King John's grandson, Bishop Roger de Meulan, and the Bishop's Seacourt connection
Douglas Richardson
In the course of my research for the forthcoming 2nd edition of
Plantagenet Ancestry, I've turned up good evidence which indicates
that King John had a hitherto unknown grandson, Roger de Meulan,
Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. The connection between King John
and Bishop Roger de Meulan has been discussed in earlier posts here on
the newsgroup.
In more recent time, I've found additional evidence that Bishop Roger
de Meulan had an unknown sister, who was the wife of Sir William de
Seacourt, of Seacourt, Berkshire. I've copied below what information
I've collected regarding this sister and her two children, William (a
priest) and Denise (possibly wife of ____ le Poer or Poure).
The evidence which links Bishop Roger de Meulan to the Seacourt family
is a charter dated c.1282, by which Bishop Roger granted his nephew,
William de Seacourt, clerk, a house in the parish of All Saints,
Oxford. This charter is mentioned in the sources cited below.
The Seacourt family soon afterwards disappears from the records. The
Poure family is later found to be dealing with the Seacourt family
properties. My guess is that the Poure family descends from the
Bishop's niece, Denise de Seacourt. However, as far as I can tell,
the records do not appear to make the specific connection between the
Poure and Seacourt families.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + +
1. _____ DE MEULAN (female), married WILLIAM DE SEACOURT (or
SECKWORTH, SEUKEWORTH), Knt., of Seacourt, Berkshire, son and heir of
Robert de Seacourt (or Seckworth) (living 1208), of Seacourt,
Berkshire. They had one son, William (clerk) (living 1297), and one
daughter, Denise (living 1262) (possibly wife of _____ le Poer [or
Poure]). Sometime in the period, 1224–37, he gave the tithe of a
meadow in Seacourt, Berkshire held by Godstow Abbey to the church of
Seacourt, Berkshire. Sometime in the period, 1235–53, he gave the
nuns of Studley, Oxfordshire pasture for four oxen and one virgate of
land. SIR WILLIAM DE SEACOURT died before 1262.
References:
Dunkin, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Hundreds of Bullington & Ploughley 1
(1823): 134, 141, 143. Wood, Survey of the Antiqs. of the City of
Oxford 1 (Oxford Hist. Soc. 15) (1889): 79–80. Clark, English Reg. of
Godstow Nunnery 1 (1905): 42–44. VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 422.
Spiers, Round about ‘the Mitre’ at Oxford (1929): 9–10, 18.
John
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In the course of my research for the forthcoming 2nd edition of
> Plantagenet Ancestry,
Still "forthcoming"? Not quite what we were told on April 8 of this
year:
"My editor Kim Everingham is arriving on April 17th for a two week
stay
here in Salt Lake City. We hope to finish the final drafts and send
them off to the printers at that time. Once the drafts go to press,
it will take about four weeks for the books to be produced. I
anticipate having books in my hands ready to ship to people on or
about June 1st. " [end of quote]
As Yogi Berra would say, this is "deja vu all over again". The same
thing happened with the 1st edition of RPA in 2004 and, to a lesser
extent, MCA in 2005.
No doubt this will allow the author to continue to correct the errors
and omissions in the first editions - including those in the Courtenay
and Kekewich families which I pointed out last week.
As to those who have unwittingly pre-ordered these books expecting
delivery some time ago....caveat emptor.
Douglas Richardson
< As Yogi Berra would say, this is "deja vu all over again". The
same
< thing happened with the 1st edition of RPA in 2004 and, to a lesser
< extent, MCA in 2005.
Publishing books is hard work.
Volucris
bishop? She could have been a halfsister, thus no granddaughter King
John. I see only a statement and no evidence in your communication.
Hans Vogels
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your comment. Much appreciated.
Actually there are more serious problems here. First, Bowles &
Nichols, Annals & Antiquities of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164 report that
when Roger de Meulan (King John's grandson) was made a Bishop in 1257,
he knew very little of the English language. This implies that he was
a native of France, or that his native language was French. If so, it
seems unusual (but not impossible) that Bishop Roger would have a
sister married to an English knight who was active as an adult as
early as 1224–37, a full 20 years before Roger was made Bishop.
Second, it is stated that circa 1282 Bishop Roger de Meulan conveyed a
house in the parish of All Saints, Oxford to his "nephew," William de
Seacourt, a clerk. This comes from an actual charter. The charter is
doubtless in Latin. The Latin word used here for "nephew" was almost
certainly "nepos," which at this date could mean kinsman, nephew, or
grandson.
For an example of the broader meaning of the words, nepos/neptis, as
"kinsman"/"kinswoman" in English records as late as 1281, please see
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 632–633 (sub Geneville), where it is shown
that Joan de la Marche (or de Lusignan), widow of Bernard-Ezy,
seigneur of Albret, was styled “neptem” [kinswoman] by King Edward I
of England in 1281. The original record is found in Gascon Roll, 8–10
Edw. I, m. 10. Joan de la Marche was not certainly King Edward I's
niece. Rather she was his first cousin once removed. She
subsequently married Sir Peter de Geneville, and is the ancestress of
the later baronial Mortimer family.
While it is a common assumption that a bishop's "nepos" in 1282 would
be his blood nephew, given the other factors cited above, it seems to
be a safer approach to render the word "nepos" as used in the bishop's
charter dated c.1282 as "kinsman" rather than "nephew." If so, this
would make William de Seacourt the "kinsman" not "nephew" of Bishop
Roger de Meulan.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
1
Volucris
Thanks for your enlightment.
Hans Vogels
> 1- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Douglas Richardson
Here is a contemporary record which relates to Sir William de Seacourt
(or Seckworth, Seukeworth), Knt., of Seacourt, Berkshire, whose son,
William de Seacourt, clerk, was called "nepos" [kinsman] by Bishop
Roger de Meulan, grandson of King John.
Roberts, Excerpta è rotulis finium in Turri Londinensi asservatis,
Henrico Tertio rege, AD 1216–1272, volume 1 (1835): 411.
In this record dated 1244, we find the following:
"Phillip de Cumberwell’ and Maud, his wife, give half a mark for
having a precipe [to remove a plea] against William de Sevekewurth’
from the county court of Berkshire to [the justices of the Bench at]
Westminster. Order to the sheriff of Berkshire etc."
Colin B. Withers
Three of the charters have been printed in 'An History of the original parish of Whalley...', Thomas D. Whitaker, pages 323-326, from the original in Lansd. Mss 405, f. 43b et seq,
http://www.archive.org/stream/historyoforigina00whituoft#page/n9/mode/2up
and the fourth in the Monasticon, page 138, from the original formerly in St. Mary's Tower, York,
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VvpAAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
I have found conflicting sources concerning Roger's death, ranging from 1226 to 1245, which given that he died without issue would rule out any confusion with a son of the same name.
1226: Wikipedia, (quoting The National Society Magna Charta Dames and Barons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_de_Montbegon
1227: Corrections to K S B Keats-Rohan's, "Domesday Descendants", p. 961, http://fmg.ac/Projects/Domesday/Desc4.htm
1245: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/93/93691.html
Whitaker, in his "History of Whalley", p. 323 (link above), has Roger still alive in 1236, as he gives the approx date for Roger's second charter as circa 1236
I think the 1226/7 date to be the nearest, as the V.C.H. Lancs. i, 312, 319. says that "Dower in Tottington was claimed in 1233 by Olive, widow of Roger de Montbegon".
Does anyone have any further sources or insight into Roger de Montbegon year of death, or the dates of the charters to Monk Bretton Priory?
Wibs
John Watson
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Here is a contemporary record which relates to Sir William de Seacourt
> (or Seckworth, Seukeworth), Knt., of Seacourt, Berkshire, whose son,
> William de Seacourt, clerk, was called "nepos" [kinsman] by Bishop
> Roger de Meulan, grandson of King John.
>
>
> Roberts, Excerpta è rotulis finium in Turri Londinensi asservatis,
> Henrico Tertio rege, AD 1216–1272, volume 1 (1835): 411.
>
> In this record dated 1244, we find the following:
>
> "Phillip de Cumberwell’ and Maud, his wife, give half a mark for
> having a precipe [to remove a plea] against William de Sevekewurth’
> from the county court of Berkshire to [the justices of the Bench at]
> Westminster. Order to the sheriff of Berkshire etc."
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hi Douglas,
The Google book page link given in your post is incorrect. It should
be:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mDsLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA411
But why bother - for Fine Rolls of Henry III, there are perfectly good
English translations online:
[No date]. Berkshire. Phillip de Cumberwell’ and Matilda, his wife,
give half a mark for having a precipe [to remove a plea] against
William de Sevekewurth’ from the county court of Berkshire to [the
justices of the Bench at] Westminster. Order to the sheriff of
Berkshire etc.
CFR, 28 Henry III, 72
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_041.html
Oh - I see that's where your translation came from.
Regards,
John
John Watson
wrote:
> I am trying to date four charters by Roger de Montbegon to Monk Bretton Priory (West Riding of Yorkshire).
>
>
> and the fourth in the Monasticon, page 138, from the original formerly in St. Mary's Tower, York,http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VvpAAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&s...
>
> I have found conflicting sources concerning Roger's death, ranging from 1226 to 1245, which given that he died without issue would rule out any confusion with a son of the same name.
>
>
> 1227: Corrections to K S B Keats-Rohan's, "Domesday Descendants", p. 961,http://fmg.ac/Projects/Domesday/Desc4.htm
>
> 1245: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/93/93691.html
>
> Whitaker, in his "History of Whalley", p. 323 (link above), has Roger still alive in 1236, as he gives the approx date for Roger's second charter as circa 1236
>
> I think the 1226/7 date to be the nearest, as the V.C.H. Lancs. i, 312, 319. says that "Dower in Tottington was claimed in 1233 by Olive, widow of Roger de Montbegon".
>
> Does anyone have any further sources or insight into Roger de Montbegon year of death, or the dates of the charters to Monk Bretton Priory?
>
> Wibs
Hi Colin,
It seems that Roger de Montbegon III died before 14 September 1227.
"The third Roger de Montbegon also granted to the priory the advowson
of Melling church and presumably that of Tunstall. The former had
belonged to the Norman abbey of Sées as part of the endowment of its
cell at Lancaster, but was transferred to Roger before 1210 in
consideration of a yearly pension of 2s. from the church to Lancaster
Priory and his renunciation of all claim upon the chapel of
Gressingham, hitherto dependent upon Melling. Roger dying without
issue, his lands passed to his kinsman Henry de Monewden, who on 14
September, 1227, alienated the Lonsdale estates, including Hornby
Castle and the advowsons of the priory and of Melling, to Hubert de
Burgh and his wife Margaret."
'Houses of Premonstratensian canons: The priory of Hornby', A History
of the County of Lancaster: Volume 2 (1908), pp. 160-161.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=38356
Regards,
John
John Watson
Roger de Montbegon died before 30 March 1226:
[30 Mar 1226?] Concerning the lands formerly of Roger de Montbegon, to
be taken into the king’s hand. Order to the keeper of the honour of
Lancaster to take into the king’s hand the lands that Roger de
Montbegon held of the king in chief in Tunnet and in Thorpe and,
immediately afterwards, give that land to J. constable of Chester to
keep, so that he answers for it to the king until the king orders
otherwise.
CFR, 10 Henry III, No. 126
6 April 1226, 6 April. Bromholm. Concerning the castle and manor of
Hornby , committed to W. earl Warenne. To the keeper of the honour of
Lancaster . The king has committed to W. earl Warenne the castle and
manor of Hornby with appurtenances, formerly of Roger de Montbegon,
which are in the king’s hand by reason of the death of the same Roger.
Order to cause him to have full seisin of the aforesaid manor with
appurtenances so that he answers for it at the king’s will, and if he
removed any of the chattels or property found in that manor after
Roger’s death, he is to cause all to be rendered to the same earl
without delay.
CFR, 10 Henry III, No. 132
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_024.html
Regards,
John
Colin B. Withers
I had not thought of the Fine Rolls. I went straight to the IPMs, and finding that they start after 1227, and with no mention of Roger (directly or indirectly) in the first volume anyway, I thought that resource was a dead-end.
Now that the year of Roger's death is confirmed as shortly before March 1226, I now know that the Richard Blanchard who witnessed one of Roger's charters to Monks Bretton priory was one of Roger's subtenants in Lincolnshire, who also witnessed grants of Roger's lands there.
I must now try to think why dom. Richard Blanchard, knight, one of Roger's Lincolnshire subtenants, is witnessing Roger's grants of land in West Yorkshire??
Wibs
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_024.html
Regards,
John
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Douglas Richardson
There are two additional items pertaining to the family of Sir William
de Seacourt of Seacourt, Berkshire which are available on Google
Books. These item are found in Clanchy, Roll & Writ of the Berkshire
Eyre of 1248 (Selden Soc. 90) (1973): 65, 457. These items indicate
that Sir William de Seacourt was living in 1248, and had two sons,
Nicholas and William.
The weblink for these two items is:
From what I can tell of the snippet view of page 65, an assize was
brought in 1248 to determine if William de "Seukewurth" [Seacourt] and
his sons, Nicholas and William, had unjustly disseised Richard le
Butyler (or Butiler) and Maud his wife of a free tenement in Seacourt,
Berkshire.
As I indicated earlier in this thread, William de Seacourt, the
younger son of Sir William de Seacourt, was styled "nepos" [kinsman]
by Roger de Meulan (died 1295), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield,
which Bishop Roger was a grandson of King John.
Douglas Richardson
While doing a Google Book search searching for someone else, I came
across a record involving Bishop Roger de Meulan and a tenement in
Seacourt, Berkshire. This item is found in Annual Report of the
Deputy Keeper, 44 (1883): 235, which may be viewed at the following
weblink:
According to this record, William son of Richard le Botiller arraigned
an assise of novel disseisin in 1274-5 against Roger [de Meulan],
Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and others regarding a tenement in
Seacourt ["Senetworth"], Berkshire.
The place name "Senetworth" is so badly mangled that I would almost
not recognize it. However, the next suit mentioned involves the same
plaintiff at "Sennekworth," Berkshire. Sennekworth is obviously much
closer to Seukeworth and other variants of the Seacourt name. Also I
might note that in 1248 the plaintiff's father, Richard le Botiller,
sued Sir William de Seacourt, regarding a tenement in Seacourt,
Berkshire, as noted in an earlier post
I assume what we are seeing here is that Sir William de Seacourt has
died, and that Bishop Roger de Meulan "and others" are acting either
as his feoffees or his executors.
If nothing else, we have here yet another connection between the
Seacourt family and Bishop Roger de Meulan.
Question now is: How was Bishop Roger de Meulan related to the
Seacourt family?
If Bishop Roger was "uncle" to Sir William de Seacourt's son, William,
then I assume Sir William de Seacourt's wife was the Bishop's sister
or half-sister. Chronologically there are some problems with this
scenario.
If Bishop Roger was "cousin" to Sir William de Seacourt's son,
William, then this might be a clue to the identity of King John's
mistress, who was Bishop Roger's grandmother.