C.P. Addition: Joan, mother of Maud de la Mare, wife of Peter de Montfort
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 127 (sub Montfort) has a good account of
the life history of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire. Regarding Sir Peter's marriage, Complete Peerage says
the following:
"He married circa 1260 Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew, son of
Henry de la Mare, with whom he has Ashtead in Surrey."
The source cited for the marriage of Peter and Maud is V.C.H. Surrey,
3 (1911): 248. V.C.H. Surrey in turn gives two sources for the
marriage, one which identifies Maud as the daughter of Henry de la
Mare, and the other which identifies Maud as the daughter of Matthew
son of Henry de la Mare.
So far, I've been unable to prove whether Henry or Matthew de la Mare
was the father of Maud de la Mare. Recently, however, I located a
contemporary record which indicates that Maud de la Mare was the
daughter and co-heiress of a certain Joan de la Mare, which
information is found in the abstract of a lawsuit published in
Somersetshire Pleas 4 (Somerset Record Society 44) (1929); 60-62. The
abstract is lengthy, so only a brief portion is copied below:
Date: 1280. "Peter de Monte Forti and Maud his wife and Robert le
Veel and Hawise his wife seek against John de Cameys [Camoys] and
Margaret his wife the manor of Norton' near Taunton which they claim
to be the right of Maud and Hawise, in which John and Margaret have no
entry excepting by John de Gatesden' who unjustly etc. disseised
thereof Joan de la Mare, mother of Maud and Hawise whose heirs they
are, after the first, etc."
From the above, we learn that Maud de la Mare and her sister, Hawise,
wife of Robert le Veel, were the daughters and co-heiresses of Joan de
la Mare, who died in or before 1280. Hawise le Veel is not mentioned
by either VCH Surrey or by Complete Peerage. Hawise le Veel is
presumably ancestral to Sir Peter le Veel, of Tortworth,
Gloucestershire (died 1346) whose widow, Katherine de Clivedon,
married (2nd) Sir Thomas de Berkeley, 3rd Lord Berkeley. The
inquisition post mortem of Sir Peter le Veel indicates he held the
manor of Norton [Fitzwarren], Somerset at the time of his death. I
assume that this manor is identical with the manor named Norton in
Somersetshire which was involved in the earlier 1280 lawsuit cited
above. If so, it would appear that the le Veel family's share of the
de la Mare inheritance was the manor of Norton, Somerset, whereas the
Montfort family inherited the de la Mare manor of Ashtead, Surrey.
For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the numerous 17th
Century American colonial immigrants who descend from Sir Peter de
Montfort and his wife, Maud de la Mare. Information on individual
descents can be found in part in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry.
1. Robert Abell
2. Dannett Abney
3. Elizabeth Bosvile
4. Nathaniel Browne
5. Charles Calvert (two descents)
6. Grace Chetwode
7. Jeremy Clarke
8. Henry Corbin
9. Katherine Hamby
10. Matthew Kempe
11. Henry, Jane, & Nicholas Lowe
12. Thomas Owsley (two descents)
13. Mary Johanna Somerset (three descents)
14. Olive Welby
15. Hawte Wyatt
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my original post on the parentage of Maud de la Mare,
wife of Peter de Montfort, I've located additional information
relating to her sister and brother-in-law, Hawise and Robert le Veel,
in an online history of the parish of Sompting, Sussex found at
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=18217). This
information is taken from VCH Sussex, 6 Part 1 (1980): 53-64. It
concerns the manor of Cokeham, which is located in Sompting parish:
"Land in Cokeham formerly held of Earl Harold by one Grene was held in
1086 by Ralph of William de Braose [Reference: V.C.H. Suss. i. 448].
In 1262 COKEHAM manor was settled by Thomas de Brom on Walter de la
Hyde and his wife Joan. [Reference: Suss. Fines, ii (S.R.S. vii), p.
54]. Their daughter may have been Hawise, wife of Robert le Veel, who
in 1304 sold the manor's reversion to Sir William Paynel and his wife
Margaret. It was then held for life by Henry of Guildford [Reference:
Ibid. pp. 181–2; C.P. 40/154 m. 194d.]." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Walter de la Hyde and his wife, Joan, were in
possession of the manor of Cokeham, Sussex in 1262, which manor
subsequently passed to Robert le Veel and his wife, Hawise de la Mare.
In 1304 Robert and Hawise in turn sold the manor to another party,
subject to the reversion held for life by Henry de Guildford. In
addition to Cokeham, it appears that Walter de la Hyde and his wife,
Joan, also had the manor of Stammerham (in Horsham), Sussex settled on
them in 1262 [Reference: VCH Sussex, 6 Part 2 (1986): 156-1566, found
online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=18351].
The subsequent history of Stammerham is unknown.
Interestingly, VCH Surrey 3 shows that this same Walter and Joan de la
Hyde were in possession of the de la Mare manor of Ashtead, Surrey in
1260. In that year Peter de Montfort (then or future husband of Maud
de la Mare) forcibly ejected Walter and Joan from a moiety of Ashtead,
"which Walter and Joan held by virtue of the wardship" of Maud. From
this information, one might presume that Joan, wife of Walter de la
Hyde, is the same woman as Joan de la Mare, mother of Maud de Montfort
and Hawise le Veel. If so, it would appear that Joan married (1st)
Matthew or Henry de la Mare; (2nd) by 1260 Walter de la Hyde. She may
possibly have married (3rd) Henry de Guildford, which might explain
the life interest he held in the manor of Cokeham in 1304.
Elsewhere, I've found an online history of the parish of Washington,
Sussex (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=18264). It
is taken from VCH Sussex, 6 Part 1 (1980): 247-259. It includes a
record of the descent of the manor of Chancton, Sussex, which property
is located in Washington parish. I've copied below the pertinent
section of the discussion:
"Before 1066 the manor of CHANCTON was held of Earl Godwin by
Essocher, and in 1086 it was held of Bramber honor by Richard
[Reference: V.C.H. Suss. i. 446]. In later times at least the manor
was in two parts, the larger in the east of the parish and the smaller
in the west [Reference: Arundel Cast. MS. M 127, ff. 159–66; B.L. Add.
MS. 5685, f. 55.]. Humphrey of Chancton, recorded in the mid 12th
century, may have held it [Reference: Magd. Coll. Oxf. Mun.,
Crockhurst 6 (TS. cat.)]. The manor was apparently identical with
lands held of Bramber honor in the early 13th century by Ellis of
Chancton, the mesne lordship of which was granted by John de Braose
(d. 1232) to John de Gatesden, later lord of Broadwater, [Reference:
Westm. Abbey Mun. 5469A, f. 1; cf. Cur. Reg. R. xi, pp. 206, 373; xii,
pp. 176, 285; xiv, p. 180; Sele Chartulary, p. 82.] for Chancton was
usually afterwards said to be held of Broadwater [Reference: e.g.
Suss. Fines, ii (S.R.S. vii), pp. 62–3; Cal. Inq. p.m. v, p. 236; Cal.
Inq. p.m. Hen. VII, i, p. 185; but cf. Bk. of Fees, ii. 690; Cal. Inq.
Misc. iii, p. 378; C 142/581 no. 114.].
Ralph of Chancton held ? fee in Chancton in 1242 [Reference: Bk. of
Fees, ii. 690.] and was still alive c. 1260 [Reference: S.N.Q. iv.
42.]. In 1287 or 1288 his brother and heir Walkelin [Reference:
Wrottesley, Pedigrees from Plea Rolls, 551] conveyed the manor to
Robert and Hawise le Veel; [Reference: B. L. Add. MS. 39490, f. 68.].
Robert was taxed in Washington in 1296 [Reference: Suss. Subsidies
(S.R.S. x), 56], but had died by 1300 when Hawise was recorded as lady
[Reference: Westm. Abbey Mun. 4072]. In 1303 a grant of free warren
at Chancton was made to Henry of Guildford (d. c. 1312) [Reference:
Cal. Chart. R. 1300–26, 35; cf. Sele Chartulary, p. 91], who was
succeeded by a kinsman, John the marshal [Reference: Cal. Inq. p.m. v,
p. 236]. He, or his son of the same name [Reference: Cf. C.P. 40/351
m. 148], forfeited the lands for felony in 1343, but they were
restored later that year [Reference: Cal. Inq. Misc. ii, p. 453; Cal.
Close, 1343–6, 160–1]. John the marshal the younger had the manor in
1348 [Reference: C.P. 40/351 m. 148; C.P. 40/356 m. 224d]." END OF
QUOTE
We see above that Robert le Veel and his wife, Hawise de la Mare, are
again associated with a property involving the Brewes and Gattesden
families. Also, Henry de Guildford is again mentioned. Robert and
Hawise le Veel purportedly acquired the manor of Chancton by
conveyance from Walkelin de Chancton. If so, it would seem this
property was not part of Hawise le Veel's inheritance from her
parents.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04110...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
The following new record regarding Sir Walter de la Hyde, Knt., the
probable 2nd husband of Joan de la Mare (died c. 1280), has been
located in the helpful online National Archives catalogue at the
following website:
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp
"E 40/4010: Release by Hawyse de Nevile, late the wife of Sir John de
Gatesden, widow, to Sir Philip Basset, of all her right of dower in
her late husband's lands in Mayford. Witnesses:- Sirs William de
Wyltone, Gilbert de Prestetone, William de Insula, Hubert de Ruylly,
David de Jarpunvill, Robert le Chamberleyng, and Walter de la Hyde,
knights, and others (named): [Surrey]. Date: Edward I." END OF QUOTE
The grantor in this conveyance is readily identified as Hawise de
Courtenay, wife successively of John de Neville (died 1246) and Sir
John de Gatesden (died 1262) [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1936):
481-482 (sub Neville)]. By her 2nd marriage, Hawise de Courtenay was
the mother of Margaret de Gatesden, wife of Sir John de Camoys, which
couple were involved in the 1280 lawsuit with Peter de Montfort and
his wife, Maud de la Mare, regarding the manor of Norton, Somerset.
It is unclear if there was any kinship between the Gatesden-Camoys
family and the de la Mare family.
Since my original post, the ever helpful John Ravilious has kindly
brought my attention to the fact that Joan de la Mare, mother of Maud
(de la Mare) de Montfort, is ancestral to a good many more colonial
American immigrants than what I first posted. The current tally shows
that over 55 colonial immigrants descend from Joan de la Mare, several
of them in multiple ways. A revised list of colonial immigrants is
provided below.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Corrected list of colonial American immigrants who descend from Peter
de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire (died 1287), and his wife,
Maud, daughter and co-heiress of Joan de la Mare:
1. Robert Abell
2. Elizabeth Alsop
3. Dannett Abney
4. Samuel Argall
5. William Asfordby
6. Charles Barham
7. William Bladen (three descents)
8. George & Nehemiah Blakiston
9. Elizabeth Bosvile (two descents)
10. Mary Bourchier
11. Nathaniel Browne
12. Stephen Bull
13. Charles Calvert (three descents)
14. Grace Chetwode
15. Jeremy Clarke
16. St. Leger Codd (two descents)
17. Henry Corbin
18. Francis Dade (two descents)
19. Humphrey Davie
20. Edward Digges (two descents)
21. Thomas Dudley
22. Henry Filmer
23. Henry Fleete
24. Katherine Hamby
25. Elizabeth & John Harleston (two descents)
26. Warham Horsmanden (two descents)
27. Anne Humphrey
28. Edmund Jennings
29. Matthew Kempe
30. Mary Launce
31. Hannah, Samuel, & Sarah Levis
32. Anne Lovelace
33. Henry, Jane, & Nicholas Lowe
34. Thomas Lunsford
35. Agnes Mackworth
36. Anne Mauleverer
37. Richard More
38. Joseph & Mary Need
39. John Nelson (three descents)
40. Philip & Thomas Nelson (two descents)
41. Thomas Owsley (two descents)
42. John Oxenbridge
43. Herbert Pelham
44. Robert Peyton
45. George Reade
46. William Rodney
47. Katherine Saint Leger (two descents)
48. Richard Saltonstall
49. William Skepper
50. Diana & Grey Skipwith (two descents)
51. Mary Johanna Somerset (nine descents)
52. John Throckmorton
53. Samuel & William Torrey
54. Olive Welby
55. John West
56. Thomas Wingfield (two descents)
57. Hawte Wyatt
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04110...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Sometime ago, I posted a reference from the Calendar of Chancery
Warrants which indicated that a Simon de Montagu, clerk, was styled
"king's cousin and clerk" in 1317 by King Edward II of England [see
copy of my original message below]. To date, the exact kinship
between Simon de Montagu and King Edward II of England has not been
established. However, the possibility exists that their common
ancestry comes through Simon de Montagu's great-grandmother, Joan de
la Mare (died c. 1280), whose existence has been proven by a lawsuit
dated 1280 posted this week on the newsgroup.
One possible explanation of the kinship might work if Joan de la Mare
was found to be a daughter of Hawise (de Courtenay) (de Neville) de
Gatesden (died 1269). I posted the abstract of a PRO document earlier
today granted by Hawise de Courtenay, which grant was witnessed by
Walter de la Hyde, the probable 2nd husband of Joan de la Mare. If
Joan was Hawise's daughter, this arrangement would make Simon de
Montagu's great-great-grandmother a Courtenay. Checking King Edward
II's ancestry, I find that his great-grandmother, Isabel of Angouleme,
was the daughter of Alice de Courtenay.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST:
From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Simon de Montagu's kingship to King Edward II
Date: 10 Dec 2002 08:57:53 -0800
Dear Newsgroup ~
This past month I encountered a reference to Simon de Montagu, clerk,
being called "king's cousin and clerk" by King Edward II in 1317
[Reference: Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927), pg. 465]. Since I've never
encountered any previous connection between the Montagu family and the
English royal family in any other document, I was surprised to find
the reference. Simon de Montagu, clerk, can be readily identified as
a younger son of William de Montagu, 2nd Lord Montagu, by his wife,
Elizabeth, daughter of Peter de Montfort, Knt., of Beaudesert, co.
Warwick. Simon subsequently became Bishop of Worcester and Bishop of
Ely.
While this is purely a guess, I imagine that Simon de Montagu was
related to King Edward II through his mother, Elizabeth de Montfort.
If so, it suggests that Elizabeth has something important in her
ancestry which has previously been overlooked.
If anyone has any ideas how Simon de Montagu and King Edward II are
related, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04110...@posting.google.com>...
L Mahler
via the lines of Montacute, Mortimer, Percy, Clifford etc.
Leslie
Douglas Richardson
Below is yet another record from the PRO National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp) which links
Sir Walter de la Hyde, the probable 2nd husband of Joan de la Mare, to
Sir John de Gatesden (died 1262), husband of Hawise (de Courtenay)
Neville:
"E 40/4008: Demise by John de Gatesdene, to Sir Philip Basset, of all
his land in Mayford, which he had of the gift of Walter de Langeford.
Witnesses:- Sirs Walter de Merton, chancellor of England, Gilbert de
Preston, Robert de Briwes, William de Wilton, and William de
Engelfeud, justices of the king, Sirs David de Jarpunvill, William de
Insula, Hubert de Ruly, Richard de Ruly, Robert le Chamberleng, Roger
de la Hyde, and Walter de la Hide, knights, and others (named):
[Surrey]. Date: Edward I." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 481-482 (sub Neville) indicates that
Hawise de Courtenay, wife of John de Neville and John de Gatesden,
founded a chantry at the Austin priory of Mottenden in Headcorn, Kent.
The following document from the National Archives catalogue appears
to concern this chantry:
"DL 25/3469: Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Brother Ralph,
minister of the House of Mottenden: inspeximus of a charter whereby
the Trinitarian Friars of Mottenden undertook to say Mass for Dame
Hawise de Neoville and at her request for Robert de Curtenay, John de
Neoville and John de Gatesdene from the year 1253: Kent." END OF
QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04110...@posting.google.com>...
Terry
not also part of this de la Mare family, he was knight of the shire of
Hereford, and also the steward of the house of Edmond "the good" Mortimer,
Earl of March, whose mother was a Montagu, this would make Edmond and Peter
cousins.
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <douglasr...@royalancestry.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Joan, mother of Maud de la Mare, wife of Peter
de Montfort
Douglas Richardson
> I believe Samuel Levis of PA, and his relatives, descend from Montfort
> via the lines of Montacute, Mortimer, Percy, Clifford etc.
>
> Leslie
Dear Leslie ~
Thank you for your good post. In my revised list of 55+ American
colonial immigrants who are descended from Joan de la Mare, I have
included Samuel Levis and his sisters and their Need kinsfolk.
jef...@iquest.net
Baldwin Townshend Jones Williams and her brothers Robert and William (possibly
through their Folville ancestry?), who we discussed on this forum a couple of
months ago. I won't have access to my notes at home until late this evening,
but I'll post the connection once I have a chance to look it up (assuming I've
remembered correctly). Perhaps someone else on the list will be able to
determine whether or not their de la Mares (I believe I have the father's name
as well as the daughter) are connected to any of the ones under discussion.
Cheers,
Jeff Duvall
Leo van de Pas
have heard that record numbers of people are voting in the Presidential
elections and many started to line up at 5 in the morning.
For me it is a special day as I just received a message that, yet again, my
sister has become a grandmother.
Well, I thought it was about time I had a look at Douglas Richardson's
website site.
I think it is very clearly and cleanly laid out which makes for easy
reading.
I think I can only wonder that his website is still in progress and aspects
are missing.
After mentioning that Douglas Richardson had glossed over the name Anne or
Emma, I was told that on his website he deals with questions and
problems........I could not find an entry dealing with problems.
Then he has a page with the heading
Here's a bunch of fabulous reviews Plantagenet Ancestry has received.
Followed by nothing. Or is this my computer? Sadly, for me, using the term
fabulous implies that reviews selectively will be displayed.
Still it is an easy to follow site and beautifully and simply laid out,
really good for the eyes.
I wonder how many have seen the Dutch Genlias site----magnifying glasses are
needed.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <douglasr...@royalancestry.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
<snip>
The...@aol.com
Dear Douglas,
Many thanks for the multiple finds (and clues) concerning the de
la Mare family, Bishop Simon de Montagu & c.
I've attempted to discern probabilities and possibilities as to
the individual relationships, including the original one you
referenced between Edward II of England and Simon de Montagu, later
Bishop of Ely (d. 1345). Following is a second attempt at
reconstruction: thanks (Douglas) for your review and corrections to
the original. The unproven link between Hawise de Courtenay and Joan,
wife of 1) Matthew (or Henry) de la Mare, and 2) Walter de la Hyde,
shown as a broken line ( _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ) . Also, the relationship to
John de Gatesden and his daughter Margaret, wife of John de Camoys, is
a conjecture based on the claim of Hawise (de la Mare) le Veel and her
sister Matilda (de la Mare) de Montfort against Margaret and John de
Camoys.
Sibyl ~ Henry I = Edith/Maud
Corbet : of England I of Scotland
: I_______
: I
Reginald Matilda
E of Cornwall = Geoffrey of Anjou
I I
I I
Robert de = Maud of Henry II
C of Meulan I Cornwall K of England
I__________ I
I I
Renaud de = HAWISE William de = Mabel John
Courtenay I de Reviers I de K of England
I Curci E of Devon I Meulan I
I ___________I I
I I I
Robert de = Mary de Reviers Henry III
Courtenay I <heiress of Devon K of England
d. 1242 I in her issue> I
__________I_______ I___
I I I
Sir John Hawise de = 1) John = 2) John = NN Edward I
d. 1274 Courtenay I de de I___ K of England
= Isabel _ _ _ _ _ I Neville Gatesden I I
de Vere I I I
I Joan de = 1) Mathew ? = 2) Walter I EDWARD II
I Neville ? I de la de la I K of
Sir Hugh de d bef I Mare Hyde I England
Courtenay 1281 I Margaret
d. 1291 I________ = John de
I _______I____________ Camoys
I I I I
Sir Hugh de Matilda Hawise V
Courtenay = Piers de = Robert le
b. ca. 1275 Montfort Veel
1st Earl of Devon b ca 1240 d. bef 1300
d. 1340 d. ca 1286
____________I_________
I I
John de Montfort Elizabeth = William de Montagu
d. bef May 1296 I d. 1319
_________________I_______
I I I I I
William SIMON <siblings>
1st E of Bishop of
Salisbury Ely
d. 1343 d. 1345
<King's Cousin>
As I stated in connection with the original version, the
generational span from Matilda the Empress (wife of Geoffrey
'Plantagenet' of Anjou) to Edward II of England, 5 generations in 182
years, yields an average of 36.4 years per generation. The fact that
the above shows an additional 3 generations from Henry I of England
to Simon de Montagu (9, vs. 6 to Edward II of England) causes no
concern, as the span of 234 years (Simon's older brother William was
born ca. 1301) yields an average of 26 years, which is in a range we
would expect.
If the foregoing is validated, it would connect the Montagu Earls
of Salisbury with the Nevilles of Hallingbury, Essex and the
Courtenay Earls of Devon, not to mention provide a solution to the
'unknown' relationship between King Edward II and Bishop Simon of Ely.
Cheers,
John
Jeffery A. Duvall
her brothers Robert and William) does indeed have a de la Mare in her
ancestry...specifically the Baldwin siblings are descended from a Sir
Geoffrey de la Mare whose daughter Isabel was the wife of Geoffrey de
Folville (d. 1374).
The line comes down through their daughter Mabel de Folville and her husband
John Woodford II (1358-1401). Their daughter, Isabel Woodford, married
Lawrence Sherard of Stapleford (d. 1452). From there it's through the
Sherard and Mackworth families, and so on, down to the Baldwins.
Unfortunately I have no information on who this Sir Geoffrey de la Mare was
or if he was connected to any of the de la Mare's being discussed in this
thread.
Jeff Duvall
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for posting the chart showing the various potential
relationships between the Montfort, le Veel, de la Mare, Neville,
Gatesden, and Courtenay families.
I have one correction for your chart. Margaret de Gatesdem, wife of
John de Camoys, has been identified in print as the daughter of John
de Gatesden, by his wife, Hawise de Courtenay. A brief discussion of
Margaret's parentage is provided in Complete Peerage, 9 (1935): 481,
footnote i (sub Neville). As I recall, there is also a dicussuon of
this matter in a published London subsidy.
Complete Peerage states that John de Gatesden and Hawise de Courtenay
were married by Easter 1254 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1935):
footnote i]. However, the record which I posted earlier this week
[see copy below] suggests that they were married in or before 1253.
This record would be another correction of Complete Peerage.
"DL 25/3469: Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Brother Ralph,
minister of the House of Mottenden: inspeximus of a charter whereby
the Trinitarian Friars of Mottenden undertook to say Mass for Dame
Hawise de Neoville and at her request for Robert de Curtenay, John de
Neoville and John de Gatesdene from the year 1253: Kent." END OF
QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<12c.4fd3a1...@aol.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Sometime ago, I posted a reference to Simon de Montagu, clerk, who was
styled "king's cousin and clerk" by King Edward II in 1317 [Reference:
Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927), pg. 465]. I was fairly surprised to
find this reference, as I hadn't previously encountered any connection
between the Montagu family and the English royal family in the
records. Simon de Montagu, clerk, can be readily identified as a
younger son of William de Montagu, 2nd Lord Montagu, by his wife,
Elizabeth, daughter of Peter de Montfort, Knt., of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire. Simon de Montagu subsequently became Bishop of
Worcester and Bishop of Ely.
At the time of my earlier post, my thought was that Simon de Montagu
was probably related to King Edward II through his mother, Elizabeth
de Montfort. If so, this would suggests that Elizabeth de Montfort
possesses something important in her ancestry which has previously
been overlooked. New evidence presented this past week indicates that
Elizabeth's maternal grandmother was Joan, wife successively of
Matthew de la Mare, Knt. (died before 1260), and Walter de la Hyde,
Knt. (living 1279). Due to close and regular association in the
records between the family of Joan de la Mare with the family of Sir
John de Gatesden, and his wife, Hawise de Courtenay, formerly wife of
John de Neville, I have theorized that Joan de la Mare was the
daughter of Hawise de Courtenay by her 1st husband, John de Neville.
Briefly, here are the records which connect these families:
1. Lawsuit dated 1280. "Peter de Monte Forti and Maud his wife and
Robert le Veel and Hawise his wife seek against John de Cameys
[Camoys] and Margaret his wife the manor of Norton' near Taunton which
they claim to be the right of Maud and Hawise, in which John and
Margaret have no entry excepting by John de Gatesden' who unjustly
etc. disseised thereof Joan de la Mare, mother of Maud and Hawise
whose heirs they are, after the first, etc." [Reference: Somersetshire
Pleas 4 (Somerset Record Society 44) (1929); 60-62].
Note: The plaintiffs, Maud de Montfort and Hawise le Veel, were the
daughters and co-heiresses of Joan de la Mare; Margaret, wife of John
de Camoys, was the daughter and heiress of John de Gatesden and Hawise
de Courtenay.
2. VCH Sussex, 6 Part 1 (1980): 53-64 [history of manor of Cokeham (in
Sompting)]:
"Land in Cokeham formerly held of Earl Harold by one Grene was held in
1086 by Ralph of William de Braose [Reference: V.C.H. Suss. i. 448].
In 1262 COKEHAM manor was settled by Thomas de Brom on Walter de la
Hyde and his wife Joan. [Reference: Suss. Fines, ii (S.R.S. vii), p.
54]. Their daughter may have been Hawise, wife of Robert le Veel, who
in 1304 sold the manor's reversion to Sir William Paynel and his wife
Margaret. It was then held for life by Henry of Guildford [Reference:
Ibid. pp. 181–2; C.P. 40/154 m. 194d.]." END OF QUOTE.
Note: Walter de la Hyde was the 2nd husband of Joan de la Mare.
Hawise, wife of Robert le Veel, was the daughter and co-heiress of
Joan de la Mare. Margaret, wife of Sir William Paynel, was the widow
of John de Camoys, and daughter of John de Gatesden and Hawise de
Courtenay. For an abstract of the recorded fine involving the
transfer of Cokeham from Hawise le Veel to William and Margaret
Paynel, see L. F. Salzman, An Abstract of Feet of Fines relating to
the County of Sussex (Sussex Rec. Soc. 7) (1908): 181-182.
3. PRO Document, E 40/4008: "Demise by John de Gatesdene, to Sir
Philip Basset, of all his land in Mayford, which he had of the gift of
Walter de Langeford. Witnesses:- Sirs Walter de Merton, chancellor of
England, Gilbert de Preston, Robert de Briwes, William de Wilton, and
William de Engelfeud [Englefield], justices of the king, Sirs David de
Jarpunvill, William de Insula [de Lisle], Hubert de Ruly, Richard de
Ruly, Robert le Chamberleng, Roger de la Hyde, and Walter de la Hide,
knights, and others (named): [Surrey]. Date: Edward I."
Note: John de Gatesden, the grantor, was the husband of Hawise de
Courtenay, widow of John de Neville. Walter de la Hyde was the 2nd
husband of Joan de la Mare.
4. Charter from Chichester Chartulary:
"I Roger de la Hyde, knight, quitclaim to the chapel of St. Edmund,
Confessor, and the priest and other ministers serving God therein my
right in all the land of Wyndham. Sealed. Witnesses: Sirs John de
Gatesdene, Walter de la Hyde, W. de Meneho, knights, Master John de
Corileto, G[eoffrey] de Gates, Canons of Chichester." [Reference:
W.D. Peckham, The Chartulary of the High Church of Chichester (Sussex
Rec. Soc. 46) (1942/3): 298].
Note: John de Gatesden was the husband of Hawise de Courtenay, widow
of John de Neville. Walter de la Hyde was the 2nd husband of Joan de
la Mare.
5. In 7th of Edward I [1278/9] at a court held at Chichester, Walter
de la Hyde claimed to have without writings in his manor of Waldron,
Sussex view of frankpledge and assize of beer and bread broken twice a
year; privileges which his predessors has enjoyed beyond living
memory. This manor was previously held by John de Gatesden and his
wife, Hawise de Courtenay [Reference: Sussex Archaeological
Collections, 13 (1861): 85-96, 99].
Note: Walter de la Hyde was the husband of Joan de la Mare. It is not
known how the manor of Waldron passed from the Gatesdens to Walter de
la Hyde.
6. PRO Document, E 40/4010: "Release by Hawyse de Nevile, late the
wife of Sir John de Gatesden, widow, to Sir Philip Basset, of all her
right of dower in her late husband's lands in Mayford. Witnesses:-
Sirs William de Wyltone, Gilbert de Prestetone, William de Insula,
Hubert de Ruylly, David de Jarpunvill, Robert le Chamberleyng, and
Walter de la Hyde, knights, and others (named): [Surrey]. Date:
Edward I." END OF QUOTE
The grantor, Hawise de Neville, was Hawise de Courtenay, wife
successively of John de Neville and John de Gatesden. Walter de la
Hyde was the 2nd husband of Joan de la Mare.
In my next post, I'll present evidence which directly links Joan de la
Mare to Hawise de Courtenay. I'll show that Joan de la Mare was
considered a noblewoman. Lastly, I'll provide a chart which outlines
a likely kinship between Joan de la Mare and King Edward II of
England.
Douglas Richardson
Upon review of a variety of records, I've determined that Maud de la
Mare, wife of Sir Peter de Montfort, was the daughter of Sir Henry de
la Mare (died 1257), of Ashtead, Surrey, a prominent royal justice, by
his 2nd wife, Joan, daughter of Sir John de Neville of Essex.
Conclusive proof of Maud's parentage is found in Calendar of Close
Rolls, 1264-1265 (1937), pg. 55, which reads as follows:
"Pro Matilli filia Henrici de la Mare. - Rex Willelmo de Wenling',
escaetori suo citra Trentam, salutem. Monstravit nobis Matildis filia
Henrici de la Mare quod, cum dudum contulissemus eidem Henrico
custodiam terrarum Willelmi Ortye defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in
capite habendam sibi et assignatis suis cum feodis militum, wardis et
aliis ad dictam custodiam pertinentibus, et idem Henricus dudum ante
mortem suam custiodiam illam assignasset eidem Matildi habendam usque
ad legitimam etatem heredem ejusdem Willelmi ..."
Briefly, the above text states that the king had formerly granted the
lands of William de Lorty deceased to Henry de la Mare, which Henry
during his life had assigned to his daughter, Maud, to have until the
lawful age of the heir of the said William de Lorty. Since no husband
is mentioned for Maud in this record, I assume she was unmarried at
the date this document was recorded. Typically, a husband would be
named if one existed. We know from other records that Maud was
definitely a minor in 1260. If we assume that Maud was still an
unmarried minor in 1265, this might suggest that she was born in or
about 1252. Maud and her husband, Peter de Montfort, had their first
known child in or about 1271, so a marriage date of between 1265 and
1271 for Maud and Peter would surely be acceptable.
Although there may be another grant involved, it appears that Henry de
la Mare obtained the lands of William de Lorty deceased in 1256 on the
payment of a fee of 100 marks a year at the Exchequer. The grant does
not mention William de Lorty's lands, rather the wardship "falling in
land to that yearly value" late of Sabina de Lorty. That Henry de la
Mare, the royal justice, is the person who obtained the Lorty
properties is indicated by the fact that Henry was then stated to be
in the king's "service," and then when he was in Gascony, he "gave
commandment to the queen and R[ichard] earl of Cornwall, guardians of
the realm." Elsewhere, the king states that he is about to send Henry
on a message to the court of Rome [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1247-1258 (1908), pp. 463, 478]. The records show that during
his career, Henry de la Mare the justice made several trips abroad for
the king.
That Henry de la Mare was married twice is indicated by the fact that
on his death, he was survived by a son and heir, Henry, who was of
full age ["plene etatis"] in 1257 [Reference: Calendar of Close
Rolls, 1256-1259 (1932): 159]. Curiously, the son is not mentioned in
any published accounts of this family that I can find. He evidently
did not survive long, as VCH Surrey shows that before 1260, half the
manor of Ashtead, Surrey (the family's chief estate) was held by Joan
de la Mare (widow of the justice) and her 2nd husband, Walter de la
Hyde, due to the minority of Joan's daughter, Maud de la Mare
[Reference: VCH Surrey, 3 (1911): 248]. This suggests that Maud was
her brother's heir before 1260. That Maud was half-sibling to her
brother, Henry, is suggested by the wide gap in their ages. Also, it
appears from other records that Maud's mother, Joan de Neville, had at
least one child by her 2nd marriage to Walter de la Hyde, namely
Hawise (wife of Robert le Veel). That Joan de Neville was the widow
of Henry de la Mare the father, not the son, is indicated by the fact
that Joan's daughter, Maud, was a child of Henry de la Mare, the royal
justice, not his son, as I have shown above. That Maud was the only
surviving child of Henry de la Mare is indicated by the fact that she
was sole heiress to the de la Mare family estates in Surrey and
Berkshire [see VCH Surrey, 3 (1911): 248; VCH Berkshire, 3 (1923):
253], whereas her half-sister, Hawise le Veel, was the sole heiress to
the de la Hyde properties in Sussex [see VCH Sussex]. Maud and her
half-sister, Hawise, were joint heirs to Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset,
as this property had been conveyed directly to their mother, Joan, not
to either of Joan's husbands.
That Henry de la Mare was considerably older than his surviving widow,
Joan de Neville, is indicated by several factors. First, I estimate
that Henry de la Mare was born no later than 1208, being the son and
heir of Sir William de la Mare, of Ashstead, Surrey, by his wife,
Basile, which William and Basile were married in or before 1204. Due
to the fact that there are several Henry de la Mare's in this time
period, it is difficult to know exactly when Henry de la Mare first
appears in the records, but we know that he was made a royal justice
in 1248, at which date I think we can safely assume Henry was at least
40 years of age [Reference: Edward Foss, Judges of England, 2 (1848):
397]. Henry de la Mare was surely born not much later than 1208, as
his first cousin, Pain de la Mare (son of his uncle, Henry, and Pernel
de Craon), was allegedly born about 1205 [Reference: C.A.F. Meekings,
ed., The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979): 218-220].
That Joan de Neville was considerably younger than Henry de la Mare is
suggested by the chronology of her parents, John de Neville and his
wife, Hawise de Courtenay, and that of their other children. We don't
know exactly when Joan's father, John de Neville, was born, but his
parents were married before 1200 and he was clearly an adult by 1234.
Joan's eldest brother, Hugh de Neville, was born about 1235, being of
age in 1256. We know that Joan's mother, Hawise, married (2nd) Sir
John de Gatesden in the period, 1247/53, and produced one child by
that marriage, Margaret, born about 1253 [Reference: C.A.F. Meekings,
ed., The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979): 196-199]. As
such, it would be safe to assume that Joan's mother, Hawise de
Courtenay, was born about 1210/13.
It is uncertain when the marriage of Henry de la Mare and Joan de
Neville took place. Henry de la Mare clearly knew the Neville family
as early as the 1240's. I find that in 1246, the year of Joan's
father's death, the king ordered Henry de la Mare to release the
castle of Stokecursy, Somerset to the king, Henry then being "John de
Neville's constable." This was immediately before Henry de la Mare
was made a royal justice. Henry and Joan were presumably married
before 10 July 1256, when the king made a gift of three deer ("iij
damos") to the "wife of Henry de la Mare." I find two subsequent
records dated 1256, both of which involve Henry de la Mare and Joan de
Neville's brother, Hugh de Neville. In one of them, Henry de la Mare
served as a pledge for Hugh de Neville, when the king granted Hugh his
late father's lands [Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls, 1254-1256
(1931): 277]. In the other record, the king specifically states that
he has pardoned Hugh de Neville the debts of his father, which action
was done at the "instance of Henry de la Mare." [Reference: Excerpta e
Rotuilis Finium, 2 (1836): 228]. These are typical actions of a
brother-in-law in this time period.
The evidence of Joan de la Mare's identity is based on many records
which, taken as a whole, show a pattern of close association between
her and the Neville family over many years. In other posts, I've
shown that Joan was granted land in Somerset by her step-father, Sir
John de Gatesden. I've also shown that Joan's 2nd husband, Sir Walter
de la Hyde, witnessed documents for both Sir John de Gatesden and for
Joan's mother, Hawise de Neville. I've also shown that at least one
property, Waldron, Sussex, passed from Sir John and Hawise de Gatesden
to Joan's husband, Walter de la Hyde. In 1277, I find that Walter de
la Hyde and two other men were said to have taken two does belonging
to Hawise de Neville (then deceased). These animals were granted to
Hawise de Neville back in 1264 [References: Calendar of Close Rolls,
1264-1268 (1937): 8; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (1900): 378].
The king ordered that the justices not "disquiet or aggrieve" Walter
de la Hyde regarding the deer, although he provides no explanation for
his order. If Walter de la Hyde was the son-in-law of Hawise de
Neville, it would explain why the king allowed Walter to retain the
deer. Besides Joan de la Mare's continued association with the
Neville family, I've elsewhere shown that her two daughters were
involved on more than one occasion with Joan's half-sister, Margaret
de Gatesden. In one case, Joan's daughters sued Margaret for a manor
in Somerset; in the other case, Joan's younger daughter, Hawise,
conveyed a manor in Sussex to Margaret.
However, there is even more telltale evidence of Joan de la Mare's
identity. Sometime between 1265 and 1269, an alleged miracle took
place in Sussex, which was accredited to the late Simon de Montfort,
Earl of Leicester. The witnesses to the miracle were listed as "Lady
Joan de la Mare" and "Lady Hawise de Neville," both of whom are styled
noblewoman [nobiles mulieres] [Reference: James O. Halliwell, ed., The
Chronicloe of William de Rishanger of the Barons' Wars. The Miracles
of Simon de Montfort) (Camden Soc. 15) (1840): 90, 101-102]. That
Joan de la Mare is accorded the same status as Hawise (de Courtenay)
de Neville is significant, all of the more so because Joan is listed
first before Hawise in the list of witnesses. If Joan and Hawise were
daughter and mother, it would explain Joan being listed first and why
Joan was styled "noblewoman." Hawise was surely considered to be of
noble birth, she being a descendant of both King Henry I of England
and Isabel de Vermandois.
In my next and final post, I plan to chart the various relationships
between the parties discussed above and show how Joan de la Mare's
great-grandson, Bishop Simon de Montagu, was kinsman to King Edward II
of England.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John Ravilious
Dear Douglas,
Many thanks for the de la Mare correction and details.
This has resolved some long-standing confusion over the various
de la Mare branches involving Ashtead and other manors. As an added
bonus, documenting a descent from the Courtenay and Neville (of
Hallingbury) families very nicely fills a gap in the ancestry of many
Montagu descendants (many royal family and list members among them).
Good show!
Cheers,
John
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04110...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Upon review of a variety of records, I've determined that Maud de la
> Mare, wife of Sir Peter de Montfort, was the daughter of Sir Henry de
> la Mare (died 1257), of Ashtead, Surrey, a prominent royal justice, by
> his 2nd wife, Joan, daughter of Sir John de Neville of Essex.
> Conclusive proof of Maud's parentage is found in Calendar of Close
> Rolls, 1264-1265 (1937), pg. 55, which reads as follows:
>
> "Pro Matilli filia Henrici de la Mare. - Rex Willelmo de Wenling',
> escaetori suo citra Trentam, salutem. Monstravit nobis Matildis filia
> Henrici de la Mare quod, cum dudum contulissemus eidem Henrico
> custodiam terrarum Willelmi Ortye defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in
> capite habendam sibi et assignatis suis cum feodis militum, wardis et
> aliis ad dictam custodiam pertinentibus, et idem Henricus dudum ante
> mortem suam custiodiam illam assignasset eidem Matildi habendam usque
> ad legitimam etatem heredem ejusdem Willelmi ..."
>
<<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Douglas Richardson
In previous posts, I've provided evidence which indicates that Bishop
Simon de Montagu was kinsman of King Edward II of England. In the
last post in this particular thread, I've produced evidence which
indicates that Simon's great-grandmother, Lady Joan de la Mare, was of
noble birth. Joan's high rank is important to consider, as she seems
to be the highest born member of any one in Bishop Simon's immediate
family.
In other posts, I've adduced evidence which shows a long and
continuous association between Joan de la Mare and the family of
Hawise (de Courtenay) (de Neville) de Gatesden (died 1269). I've
theorized that Joan was Hawise's daughter. Laying aside the many
records which connect these families, I find onomastics also support
this identification. Joan de la Mare would have been named for Hawise
de Courtenay's mother-in-law, Joan de Cornhill. And, Joan de la
Mare's daughter, Hawise, would have in turn been named for Hawise de
Courtenay.
Coming full circle, the question remains: If Joan de la Mare was the
daughter of Hawise (de Courtenay) de Neville, would it provide the
needed link between Simon de Montagu and King Edward II? The answer
is yes, it would. My research indicates that Hawise de Courtenay's
father and brother, both named Robert de Courtenay, were styled king's
kinsman at different times by King Henry III of England [References:
C.P.R. 1216–1225 (1901): 53; Cal. Liberate Rolls 1 (1916): 323]. So
the English royal family was clearly aware of its kinship to Hawise de
Courtenay's family. Rather than by a common descent from King Henry
I, I believe the connection between Simon de Montagu and King Edward
II comes through the Courtenay family itself, as King Edward II's
great-great-grandmother was a member of the Courtenay family. I've
charted below the respective relationships, revising an earlier chart
kindly posted by John Ravilious.
COURTENAY KINSHIPS OF THE ENGLISH ROYAL FAMILY:
Reynold de = Hawise William de = Mabel Alice de Courtenay
Courtenay I de Reviers I de =Ademar, Count of
______I Courcy E of Devon I Meulan Angouleme
I ___________I I
I I I
Robert de = Mary de Reviers Isabel of Angouleme
Courtenay I =John, King of
England
d. 1242 I I
(styled I I
kinsman by King I I
Henry III) I I
___________I_______________________ I_____
I I I I
Sir John de Robert de John de = 1) Hawise de = 2) John Henry III
Courtenay Courtenay Neville I Courtenay I de K of
d. 1274 clerk I I Gatesden England
=Isabel (styled kinsman I Margaret I
de Vere by King Henry III) I de Gatesden I
I ___________________I_______ =John de Camoys I
I I I I I
Sir Hugh de Hugh John Henry 1) = Joan de = 2) Walter Edward I
Courtenay de de de la I Neville I de la King of
d. 1291 Neville Neville Mare I d c. I Hyde England
I _________I 1280 I I
I I I I
Sir Hugh de Maud de Hawise I
Courtenay la Mare de la Hyde I
b. ca. 1275 liv. 1289 = Robert le Veel I
Earl of Devon =Peter de Montfort I
d. 1340 ____________I_____ I
I I I
John de Montfort Elizabeth = William de Edward II
=Alice de la de Montfort I Montagu King of
Plaunche ________________I______________ England
I I I I I
William Simon de <siblings>
de Montagu Montagu
1st Earl of Bishop of Ely
Salisbury d. 1345
d. 1343 (styled cousin
by King Edward II)
While another route of kinship might yet turn up between the Montagu
family and King Edward II, the above descent from the Courtenay family
would seemingly do the trick. All the same, it is certainly
remarkable how distant the kinships are between the parties involved.
Surely a distant kinship is indicated. Simon de Montagu had two
relatives who married near kinsfolk of King Edward II, and no
dispensation seems to have been required for either marriage. These
marriages were that of Simon de Montagu's brother, Edward de Montagu,
with a niece of King Edward II, and the marriage of Simon de Montagu's
uncle, John de Montfort, with a near kinswoman of Queen Eleanor of
Castile. A common Courtenay descent, however, would make all of these
parties related far enough apart to remove the need for a
dispensation.
In summary, the evidence shows that Simon de Montagu's maternal
grandmother, Maud de la Mare, was the daughter of Sir Henry de la Mare
(died 1257), of Ashtead, Surrey, royal justice, by his 2nd wife, Joan.
There is likewise excellent circumstantial evidence that Joan, wife
of Henry de la Mare, was the daughter of Sir John de Neville, of
Essex, by his wife, Hawise de Courtenay. Hawise de Courtenay's father
and brother in turn were both styled kinsman by King Henry III of
England, the grandfather of King Edward II.
Comments are invited.
CE Wood
having a difficult time figuring out the de la Mares, and hope someone
can straighten me out.
I have a HENRY de la Mare, of Ashtead (d.c.1211) married to Petronilla
de Craon, having a son, MATTHEW de la Mare, of Ashtead, married to
Florence de Akeny.
Was the HENRY de la Mare (d. 1257) who married Joan de Neville and had
MAUD de la Mare, whom you are discussing, the son of the
aforementioned HENRY and therefore brother of MATTHEW?
Or am I totally confused?
CE Wood
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04110...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In previous posts, I've provided evidence which indicates that Bishop
> Simon de Montagu was kinsman of King Edward II of England. In the
> last post in this particular thread, I've produced evidence which
> indicates that Simon's great-grandmother, Lady Joan de la Mare, was of
> noble birth. Joan's high rank is important to consider, as she seems
> to be the highest born member of any one in Bishop Simon's immediate
> family.
>
> In other posts, I've adduced evidence which shows a long and
> continuous association between Joan de la Mare and the family of
> Hawise (de Courtenay) (de Neville) de Gatesden (died 1269). I've
> theorized that Joan was Hawise's daughter. Laying aside the many
> records which connect these families, I find onomastics also support
> this identification. Joan de la Mare would have been named for Hawise
> de Courtenay's mother-in-law, Joan de Cornhill. And, Joan de la
> Mare's daughter, Hawise, would have in turn been named for Hawise de
> Courtenay.
>
> Coming full circle, the question remains: If Joan de la Mare was the
> daughter of Hawise (de Courtenay) de Neville, would it provide the
> needed link between Simon de Montagu and King Edward II? The answer
> is yes, it would. My research indicates that Hawise de Courtenay's
> father and brother, both named Robert de Courtenay, were styled king's
> kinsman at different times by King Henry III of England [References:
> C.P.R. 1216?1225 (1901): 53; Cal. Liberate Rolls 1 (1916): 323]. So
Martin E. Hollick
William Montagu, Earl of Salisbury m. Katherine Grandison
Sir John Montagu m. Margaret de Monthermer
Ellen de Montagu m. Sir John de Dinham
Muriel de Dinham m. Edward Hastings, 8th Lord Hastings
John Hastings, 9th Lord Hastings m. Anne Morley
Hugh Hastings, 10th Lord Hastings m. Anne Gascoigne
Muriel Hastings m. Sir Ralph Eure
William Eure, 1st Lord Eure m. Elizabeth Willoughby
Sir Ralph Eure m. Margery Bowes
Anne Eure m. Lancelot Mansfield and so forth.
See your Plantagenet Ancestry (sometimes called PA3 or RPA) pp. 274-5
(Dinham to Hastings) pp. 289-90 (Hastings to Eure), 297-8 (Eure to
Mansfield). Note that p. 274 calls the wife of John de Dinham, Ellen
(---), but John P. Ravilious in a posting to this forum dated March
27, 2004, proved her to be Ellen de Montagu. Holding that to be true,
see PA3, pp. 508.
>SNIPPED
SNIPPED.
Ian Fettes
Just for interest I note that Princes William and Harry are descended in
only 960 ways from this couple, as far as my records show.
Ian Fettes
Mark Harry
>I have been researching the Veels for some time, and I too concluded
that Hawise wife of Robert de Veel was the daughter of Walter de la
Hyde by Joan de la Mare. I was aware of the Somerset plea that Doug
has mentioned that links Joan to Hawise, but I did not get any further
back on the de la Mare side. Thanks Doug for this information. How
fascinating to find such distinguished female line ancestry for the
Veales.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
In c.1628 in his "Lives of the Berkeleys" Vol I, pp. 16-17, John Smyth
gives the Berkeley relatives below as descendants of the Berkeley
ancestors. Unfortunately, for this cadet branch, Smyth gives no
references to justify his genealogy. Have you been able to confirm any
of this and, if so, is one of them the Robert who m. the above Hawise?
Note that the first two generations are not per Smyth whose genealogy
of them has been supplanted.
This table will look better if you have your display set to a fixed
font, eg Corpus.
(1) Eadnoth ( - 1067)
(2) Harding FITZ ALNOTH ( - bef 1120)
(3) Elias FITZ HARDING
(4) Harding of Hunteneford
& Dionysia
(5) Matilda
& Geffry VEEL
(6) Robert VEEL
(7) Sir Robert VEEL
& Hawisia
(8) Peter VEEL
& Elizabeth
(9) Sir Thomas le VEEL
& Hawisia
(10) John VEEL
& Alice
(11) Robert VEEL
& Elizabeth
(12) Alice VEEL
& Sir David MATHEW
(11) William VEEL
& Susan BERKELEY
(12) William VEEL
& Margaret FETTIPLACE
(13) Edward VEEL
(14) Edward VEEL ( - aft 1620)
(13) William VEEL
(14) Nicholas VEEL
& Margarett BRIDGES
(15) Thomas VEEL ( - aft 1626)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.
The two families were closely related. Sir Henry de la Mare (died
1257), of Ashtead, Surrey, who married Joan de Neville was the nephew
of the senior Henry de la Mare (died 1210/11) who married Pernel de
Craon [see C.A.F. Meekings, ed., The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec.
Soc. 31) (1979): 218-220]. The senior Henry de la Mare and his wife,
Pernel de Craon, in turn were the parents of Pain de Mare and almost
certainly Matthew de la Mare. Pain and Matthew de la Mare were
married to two sisters, Isabel and Florence de Akeny, respectively.
Matthew de la Mare (husband of Florence de Akeny) was one of the
executors of the will of his first cousin, Sir Henry de la Mare (died
1257). Matthew resided at Bradwell, Essex, not Ashtead, Surrey.
Matthew was Sheriff of Essex in 1262, and died shortly before Aug.
1270 [see Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): chart foll. 464].
I trust this answers your question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
woo...@msn.com (CE Wood) wrote in message news:<a156610f.04110...@posting.google.com>...
Mayt...@aol.com
Rouen held Ashtead from the Chamberlain of Tancarville in Normandy and that it
passed to his descendants the de Maras (de la Mare). In the second half of the
13th century it was in the hands of the de Montforts who were related to the
de Maras. Later lords of the manor of Ashtead were the Frevills and the Astons
who held it until Tudor times.
In St. Giles church there was a 13th century chantry established by the de
Maras family but Protestant authorities under Edward VI ordered its destruction.
The earliest Rector, Robert de Montfort, was a relative of the then lord of
the manor. He was instituted about 1282.
Rose
in Ashstead
Mayt...@aol.com
established in 1261 by Mathew de Mara, the then lord of the manor.
Rose
in Ashstead
ADRIANC...@aol.com
William de la Mare of Over Rendcombe, Gloucestershire (d c1147) to Lecia de
Rouen of Ashstead, Surry [Surrey]
The author of the Bradenstoke Cartularies indexed a number of 'de Mare' as
Lord of Rendcomb, but I was unable to determine why she index them as such.
These Rendcomb de Mara's were included in my post of 3 Nov 2002, 'early de la
Mare family' .
Adrian
Rose of Ashstead wrote;
Douglas Richardson
Dear Ian ~
Thank you for posting this information. Frankly, I'm stunned by the
number. I personally have no Montfort descents in my ancestry. My
children have one.
Can you tell how how many of the 960 descents come through Prince
Charles and how many through Princess Diana?
Again, thanks!
Douglas Richardson
Dear Mark ~
Thank you for your good post. Can you tell us anything further about
the le Veel, de la Hyde, and de la Mare families? I'd be interested
in knowing how much our research overlapped.
Were you aware of Walter de la Hyde's theft of the two doe? Or, Lady
Joan de la Mare witnessing a miracle? Or Simon de Montagu's kinship
to King Edward II?
Mayt...@aol.com
I have no connection with the de la Mare family of Ashtead (apart from living
on what was once their lands) and until today, I had no idea that they held
the manor of Ashtead which, I think, they would still recognise today although
to the north there was much development during the period betwen the two world
wars. But the south, where the manor was situated is still very much
unchanged. The road and field pattens are still the same as they were 200 years ago.
My interest on this one is purely from a local history point of view, so
thank you for your imput - it has given us 'locals' a bit more info on the history
of Ashtead.
Rose
in Ashtead, Surrey
Ian Fettes
Of the 960 descents, 238 are through Prince Charles and 722 through Lady
Diana.
Ian Fettes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <douglasr...@royalancestry.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Dear Ian ~
Again, thanks!
______________________________
pedr...@ozemail.com.au
I notice that Leo van de Pas on his wonderful Genealogics site has Florence d'Arkeni of Bradwell as the wife of Matthew de la Mare and mother of Maud.
Could you comment on this please?
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
>
> From: douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson)
> Date: 02/11/2004 14:23:32
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Joan, mother of Maud de la Mare, wife of Peter de Montfort
>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The following new record regarding Sir Walter de la Hyde, Knt., the
> probable 2nd husband of Joan de la Mare (died c. 1280), has been
> located in the helpful online National Archives catalogue at the
> following website:
>
> http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp
>
> "E 40/4010: Release by Hawyse de Nevile, late the wife of Sir John de
> Gatesden, widow, to Sir Philip Basset, of all her right of dower in
> her late husband's lands in Mayford. Witnesses:- Sirs William de
> Wyltone, Gilbert de Prestetone, William de Insula, Hubert de Ruylly,
> David de Jarpunvill, Robert le Chamberleyng, and Walter de la Hyde,
> knights, and others (named): [Surrey]. Date: Edward I." END OF QUOTE
>
> The grantor in this conveyance is readily identified as Hawise de
> Courtenay, wife successively of John de Neville (died 1246) and Sir
> John de Gatesden (died 1262) [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1936):
> 481-482 (sub Neville)]. By her 2nd marriage, Hawise de Courtenay was
> the mother of Margaret de Gatesden, wife of Sir John de Camoys, which
> couple were involved in the 1280 lawsuit with Peter de Montfort and
> his wife, Maud de la Mare, regarding the manor of Norton, Somerset.
> It is unclear if there was any kinship between the Gatesden-Camoys
> family and the de la Mare family.
>
> Since my original post, the ever helpful John Ravilious has kindly
> brought my attention to the fact that Joan de la Mare, mother of Maud
> (de la Mare) de Montfort, is ancestral to a good many more colonial
> American immigrants than what I first posted. The current tally shows
> that over 55 colonial immigrants descend from Joan de la Mare, several
> of them in multiple ways. A revised list of colonial immigrants is
> provided below.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04110...@posting.google.com>...
> > Dear Newsgroup:
> >
> > Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 127 (sub Montfort) has a good account of
> > the life history of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of Beaudesert,
> > Warwickshire. Regarding Sir Peter's marriage, Complete Peerage says
> > the following:
> >
> > "He married circa 1260 Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew, son of
> > Henry de la Mare, with whom he has Ashtead in Surrey."
> >
> > The source cited for the marriage of Peter and Maud is V.C.H. Surrey,
> > 3 (1911): 248. V.C.H. Surrey in turn gives two sources for the
> > marriage, one which identifies Maud as the daughter of Henry de la
> > Mare, and the other which identifies Maud as the daughter of Matthew
> > son of Henry de la Mare.
> >
> > So far, I've been unable to prove whether Henry or Matthew de la Mare
> > was the father of Maud de la Mare. Recently, however, I located a
> > contemporary record which indicates that Maud de la Mare was the
> > daughter and co-heiress of a certain Joan de la Mare, which
> > information is found in the abstract of a lawsuit published in
> > Somersetshire Pleas 4 (Somerset Record Society 44) (1929); 60-62. The
> > abstract is lengthy, so only a brief portion is copied below:
> >
> > Date: 1280. "Peter de Monte Forti and Maud his wife and Robert le
> > Veel and Hawise his wife seek against John de Cameys [Camoys] and
> > Margaret his wife the manor of Norton' near Taunton which they claim
> > to be the right of Maud and Hawise, in which John and Margaret have no
> > entry excepting by John de Gatesden' who unjustly etc. disseised
> > thereof Joan de la Mare, mother of Maud and Hawise whose heirs they
> > are, after the first, etc."
> >
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> >
> > E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
> >
> > Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
>
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
There's an interesting article on the chantry at Ashtead, Surrey in
Surrey Archaeological Collections, 19 (1906): 27-32. The author, Mr.
Malden, states that the chantry was founded in 1261 by Matthew de la
Mare "where three chaplains were to say masses in perpetuity for the
soul of his father, Henry de la Mare, his ancestors and his heirs."
Further in the article, the author states that in 1261 Matthew de la
Mare made an agreement with Richard, Prior of Newark, whereby the
Prior undertook, for the sum of 250 marks in silver, to find and
maintain in the chapel of Ashtead ...
" .. tres capellanos idoneos cotidie celebrantes in praedicta capella
pro animis Henrici de Mara antecessorum et heredum suorum in
perpetuum."
As we can see, the original Latin does not refer to Henry de la Mare
as Matthew de la Mare's father, as alleged by the author. In point of
fact, Henry de la Mare was not Matthew's father but Matthew's first
cousin.
My research shows that Matthew de la Mare was one of the executors of
Henry de la Mare's will and was presumably fulfilling the terms of
Henry de la Mare's will in founding the chapel at Ashtead in 1261
[Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls, 1259-1261 (1934): 11]. By 1261,
Henry de la Mare's sole heir was his daughter, Maud de la Mare, who
subsequently married Sir Peter de Montfort. The manor of Ashtead
subsequently passed to the Montfort family and their descendants.
Mr. Malden indicates that in 1493, the heirs of Henry de la Mare
appeared in court, they all being Montfort descendants: Thomas
Ferrers, knight, Henry Willoughby, knight, John Norbury, knight, John
Aston, esquire, and Edward Belknap, esquire. A pedigree chart is
provided which shows how each of these individuals is descended from
Henry de la Mare and the Montfort family. Mr. Malden's chart inserts
an extra generation between Henry de la Mare and his daughter, Maud,
namely Matthew de la Mare. You can find evidence in another post in
this thread in which I establish that Maud de la Mare was the daughter
of Henry de la Mare, not Matthew de la Mare. There was no intervening
generation.
As an aside, I find that Henry de la Mare and his cousin, Matthew de
la Mare, appear together in a charter issued by William Longespee II,
Earl of Salisbury, dated 1245/6 [Reference: L.C. Loyd, Sir Christopher
Hatton's Book of Seals (1950): 136-138]. Henry de la Mare was bailiff
(or seneschal) for William Longespee II in this time period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasri...@royalancestry.net
Websiter: www.royalancestry.net
The chantry was established in 1261 at Ashstead, Surrey by Sir Matthew
de la Mare, one of the executors of the will of Henry de la Mare, the
justice.
Mayt...@aol.com wrote in message news:<1ab.2b5b37...@aol.com>...
Douglas Richardson
The de la Mare family of Rendcombe, Gloucestershire is a separate and
distinct family from the de la Mare family of Ashtead, Surrey. For
details on the early de la Mare family of Ashtead and their ancestry
back to Laurence de Rouen, please see the following two sources:
L.C. Loyd, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals (1950): 71-73,
193-194.
C.A.F. Meekings, The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979):
218-220.
The latter source traces the Ashtead family down to Sir Henry de la
Mare (died 1257), the royal justice, which individual was the father
of Maud de la Mare, wife of Sir Peter de Montfort.
I'm especially grateful to Mr. Loyd and Mr. Meekings for their
excellent coverage of the de la Mare family of Ashtead, Surrey.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote in message news:<12c.506aef...@aol.com>...
CE Wood
Thanks for again being so concise and helpful, as usual.
Is the name of the father of Sir Henry de la Mare (died 1257) known?
CE Wood
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.0411...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
Sir Henry de la Mare's father was Sir William de la Mare, of Ashtead
and Mitcham, Surrey, and Harlaxton and Londonthorpe, Lincolnshire,
deputy Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex, 1217-1226, born say 1175 (adult
before 1200), died shortly before Oct. 1239. Sir William's wife was
Basile, living 1204.
You can find a full biography of Sir William de la Mare in the
following source:
C.A.F. Meekings, The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979):
218-220.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
woo...@msn.com (CE Wood) wrote in message news:<a156610f.04111...@posting.google.com>...
CE Wood
Once again, thank you so much, especially for the source article.
Carolyn
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Carolyn ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
Mark Harry
> In c.1628 in his "Lives of the Berkeleys" Vol I, pp. 16-17, John Smyth
> gives the Berkeley relatives below as descendants of the Berkeley
> ancestors. Unfortunately, for this cadet branch, Smyth gives no
> references to justify his genealogy. Have you been able to confirm any
> of this and, if so, is one of them the Robert who m. the above Hawise?
I find Smyth to be pretty accurate, certainly much more so than later
county antiquarians such as Fosbroke and Rudder. I don't have any
argument with the earliest generations of the Veel family as given in
your table. However, one thing that appears to emerge from Douglas'
posts is that if Hawise de la Hyde was born around 1260, then it is
hard to see how her husband Robert could have been the grandson of
Geoffery le Veel who is said to have been temp. Richard I and John.
Sounds to me as if a generation or two are missing in between them.
The Veale visitation pedigree of 1620 give Robert's wife as Hawise le
Sor of St Fagans (Glamorganshire). The le Sors held St Fagans as late
as 1262 but it was held by Robert and Hawise in 1297. Since Hawise is
clearly a de la Hyde, and not a le Sor, then presumably the le Sor
connection was in the preceding generation. Alternatively the le Sor
connection may have been an attempt by later generations to explain
how St Fagans and Lisworney came into the family. Robert Veale (II)
of your table is the Robert under discussion in Douglas' posts.
Robert (II) was followed not by one Peter but by two or three in
succession. The first is a shadowy figure, possibly to be identified
with the Bevis or Bogo le Veel who appears in contemporary records,
and is said to have married Hawise daughter of Sir Nicholas Kingston
of Tortworth. His son Peter (II) and grandson Peter (III) are better
documented. Both of these men married twice, which was not picked up
on by later chroniclers with the result that a lot of confusion exists
in later accounts of the family. The Elizabeth you name in your table
was the first wife of Peter (III) and evident mother of Thomas.
Some sources insert a John and his wife Margaret between Thomas and
Hawisia and John and Alice. There seems to be a decent argument on
chonological grounds for accepting this addition, also the existence
of an IPM in 1411 for a John Veale which names his son and heir as
John, then aged 3. This I take to be the John who married Alice.
After the death of Robert Veale (III), husband of Elizabeth, there was
a fight over the family inheritance with Robert's brother William
claiming that the estates were entailed on the male line and hence
should go to him, and not to
David Matthews (son-in-law of Robert). Both sides lodged documents in
about 1503 giving the succession for the preceding 8 or so
generations, with a lot of consistency between them.
Douglas Richardson
> Hi All,
>
> Of the 960 descents, 238 are through Prince Charles and 722 through Lady
> Diana.
>
> Ian Fettes
Awesome! Thanks for the information!
Mark Harry
I cannot say I was aware of the three incidents you mention, but i do
have some extra information from my notes that may be of interest.
An affidavit by David Matthews, husband of Alice Veale, dated c. 1503
and transcribed by the late Carl Veale says that Walter de la Hyde
gave Charfield in Gloucestershire (near Wotton-under Edge) in fee tail
to Robert and Hawise, to be held by Robert in fee tail and by Hawise
"in her demesne as of free tenement by the form of the gift", with
remainder first to the heirs of Hawise's body and then to Robert's
right heirs. (Carl Veale, "Account of the Veale Family", Los Angeles
1949-50, item 18 p 3, and "Veale Heritage" p 35,)
In the fourteenth century Peter de Veel sued for the manor of Stowe
Bydour which Walter de la Hithe had given to Robert le Veel in frank
marriage with Hawise his daughter, and the pleading gives this Peter
as the son of a Bogo le Veel and the grandson of the said Robert and
Hawise. ("Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls" by Wrothesley p 3)
I am presuming that Walter is the Walter named in an inquisition in 49
Henry III as being the earl of Gloucester's steward. He and others are
recorded as seizing land at Ykerham and Combe following the crushing
of the barons's rebellion and the confiscation of the lands of the
rebels. (Calendar of Miscellaneous Inquisitions no 807 p 246 and no
903)
"Hawisia who was wife of Robert le Veel" was the defercient in a fine
relating to Norton in 30 Edward I, with William Paynel and his wife
Margaret as the querents. ("Account of the Veale family" item 62, Feet
of fines, Somerset Record Society Richard I-- Edward I p 319)
In May 1301 Hawisia late wife of Robert le Veel received licence to
marry one William le Suleye, if she so desired. (Calendar of the
Patent Rolls 1292-1301 p 595)
Mark
Mark Harry
Peter le Veel sued Thomass de Stapeldon for the manor of Norton near
Taunton which Walter le Hyde had given to Robert le Veel and Hawyse
his wife, with Peter again shown as son of Bogo and Bogo as son of
Robert and Haweyse.
Incidentally can anybody advise as to the correct pronounciation of
"Hawise"?
Mark
Douglas Richardson
Those newsgroup members who are following the ongoing research on the
ancestry of Maud de la Mare will surely be interested in the seven
entries below regarding Hawise de Courtenay, wife of John de Neville
and John de Gatesden, which were found on the helpful online National
Archives website (http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
The first six items below are taken from the records of the Duchy of
Lancaster. The second entry appears to be badly misdated, as Hawise
(de Courtenay) de Neville died in 1269. The last entry is the record
of a papal protection issued to Mary de Courtenay, her married
daughter Hawise de Neville, and her other children. On the whole,
these records are rather typical of those which have survived from the
medieval time period in England.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives, PRO
DL 25/168: J., the abbot, and the chapter-general of the
Premonstratensian order to Dame Hawise de Nevile, wife of Sir John de
Gatesdene: Grant of participation in the prayers of the order, and
confirmation of the grant of Maldon Abbey of permission to have a
priest to celebrate divine service in that church: (Essex). Date:
1258.
DL 25/193: Stephen de Alphintons, chaplain to Hawise de Newill: Grant
of a messuage in the manor of Alphington: (Devon). Date: [1307 :-:
1328].
DL 25/1293: Master Philip de Cancellaria Domini Pape to Dame Hawise
de Nevill: Bond to assist with advice when required.
DL 25/3469: Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Brother Ralph,
minister of the House of Mottenden: inspeximus of a charter whereby
the Trinitarian Friars
of Mottenden undertook to say Mass for Dame Hawise de Neoville and at
her request for Robert de Curtenay, John de Neoville and John de
Gatesdene from the year 1253: Kent.
DL 27/70: Maldon (Meldon) Abbey (R. abbot) to Dame Hawise de Nevill,
wife of Sir John de Gatesden: Acknowledgement of the receipt of 40
marks given to purchase land to maintain a canon in that church:
(Essex). Date: 1257.
DL 34/1/2: Letter from Hawise de Nevile to her son Hugh de Nevile, in
the Holy Land [1259-1267].
SC 7/64/2: Papal protection to Mary de Cortenay, of the diocese of
Bath, for herself, Hawise de Noewilla and the former's other sons and
daughters with all their goods. Exigentibus tue devotionis. . . Lyons.
Id. Jul., 8 Innocent IV. Date: 1250 Jul. 15.
Douglas Richardson
Below are several items which concern the royal justice, Sir Henry de
la Mare (died 1257), who is the father of Maud de la Mare (wife of Sir
Peter de Montfort).
The first five items below were found on the helpful online National
Archives website (http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
The sixth item is taken from an online website at
http://www.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/florilegium/government/
gvpoli19.html. A transcript of the same document can also be found in
B.R. Kemp, ed. Reading Abbey Cartularies, Camden 4th Series, vol. 31
(1986), pp. 86, et seq.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
1. C 143/1/5: Henry de la Mare to assart land in Heynton [Hinton] in
Windsor forest. Berks. Date: 30 Henry III [1245/6].
2. C 49/66/5: Instructions for the issue of writs ordering various
sheriffs to bring bailiffs of hundreds and others before [Henry de la
Mare], Henry de Bratton and Nicholas de Turri to amerce those put in
mercy coram rege. Date: c. 41 Henry III [1256/7].
3. E 40/536: Grant by John de Suberty to Sir Philip Baset of all his
land in Lammers, Heny, Middeltone, and Clopton, with advowson of the
church of the vill of Lammers. Witnesses:- Sir Henry de Bathon,' SIr
Henry de la Mare, Sir John de Wyvil, Justices of the King, Sir Ralph
de Arden, Sir Thomas le Blunt, Sir Wiliam de Insula, Sir Ralph de
Glannvyle, Sir Ralph de Wascoyl, Richard de Kacstone, and others
(named). Monday next after the Invention of Holy Cross, in the year 38
(Henry III.) [1253/4].
4. E 210/141: Grant in frank almoin by Roger de Dayvill, to the
brethren of the Knights Templars (fratribus milicie templi Salom[ onis
]), of the grantor's market and faire of Suth Cave, with the soil of
the market place &c. as he had the same of the king's gift. Witnesses
:- Sirs Henry de Bathon[ ia ], Henry de la Mare, and Henry de Bratton,
Nicholas de Turri, the king's justiciar, and others (named) : [ York.
Date: St. Luke the evangelist's day, 37 Henry III {1252/3].
5. JUST 1/870: Assize roll of Henry de la Mare. Date: 32 Henry III
[Date: 1247/8].
6. Subject: Jurisdictional disputes at Reading between burgesses and
abbot
Original source: British Library, Egerton Ms. 3031, Harley Ms. 1708,
Ms. Cotton Vespasian E xxv.
Transcription in: 1. B.R. Kemp, ed. Reading Abbey Cartularies, Camden
Fourth Series, vol.31 (1986), pp.86, et seq.; 2. C.F. Slade, ed.,
"Reading Records (4)," Berkshire Archaeological Journal, vol.61
(1963/64), 52-62.
Original language: 1. Latin 2. Middle English
Location: Reading
Date: 13th and 15th centuries
This is the final settlement made in the king's court at Westminster,
on 3 February 1254, before Henry de Bathonia, Henry de la Mare, Henry
de Bratton, and Nicholas de Turry, justices, Ralph fitz Nicholas and
Bertram de Curiel, then stewards, and others loyal to the king then
being present there; between Henry Wille and Daniel W[o]lveseie, then
stewards of the Gild of Reading, and the burgesses of that town,
plaintiffs, and Richard, Abbot of Reading, deforciant, concerning the
customs and services which the abbot has been demanding from the
burgesses. In regard to which the burgesses have complained that the
abbot distrained them to answer to justice elsewhere than in their
communal gild, and that he deprived them of their merchant gild with
its appurtenances. Moreover, that the abbot moved the market of the
town of Reading from the place where it had customarily been held
since ancient times. And, what is more, he demanded from the burgesses
other customs and other services than those they ought to give, or had
been accustomed to give in the time of the previous kings of England.
Which customs and services the burgesses did not concede to the abbot,
with the result of this plea between them in the present court.
Let it be known that the abbot has granted, on behalf of himself, his
successors, and his church of Reading, to the burgesses and their
heirs that the corn market in the town of Reading is to be held in
perpetuity in the location where it previously used to be, and that
all other things are to be sold in those locations where they have
customarily been sold previously. And that the burgesses may have a
hall for their merchant gild in the town of Reading, along with twelve
tenements that belong to the gild, together with the meadow called
Portmanbrook, for an annual rent of 6s.8d payable to the abbot and his
successors and his church at Michaelmas – for which previously it was
their custom to pay no more than 1d. And that they may have their gild
merchant with all its appurtenances in perpetuity .... [Document
continues]" END OF QUOTE.
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my earlier post on Hawise de Courtenay, I wanted to
share some new information with the newsgroup relating to the date of
Hawise's first marriage to Sir John de Neville (died 1246). I earlier
posted a record in which Hawise de Neville is specifically called the
daughter of Mary de Courtenay (see copy of record in post below).
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 481-482 (sub Neville) has a good account of
the history of Hawise's husband, Sir John de Neville (died 1246).
Regarding their marriage, the author states:
"John de Neville .... He married Hawise de Courtenay, daughter of Sir
Robert de Courtenay, of Okehampton, Devon."
No further particulars for the marriage are provided. Complete
Peerage cites the following source for the marriage: British Museum
Campbell Chr. viii/22.
Elsewhere, VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 114 states that the estate of
Westcott (in Waddesdon) "was granted in 1230 in marriage" by Robert de
Courtenay with his daughter, Hawise, to John de Neville. The source
cited there is: Curia Regis Rolls 104, m. 24.
A marriage date of 1230 fits the chronology of the Neville family
well. We know that John and Hawise de Neville's elder son and heir,
Hugh, was born about 1235, he being deemed of age in 1256 [see
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 472].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04111...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
In one of my posts last week, I stated that Sir Henry de la Mare (died
1257), of Ashtead, Surrey, had a son and heir, Henry, who survived
him. This statement was based on a record dated 1257, in which the
king ordered Guy de Rochfort to give the lands of Henry de la Mare
then deceased to his son and heir, Henry, who was then of full age
["plene etatis"] [Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls, 1256-1259
(1932): 159]. At the time I found this record, I was puzzled that the
king would order anyone regarding Henry de la Mare's lands, as Henry
de la Mare the justice held no lands of the king in chief. I checked
the index and determined that Guy de Rochfort was Constable of
Colchester Castle in Essex, which may even less sense. Henry de la
Mare the justice held no lands in Essex that I was aware.
On the off chance that Guy de Rochfort was dealing with another Henry
de la Mare's lands, I went back to the Patent Rolls to see if I could
explain why Guy de Rochfort was dealing with the lands of Henry de la
Mare. In short order, I found my answer. Below is a grant to Guy de
Rochfort of the lands of Gunnor de la Mare, of Alvescote, Oxfordshire:
Date: 7 Dec. 1250
Grant to Guy de Rocheford of the wardship of the land late of Gunnora
de la Mare in the counties of Oxford and Wilts, during the minority of
the heirs, on condition that 20l. of his yearly fee be deducted every
year during this period.
The de la Mare family of Alvescote, Oxfordshire is covered by VCH
Oxford, 11 (1983): 31, where mention is made of separate and distinct
Henry de la Mare (died 1236 x 1239). He allegedly was survived by a
presumed daughter, Gunnor, who married Geoffrey Fitz William.
Curiously, no mention is made of Henry de la Mare's son, the younger
Henry de la Mare, who is the person who was granted his father's lands
in 1257. Elsewhere, I find Edington Cartulary includes a charter of a
certain Gunnor de la Mare who states she was sister of Henry de la
Mare, of Alvescote, Oxfordshire. Presumably she is the Gunnor de la
Mare who VCH Oxford states married Geoffrey Fitz William.
Now that it certain that Guy de Rochfort was dealing with another
Henry de la Mare's lands, there is no evidence to suggest that Henry
de la Mare the justice had a son named Henry. Rather, it appears that
Henry de la Mare, the justice, of Ashtead, Surrey (died 1257) was
survived at his death by his widow, Joan de Neville, and one minor
daughter, Maud, later wife of Sir Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire. Joan, widow of Henry de la Mare, subsequently married
(2nd) before 1260 Sir Walter de la Hyde, by which marriage she had one
daughter, Hawise, afterwards wife of Robert le Veel.
I wish to thank Chris Phillips for his assistance in this matter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
Below is an acknowledgement issued by Sir Henry de la Mare (died
1257), the royal justice, who was father of Maud de la Mare, wife of
Sir Peter de Montfort. This document is found in B.R. Kemp, Reading
Abbey Cartularies, 2 (Camden 4th ser. 33) (1987); 101.
"811. Acknowledgement by Henry de la Mare of his obligation to pay to
Reading Abbey, by assignment of Sir William Longespee, the annual rent
of 1 mark at Hinton [Berkshire] on the morrow of St. Martin, which he
used to pay the same William, saving to the latter and his heirs all
other services from the said tenement. If he or his heirs default in
payment, the abbey may distrain them at Diddenham and take the
distresses into its fee at Whitley and impound them there. Sealing.
Witnesses [omitted]. Date: c. 1238 x 1250." END OF QUOTE.
Douglas Richardson
Those who are following the ongoing de la Mare research will be
interested in the charter below of Sir Robert de Courtenay (died
1242), of Okehampton, Devon, father of Hawise (de Courtenay) (de
Neville) de Gatesden. The charter in question is dated c. 1200. It
is witnessed by "Lord Reginald de Curtenay," who can be identified as
Robert de Courtenay's younger brotherm, Reynold. The term "Lord" in
this period was a courtesy extended to someone who was a knight, not
nessarily a baron in Parliament. In a similar vein, a knight's wife
was styled "Dame" (or lady).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Notes and Gleanings, 5 (1892): 21
ROBERT DE CURTENAY to NICHOLAS GERVASE.
DCVI. No date. ?circa 1200.
Grant of all his water which Thomas Fullo (Fuller) holds of him
without the Westgate of Exeter, which is between his corn-mills and
Crikenepette, so that the said Nicholas and his heirs may build a mill
on the said water towards "Crikenepette," as shall appear best and
most commodious to them. To hold for ever. Rent reversed, 10s. And
if it shall happen the said Robert's mills, near the Westgate, shall
be hindered by the mill of the said Nicholas, the dispute shall be
settled by view of true and lawful men. Witnesses: Lord Reginald de
Curtenay, Baldewin de Belestan, William de la Pomeraye, and others.
Seal gone." END OF QUOTE.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for posting a copy of this record regarding Henry de la Mare
on the newsgroup. I note this grant is dated 1247, just before the
date that Henry de la Mare was appointed a royal justice (1248).
Again, thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
pme...@cox.net ("Patti Metsch") wrote in message news:<000b01c4c8dc$d6cdfa40$f664...@pn.at.cox.net>...
> ----- Original Message -----
> One additional item. From: Jeayes, I.H. _Descriptive Catalogue of the
> Charters and Muniments of the Lyttleton Family_ London: C.J. Clark,
> 1893;
> pp. 5-6:
>
> "14. Grant from King Henry III to Richard, Abbot, and the Canons of
> Hales [Hales Owen, co. Salop], of the church of Waleshal [Walsall, co.
> Staff.], with all chapels, liberties, etc., belonging to the same.
>
> Witnesses:
> Humphrey de Boun, Earl of Hereford and Essex; Bertram de Cryoll; Hugh de
> Vivonia; William Maudut ; John de Lexinton; Philip Basset; Paulin
> Peyvre; Geoffrey le Dispenser; Peter Braunch; Nicholas de Saunford; Henry de > la Mare; Geoffrey de Langel'; Anketil Malore. Dat. Westminster, 18 Oct.,
> Anno 31 [1247]. Lat. With fine impression of great seal. chipped."
> Patti Metsch
Douglas Richardson
> Dear Douglas et al
> I notice that Leo van de Pas on his wonderful Genealogics site has Florence d'Arkeni of Bradwell as the wife of Matthew de la Mare and mother of Maud.
> Could you comment on this please?
> Merilyn Pedrick
> Mylor, South Australia
Dear Merilyn, Leo, etc. ~
Thank you for your good post, Merilyn. You've asked an excellent
question.
It is commonly stated that Maud de la Mare was the daughter and
heiress of Sir Matthew de la Mare (died 1270), of Bradwell, Essex, by
his wife, Florence de Akeny. This error is found in many sources, one
of them being Leo's great website. That Sir Matthew de la Mare was
actually survived by a son and heir, John, is indicated by a well
documented chart found in Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): foll. pg. 464.
The confusion over Maud's parentage appears to have been caused by the
fact that Sir Matthew de la Mare was one of the executors of Maud's
father's estate. In that capacity, Sir Matthew de la Mare founded a
perpetual chantry at Ashtead, Surrey in 1261 in honor of Sir Henry de
la Mare (Maud's real father), his ancestors and descendants.
That Maud de la Mare was actually the daughter of Sir Henry de la Mare
(died 1257), is proven by a document dated 1265 found in Calendar of
Close Rolls, 1264-1265 (1937), pg. 55, which reads as follows:
"Pro Matilli filia Henrici de la Mare. - Rex Willelmo de Wenling',
escaetori suo citra Trentam, salutem. Monstravit nobis Matildis filia
Henrici de la Mare quod, cum dudum contulissemus eidem Henrico
custodiam terrarum Willelmi Ortye defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in
capite habendam sibi et assignatis suis cum feodis militum, wardis et
aliis ad dictam custodiam pertinentibus, et idem Henricus dudum ante
mortem suam custiodiam illam assignasset eidem Matildi habendam usque
ad legitimam etatem heredem ejusdem Willelmi ..."
The above document states that before his death, Henry de la Mare
assigned custody of the lands of William de l'Orty deceased to his
daughter, Maud, until the heir of the said William came of age. I
have elsewhere shown that the Henry de la Mare who had possesion of
the de l'Orty lands was Sir Henry de la Mare, the royal justice, who
died in 1257.
I trust this answers your question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
pedr...@ozemail.com.au
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
>
> From: douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson)
> Date: 15/11/2004 11:36:14
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Douglas Richardson
> Thank you Douglas for clearing that up. Can we assume then, that Henry, father of Maud de la Mare was the son of Sir William de la Mare (died before Oct 1239) and Basile?
> Merilyn Pedrick
> Mylor, South Australia
Yes, that's correct. The following source discusses Henry de la
Mare's family at length:
C.A.F. Meekings, The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979):
218-220
I've found Mr. Meekings' account to be extremely helpful. It's much
better than anything else in print on the early de la Mare family.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
<<
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 127 (sub Montfort) has a good account of
the life history of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire. Regarding Sir Peter's marriage, Complete Peerage says
the following:
"He married circa 1260 Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew, son of
Henry de la Mare, with whom he has Ashtead in Surrey."
The source cited for the marriage of Peter and Maud is V.C.H. Surrey,
3 (1911): 248. V.C.H. Surrey in turn gives two sources for the
marriage, one which identifies Maud as the daughter of Henry de la
Mare, and the other which identifies Maud as the daughter of Matthew
son of Henry de la Mare.
>>
I was curious about this contradiction, so I had a look at the VCH volume
today. The text describes Matilda as "daughter or granddaughter" of Henry de
Mara, dead by 1260, and in a footnote cites three records:
(1) Coram Rege R. 11, m. 14d; Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.) 152. Apparently both
these describe her as Henry's daughter. The second, from late 1260,
certainly does. (See text below; this is the origin of the VCH statement,
already posted by Doug, that Walter de la Hyde and Joan his wife held a
moiety of Ashtead by virtue of the wardship of Matilda. In the record,
Matilda is identified as daughter and heir of Henry.) If I interpret the
reference correctly, the first is equivalent to the modern reference KB
27/11, covering the period Michaelmas 2/3 Edward I to Hillary 3 Edward I
(1274-1275).
(2) A pedigree in De Banco R. 926, m. 427, cited both for the marriage of
Peter and Matilda, and for her being the daughter of Matthew son of Henry. I
believe this equates to the modern reference CP 40/926, which remarkably
enough is a plea roll from Michaelmas 9 Henry VII [1493]. If I've got that
right it means that in this instance CP has, bizarrely, preferred the
evidence of a pedigree recorded more than two centuries after the event, to
two contemporary records placing Maud as the daughter of Henry.
This is further confirmed by the entry from the Close Rolls already posted
by Doug, dated 7 May 1265.
Chris Phillips
____________________________________________________________________________
___
Surr'
Walt'us de la Hyde & Joh'a uxor ejus optul' se v'sus Petrum de Monte Forti &
alios de placita quare vi & armis venerunt ad man'ium de Asted & p'd'cos
Walt'um & Joh'am de medietate p'd'ci man'ii in custodia sua existente
racione custodie Matild' fil' & hered' Henr' de la Ware ejecerunt Et ip'i
non veniunt Ideo p'cept' fuit vic' q'd distingat eos, &c
[Placitorum ... Abbreviatio, p. 152 (Record Commission);
rot' 14 in dorso; Placita coram D'no Rege a die Sc'i Mich'is Anno xliv
incipiente xlv [Henry III]
Note in pen indicates Curia Regis 168 = Modern reference KB 26/168]
Douglas Richardson
Since posting information this past week relative to a 1230 marriage
date for Hawise de Courtenay and John de Neville, I've located
material regarding the manor of Alphington, Devon, which property
Hawise's husband, Sir John de Neville, held of the Courtenay family.
According to the published episcopal acta for the Exeter diocese, John
de Neville was involved in a suit dated Easter term, 1231 in a
pleading in a case of darrein presentment regarding the church of
Alphington against the prior of Cowick. Letters patent to the royal
justices state that "after the death of Henry de Courtenay, parson of
Alphinton, neither Robert de Courtenay nor anyone else had presented a
clerk for admission, whereupon, after six months, he had given the
church to a certain clerk." [Reference: Frank Barlow, English
Episcopal Acta XII, pg. 215, citing C.R.R. xiv, no. 1231]. Due to the
awkward wording, it's unclear whether John de Neville or the prior of
Cowick made the presentment. Robert de Courtenay, however, can be
identified as Hawise de Courtenay's father.
I assume that the manor of Alphington was another part of Hawise de
Courtenay's maritagium, as John de Neville's father, Hugh de Neville,
did not die until 1234, and yet we see that John de Neville had a
claim on Alphington by 1231. In any case, this record is a new
addition for Complete Peerage, as the earliest available information
on John de Neville found in Complete Peerage is dated 1234.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
Rosie Bevan
previous post is more directly relevant as a CP addition than this later
episcopal record.
The curia regis entry can easily be found in the published volume CRR
1227-1230, no. 2768. It reveals that Robert de Courtenay gave John de
Neville 11 librates of lands in Waddesdon, and 24 librates of land in
Alphington with the advowson of the church in marriage with Hawise. Hugh de
Neville likewise gave 40 librates of land in "Havam et in Wotton" which
Hawise was to have in dower if Hugh outlived John.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <douglasr...@royalancestry.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Joan, mother of Maud de la Mare, wife of Peter
de Montfort
Douglas Richardson
Thanks so much for posting this vital new material regarding the
parentage of Maud de la Mare, wife of Sir Peter de Montfort. Much
appreciated! I know the large number of newsgroup members who descend
from this couple will be quite happy to see this information.
Yes, it is certainly puzzling, if not bizarre, that Complete Peerage
would prefer a document two centuries after the fact to a contemporary
document recorded during the lifetime of the individuals in question.
When I first started working on this problem, I found the published
sources varied so considerably that it was impossible to determine who
was right and who was wrong. I even found one published pedigree
which called Peter de Montfort's wife Maud de la Warre! I won't even
mention the websites I searched!
I have no doubt but that more records exist which concern the de la
Mare and allied families which will shed additional light on this
matter. Hopefully newsgroup members will start searching through what
records are available to them and post their findings. Collegiality
is the key to solving many of these longstanding genealogical
problems.
Thanks again, Chris!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<cndvot$q23$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> When I first started working on this problem, I found the published
> sources varied so considerably that it was impossible to determine who
> was right and who was wrong. I even found one published pedigree
> which called Peter de Montfort's wife Maud de la Warre! I won't even
> mention the websites I searched!
I suppose at least that has the virtue of being based on a contemporary
record (unlike CP's choice), though Maud's suname had been mistranscribed in
the published transcript.
Chris Phillips
ADRIANC...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Although perhaps it is of interest that:
John, Count of Mortain (later king John) granted Brislington, Somerset to
John la Warre out of the honour of Gloucester (CP Vol IV pp 139/40 note (f))
and
John, Count of Mortain granted Rendcomb, Gloucestershire to Amselise wife of
William De la Mare and her heirs, out of the honour of Gloucester (PRO, A2A,
Gloucestershire Record Office: The Guise Family and its Gloucestershire
Properties; Also see VCH; Gloucestershire, Vol X, Hardwick manor)
And both families use the name Jordan: Jordan s&h of John la Warre (CP ref
as above) and Jordan (of age in 1199) son of William de Mare (indexed as Lord
of Rencomb in Bradenstoke Nos. 603, 604 and 657)
Adrian
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 128-130 (sub Montfort) had a good account
of the history of Sir Peter de Montfort, 3rd Lord Montfort (died
1370), grandson of Peter de Montfort (died 1287) and his wife, Maud de
la Mare. The account indicates that in addition to his lawful son,
Guy, Sir Peter also had three illegitimate children, namely John,
Richard, and Alice de Montfort. The reader is referred to Dugdale,
Warwickshire, for descendants of the sons, John and Richard. No
husband is provided for Alice, who Complete Peerage simply notes was
mentioned in a fine with her brother, John, dated 1324.
Elsewhere, I find that Thoroton's History of Nottinghamshire by John
Throsby, 3 (1790): 27 (sub Loudham) includes reference to a fine
levied at York, 12 Edward III [1338/9] in which Sir Peter de Nontfort
settled the manor of Gunthorp (in Loudham), Nottinghamshire on himself
and Margaret his wife, and the heirs of Peter on the body of the said
Margaret; with remainder to John, son of [L]ora de Ollenhale ("his
concubine or old miss") and the heirs of his body; remainder to
Richard brother of the said John, and his issue; remainder to Alice,
wife of Fulc de Penebrugg, and the heirs of her body; remainder to the
right heirs of Peter. This fine would appear to be a settlement by
Sir Peter de Montfort for the benefit of his three illegitimate
children.
The book, English Ancestry of Peter Bulkeley, Grace Chetwood, etc., by
Frank Wayne Ayres (1988): 305 includes a chart on the Durvassal family
which shows that Sir Peter de Montfort's illegitimate son, Richard,
was ancestor of the Catesby family of Warwickshire. The
Montfort-Catesby connection is confirmed by the Catesby family
pedigree found in the 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire and by VCH
Warwickshire.
Ayres, pg. 719, also includes a chart of the Pembrugge family which
states that Fulk de Pembrugge III (aged 15 in 1325, dead before
Michaelmas 1345) married "Alice, illegitimate daughter of Peter de
Montfort." This couple had no issue. Following Fulk's death, his
widow, Alice, married (2nd) Ralph Nowers. Mr. Ayres' information is
taken directly from a pedigree of the Pembrugge family found in
Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees (1925): 7. If Mr.
Farnham's information is correct, it would appear that Sir Peter de
Montfort's illegimate daughter, Alice, married (1st) Fulk de Pembrugge
and (2nd) Ralph Nowers.
If anyone descends from any of these people, it would be interesting
to hear from them. I believe the Catesby family is ancestral to the
New England immigrant, Jeremy Clarke, of Rhode Island.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
Going over the records I've found and reviewing the records you've
assembled, it's quite clear now that Walter de la Hyde was the father
of Hawise, wife of Robert le Veel. I did not know, however, that
Hawise de la Hyde had license to marry again in 1301 to William le
Suleye. That's another helpful piece in the jigsaw puzzle which I'm
grateful to have.
By any chance, do you happen to know the earlier history of the manors
of Charfield and Stowe Bydour which Walter de la Hyde gave to his
daughter, Hawise, on her marriage to Robert le Veel?
In Peter le Veel's inquisition post mortem dated 1346, I've found that
he and his wife, Katherine, were holding a property called Veel Hall
in Plympton, Devon under Hugh de Courtenay. Do you know how this
property came into the hands of Peter le Veel? I'm rather curious
about this estate, as there seems to be no reason for the Veel family
to have owned property in Devonshire under the Courtenay family. I
asssume Peter inherited this estate from his ancestors, as the
property was already known as Veel Hall in Peter's lifetime.
Sir William Pole's book, Collections towards a Description of the
County of Devon (1791), pg. 506, gives tha arms of Veale, of Vealhall,
as being:
Argent, on a bend Geules, 3 calfes [passant] or.
Elsewhere, I've learned that the Veel arms were quartered by their
heirs, the Stourton family.
When you have a minute, perhaps you can tell us how you got interested
in the Veel family.
In the meantime, again thanks for posting your information on the Veel
family. Collegiality is the key to solving many of the genealogical
puzzles of the past.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
duns...@yahoo.com (Mark Harry) wrote in message news:<d5e99e54.04111...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Reviewing the published volume of Ancient Correspondence, I found the
following record pertaining to Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287) and
his wife, Maud de la Mare:
Date: 1275-1287
125. William, prior of Studley, to the same: he has received
appointment of attorneys by Peter de Montfort and his wife, Maud
[Reference: List of Ancient Correspondence, Lists and Indexes, No. XV,
reprinted 1968, pg. 370; cf. Index to Ancient Correspondence of the
Chancery and the Exchequer, 2 (Lists and Indexes, Supplementary
Series, No. XV) (reprinted 1969), pg. 136 (identies the attorneys as
T. de Bolton and J. de Finstud')].
Chris Phillips
> The curia regis entry can easily be found in the published volume CRR
> 1227-1230, no. 2768. It reveals that Robert de Courtenay gave John de
> Neville 11 librates of lands in Waddesdon, and 24 librates of land in
> Alphington with the advowson of the church in marriage with Hawise. Hugh
de
> Neville likewise gave 40 librates of land in "Havam et in Wotton" which
> Hawise was to have in dower if Hugh outlived John.
Thanks to Rosie for posting this (and also for further discussion of it
off-list).
From the full entry, it seems that the dispute arose because Robert had not
delivered the 11 librates of land in Waddesdon as previously agreed. So
apparently the marriage of John and Hawise had already taken place by the
date of the entry (mid-February 1229/30 - it comes under the heading "A DIE
PURIFICATIONIS IN XV. DIES" in Hilary Term, 14 Henry III).
Chris Phillips
Mark Harry
I don't have anything further on Stowe Bydour, while there are some
conflicting accounts regarding Charfield. While the Matthews affidavit
of 1503 has Walter de la Hyde granting it to Robert and Hawise, as
previosuly described, William Veale's opposing affidavit claims that
Charfield went from John Meysy to Robert. Feudal Aids (vol 2 pp 241,
249) has Hawise holding a knight's fee there in 1303. while an IPM
dated 1308 has teo parts of a fee there in Robert's name (Calendars of
Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol 5 Edward II p 341) even though we known
from records previously discussed that he was then deceased.
The visitations give the wife of Robert's grandson Peter (II) de Veel
as Cecily, daughter and coheiress of John Massey of Charfield. Rudder
claims that the Masseys were lords of Charfield temp. Henry III, and
that John Massey sold Charfield to Robert Veale in 15 Edward I. While
searching in the public library at Gloucester in 1997 I discovered a
series of records called Hockadays Abstracts, which are held there and
filed in chronological order under parish name. Among them is a record
of a deed dated at Charfield on 1 February, 2 Edward I in which John
of Meysi granted to Sir Ronert le Veel, knight and the heirs male of
his body the manor of Charfield and its advowson in exchange for 200
pounds paid him by Robert
The conclusion I have come to is that Charfield was sold to the Veales
by the Masseys, and that the transfer by Walter recorded in the
Matthews statement may be a kind of reconveyance to the benefit of the
heirs of Hawise. Matthews was arguing that he and his children were
the lawful heirs of the property, while William Veale was arguing that
Charfield and other Veale properties were entailed on the male line,
and hence should have come to him rather than to the children of
Matthews, who was the husband of Alice Veale, daughter of Robert Veale
the uncle of the said William. It was the heir general who won the
case.
I am not sure how long the Veales held Veel-hall, but Carl Veale's
"Account of the Veale Family" item 6 page 1 says that it was held by
them in 1335 and was situated by Plympton. This made me wonder whether
it was the land at "Plinton" that Earl Richard II de Redvers granted
to Geoffrey le Veel and which was confirmed to the latter by King John
in 1207 ("Charters of the Redvers Family",no 19).
My interest in the Veales stems from being a descendant of Richard
Veale, vicar of Gulval in Cornwall 1586-1631, who is said in the
printed Gulval registers to have come from Atswold, or Cotswold, in
Gloucestershire, and also of Richard's kinsman Christopher Veale.
Mark
Douglas Richardson
Below is a brief abstract of a transcript of a "convencio" dated 1281
between Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, and John, Abbot of
Glastonbury, regarding the earl's woods at Haywood in the manor of
Domerham, Wiltshire, which the earl held of the king in chief. Sir
Walter de la Hyde is listed as one of the witnesses to this document.
Sir Walter de la Hyde was the husband of Joan (de Neville) de la Mare,
widow of Sir Henry de la Mare.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Dom. Aelred Watkin, The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury 3
(Somerset Rec. Soc. 64) (1956): 631-632:
"Convencio inter Gilbertum de Clare Comitem Gloucestr' et Herteford'
et Johannem Abbatem Glaston. de bosco de Haywode.
Anno Dni MCClxxxj, mense May, conventit inter Gilbertum de Clare
comitem Gloucestr' et Herteford' ex parte una et Johannem abbatem
Glaston. ex altera: scilicet, quod dictus comes concessit pro se et
heredibus suis in perpetuum quod abbas Glaston. et successores sui
faciant de bosco suo de Haywod' in manerio suo de Domerham in comitatu
Wiltischir', quod tenet de dno rege in capite ...
Hiis testibus: dnis Willelmo de Monkenesey, Waltero de la Hyde,
Nicholao de la Huse, Humfrido Cael, Roberto de Wodeton', Willelmo de
Percy, militibus; Ricardo Pik', Hugone Pruwet et aliis." END OF
QUOTE.
duns...@yahoo.com (Mark Harry) wrote in message news:<d5e99e54.04111...@posting.google.com>...
royala...@msn.com
The following is a record which involves Sir Henry de la Mare, father
of Maud de la Mare (wife of Peter de Montfort). The record is dated
1250, and concerns Henry de la Mare's lands in Harlaxton, Lincolnshire.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"No. 36. At Lincoln; in eight days of Trinty, 34 Henry III, [29 May,
1250].
Between Henry de la Mare, plaintiff, and Bartholomew de Castorp,
tenant, of the firth part of 2 bovates of land and [the fifth part of]
4-1/2 acres of wood in Herlaueston.
Plea. Bartholomew has ackknowledged the land and wood to be the right
of Henry, and has rendered the wood to him in the same court; to hold
of him and his heirs of the chief lords of that fee for ever; doing
therefor all services which to the wood belong. And for this Henry has
granted the land to Bartholomew together with 1 message which Henry
heretofore held in the same vill, and 4 acres of land in the same
vill, whereof 2 acres lie in the field which is called Northfeld, and 2
lie in 'the field which is called Suthfeud, and with the fifth part of
Henry's pasture which is between the wood which was heretofore of
William de Mortimer and Henry's wood in the same vill; to hold to
Bartholomew and his heirs of Henry and his heirs for ever; rendering
therefor yearly 8d. at the feast of St. Michael for all service and
demand. Henry and his heirs shall warrant to Bartholomew and his
heirs the said tenement, which remains to them by this concord, by the
said service against all men for ever. And for this Bartholomew has
granted to Henry the whole part which came to Bartholomew of this
messuage which formerly was of William de Herlaveston, Bartholomew's
uncle, whose heir he is, in the same vill; to hold to Henry and his
heirs of Bartholomew and his heirs for ever; rendering therefor yearly
one clove gillyflower at the feast of St. Michael for all service,
homage, fealty, relief, wardship, suit of courts, aids, custom and
demand. And Bartholomew and his heirs shall warrant to Henry and his
heirs the said part of the messuage, which remains quit to him by this
fine, by the said service agaianst all men for ever.
royala...@msn.com
The following is a record which involves Sir Henry de la Mare (died
1257), of Ashtead, Surrey, father of Maud de la Mare, wife of Sir Peter
de Montfort. The record is dated 1250, and concerns Henry de la Mare's
lands in Harlaxton, Lincolnshire.
Website: www.royalancestry.net
fine, by the said service agaianst all men for ever." [Reference: C.W.
Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, A.D, 1244-1272
(Lincoln Rec. Soc. 17) (1921): 62].
StephenButt
may find some information on my family website useful, and I would be very
grateful to receive any further details of the Woodford descent in
Leicestershire.
Best wishes,
Stephen Butt.