Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Joan, the wife of Henry, Lord Ferrers of Groby (d. 1387/8)

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Phillips

unread,
Jan 31, 2004, 5:11:16 PM1/31/04
to
Jim Weber kindly pointed out a possible correction to the account of Henry,
Lord Ferrers of Groby (d. 1387/8) in the Complete Peerage, which identifies
his wife Joan as "da. (probably) of Sir Thomas de Hoo, of Luton Hoo and
Stopsley, Beds, by Isabel, da. and h. of Sir John de Seint Leger, of Offley,
Herts" [CP v 352, 353].

The evidence given for this is that:
(1) The son of Henry and Joan was born in 1371 at the manor house of Hoo,
and baptised at Luton. As this was the principal manor of Sir Thomas de Hoo,
it "affords a strong presumption that she [Joan] was a da. of Sir Thomas."
(2) Sir William de Hoo, son and heir of Sir Thomas, was a feoffee of Henry
de Ferrers in 1377.

CP dismisses traditional accounts that Joan was the daughter of Thomas
(impossible) or Luke Poynings, on the basis that Luke's will (1376) doesn't
mention her. It also dismisses the fact that Luke Poynings was in 1371
granted the wardship of the lands of William de Ferrers (Henry's father), as
not necessarily indicating that Joan was a Poynings.

However, Jim points out that CP vol. 14 adds a further comment
"However, her seal on a grant of hers, has a shield of Ferrers impaling on a
chief two mullets pierced, presumably for St. John, as used by Poynings."

But vol. 14 apparently doesn't change the identification of Joan in the
text.

Jim also says that PA2 (p. 87) identifies Joan as the daughter of "Luke de
Poynings (or Ponynges), Knt., 4th Lord St. John of Basing by Isabel,
daughter of Hugh de Saint John, 2nd Lord St. John of Basing" on the basis of
the heraldry on the seal.

This does seem to be strong backing for the traditional identification,
though it looks as though there should also be some connection with the
Hoos.

The other detail that puzzles me is what CP (p. 352, note c) says about Joan
being represented in a fine in 1371 "per Johannem Farnebergh' custodem
ipsius Johanne". Does this mean that John is Joan's guardian, or does
"custos" mean something else in this context? I don't understand why Joan
should be the ward of someone else in her father's lifetime, but maybe I'm
missing something. (Incidentally, Farnborough in Hampshire does lie pretty
close to Basing, so in a sense this may also be a pointer towards the
Poynings family.)

Any further thoughts will be very welcome.

Chris Phillips


0 new messages