Dinham/Courtenay Correction (was: Grenvilles of Devon Pt. 2)
The...@aol.com
Hello Brad, Louise, Doug et al.,
The prior discussion of the documentation re: the Dinham relationship
and inheritance from Hugh de Courtenay of Woodhuish and Dunterton, Devon & c.
caused me to review the relationship between these generations of the Dinham
and Courtenay families and the marriage of Muriel de Dinham to Sir Edward
Hastings, de jure 8th Lord Hastings (d. 6 Jan 1437/38).
The relationship as set forth in Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd ed. (pp.
130-131) is as follows:
..1. Sir John de Dinham, 4th Lord Dinham (murdered 7 Jan 1382/83), m. Muriel
de Courtenay, sister and coheiress (in her issue) of Hugh de Courtenay, above.
..2. Muriel de Dinham, d. after 1412, m. Sir Edward Hastings, as above.
..3. John Hastings, 9th Lord Hastings, d. 9 Apr 1477, m. Anne Morley
In reviewing this line, the following conflicting issues were noted:
A. Sir John de Dinham (#1 above) was born ca. 1317/18 [CP Vol. IV, p. 373],
and was married to Muriel de Courtenay sometime before 1360: as indicated in
the latest 'Grenvilles of Devon' post, the Inquisition p.m. for Hugh de
Courtenay (1369) clearly shows the son of Sir John de Dinham and Muriel de
Courtenay was then approx. 10 years of age.
B. It would be logical to assume that most siblings of the younger John de
Dinham (b. ca. 1359/60) would be born fairly soon before or after his
birthdate. At any rate, no sibling would have been born any later than 12
Aug 1369: on that date the Inq.p.m. for Hugh de Courtenay makes it clear that
the younger John de Dinham was his heir (coheir actually), making it clear
that his mother Muriel de Courtenay was already deceased.
C. Sir Edward de Hastings (#2 above) was born in 1382, and baptised on 21
May 1382 [CP Vol VI, p. 358]. His son and heir, John Hastings, was born
sometime before 1412, as he was aged '26 and more' at his father's death on 6
Jan 1437/38 [CP Vol VI, pp. 359-360]. Given the marital customs and infant
mortality of the age, it is safe to assume a marriage being transacted and
consummated sometime in 1397 or later, with a 'safe' approximate date of ca.
1402, and also safe to assume that the bride would be the same age as, or
more likely slightly younger than, the groom. This would indicate a birth
date for Muriel de Dinham, wife of Sir Edward de Hastings, sometime between
1381 and 1391, and certainly no later than 1399 given the birth date of her
son (before 1412, as above).
It is clear from the above that there is a chronological problem for the
same Muriel de Dinham to be both the daughter of Sir John de Dinham (#1
above) and the wife of Sir Edward de Hastings (#2 above). The dates in
question either would require that Sir Edward de Hastings married a woman
some 13 years or more his senior, or that she was in fact not the daughter of
Sir John de Dinham who died in 1382/83.
Given the naming patterns of the period, with an older child frequently
being named for a grandparent before the name of a parent would be used, and
the chronological issues indicated above, I find the one answer to be that
Muriel de Dinham, wife of Sir Edward de Hastings must be the daughter of John
de Dinham (b. 1359/60) and not his sister as indicated in PA above. The
relevant chronology of the life of this John de Dinham is as follows (from CP
Vol IV, pp. 374-377):
A. Born 1359/60, as noted above.
B. Married firstly, before 3 Feb 1379/80, Ellen [surname unknown].
C. Married secondly, before 26 Nov 1396, Maud Mautravers, daughter of Sir
John Mautravers of Hook, Dorset & c.
D. Married thirdly, after 1 Nov 1402, Philippe Lovel, daughter of Sir John
Lovel, Lord Lovel
The text of the inquisition p.m. for Maud Mautravers cited by CP (Vol
IV, p. 376n) make is clear that she d.s.p., with her sister Elizabeth found
to be her heir. This makes it evident that the one possible solution would
be that Sir John de Dinham's first wife, Ellen, must be the mother of Muriel
de Dinham [his heir, Sir John de Dinham, was born before 1407, the son of the
third wife - see CP Vol IV, p. 377].
The modified line for this descent would then appear as follows:
..1. Sir John de Dinham, 4th Lord Dinham, m. Muriel de Courtenay [#1 above]
..2. Sir John de Dinham, 5th Lord Dinham, d. 25 Dec 1428, m. 1stly Ellen
________
..3. Muriel de Dinham, d. after 1412, m. Sir Edward Hastings [#2 above]
..4. John Hastings, 9th Lord Hastings, d. 1477, m. Anne Morley [#3 above]
This impacts the MC and PA lines of several known GARDs, noted by PA as
including William Farrar, William Asfordby, William Bladen, William Skepper
and George and Nehemiah Blakiston. I am therefore sending this information
also to Douglas Richardson for his information and consideration as to its
impact on the forthcoming MC and PA publications.
Any and all comments and criticisms welcome.
Good luck, and good hunting.
John