CP additions/(?)correction re Plaiz
Chris Phillips
identification of Isabel, the widow of Ralph de Plaiz (d.1283) [vol.10,
p.539] with Isabel the wife of John Marmion (d.1322), which was pointed out
by Douglas Richardson. Apart from other circumstantial evidence, the
Victoria County History of Sussex, vol.7, p.54 (Iford) refers to British
Library, Add. MS 39,373, fols 181, 191 to support the identification.
This manuscript is a modern (Victorian?) collection of extracts from the de
Banco rolls, Henry III to Edward II, and on fo.181 is an entry dated 1301 in
which Ralph de Playz is indeed described as formerly the husband of Isabel,
the wife of John Marmion.
Comparing the remainder of the information in the manuscript with the
account of Plaiz in CP, there's some additional information, and one
statement that contradicts the account:
(1) The second entry, dated 1303, is a suit brought by Philippa the daughter
of Richard de Plaiz against Henry de Guldeford, guardian of Richard, the son
and heir of Giles the son of Richard de Plaiz. Presumably this is the same
Philippa de Plaiz mentioned in 1302 (CP p.538, note m) - if so this confirms
the suggestin of CP that she was a daughter of Richard. A sketch tree
accompanying the abstract shows Giles' widow Joan as the mother of his
infant son Richard (as might be assumed, as CP mentions no other wife).
(2) The first entry describes Joan the widow of Richard de Plaiz as the
mother of his sons Ralph and Giles (again, CP mentions no other wife).
(3) The first entry also states that Alice who was the wife of Ralph de
Playz, grandfather of the aforesaid Giles, holds certain lands in Norfolk
and Kent in dower.
Clearly this is the same Alice recorded by CP (p.538) as claiming dower from
Richard in 1256 - and receiving manors in Norfolk and Kent - and still
living in 1275. From the evidence above, she seems to have been still living
in 1301.
But here's the contradiction - the manuscript says she was wife of Ralph de
Playz, grandfather of Giles, but CP the grandfather of Giles as Sir Hugh,
and places Alice as his third wife.
Perhaps this is just a slip of the pen, and it may be that it can be
resolved from the references that CP gives for Alice. However, the account
in CP does seem a bit speculative in some respects, and looking at the
dates, it may be that there's room for a "missing generation" between Sir
Hugh (in possession of the family estates in 1212) and his supposed younger
son Richard, who had respite from knighthood 1252/3 and produced his son and
heir about 1266.
Does anyone know any more about these people?
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> (3) The first entry also states that Alice who was the wife of Ralph de
> Playz, grandfather of the aforesaid Giles, holds certain lands in Norfolk
> and Kent in dower.
>
> Clearly this is the same Alice recorded by CP (p.538) as claiming dower
from
> Richard in 1256 - and receiving manors in Norfolk and Kent - and still
> living in 1275. From the evidence above, she seems to have been still
living
> in 1301.
>
> But here's the contradiction - the manuscript says she was wife of Ralph
de
> Playz, grandfather of Giles, but CP the grandfather of Giles as Sir Hugh,
> and places Alice as his third wife.
>
> Perhaps this is just a slip of the pen, and it may be that it can be
> resolved from the references that CP gives for Alice. However, the account
> in CP does seem a bit speculative in some respects, and looking at the
> dates, it may be that there's room for a "missing generation" between Sir
> Hugh (in possession of the family estates in 1212) and his supposed
younger
> son Richard, who had respite from knighthood 1252/3 and produced his son
and
> heir about 1266.
After writing that, I noticed that in another footnote (p.538, note k), the
Complete Peerage says that Richard was one of the heirs of his uncle Richard
de Montfichet in 1267/8, when he was said to be aged 40. Philippe, daughter
of Richard de Montfichet, is given as Sir Hugh's first wife. This evidence
does seem to confirm the CP account (unless CP is _really_ confused about
Sir Hugh's wives), and makes it look as if Richard was another younger son
who produced his heir late in life.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
It does appear that the CP account is correct, and that Richard was the son
of Sir Hugh de Plaiz.
The fine by which Alice was granted dower by Richard describes her as the
widow of Hugh (not Ralph) de Playz. So it seems that the record of 1301 - or
the abstract of it in Add. MS 39,373, fols 181 - is in error in calling her
the widow of Ralph.
Richard is also stated to be 40 in 1267/8, as the CP footnote says, and is
said to be the son of Philippa. (Although I don't see any clearer evidence
that Philippa's husabnd was called Hugh among the references given by CP, or
by Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees.)
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan
An IPM of Avelina [de Forz] late wife of Edmund the king's brother, 3 Edw 3,
states that Philippa was married to Hugh de Plaiz.
BUCKINGHAM Inq. Tuesday the Feast of St Gregory, 3 Edw I (1275)
Langh(le) and Wyradesburi. The manors tenure unspecifed.
Richard de Munfichet died without heir of his body, and his inheritance
descended to his three sisters: - The first sister Margery, married Hugh de
Bulebec, and from them issued Hugh de Bulebec who had four daughters
Philippa married to Roger de Lancastre, Margery married to Nicholas Corbet,
Alice married to Walter de Huntercombe, and Maud married to Hugh de la
Valle; the second sister, Avelina, married William de Forz the earl of
Albemarle, and from them issued William de Forz the last earl of Albemarle
who had two sons Thomas and William, who died without heirs of their body,
and one daughter Avelina whom Edmund the king's brother took to wife, who
lately died without heir of her body; and the third sister, Philippa,
married Hugh de Pleys, and from them issued Richard de Pleys, from whom
issued Ralph de Pleys now aged 9 and in the wardship of Sir Robert Aguilun.
Therefore the aforesaid four daughters of Hugh de Bulebec, and the aforesaid
Ralph de Pleys are next heirs of the aforesaid Avelina who died without heir
of her body"
The reference to Alice's husband as Ralph is probably a transcription error
in the abstract of the fine and I would imagine that Richard did not marry
until after his older brother Hugh's death - hence the fairly late arrival
of Ralph and Giles.
Cheers
Rosie
Chris Phillips
Many thanks for that additional piece of evidence, which I think completes
the picture, and makes it clear the account given by the Complete Peerage is
correct.
Chris Phillips