology I'd say you are absolutely correct to make the Sir
John de Cobham in question the 2nd Lord Cobham. It couldn't have been
the 3rd Lord.
> I've been unable
> to identify in Saul's account any Joan de Cobham fitting this
> description (or any mention of a Cobham/Despenser connection) and of
> course CP IV's supposition (in admittedly one of the notoriously
> vulnerable early volumes) may have been wrong. But so long as the
> two Close Rolls contain what's claimed, a genealogist might be a bit
> surprised to see Saul unaware of them &/or a social historian might
> be unsettled to find him disinclined to explore their intimation of a
> Cobham in line for a marriage to a Despenser.
Well, to be fair, unless one reads CP cover-to-cover, it would be hard
to find all its references to the Cobhams (the damn thing isn't
indexed, sadly). Since there's no reference to the Despenser match in
CP's Cobham articles, how would Saul, focused on the Cobhams, know to
look in the Despenser articles? This of course is where a genealogist
working in conjunction with a historian would create a more thorough
end project.
You could argue Saul should've checked all the Chancery Rolls and have
found the Close Roll entries pertaining to the match. But 1339 was
not the focus of his research (the brasses weren't commissioned by the
family until some decades later) and it clearly escaped his notice. I
don't think he would've left it out if he'd come across it.
Saul does mention a Cobham/Despenser connection, though. [p. 125]
"...at an earlier point John, the future 2nd Lord [Cobham], had served
in the Despenser retinue. [footnote: N.E. Saul, 'The Despensers and
the Downfall of Edward II', 'EHR', 99 (1984), 1-33, esp. 20,30.]"
Yes, Saul is citing himself in this case! One of my favorite movie
lines is from the film '1776' when John Adams turns to Ben Franklin
and says, "I don't have time to stand here listening to you quote
yourself."
> (For my money,
> evidence of any more positive kind identifying the parents of Joan w.
> of Sir Philip Despenser is yet to be found and the mystery of the
> purported Cobham/Despenser connection remains unresolved.)
If the 2nd Lord Cobham, the purported father of the 1339 bride Joan,
had served in the retinue of the Despensers, grandfather and uncle of
the groom Philip le Despenser - could that help explain the match?
> Again, though, I'm sure you'll put me straight about this. And I
> need to add not only that I've thorough respect for Saul as a
> historian (and gratitude for his earlier work on C14-15 Sussex gentry
> in particular) but that many of us owe him special appreciation for
> his generosity in making time to collaborate with at least one
> frequent poster here (Charlotte Smith, in her Echingham family
> history research).
Absolutely.
> I've 'written loudly' and often here about the
> value - if not in fact the urgency - of genealogists' and historians'
> pooling their resources, and Saul's case is a model example of what I
> mean.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad
Cristopher Nash
approached the material is dead right).
But also, look --
> > (For my money,
>> evidence of any more positive kind identifying the parents of Joan w.
>> of Sir Philip Despenser is yet to be found and the mystery of the
> > purported Cobham/Despenser connection remains unresolved.)
>Saul does mention a Cobham/Despenser connection, though. [p. 125]
>"...at an earlier point John, the future 2nd Lord [Cobham], had served
>in the Despenser retinue. [footnote: N.E. Saul, 'The Despensers and
>the Downfall of Edward II', 'EHR', 99 (1984), 1-33, esp. 20,30.]"
- yes! Reading this I mindsent you a high-5.
>If the 2nd Lord Cobham, the purported father of the 1339 bride Joan,
>had served in the retinue of the Despensers, grandfather and uncle of
>the groom Philip le Despenser - could that help explain the match?
It certainly helps push things along that way. And see -- I knew
your good close reading'd turn up sthg I'd missed. I'd relied on
Saul's index, where no Despenser appears in spite of - as I see now,
looking at my own copy- his having given an intriguing perspective
specifically on the two families' relations, p125. I note that the
marriage was in negotiation when - according to Saul's idea - the
Cobhams might well be expected to've shunned the Despensers. But any
animos. they may've felt toward them, as he says, in the mid-1320s,
could have been water under the bridge by the time of the actual
marriage negotiation. The Hughs Elder and Younger are executed in
1326, the latter Hugh's son is summoned to Parliament in 1338, and
June the next year is the date of Philip's supposed marriage contract
with John de Cobham.
More documentat's certainly needed for CP's view that Joan is da. of
a John de Cobham s. of Henry, but an alliance between Sir Philip
Despenser and a da. of John (s. of Henry), 2d Lord Cobham, rests well
against the background you've exposed. Thanks a lot!
Cris
--
Reedpcgen
>genealogist - Paul Reed - to find a 14th-century document that
>confirmed it.
;-) For some reason,I tend to think of the research I do as biographical
history, intertwined with prosopography, rather than genealogy.
It is true that I follow work on families, but I do so attempting to be
exhaustive of what survives for each generation each step of the way, trying to
get a comprehensive picture, in their proper historical and social setting.
In my opinion it is impossible to separate the various facets of history and
genealogy and do proper research. The complete picture (rather than shelf
reading, or looking to cherry-pick royal descents) is how one makes great
breakthroughs. A trained ape can shelf read (a literate one can).
Paul
Edith Gomez
without history, after all we are part of that history even though most of
it was written about the RICH & FAMOUS.
Edith
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031127160401...@mb-m23.aol.com...
K o b.b e
For a noble farmers family, take a look at http://go.to/coilge .
Chapters:
:: History (Geschiedenis)
:: Descendance (Stamboom)
:: Family photo's (Fotoalbum)
Text Flemish, idea and illustrations international.
--
K o b.b e
(reply address don't work; reactions only in the news group)
"Edith Gomez" <edit...@mchsi.com> schreef in bericht
news:xqJxb.338573$Fm2.341340@attbi_s04...
: That is ever so true Paul. I feel the same way. You can't have genealogy
:
:
Brad Verity
> > Saul [p. 26]: "The couple's only child--or, at least, their only
> > surviving child--was a daughter, Joan. While the girl was still an
> > infant, John secured her betrothal to Sir John de la Pole of Castle
> > Ashby (Northants.)." Later [p. 196] Saul states "Joan Cobham was
> > betrothed to John de la Pole when she was seven".
> >
> > If the 1362 date was what Saul was working from, then Joan Cobham was
> > born in 1355.
>
> 1362 was the date that Saul was working from.
>
> terms were agreed in 1362 when a couple of indentures were enrolled.
Here is a transcription of one of the two indentures relating to the
marriage of Joan de Cobham and John de la Pole. The other indenture
makes no mention of anything that could relate to the ages of the
bride and groom.
From Close Rolls: "Indenture of agreement between Sir John de Cobbeham
lord of Cobbeham and Sir William de la Pole of Chastel Assheby, being
a defeasance of the foregoing recognisance, upon condition that Sir
John on his part shall keep the covenants following: that John son of
Sir William shall take to wife Joan daughter of Sir John, that Sir
William shall, by fine levied in the king's court, make to John and
Joan a sure estate in reversion of 100l. of land and rent, to wit of
the manors of Westhalle and Fulbrok co. Oxford, Alricheseye and Potton
co. Bedford, and a messuage, 160 acres of land, 20 acres of meadow and
20 acres of pasture in Coten by Rokyngham co. Northampton, which his
said son holds for life, saving to Sir William the goods and chattels
thereupon, for which marriage Sir John shall give Sir William 450
marks, 100l. thereof to be payable on the wedding day, 300 marks to
Sir John de Moubray, William de Lyndesele and William Halden to the
use of the said John and Joan, namely 100 marks at Michaelmas next,
100 marks at Michaelmas following, and 100 marks at Michaelmas
following, in allowance for the profits of the said manors for two
years after the marriage during which Sir William shall have the same
in his hand without rendering account, and Sir John shall keep and
maintain his said daughter and Sir William his said son, and after
that time Sir William shall have the said manors with the profits for
the maintenance of the two children, who shall dwell with him until
his said son shall be able to rule himself; if Joan die, Sir John de
Cobbeham, his heirs and executors, shall be quit of the money due for
terms to come, if John son of William die within the said two years
Joan shall have the manors and lands out of the hands of Sir William,
and the 300 marks shall be to his profit, and if Sir William die
within three years after the marriage, Joan living, the payments made
and to be made shall be to the use and profit of his soul. Dated
London, Saturday after St. Luke 36 Edward III [22 Oct 1362]. French.
Memorandum of acknowledgement by the parties, 22 October."
I'm not certain how historian Nigel Saul, using the detailed marriage
contract above, came to the conclusion that Joan de Cobham was aged 7
at her betrothal. Unless it was an entirely different document that
he saw. The above tells us that Joan and John were considered
"children" in October 1362, that their wedding day was to be before
the next Michaelmas, and that for two years following their wedding
day they were to live separately. Also that John de la Pole was not
knighted in 1362, nor would he be of an age "to rule himself" until
some point after Oct. 1364. But I can't see a way to determine more
exact ages from the marriage contract.
Cheers, ----Brad