FitzWarine - Argentan
Ivor West
This FitzWarine business reminds me that I have been meaning to ask
you about a FitzWarine-Argentan connection.
In your sojourn among the Argentines, did you come across anything on
a Matilda Argentan, possibly of Combe Ralegh, widow of Robert/Richard
Merton, who married secondly John FitzWarine? Merton seems to have
lived c1320 - 1370 which might indicate that she was a daughter,
perhaps, of John Argentan and Agnes Bereford or of another
contemporary Argentan. Or maybe it's a whole other family.
Matilda's marriage with John FitzWarine seems to have produced Ivo
FitzWarine, father of Alice FitzWarine who married Dick Whittington,
famed for his feline connection. In which case, the widow Merton may
be more accessible by turning back with the lord mayor.
Ivor
Chris Phillips
Ivor West wrote:
> In your sojourn among the Argentines, did you come across anything on
> a Matilda Argentan, possibly of Combe Ralegh, widow of Robert/Richard
> Merton, who married secondly John FitzWarine? Merton seems to have
> lived c1320 - 1370 which might indicate that she was a daughter,
> perhaps, of John Argentan and Agnes Bereford or of another
> contemporary Argentan. Or maybe it's a whole other family.
>
> Matilda's marriage with John FitzWarine seems to have produced Ivo
> FitzWarine, father of Alice FitzWarine who married Dick Whittington,
> famed for his feline connection. In which case, the widow Merton may
> be more accessible by turning back with the lord mayor.
I can't find any mention in my notes of a Matilda, married to a Merton and
then a John FitzWarine, but there is a Matilda, one of the three daughters
of Sir John Argentein (d. 1382) and his wife Margaret Darcy. According to my
notes, she married Sir Ivo FitzWarin (d. 1414), and left a daughter Eleanor,
who married first Sir John Chidiock (d. 1415) and then, before her death in
1433, was remarried to Ralph Bush (d. 1441).
Could she be related to your Matilda in some way? (I have occasionally seen
Ivo FitzWarin called John.) The estimates of this Matilda's age vary quite a
lot, but she seems to have been born in the period 1353-1363, perhaps nearer
the first date than the second.
Chris Phillips
Louise Staley
> I can't find any mention in my notes of a Matilda, married to a Merton and
> then a John FitzWarine, but there is a Matilda, one of the three daughters
> of Sir John Argentein (d. 1382) and his wife Margaret Darcy. According to
my
> notes, she married Sir Ivo FitzWarin (d. 1414), and left a daughter
Eleanor,
> who married first Sir John Chidiock (d. 1415) and then, before her death
in
> 1433, was remarried to Ralph Bush (d. 1441).
Dear Ivor and Chris,
I believe that the marriage of Ivo Fitzwarine and Maud Argentine and their
daughter Eleanor is covered in CP V 694-6. Maud is given as the daughter of
John Argentine and Margaret Darcy (daughter of a Robert Darcy). In my notes
I then have John Argentine as a son of John Argentine and Agnes Bereford
however I have no source for this relationship.
regards
Louise
Chris Phillips
Louise Staley wrote:
> I believe that the marriage of Ivo Fitzwarine and Maud Argentine and their
> daughter Eleanor is covered in CP V 694-6. Maud is given as the daughter
of
> John Argentine and Margaret Darcy (daughter of a Robert Darcy). In my
notes
> I then have John Argentine as a son of John Argentine and Agnes Bereford
> however I have no source for this relationship.
I can't actually see that CP reference (maybe I'm missing it), but there is
a brief account of the Argenteins at vol. 1, pp. 196, 197.
There is some more detail on my website at:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/arg/argoutl2.shtml
Chris Phillips
Ivor West
the early owners of Merton, (DCNQ, xx, 256).
Richard de Merton (1310) - 1370, member of parliament for Devon 1336,
married, first, a Margaret, who had Elinor, Joan and Agnes. He
married secondly Matilda Argentan (daughter of John Argentan of
Steeple Bumpstead) and they had a daughter, also named Agnes. After
Merton's death in 1370, Matilda married Ivo/John fitzWarin, (1345) -
1414, son of William fitzWarin and Amicia Haddon of Haddon (now
Stourton) Caundle, not of the direct line fitzWarin at this time, but
of a collateral line in Dorset, who differenced with a fret in the
first quarter. Matilda and John/Ivo had Eleanor who married John de
Chideock but they also had Alice who married Dick Whittington,
(1355) - 1423. The latter must have died s.p. as all the property
eventually passed to Stourton and Arundel and Dick and Alice were
largely forgotten in the property stakes, but Dick being immortalised
by his mayoralties and his pantomime cat. Apparently there were
prolonged lawsuits concerning Matilda's dowry in 1389 and 1400.
Reverting to Clarice de Auberville: on looking at an older version of
CP, I notice that she is attributed as wife to Fulk fitzWarin, d.1264.
If it isn't shown as such in the current edition, presumably they have
back-tracked for some reason or have left it indeterminate. It goes:
"Fulk fitz-Warine, of Whittington and Alberbury, co.Salop., s.and h.
of Fulk F. of the same, by Clarice [presumably de Auberville] his
wife, suc. his father (who was slain, ex Parte Regis, in the battle of
Lewes), 14 May 1264...", which seems to sideline Constance de Toeni.
If this is the correct scenario, Mabel becomes the full sister of
Fulk, 1251 - 1315, rather than a half-sister, but the age
discontinuity, with Mabel born c1225, would remain.
Ivor West
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:b30s5r$fqm$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Chris Phillips
Ivor West wrote:
> I think I have it worked out now, thanks to J.J. Alexander's paper on
> the early owners of Merton, (DCNQ, xx, 256).
>
> Richard de Merton (1310) - 1370, member of parliament for Devon 1336,
> married, first, a Margaret, who had Elinor, Joan and Agnes. He
> married secondly Matilda Argentan (daughter of John Argentan of
> Steeple Bumpstead) and they had a daughter, also named Agnes. After
> Merton's death in 1370, Matilda married Ivo/John fitzWarin, (1345) -
> 1414, son of William fitzWarin and Amicia Haddon of Haddon (now
> Stourton) Caundle, not of the direct line fitzWarin at this time, but
> of a collateral line in Dorset, who differenced with a fret in the
> first quarter. Matilda and John/Ivo had Eleanor who married John de
> Chideock but they also had Alice who married Dick Whittington,
> (1355) - 1423. The latter must have died s.p. as all the property
> eventually passed to Stourton and Arundel and Dick and Alice were
> largely forgotten in the property stakes, but Dick being immortalised
> by his mayoralties and his pantomime cat. Apparently there were
> prolonged lawsuits concerning Matilda's dowry in 1389 and 1400.
Yes, I think the lawsuits would refer to the disputes between John
Argentein's illegitimate son William and his 3 legitimate daughters and
coheirs (or their representatives). John had settled the lion's share of the
Argentein estates on William, and the daughters' families ended up with only
a few manors.
The manor of Gernouns in Steeple Bumpstead was one of those that did pass to
the daughters' families.
I still find the chronology of Alexander's version a bit difficult, as
John's daughter Maud doesn't seem to have been born until the early 1350s at
earliest (and possibly later), so if she was the same as the wife of Richard
de Merton, and the dates are as above, she would have been the teenage widow
of a man of about 60.
Oddly, the manor of Gernouns had earlier been held by one Maud, the widow of
Sir Giles de Argentein. It is not quite clear who this Giles was - at one
point Maud was described as Sir John's mother, but that is certainly
incorrect - more likely, her husband Sir Giles was his uncle. She is said to
have granted the keeping of the manors of Little Cheshell and
'Gernouns'/Steeple Bumpstead to Sir John in 1346.
I wonder if it's just possible that this Maud de Argentein (an Argentein
widow, not an Argentein by birth), also associated with Steeple Bumpstead,
could have been confused with the younger Maud, who married Ivo FitzWarin.
The elder Maud would probably be of a similar age to Richard de Merton, at
any rate.
Chris Phillips
Louise Staley
From looking at the Everingham and FitzWarine posts I have become increasingly confused with the various Fulks and
Clarices. So I have created the following reconstruction below which I hope formats in some intelligible way.
My questions:
1. Do the relationships show the current state of play?
2. Have I missed any relevant dates or people?
3. When did Robert Tregoz die, Ed Mann quotes AR7 for the Evesham date
4. Why is it thought Mabel Fitzwarine was born c 1225?
Fulk Fitzwarine = Maud Vavasour = Theobald Walter
d. aft Sep 1250 |
|
|
Clarice Auberville = Sir Fulk Fitzwarine = Constance Toeni
| d. 14 May 1264
| Drowned in the Ouse River
| while escaping from the Robert Tregoz = Juliana Cantalupe
| battle of Lewes d. 12 Aug 1265 d. aft. 6 Aug 1285
| Slain battle Evesham
____________|_________________ |
| |
|
| |
|
Fulk Fitzwarine William Crevecoeur = Mabel Fitzwarine = Sir John Tregoz
b. 14 Sep 1251 d. before 6 Apr 1263 d. bef.24 May 1297 | 1st Lord Tregoz
d. 24 Nov 1315 (prob 8-10 years bef.) | d. 21 Aug 1300
d.s.p. & d.v.p. |
|
_____________________________________________|
| |
| |
Clarice Tregoz = Roger de la Ware William Grandison = Sibyl Tregoz
d. bef. 1300 | 1st Lord de la Ware Lord Grandison | b. 1270/1271
| d. 20 Jun 1320 b. bef. 1264 | d. 21 Oct 1334
| d. 27 Jun 1335 |
| |
__________ | |
| |
|-John 2nd Lord de la Ware d. 9 May 1347 |-Mabel
|-Roger |-Katherine d. 23 Nov
1349
|-Clarice m before 12 Jan 1307/8 Sir Adam Everingham |-Agnes d. 4 Dec 1348
|-NN Daughter(s) |-John d. 15 Jul 1369
| Bishop of
Exeter d.s.p.
|-Piers d. 10 Aug
1358 d.s.p.
|-Otes d. 23 May
1359
regards
Louise
Ivor West wrote:
<snip>
Louise Staley
Because that last message resulted in garbage I have fallen back to the old descendant table which may be more
intelligible.
My questions:
1. Do the relationships show the current state of play?
2. Have I missed any relevant dates or people?
3. When did Robert Tregoz die, Ed Mann quotes AR7 for the Evesham date
4. Why is it thought Mabel Fitzwarine was born c 1225?
Descendants of Fulk Fitzwarine
------------------------------
1-Fulk Fitzwarine d: Aft. Sep 1250
.+Maud Vavasour
..2-Sir Fulk Fitzwarine d: 14 May 1264
...+Constance Toeni
...+Clarice Auberville
....3-Fulk Fitzwarine b: 14 Sep 1251, d: 24 Nov 1315
....3-Mabel Fitzwarine b: c1225?, d: Bef. 24 May 1297
.....+William Crevecoeur d: Bef. 6 Apr 1263, d.s.p. & d.v.p.,
.....+Sir John Tregoz, Lord Tregoz 1St b: Bef. 1247, d: 21 Aug 1300,
par: Robert Tregoz d. 12 Aug 1265 Battle of Evesham
and Juliana Cantalupe
......4-Clarice Tregoz
.......+Roger de la Ware, Lord de la Ware 1st d: 20 Jun 1320
........5-John de la Ware, Lord de la Ware 2nd d: 9 May 1347
........5-Clarice de la Ware
.........+Sir Adam Everingham
........5-Roger de la Ware
........5-Daughter(s) de la Ware
......4-Sibyl Tregoz b: Bet. 1270-1271, d: 21 Oct 1334
.......+William Grandison, Lord Grandison b: Bef. 1264, d: 27 Jun 1335
........5-Mabel Grandison
........5-Katharine Grandison d: 23 Apr 1349
........5-Agnes Grandison d: 4 Dec 1348
........5-Piers Grandison d: 10 Aug 1358, s.p.
........5-John Grandison, Bishop of Exeter d: 15 Jul 1369, s.p.
........5-Otes Grandison d: 23 May 1359
John Ravilious
Dear Louise (and Ivor, Rosie and Chris), et al.,
The de la Warr - Everingham connection is still theoretical, but
(in my opinion) the most likely connection for Clarice, wife of Sir
Adam de Everingham. We are short of underlying evidence (from
charters or IPMs) at the current time.
One possibility that may yet resolve the de Tony or d'Auberville
question: for Constance de Tony, I show she was
'..given in free marriage by her mother a moiety of the manor of
Yarkhill, co. Hereford.' (CP Vol XII/I -Tony, p. 771n)
Whether this manor went back to the de Tony family, or descended
in the FitzWarin line, may answer part of the current question.
Perhaps someone with access to Sanders could find this piece - (Rosie
?).
Good luck, and good hunting.
John
"Louise Staley" <car...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:<_cB5a.52985$jM5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
Ivor West
> I still find the chronology of Alexander's version a bit difficult,
as
> John's daughter Maud doesn't seem to have been born until the early
1350s at
> earliest (and possibly later), so if she was the same as the wife of
Richard
> de Merton, and the dates are as above, she would have been the
teenage widow
> of a man of about 60.
I didn't like it either. His three children by Margaret seem to have
been born in the 1350s. The middle one Joan, 1354 - 1420, married John
Pomeroy, 1347 - 1374, so she was of an age with your Maud. His last
daughter, Agnes I, by Margaret might have been born as late as 1364.
If he re-married in 1365 and had Agnes II in 1366, his bride would
need to have been born latest c1350 but more likely in the 1330 -
1340s as you indicate. Alexander says Agnes II died s.p. 1382.
Maud is said to have held parts of Torrington in dower and Richard
Merton's nephew, Thomas Merton, inherited from Agnes II. So evidently
some Maud and Agnes existed.
Ivor West
Ivor West
"Louise Staley" <car...@bigpond.com.au>
> 4. Why is it thought Mabel Fitzwarine was born c 1225?
It's just an estimate for an average couple of generations. These
FitzWarin generations are rather longer than most. Mabel's grandson,
John la Warre, is said by IPM to have been born 1276. You could
squeeze the ladies with generations of, say, 20 years. That would give
you a birth date for Mabel of 1236, making her, perhaps, in her early
twenties when William de Crevequer died. Then there would be only 15
years between herself and her brother Fulk. Clarice de Auberville, if
she is Mabel's mother, might then be born 1216.
It's just an exercise, really. Until something more substantive turns
up, you might just as well leave the birth dates blank.
Ivor West
Doug McDonald
Ivor West wrote:
>
> "Louise Staley" <car...@bigpond.com.au>
>
> > 4. Why is it thought Mabel Fitzwarine was born c 1225?
>
> It's just an estimate for an average couple of generations.
>
> It's just an exercise, really. Until something more substantive turns
> up, you might just as well leave the birth dates blank.
>
We need a terminology for this ...
perhaps "constrained 1210-1240" with a reference for
each end telling why it is constrained.
Doug McDonald
Ivor West
> I still find the chronology of Alexander's version a bit difficult,
as
> John's daughter Maud doesn't seem to have been born until the early
1350s at
> earliest (and possibly later), so if she was the same as the wife of
Richard
> de Merton, and the dates are as above, she would have been the
teenage widow
> of a man of about 60.
>
> Oddly, the manor of Gernouns had earlier been held by one Maud, the
widow of
> Sir Giles de Argentein. It is not quite clear who this Giles was -
at one
> point Maud was described as Sir John's mother, but that is certainly
> incorrect - more likely, her husband Sir Giles was his uncle. She is
said to
> have granted the keeping of the manors of Little Cheshell and
> 'Gernouns'/Steeple Bumpstead to Sir John in 1346.
>
> I wonder if it's just possible that this Maud de Argentein (an
Argentein
> widow, not an Argentein by birth), also associated with Steeple
Bumpstead,
> could have been confused with the younger Maud, who married Ivo
FitzWarin.
> The elder Maud would probably be of a similar age to Richard de
Merton, at
> any rate.
I have had a look at Richard de Merton's IPMs. No.42, vol.13, 44
E.III, gives the coheirs' ages as 19, 16 and 13. Agnes II was not yet
born. A writ of precipimus of 45 E. III shows that Agnes II was born
posthumously, is now age one month and made a coheir. Her mother,
Maud, is allocated one third as dower. No.268 of 46 E.III, a writ of
certiorari super vero valore feodorum, partitions Richard de Merton's
fees into four equal parts with the advowson of Chepyngtoryton [now
Great Torrington] being held by turns.
In Bishop Stafford's Register, p.214, there is the entry, "Torrington
Rectory (or chapel) of St. James in the Castle of Chepyngtoryton. John
Carter instituted, 15 Sep., 1401; patron "hac vice", Sir Ivo
FytzWaryn, knt." So it was evidently Ivo's turn with the advowson.
Agnes (II)'s pourparty was Dupeford, Shillingford and Wydden, with
another ¼ fee somewhere held of John Ralegh. She died in 1182, age 11.
Her pourparty is said to have returned to the Mertons and her cousin,
Thomas de Merton.
In which case, it's puzzling that Ivo was presenting in 1401.
Perhaps it was in right of Maud's dower rather than Agnes' pourparty
or perhaps there was litigation by Maud concerning it and her dower
and she still had possession.
The teenage widow may be back in the frame unless, of course, if she
were born earlier. I suppose a Maud Argentein would have been able to
marry Merton any time after the birth of Agnes (I) in 1357. Presumably
the constraints on her birth that you have found come from the Darcy
side. Could she have perhaps married Ivo's father-in-law, John
Argentein, as his second wife and Ivo was presenting on behalf of his
new mother-in-law?
There may be more in a Merton IPM of 5 Ric.II and in Cal. Close Rolls,
1369 - 74, p.342. I don't have access to either here.
Ivor West
Chris Phillips
> I have had a look at Richard de Merton's IPMs. No.42, vol.13, 44
> E.III, gives the coheirs' ages as 19, 16 and 13. Agnes II was not yet
> born. A writ of precipimus of 45 E. III shows that Agnes II was born
> posthumously, is now age one month and made a coheir. Her mother,
> Maud, is allocated one third as dower. No.268 of 46 E.III, a writ of
> certiorari super vero valore feodorum, partitions Richard de Merton's
> fees into four equal parts with the advowson of Chepyngtoryton [now
> Great Torrington] being held by turns.
>
> In Bishop Stafford's Register, p.214, there is the entry, "Torrington
> Rectory (or chapel) of St. James in the Castle of Chepyngtoryton. John
> Carter instituted, 15 Sep., 1401; patron "hac vice", Sir Ivo
> FytzWaryn, knt." So it was evidently Ivo's turn with the advowson.
>
> Agnes (II)'s pourparty was Dupeford, Shillingford and Wydden, with
> another ¼ fee somewhere held of John Ralegh. She died in 1182, age 11.
> Her pourparty is said to have returned to the Mertons and her cousin,
> Thomas de Merton.
>
> In which case, it's puzzling that Ivo was presenting in 1401.
> Perhaps it was in right of Maud's dower rather than Agnes' pourparty
> or perhaps there was litigation by Maud concerning it and her dower
> and she still had possession.
It sounds as though Maud's dower would be the most workable theory.
The posthumous daughter, with no elder full sisters, obviously makes it a
lot more plausible that Richard de Merton left a young widow, and thus that
Alexander's version is correct.
If Richard de Merton's widow was Maud, the daughter of Sir John Argentein
(d. 1382), then the posthumous daughter Agnes could have been named after
Maud's paternal grandmother Agnes de Bereford (who would still have been
alive at the time).
> The teenage widow may be back in the frame unless, of course, if she
> were born earlier. I suppose a Maud Argentein would have been able to
> marry Merton any time after the birth of Agnes (I) in 1357. Presumably
> the constraints on her birth that you have found come from the Darcy
> side. Could she have perhaps married Ivo's father-in-law, John
> Argentein, as his second wife and Ivo was presenting on behalf of his
> new mother-in-law?
The 1353-1363 timescale for Maud's birth came from her age as given in
various Argentein inquisitions. Looking at my notes again, though, it looks
as though this may be too late. John Argentein's marriage was granted to his
future father-in-law Robert Darcy in 1325, when John was 7, and I'd guess
the marriage took place in 1332, when John turned 14 and the reversion of
the manor of Dunston, in Lincolnshire, was settled by Robert Darcy on the
couple and on Margaret's heirs. Margaret was said to be aged 30 years and
more in 1343, so she was probably some years older than her husband.
Judging from the age of Richard de Merton's daughters, the eldest would be
born in the early 1350s, so I wonder if he was born rather later than the
estimate of 1310 quoted previously. A younger Richard and an older Maud
could maybe bring the couple within 10 years of each other.
Margaret Darcy survived her husband Sir John Argentein by nearly a year, so
at any rate it isn't a question of Merton's widow being a stepmother of the
Maud who married Sir Ivo FitzWarin.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
for information on the FitzWarins, and Ivor copied these to me. I managed to
look at several of these yesterday, and they seem to leave no doubt that the
information which Ivor quoted from Alexander was correct - viz, that Maud,
the daughter of Sir John Argentein, married firstly Richard de Merton (d.
1370), and after his death remarried to Sir Ives FitzWarin.
The most direct evidence is a licence for Maud, late the wife of Richard
Merton, 'chivaler', to marry Ivo Filz Waryn, 'chivaler', dated 20 January
1372 [Cal. Pat. R. 1370-1374, p. 166].
In combination with the evidence posted previously by Ivor, that in 1401 Sir
Ives presented to "Torrington
Rectory (or chapel) of St. James in the Castle of Chepyngtoryton", leaves no
doubt that the marriage took place and that Richard de Merton's widow Maud
is identical with Sir Ives' known wife, Maud Argentein.
One of the entries relating to the assignment of dower in 1371 to Maud, the
widow of Richard de Merton, does include the 3rd presentation to the church
of "Chepyngtoriton" and the 3rd presentation to the chantry of the chapel of
Chepyngtoriton castle [Cal. Close R. 1369-1374, p. 339].
Incidentally, another of Doug's references, the History of Parliament
article on Maud's illegitimate half-brother, Sir William Argentein, told me
something else I didn't know about the family. In addition to his first wife
Isabel Kerdeston and his later widow Margery Parles, a later pedigree
apparently implies that Sir William had an intermediate wife "Jane",
although I've never seen any contemporary evidence to support this.
The HOP article gives the following details:
[Sir William married] "(2) aft. 1399, Joan (d. 21 Mar. 1410), da. and coh.
of John Hadly of London, wid. of Sir William Pecche of Lullingstone, Kent,
1s (?d.v.p.)"
Further on, the text adds:
"Argentine's second marriage, to the widow of a Kentish landowner, gave him
an interest for life in a number of properties in the City of London, which
his wife inherited from her father, the wealthy grocer John Hadley."
And a footnote says:
"Corporation of London RO, hr 139/17-18. Giles Argentine, mentioned as a
beneficiary in Hadley's will in 1405, was evidently a child of this
marriage. He would appear to have died before his mother. Cal. Wills ct.
Hustings London ed. Sharpe, ii. 418."
Chris Phillips
Phil Moody
Argent(an) the King's steward" witnessing a charter dated 8 Feb. 1227 at
Westminster. I know it does not help this specific thread, but I thought I
would throw it out there anyway:-) I just picked this ref. up from the
library yesterday and recalled seeing the Husting while thrumming through it
last night; so I thought I would take a quick look for Argentan, and this
was the only ref. I found in the Index.
John Hadlee (Hadele, Hadle) is mentioned in three charters, one being dated
1385, but this man is called Mayor. None contain genealogical data.
The only Pecche (Pechche, Pecham) I find is for John Pechche, Mayor of
London, c. 36 Edw. III. Is it merely coincidence, or could the children of
both these Mayor's of London have married each other, Joan Hadly and William
Pecche?
What caught my eye last night was a Latin charter, in which "Mathilda
Secunda" is used, but I will save it for another thread:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:b3nfb6$kto$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Chris Phillips
Phil Moody wrote:
> FYI, I do find in "The cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldgate" a "Richard de
> Argent(an) the King's steward" witnessing a charter dated 8 Feb. 1227 at
> Westminster. I know it does not help this specific thread, but I thought I
> would throw it out there anyway:-) I just picked this ref. up from the
> library yesterday and recalled seeing the Husting while thrumming through
it
> last night; so I thought I would take a quick look for Argentan, and this
> was the only ref. I found in the Index.
>
> John Hadlee (Hadele, Hadle) is mentioned in three charters, one being
dated
> 1385, but this man is called Mayor. None contain genealogical data.
>
> The only Pecche (Pechche, Pecham) I find is for John Pechche, Mayor of
> London, c. 36 Edw. III. Is it merely coincidence, or could the children of
> both these Mayor's of London have married each other, Joan Hadly and
William
> Pecche?
Thank you for those details. The Richard de Argentein who was a royal
steward in the 1220s was the great great grandfather of Sir John Argentein,
the father of the Maud in this thread and of Sir William.
Chris Phillips
Susan Hicks
">
> Reverting to Clarice de Auberville: on looking at an older version of
> CP, I notice that she is attributed as wife to Fulk fitzWarin, d.1264.
> If it isn't shown as such in the current edition, presumably they have
> back-tracked for some reason or have left it indeterminate. It goes:
> "Fulk fitz-Warine, of Whittington and Alberbury, co.Salop., s.and h.
> of Fulk F. of the same, by Clarice [presumably de Auberville] his
> wife, suc. his father (who was slain, ex Parte Regis, in the battle of
> Lewes), 14 May 1264...",
Clarice D'Auberville was Fulke FitzWarin III's second wife. His son and
heir - Fulke IV who died at Lewes was by Fulke's first wife Matilda le
Vavasour, whose first marriage was to Theobald Walter, brother of Hubert
Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury. Matilda died in 1222.
Best
Susan H.