Identity of the mysterious Countess of Loretto
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As the new ancestry of Margaret de Brewes, wife of Sir Thomas de
Monthermer, is traced out, one interesting genealogical puzzle which is
immediately encountered is the identity of Margaret's maternal
grandmother, the mysterious Countess of Loretto, 2nd wife of Sir Roger
de Clifford (died 1285), of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
According to published accounts, Roger de Clifford went to the Holy
Land with Prince Edward of England in 1271. On their return home two
years later in 1273, Roger was present with Philippe, Count of Savoy
and Burgundy, and others, when William, Lord of Toron on the Rhine, did
homage to King Edward I at the castle of St. Georges, near Beaufort in
France. Having lost his wife, Maud, Sir Roger de Clifford "now paid
his addresses" to the Countess of Loretto, "whom he met in this castle
of St. Georges, where he married her, with great solemnity, after
having settled upon her his manor of Weverham in Cheshire." [Reference:
Arthur Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): 176].
That Sir Roger de Clifford's wife held the Italian title of Countess of
Loretto is confirmed by several records, among them Calendar of Close
Rolls, 1272-1279, pp. 450, 518. In the former record she is styled
"Contissa, countess of Lorett[o]" and in the latter record she is
styled "Contesse Loretti."
Hugh Clifford includes a long and somewhat rambling discussion
regarding the Countess of Loretto in his book, House of Clifford:
"At about this time Roger Clifford himself married in France as his
second wife, a mysterious lady variously described as the Countess of
Loretto, Lorette or Lauretania, whom he is said to have married at
Saint-Georges near the castle of Beaufort. There are two possible
theories concerning this lady's identity. She may have been the Dame
de Lorette-sur-Loire, though there is nothing to identify her as such
beyond the fact that the marriage took lace at St. Georges-du-Bois,
near Beaufort-en-Vallee (Maine-et-Loire) not far from Angers. A more
probable candidate is a member of the noble family of
Milly-en-Gatinois. Perenelle de Milly, Countess of Loretto in Italy,
in the early 14th century, was the daughter of Geoffrey de Milly,
Seneschal of the Kingdom of Naples during the last couple of decades of
the 13th century. The family had been prominent in Outremer and with
the Templars from the 12th century, and was closely related by blood
and marriage to the families of Joinville and Dampierre. It will be
remembered that Geoffrey de Joinville, Comte de Vaucouleurs, had
married the Cliffords' neighbor Maud de Lacy, and their daughter,
Jeanne de Joinville was the wife of Roger de Mortimer, while two of her
sisters were nuns at Aconbury. Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders,
Marquis of Namur, had taken part in the crusade to Tunis in 1270, and
was present at the deathbed of St. Louis. He had 19 children by two
wives, and his third son, Philip de Dampierre, was created Count of
Chieti in the kingdom of Naples. It is probable that Roger de
Clifford's wife was a member of one of these families, and that his
marriage would have strengthened the already existing bonds between the
Cliffords and these powerful French nobles. As to the place of
marriage, Sir Iain Moncreiffe suggests St.-Georges-de-Reneins (Rhone)
not far from Villefranche-sur-Saone, where Edward I and a thousand
picked men fought a strange mele with the Count of Chalons, in response
to the count's challenge received while the crusaders had passed
through Italy. This would certainly be closer to the Milly, Joinvlle
and Dampierre estates that Saint-Georges-du-Bois." END OF QUOTE.
[Reference: Hugh Clifford, The House of Clifford, pp. 47-48].
Regarding Mr. Clifford's first theory regarding the Countess of
Loretto's identity, it is impossible to think that a woman holding the
French manor of de Lorette-sur-Loire would derive an Italian title such
Countess of Loretto from this possession. Why Mr. Clifford would
suggest such a silly notion is beyond me. As to his second theory, Mr.
Clifford is on more solid ground. He notes that there was a certain
Pernel de Milly who was Countess of Loretto in the early 1300's. So,
he has the correct title. He supposes that this woman might have been
Roger de Clifford's 2nd wife. However, his own book shows that Roger
de Clifford's 2nd wife and surviving widow, the Countess of Loretto,
died in 1301. As such, she could hardly be the same woman as Pernel de
Milly who occurs after this date. So then who was Roger de Clifford's
wife?
The solution to this puzzle is actually somewhat simple. Pernel de
Milly's husband, Sir Philippe de Dampierre, was Count of Chieti in
Italy just as Hugh Clifford states. I've found evidence that he was
also known as Count of Loretto. This is proven by four records in the
period, 1304-1305, recorded in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1302-1307,
pp. 162, 167, 209, 260. Mr. Clifford tells us that Philippe de
Dampierre "was created Count of Chieti in the kingdom of Naples."
However, this is not true. What took place is that Philippe de
Dampierre had an earlier marriage to a woman who was Countess of Chieti
in her own right. Her name was Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay, and she
was the daughter and sole heiress of Raoul de Courtenay, Count of
Chieti (died 1271). According to Detlev Schwennicke, Mahaut de
Courtenay was born c. 1254. Her marriage to Philippe de Dampierre
allegedly took place c. 1284 at Wynendale, South Flanders, in modern
Belgium.
>From the dates, it seems that Mahaut de Courtenay was nearly 30 at her
marriage to Philippe de Dampierre. This age at marriage is highly
unlikely given that she was an heiress and a member of the important
Courtenay family. If so, it would seem probable that Mahaut de
Courtenay had an earlier marriage than her known marriage to Sir
Philippe de Dampierre. Who then was Mahaut's first husband? It
appears he was Sir Roger de Clifford, of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
While conclusive evidence is still lacking, we know from Detlev
Schwennicke that Mahaut de Courtenay was Countess of Chieti in her own
right. If so, then it seems a good bet that she was also known as
Countess of Loretto, just we know her husband, Philippe de Dampierre,
was known as both Count of Chieti and Count of Loretto. We are told by
Hugh Clifford that Roger de Clifford's wife died in 1301. Detlev
Schwennicke states that Mahaut de Courtenay, wife of Sir Philippe de
Dampierre, died in 1303. The dates are very close. Following Mahaut
de Courtenay's death, Sir Philippe de Dampierre married (2nd) Pernel de
Milly, who Clifford notes was known as Countess of Loretto. Next, we
know that Sir Roger de Clifford died in or about 1285 [Reference: Hugh
Clifford, House of Clifford, pg. 49]. Schwennicke states that Mahaut
de Courtenay married c. 1284 to Philippe de Dampierre. Again, the
dates are very close. Lastly, we know that Roger de Clifford's widow,
the Countess of Loretto, was living abroad from 1293 to at least 1296
[Reference: Ibid.]. If she was re-married to a foreigner, this would
readily account for her absence from England.
So, was Mahaut de Courtenay the 2nd wife of Sir Roger de Clifford? As
best I can tell, yes, she was. However, this matter deserves further
study to make a final determination.
In closing, I wish to thank my friend, Brent Ruesch, who worked on this
genealogical puzzle with me today at the Family History Library here in
Salt Lake City. It's good to have friends, especially when they're as
knowledgeable about genealogical matters as Mr. Ruesch.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Paul Mackenzie
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103162065.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As the new ancestry of Margaret de Brewes, wife of Sir Thomas de
> Monthermer, is traced out, one interesting genealogical puzzle which is
> immediately encountered is the identity of Margaret's maternal
> grandmother, the mysterious Countess of Loretto, 2nd wife of Sir Roger
> de Clifford (died 1285), of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
>
I noticed in earlier posts on this thread, that you have identified the
maiden name of Agnes de Brewes (who was married to Peter de
Brewes of Tetbury, and formerly married to Henry Hussey)
as being one Agnes Clifford.
I have sighted two articles by a David Clifford concerning this
matter [1][2]. The second of which proposes that this Agnes
de Brewes was the daugther of Roger de Clifford and Countess
of Loretto. These articles should be treated with caution!!
This proposal is based on the assumption that Peter de Brewes
of Wiston is the son of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury and therefore
the memorial in the Wiston church to a one Annys de Braose
(nee clifford) refers to the mother of Peter de Brewes'
of Wiston. As you can see, this is bad logic. This memorial
by itself is not proof that they were father and son. Of course
it still may be true but it is not SUFFICIENT proof.
If you are aware of any OTHER material substantiating the claim
that Agnes Brewes was Agnes Clifford, I would extremely
grateful for the references. This would THEN be strong evidence
[taken together with the memorial] that Peter of Wiston was the
son of Peter of Tetbury.
[1] The Mapledurham Connection, Tracing the first wife
of Roger Clifford (1221-85) by David J.H. CLIFFORD,
Gen. Mag. Sept. 1990.
[2] "A Window at Wiston", The Clifford Association Newsletter
, Vol. 2 No. 8, June 1993
Kind Regards and Seasons Greetings
Paul Mackenzie
Paul Mackenzie
"Paul Mackenzie" <paul.ma...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:5t8wd.58$jm6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I forgot to mention that there does a fragment of Roger Clifford 11 will
(a copy of which I have cited) in which he bequeaths "to Alys my
daughter 20 marks". This evidence does not effect my comments above.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good comments. Your points are right to the mark
and extremely well put.
Regarding the parentage of Peter de Brewes of Wiston (died c. 1377),
I've studied the available evidence and it seems clear to me that
Peter de Brewes (d. c. 1377) is almost certainly the son of Peter de
Brewes (died 1312) and his wife, Agnes de Clifford. I would place the
younger Peter as a son of the elder Peter even without knowing what
anyone else's position was on this matter. Until now, the chief
roadblock in accepting Peter (d. ca. 1377) as a son of Peter (d. 1312)
has been the statement made in 1498 that Peter (d. 1312) then had no
living issue. We've seen evidence this week which indicates that the
1498 statement is erroneous.
Insofar as the evidence of the identity of Agnes, wife of Peter de
Brewes, goes, I know you're aware of the the window in the Wiston
church which commemorates Lady Agnes de Brewes and Lady Joan de Brewes.
The term "lady" in this period means these women were the wife of a
knight. Without studing the matter deeply, I would guess that this
Agnes was the mother of Peter de Brewes the younger, and that Joan is
Peter's wife. I know Peter de Brewes, the younger, was certainly a
knight. I have no doubt that Peter, Sr., was as well. If so, the
names and the station of these ladies would fit the facts we have for
this family.
Agnes' part of the window displays two coats of arms, Azure crusilly a
lion rampant or [BREWES], impaling Checky or and azure a fess gules
[CLIFFORD]. If this window commemorates the mother of Peter de
Brewes' mother (as I think likely), then I think we can safely assume
that Agnes was a Clifford.
The arms of Roger de Clifford the father are found on Brian Timms'
great website (http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/CamdenD1.html). They
exactly match the arms found on the Agnes de Brewes' part of the
window.
Roger de Clifford Checky or and azure a fess gules
As you know, David Clifford assigns Agnes de Clifford, wife of Peter de
Brewes, Sr., as a child of Sir Roger de Clifford (died c. 1285) and his
2nd wife, the mysterious Countess of Loreto [see Genealogists'
Magazine, 23 (1990): 260-263]. I note that Mr. Clifford cites two
sources for this identification, namely Dugdale's Baronage and
Hothfield MS, Book II. Have you looked at either of these sources? If
so, can you tell us what they say? Also, have you been in contact with
Mr. Clifford and asked him if he might have other evidence?
As for the second part of the window which commemorates Lady Joan de
Brewes, this part likewise displays two coats of arms, Azure crusilly a
lion rampant or [ BREWES], impaling Gules a bend between six crosslets
fitchy argent. In an earlier post, you identified the second arms as
being those of the Howard family. However, I suspect they are
actually the arms of Lady Joan de Brewes' Percy family, not the Howard
family. Unfortunately, I'm unable to confirm my suspicion, as I can
not find a sample of the arms of Joan de Brewes' father, Nicholas de
Percy. This, of course, presumes that Joan de Brewes' parentage has
been correctly identified from other sources.
You say you have a fragment of the will of Roger de Clifford (died c.
1285). Is that all that has survived - a fragment? Can you give us a
source for the will?
It wouldn't surprise me, by the way, if Roger de Clifford had two
daughters by his 2nd wife, the Countess of Loretto. If the fragment of
his will actually refers to a daughter, Alice, then I would take that
at face value and not transform her into an Agnes. Alice and Agnes are
two different given names. If my identification of the Countess of
Loreto as Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay is correct, then Alice would be
the name of Mahaut de Courtenay's mother and a likely name for her to
bestow on a daughter.
Seasons Greetings, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Brendan Wilson
"The Dictionary of National Biography" Vol IV pg:529
edited by Sir Leslie Stephen
"The lady died in 1301 and is buried in Worcester Cathedral"
sources are listed on same page with page numbers
" The knights of Edward I" page 213 uses the above source as well
Brendan Wilson
On 15 Dec 2004 17:54:25 -0800, "Douglas Richardson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
For those who wish to trace the ancestry of Mahaut (or Maud) de
Courtenay, Countess of Chieti, using online sources, they can do so by
going to the following links:
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/capet/capet12.html
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/capet/capet4.html#P
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
ADRIANC...@aol.com
was the Countess of Lorraine, and they were m at the castle of St George near
Beaufort, France. It looks as though this may be the source for the "The
House of Clifford" extract, and presumably Hugh Clifford had some reason for
changing Lorraine to Loretto.
It would be interesting to see the exact wording in the two close rolls you
cite (not available to me)
Adrian
Douglas Richardson wrote
Doug Thompson
Paul Mackenzie and I have corresponded at length on the issue of the
identification of Agnes, wife of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury. Your
account is a good review of the material available on the subject, but
there is clearly not enough to reach the level of proof, or even of a
convincing best hypothesis yet.
We cannot be sure that Agnes was a Clifford, and if she was, we cannot
be sure of her parentage. There just isn't any good link between her
and Roger Clifford (d1285). Why not a daughter of Roger Clifford (d
1282)? I'm sure there are other possible candidates too.
The arms in the Wiston window can't be taken as a definitive statement
either. They are not contemporary with Agnes. It has been suggested
they were inserted in the window by the later Shirley occupant of
Wiston. A generalised form of the Clifford arms may have been used.
We mustn't let wishful thinking cloud our judgement here. The Countess
of Loretto problem is not yet relevant to the ancestry of Margaret de
Monthermer.
Doug Thompson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Below is the exact wording for all six references to the Loretto title,
two for Roger de Clifford's wife and four for Philippe de Dampierre,
the husband successively of Mahaut de Courtenay and Pernel de Milly.
The Loretto title is Italian. It is clearly different from that of
Lorraine.
Cal. Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (pub. 1900):
pg. 450:
Date: 12 Apr. 1278
To Ralph de Sandwyco, the king's steward. Order to cause Contissa,
countess of Lorett[o], wife of Roger de Cliff[ord], to have twelve oaks
for timber, of the king's gift."
pg. 518:
Date: 8 Jan. 1279
pg. 518: To John son of Philip, keeper of the forest of Kynefar. Order
to cause Contesse Loretti, wife of Roger de Clifford, to have in that
forest for ten oak-trunks for fuel, of the king's gift.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Cal. of Close Rolls, 1302-1307 (pub. 1908):
pg. 162
Date: 20 July 1304
"... Philip, son of Guy, count of Flanders, Chieti [Thieat'] and
Lorettto, a short time to compel Nicholas and Peter and the other
malefactors ..."
pg. 167
Date: 23 Aug. 1304
"... requested Sir Philip, son of Sir G[uy], count of Flanders, Chieti
(Thiect') and Loretto (Lorect'), to compel Nicholas and Peter and the
other malefactors aforesaid to make restitution ..."
pg. 209
Date: 8 June 1304
"To Sir Philip, son of the count of Flanders, count of Chietti
(Thiette) and Loretto (Laureth'), and to the echevins (escuvinges) and
consuls of the five good towns of Flanders. The king has received ..."
pg. 260
Date: 12 Apr. 1305
"... requested Philip, son of Guy, count of Flanders, Chieti (Thiett)
and Loretto, a short time since to compel Nicholas and Peter and the
other malefactors to make restitution ..."
In another vein, I had assumed that Roger de Clifford died in 1285, as
that is the date I often see sources use for his death date. The House
of Clifford, pg. 49, however, says the following about his death:
"The wounded warrior justiciar was duly liberated from his imprisonment
on Snowdon, but sadly his son and heir, Sir Roger Clifford the younger,
had been killed in action during the campaign, and the old Marcher lord
died of his wounds in or about 1285. His estate being in debt to the
Crown, execution was ordered on his personal goods in 1286, the jewels
of his widow, the Countess, being especially exempted by the writ.
Before his death, he had made over to the City of London certain
property which he held in the Jewry."
Please note that Mr. Clifford is uncertain as to Roger de Clifford's
exact date of death - he says only "in or about 1285." Elsewhere
Schwennicke estimates that Mahaut de Courtenay, Countess of Chieti,
married in "(Wynendaele 1284)" (parentheses indicates estimated date)
to Philippe de Dampierre, Count of Teano [Reference: Europasiche
Stammtafeln, 3 Pt. 1 (1984), Table 57 (sub Courtenay)]. I find it
interesting that the death date of Roger de Clifford and the marriage
of his apparent widow c. 1284 are BOTH estimated dates. If Roger de
Clifford left his highborn wife a penniless widow, no wonder she
married again so rapidly.
I note that Schennicke refers to Philippe de Dampierre as having the
title "Count of Teano." I believe Teano is simply another form of
Chieti. Perhaps someone more familiar with Italian titles can tell us
the correct forms of these titles.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Doug, thanks for this interesting post. I know that you've been
> interested in this question for several years (at least).
>
> You mention that Philippe, Count of Chieti and Loretto, is mentioned
in
> _Calendar of Close Rolls, 1302-1307_. He's also found in a couple of
> subsequent volumes of the same set.
Dear John ~
Yes, I've been working on the Countess of Loretto problem for probably
about 15 years. Also, the identity of Margaret de Monthermer.
Thanks for mentioning the other Close Rolls records which refer to
Philippe de Dampierre as "Count of Chieti and Loretto." By any chance,
do you have the exact references for these items? It's important that
we post our sources with our messages.
Paul Mackenzie
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103181725.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> You say you have a fragment of the will of Roger de Clifford (died c.
> 1285). Is that all that has survived - a fragment? Can you give us a
> source for the will?
>
> It wouldn't surprise me, by the way, if Roger de Clifford had two
> daughters by his 2nd wife, the Countess of Loretto. If the fragment of
> his will actually refers to a daughter, Alice, then I would take that
> at face value and not transform her into an Agnes. Alice and Agnes are
> two different given names. If my identification of the Countess of
> Loreto as Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay is correct, then Alice would be
> the name of Mahaut de Courtenay's mother and a likely name for her to
> bestow on a daughter.
>
> Seasons Greetings, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
Hi Doug and all:
I detail below the extract of the will of Roger de
Clifford. The article referencing this will referred to it
as a fragment. Whilst this is only an extract, a fuller
version may exist. I don't know if it does unfortunately.
Kind Regards
Paul
WILL OF ROGER DE CLIFFORD, THE ELDER
Will of Roger de Clifford, the elder, dated Thursday
before the feast of All Saints, 1284. He leaves his
body to be buried in the church of Dore, and with
his body his war-horse trappings (dextrarium meum
co-opertorium) or 30 marks. To ten chaplains celebrating
divine service for three years for his soul, 100li. For the
honourable burial of his body and to be distributed
to the poor, 40li. In aid of the religious houses in the
counties of Worcester and Hereford, according to the
disposition of his executors, 10 marks. To
the nuns of the house of Westwood, 10li. In aid of the
church of Temedebiry (Tenbury), 10s. To the nuns of
Accornebur', 40s. In aid of the church of Stok', 10s.
In aid of the church of the church of Monmue (Monmouth), 10s.
To the church of Brug', 10s. To the church of Erdesl'
(Erdisley), 10s. To Alice, his daughter, 40 marks. To a
certain man going to the Holy Land, 50 marks. To his
wife, all his silver utensils and other things. To Stephen
Pech', 20 marks. To Reginald, the clerk 20li. The residue
of his goods to be expended as his executors shall deem
expedient for the benefit of his soul. He appoints his
executors the abbot of Dore, the abbot of Persore, Andrew,
vicar of Stok', and Roger, vicar of Temedebyr'. And he
directs that his wife may have her chamber free, and all
her jewels, and all things which pertained to her of his goods.
Location: Worcester Library
Author: Catholic Church
Publisher: Oxford :Printed for the Worcestershire historical
society by James Parker and co ,1900
Control Number: q5640595
Part of. Episcopal registers. Diocese of Worcester :
Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard, September 23rd, 1268,
to January 26th, 1302 /Edited for the Worcestershire
historical society by J. W. Willis Bund
Part: Part III, 1284-1291
Paul Mackenzie
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103181725.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Paul ~
>
> >
> Insofar as the evidence of the identity of Agnes, wife of Peter de
> Brewes, goes, I know you're aware of the the window in the Wiston
> church which commemorates Lady Agnes de Brewes and Lady Joan de Brewes.
> The term "lady" in this period means these women were the wife of a
> knight. Without studing the matter deeply, I would guess that this
> Agnes was the mother of Peter de Brewes the younger, and that Joan is
> Peter's wife. I know Peter de Brewes, the younger, was certainly a
> knight. I have no doubt that Peter, Sr., was as well. If so, the
> names and the station of these ladies would fit the facts we have for
> this family.
>
> Agnes' part of the window displays two coats of arms, Azure crusilly a
> lion rampant or [BREWES], impaling Checky or and azure a fess gules
> [CLIFFORD]. If this window commemorates the mother of Peter de
> Brewes' mother (as I think likely), then I think we can safely assume
> that Agnes was a Clifford.
>
> The arms of Roger de Clifford the father are found on Brian Timms'
> great website (http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/CamdenD1.html). They
> exactly match the arms found on the Agnes de Brewes' part of the
> window.
>
> Brewes, this part likewise displays two coats of arms, Azure crusilly a
> lion rampant or [ BREWES], impaling Gules a bend between six crosslets
> fitchy argent. In an earlier post, you identified the second arms as
> being those of the Howard family. However, I suspect they are
> actually the arms of Lady Joan de Brewes' Percy family, not the Howard
> family. Unfortunately, I'm unable to confirm my suspicion, as I can
> not find a sample of the arms of Joan de Brewes' father, Nicholas de
> Percy. This, of course, presumes that Joan de Brewes' parentage has
> been correctly identified from other sources.
> Seasons Greetings, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
Thanks Doug for you insight on this matter.
The actual memorial window refers to "Pp. Dame Annys de Brewes"
and "Pp. Dame Joan de Brewes".
Also, I found the following from "The dictionary of Heraldry" by Joseph
Forster.
"Nicholas de Percy bore at the battle of Boroughbridge 1322, undee (6)
argent and azure"
whereas
Howard family --Duke of Norfolk--- bore "gules, on a bend between six
crosses
fitchee argent" ( The date this was augmented was not clear). Early Howard
family members had variations of these arms. So it does seem that the arms
are referring to the Howard family.
Your comments concerning that "Dame", namely "Lady", is referring to the
wife
of a knight may be extremely important.
As I understand the matter, there is only two de Brewes males that were
knights and were directly associated with Wiston. Namely Peter de
Brewes Knt d1378 and his son John de Brewes Knt d1426. The third one
was possibly Peter de Brewes Knt d1312 of Tetbury whose wife was Agnes
the lady in question. Whilst Peter de Brewes of Tetbury was never in
possession of Wiston it has been argued that the reference to "Annys"
is a reference to his wife "Agnes", and this memorial is a dedication to her
There are numerous references [7][8] connecting John de Brewes with one
Robert Howard knight. Apparently John de Brewes and Robert Howard
abducted Margery de Nerford the wife of John de Brewes. Margery
Nerford was at that time seeking a divorce from John de Brewes. John's
father, Peter
de Brewse had been granted [1] the wardship of Margery together with her
marriage
in 1364. She was 5 years at the time[2]. It thus seems that John de Brewes'
first wife was Margery de Nerford. It appears Margery Nerford obtained
her divorce sometime after 1380 as in 1426 we have the same John de Brewes
as being married to one Margaret daugther of Thomas Ponyngez knight lord
Seynt John.
Margery apparently died in 1417 when her inheritances were conveyed to her
cousin
Lord Cobham [9]
We also have a Inq. post Mortem of Alice late the wife of John Howard
in 1374 [3]. In which it is mentioned that
"Garboldecham. The manor called "Uphalle" held of Mary de Sancto Paulo,
countess of Penbroch, as of her manor of Hokham, by service of one knight's
fee and that about the feast of the translation of St. Thomas the Marty she
enfeoffed Peter de Brewes, knight John de Herlyng, Walter Pekke, parson
of the church of Garboldecham and Thomas Caus of Hokham, of the above
manors, and the feoffees have been in possession ever since.
She died on the Monday before the Navity of St. Mary, 1373. Robert
Howard, her son,aged 30 years or more, is her heir."
I think it is safe to conclude that Joan Howard was Robert Howard's
sister and that she married Peter de Brewes of Wiston. She could
not have married his son John as he was already married to Margery
Nerford and seemed intent on keeping the marriage intact. Thus we
have Peter de Brewes marrying firstly Joan Percy and secondly marrying
Joan Howard daughter of Alice and John Howard.
We are also told that the Peter de Brewes' wife died in 1368 [5].
Whilst there is substantive evidence that his wife did die in 1368/69
there is no reference to her name. It has been assumed in the past
that this was Joan Percy. We know Joan de Brewes (Percy) was
alive in 1356. The enfeoffment of Alice Howard's properties in 1369
seems to suggest that Peter was married to Joan Howard by 1369.
Thus we may conclude that it was Joan Percy who died in 1367/68
and Peter de Brewes married Joan Howard shortly thereafter.
John de Brewes had two other brothers named
Richard and Thomas. However, they do not seem to enter into the
equation as they were not knights and also were
not lords of the manor. Thus in view of Doug's Richardsons' comments
any of their wifes would not be designated by the term "Dame" and so
can be discounted.
We are thus left with the Dame Annys de Brewes nee Clifford.
This where the going gets tough!!! She could also have been married
to Peter de Brewes of Wiston, but this seems unlikely. It has been
suggested that this name should be read as Agnes and consequently
may be a dedication to Peter de Brewes of Wiston mother, and this
has been suggested is Agnes de Brewes of Tetbury.
Any comments and criticism would be
appreciated.
[1]Cal. Pat. 1361-1364 p441
[2]CIPM Vol 11 p429,430
[3]CIPM Vol 13 p 267
[4] Cal.Close 1374-1377 p158
[5] Sussex Arch. Collections Vol 53 p 144 Vol 54 p 146
[6] CIPM Vol 14 p191,192
[7] Cal. Pat. 1377-1381 p 260, 299,301,307,308,
309, 311,374
[8] Cal. Close 1377-1381 p 222,223
[9] Blomefields
[10] Cal. Close 1354-1360 page 325-326
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thanks so much for posting the abstract of Roger de Clifford the
elder's will. My impression is that the will is rather complete, as
the testator mentions his wife, a daughter, Alice, and various other
parties, and then appoints his executors. I note that the will is
dated the Thursday before November 1st 1284, which presumably is close
to the testator's death date. The testator's son and heir, Roger the
younger, was already deceased, which explains why he is not mentioned
in the will. My file notes indicate that the will was proved in 1286.
I notice that no daughter, Agnes, is named in the will, unless the name
"Alice" is a transcription error for Alice. Since there is a slim
chance that Alice is an error for Agnes, it seems like it would be a
good idea to have someone examine the registered copy of this will to
make sure the testator's daughter, Alice, is really called Alice in the
will.
If Roger de Clifford had other daughters, they presumably were married
by the date of the will. This could include Agnes, I suppose. Peter
de Brewes (2nd husband of Agnes de Clifford) was born about 1273. If
Agnes was about the same age, she could have already been contracted in
marriage by her father to her first husband, Henry Hoese (or Hussey),
by 1284.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Brendan Wilson
Clifford, Roger. Sir
"..... Dead 3 Ap 1286 leaving his wid. C'ss of Lerett (F.R.). He was
taken prisoner at Lewes fighting for K., and distinguished himself at
Evesham. He married (1) Hawyse or Avicia. d. of Jn Boterall, and had
s.h. Roger, and married (2) the Countess of Lauretania in France, who
died 1301"
Brendan Wilson
On 16 Dec 2004 22:38:49 -0800, "Douglas Richardson
Brendan Wilson
From
"The Knights of Edward I" page 143
Breouse, Sr Peter de, Kt. ...... "Aged 23, bro. h. of Ric. de b., who
held Tetbury Manor, Glou. 1 Jan. 1296 (Inq.) Livery of Bro. lands 17
Mar 1296 (F.R.).......
Holds 1/2 Kt. Fee at N. Tudworth, Wilts, in right of his w., Agnes
Husee, 29 May 1307(Inq). Peter de Browouse, a Comr in Glou. 1 Ap. 1310
(C.R.). Dead 7 Ap. 1312 (F.R.), holding Manors of Tettebury, Glou.,
Manyngeford Brewose, Wilts.,Cheresworthe and Seggeswyk, Suss., and
leaving s.h. Thomas, 10. Wm. de Breouse gave Tettebury to Peter, who
assigned it to his w. Agnes at marriage. The Wilts. and Suss. Manors
are held in dower by Mary, wid. of Wm de B(Inq). Dower to Agnes, wid
of Peter, and wardship of s.h. Thomas, 22 May 1312 (F.R.) Agnes is
latley dead 9 Mar. 1332 (Inq) "
Brendan Wilson
Brendan Wilson
Huse, Sr. Henry Kt.
Talks about wife ...." K.in regard for his w. Margaret, k's. kin."
and later
"Dower to his wid. Agnes 27 Aug. 1290, and Lic. for her to marry Peter
de Brewose if she will 6 June 1300.
Brendan Wilson
From
"The Knights of Edward I" page 143
Breouse, Sr Peter de, Kt. ...... "Aged 23, bro. h. of Ric. de b., who
held Tetbury Manor, Glou. 1 Jan. 1296 (Inq.) Livery of Bro. lands 17
Mar 1296 (F.R.).......
Holds 1/2 Kt. Fee at N. Tudworth, Wilts, in right of his w., Agnes
Husee, 29 May 1307(Inq). Peter de Browouse, a Comr in Glou. 1 Ap. 1310
(C.R.). Dead 7 Ap. 1312 (F.R.), holding Manors of Tettebury, Glou.,
Manyngeford Brewose, Wilts.,Cheresworthe and Seggeswyk, Suss., and
leaving s.h. Thomas, 10. Wm. de Breouse gave Tettebury to Peter, who
assigned it to his w. Agnes at marriage. The Wilts. and Suss. Manors
are held in dower by Mary, wid. of Wm de B(Inq). Dower to Agnes, wid
of Peter, and wardship of s.h. Thomas, 22 May 1312 (F.R.) Agnes is
latley dead 9 Mar. 1332 (Inq) "
Brendan Wilson
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:49:02 +1000, "Paul Mackenzie"
<paul.ma...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As a followup to my original post, I've found the following information
just now on the internet regarding Maud (or Mahaut) de Courtenay's
father, Raoul de Courtenay (or Rudolph of Cortiniaco). It indicates
that Raoul de Courtenay was made Count of Chieti (Teate) in 1269 by
Charles of Anjou, King of Naples. No source is given for this
information, and no mention is made of the title, Count of Loreto.
Europaische Stammtafeln indicates that Raoul de Courtenay died soon
afterwards in 1271.
Source: http://abruzzo2000.com/abruzzo/chieti/villasantamaria.htm:
"In 1268 Villa Santa Maria was destroyed by one of the many raids of
the Saracens. One year later the Countdom of Teate (=Chieti), including
Villa Santa Maria, was given by King of Naples Charles of Anjou to the
French noble Rudolph of Cortiniaco." END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for the great post. You provided many facts which helped
fill in the big picture. Much appreciated.
I concur with you that the evidence indicates that Peter de Brewes the
younger (d. ca. 1377) of Wiston, Sussex had two wives, Joan de Percy
and Joan Howard. We can be reasonably certain this is the case as we
know that Peter de Brewes married before 1342, to Joan de Percy, yet
his daughter, Beatrice (wife of Hugh de Shirley) wasn't born until
about 1366, she being aged 60 at her brother's death in 1426. If Joan
de Percy was Beatrice's mother, Beatrice would have been born at least
24 years after her parents' marriage and possibly more. While this is
possible, it is a bit unlikely. Also, as you point out, the Wiston
window commemorates Lady Agnes de Brewes (presumably Peter's mother)
and Lady Joan de Brewes (presumably Peter's wife). The Howard arms are
associated with Lady Joan de Brewes' image, not the Percy arms. Given
the other connections in the records you have noted between Peter de
Brewes and his son, John, with the Howard family, it seems rather clear
that Peter de Brewes had a second wife named Joan who was a member of
the Howard family.
I agree with you that Joan Howard, the second wife of Peter de Brewes,
was almost certainly the daughter of John Howard, Knt., of East Winch
and Wiggenhall, Norfolk, Admiral of the Fleet north of the Thames, by
his wife, Alice, daughter of Robert de Bois, Knt., of Fersfield and
Garboldisham, Norfolk, and Brokes (in Ipswich), Suffolk. If so, this
gives all the descendants of the Brewes family of Wiston a new descent
from King John via the Howard and Cornwall families.
For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the 17th Century
American colonists who descend from Beatrice de Brewes, wife of Hugh de
Shirley, Knt., which Beatrice was the daughter and eventual sole
heiress of Peter de Brewes, of Wiston.
l. Dannett Abney.
2. Elizabeth Bosvile.
3. George, Giles & Robert Brent.
4. Thomas Bressey.
5. Nathaniel Browne.
6. Edward Carleton.
7. Thomas Dudley.
8. Edmond Hawes.
9. Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe.
10. Anne Mauleverer.
11. George Reade.
12. Richard Saltonstall.
Thanks to everyone for making this a memorable and enjoyable week on
the newsgroup.
Seasons greetings, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As a followup to my earlier post earlier this week, interested parties
may wish to know that Brian Timms displays the arms of both Roger
Clifford the elder (died c. 1285) and his son, Roger Clifford the
younger (d. 1282), on the Charles Roll found on his great heraldry
website at http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/charlesF02.htm.
The Charles Roll records the arms of Roger Clifford the elder as being
Checky or and azure a fess gules. These are the same arms found in the
Wiston, Sussex window commemorating Lady Agnes de Brewes.
The arms of Roger Clifford the younger are Checky or and azure on a
fess gules three cinquefoils argent.
I believe the three cinquefoils on the younger Roger de Clifford's arms
were meant to difference his arms from those of his father while his
father was alive. In this case, the son predeceased the father.
Nathaniel Taylor
"Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com>
wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As a followup to my original post, I've found the following information
> just now on the internet regarding Maud (or Mahaut) de Courtenay's
> father, Raoul de Courtenay (or Rudolph of Cortiniaco). It indicates
> that Raoul de Courtenay was made Count of Chieti (Teate) in 1269 by
> Charles of Anjou, King of Naples. No source is given for this
> information, and no mention is made of the title, Count of Loreto.
> Europaische Stammtafeln indicates that Raoul de Courtenay died soon
> afterwards in 1271.
>
> Source: http://abruzzo2000.com/abruzzo/chieti/villasantamaria.htm:
>
> "In 1268 Villa Santa Maria was destroyed by one of the many raids of
> the Saracens. One year later the Countdom of Teate (=Chieti), including
> Villa Santa Maria, was given by King of Naples Charles of Anjou to the
> French noble Rudolph of Cortiniaco." END OF QUOTE.
Here, then, is another crusader for the ancestry of certain American
colonists: this grant was likely in consequence of the 1265-6 'crusade'
in which Charles of Anjou was invited by Urban IV and Clement IV to
conquer and rule Naples / Sicily, defeating Manfred von Hohenstaufen.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for the information. Much appreciated.
I'm curious to know what happened to Maud de Courtenay between the time
her father Raoul died in 1271 and the time she married Philippe de
Dampierre c. 1284. If Maud was in England as the wife of Roger de
Clifford (as I think probable), then what became of her land holdings
in Italy? Perhaps it would be best to contact some Italian historians
and ask for their assistance. Do you know any?
Nathaniel Taylor
> Dear Nat ~
>
> Thank you for the information. Much appreciated.
>
> I'm curious to know what happened to Maud de Courtenay between the time
> her father Raoul died in 1271 and the time she married Philippe de
> Dampierre c. 1284. If Maud was in England as the wife of Roger de
> Clifford (as I think probable), then what became of her land holdings
> in Italy? Perhaps it would be best to contact some Italian historians
> and ask for their assistance. Do you know any?
One might find the story of this title and its incumbents referred to in
published historical works on the Angevin lords of Naples, including
such foundational works as Emile Leonard, _Les Angevins de Naples_
(Paris, 1954; Italian trans. & expanded ed. 1967). Promising newer
titles in the same vein include Giuliana Vitale, _Élite burocratica e
famiglia: dinamiche nobiliari e processi di costruzione statale nella
Napoli angioino-aragonese_ (Naples, 2003), or, in English, Jean
Dunbabin, _Charles I of Anjou: power, kingship and state-making in
thirteenth-century Europe_ (Longman, 1998).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Nathaniel Taylor
> I'm curious to know what happened to Maud de Courtenay between the time
> her father Raoul died in 1271 and the time she married Philippe de
> Dampierre c. 1284. If Maud was in England as the wife of Roger de
> Clifford (as I think probable), then what became of her land holdings
> in Italy? Perhaps it would be best to contact some Italian historians
> and ask for their assistance. Do you know any?
On Chieti specifically, I would add, as potentially useful: a
seventeenth-century history: Girolamo Nicolino (1604-1664), _Historia
della città di Chieti_ (Bologna, 1967); and an edition of possibly
illustrative local documents: _Regesto delle pergamene della curia
arcivescovile di Chieti_, vol. 1, 1006-1400, ed Antonio Balducci
(Casalbordino, 1926). Either one might mention this possible earlier
husband of Maud, or at least indicate who or what held Chieti in this
period before Philippe de Dampierre comes into the picture.
I hadn't been following along closely earlier. Do you think there were
any children of Maud's possible first marriage to Clifford? Issue from
a first marriage would be harder to ignore in the face of the title
going to her [second] husband (who survived her).
Peter Stewart
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-B9...@news1.east.earthlink.net...
Save yourself any further trouble over the question, Nat - in his 15 years
of work on the mystery of this alleged countess, Douglas Richardson has
outdone himself by giving us a most striking example of how such historical
& genealogical problems are NOT resolved. Maud de Courtenay was never
married to a Clifford, she passed her life in Italy not in England, she died
in 1303 not in 1301, and she is buried in Naples not in Worcester. I will
post more on this later. Of the candidates for "countess of Loretto", the
least unlikely is perhaps a dame of Lorette as suggested by Lord Clifford of
Chudleigh (not "Mr Clifford"), despite Douglas Richardson (of all people)
calling this "silly".
Also, Maud's father does not add to the roster of crusaders in anyone's
ancestry since he has no recorded descendants.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I see your absence has not improved your behavior. This is sad.
No one said Roger de Clifford's wife spent her life in England. In
fact, evidence has been presented which indicates she was gone from
England from 1293 to at least 1298, and perhaps longer. Perhaps you
missed the evidence when it was posted. Please study the thread again.
As for the Countess' place of burial, it is possible for someone in
medieval times to have their body parts buried in two different places.
As such, it's entirely possible for the Countess of Loreto to be
buried in both Worcester Cathedral and in Italy and have a monument to
her memory erected in both places. I would say such a thing is rare,
but it is possible.
Regardless of what you think, I believe that Mr. Clifford's idea that
the female owner of a French manor ("dame de Lorette") is the same
person as an Italian countess (contessa di Loreto) is utterly daffy.
Roger de Clifford's wife was clearly a highborn lady. The reference to
her jewels in Roger de Clifford's will is evidence of her high born
status. Likewise, King Edward I was careful in 1286 to make sure the
Countess' jewels were not taken to pay her husband's debts to the
crown.
We still have several things which are not readily explained. First,
if Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay passed her life in Italy as you say,
why did she not marry until the ripe age of 30? As a highborn noble
woman and a near kinswoman of King Charles of Anjou surely a suitable
husband would have been found for her long before she attained her 30th
year. Second, if Mahaut de Courtenay remained in Italy as you state,
then the question remains who is the Countess of Loreto who appeared in
England? Third, if Roger de Clifford's wife was Mahaut de Courtenay,
the question arises why she did not use both of her titles, Countess of
Chieti and Loreto, instead of just Loreto. Mahaut de Courtenay's known
husband, Philippe de Dampierre, certainly used both titles. Fourth, if
Agnes de Clifford was the Countess' daughter, then the question arises
why she did not inherit her mother's title in Italy. If Agnes had a
sister, Alice, as suggested by Roger de Clifford's will, this might
explain why Agnes did not inherit her mother's titles.
There may well be other solutions for the identity of the Countess of
Loreto in England. I certainly have an open mind on the topic. I
believe this matter deserves further study.
In the future, please spare us the verbal attacks in your posts, Peter.
It is not necessary to be petty and infantile when you post on the
newsgroup.
Seasons greetings, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote:
I was suspicious of the identity and of the putative descent from a
daughter (a point raised by others who pointed out that proof is
lacking). I did think it worthwhile to point out some basic sources
through which one could investigate this hypothesis from the Neapolitan
side. I am surprised, though, that anyone who has sat on this problem
for years would not already have investigated this, both along the lines
I suggested and in other ways.
Is Maud covered in Van Kerrebrouck's _Les Capétiens directs_?
Peter Stewart
Yes she is, and in any case the information Richardson has already posted is
enough to rule her virtually out of contention, much less other details he
has neglected to mention from the same secondary sources.
Now I see he is persisting in his argument without waiting for another view,
which as I said will be posted later.
A semi-comatose garden worm would do a better job on this subject in 15
minutes than SGM's professional charlatan has managed in 15 years. I can
only assume he is hoping once again to benefit from other people's efforts
in correcting his nonsense.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103412356.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter ~
>
> I see your absence has not improved your behavior. This is sad.
>
> No one said Roger de Clifford's wife spent her life in England. In
> fact, evidence has been presented which indicates she was gone from
> England from 1293 to at least 1298, and perhaps longer. Perhaps you
> missed the evidence when it was posted. Please study the thread again.
Where Roger de Clifford's wife spent her time has no relevance whatsoever to
Matilda de Courtenay, who as far as we know left Italy once, journeying with
her (only) husband Philippe to Flanders where they arrived in May 1303.
> As for the Countess' place of burial, it is possible for someone in
> medieval times to have their body parts buried in two different places.
> As such, it's entirely possible for the Countess of Loreto to be
> buried in both Worcester Cathedral and in Italy and have a monument to
> her memory erected in both places. I would say such a thing is rare,
> but it is possible.
But it is a red herring, since Matilda de Courtenay had no connection to
Worcester in the first place.
> Regardless of what you think, I believe that Mr. Clifford's idea that
> the female owner of a French manor ("dame de Lorette") is the same
> person as an Italian countess (contessa di Loreto) is utterly daffy.
> Roger de Clifford's wife was clearly a highborn lady. The reference to
> her jewels in Roger de Clifford's will is evidence of her high born
> status. Likewise, King Edward I was careful in 1286 to make sure the
> Countess' jewels were not taken to pay her husband's debts to the
> crown.
As I ponted out, Hugh Clifford was "Lord" and not "Mr". No-one has said that
the woman known as "countess of Lorett" wasn't high-born and couldn't have
possessed jewels. There is NO evidence that the description used in England
referred to an Italian county, this is just your facile supposition.
> We still have several things which are not readily explained. First,
> if Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay passed her life in Italy as you say,
> why did she not marry until the ripe age of 30? As a highborn noble
> woman and a near kinswoman of King Charles of Anjou surely a suitable
> husband would have been found for her long before she attained her 30th
> year.
Oh? And what if she had taken the veil before leaving a convent to marry
late? Or what if she was too important as an heiress to be given in marriage
in the tumultuous circumstances of the Angevin kingdom until someone with
the right credentials, such as a son of the count of Flanders, came along?
> Second, if Mahaut de Courtenay remained in Italy as you state,
> then the question remains who is the Countess of Loreto who appeared in
> England?
Maybe a Frenchwoman as I said before - she may or may not have been an
actual countess, maybe or maybe not of Loreto in Italy.
> Third, if Roger de Clifford's wife was Mahaut de Courtenay,
> the question arises why she did not use both of her titles, Countess of
> Chieti and Loreto, instead of just Loreto. Mahaut de Courtenay's known
> husband, Philippe de Dampierre, certainly used both titles.
Matilda de Courtenay entitled herself using only her major countship of
Chieti, just as her father had done. Her husband Philippe on the other hand
was a younger son on the make who flashed both Chieti and Loreto on his
return to Flanders. However, he did not call himself by the grander title of
count of Bigorre which any previous husband of Matilda (although there was
none) would have done in right of her moiety and especially following the
cession of the whole by her half-brother. Why on earth do you suppose Roger
de Clifford never assumed any of these titles in right of his alleged wife?
And why do you suppose such a miserable mismatch as this you allege between
Matilda de Courtenay and a mere English knight would have left no trace?
> Fourth, if Agnes de Clifford was the Countess' daughter, then
> the question arises why she did not inherit her mother's title in Italy.
> If Agnes had a sister, Alice, as suggested by Roger de Clifford's will,
> this might explain why Agnes did not inherit her mother's titles.
We know perfectly well that Matilda de Courtenay had no offspring that
survived her. We have no evidence that a daughter of Roger de Clifford by
his mysterious wife had any connection to Italy.
> There may well be other solutions for the identity of the Countess of
> Loreto in England. I certainly have an open mind on the topic. I
> believe this matter deserves further study.
>
> In the future, please spare us the verbal attacks in your posts, Peter.
> It is not necessary to be petty and infantile when you post on the
> newsgroup.
Ah yes, like all your own posts - so we should take it that your insulting
and deeply stupid posts about Todd Farmerie were moviated purely by mature
and exemplary manners?
Why don't you now show some maturity and good sense by waiting for my
response to your first post in this ridiculous thread?
Peter Stewart
mhol...@mac.com
has found new clues to the identity of this woman. He never said it
was proven. There was no q.e.d. He then went to a community of
scholars to hypothesize and ask for help. Some did provide help and
sources to explore.
You say you will post later, which is code for let me be bitchy now and
not put out anything scholarly at all.
I am enjoying this thread and the work going into it. I would like to
see it develop and see if there is an answer to this conundrum. If you
have something that can remotely be called SUBSTANTIVE, please let us
know. Otherwise, in the words of my New Yorker ancestors: SHUT THE
FUCK UP. Thanks.
Martin E. Hollick
Leo van de Pas
Do read your own last two sentences, act accordingly that would be
appreciated.
Peter Stewart
<mhol...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1103425665.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Do you enjoy making this list a place of inanity and vileness? Doug
> has found new clues to the identity of this woman.
No, he has done nothing of the sort.
> He never said it was proven. There was no q.e.d. He then went to
> a community of scholars to hypothesize and ask for help. Some did
> provide help and sources to explore.
He did what he so often does on this newsgroup: he used his phoney
reputation to impose on people who are interested in the question, he
pretended to have made some progress in it, and he fished for assistance
that he can filch later as his own work.
> You say you will post later, which is code for let me be bitchy now and
> not put out anything scholarly at all.
No, it's not code for anything, just a statement of fact - I am simply not
able to post immediately on this matter, due to causes beyond my control
that are no concern of yours, and I posted a warning to keep others from
wasting their time & effort on another piece of Richardson's self-serving
nonsense.
The fact that you enjoy being bamboozled by a two-bit fraud like Richardson
is your own look-out. Nothing of worth has "developed" in this thread so
far, it is just old material rehashed from a totally misconceived angle. As
for turning SGM into a place of vileness, you (Hollick) introduced profamity
into the forum, indeed shouted it in capitals. We don't need emphasis to see
what a fool you can be, you have proved this time & again.
Peter Stewart
Brendan Wilson
William Flower, Esq.
Roger Clifford = Ida, dau.to Lacy. Earl of Lyncolne
Comitessa de Loretta
Brendan Wilson
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103162065.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As the new ancestry of Margaret de Brewes, wife of Sir Thomas de
> Monthermer, is traced out, one interesting genealogical puzzle which is
> immediately encountered is the identity of Margaret's maternal
> grandmother, the mysterious Countess of Loretto, 2nd wife of Sir Roger
> de Clifford (died 1285), of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
>
> According to published accounts, Roger de Clifford went to the Holy
> Land with Prince Edward of England in 1271. On their return home two
> years later in 1273, Roger was present with Philippe, Count of Savoy
> and Burgundy, and others, when William, Lord of Toron on the Rhine, did
> homage to King Edward I at the castle of St. Georges, near Beaufort in
> France. Having lost his wife, Maud, Sir Roger de Clifford "now paid
> his addresses" to the Countess of Loretto, "whom he met in this castle
> of St. Georges, where he married her, with great solemnity, after
> having settled upon her his manor of Weverham in Cheshire." [Reference:
> Arthur Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): 176].
>
> That Sir Roger de Clifford's wife held the Italian title of Countess of
> Loretto is confirmed by several records, among them Calendar of Close
> Rolls, 1272-1279, pp. 450, 518. In the former record she is styled
> "Contissa, countess of Lorett[o]" and in the latter record she is
> styled "Contesse Loretti."
Neither of these proves that Sir Roger de Clifford's wife held any Italian
title: in "Contissa, countess of Lorett" the title "countess" in English
would be redundant unless her given name happened to be Contissa. Without
seeing the original document it is not clear exactly in what terms she was
described, but the "[o]" giving an Italian look to the locality seems to be
just an editorial presumption. The other mention, as "Contesse Loretti"
could mean simply "Conetsse [given name or title] of Lorett, again with
nothing to indicate that this was a place in Italy rather than France (or
elsewhere). The fine roll extract quoted by Brendan Wilson ("C'ss of
Lerett"), where the editor has glossed "Countess of Lauretania in France",
does not clarify this.
> Hugh Clifford includes a long and somewhat rambling discussion
> regarding the Countess of Loretto in his book, House of Clifford:
>
> "At about this time Roger Clifford himself married in France as his
> second wife, a mysterious lady variously described as the Countess of
> Loretto, Lorette or Lauretania, whom he is said to have married at
> Saint-Georges near the castle of Beaufort. There are two possible
> theories concerning this lady's identity. She may have been the Dame
> de Lorette-sur-Loire, though there is nothing to identify her as such
> beyond the fact that the marriage took lace at St. Georges-du-Bois,
> near Beaufort-en-Vallee (Maine-et-Loire) not far from Angers. A more
> probable candidate is a member of the noble family of
> Milly-en-Gatinois. Perenelle de Milly, Countess of Loretto in Italy,
> in the early 14th century, was the daughter of Geoffrey de Milly,
> Seneschal of the Kingdom of Naples during the last couple of decades of
> the 13th century. The family had been prominent in Outremer and with
> the Templars from the 12th century, and was closely related by blood
> and marriage to the families of Joinville and Dampierre. It will be
> remembered that Geoffrey de Joinville, Comte de Vaucouleurs, had
> married the Cliffords' neighbor Maud de Lacy, and their daughter,
> Jeanne de Joinville was the wife of Roger de Mortimer, while two of her
> sisters were nuns at Aconbury. Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders,
> Marquis of Namur, had taken part in the crusade to Tunis in 1270, and
> was present at the deathbed of St. Louis. He had 19 children by two
> wives, and his third son, Philip de Dampierre, was created Count of
> Chieti in the kingdom of Naples. It is probable that Roger de
> Clifford's wife was a member of one of these families, and that his
> marriage would have strengthened the already existing bonds between the
> Cliffords and these powerful French nobles. As to the place of
> marriage, Sir Iain Moncreiffe suggests St.-Georges-de-Reneins (Rhone)
> not far from Villefranche-sur-Saone, where Edward I and a thousand
> picked men fought a strange mele with the Count of Chalons, in response
> to the count's challenge received while the crusaders had passed
> through Italy. This would certainly be closer to the Milly, Joinvlle
> and Dampierre estates that Saint-Georges-du-Bois." END OF QUOTE.
> [Reference: Hugh Clifford, The House of Clifford, pp. 47-48].
>
> Regarding Mr. Clifford's first theory regarding the Countess of
> Loretto's identity, it is impossible to think that a woman holding the
> French manor of de Lorette-sur-Loire would derive an Italian title such
> Countess of Loretto from this possession. Why Mr. Clifford would
> suggest such a silly notion is beyond me.
It was quite common at this time for girls of lesser rank to be given such
names as "Comitissa", "Marquisia", "Comtors", etc, that are otherwise higher
titles, so that in light of the ambiguous descriptions given above this is a
perfectly sensible suggestion. Again, that "Contissa" was even a title and
that this must have been Italian are mere conjectures, not proven.
> As to his second theory, Mr.
> Clifford is on more solid ground. He notes that there was a certain
> Pernel de Milly who was Countess of Loretto in the early 1300's. So,
> he has the correct title. He supposes that this woman might have been
> Roger de Clifford's 2nd wife. However, his own book shows that Roger
> de Clifford's 2nd wife and surviving widow, the Countess of Loretto,
> died in 1301. As such, she could hardly be the same woman as Pernel de
> Milly who occurs after this date. So then who was Roger de Clifford's
> wife?
She could not have been Pernel de Milly for the much more solid reason that
Pernel wasn't called "Contissa"and only became countess of Chieti & Loreto
on her marriage to Philippe de Dampierre after 1303 (ES III 665 misdates
this to 1302): before that the lady was twice married in Italy, having other
husbands throughout most of the duration of Roger de Clifford's mysterious
marriage, and as to tile was only signora of Pagliara by inheritance from
her mother.
> The solution to this puzzle is actually somewhat simple.
Genealogy is rarely as simple as this; however, Douglas Richardson often is.
> Pernel de
> Milly's husband, Sir Philippe de Dampierre, was Count of Chieti in
> Italy just as Hugh Clifford states. I've found evidence that he was
> also known as Count of Loretto. This is proven by four records in the
> period, 1304-1305, recorded in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1302-1307,
> pp. 162, 167, 209, 260. Mr. Clifford tells us that Philippe de
> Dampierre "was created Count of Chieti in the kingdom of Naples."
> However, this is not true. What took place is that Philippe de
> Dampierre had an earlier marriage to a woman who was Countess of Chieti
> in her own right. Her name was Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay, and she
> was the daughter and sole heiress of Raoul de Courtenay, Count of
> Chieti (died 1271). According to Detlev Schwennicke, Mahaut de
> Courtenay was born c. 1254. Her marriage to Philippe de Dampierre
> allegedly took place c. 1284 at Wynendale, South Flanders, in modern
> Belgium.
This was the place and date of the marriage contract, not the ceremony.
Philippe was also count of Teano; Matilda de Courtenay was indeed countess
of Chieti and this is the only title she seems to have identified herself by
in charters of her own, e.g. in 1297 "Mathildis de Courtenaio, comitissa
Theati, uxor nobilis domini Philippi de Flandria" (Matilda de Courtenay,
countess of Chieti, wife of the noble lord Philippe of Flanders), see Lucien
Merlet, 'Procès pour le possession du comté de Bigorre (1254-1503)',
_Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes_ 18 (1857), pièces justificatives, no.
12 p. 321. She was referred to by northern contemporaries under the same
sole title, e.g. "Philippum, qui uxorem habuit comitissam de Tyeta"
(Philippe, who had as wife the countess of Chieti) in 'Chronica monasterii
Sancti Bertini auctore Iohanne Longo', edited by Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS
XXV, p. 851.
In Flanders it was recognised that Philippe held two countships in Italy by
right of his wife, cf "Philippus...de Italia cum uxore sua, comitissa
duorum comitatuum (Philippe...from Italy together with his wife, countess of
two counties), _Annales Gandenses_ edited by Hilda Johnstone (London, 1951),
p. 48, and "Philippus...ad duos comitatus suos parvus ex parte uxoris in
Italiam reversus est" (Philippe...returned to the two small counties that he
held by right of his wife in Italy), ibid p. 84. I am not sure whether the
second countship here was Loreto or Teano - I haven't been able to get out
to a library, and I'm not sure which of these Matilda's father held along
with Chieti. For all I know, Philippe might have been awarded Loreto (or
Teano) in his own right, as his half-brother Henri was given the countship
of Lodi.
>From the dates, it seems that Mahaut de Courtenay was nearly 30 at her
> marriage to Philippe de Dampierre. This age at marriage is highly
> unlikely given that she was an heiress and a member of the important
> Courtenay family. If so, it would seem probable that Mahaut de
> Courtenay had an earlier marriage than her known marriage to Sir
> Philippe de Dampierre. Who then was Mahaut's first husband? It
> appears he was Sir Roger de Clifford, of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
No it doesn't. Sir Roger is supposed to have courted this mysterious lady in
France and to have married her in 1272/3. However, Matilda de Courtenay was
plainly not married in December 1276 when her half-brother confirmed to her
the moiety of Bigorre, see Merlet, op cit, pièces justificatives, no. 10 p.
319: "dilecta soror mea Mathildis de Courtenayo, filia dictorum Radulfi et
Aalipdis" (my beloved sister Matilda de Courtenay, daughter of the said
Raoul and Alix). If she had an English husband of some years standing at the
time to assume this possession in her right, such an interesting & important
fact could hardly have passed completely unnoticed in her immediate family.
The half-brother later ceded the other moiety to her, and when he died in
1283 Matilda was a major claimant for Bigorre. The genealogy of her family
was carefully studied over the ensuing centuries: NO Clifford connection or
heir/ess is mentioned in the records. Moreover, when her marriage contract
of 1284 was negotiated - NB a year or two BEFORE Roger de Clifford died -
Matilda was evidently unmarried as she was described in a letter of 25 June
1284 as "damoiselle Mathilde de Courtenay, contesse de Chieti" according to
Patrick van Kerrebrouck, _Les Capétiens 987-1328_, (Villeneuve dAscq,
2000)', p. 481 note 15.
> While conclusive evidence is still lacking, we know from Detlev
> Schwennicke that Mahaut de Courtenay was Countess of Chieti in her own
> right. If so, then it seems a good bet that she was also known as
> Countess of Loretto, just we know her husband, Philippe de Dampierre,
> was known as both Count of Chieti and Count of Loretto.
It isn't a bet I would care to risk, but this is beside the point as the
chronology and other circumstances rule it out anyway.
> We are told by
> Hugh Clifford that Roger de Clifford's wife died in 1301. Detlev
> Schwennicke states that Mahaut de Courtenay, wife of Sir Philippe de
> Dampierre, died in 1303. The dates are very close. Following Mahaut
> de Courtenay's death, Sir Philippe de Dampierre married (2nd) Pernel de
> Milly, who Clifford notes was known as Countess of Loretto. Next, we
> know that Sir Roger de Clifford died in or about 1285 [Reference: Hugh
> Clifford, House of Clifford, pg. 49]. Schwennicke states that Mahaut
> de Courtenay married c. 1284 to Philippe de Dampierre. Again, the
> dates are very close. Lastly, we know that Roger de Clifford's widow,
> the Countess of Loretto, was living abroad from 1293 to at least 1296
> [Reference: Ibid.]. If she was re-married to a foreigner, this would
> readily account for her absence from England.
>
> So, was Mahaut de Courtenay the 2nd wife of Sir Roger de Clifford? As
> best I can tell, yes, she was. However, this matter deserves further
> study to make a final determination.
It hasn't yet had any conscientious study by Douglas Richardson, just a
flimsy con job based on the similarity of an uncertain name and/or title in
a few English records with a known place in Italy and a title from there
used by someone else whose wife plainly cannot be connected to this. Tricked
up with approximate but conflicting dates, all we are given is a walloping
load of hot air. Matilda de Courtenay was an important heiress in Naples,
where she lived, died ans was buried. She had nothing to do with a Clifford
lordling in England, with his children real or imagined, or with Worcester.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
You state that Mahaut de Courtenay was described in a letter of 25 June
1284 as "damoiselle Mathilde de Courtenay, contesse de Chieti"
according to Patrick van Kerrebrouck, _Les Capétiens 987-1328_,
(Villeneuve dAscq, 2000)', p. 481 note 15.
What is van Kerrebrouck's source for this statement?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Gryphon801
1285, which speak of the marriage of the Count's son Philippe to demoiselle
Mathilde de Courtenay, comtesse de Chieti.
Peter Stewart
news:1103435708.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter ~
>
> You state that Mahaut de Courtenay was described in a letter of 25 June
> 1284 as "damoiselle Mathilde de Courtenay, contesse de Chieti"
> according to Patrick van Kerrebrouck, _Les Capétiens 987-1328_,
> (Villeneuve dAscq, 2000)', p. 481 note 15.
>
> What is van Kerrebrouck's source for this statement?
Archives départmentales, Nord, B 404, a letter of Gui de Dampierre, count of
Flanders (father of Philippe) dated at Wijendale.
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> The Visitations of Yorkshire 1563-1564. page 60
> William Flower, Esq.
>
> Roger Clifford = Ida, dau.to Lacy. Earl of Lyncolne
> Comitessa de Loretta
Agreed that that is indeed what is in that book.
There are two points that need addressing. First, what did that
visitation record represent? As I have suggested on many an occasion
before, the visitations were done by various estate owners or their
stewards meeting up with the herald and exchanging information. The
herald then wrote down some account of what he was told. If any
documentation was produced by the interviewee, it was unlikely he would
have brought with him (by horse) much more than a hand-written
pedigree. The major deeds would have remained securely in the muniment
room. In this particular case the person interviewed looks like he was
a Musgrave and he would in no way have held the Clifford deeds.
Finally the person interviewed was about eight generations after the
above Roger Clifford, so would hardly have had any personal knowledge
of that Roger. Regrettably much of this Yorks visitation is pedigrees
of this sort, all having highly doubtful veracity.
The second point is that on the following page, 61, the editor adds a
footnote:
"This [pedigree] differs much from the received descent of Clifford,
especially as regards the name of the wives in the three first
generations..."
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
subject in 15 minutes than SGM's professional charlatan has managed in
15 years. I can only assume he is hoping once again to benefit from
other people's efforts in correcting his nonsense."
Now that Peter has changed the topic of this discussion to garden
worms, I thought I'd post a copy of recent post from the
HOME-AND-GARDEN-GROUP. Denise says: "I am told that earthworms are the
single most important asset to a garden that one can do. What do you
think?"
I tend to agree with Denise. Peter - what do you think?
Seasons greetings, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
HOME AND GARDEN GROUP > earthworms - View Parsed
Received: by 10.11.88.14 with SMTP id l14mr132957cwb;
Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 216.150.255.90 by c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com with
HTTP;
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 01:24:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: "denniso" <denn...@mcn.org>
To: HOME-AND-G...@googlegroups.com
Subject: earthworms
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:24:48 -0800
Message-ID: <1103419488.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I am told that earthworms are the single most important asset to a
garden that one can do. What do you think?
Google Home - Google Labs - Services & Tools - Terms of Service -
Privacy Policy - Jobs, Press, & Help
© 2004 Google
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103446758.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter said: "A semi-comatose garden worm would do a better job on this
subject in 15 minutes than SGM's professional charlatan has managed in
15 years. I can only assume he is hoping once again to benefit from
other people's efforts in correcting his nonsense."
Now that Peter has changed the topic of this discussion to garden
worms, I thought I'd post a copy of recent post from the
HOME-AND-GARDEN-GROUP. Denise says: "I am told that earthworms are the
single most important asset to a garden that one can do. What do you
think?"
I tend to agree with Denise. Peter - what do you think?
Yes, she's probably right, although of course it was your reaction rather
than my comment that changed the topic - but as to genealogy remember that I
compared you unfavourably, saying a garden worm would do better in 15
minutes than you did in 15 years; and perhaps you agree as it seems you now
want to borrow some kudos from your betters under the soil.
If you try very, very hard for the next 15 years, you might get up to their
semi-comatose speed at checking the facts available to you before lurching
to unwarranted conclusions.
Peter Stewart