CP Addition: William, heir of John de Warenne (d. 1347)
Brad Verity
final Earl of Surrey of the Warenne line, an illegitimate son, Edward
de Warenne, of Poynton, Cheshire, by the Earl's longtime mistress,
Maud de Nerford.
There is no mention of any child by his wife Joan of Bar (1295-1361),
granddaughter of Edward I. But in the 1994 book "La Maison Souveraine
et Ducale de Bar", author Georges Poull states that "Jeanne de Bar lui
a donne un fils, William de Warren, mort en bas-age." This roughly
translates to "Jeanne of Bar gave him [John de Warenne] a son, William
de Warren, who died at a young age." Poull cites as his source for
this, "Memories of the Earls of Warren and Surrey" by John Watson.
As CP criticizes Watson's attempt to make the Poynton Warrens
legitimate descendants of the Earls of Surrey in his book "The House
of Warren", I did not give much weight to Poull's statement about
young William de Warenne, especially as Poull gets some English
details mixed up in other parts of his very thorough book.
But a Chancery document shows that Earl John de Warenne did indeed
have a son William:
From Chancery Writs: "7 March 1311, Berwick-on-Tweed. Inspeximus and
confirmation of a grant, 24 August, 4 Edward II., by John de Warenna,
earl of Surrey, to his son William de Warenna and the heirs of his
body, with remainder failing such issue to the grantor and his heirs,
of the manor of Beston, co. Norfolk, with the advowson of the church
of that place, together with all lands, meadows, woods, feedings and
pastures, heaths, plains, stews, fisheries, waters, ways, paths,
wrecks of sea, and all villains and natives, &c., in Beston, Estrunton
and Westrunton, together with fines, amerciaments, pleas, perquisites
of courts and leets, wards, reliefs, escheats, knights' fees, warrens,
burrows, and all other easements. By p.s."
Joan of Bar was only age 10 or 11 when she married the 19-year-old
Earl of Surrey on 25 May 1306. If she had her son William by 24
August 1310, when she was 14 or 15, it means the conception occurred
when she was 13 or 14. This was young for medieval standards, and
perhaps led to her being unable to have other children, which in turn
could help explain the Earl's abandonment of her and public seeking of
a divorce in 1313 (by which point their son William was undoubtably
deceased).
CP makes no mention of where Earl John or Countess Joan were buried.
According to Poull, Joan of Bar died in London and was first interred
at the English abbey [Lewes Priory] where the tombs of the Warenne
family lay, but was removed to Bar and buried a second time in "l'un
des caveaux de la collegiale Saint Maxe". [A church in Bar founded by
her ancestor Count Thibaut II.]
Earl John was buried in the monastery of Lewes, according to the
Chartulary of Lewes Priory.
Cheers, --------Brad
Douglas Richardson
John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1346) had not one but two
illegitimate sons named William, one of whom was a knight and one of
whom was Prior of Horton. The bastard son who was a knight seems to
have been a favorite of the Earl's. At some point, William the knight
and his wife were granted a papal indult at his father's request. You
can find the indult in the published papal petitions. Also, William
the knight is named in his father's will.
Since it was rare for a father to settle property on one's son and
heir prior to marriage in the medieval time period (for the obvious
reason that the son and heir would inherit ALL of his father's
property if the father died while the child was young), my guess is
that the William de Warenne named in the document you found is not
John de Warenne's legitimate issue at all. Rather, I think you'll
find that this William de Warenne is the Earl's bastard son. To be of
knightly rank, you generally had to have three to five manors. As
such, this means that the Earl either gave his bastard sons several
manors, or else found a wife who had a suitable inheritance to support
his son as a knight. The grant in 1311 probably marks the occasion of
the bastard son's marriage, at which date the son would have to have
been at least seven. The grant of the manor and finding a wife of a
good background would be part of the Earl's provision for his bastard
son. In 1311 the Earl was aged 25 and could easily have had a bastard
son who was seven. In contrast, I have not encountered any record
which suggests that the Earl had any legitimate issue by Joan of Bar.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.03042...@posting.google.com>...
Sutliff
marriage surviving at his death in 1347.
HS
"Brad Verity" <bat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ed1b63.03042...@posting.google.com...
Chris Phillips
Hap Sutliff wrote:
> CP states that John d.s.p.m. so there should be female issue from his
> marriage surviving at his death in 1347.
But a footnote adds that "His heir was Richard, Earl of Arundel, s. of his
sister Alice", which makes it rather odd to say that he died without _male_
issue. I wonder if this could be an error for _legitimate_ issue?
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
> John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1346) had not one but two
> illegitimate sons named William, one of whom was a knight and one of
> whom was Prior of Horton.
Thanks for this, Douglas. I had no idea he had bastard sons named
William. In light of that, it's perfectly reasonable that the
Chancery entry pertained to one of them rather than to any legitimate
heir with the same name.
What is your source for Earl John dying in 1346? Or was that a typo,
like I frequently make. CP says Earl John died in June 1347.
> Since it was rare for a father to settle property on one's son and
> heir prior to marriage in the medieval time period (for the obvious
> reason that the son and heir would inherit ALL of his father's
> property if the father died while the child was young), my guess is
> that the William de Warenne named in the document you found is not
> John de Warenne's legitimate issue at all. Rather, I think you'll
> find that this William de Warenne is the Earl's bastard son.
You're probably right.
> To be of
> knightly rank, you generally had to have three to five manors. As
> such, this means that the Earl either gave his bastard sons several
> manors, or else found a wife who had a suitable inheritance to support
> his son as a knight. The grant in 1311 probably marks the occasion of
> the bastard son's marriage, at which date the son would have to have
> been at least seven.
Wouldn't there be mention of the bride if this was a grant on
marriage, or part of a marriage contract, especially if a child
marriage? I would think the girl's parents or guardian would want to
make sure her interest was secure and have her name included in the
grant?
> The grant of the manor and finding a wife of a
> good background would be part of the Earl's provision for his bastard
> son. In 1311 the Earl was aged 25 and could easily have had a bastard
> son who was seven.
Actually, the orginal grant of the manor from Earl John to his son
William was dated in August 1310. It was confirmed by King Edward II
in March 1311.
> In contrast, I have not encountered any record
> which suggests that the Earl had any legitimate issue by Joan of Bar.
John Watson's book should probably be double-checked to see if he does
indeed give Earl John and Countess Joan a son William, and what his
source was for so doing. If not, Poull probably confused one of the
Earl's bastard sons named William.
Thanks again for the reply and information.
Cheers,
------------Brad
Douglas Richardson
>
> > John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1346) had not one but two
> > illegitimate sons named William, one of whom was a knight and one of
> > whom was Prior of Horton.
>
> Thanks for this, Douglas. I had no idea he had bastard sons named
> William. In light of that, it's perfectly reasonable that the
> Chancery entry pertained to one of them rather than to any legitimate
> heir with the same name.
>
> marriage, or part of a marriage contract, especially if a child
> marriage? I would think the girl's parents or guardian would want to
> make sure her interest was secure and have her name included in the
> grant?
Not necessarily.
> John Watson's book should probably be double-checked to see if he does
> indeed give Earl John and Countess Joan a son William, and what his
> source was for so doing. If not, Poull probably confused one of the
> Earl's bastard sons named William.
I've seen Watson's book. It has its limitations.
> Thanks again for the reply and information.
You're quite welcome. Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> Cheers,
> ------------Brad
Brad Verity
> > Wouldn't there be mention of the bride if this was a grant on
> > marriage, or part of a marriage contract, especially if a child
> > marriage? I would think the girl's parents or guardian would want to
> > make sure her interest was secure and have her name included in the
> > grant?
>
> Not necessarily.
Do you have a 'for instance' example? I can't recall a grant of
properties from a parent to their child at marriage that did not
include the child's spouse or future contracted spouse by name. Had
William de Warenne died shortly after he received the manor of Beston,
Norfolk in 1310/11, with no mention of a wife in the grant, would she
not have a tough time laying claim to it? For technically, it would
not have been granted to her at all.
I think the manor being granted by the Earl to provide his son enough
income to become a knight is the likelier possibility.
> > John Watson's book should probably be double-checked to see if he does
> > indeed give Earl John and Countess Joan a son William, and what his
> > source was for so doing. If not, Poull probably confused one of the
> > Earl's bastard sons named William.
>
> I've seen Watson's book. It has its limitations.
But does Watson assign a son William who died young to Earl John and
Countess Joan?
Thanks and Cheers, --------Brad
ADRIANC...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Knights of Edward I (Harliean Soc., Vol LXXX, 1929 -CD copy) has ob s.p legit
30 June 1347, but then, strangely, gives its source as GEC.
Adrian
Chris Phillips
Adrian Channing wrote:
> Knights of Edward I (Harliean Soc., Vol LXXX, 1929 -CD copy) has ob s.p
legit
> 30 June 1347, but then, strangely, gives its source as GEC.
By the date, I suppose that would be the first (19th-century) edition of CP.
Maybe this is a rare example of an error creeping in between the first and
second editions?
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
> From Chancery Writs: "7 March 1311, Berwick-on-Tweed. Inspeximus and
> confirmation of a grant, 24 August, 4 Edward II., by John de Warenna,
> earl of Surrey, to his son William de Warenna and the heirs of his
> body, with remainder failing such issue to the grantor and his heirs,
> of the manor of Beston, co. Norfolk, with the advowson of the church
> of that place, together with all lands, meadows, [snip]
The Norfolk manor of Beston appears to have gone back into Earl John's
hands after the above grant.
From the Norfolk IPM of Earl John, taken at Castle Acre on 18 July
1347:
"Bestone by Runtone. The manor (extent given) held in fee tail of the
king, as of the honour of Dover, by knight's service."
The IPM taken at Gymyngham in Norfolk the following day, 19 July 1347,
gives more particulars:
"...the manors of Beston and Medelwolde,...held of the king in chief,
by the demise of Thomas, late earl of Lancaster, uncle of Henry, now
earl of Lancaster, by a fine levied in the court of King Edward II,
with his licence, with reversion, after the death of the said earl of
Surrey, to the said earl of Lancaster and his heirs. ... The manor of
Beston (extent given) is held of the honour of Dover by service of two
knights' fees."
Earl John granted lands to Thomas of Lancaster in 1318-19 to help
settle the quarrel between them. If the William de Warenne, son of
Earl John, who received the manor of Beston in the 1310 grant, was his
illegitimate son William who later became a knight (and who outlived
his father - he's mentioned in the York IPM of Earl John), then the
Earl must have taken back the manor of Beston from his son at some
point before he granted it to Thomas of Lancaster in 1318-19. As the
Earl constantly reassigned the reversions of his properties throughout
his life, it's quite possible he took this manor back from his son
William.
The other possibility would be that the William in the grant was not
the same bastard son Sir William de Warenne who outlived Earl John,
and the William alive in 1310/11, had died by 1318/19.
Cheers, ---------Brad
Brad Verity
> By the date, I suppose that would be the first (19th-century) edition of CP.
> Maybe this is a rare example of an error creeping in between the first and
> second editions?
I had a chance to look at the 1st edition of CP when I was at the LDS
Library, and you are correct, Chris - it said Earl John died
s.p.legitimate (not d.s.p.m.) in the article.
Cheers, ---------Brad