Yet Another Complete Peerage Correction: Aton-Conyers
Chris Phillips
<<
... Today I checked the 33rd Annual Report
published in 1872, which according to Chris contains the relevant part
of the calendar (1388-1437). By all indications, the calendar should
have contained the relevant references to Elizabeth (Aton) (Playce)
Conyers' inquisition and that of her 2nd husband.
Interestingly, I found no references to anything in the calendar for
Bishop Langley, which is the time period in which Robert Surtees
claimed these records were created. Rather, I found the following two
records in the part of the calendar for the previous Bishop of Durham
named Skirlaw:
pg. 49 Date: 8 Skirlaw. Elizabeth Conyers, widow of John Conyers: "To
have dower out of the lands &c., of her late husband.
pg. 50 Date: 14 Skirlaw. Robert Conyers, son and heir of John,
knight: "To have seisin of the lands, &c., of his said father held by
Elizabeth his widow in dower."
The date of the first document (8 Skirlaw) falls between 3 Apr. 1395
and 3 Apr. 1396, as Bishop Skirlaw's epicopacy is stated in the Report
as having commenced on 3 April 1388. Therefore, Complete Peerage
appears to be correct in stating that Sir John Conyers died in March
1396, which date falls within the date range for 8 Skirlaw. The above
record concerns the assignment of his wife's dower, not the
inquisition which may have followed his death.
The date of the second document (14 Skirlaw) falls between 3 April
1401 and 3 April 1402. This document records that Robert Conyers had
seisin of his father's lands which his mother previously held in
dower. This is surely the record to which Robert Surtees made
reference when he stated that Robert Conyers had seisin of his
mother's lands in 1420. In this instances, Surtees was only off by
18-19 years and it was Robert's father's lands which were involved,
not his mother's.
If I have correctly dated this document, it would appear that
Elizabeth (Aton) (Playce) Conyers must have died sometime between 3
April 1401 and 3 April 1402. This would appear to correct Complete
Peerage's statement that Elizabeth died shortly before 8 May 1402, as
that date would fall in 15 Skirlaw, not 14 Skirlaw.
>>
This puzzled me initially. The inquisition post mortem is abstracted in the
45th Deputy Keeper's Report, Appendix 2, p. 177, and is there dated "8 May
[1402]" and 14 [Skirlaw]. As noted above, the 33rd Report states that
Skirlaw's pontificate began 3 April 1388, which makes this date seem
inconsistent.
I couldn't see any discussion of dating in these reports, but there is a
discussion of episcopal dates in C.R. Cheney's "Handbook of dates for
students of English history". Cheney says that there was no universal rule
for the calculation of the years of a pontificate, and that bishops who had
been translated from a different diocese (as Skirlaw had) were particularly
problematic, their years sometimes being dated from the return of
temporalities or enthronement rather than from the papal bull authorising
the translation. In Skirlaw's case, Fryde et al, "Handbook of British
Chronology", give 3 April as the date of the papal provision, but 13
September as the date when the temporalities were restored.
So if the editors' interpretation of the date of the inquisition is correct,
14 Skirlaw must have been reckoned to end later than 3 April 1402 (perhaps
in September 1402), so the order for Robert Conyers to have seisin can have
followed the inquisition post mortem in May 1402. Nevertheless, the date of
probate, 1 May 1402, does provide a slightly better limit for Elizabeth's
death than the one given by CP.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
SNIP
>
> ... there is a discussion of episcopal dates in C.R. Cheney's
"Handbook of >dates for students of English history". Cheney says that
there was no >universal rule for the calculation of the years of a
pontificate, and that >bishops who had been translated from a
different diocese (as Skirlaw had) >were particularly problematic,
their years sometimes being dated from the >return of temporalities or
enthronement rather than from the papal bull >authorising the
translation. In Skirlaw's case, Fryde et al, "Handbook of >British
Chronology", give 3 April as the date of the papal provision, but 13
>September as the date when the temporalities were restored.
>
> Chris Phillips
Dear Chris ~
Thank you for sharing this information with us. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com