Vernon pedigrees

[Janelle Swearingen]

I have run across two pedigrees of the Vernons who were owners of Haddon Hall. As you can see most match, but there are some differences. Any comments? Both of these go on for a few generations more.

Any comments on the differences? Note numbers 4-6, 9. Does anyone know who Joan was in #7 in the first and #6 in the second.

First from the Haddon Hall website: http://www.haddonhall.co.uk/history-and-virtual-tour/owners-of-haddon-hall

1. Sir Richard de Vernon I m. Avice Avenell
2. Sir William de Vernon I m. Margaret Stockport
3. Sir Richard de Vernon II m. Helewise dau of Richard de Germon (and on the same line) Robert de Vernon m. Hawise de Brailsford
4. Sir Gilbert le Franceys m. Hawise de Vernon
5. Sir Richard le Frances/de Vernon III m. Isabel Harcla
6. Sir Richard de Vernon IV m. Matilda dau of William de Camville
7. Sir William de Vernon II m. Joan (does anyone know who this Joan was?)
8. Sir Richard Vernon V m. Juliana dau of Sir Fulk de Pembridgge of Tong Castle
9. Sir Richard de Vernon VI m. Johanna dau of Rhys de Gifford and heiress of Roger de Stackpole
10. Sir Richard de Vernon VII m. Benedicta daughter of John de Ludlow of Hodnet
11. Sir William Vernon III m. Margaret dau of William Swynfen and heiress of Sir Robert Pype
12. Sir Henry Vernon m. Lady Ann Talbot dau of Earl Shrewsbury
13. Sir Henry Vernon m. Margaret dau. of Sir Robert Dymok
14. Sir George Vernon m. Margaret, daughter of Sir George Tallboys
Then Haddon Hall passed to the Manners and Rutland families


>From The History and Antiquities of Haddon Hall by S. Rayner, 1836 (On Archive.org)

1. Richard de Vernon m. Avicia dau of Wlliam Avenel of Haddon
2. William de Vernon m. Margery daughter of Robert Stockport
3. Richard de Vernon m. Isabel dau of ___de Germon
4. Sir Richard de Vernon m. Felicia dau of Lexinton de Vessy
5. Richard de Vernon m. Maud dau of William de Camville
6. William de Vernon m. ?
7. Sir Richard de Vernon m. Juliana sister and heir of Sir Fulk de Pembruge
8. Sir Richard de Vernon [no wife given]
9. Sir Richard de Vernon m. Benedicta dau of Sir John Ludlow of Hodnet and Stokesay, Salop.
10. Sir William Vernon m. Margaret Swinfen
11. Sir Henry Vernon m. Anne dau of John Talbot 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury
12. Sir John Vernon m. Ellen dau of Sir John Montgomery
Then passed to the Manners family

Janelle

[taf]

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 7:52:52 AM UTC-8, Janelle Swearingen wrote:
> I have run across two pedigrees of the Vernons who were owners of Haddon
> Hall. As you can see most match, but there are some differences. Any
> comments?

Have you looked in the group archive? I know we talked about this family in the 90s.

> Any comments on the differences? Note numbers 4-6, 9. Does anyone know
> who Joan was in #7 in the first and #6 in the second.

It has been a while since I looked, but the first is the better of the two. The later family descends from Fraunceys by marriage to the Vernon heiress.

> First from the Haddon Hall website:

> 9. Sir Richard de Vernon VI m. Johanna dau of Rhys de Gifford and heiress > of Roger de Stackpole

That should be Rhys ap Griffith and Robert Stackpole - we just talked about this in the past couple of weeks.

taf

[taf]

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 8:46:18 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> Have you looked in the group archive? I know we talked about this
> family in the 90s.

Unfortunately, much of this discussion was lost from the archive through a combination of a wonky gateway and the Deja.com crash. I only found 3 posts in the Rootsweb archive from 1996 that discuss the question (searching "Vernon AND (Fraunceys OR Franceys)". There was some discussion in the early 00s that can still be found at both Rootsweb and Google.

taf

[Janelle Swearingen]

Thanks, The Griffon/Griffith was a typo on my part. I was looking at a poor
pale copy, but the Roger/Robert Stackpole was what it said, so I'll change
it on my copy.
I'm glad I can get the archives again. A day or two ago when I tried, no
matter what I entered in the search, it directed me to Fold3, which of
course has no English records or material.

Janelle

[John Watson]

Dear Janelle,

For a well researched account of the family of Vernon of Haddon Hall, Derbyshire, see: -
W. A. Carrington, "Haddon: the hall, the manor and its lords," Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 22 (1900) pp. 1-29.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/022/DAJ_v022_1900_001-029.pdf

For a rather more rambling account of the early Vernon family, see also: -
John Pym Yeatman, "The Vernons of Haddon Hall," Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 15 (1893), pp. 179-196.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/015/DAJ_v015_1893_179-196.pdf

For various members of the family: -
J. S. Roskell, "Sir Richard Vernon of Haddon, Speaker in the Parliament of Leicester 1426," Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 82 (1962), pp. 43-53.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/082/DAJ_v082_1962_043-053.pdf

H. Kirke, "Sir Henry Vernon of Haddon," Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 42 (1920), pp. 1-17.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/042/DAJ_v042_1920_001-017.pdf

G. Le B. Smith, "Dorothy Vernon, heiress of Haddon," Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 30 (1908),pp. 97-102.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/030/DAJ_v030_1908_097-102.pdf

Regards,

John

[Vance Mead]

I just happened to come across this entry and remembered this discussion. This is Michaelmas term, 1455.

London. Thomas Gay, of London, tailor, versus William Vernon, of Haddon, Derbs, knight, son and heir of Richard Vernon, knight, former treasurer of the town and march of Calais, for a debt of 19 pounds 10 shillings 8 pence.


second entry
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no779/bCP40no779dorses/IMG_0156.htm

[John Watson]

There's another interesting Vernon article here which also gives some details of the Franceys/Fraunceys family.

Frederick W. Ragg, "Maud's Meaburn and Newby: de Veteripont, le Franceys, and de Vernon," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological Society, 12 (1912), 312-396.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2055-1/dissemination/pdf/Article_Level_Pdf/tcwaas/002/1912/vol12/tcwaas_002_1912_vol12_0029.pdf

Regards,
John

[Patricia Junkin]

These families were closely related. I believe the Richard Vernon who married Margaret Vipont was son of Richard by Helewise. Margaret was not from the line of Robert Vipont but rather his brother, Ivo.
I must check the dates and believe some discussion of this Margaret is in the archives.
Pat
Sent from my iPhone

> -------------------------------
> 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

[John Watson]

On Saturday, 4 March 2017 22:52:52 UTC+7, Janelle Swearingen wrote:

Dear Janelle, here are the first 10 generations with some dates and further details: -

Vernon of Haddon, Derbyshire and Harlaston, Staffordshire.
1. Sir Richard de Vernon I (c. 1160 – c.1207), m., bef. 1181, Avice dau. of William Avenel by Hawise Waard. He was Sheriff of Lancaster from July 1189, to Easter 1194 and 1200 to Easter 1205.

2. Sir William de Vernon (c. 1182-bef. 1242) m.1, Margaret dau. of Robert de Stockport by Maud dau. of Richard fitz Roger, m. 2, Alice, who survived him. He was Justice of Chester from 1229 to 1232.

3. (a) Sir Richard de Vernon II (c. 1210-c. 1269 d.s.p) m,. Hawise dau. of Richard Gernon by Joan de Morville.
(b) Robert de Vernon ( -bef. 1257) m. ?

4. Hawise de Vernon, (c. 1242-bef. 1278) dau. of Robert de Vernon m., abt. Aug 1257, Gilbert son of Adam le Fraunceys ( -d. bef. 15 Mar 1278 (date of ipm)).

5. Sir Richard de Vernon III, (19 May 1263-bef. Jun 1329) m., Feb 1278, Isabel dau. of Michael de Harcla, who survived him.

6. Richard de Vernon IV, (c. 1285-bef 3 Feb , 1323 (date of writ) d.v.p) m.1, bef. Jan 1292, Eleanor dau. of Giles de Fenes, m.2, Maud one of the 5 daus and co-heirs of William de Camville, she was living in Jan 1348.

7. Sir William de Vernon (c. 1312-bef. Oct 1338) m. Joan who survived him. She was living in October 1346.

8. Sir Richard de Vernon V (c. 1330-15 Sep 1376) m. Juliana, dau. of Robert de Pembridge, sister and sole heiress of Sir Fulk de Pembridge of Tong (d. 24 May 1409) when she was said to be aged 60.

9. Sir Richard Vernon VI (c. 1365-c. 1401) m. Joan dau. of Rhys ap Griffith by Joan de Somerville, she was living in 1421. [Note that this Richard was not the person executed for treason after the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, who was Sir Richard Vernon of Shipbrook, Cheshire].

10. Sir Richard Vernon VII (c. 1390-c. Sep 1451) m. bef. 1410, Benedicta (d. 1444) dau. of Sir John de Ludlow of Stokesay and Hodnet, Shropshire. Speaker of the Commons in 1426.

Hope this is of some help.

Regards,
John

[taf]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:40:30 PM UTC-8, John Watson wrote:

> Dear Janelle, here are the first 10 generations with some dates and
> further details: -
>
> Vernon of Haddon, Derbyshire and Harlaston, Staffordshire.
> 1. Sir Richard de Vernon I (c. 1160 – c.1207), m., bef. 1181, Avice
> dau. of William Avenel by Hawise Waard. He was Sheriff of Lancaster
> from July 1189, to Easter 1194 and 1200 to Easter 1205.
>
> 2. Sir William de Vernon (c. 1182-bef. 1242) m.1, Margaret dau. of
> Robert de Stockport by Maud dau. of Richard fitz Roger, m. 2, Alice,
> who survived him. He was Justice of Chester from 1229 to 1232.
>
> 3. (a) Sir Richard de Vernon II (c. 1210-c. 1269 d.s.p) m,. Hawise dau.
> of Richard Gernon by Joan de Morville.
> (b) Robert de Vernon ( -bef. 1257) m. ?
>
> 4. Hawise de Vernon, (c. 1242-bef. 1278) dau. of Robert de Vernon m.,
> abt. Aug 1257, Gilbert son of Adam le Fraunceys ( -d. bef. 15 Mar 1278
> (date of ipm)).
>
> 5. Sir Richard de Vernon III, (19 May 1263-bef. Jun 1329) m., Feb 1278,
> Isabel dau. of Michael de Harcla, who survived him.

How do you harmonize this with the Plea Roll case from 4 Edward II in which the Prior of Malverne sued Richard de Vernon over the next presentation to Pychecote, and in his response Vernon provides a pedigree naming his great-grandmother Maud de Vernon, mother of Richard dsp and Robert, who was father of Hawyse wife of Geoffrey Fraunceys, parents of the said Robert? Do you think he just gave her the wrong name?

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000015869746;view=1up;seq=442
https://archive.org/stream/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich#page/534/mode/2up/search/vernon

taf

[John Watson]

Hi Todd,

I read it a few times and also looked to what Ragg had to say about the case.

Frederick W. Ragg, "Maud's Meaburn and Newby: de Veteripont, le Franceys, and de Vernon," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 12 (1912), 312-396.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2055-1/dissemination/pdf/Article_Level_Pdf/tcwaas/002/1912/vol12/tcwaas_002_1912_vol12_0029.pdf

He suggests that Richard de Vernon was mistaken about his great-grandmother's name and that she was Margaret, not Maud. Richard also gets his grandfather's name wrong at one point in the transcript of the case. Ragg also points out some of the chronological difficulties with Richard's testimony.

The other possibility is that William de Vernon had three wives, Margaret de Stockport, Maud and Alice and that Maud was the mother of Robert de Vernon.

There is no other evidence of William de Vernon having a wife named Maud, so I think that the balance of possibilities is that Richard was mistaken about his great-grandmother's name.

After writing the above article, Ragg discovered a deed dated 1 August 1257 of an agreement between John le Fraunceys and Richard de Vernon by which Richard de Vernon gives his niece Hawys, daughter of Robert de Vernon, in marriage to Gilbert, son of Adam le Fraunceys and nephew of John. John le Fraunceys endows Gilbert with land in Routhcliff or Meaburn for the dowry of Hawys, and Richard endows Hawys with Pitchcott in Buckinghamshire. Hawys is described as heir apparent of Richard de Vernon. This was published in 1916.

Frederick W. Ragg, "Early Lowther and de Louther," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 16 (1916), 167.
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-2055-1/dissemination/pdf/Article_Level_Pdf/tcwaas/002/1916/vol16/tcwaas_002_1916_vol16_0010.pdf

Regards,

John

[Matthew Connolly]

Hi John,

FWIW, here is my attempt to deconstruct that troublesome plea roll pedigree with taf in 2005:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-01/1106566753

Additional to your Vernon pedigree, (3b.) Robert did marry Hawise Brailsford, as in the Haddon version - Luke Potter kindly provided the source here:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-03/1109860887

Also, (9.) Sir Richard VI died 25 July 1400 per his Cheshire IPM, given in Earwaker's 'East Cheshire' (1880) vol.ii p.50.

Best wishes - Matthew

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 4:24:32 AM UTC-8, John Watson wrote:
> He suggests that Richard de Vernon was mistaken about his great-
> grandmother's name and that she was Margaret, not Maud. Richard also
> gets his grandfather's name wrong at one point in the transcript of the
> case.

Well, the scribe writes it wrong, but I am not sure it was Richard himself who got it wrong. The Yearbook abstactor got it further confused, making Robert son of Richard son of Maud.

> Ragg also points out some of the chronological difficulties with
> Richard's testimony.
>
> The other possibility is that William de Vernon had three wives, Margaret
> de Stockport, Maud and Alice and that Maud was the mother of Robert de
> Vernon.

This would seem inconsistent. Maud is said to have nominated the incumbent, but this would have had to be as widow, or William himself would have acted. Maud could be a mistake for Alice, but adding her in as a middle wife seems to create as many problems as it solves. To b widow, Maud would have to come after Alice, but that is impossible, as Alice appears in 1237, and Richard Fraunceys als. Vernon, Maud's great-grandson, was born in 1363.

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 5:09:12 AM UTC-8, Matthew Connolly wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> FWIW, here is my attempt to deconstruct that troublesome plea roll
> pedigree with taf in 2005:

[quoting his post]

> The fact is that William de Vernon in 1225 is the first of the family
> on record as a tenant at Pitchcott, with no indication as to how, why
> or when he came to be there. For the record, his mother-in-law was
> called Matilda and she was a widow in 1206 (ie, temp. John). As already
> mentioned, William's wife Margaret de Stockport (daughter of Matilda)
> was not an heiress, but the Vernons acquired interests in several
> manors in at least 3 counties from the Stockports as a result of the
> alliance. Whether Pitchcott was another of these, there seems to be no
> proof I can find right now; but this might be an explanation- although
> the plea pedigree would still be wrong.

One thing that might be looked at further regarding how the Vernons got Pitchcott: in 1225, William was holding 2/3, while in 1237 he was holding it in its entirety. I have to wonder who the widow was who died between those dates, allowing her portion to revert to William?

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 4:24:32 AM UTC-8, John Watson wrote:

> I read it a few times and also looked to what Ragg had to say about the
> case.
>

Given that the case relates the appointment of several incumbents to Pitchcott, perhaps the relevant episcopal registers would help establishing its chronological framework?

taf

[John Watson]

Hi Todd,

I looked again at Pitchcott on BHO: -
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp89-91

It says that "In 1225 William son of Richard Vernon of Haddon, Derbyshire, was holding two-thirds of Pitchcott as Roger Pipard's tenant." The reference is to Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), ii, 15.

Looking at the entry in the close rolls, I'm not so sure that this is correct. I'm no great expert on the abbreviations used in these entries, but "de t'bz ptibz feodi unius militis," looks like one third of a knight's fee not 2/3 of the manor.

Regards,
John

[John Watson]

On the same point, in 1235-6, William de Vernon was holding 1-1/2 knight's fee in Pitchcott: -
1235-6, Buckingham. Scutage 20 Henry III, De Willelmo de Vernun xx.s. de uno feodo et dimidio in Pichecote.
Liber Feodorum, The Book of Fees commonly called Testa de Nevill, Part 1 (1920), 464.

Regards,
John

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: John Watson
Sent: 08 March 2017 14:45

> Hi Todd,
>
> I looked again at Pitchcott on BHO: -
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp89-91
>
> It says that "In 1225 William son of Richard Vernon of Haddon, Derbyshire, was holding two-thirds of Pitchcott as Roger Pipard's tenant." The reference is to Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), ii, 15.
>
Looking at the entry in the close rolls, I'm not so sure that this is correct. I'm no great expert on the abbreviations used in these entries, but "de t'bz ptibz feodi unius militis," looks like one third of a knight's fee not 2/3 of the manor.
>
> Regards,
> John
>

-------------------------------
That means 'three parts of a knight's fee', John, i.e. three-quarters. If it were two-thirds it would be 'duabus partibus' ('two parts') and one third would be 'tercia parte' ('a third part').

Matt Tompkins

[John Watson]

Thanks Matt,

But now I'm not so sure that William de Vernon's land holding in Pitchcott changed between 1225 and 1235. In 1225 he was pardoned 20s. for the scutage of Montgomery and 20s. for the scutage of Bedford, for 3/4 of a knight's fee. In 1235 he owed 20s. scutage for one and a half knight's fees. Did the scutage rate halve in 10 years?

Regards,
John

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 3:13:39 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000015869746;view=1up;seq=442

That is the wrong page - it should be:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000015869746;view=1up;seq=143

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 8:23:01 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> That is the wrong page - it should be:
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000015869746;view=1up;seq=143

Here is the original on AALT:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no183/aCP40no183fronts/IMG_0426.htm

[gdco...@gmail.com]

John,

Can you clarify your dates of death for Richard & Robert at #3a&b?. The Haddon article at p9 (cited elsewhere above by taf) shows Richard "was alive in 4 Edward I" [1276], and was succeeded by his brother, Robert. Your dates of death do allow for that scenario, or am I missing something?

Thanks

Greg

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 10:53:18 AM UTC-8, gdco...@gmail.com wrote:
> John,
>
> Can you clarify your dates of death for Richard & Robert at #3a&b?.

The death date for Robert comes from the marriage settlement between Richard Vernon and John Fraunceys, dating that year, in which Richard names his niece Hawise, daughter of Robert, as his heir apparent, both his guardianship of her and her being heir apparent indicating his brother had already died. However, we can do better than this - in the 2005 post of Luke Potter we see a suit in which Richard Vernon and others challenged the rights of Hawise, formerly wife of Robert Vernon, to the wardship of Robert's heir, and that subsequently Richard demanded Hawise de Brailsford deliver minor Hawise, daughter of Robert de Vernon, who had held his land of Richard by knights service. Clearly, then, Robert d. bef. 1248, and Richard later served as guardian, not as uncle, per se, but as feudal overlord of his niece. Likewise, it shows that Robert did not succeed to his brother by inheritance, he did so temporally through infeudation, but this applies only to the specific property that Richard had enfeoffed to his brother, and subsequently Hawise inherited the remainder of the land directly from her uncle.

The derivation of Richard's is not immediately evident to me. The Maud's Meaburn article mentions a suit from 1272 in which Richard Vernon and Gilbert Fraunceys appear, and the author wants to identify this man with the uncle Richard, but refrains from doing so because there was not time for his brother Robert to succeed him, and subsequently be succeeded by Hawise and Richard, before we see Richard acting on his own, but as we have seen, Robert predeceased Richard so this simplifies the chronology, and I would suggest then that the elder Richard died a little later than John's estimate.

> The Haddon article at p9 (cited elsewhere above by taf) shows Richard
> "was alive in 4 Edward I" [1276], and was succeeded by his brother,
> Robert. Your dates of death do allow for that scenario, or am I missing
> something?

I think you are confusing Richards, and confusing Edwards with the date. I mentioned a plea dated 4 Edward II (1310/11) in which Richard was plaintiff. This is Robert's grandson, the son of Hawise. We know from the ipms of his father, Gilbert Fraunceys, that he was born in 1263. Or were you referring to something different? This does not affect your point, though which is that Richard did indeed survive his brother Robert.

taf

[Matthew Connolly]

Richard's death date (by 1269) is deduced from Helewise's IPM, where she is described as 'sometime' his wife - number 738 here:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol1/pp231-242

-Matthew

[Patricia Junkin]

Mauld's Meaburn was held by Maud de Morville second wife of William de Veteripont and inherited by her son Ivo.

Pat

Sent from my iPhone

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 1:30:31 PM UTC-8, Matthew Connolly wrote:
> Richard's death date (by 1269) is deduced from Helewise's IPM, where she is
> described as 'sometime' his wife - number 738 here:

At first I thought this contradicted the Mauld's Melburn article, but now I see that author assigned the wrong date to the case in question.

The suit involved Richard Vernon, who "had been implicated in the disturbances in the kingdom—the de Montfort civil war in 1264-1266" and Gilbert Fraunceys, for occupying lands in Basildon and Ashampstead, Berks, that they had been deprived of due to Richard's taking Montfort's side. The author dated it to 1272, but said it came from 'Coram Rege. 190', which unless I am mistaken appears as the 'King's Bench Plea Rolls' on AALT, as KB26/190 under 1269. TNA dates this volume with a span consistent with 53 Henry III, while the rolls bear an inscription identifying them as being from the October term.

The widow's inquest was held "Saturday before the Annunciation, 54 Hen. III", which would be 22 March 1269/70 of I worked it out right (using an online perpetual calendar), so that would provide a pretty narrow window for the sequential deaths of Richard then Hawise.

taf

[John Watson]

Here are some more records regarding this case, which I had overlooked, from which it appears that Richard may have been alive in 1272: -

25 December 1268, Admission of Richard de Vernun of the county of Stafford to the king's grace and peace and remission to him of the king's indignation and rancour of mind conceived towards him by occasion of trespasses which he was said to have done in the time of the disturbance, and pardon of his trespasses to the Assumption, 51 Henry III on the mainprize of Gilbert le Fraunceys of the county of Buckingham, Simon de Cotes of the county of Northampton, and William de Muntgomery of the county of Derby that he will be of good behaviour and will stand to the award of Kenilworth.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry III, vol. 6: 1266-1272 (1913), 375.

12 April 1272, Appointment of Nicholas de Ytingdene, justice to hear etc. pleas of lands given etc., to enquire whether Richard de Wernun was against the king in the time of the disturbance in the realm, whose lands in Bastindene and Hashamstede, Margery late the wife of Peter de Anesy and Matthew de Anesy claim to have by assignment of the said Peter, who had them by gift of the king, against Richard and Gilbert le Fraunceys; and to hear and determine the plea in the premises according to the form of the award of Kenilworth
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry III, vol. 6: 1266-1272 (1913), 687.

26 June 1272, Bucks. Margery, the wife of Peter de Anesy, by attorney, and Mathew de Anesy, appeared against Richard de Vernon, Gilbert le Fraunceys, and William de Warre, in a plea that whereas on account of the transgressions committed by Richard during the disturbances in the kingdom, the King had given the lands and tenements of Richard in Basteldene and Ashamstede to Peter de Anesy, to hold according to the form of the Dictum de Kenilworth, and the said Peter being lately seised of them, had left by will half of them to Margaret, and the other half to Matthew, the said Richard and the others had ejected the plaintiffs vi et armis, in the middle of the night, and had done other malicious injuries and damage to them, the Sheriff had been ordered to attach the said Richard and the others, and to have their bodies before the King at this term, and they did not appear. Their pledges are therefore in misericordiâ, and the Sheriff is ordered to distrain them, &c., and to produce them at the Octaves of Michaelmas
Staffordshire Historical Collections, Vol. 4 (1883), 190.

Regards,

John

[Matthew Connolly]

ISTR there's a theory that the Richard de Vernon at Basildon and Ashampstead is a different man - perhaps descended from Robert, younger son of Richard and Avice. Will look for it tomorrow if it hasn't turned up in the meantime.

-Matthew

[John Watson]

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 22:27:33 UTC+7, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

Hi Matt,

I've looked into this a bit further. The scutage of Montgomery and the scutage of Bedford were levied at a rate of 2 marks per fee. In 1225 William de Vernon was pardoned 20 shillings each for these two scutages, which means that he was holding one and a half knight's fee in Pitchcott. It seems that the three parts that he was holding were three halves, not quarters. He was also holding one and a half knight's fees in Pitchcott in 1235-6, so his land holding did not change between those dates and the editor of VCH Bucks is simply wrong.

Regards,
John

[Matt Tompkins]

> > From: John Watson
> > Sent: 08 March 2017 14:45
> > > Hi Todd,
> > >
> > > I looked again at Pitchcott on BHO: -
> > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp89-91
> > >
> > > It says that "In 1225 William son of Richard Vernon of Haddon, Derbyshire, was holding two-thirds of Pitchcott as Roger Pipard's tenant." The reference is to Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), ii, 15.
> > >
> > Looking at the entry in the close rolls, I'm not so sure that this is correct. I'm no great expert on the abbreviations used in these entries, but "de t'bz ptibz feodi unius militis," looks like one third of a knight's fee not 2/3 of the manor.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > John
> > >
> > -------------------------------
> On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 22:27:33 UTC+7, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
> > That means 'three parts of a knight's fee', John, i.e. three-quarters. If it were two-thirds it would be 'duabus partibus' ('two parts') and one third would be 'tercia parte' ('a third part').
> >
> > Matt Tompkins
>

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 06:43:53 UTC, John Watson wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I've looked into this a bit further. The scutage of Montgomery and the scutage of Bedford were levied at a rate of 2 marks per fee. In 1225 William de Vernon was pardoned 20 shillings each for these two scutages, which means that he was holding one and a half knight's fee in Pitchcott. It seems that the three parts that he was holding were three halves, not quarters. He was also holding one and a half knight's fees in Pitchcott in 1235-6, so his land holding did not change between those dates and the editor of VCH Bucks is simply wrong.
>
> Regards,
> John

It would be extremely unusual for 'tribus partibus unius feodi' to mean three halves (I'd say impossible, but it is better not to be categorical where medieval records are concerned, so I'll settle for 'extremely unusual'). The clerk was almost certainly using the phrase in its conventional meaning of three quarters.

But equally certainly, one can't place too much weight on a single statement of a manor's military assessment - it's common for a series of references to the same manor usually rated as, say, half a knight's fee, to include occasional statements that it was one quarter, three quarters or a full knight's fee. I'm never sure whether they result from clerical error, tax evasion, beneficial tax assessment, or what.

Matt

[Matt Tompkins]

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 23:26:11 UTC, taf wrote:
> At first I thought this contradicted the Mauld's Melburn article, but now I see that author assigned the wrong date to the case in question.
>
> The suit involved Richard Vernon, who "had been implicated in the disturbances in the kingdom—the de Montfort civil war in 1264-1266" and Gilbert Fraunceys, for occupying lands in Basildon and Ashampstead, Berks, that they had been deprived of due to Richard's taking Montfort's side. The author dated it to 1272, but said it came from 'Coram Rege. 190', which unless I am mistaken appears as the 'King's Bench Plea Rolls' on AALT, as KB26/190 under 1269. TNA dates this volume with a span consistent with 53 Henry III, while the rolls bear an inscription identifying them as being from the October term.
>

A very slight correction: KB 26/190 is the roll for Trinity term, 53 Hen III, which was May - June 1269. The heading on rot. 1 is 'the octaves of Trinity', not October.

Matt Tompkins

[Matthew Connolly]

Right, I see it was Ragg again who had the 'other Richard' theory. In his 'Maud's Meaburn', charter XIII on page 358 has a Richard son of Roger de Vernon, of 1291 or later; on pp 392 & 394 he speculates that Roger might have been son of Robert, younger son of Richard de Vernon by Avice Avenel, and that Richard son of Roger was the man of 1272.

The Richard of 1272 was still active in 1275 - CCR Edward I vol I p.242: Richard de Vernun puts in his place William Morolf or John de Morton in the suit before the king between him and Margery, late the wife of Peter Danaysyn, and Matthew Danaysyn concerning the dictum of Kenill(eworth).

Perhaps Matt can give the best opinion of whether Helewise's IPM shows that her husband Richard was then dead or not? If they had no issue born alive then Richard wouldn't get to enjoy any of her lands after her death, anyway - it really seems to hinge on the use of the word 'sometime'.

-Matthew

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Matthew Connolly
Sent: 09 March 2017 11:33

> Perhaps Matt can give the best opinion of whether Helewise's IPM shows that her husband Richard was then dead or not? If they had no issue born alive then Richard wouldn't get to enjoy any of her lands after her death, anyway - it really seems to hinge on the use of the word 'sometime'.
>

-------------------------------
'nuper uxor' or 'quondam uxor' usually means 'widow', and is often translated as such, but (as so often with medieval records) there is always a nagging doubt. I think some clerks took the logic-chopping view that a dead person could not currently be the wife of a still-living husband and therefore described her as 'sometime the wife'.

Matt