Another C.P. Addition: Joan de Clemdon, wife of Thomas de Valoines
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 6 (1926): 144 (sub Grey of Rotherfield) includes an
account of the history of Sir Robert de Grey (died 1295), of
Rotherfield, Somerton, and Hardwick, Oxfordshire. Sir Robert de Grey
is the lineal ancestor of the Lords Grey of Rotherfield. Regarding
his marriage, the following skimpy information is provided by Complete
Peerage:
"He married Joan, daughter of Thomas de Valoines .... [Joan] his
widow died before 12 Nov. 1312." END OF QUOTE.
Joan de Valoines, wife of Sir Robert de Grey, was actually the
daughter and heiress of Thomas de Valoines, of Shabbington, Middle
Claydon, and Bottle Claydon, Buckinghamshire, by his wife, Joan, as
indicated in a post found in the newsgroup archives made by the ever
helpful Kay Allen.
Further, there is an interesting charter issued by Joan de Valoines,
widow of Sir Robert de Grey, which can be found in J. Delaville le
Roulx, Cartulaire Général de L'Ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de
Jérusalem, 3 (1899): 765. This charter was unfortunately overlooked
by Complete Peerage. There is also an abstract of a lawsuit involving
Lady Joan de Grey found in R.H. Helmholz, Select Cases of Defamation
to 1600 (Selden Soc. 101) (1985): 3-4. The lawsuit indicates that
Lady Joan Gray [sic] sued Master Richard of St. Frideswide, Archdeacon
of Buckingham, for defamation sometime about 1290.
As noted above, Kay Allen identified the wife of Thomas de Valoines as
Joan, but no parentage was stated for her. Her identity as Joan de
Clemdon, daughter of Geoffrey and Joan de Clemdon, is proven by a
series of entries found in the published Oxfordshire Eyre, 1241
(Oxfordshire Rec. Soc. 56) (1989), edited by Janet Cooper. I've
copied the pertinent items below.
pg. 9: "Oxon. Henry de Bulchegh essoins Reynold of Whitchurch (he has
a wife, Alice) against Thomas de Valoynes and Joan his wife; (assize
mort dancestor <land>); one month after Easter. Same day given to
Reynold's wife Alice, by her attorney, in the Bench. New case.
pg. 22: "Oxon. Joan wife of Thomas de Valoynes appoints Thomas her
husband her attorney against Reynold of Whitchurch; plea of land."
pg. 24: "Alice wife of Reynold of Whitchurch appoints Thomas of Aston
her attorney against Thomas de Valoynes and Joan his wife; plea of
land,"
pg. 99: "Assize of mort dancestor to declare whether Geoffrey de
Clemdon, father of Joan wife of Thomas de Valoynes, was seised of 1/10
acre land in Bolney [in Harpsden] which Reynold of Whitchurch holds.
He comes [blank in MS.]."
"The same assize to declare whether Joan de Clemdon, mother of Joan
wife of the same Thomas, was seised of 18s. rent in Bolney [in
Harpsden] of which Reynold and Alice his wife disseised them. They
come and say that they cannot answer whether Alan of Farnham and
Margery his wife their parceners. So they are to be summoned in
Berkshire to be at Lambeth on Monday after Ascension day to answer
them. The same day is given to the jurors in the Bench. Afterwards
an agreement was reached, and Thomas gives 10s. for licence to agree,
by surety of Reynold; and Reynold gives 10s. for the same by surety of
Thomas." END OF QUOTE.
Geoffrey de Clemdon mentioned above is presumably the same person as
Geoffrey "de Clendona," the nephew of Geoffrey de Quarrendon, who
unsuccessfully claimed a member of the manor of Aylesbury,
Buckinghamshire while William de Mandeville, son of Geoffrey Fitz
Peter, was Earl of Essex, or roughly sometime in the period, 1216-1227
[Reference: VCH Buckingham, 3 (1925): 13].
For interest's sake, below is a list of the numerous 17th Century New
World colonial immigrants that descend from Joan de Valoines, wife of
Sir Robert de Grey, of Rotherfield, Oxfordshire, and her mother, Joan
de Clemdon.
1. Christopher Batt.
2. Henry, Thomas & William Batte.
3. William Bladen.
4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
5. Thomas Bressey.
6. Stephen Bull.
7. Edward Carleton.
8. Thomas Dudley.
9. John Fenwick.
10. John Fisher.
11. Alice (Freeman) Thompson.
12. Muriel Gurdon.
13. Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis.
14..Agnes Mackworth.
15. Roger & Thomas Mallory.
16. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.
17. Anne Mauleverer.
18. Joseph & Mary Need.
19. Philip & Thomas Nelson.
20. Ellen Newton.
21. Thomas Owsley.
22. John Oxenbridge.
23. Edward Raynsford.
24. Thomas Rudyard.
25. Richard Saltonstall.
26. James Taylor.
27. Thomas Yale.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
mj...@btinternet.com
Interesting - but I thought the purpose of CP was to detail each peer
and his sucessors in the title, not every matrilineal ancestor. If by
CP additions we mean the identification of material that was outside
the scope of CP's remit, then we should not be surprised that it is
not within CP's volumes, Furthermore, using this apparent definition,
I have plenty I can post: for instance, CP does not tell us that Phar
Lap won the 1930 Melbourne Cup - does this make that fact a CP
addition? And can I then take CP to task for "unfortunately
overlooking" it or, worse still, "surpressing" it?
Why can't such useful pieces of information as an exposition of the
Valoignes/Clemdon link be presented in their own right, rather than as
a beat up on CP?
MA-R
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1177139177....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Further, there is an interesting charter issued by Joan de Valoines,
> widow of Sir Robert de Grey, which can be found in J. Delaville le
> Roulx, Cartulaire Général de L'Ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de
> Jérusalem, 3 (1899): 765. This charter was unfortunately overlooked
> by Complete Peerage.
And just what is interesting about it that makes its omission from CP
unfortunate, and that you are also - very collegially - not telling us?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1177140629.4...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting - but I thought the purpose of CP was to detail each peer
> and his sucessors in the title, not every matrilineal ancestor. If by
> CP additions we mean the identification of material that was outside
> the scope of CP's remit, then we should not be surprised that it is
> not within CP's volumes, Furthermore, using this apparent definition,
> I have plenty I can post: for instance, CP does not tell us that Phar
> Lap won the 1930 Melbourne Cup - does this make that fact a CP
> addition? And can I then take CP to task for "unfortunately
> overlooking" it or, worse still, "surpressing" it?
You are on to something here, Michael - CP was clearly suppressing the
facts, that Phar Lap was desexed and never married. I suspect that Vicary
Gibbs had a hand in the horse's death. I will post (or not) some startling
new comment to this effect tommorrow. Start preparing now for the shock.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage uses a specific format to identify a man's wife.
First, the wife's given name is stated if known, followed by the names
of the wife's parents, and then the wife's maternal grandfather.
Reference to land holdings is usually made. In the Grey of
Rotherfield account, only the father of Joan de Valoines was named,
without reference to any his land holdings.
Had the writer behind Complete Peerage had better knowledge of his or
her facts, he or she should have said the following about Sir Robert
de Grey's wife:
"He married Joan, daughter of Thomas de Valoines, of Shabbington,
Middle Claydon, and Bottle Claydon, Buckinghamshire, by Joan, daughter
and heiress of Geoffrey de Clemdon."
Flagging an addition to Complete Peerage is for your benefit, Michael,
not mine.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/21/2007 1:30:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
I will post (or not) some startling
new comment to this effect tommorrow. Start preparing now for the shock.
Could you please post your findings in perhaps Italian, Swedish or Sanskrit
and then make pronouncements on what a particular word means, esp. in those
cases where the meaning has changed over time. It would help if you have no
personal instruction in that language by the way.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> Flagging an addition to Complete Peerage is for your benefit, Michael,
> not mine.
Dear Douglas
I appreciate your posting your research, as indicated in my note. I
would value your posts more if they were not intended to be at the
expense of the researchers and editors of CP. It is hardly surprising
that such a vast undertaking as CP will inevitably contain errors and
omissions, because it was compiled by human beings - exactly as is the
case with your own publications.
I would find it be equally insulting if someone writing about one of
the various errors or omissions in your published works started by
saying "had Douglas Richardson had better knowledge of his facts...";
that kind of gratuitous remark is unworthy of you: you don't need to
diminish the work of others in order to make your own contributions
appear valuable.
Speaking of errors, have you yet had the opportunity to address WAR's
refutation of your earlier statement that Blanche/Margaret de Audley
was not a coheir of her father? Additionally, I presume that when you
post further on the Clavering/Audley issue you will also address the
heraldic evidence that has been raised. Acknowledging errors and
tackling difficult material is more difficult that sneering at others'
mistakes, but it is more useful in earning respect.
Best wishes, Michael