Possible Identification of Maud (___) (de Audley) de Deiville
The...@aol.com
Dear Rosie, Doug, Chris, Mardi, Brom, Tim, Leo, Ian, et al.,
The account of the career of John de Deiville, or d'Eiville
(d. bef Oct 1291) in CP provides no information concerning the
parentage of his first wife Maud, stating briefly,
" He m., 1stly (pardon for marrying without lic.,
5 Feb. 1275/6),(i), before 8 May 1275 (i), Maud,
widow of James d'Audithelegh, or d'Audelegh, of
Audley, co. Stafford, which James d. shortly
before 7 Nov. 1273 (j). He m., 2ndly, Alice.
[NOTES from CP:]
(i) Fine Roll, 4 Edw. I, m. 29; Close Roll, 3 Edw.
I, m. 17 d.
(j) Fine Roll, 1 Edw. I, m. 2. See AUDLEY. " [1]
Given the lack of detail provided, and such an unusual
name as Maud <!>, the wife of James de Audley and John
d'Eiville would seem to be relegated to the realm of the
unidentifiable.
However, I would like to propose a possible (and hopefully
verifiable) solution: that Maud was the daughter of Roger de
Mowbray (d.ca. Nov 1266), likely by his wife Maud de Beauchamp.
1. Sir James de Audley and Roger de Mowbray were of
approximately the same age. Sir James de Audley was
born in 1220, and married to his wife Ela Longespee in
1244. Roger de Mowbray was likely born on or before 20
May 1220, as he had livery of his lands on that date in
1241 [2].
2. James de Audley, son of Sir James and Ela Longespee,
was born in 1250. Roger de Mowbray, known issue of
Roger and Maud de Beauchamp, was born most likely in
on before 1257 (his homage taken by the king in 1278).
James can then be identified as being reasonably
contemporaneous with the issue (known and unknown)
of Roger de Mowbray and his wife Maud de Beauchamp [3].
3. The families of Sir James de Audley and Roger de
Mowbray were of more than passing acquaintance.
Maud was the daughter of William de Beauchamp of
Bedford, likely by his 2nd wife Ida Longespee,
a daughter of the well-known William Longespee,
Earl of Salisbury (d. 7 Mar 1225/6). Sir James'
wife Ela was a daughter of Sir William Longespee of
Amesbury, Trowbridge and Aldbourne, co. Wilts.,
(slain 7 Feb 1249/50), eldest son of Earl William
and elder brother of the abovementioned Ida. The
wives of Sir James de Audley and Roger de Mowbray
were then first cousins [4].
4. Sir James and Roger were closely associated in their
careers. CP states that Roger de Mowbray " in 1260
was ordered to be at Chester to serve against the
Welsh (a), being appointed in Dec. with James de
Audley to dictate, on the King's behalf, the terms
of the truce with Llewelyn (b)." [5]
In addition to his son and heir Roger (fl. ca. 1257-ca.
1297), Roger de Mowbray is said to have had three daughters,
'of whom Joan m. Robert de Mohaut' [6]. Joan has been
identified as a daughter of Roger de Mowbray by an earlier wife,
a daughter of Thomas de Furnival [7]; in addition, Isabel (alias
Elizabeth), wife of Adam de Newmarch, has been identified as a
daughter of Roger de Mowbray as well [8]. The third daughter of
Roger de Mowbray has not been explicitly identified in a known
source according to my records. I therefore propose that she
was likely Maud, wife of James de Audley and Robert d'Eiville,
as shown above.
In the event this proposed identification is proven, the
ancestry of a significant number of individuals would be
affected. Sir John d'Eiville and his wife Maud were the
ancestors of the later Lords Deiville, Lords Morley, the
families of Hastings of Elsing and Gressenhall, Wingfield of
Letheringham, and far too many others to enumerate. I believe
there is a Hastings descent to Queen Elizabeth II: perhaps
someone with a more extensive Hanoverian or Windsor database
could report on the correctness of this statement/alleged
ancestry.
The foregoing is a conjecture, and subject to further study
and documentation (or refutation). As always, any relevant
documentation, comment or criticism is welcome.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] CP IV:132 and notes. The account under AUDLEY (CP I:338)
provides no further details, or sources.
[2] CP I:337 (Audley), IX:375 (Mowbray).
[3] Ibid. See also CP IX:376.
[4] CP I:338 (Audley), IX:376 (Mowbray). As to the parentage
of Maud de Beauchamp, see the many threads re: the
Longespee family on SGM, including (1) Alan Wilson, <Re:
Lanvallei + Beauchamp + Mowbray>, 17 Sept 1998; (2) Rosie
Bevan, <Re: Payn de Beauchamp>, 1 Feb. 2002; and (3)
Douglas Richardson, <Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation>,
8 Sept 2002.
[5] CP IX:376, citing (a) Foedera, vol. i, p. 399; (b) Close
Roll, 45 Hen. III, m. 23. They were to be met at the
ford of Montgomery by John de Lingayn and others. Roger
was given a robe for Christmas (Idem, m. 21).
[6] CP IX:376, note (h).
[7] Douglas Richardson, <New Evidence for Newmarch-Mowbray
Marriage>, 27 March 2002.
[8] Ibid. Also, Dugdale, Baronage of England (sub Newmarch).
* John P. Ravilious
Peter Stewart
Neglected Rebel', in _Northern History_ 34 (1998), with a number of
references cited beyond the few given in CP.
It's a while since I read this & other articles by Oscar de Ville on the
Deyville family, and from memory he didn't attempt to fix Maud's
ackground - however, it's difficult to see what the Mowbrays could have
hoped to gain from such a marriage. From my notes, John got the
wherewithal from Maud's dower to clear a debt of 40 pounds in 1275 but
then had to pay a fine of 200 marks shortly afterwards for marrying her
without the king's license. Maybe not a great bargain on his side either...
Peter Stewart
John Ravilious
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the de Ville reference. I had noted references Oscar
de Ville's work on John d'Eiville (his Ph.D. as well as a few
published articles) but have yet to find a nearby source for access
(most problematically, not indexed at LOC).
I had not touched on the d'Eiville connection in the earlier
post, primarily as it did not directly touch on the Mowbray-de Audley
connection. However, the Mowbray-d'Eiville relationship was such that
the marriage of John d'Eiville (d. bef Oct 1291) to a Mowbray daughter
would have been quite logical.
The d'Eiville lands at Egmanton, Notts. & c. were not held in chief,
but were in fact held of 'the lord of Mowbray' (see CP, sub Deiville).
John d'Eiville himself had more than a passing acquaintance with the
Mowbray seat in the Isle of Axholme: this was his base, in fact, when
in rebellion against the King together with the younger Simon de
Montfort (1265), and as late as the occupation of Southwark together
with Gilbert de Clare, E of Gloucester in April 1267.
Despite his earlier rebellion, John d'Eiville was able to move
from being the most heavily fined (and non-executed) rebel in 1267, to
being a knight banneret of King Edward I in 1284-5 (M. Prestwich,
Edward I, p. 149). His marriage in 1275 to the widowed sister of his
overlord would not evidently have excited much royal displeasure
(except the evident, yet 'typical' failure to obtain the required
royal licence).
I will continue checking for potential access to de Ville's work,
and advise of any movement forward. Meanwhile, should anyone else of
the list have an opportunity, the identified work of de Ville being
sought:
Oscar De Ville, "Deyville (or de Daiville): Origins of an
English Regional Family", Medieval Prosopography 18, 1997,
pp. 1-24
Oscar de Ville, "John Deyville: A Neglected Rebel", Northern
History v.34 (1998), p. 17-40 [* Thanks, Peter]
Oscar de Ville, "Jocelyn Deyville: Brigand, Or Man of his
Time?", Northern History v.35 (1999) p. 27-49
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<EFBpc.40883$TT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> A useful starting point might be OHG de Ville's paper, 'John Deyville: a
> Neglected Rebel', in _Northern History_ 34 (1998), with a number of
> references cited beyond the few given in CP.
>
> It's a while since I read this & other articles by Oscar de Ville on the
> Deyville family, and from memory he didn't attempt to fix Maud's
> ackground - however, it's difficult to see what the Mowbrays could have
> hoped to gain from such a marriage. From my notes, John got the
> wherewithal from Maud's dower to clear a debt of 40 pounds in 1275 but
> then had to pay a fine of 200 marks shortly afterwards for marrying her
> without the king's license. Maybe not a great bargain on his side either...
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
> The...@aol.com wrote:
> > Saturday, 15 May, 2004
> >
> >
> > Dear Rosie, Doug, Chris, Mardi, Brom, Tim, Leo, Ian, et al.,
> >
> > The account of the career of John de Deiville, or d'Eiville
> > (d. bef Oct 1291) in CP provides no information concerning the
> > parentage of his first wife Maud, stating briefly,
SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>
John Ravilious
Dear Peter, Louise, et al.,
A furtive fossick this week at the LOC did in fact locate two of
Oscar De Ville's articles - luckily the two most sought, "Deyville
(or de Daiville): Origins of an English Regional Family", and "John
Deyville: A Neglected Rebel".
Unfortunately, Peter, your memory was sound in regards to the
details (or lack thereof) provided re: John d'Eiville's wife Maud.
However, part of De Ville's "Origins" article is of interest in this
regard, as to the flavour given re: John d'Eiville, Maud, and the
Mowbrays, as follows [discussing initially John's reconciliation and
the terms of his pardon, approx. 1268-1272]:
" There was also little protection to be had from his lords,
the Mowbrays, over this period, since that baronial family
had been in eclipse for some time. Roger de Mowbray died in
1266 after making little mark and his son, also Roger, did
not do homage until the end of his minority in 1278 <89>.
As a military man, and perhaps a poor administrator, John
continued to face complex indebtedness. This was temporarily
relieved by his marriage in 1275 to Maud, widow of James de
Audley the younger, from which he shared with her one-third
of James' estate <90>. However, the marriage was not
licensed by the king, and John was fined a further 200
marks <91>. This was imposed after an assessment of his
Yorkshire estates of Kilburn, Thornton, and Adlingfleet at
£77 2s. 3 1/2 d. a year and an acknowledgement of debts
to Jews <92>. Even so, a year after the marriage, on 10
September 1276, John was able to pay 578 marks, almost
£400, to the abbot of Saint Mary's York, presumably the
final redemption payment to the queen <93>. In so doing
he gained the right to re-occupy his Yorkshire manor of
Thornton-on-the-Hill on 20 September <94>. "
As you said, Peter, "it's difficult to see what the Mowbrays
could have hoped to gain from such a marriage", but then as noted by
De Ville, the Mowbrays (headed by the minor Roger de Mowbray ca.
1268-1275) were in no position of significance at the time. John
d'Eiville had headquartered himself at the Isle of Axholme (the
Mowbray caput) during his extended rebellion after Evesham, 1265-
1267: it may be that the Mowbrays were little higher in the royal
favour than d'Eiville himself. John d'Eiville was familiar with the
Mowbray family, esp. with Roger de Mowbray (d. 1266) and then the
younger Roger as his successive lords, and likely with the Mowbray
family in general. With Maud d'Audley being widowed for over a year
in early 1275 [2], she was certainly available, as was the income
from her dower lands in Shropshire and Staffordshire. Given his
financial difficulties, and Maud's availability, this was a match
made in the Exchequer's office, if not in heaven.
It's not a far leap to conceive John d'Eiville and Maud (de
Mowbray ?) de Audley making (or remaking) their acquaintance at
Axholme or elsewhere in the Mowbray domain. A marriage to him would
have been an acceptable (not great) catch for Maud at the time, but
then, "Maybe not a great bargain on his side either..." [3]
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] Oscar De Ville, "Deyville (or de Daiville): Origins of an
English Regional Family", _Medieval Prosopography_ (1997),
18:14-15. The discussion re: his marriage to Maud is essentially
the same in his other article, given in _Northern History_
(1998), XXXIV:35
The notes to this article read as follows:
<89> CCR 1272-1279, pp. 417, 481.
<90> CCR 1272-1279, pp. 232.
<91> Calendar of Fine Rolls (CFR) 1:65 (1272-1307).
<92> CIM 1:300, p. 232.
<93> CCR 1272-1279, pp. 428-29.
<94> CCR 1272-1279, p. 402.
[2] James de Audley, 'the younger', died on or before
16 Jan 1273/4 [CP I:338].
[3] Peter Stewart, <Re: Possible Identification of Maud (___) (de
Audley) de Deiville>, SGM, 15 May 2004.
* John P. Ravilious
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<EFBpc.40883$TT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> A useful starting point might be OHG de Ville's paper, 'John Deyville: a
> Neglected Rebel', in _Northern History_ 34 (1998), with a number of
> references cited beyond the few given in CP.
>
> It's a while since I read this & other articles by Oscar de Ville on the
> Deyville family, and from memory he didn't attempt to fix Maud's
> ackground - however, it's difficult to see what the Mowbrays could have
> hoped to gain from such a marriage. From my notes, John got the
> wherewithal from Maud's dower to clear a debt of 40 pounds in 1275 but
> then had to pay a fine of 200 marks shortly afterwards for marrying her
> without the king's license. Maybe not a great bargain on his side either...
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
> The...@aol.com wrote:
> > Saturday, 15 May, 2004
> >
> >
> > Dear Rosie, Doug, Chris, Mardi, Brom, Tim, Leo, Ian, et al.,
<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>
