Another CP Correction: Talbot of Richard's Castle
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 628-632 (sub Talbot) has a good
account of the Talbot family of Richard's Castle, co. Hereford.
Specifically, on pages 628-629, the history of Richard Talbot (died
1328), of Richard's Castle, and his wife, Joan de Mortimer, is
presented, followed by accounts of their two sons, Richard (pp.
629-630) and John (pg. 630). The editor considers Richard the eldest
son, followed by John as 2nd son. However, as we shall see below, the
birth order of the children actually appears to have been John as the
eldest son, followed by Richard styled "the elder" as 2nd son, then by
Thomas, as 3rd son, followed by Richard styled "the younger" as 4th
son. In this case, we have two sons of the same given name which has
caused the confusion. A similar confusion has ensued in the Longespee
family where two daughters with the same given name, Ida, also occur
in the same generation.
The correct birth order of the Talbot children is established by an
undated royal petition of Joan (de Mortimer) Talbot, then a widow, in
which she requested permission to settle property on certain trustees
for the term of her life, with successive reversions to her four sons,
John, Richard the elder, Thomas, and Richard the younger. The actual
petition reads as follows:
"Joan Talbot, Lady of Richard's Castle, to the King:
Joan Thalebot widow of Richard Talbot, wished to give the manor of
Richard's Castle (cos. Hereford and Salop) with the advowson of the
church and of a perpetual chapel in Blethelawe (Bleddfa), belonging to
the manor, and the manor of Bletheuau (Bleddfa) which is in South
Wales in the cantred of Mellennythe (Maelienydd), and these following
manors, Coderig (co. Worc.), Woodham Mortimer (co. Essex), with the
half of the manor of Home (co. Worc.), the half of the manor of
Karketon (co. Worc.), and of £10 of annual rent in Denton (co. Lincs),
together with a certain prebend and three specified advowsons, to John
de Wotton, chaplain, and William Balle of Underluch, to hold for the
term of her life, after which the lands advowsons and reversions are
to remain to John, her eldest son, and Juliana, his wife, and failing
their lawful heirs, to the lawful heirs of John; but if John dies
without lawful heir of his body, the lands and tenements are to go to
Richard Thalebot, his eldest brother, and the lawful heirs of his
body, and failing that, to Thomas Thalebot, his brother and the lawful
heirs of his body; failing that to Richard Thalebot the younger, and
the lawful heirs of his body; failing that, the aforesaid lands and
tenements are to return to the petitioner and her heirs and assigns
for ever." [Reference: W. Rees, Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating
to Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. & Law Ser. 28) (1975):
326–327].
In the above petition, we see that Joan Talbot specifically refers to
John as "her eldest son," so there can be no confusion that John is
her first born son. Complete Peerage states that the son, John
Talbot, and his wife, Juliane de Grey, were married "shortly before 14
Feb. 1329/30. However, Mr. Rees, kindly informs us that widow Joan
Talbot's petition cited above was granted by the King, "as appears
from Chanc. Warr. 3113, dated from Kenilworth 29 Nov. 3 Edw. III
(1329), which directs the Chancellor to make suitable letters under
the Great Seal." As such, it is evident that John Talbot, eldest son
of the petitioner, and his wife, Juliane, must have married before 29
November 1329.
For interest sake, I've listed below the names of the various colonial
immigrants who descend from Richard and Joan (de Mortimer) Talbot's
eldest son, John Talbot, and his wife, Juliane de Grey. Further
particulars regarding the specific descents down to each immigrant can
be found in my forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry, soon to be
released.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - -
List of colonial immigrants who descend from John Talbot, of Richard's
Castle (died 1355) and his wife, Juliane de Grey:
l. Robert Abell.
2. William Bladen.
3. Mary Launce.
4. Nathaniel Littleton.
5. Richard More of "the Mayflower."
6. John Oxenbridge.
7. George and Richard Parker, of Virginia.
8. Maria Johanna Somerset.
ADRIANC...@aol.com
writes:
<SNIP>
A similar confusion has ensued in the Longespee
>
> family where two daughters with the same given name, Ida, also occur
> in the same generation
>
<SNIP>
NOT PROVEN!
Adrian
Reedpcgen
>without lawful heir of his body, the lands and tenements are to go to
As an aside (and not checking any other source), here it says that Richard was
"eldest brother" of John.
You stated:
> The editor considers Richard the eldest
>son, followed by John as 2nd son. However, as we shall see below, the
>birth order of the children actually appears to have been John as the
>eldest son, followed by Richard styled "the elder" as 2nd son, then by
>Thomas, as 3rd son, followed by Richard styled "the younger" as 4th
>son. In this case, we have two sons of the same given name which has
>caused the confusion.
How is "his eldest brother" ambiguous?
Does this say that John Talbot was eldest son of Joan, widow of Richard Talbot,
but that Richard was HIS eldest brother?
You've confused me (but it's late and beyond time for bed).
CP 12:i:629 even cites to records which state that John was son of Joan, but
that Richard was HIS eldest brother, Thomas, next, and then another Richard was
younger brother of Thomas [note (l)].
Might we suggest that Richard was son by a marriage previous to Joan de
Mortimer?
(If I correct your correction, does it make it my 'discovery' and CP addition?)
Richard Talbot married Joan de Mortimer about 1317 (by 1320), but Richard was
his son and heir in 1329/30. The CP correction might therefore be that Richard
was not Joan's son (hence, he was not given right to succession of her lands -
she was a coheir - which was given to his younger brother John, her eldest
son). It would be extraordinary that she would have the right to entail her
inheritance on her son John (if Richard were her eldest son), but in this case,
don't we have a direct statement that John was her eldest son, but that Richard
was the elder brother and hece eldest son of their father?
Perhaps we will be able to correct me after the sun rises and reason returns to
my senses.
Paul
PS The Longespee thing is a COMPLETELY different matter (and pointed out
rightly by Rosie, but perhaps you thought it could slip by). Apparently you
are not changing your standards and correcting your "correction" concerning the
Longespee family. It wil be interesting to see that in print.
Chris Phillips
Paul Reed wrote:
> Richard Talbot married Joan de Mortimer about 1317 (by 1320), but Richard
was
> his son and heir in 1329/30. The CP correction might therefore be that
Richard
> was not Joan's son (hence, he was not given right to succession of her
lands -
> she was a coheir - which was given to his younger brother John, her eldest
> son). It would be extraordinary that she would have the right to entail
her
> inheritance on her son John (if Richard were her eldest son), but in this
case,
> don't we have a direct statement that John was her eldest son, but that
Richard
> was the elder brother and hece eldest son of their father?
It would be interesting to see the original texts of these documents, but I
don't understand why Joan should include "the elder" Richard at all if he
were only her stepson.
Could "Richard Talbot his eldest brother" in the petition be a
mistranslation of "Richard Talbot the elder his brother", or alternatively
does "his eldest brother" mean "the eldest of his [younger] brothers"?
Perhaps the text cited by CP would give a clue, although CP obviously
doesn't interpret it in either of these senses.
Looking at CP's discussion of John Talbot, making him the eldest son of
Richard and Joan does seem to ease the chronological oddness somewhat, at
least allowing him to be born 1317, though that still makes the estimate of
his age in 1340 two years too high, and has him married at the age of 12.
But the death of Joan's first husband in 1316 seems to prevent him from
having been born any earlier, as CP notes.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. You've made several excellent points.
As usual, your sense of logic is superior.
Joan Talbot's petition makes it clear that John Talbot was her eldest
son and heir in 1329, not his brother, Richard. Joan Talbot's IPM
cited by CP also identifies John as her son and heir [see Cal. IPM.
vol. viii, no. 276]. As such, we have not one but two documents, both
of which say the same thing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<blp0sv$pqq$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Reedpcgen
heir, aged 25 (CIPM 10, no. 251).
If we scrutinize the chronology, John would be about 25 on 29 September 1340,
or born about 1315. That would agree with an age of 14 in 1329, when he was
already "married" to Juliane de Grey.
However, Joan de Mortimer was married to Thomas de Bykenore by 27 June 1305,
and he did not die until 1316 (he presented to the prebendal portion in Burford
on 14 Sep. 1316, was still alive 10 Oct., but dead 30 Dec. 1316 (CP 12:i:629).
It would seem, given John's tight chronology, that he was born not long
afterwards, on 29 September [Michaelmas], probably 1317 (nine months after his
mother could have maried his father).
This would not allow time for any older child, so indeed the eldest brother
Richard must be by a previous marriage.
I cannot see that she would have been allowed to disinherit Richard (his
father's heir) by entailment. The pourparty of her inheritance was Richard's
Castle and lands in cos. Worcs., Warwick, Hereford, Shrops., Essex and Radnor,
as set out in CCR 1307-13, 36, 97-8.
I could see that if her eldest son John died without any surviving lawful issue
or heirs (which is stipulated in the remainders) that she would then entail her
husband's heir.
Paul
Chris Phillips
> It would seem, given John's tight chronology, that he was born not long
> afterwards, on 29 September [Michaelmas], probably 1317 (nine months after
his
> mother could have maried his father).
>
> This would not allow time for any older child, so indeed the eldest
brother
> Richard must be by a previous marriage.
>
> I cannot see that she would have been allowed to disinherit Richard (his
> father's heir) by entailment. The pourparty of her inheritance was
Richard's
> Castle and lands in cos. Worcs., Warwick, Hereford, Shrops., Essex and
Radnor,
> as set out in CCR 1307-13, 36, 97-8.
>
> I could see that if her eldest son John died without any surviving lawful
issue
> or heirs (which is stipulated in the remainders) that she would then
entail her
> husband's heir.
I think I'd like to look at the original text of the documents involved to
be satisfied, but I suspect some mistranslation/misinterpretation is
involved.
Based on Rees's translation of the petition, posted by Douglas Richardson,
and on Joan's IPMs, which return John as her "son and heir", there doesn't
seem to be any doubt that John was her eldest son (although CP's line was
presumably that all the lands mentioned in the IPMs had been settled by
fines, so that the "heir" returned wasn't really the heir at law).
As far as I know all the lands involved were of Joan's inheritance. It
doesn't seem likely that she would have specified a remainder in these to
"Richard Talbot the elder" as a son of her husband's previous marriage,
particularly as he was placed ahead of "Richard Talbot the younger", who
certainly seems to have been her own son - CP mentions a grant she made 26
May 1331 for his soul ("pro anima Richardi filii mei junioris").
I looked at the published abstracts of the two charters of 1330 mentioned by
CP.
(1) One is "to John son of Joan, late the wife of Richard Thalebot, and to
Juliana his wife ... to them and to the heirs lawfully begotten between
them, with remainder to John and the heirs of his body in case Juliana die
before him without an heir, with remainder to the aforesaid Joan in default
of John's heirs, for her life, with remainder to Richard, the elder brother
of the said John, and to the heirs of his body, with remainder to Thomas,
the said Richard's brother, and to the heirs of his body, with remainder to
Richard, the younger brother of the said Thomas, with remainder to the
aforesaid Joan and her heirs."
(2) The other is "to the lady Joan, late the wife of Richard Thalebot ... to
have and to hold for her life, with remainder to John her son and to Juliana
his wife and the heirs begotten between them, with remainder, in case
Juliana die before John without an heir, to the heirs of John's body, with
remainder in default to Richard, his elder brother, and to the heirs of his
body, with remainder to Thomas, Richard's brother, and to the heirs of his
body, with remainder to Richard, Thomas's younger brother, and to the heirs
of his body, with remainder to the said lady Joan and to her heirs."
[Calendar of Close Rolls 1330-1333, p. 125]
To me, it seems significant that elder/younger relationships are only
specified in these abstracts when one of the Richards is being described.
When the other brother Thomas is named, we aren't told anything about his
age in relation to the previous brother.
That makes me think that the correct sense of (2), e.g., is probably really:
"with remainder in default to Richard the elder, his brother, and to the
heirs of his body, with remainder to Thomas, Richard's brother, and to the
heirs of his body, with remainder to Richard the younger, Thomas's brother,
and to the heirs of his body, ..."
And that impression is backed up by the final remainder, to Joan's right
heirs, who would normally come before - not after - her stepsons.
Unfortunately, from what CP says, it's not clear that Joan's husband Richard
held any known property which would have descended to "Richard the elder",
had he been a son by a previous marriage. CP refers to Richard (the "elder
son") apparently holding La Lee, Gloucester (which according to the index of
the Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem is in Newland parish). I couldn't
see any mention of Talbots holding the Lee in the Victoria County History,
although one of the older county histories said it had been held by the
Tiptoft Earls of Worcester and the Talbot Earls of Shrewsbury. This sounds
confused, but may be worth following up to see if it was really ever held by
the Tiptofts, as John Talbot's granddaughter Philippe did marry John Tiptoft
(father of the first Tiptoft Earl of Worcester), though she died without
issue.
To be sure about this, I think it would be necessary to look at the original
texts of these records. In addition to the petition (in French) and the
enrolments on the Close Roll, there should be three final concords - two
referred to in the close rolls, and another of 19 Edward II relating to
Woodham Mortimer, Essex, referred to in Joan's IPM.
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
disinheriting eldest children at will. If the wording is correct that Richard
was elder brother of John, this, coupled with the chronology, would require
that Richard be his father's heir, but not hers.
I have no difficulty in what the abstracts state, and they make sense to me,
Richard being his father's heir, elder brother of John. Do we know if the two
younger sons were destined for religion or what happened to them?
It is quite a different thing (than Richard elder brother of John) to say
"Richard the elder" and Richard the younger" (and the younger RIchard is called
Joan's son in another document without calling him "younger," perhaps implying
he was her ONLY son named Richard), and those abstracting the texts would be
quite experienced in that type of occurrence, as we are.
The father Richard was already dead, so it would be natural to refer to the
eldest younger Richard as elder brother of John. This Richard is not mentioned
in the remainders except in the event of the complete failure of John's issue
and heirs.
If you check the originals, I will be interested to know what you find.
Paul
Reedpcgen
No, this is in error, as he is called younger.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>presumably that all the lands mentioned in the IPMs had been settled by
>fines, so that the "heir" returned wasn't really the heir at law).
One cannot unlawfully disinherit the heir, even by final concord, without
king's license or formal agreemet (such as making a monetary payment in lieu of
the inheritance). The disinherited heirs heirs could later challenge such
transactions unless something more was done. I think the person who wrote that
article for CP was confused (one was or another, either in wording or
interpretation of law).
It is likely the elder Richard was quite young when his father married Joan (if
he is not Joan's son), as it would appear he had no surviving brothers of the
whole blood.
The lands Joan left to RIchard in the remainder of these documents (in the
event of failure of her son John's issue) did not comprise ALL of her estate
and inheritance, did it? If her late husband's heir had little inheritance of
his own, perhaps it would be motivation to aid him, in the event her own eldest
son and heir died without any surviving issue.
One wonders what lands her husband Richard Talbot brought to the marriage and
what was set aside as her dower.
Paul
Chris Phillips
> The lands Joan left to RIchard in the remainder of these documents (in the
> event of failure of her son John's issue) did not comprise ALL of her
estate
> and inheritance, did it? If her late husband's heir had little
inheritance of
> his own, perhaps it would be motivation to aid him, in the event her own
eldest
> son and heir died without any surviving issue.
>
> One wonders what lands her husband Richard Talbot brought to the marriage
and
> what was set aside as her dower.
All the lands mentioned in her IPM were covered by either this or the other
fine of 19 Edward II [1325 or 1326].
By the 19 E II, Isabel de Mortimer surrendered the manor and advowson of
Woodham Mortimer, Essex, to Richard and Joan for their lives, with
remainders to John their son and the heirs of his body and to the right
heirs of Joan.
I shall try to look at some of these in the original, to see if things
become any clearer.
Chris Phillips
Alex Maxwell Findlater
after which the lands advowsons and reversions are
to remain to John, her eldest son, and Juliana, his wife, and failing
Johanni, filio primogenito et Juliane uxore
their lawful heirs, to the lawful heirs of John; but if John dies
without lawful heir of his body, the lands and tenements are to go to
Richard Thalebot, his eldest brother, and the lawful heirs of his
Ricardo Thalebot seniore ejus fratre
body, and failing that, to Thomas Thalebot, his brother and the lawful
Thome Thalebot ejus fratre
heirs of his body; failing that to Richard Thalebot the younger, and
Ricardo Thalebot juniore
the lawful heirs of his body;
I have spaced out the lines and inserted what I suspect was the
original Latin. ‘Ricardo seniore ejus fratre’ could be
‘Richard the elder, his brother’, or else ‘Richard
his elder brother’, but there seems little reason to explain
that he was the elder brother, while there is good reason to explain
that he is the elder Richard. The translation quoted says eldest
brother, which I do not recognise as a Latin expression in this
context (it would be 'senissimo' grammatically, but 'filius
primogenitus' is always (never say always!)used for eldest son). When
we get a look at the original Latin, I feel fairly confident that this
will be the case.
I hope so at any rate!
Reedpcgen
> Richard the elder, his brother , or else Richard
>his elder brother , but there seems little reason to explain
>that he was the elder brother, while there is good reason to explain
>that he is the elder Richard.
That seems the good working premise (as Chris pointed out). I wonder why the
editors in more than one place rendered it otherwise, as it was clear there was
a Richard the younger in the same accounts? Could a form of maxim* have been
used in the original, rather than senior*? That would render a different
meaning (major?).
Paul
Chris Phillips
> I have spaced out the lines and inserted what I suspect was the
> 'Richard the elder, his brother', or else 'Richard
> that he was the elder brother, while there is good reason to explain
> that he is the elder Richard. The translation quoted says eldest
> brother, which I do not recognise as a Latin expression in this
> context (it would be 'senissimo' grammatically, but 'filius
> primogenitus' is always (never say always!)used for eldest son). When
> we get a look at the original Latin, I feel fairly confident that this
> will be the case.
Thanks for those thoughts about the original language; I expect those will
be very useful if I am able to look at the fines.
I had a quick look at Rees's book on Tuesday, and I believe he says that the
petition (in which the "eldest son" phrase is used) is in French, but the
enrolled deeds are very similar in the way John's brothers are described, so
I expect the comments above will apply to them.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
between the sons of Richard Talbot (d. 1328) are mentioned.
This is the close roll of 4 Edward III, on which the deeds cited by CP are
enrolled (P.R.O. C 54/149, m. 40d). I also looked for one of the
corresponding final concords, under Worcestershire for 4 Edward III, but
without success. Unfortunately, the file of petitions containing the one
from Joan was in use by somebody else.
The words used to describe the sons of Richard in the close roll are as
follows:
"[after the death of Joan] Joh'i filio eiusd'm Joh[a]ne & Juliane ux'i eius
& hed' int' eos legi'e p[ro]creat' ... [and if Juliana dies in the lifetime
of John without heirs lawfully begotten between them to the lawful heirs of
the body of John, and in default] Ric'o fr'i eiusd'm Joh'is seniori ... [and
in default of his heirs] Th'me fr'i eiusdem Ric'i ... [and in default of his
heirs] Ric'o fr'i eiusd'm Th'me juniori ...[ in default to Joan and her
heirs for ever]"
A bit further on the people concerned are listed again like this:
"Joh'i filio dc'e Joh'ne & Juliane ux'i sue & hed' int' eos legi'e
p[ro]creat' Ric'o fr'i dc'i Joh'is seniori Th'me fr'i dc'i Ric'i senior'
Ric'o fr'i eiusdem Th'me juniori & hed' sup[a]dc'e Joh[a]ne"
So what we have, for example, is:
"Ricardo fratri eiusdem Johannis seniori".
This isn't quite what Alex Maxwell Findlater had suggested (and I had
expected), which would have been "Ricardo seniori fratri eiusdem Johannis"
and so on, for "Richard the elder, the brother of the same John".
But nor is it "Ricardo fratri seniori eiusdem Johannis", which I would have
thought would be more natural for "Richard, the elder brother of the same
John".
I can certainly see why those who abstracted this for the published edition
translated it as "Richard the elder brother of John", but I still think it's
most unlikely to mean this, from the other information we have. One detail
that might indicate some confusion is that item in the list <Th'me fr'i dc'i
Ric'i senior'>. Frustratingly, this seems to be the only place where the
ending of <senior'> isn't given, so we can't tell whether it's describing
Thomas or Richard. But surely it's not to be translated as "Thomas the elder
brother of Richard" (the main body doesn't say this). So maybe this is a
hint that the document is referring to a "Richard the elder".
Perhaps the petition, emanating from Joan herself and written in a different
language, would make things clearer. There's also an earlier fine, from 19
Edward II, when conceivably the younger Richard wouldn't have been born, so
things might be less confused. Thinking about it, that's an Essex fine, so
it may actually be in print.
Chris Phillips