Richard Chamberlain-Joan Reynes-Sir John Knyvet
RBodine996
of his heir, Richard (died 1396), I would like to expand on my previous posting
in this regard.
Sir Richard was married by 1346 to Katherine de la Dale, daughter of Sir Thomas
Berkeley and his wife Margery. The details of this have already been presented
in my earlier posting on the Chamberlains. VCH, Northamptonshire, 4: 58-59,
discusses the history and descent of this manor. Quoting VCH: "Richard
Chamberleyn, who had married Katharine, petitioned that the king would release
the manor, as it was not held in chief, and it was found that the manor was
held immediately of the Earl of Lancaster as two knights' fees, by rent of 1d.
yearly and suit at Higham Ferrers Court, and that the earl held the manor of
the king, as of the honor of Chokes..."
In 1356, Henry, Earl of Lancaster, granted the manor to the Dean and Canons of
the College of St. Mary at Leicester. In 1428, the holding was described as
one knights' fee only, "the other fee being said to have remained in the hands
of Richard Chamberleyn and ultimately to have become divided between a number
of cited persons and institutions.
Wollaston had come into possession of Sir Thomas de Berkeley as an inheritance
of his wife, Margery, daughter and heir of Sir Robert le Bray. It would appear
that Richard Chamberlain married Katherine in March 1346. In the first IPM of
Sir Thomas de Berkeley, taken 9 March 1346, his heir is called Lady katherine
de la Dale. But in the IPM of 20 March 1346, a petition was cited wherein
Richard Chamberlain had married Katherine (CIPM, 8: no. 630). Based upon the
statements in VCH one would deduce that during their marriage, Richard and
Katherine disposed of one knight's fee to a number of individuals and abbeys
and hospitals and when Katherine died, presumably in 1356, without issue and
any other heirs, Henry, Earl of Lancaster took possession of the other knights'
fee and the manor then became known as Burie Manor.
That being the case, it would tend to give more support to Joan Reynes, the
third wife as being the mother of Sir Richard's son. I have not found any
documents that name Sir Richard with wife Joan before his IPM. Katherine de la
Dale may have died in 1356 and by 24 October 1363, Sir Richard Chamberlain was
involved in land transactions with Sir Thomas de Reynes, who would have been
the father of Sir Richard's wife Joan (Cal. Close Rolls, 1360-4, p. 548). This
might be an indication that the marriage had already taken place.
Richard Chamberlain (died 1396), the son, was himself married by 1379, and
unless this was a child marriage, he could well have been an adult, of age,
having been born shortly after 1356, and aged at least 16 when his father first
witnessed the quitclaim in 1363 with Sir Thomas de Reynes.
So, if Joan Reynes was then the mother of young Richard, why is she never
referred to as his mother in any of the Chamberlain IPMs? In her own IPM,
taken 5 Oct 1413 (CIPM, 20: no. 57) it is stated "She died on 20 Sept. 1409.
Richard the son and heir of Richard, son of Richard, knight, is the next heir
of Joan and Richard the son, aged 22 years and more."
When Sir Richard died in 1391 he left his widow several manors as her dower and
these were confirmed by his son onto Joan. The son, Richard, died in 1396, and
was thus the heir of both his father and of Joan.
When Margaret Chamberlain, widow of Richard (died 1396) died in 1408, her IPM
referred to her heir as "Richard her son and heir is aged 16 years and more."
Yet, this is not the case with Joan, whose heir is referred to in an abstract
way.
Maybe I am trying to read too much into this.
And to briefly address the issue of Sir John Knyvet as father of Margaret, wife
of Richard Chamberlain (died 1439), this was a side issue that I had not
intended to pursue all that vigorously as the focus was on the Chamberlains.
Now that the evidence for this marriage is questioned and the sources appear to
be weak, I will look into this further and report on the findings at a later
time. Sir John Knyvet made a will in 1426 by which time he was the father of
two sons and two daughters. His eldest son and heir was Sir John Knyvet
through whom the family estates passed. One of the two daughters named in the
Visitation of the North, was Joan, who married John Lynne (died 1486/7) and
received the Knyvet ancestral home in Southwick, Northamptonshire. John
Lynne's sister Alice married Joan Knyvet's brother, Sir John in August 1430.
Ronny Bodine
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Ronny,
Thanks very much for the follow-up.
Personally, I am rooting for the Knyvet marriage, even if at this point
it is not secure :-)
Kay Allen AG
Dcrdcr4
It seems clear from Sir Thomas Berkeley's IPM which you cite that Richard
Chamberlain's wife, Katherine de la Dale, was previously married to a knight
named de la Dale, yet I don't see any explanation of that in your Chamberlain
text. That is why she was called "Lady Katherine de la Dale." The term
"lady" denotes she was the wife of a knight.
RBodine996
Indeed I did not go into any great detail about Katherine. By virtue of her
name and parentage it seemed clear she was previously married, but her first
husband had no bearing on my coverage of the Champernouns. Since it seems very
likly she was also not the mother of Richard Chamberlain's heir, and left no
estates in the hands of her husband to be passed on down, what was the point?
As the wife of Richard Chamberlain she left no IPM. I prepared the account of
the Chamberlains for my personal use and decided to post it when asked to do
so. It might be of some help to others and elicit some response which it did.
When I am determined to solve such a mess as the Chamberlains, who figure in my
own ancestry, I prepare this type of account and add to it as I stumble across
new material. Eventually, the mass of data may overcome any inconsistencies in
traditional genealogies. The Chamberlain account took me about four years to
compile.
Ronny Bodine
Tim Powys-Lybbe
dcr...@aol.com (Dcrdcr4) wrote:
> Ronny:
>
> It seems clear from Sir Thomas Berkeley's IPM which you cite that Richard
> Chamberlain's wife, Katherine de la Dale, was previously married to a knight
> named de la Dale, yet I don't see any explanation of that in your Chamberlain
> text. That is why she was called "Lady Katherine de la Dale." The term
> "lady" denotes she was the wife of a knight.
>
>
Curiously I am not so sure of the "Lady" business. In several
references, that I have seen, to wives of knights in the 17th and 18th
centuries they are always referred to as "Dame". I had concluded that
"Lady" was a modern invention, as in "Her Majesty".
Further the medieval use that I have seen of "Lady" is as much that they
were some relation of a much more important person, frequently to some
sovereign.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk
For a patchwork of bygones: www.southfrm.demon.co.uk