Deincourt/Tibetot -- CP error?
Clagett, Brice
gives two conflicting versions. CP 4:290 (sub Despenser) does
indeed say that Sir Robert de Tibetot, Lord Tibetot, married
Margaret, daughter of Sir William Deincourt who d.v.p. But CP
12:1:97 (sub Tybotot), published long afterwards and thus
presumably more reliable, says that Margaret was daughter of
William, 2d Lord Deincourt, and thus sister of Sir William who
d.v.p. CP vol. 14 does not correct either version.
Either version would seem chronologically possible. Sir William
who d.v.p. married Margaret de Welle in 1343. CP 4:122 n.(c).
Since Margaret Deincourt married Robert Tibetot by 1348 (CP
12:1:97), long before William who became 3d Lord Deincourt was
born in 1357 (CP 4:122), Margaret was an infant bride if she was a
daughter of Sir William and Margaret de Welle, and arguably fits
better as Sir William's sister than his daughter. However, it
appears that Margaret Deincourt was indeed an infant bride, since
her husband, Robert Tibetot, was born in 1341, and her oldest
child, Margaret, was not born until c. 1366. So the chronology we
have doesn't seem to resolve the issue.
CP 12:1:97 cites Feet of Fines, Yorkshire, 1347-77 p. 13 and Cal.
Patent Rolls 1348-50 p. 273 for the Tibetot-Deincourt marriage.
Possibly these sources may shed light on which William Deincourt
was Margaret's father.
Cristopher Nash
You're absolutely right about this contradiction in CP itself, and --
though I think you've done a lot to defeat the CP 12:1:97 proposition
yourself and Rosie's evidence pretty well finishes it off -- I've had
a quick look at two of its 3 sources. These are actually, as you
say, (1) Feet of Fines, Yorkshire, 1347-77 p. 13, and (2) Cal.Patent
Rolls 1348-50 p. 273, but also (3) Cal. Inq. p.m. vol. XII, no. 171.
(Ironically, a further 'reference' is to one of CP's own
contradictory passages in vol. IV!)
I dont have access today to the 1347-77 vol. of the Yorks Feet of
Fines. In (2), John Tibetot is licensed to grant the manor of Eston
by Grantham to Robert Tibetot and "Margaret, daughter of William
Deyncourt", but gives no sign as to what "William Deyncourt" this is.
(Note that the date is 20 Mar 1349, soon after their marriage.) And
in (3), abstracts of the series of 11 county ipms of Sir John
Tibetot, there is mention only in the ipm for Notts of a "William
Deyncourt", father of his son Robert's wife Margaret, and a "William
Deyncourt, formerly lord of Graneby" -- both without further
identification. The latter might seem to point to William who m.
Milicent la Zouche since he was certainly lord of Granby, Notts. But
I'm not convinced that this one of the half dozen manors of the
William who m. Milicent -- and evidently the only one in Notts (the
others were in Derbs and Lincs) -- may not have been held by his only
son William (who m. Margaret de Welle) during his lifetime (in much
the way that John Tibetot grants his son the manor of Eston). Both
Williams would be referred to as 'formerly' -- i.e. both were
deceased by the dates of these inquests (41 Edw III, viz. 1367-8).
Failing better data in Feet of Fines, Yorkshire, 1347-77 (or more
significant detail - i.e. names and dates - in (2) and (3) than the
abstracts provide, which I doubt), I'm afraid there's no support for
the CP 12:1:97 proposition, notwithstanding its later date, that can
stand up to the ones in CP 4:122 n.(c) and CP 4:290. I'll look at
Feet of Fines, Yorkshire, 1347-77, as soon as I can - unless someone
here has it in front of em?
What do you think, Brice?
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
his wife Milicent la Zouche or their son William with Margaret de
Welle are the parents of Margaret who married Robert Tibetot, of the
4 references cited by CP in conjunction with its discussion (XII, pt.
1, 97) of the former hypothesis and hoped by posters here to provide
evidence, one of these (as mentioned in an earlier posting) is a
citation of another location in CP where in fact the second, opposing
hypothesis is given; and of the remaining 3 'sources' -
(1) Feet of Fines, Yorkshire, 1347-77 p. 13;
(2) Cal.Patent Rolls 1348-50 p. 273;
(3) Cal. Inq. p.m. vol. XII, no. 171
I've confirmed), (2) and (3) provide no indication as to which
William is the father of Margaret (Deincourt) Tibetot, and (1), which
I've examined today, equally fails. Viz.:
"50. Westminster. Octave of Trinity, 22 Edw. III, 1348. Month of
Michaelmas, 22 Edw. III, 1348.
John Tibetot and Elizabeth his wife, quer., John de Kyveton,
parson of the church of Radeclif, def., of the manors of Benteleye
and Hamthwait, and the advowson of the church of Arkeseye: To holde
to John Tibetot and Elizabeth for their lives; remainder to Robert,
John's son, and the heirs of his body by Margaret, daughter of
William Deyncourt; remainder to the right heirs of John Tibetot."
[Yorks Arch. Soc. Rec Ser. LII, 1914 (pub. 1915)]
It needs of course to be recalled that all 3 of these 'sources' are -
like most cited in this forum - modern abstracts. In the
meantime,the records cited by CP in connection with the alternative
to the William/Milicent proposition -- that is, CP IV, 290 and
especially CP IV, 122 n.(c) where William and Margaret de Welle are
proposed -- appear to be the only so-far reported contemporaneous
documents identifying a particular William Deincourt as father of a
Margaret in this period (i.e. 'William son of William', there being
only one so-far named William son of William chronologically able to
father Margaret wife of Robert Tibetot), as opposed to those
documents simply naming some unspecified William Deincourt. (It goes
without saying that none of these other records put the
William/Margaret de Welle hypothesis into question.)
Unless/until someone has further thoughts, this - together with the
frail onomastic point I mentioned in my last (which some may take as
adding further weight to the case for William/Margaret de Welle) -
seems about as far as we can go, though it may reach just marginally
further than Brice feared. There appears to be no transfer of real
property likely to provide useful information. (E.g. Any Zouche
holdings subsequently in Deincourt/Tibetot hands would be there in
either case, and Adam de Welle paid hard cash for his da's betrothal
and left her only more of the same on his death.)
Cris
--
Tony Ingham
> You're absolutely right about this contradiction in CP itself, and --
> though I think you've done a lot to defeat the CP 12:1:97 proposition
> yourself and Rosie's evidence pretty well finishes it off -- I've had
> a quick look at two of its 3 sources. These are actually, as you
> say, (1) Feet of Fines, Yorkshire, 1347-77 p. 13, and (2) Cal.Patent
> Rolls 1348-50 p. 273, but also (3) Cal. Inq. p.m. vol. XII, no. 171.
> (Ironically, a further 'reference' is to one of CP's own
> contradictory passages in vol. IV!)
>
> I dont have access today to the 1347-77 vol. of the Yorks Feet of
> Fines. In (2), John Tibetot is licensed to grant the manor of Eston
> by Grantham to Robert Tibetot and "Margaret, daughter of William
A few points about William Deyncourt, Lord of Granby and the parentage of
Margaret wife of Robert de Tibetot.
From Calendar of Patent Rolls 1358-1361.
18 December 1359
Reading. Protection, during pleasure, for William Deyncourt who is
so occupied about the keeping of the king’s adversary of France and others
of his company in the castle of Somerton that he cannot attend to his own
affairs ; and nothing is to be taken of his crops, hay, horses, carts,
carriages, victuals or other goods by ministers of the king or others in his
manors of Wobourn, Kylthorp, Graneby, Elmeton, Blaunkeneye and Braunceton or
his other manors.
The I.P.M. of Thomas Deyncourt for the manor of Kylthorp Rutland was taken
at Keten, Thursday before the Purification, 42 Edward III. (1 Feb 1368/9).
It states that the manor was held to him and his heirs male by grant of his
brother Robert Deyncourt, [for the life of Robert] by confirmation of
William Deyncourt, father of the said Robert and Thomas, with remainder in
default of such heirs to Robert and his heirs. The date of the confirmation
is at Graneby, 6 November, 34 Edward III.
(6 Nov 1360).
From the above it seems that William Lord Deyncourt II was holding Granby
from 18 Dec 1359 until 6 Nov 1360. Since Granby was the seat of his barony
I feel that any mention of William lord of Granby, in John de Tibetot’s
I.P.M. would point precisely to William Lord Deyncourt II. If William his
son had held the manor I would have expected a writ to be issued and an
inquisition to be held at his death. As far as I know neither took place.
From memory I think that both Williams, father and son, were involved in the
guarding of King John of France and that William the son may have died
around this time. Maybe someone with access to the printed Calendars of the
Rolls for that period might be able to check.
Millicent la Zouche was born between 1300 and 1321 (if she was the eldest
daughter). She was married before 26 Mar 1326. Assuming that Margaret was
born around 1343, she could quite easily have been Millicent’s daughter. I
suspect that Robert and Thomas Deyncourt, mentioned above, were born about
this time.
I look forward to further discussion on the subject,
Tony Ingham