Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Complete Peerage Addition: Beatrice of Portugal, wife of Gilbert Talbot, 5th Lord Talbot, and Thomas Fettiplace, Esq.
1,012 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Jul 7, 2013, 12:58:11 PM7/7/13
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 617-620 has a good account of Gilbert Talbot, K.G., 5th Lord Talbot (died 1418). Regarding his marriage to his surviving wife, Beatrice of Portugal, the following information is given:
"He married, about 1415, Beatrice, a Portuguese lady, perhaps of the family of Pinto. He died s.p.m. 19 October 1418 at the siege of Rouen. His widow married before 1423 Thomas Fettiplace, of East Shefford, Berkshire, who died between 1442 and 1446 and was buried there. M.I. She died on Christmas day 1447 and was buried at East Shefford aforesaid. M.I." END OF QUOTE.
The identification of Beatrice simply as "Portuguese lady" is a bit misleading. There are no less than four visitations which mention this lady, and in all of them she is identified as a daughter of the King of Portugal. The four visitation records are listed below. Furthermore, Collectanea Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 80–90 indicates that Beatrice bore the ancient arms of Portugal, both on her seal and impaled with those of her husband, Gilbert Talbot. For whatever reason, Complete Peerage ignored the evidence of the visitations.
1. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 305–307 (Talbot ped.: “Gylbert Lord Talbot = Betryce doughter of the Kyng of Portyngall.”).
2. Cooke & Mundy, Vis. of Worcester 1569 (H.S.P. 27) (1888): 131–136 (Talbot ped.: “Gilbart L. Talbotte. = Jane da. to Tho. of Woodstock Duke of Gloster”; also “Gilbarte L. Talbotte.= Beautrix da. to the Kinge of Portingalle.”).
3. Tresswell & Vincent, Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 2 (H.S.P. 29) (1889): 450–453 (Talbot ped.: “Guilbert Lo. Talbott. = Beatrix da. of… King of Portingale.”).
4. Benolte et al., Four Vis. of Berkshire 1532, 1566, 1623 & 1665–6 1 (H.S.P. 56) (1907): 28 (Feteplace ped.: “Sr Thomas ffetiplace of East Shifforde in the Countie of Berk Knighte maried the Ladye Beatryce. Countesse of Shrewsburye, and daughter to Alphoncius Kinge of Portingall”), 89–91 (Fettiplace ped.: “Thomas Fettiplace de Shifford in Com. Berks Armiger. = Beatrix filia Joh’is Regis Portug: ter nupta”).
That Beatrice was a native of Portugal is proven by a record in Calendar of Close Rolls, 1419-22, pp. 24-25, cited by Complete Peerage, which reads in part:
"Beatrice, who was born in Portugal, while she was an alien, ..."
Unfortunately Beatrice's exact place in the royal family of Portugal has never been firmly established.
Recently I located two lawsuits in the Court of Common Pleas which mention Beatrice, Lady Talbot. These lawsuits show that in 1450 John ffetplace [Fettiplace], of Wolveley [i.e., Woolley (in Chaddleworth), Berkshire, sued Geoffrey Cayoo, yeoman, of Bampton, Oxfordshire, executor of Beatrice, Lady Talbot, late the wife of Thomas ffetplace [Fettiplace], Esq., regarding a debt.
These lawsuits may be found at the following weblinks:
Court of Common Pleas, CP40/883, rot. 460f (available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no758/aCP40no758fronts/IMG_0460.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/883, rot. 1083d (available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no758/bCP40no758dorses/IMG_1083.htm).
The lawsuits indicate that Beatrice died testate, and that her second husband, Thomas Fettiplace, held the rank of esquire.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 617-620 has a good account of Gilbert Talbot, K.G., 5th Lord Talbot (died 1418). Regarding his marriage to his surviving wife, Beatrice of Portugal, the following information is given:
"He married, about 1415, Beatrice, a Portuguese lady, perhaps of the family of Pinto. He died s.p.m. 19 October 1418 at the siege of Rouen. His widow married before 1423 Thomas Fettiplace, of East Shefford, Berkshire, who died between 1442 and 1446 and was buried there. M.I. She died on Christmas day 1447 and was buried at East Shefford aforesaid. M.I." END OF QUOTE.
The identification of Beatrice simply as "Portuguese lady" is a bit misleading. There are no less than four visitations which mention this lady, and in all of them she is identified as a daughter of the King of Portugal. The four visitation records are listed below. Furthermore, Collectanea Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 80–90 indicates that Beatrice bore the ancient arms of Portugal, both on her seal and impaled with those of her husband, Gilbert Talbot. For whatever reason, Complete Peerage ignored the evidence of the visitations.
1. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 305–307 (Talbot ped.: “Gylbert Lord Talbot = Betryce doughter of the Kyng of Portyngall.”).
2. Cooke & Mundy, Vis. of Worcester 1569 (H.S.P. 27) (1888): 131–136 (Talbot ped.: “Gilbart L. Talbotte. = Jane da. to Tho. of Woodstock Duke of Gloster”; also “Gilbarte L. Talbotte.= Beautrix da. to the Kinge of Portingalle.”).
3. Tresswell & Vincent, Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 2 (H.S.P. 29) (1889): 450–453 (Talbot ped.: “Guilbert Lo. Talbott. = Beatrix da. of… King of Portingale.”).
4. Benolte et al., Four Vis. of Berkshire 1532, 1566, 1623 & 1665–6 1 (H.S.P. 56) (1907): 28 (Feteplace ped.: “Sr Thomas ffetiplace of East Shifforde in the Countie of Berk Knighte maried the Ladye Beatryce. Countesse of Shrewsburye, and daughter to Alphoncius Kinge of Portingall”), 89–91 (Fettiplace ped.: “Thomas Fettiplace de Shifford in Com. Berks Armiger. = Beatrix filia Joh’is Regis Portug: ter nupta”).
That Beatrice was a native of Portugal is proven by a record in Calendar of Close Rolls, 1419-22, pp. 24-25, cited by Complete Peerage, which reads in part:
"Beatrice, who was born in Portugal, while she was an alien, ..."
Unfortunately Beatrice's exact place in the royal family of Portugal has never been firmly established.
Recently I located two lawsuits in the Court of Common Pleas which mention Beatrice, Lady Talbot. These lawsuits show that in 1450 John ffetplace [Fettiplace], of Wolveley [i.e., Woolley (in Chaddleworth), Berkshire, sued Geoffrey Cayoo, yeoman, of Bampton, Oxfordshire, executor of Beatrice, Lady Talbot, late the wife of Thomas ffetplace [Fettiplace], Esq., regarding a debt.
These lawsuits may be found at the following weblinks:
Court of Common Pleas, CP40/883, rot. 460f (available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no758/aCP40no758fronts/IMG_0460.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/883, rot. 1083d (available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no758/bCP40no758dorses/IMG_1083.htm).
The lawsuits indicate that Beatrice died testate, and that her second husband, Thomas Fettiplace, held the rank of esquire.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
jhigg...@yahoo.com
Jul 7, 2013, 5:11:58 PM7/7/13
to
bwilson
Aug 12, 2013, 4:05:50 PM8/12/13
to
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 9:58:11 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
Perhaps 15 years ago I read in the Calendar of Close Rolls (I believe) several entries relating to Beatrice, widow of Gilbert Lord Talbot, entered soon after his death. She was made Lady Strange of Blackmere, and endowed with properties to support that position. In those entries, John, Duke of Bedford, Regent of England (while his brother the king was away in France fighting) was the testator swearing approval of the endowments. In the entry I seem to remember that he addresses the lady Beatrice as "cousin."
Now you have frequently enquired into the exact meaning of such a term ... obviously it doesn't necessarily mean first cousin (cousin german) but it does mean a close relative. One way that she could be the Duke of Bedford's cousin would be to be the daughter of King John I and Queen Philippa of Portugal. Otherwise I cannot see how she could be a cousin, close relative, if she was an illegitimate descendant of Alphonso III of Portugal through the Pinto line.
How could some minor Portugese lady descended from an illegitimate noble line be worthy of the Regent of England's consideration? Perhaps as widow of Gilbert Lord Talbot she would be entitled to such an address ... or as liege lady of Blackmere. But I get a sense in the Close Roll entries of a relative providing for the widow.
I do not have the exact references to these entries and perhaps am not remembering correctly. But these Close Roll entries could give some pointers to here relationship to the English royal family.
I always thought that Chico Doria's speculations were just that ... speculations, not explanatory of the evidence we have of the four visitations, the Close Roll entries, her multiple attested coats of arms including Talbot and Portugal ancient, and the fact that a Fettiplace descendant carried the Garter robe and star to the king of Portugal.
Yours,
Bradford Wilson
Joe
Aug 12, 2013, 5:23:18 PM8/12/13
to
John, Duke of Bedford ‘tested’ many of the Close Rolls entries as the guardian of England, so this should not be taken as evidence that he had any particular interest in Beatrice. The orders seem to me to be a standard assignment of dower and not a “relative providing for the widow.” I do not see any use of the word cousin in the transcript of the CR entry below.
I’m not refuting the conclusions of Douglas, just keeping the record straight.
Close Roll Entry 23 October 1419
To the escheator in Salop and the march of Wales adjacent. Order to give Beatrice late the wife of Gilbert late lord Talbot, whose fealty the king has taken, livery of the manors etc. hereinafter mentioned, and the issues and profits thereof taken; as the said Gilbert and Beatrice, who was born in Portugal, while she was an alien, acquired of Roger Threske parson of Whytechurche, Edward Spryngehose otherwise Sprencheux and John Camville esquires the manor of Blakemore otherwise Whytechurche and the advowsons of the churches of Whitechurche and Ightfelde thereto pertaining, not held of the king it is said, by name of the manor of Blakemere co. Salop with the advowsons, reversions, rents and services of all tenants there free and neif, mills, woods, waters, ponds etc., and the manor of Dodyngton held in chief it is said, with mills etc. (as above), which manors are extended at 190 marks a year, as appears by an inquisition taken before the escheator; and of his particular knowledge and own motion the king has granted to the said Beatrice, whose homage he has respited until his coming to England, that she shall be his liege woman, and further that in all causes, matters and plaints ecclesiastical and temporal she shall be held, entreated and ruled as his true liege born within the realm, and like wise that she may have, use and enjoy all manner of actions real, personal and mixed, pleading, impleading and answering in courts and places whatsoever as his true liege, and according to the form of the purchase shall have and hold to her and the heirs of her husband the manors aforesaid, with the knights' fees, advowsons, reversions, rents and services, mills etc., and the issues and profits thereof taken, confirming her whole estate for life therein, notwithstanding that she was born in Portugal or elsewhere, that the manor of Dodyngton is held in chief, that the said manors and lands be of greater value than in the inquisition specified, that she was an alien at the time of the purchase, that those and other lands so purchased are seized into the king's hands, or any other matter whatsoever which may affect the king or his heirs.
Tested by John duke of Bedford, guardian of England.
Similar orders (with regards to her birth) sent to eight of other counties to set aside 1/3 of the lands Gilbert, Lord Talbot as dower.
I’m not refuting the conclusions of Douglas, just keeping the record straight.
Close Roll Entry 23 October 1419
To the escheator in Salop and the march of Wales adjacent. Order to give Beatrice late the wife of Gilbert late lord Talbot, whose fealty the king has taken, livery of the manors etc. hereinafter mentioned, and the issues and profits thereof taken; as the said Gilbert and Beatrice, who was born in Portugal, while she was an alien, acquired of Roger Threske parson of Whytechurche, Edward Spryngehose otherwise Sprencheux and John Camville esquires the manor of Blakemore otherwise Whytechurche and the advowsons of the churches of Whitechurche and Ightfelde thereto pertaining, not held of the king it is said, by name of the manor of Blakemere co. Salop with the advowsons, reversions, rents and services of all tenants there free and neif, mills, woods, waters, ponds etc., and the manor of Dodyngton held in chief it is said, with mills etc. (as above), which manors are extended at 190 marks a year, as appears by an inquisition taken before the escheator; and of his particular knowledge and own motion the king has granted to the said Beatrice, whose homage he has respited until his coming to England, that she shall be his liege woman, and further that in all causes, matters and plaints ecclesiastical and temporal she shall be held, entreated and ruled as his true liege born within the realm, and like wise that she may have, use and enjoy all manner of actions real, personal and mixed, pleading, impleading and answering in courts and places whatsoever as his true liege, and according to the form of the purchase shall have and hold to her and the heirs of her husband the manors aforesaid, with the knights' fees, advowsons, reversions, rents and services, mills etc., and the issues and profits thereof taken, confirming her whole estate for life therein, notwithstanding that she was born in Portugal or elsewhere, that the manor of Dodyngton is held in chief, that the said manors and lands be of greater value than in the inquisition specified, that she was an alien at the time of the purchase, that those and other lands so purchased are seized into the king's hands, or any other matter whatsoever which may affect the king or his heirs.
Tested by John duke of Bedford, guardian of England.
Similar orders (with regards to her birth) sent to eight of other counties to set aside 1/3 of the lands Gilbert, Lord Talbot as dower.
bwilson
Aug 13, 2013, 10:34:57 PM8/13/13
to
Thanks for finding one of the entries, and you are right there is no reference to "cousin." Your explanation makes sense. But I remember there were 3 or 4 entries all relating to her settlements ... do none of them make any relational statement?
Also, just curious: It sounds from the entry you cite that return of dower meant granting her 1/3 of Gilbert Talbot's lands. Were these the original dowry she brought with her when she married Talbot? If so, their provenance might provide pointers to who she was and whose lands she brought with her to the marriage with Talbot.
I note that Gilbert Talbot's first wife was Joan of Gloucester, a granddaughter of Edward III. It seems puzzling to me that Talbot would have married as his second wife a minor Portugese lady from the Pinto or de Souza lines ... illegitimate descentants of Alphonso III ... after having married a lady of the very highest English royal status as his first wife. I would assume that the marriage with Beatrice of Portugal was somehow facilitated by Queen Philippa of Portugal, daughter of John of Gaunt. I wonder if there could be any portugese records of this arranged marriage? I would think a marriage of affection at this level seems unlikely.
I would appreciate any insights of yours or other experienced medieval genealogists. My interest is only as one of the many descendants of Gov. Thomas Dudley.
Bradford Wilson
Matt Tompkins
Aug 14, 2013, 4:06:30 AM8/14/13
to
Three of the actual Assignments of Dower to Beatrice Talbot have been published in Calendar of Inquisitions of Post Mortem, vol. 21, nos. 156 and 686-7. They relate to lands in Wilts, Bucks and Beds only - here must gave been another 6 Assignments, for the other counties mentioned in that CCR entry, they but seem to have been lost. They don't mention anything about Beatrice's relationships, but then you wouldn't expect them to. (By coincidence, I was looking at the originals of these just a couple of weeks ago.)
In English law dower and dowry were two quite separate things. Dower was not the return of a dowry, but was the legal right every widow had to occupy one third of her husband's lands for the rest of her life. It was quite unconnected to any dowry the wife might have brought to the marriage.
Joe is quite right about the lack of significance of attestation by John duke of Bedford - at this period the vast majority of writs relating to IPMs were attested by him, in his capacity as Guardian of England (and the rest by the other Guardian, Humphrey duke of Gloucester). I did wonder, though, whether there might be some significance in the opening words of the second part of that CCR writ - the part which effectively constitutes a letter of denization for Beatrice: 'and of his particular knowledge and own motion the king has granted to the said Beatrice'. However yesterday I mentioned it to a colleague working on the Aliens in England project, and he thinks that was fairly standard wording (he was pleased to hear about the writ, though - they hadn't previously known about it, and it is now added to their database).
Matt Tompkins
On Wednesday, 14 August 2013 03:34:57 UTC+1, bwilson wrote:
>
> Thanks for finding one of the entries, and you are right there is no reference to "cousin." Your explanation makes sense. But I remember there were 3 or 4 entries all relating to her settlements ... do none of them make any relational statement?
>
> Also, just curious: It sounds from the entry you cite that return of dower meant granting her 1/3 of Gilbert Talbot's lands. Were these the original dowry she brought with her when she married Talbot? If so, their provenance might provide pointers to who she was and whose lands she brought with her to the marriage with Talbot.
>
> I note that Gilbert Talbot's first wife was Joan of Gloucester, a granddaughter of Edward III. It seems puzzling to me that Talbot would have married as his second wife a minor Portugese lady from the Pinto or de Souza lines ... illegitimate descentants of Alphonso III ... after having married a lady of the very highest English royal status as his first wife. I would assume that the marriage with Beatrice of Portugal was somehow facilitated by Queen Philippa of Portugal, daughter of John of Gaunt. I wonder if there could be any portugese records of this arranged marriage? I would think a marriage of affection at this level seems unlikely.
>
> I would appreciate any insights of yours or other experienced medieval genealogists. My interest is only as one of the many descendants of Gov. Thomas Dudley.
>
> Bradford Wilson
>
>
In English law dower and dowry were two quite separate things. Dower was not the return of a dowry, but was the legal right every widow had to occupy one third of her husband's lands for the rest of her life. It was quite unconnected to any dowry the wife might have brought to the marriage.
Joe is quite right about the lack of significance of attestation by John duke of Bedford - at this period the vast majority of writs relating to IPMs were attested by him, in his capacity as Guardian of England (and the rest by the other Guardian, Humphrey duke of Gloucester). I did wonder, though, whether there might be some significance in the opening words of the second part of that CCR writ - the part which effectively constitutes a letter of denization for Beatrice: 'and of his particular knowledge and own motion the king has granted to the said Beatrice'. However yesterday I mentioned it to a colleague working on the Aliens in England project, and he thinks that was fairly standard wording (he was pleased to hear about the writ, though - they hadn't previously known about it, and it is now added to their database).
Matt Tompkins
On Wednesday, 14 August 2013 03:34:57 UTC+1, bwilson wrote:
>
> Thanks for finding one of the entries, and you are right there is no reference to "cousin." Your explanation makes sense. But I remember there were 3 or 4 entries all relating to her settlements ... do none of them make any relational statement?
>
> Also, just curious: It sounds from the entry you cite that return of dower meant granting her 1/3 of Gilbert Talbot's lands. Were these the original dowry she brought with her when she married Talbot? If so, their provenance might provide pointers to who she was and whose lands she brought with her to the marriage with Talbot.
>
> I note that Gilbert Talbot's first wife was Joan of Gloucester, a granddaughter of Edward III. It seems puzzling to me that Talbot would have married as his second wife a minor Portugese lady from the Pinto or de Souza lines ... illegitimate descentants of Alphonso III ... after having married a lady of the very highest English royal status as his first wife. I would assume that the marriage with Beatrice of Portugal was somehow facilitated by Queen Philippa of Portugal, daughter of John of Gaunt. I wonder if there could be any portugese records of this arranged marriage? I would think a marriage of affection at this level seems unlikely.
>
> I would appreciate any insights of yours or other experienced medieval genealogists. My interest is only as one of the many descendants of Gov. Thomas Dudley.
>
> Bradford Wilson
>
>
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 2:23:18 PM UTC-7, Joe wrote:
>
> > John, Duke of Bedford ‘tested’ many of the Close Rolls entries as the guardian of England, so this should not be taken as evidence that he had any particular interest in Beatrice. The orders seem to me to be a standard assignment of dower and not a “relative providing for the widow.” I do not see any use of the word cousin in the transcript of the CR entry below.
>
> > I’m not refuting the conclusions of Douglas, just keeping the record straight.
>
>
>
> > John, Duke of Bedford ‘tested’ many of the Close Rolls entries as the guardian of England, so this should not be taken as evidence that he had any particular interest in Beatrice. The orders seem to me to be a standard assignment of dower and not a “relative providing for the widow.” I do not see any use of the word cousin in the transcript of the CR entry below.
>
> > I’m not refuting the conclusions of Douglas, just keeping the record straight.
>
>
> > To the escheator in Salop and the march of Wales adjacent. Order to give Beatrice late the wife of Gilbert late lord Talbot, whose fealty the king has taken, livery of the manors etc. hereinafter mentioned, and the issues and profits thereof taken; as the said Gilbert and Beatrice, who was born in Portugal, while she was an alien, acquired of Roger Threske parson of Whytechurche, Edward Spryngehose otherwise Sprencheux and John Camville esquires the manor of Blakemore otherwise Whytechurche and the advowsons of the churches of Whitechurche and Ightfelde thereto pertaining, not held of the king it is said, by name of the manor of Blakemere co. Salop with the advowsons, reversions, rents and services of all tenants there free and neif, mills, woods, waters, ponds etc., and the manor of Dodyngton held in chief it is said, with mills etc. (as above), which manors are extended at 190 marks a year, as appears by an inquisition taken before the escheator; and of his particular knowledge and own motion the king has granted to the said Beatrice, whose homage he has respited until his coming to England, that she shall be his liege woman, and further that in all causes, matters and plaints ecclesiastical and temporal she shall be held, entreated and ruled as his true liege born within the realm, and like wise that she may have, use and enjoy all manner of actions real, personal and mixed, pleading, impleading and answering in courts and places whatsoever as his true liege, and according to the form of the purchase shall have and hold to her and the heirs of her husband the manors aforesaid, with the knights' fees, advowsons, reversions, rents and services, mills etc., and the issues and profits thereof taken, confirming her whole estate for life therein, notwithstanding that she was born in Portugal or elsewhere, that the manor of Dodyngton is held in chief, that the said manors and lands be of greater value than in the inquisition specified, that she was an alien at the time of the purchase, that those and other lands so purchased are seized into the king's hands, or any other matter whatsoever which may affect the king or his heirs.
>
> > Tested by John duke of Bedford, guardian of England.
>
> > Similar orders (with regards to her birth) sent to eight of other counties to set aside 1/3 of the lands Gilbert, Lord Talbot as dower.
>
> Joe --
>
> > Tested by John duke of Bedford, guardian of England.
>
> > Similar orders (with regards to her birth) sent to eight of other counties to set aside 1/3 of the lands Gilbert, Lord Talbot as dower.
>
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Aug 14, 2013, 10:44:13 AM8/14/13
to
It was also incredible that nobody cared to comment Richardson's first assessments.
There is no possible doubt about Beatrice of Portugal who married first 1405 the earl of Arundel, and as a widow, lord Talbot.
All the information provided by Richardson show at first evidence that this Beatrice could not be the Beatrice of Portugal (really from Portugal) who married Thomas Fettiplace.
They are two different people, the first older and of higher status than the second and both buried in known and different places.
As expected for somebody not of royal family, Beatrice Fettiplace is not documented in portuguese sources so anything prior to her marriage is speculative but there is enough heraldic evidence to support very sound - my opinion - speculation. Also speculative, but she could well have gone to England in the retinue of the first Beatrice.
CP (if the portuguese site Geneall is wright) vol. V-pg. 209 and vol. XII-pg. 619 seems to err in both points, not giving the right identification to Beatrice, lady Talbot and making her the same Beatrice that married Thomas Fettiplace.
Btw, there is not good evidence to call her Pinto wich was a speculative (bad) guess based in the crescents on her arms.
Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
Joe
Aug 14, 2013, 3:18:02 PM8/14/13
to
>
> There is no possible doubt about Beatrice of Portugal who married first 1405 the earl of Arundel, and as a widow, lord Talbot.
>
> All the information provided by Richardson show at first evidence that this Beatrice could not be the Beatrice of Portugal (really from Portugal) who married Thomas Fettiplace.
>
>
>
> Francisco
>
> (Portugal)
Francisco,
Did you really mean to say that the widow of Thomas, earl of Arundel remarried to Gilbert Talbot? I thought the earlier discussions state otherwise. As Nathaniel Taylor summarized in 2006:
"The two Beatrices' two husbands each are often confused. There's been
a fair amount of discussion here about them, a few years back. But I
think Planche had it right, in his article on Beatrice back in 1860.
One Beatrice, bastard of Joao I, married first Thomas, Earl of Arundel,
and second John Holand, Duke of Exeter; she d. 23 October 1439.
The other Beatrice, apparently a Sousa descendant of Alfonso III,
married first Gilbert, Lord Talbot (d. 1419), and secondly Sir Thomas
Fettiplace (by whom she had descendants, including Thomas Dudley,
governor of Massachusetts). Gilbert Talbot's brother and heir John was
created Earl of Shrewsbury, and this second Beatrice was in one
visitation erroneously called countess of Shrewsbury."
Joe
Joe
Aug 14, 2013, 4:19:37 PM8/14/13
to
The article referred to by Richardson in the first post
Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, vol. 1 (1834). P. 80-90 ‘Genealogical Statement Respecting Beatrix wife of Thomas Earl of Arundel and Beatrix wife of Sir Gilbert Talbot.’
http://books.google.com/books?id=a_0GAAAAQAAJ
I think it is a bit misleading to state that ‘Beatrice bore the arms of Portugal’ as the arms are actually Portugal quartered with five crescents in saltire (see Planche article). The conclusion being the Beatrice married to Gilbert Talbot was not a daughter of a king of Portugal but a descendant of one through a collateral descent – possibly Sousa who used the same quartering. (This is my understanding though Francisco and Nat Taylor have study the problem in detail and can surely give a better explanation as to Beatrice’s possibly ancestry).
The Planche article frequently referred to in past discussions:
Journal of the British Archaeological Association, vol 16 (1860). P. 145-157 ‘On the Monument of a supposed Princess of Portugal in East Shefford Church Berkshire,’ by J.R. Planche. See also p. 201-205 for more on Fettiplace.
http://archive.org/stream/journalbritisha21unkngoog#page/n180/mode/2up
Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, vol. 1 (1834). P. 80-90 ‘Genealogical Statement Respecting Beatrix wife of Thomas Earl of Arundel and Beatrix wife of Sir Gilbert Talbot.’
http://books.google.com/books?id=a_0GAAAAQAAJ
I think it is a bit misleading to state that ‘Beatrice bore the arms of Portugal’ as the arms are actually Portugal quartered with five crescents in saltire (see Planche article). The conclusion being the Beatrice married to Gilbert Talbot was not a daughter of a king of Portugal but a descendant of one through a collateral descent – possibly Sousa who used the same quartering. (This is my understanding though Francisco and Nat Taylor have study the problem in detail and can surely give a better explanation as to Beatrice’s possibly ancestry).
The Planche article frequently referred to in past discussions:
Journal of the British Archaeological Association, vol 16 (1860). P. 145-157 ‘On the Monument of a supposed Princess of Portugal in East Shefford Church Berkshire,’ by J.R. Planche. See also p. 201-205 for more on Fettiplace.
http://archive.org/stream/journalbritisha21unkngoog#page/n180/mode/2up
bwilson
Aug 14, 2013, 4:59:06 PM8/14/13
to
I noticed that no one in this discussion has determined whether there are any records of the marriage settlement prior to the marriage of Gilbert Talbot and Beatrice of Portugal. That would seem a good place to find pointers to her origin. Perhaps there are no such records, but has anyone checked? I am not skilled enough to know where to look.
And, yes, it seemed to me that C. Doria confused the two Beatrices from Portugal which Planche so clearly sorted out.
Bradford Wilson
Joe
Aug 14, 2013, 6:14:47 PM8/14/13
to
joe...@gmail.com
Aug 14, 2013, 7:02:04 PM8/14/13
to
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:19:37 PM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
> I think it is a bit misleading to state that ‘Beatrice bore the arms of Portugal’ as the arms are actually Portugal quartered with five crescents in saltire (see Planche article). The conclusion being the Beatrice married to Gilbert Talbot was not a daughter of a king of Portugal but a descendant of one through a collateral descent – possibly Sousa who used the same quartering. (This is my understanding though Francisco and Nat Taylor have study the problem in detail and can surely give a better explanation as to Beatrice’s possibly ancestry).
Is nat taylor still a reader of this list? I'm not sure how many left and if they are aware of how productive and pleasant this list has been the last few months.
> I think it is a bit misleading to state that ‘Beatrice bore the arms of Portugal’ as the arms are actually Portugal quartered with five crescents in saltire (see Planche article). The conclusion being the Beatrice married to Gilbert Talbot was not a daughter of a king of Portugal but a descendant of one through a collateral descent – possibly Sousa who used the same quartering. (This is my understanding though Francisco and Nat Taylor have study the problem in detail and can surely give a better explanation as to Beatrice’s possibly ancestry).
Nathaniel Taylor
Aug 14, 2013, 7:48:20 PM8/14/13
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com, joseph cook
Thanks Joe for forwarding this directly to me.
I'll admit that I am only occasionally reading sgm these days (having joined it close to its inception back in 1995), but it does look like interesting stuff is being discussed here now, more frequently than at many times in the past. I wish I had more time to read and contribute!
I'm glad that Beatrice is being discussed. I tried to do a systematic collection of her heraldry from the English sources, in a memo based on sgm posts I put together back in 2002; it is at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Fettiplace.pdf
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:02 PM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:19:37 PM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
>
>> I think it is a bit misleading to state that �Beatrice bore the arms of Portugal� as the arms are actually Portugal quartered with five crescents in saltire (see Planche article). The conclusion being the Beatrice married to Gilbert Talbot was not a daughter of a king of Portugal but a descendant of one through a collateral descent � possibly Sousa who used the same quartering. (This is my understanding though Francisco and Nat Taylor have study the problem in detail and can surely give a better explanation as to Beatrice�s possibly ancestry).
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
I'll admit that I am only occasionally reading sgm these days (having joined it close to its inception back in 1995), but it does look like interesting stuff is being discussed here now, more frequently than at many times in the past. I wish I had more time to read and contribute!
I'm glad that Beatrice is being discussed. I tried to do a systematic collection of her heraldry from the English sources, in a memo based on sgm posts I put together back in 2002; it is at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Fettiplace.pdf
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:02 PM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:19:37 PM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
>
>
> Is nat taylor still a reader of this list? I'm not sure how many left and if they are aware of how productive and pleasant this list has been the last few months.
>
> -------------------------------
> Is nat taylor still a reader of this list? I'm not sure how many left and if they are aware of how productive and pleasant this list has been the last few months.
>
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Aug 14, 2013, 9:06:38 PM8/14/13
to
Out of memory, english sources said Beatrice married 1st Talbot and 2nd Arundel (Dugdale?); married 1st Arundel, 2nd Huntingdon, 2nd duke of Exeter (CP) while the other Beatrice married first Talbot ans 2nd Fettiplace; also that the same Beatrice married 1st Arundel, 2nd Talbot and 3rd Fettiplace (several english Fettiplace genealogies and many american Dudley descendants).
I am not at ease to evaluate english sources and the portuguese most spread source "História Genealógica da Casa Real" by D. António Caetano de Sousa, written in the 2nd quarter of the XVIII century has a fair amount of errors so I can not be assertive on autoritative sources.
In this particular, D. António Caetano de Sousa, following earlier sources that I can not identify and could well be written private genealogies but also one or other chronicler, says that Beatrice married first the count od Arundel, of royal english blood and second Gilbert Talbot, baron of Inchenfield and that after widowed for the second time, lived on (fiefs?) of her husband (husbands?).
D. António also refers the english notices that she also married John Holland, duke of Exeter only to clearly refute it.
I do not hesitate to agree in the implausibility of that marriage, after 1432.
Beatrice was a widow in 1515 and (or not) again in 1519 so there was a gap of 13 or 17 years between marriages. Not impossible but very improbable.
At this stage, I think it is certain that Arundel, Talbot and Fettiplace all married a Beatrice of or from Portugal. And also certain that Arundel married the daughter of king John I of Portugal and Fettiplace married another Beatrice, almost certainly a descendant of king Afonso III of Portugal. The doubt - not mine - is wich Beatrice was also lady Talbot.
While the english versions not only conflict among themselves but also imply several improbabilities the portuguese version allows a neat picture. Beatrice married Talbot between 1415 (death of Arundel) and 1419 (death of Talbot) and they had one only daughter so for all we know, it was a marriage of short duration, in the limit less than one year. Possibly because of that but because of the difference of status she remained more "linked" to the first marriage beeing styled countess of Arundel and signifiantly, being buried beside her first husband (what I would find very surprising if she had been a duchess for 7 years).
While married to Talbot or just after widowed, she patronized the marriage of a girl of her entourage to the steward of her (late?) husband.
If - the english version - Beatrice married first Talbot and second Fettiplace we have to deal with two implausibilities:
- As already pointed, Talbot's first marriage was with an english of the highest rank and Beatrice was an obscure portuguese of old royal lineage but also of third class presente lineage (applys to Pinto, Queiróz, Chacim and others with crescents in their arms).
- The widowed lady Talbot, married the late husband's steward, a mere squire.
We are also left with one intriguing question:
- Where did Talbot met or how and why was arranged the marriaged (please do not suggest that it was a result of the influence of queen Phillipa of Lancaster!)?.
As I said I am not at ease with english sources but if I am not wrong, the first visitations and pedigrees dealing with Talbot, says "Beatrice daughter of the king of Portugal" while the (only?) concerning Fettiplace says "Beatrice daughter of king Afonso of Portugal". It seems to me that while the last means necessarly a descendant of king Alfonso (the last kink Alfonso died more than one century before) the first probably means the actual (in Beatrice's time) king of Portugal.
Within this frame, only a contemporay document or an until now undiscovered heraldic evidence could make me change my opinion.
Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Aug 14, 2013, 9:19:16 PM8/14/13
to
Please ...
Crescents are islamic symbols. Most (all?) the lineages that bear crescents is because they distinguished themselves in the "Reconquista" the wars against saracens.
Crescents disposed in cross would be impossible in peninsular heraldic.
Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
taf
Aug 14, 2013, 10:10:47 PM8/14/13
to gen-medieval
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:06:38 PM UTC-7, Francisco Tavares de
might at first appear, but more importantly, there survive separate
inquisitions post mortem (post-death inquests) for the two women:
Arundel, Beatrice, Countess of (1439/40) TNA C 139/98/28
Talbot, Beatrice, who was the wife of Gilbert, kt (1447/8) TNA C 139/130/7
While sometimes multiple inquests were performed for the same person, it
would be uncommon for a Countess to be relegated to the status of only a
wife of a knight so these are almost certainly separate individuals.
Consulting the originals should prove it one way or the other.
> We are also left with one intriguing question:
>
> - Where did Talbot met or how and why was arranged the marriaged (please
do not suggest that it was a result of the influence of queen Phillipa of
Lancaster!)?.
>
If we accept that they are different women, could not the future Lady
Talbot (of what you characterize as a third-class lineage) have come to
England as lady-in-waiting for the more elevated Countess of Arundel (a
royal daughter)? Talbot at the time was of a much lower status than
Arundel, and this may have been as much a way of linking him to the Arundel
household as to her Portuguese family.
taf
Almeida wrote:
>
>
> If - the english version - Beatrice married first Talbot and second
Fettiplace we have to deal with two implausibilities:
>
> - As already pointed, Talbot's first marriage was with an english of the
highest rank and Beatrice was an obscure portuguese of old royal lineage
but also of third class presente lineage (applys to Pinto, Queiróz, Chacim
and others with crescents in their arms).
>
> - The widowed lady Talbot, married the late husband's steward, a mere
squire.
>
>From the point of view of logic, neither of these are as persuasive as they
>
>
> If - the english version - Beatrice married first Talbot and second
Fettiplace we have to deal with two implausibilities:
>
> - As already pointed, Talbot's first marriage was with an english of the
highest rank and Beatrice was an obscure portuguese of old royal lineage
but also of third class presente lineage (applys to Pinto, Queiróz, Chacim
and others with crescents in their arms).
>
> - The widowed lady Talbot, married the late husband's steward, a mere
squire.
>
might at first appear, but more importantly, there survive separate
inquisitions post mortem (post-death inquests) for the two women:
Arundel, Beatrice, Countess of (1439/40) TNA C 139/98/28
Talbot, Beatrice, who was the wife of Gilbert, kt (1447/8) TNA C 139/130/7
While sometimes multiple inquests were performed for the same person, it
would be uncommon for a Countess to be relegated to the status of only a
wife of a knight so these are almost certainly separate individuals.
Consulting the originals should prove it one way or the other.
> We are also left with one intriguing question:
>
> - Where did Talbot met or how and why was arranged the marriaged (please
do not suggest that it was a result of the influence of queen Phillipa of
Lancaster!)?.
>
Talbot (of what you characterize as a third-class lineage) have come to
England as lady-in-waiting for the more elevated Countess of Arundel (a
royal daughter)? Talbot at the time was of a much lower status than
Arundel, and this may have been as much a way of linking him to the Arundel
household as to her Portuguese family.
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Aug 14, 2013, 10:16:30 PM8/14/13
to
Quarta-feira, 14 de Agosto de 2013 20:18:02 UTC+1, Joe escreveu:
> >
>
> >
>
Thank you for the links to the article referred by Richardson.
Against all improbabilities I have to change my opinion as the heraldic evidence is clear. I had never seen the seal of lady Talbot and all the heraldics that I knew were referred to Beatrice Fettiplace.
The fact that all portuguese sources are consistently wrong points to a very old inicial error and I am antecipating a nightmare when I will bring this heraldic evidence to a portuguese forum.
Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Aug 14, 2013, 10:43:48 PM8/14/13
to
In this matter I owe particular apologizes to Planché, followed by Nat Taylor and my only excuse for the strength of my wrong opinion was the unanimity of portuguese sources on this matter.
As a curio I will copy-paste a text that can be read on
http://www.berkshirehistory.com/articles/fettiplace_family.html
Legation of Portugal,
London,
August 20th, 1887.
Sir,
Pray accept my best thanks for your letter relating to the Fettiplace Tomb. All that I can say in reply to it is that in 1405 an illegitimate daughter of King John I. of Portugal, named Beatrice, married Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey. Left a widow she re-married in 1415 to Gilbert Talbot, Baron of Irchenfield and Blackmere, K.G. She was again left a widow in 1419. 1 am convinced that she did not marry Sir John (? Thomas) Fettiplace m her third husband. I am sorry that 1 am unable to give you further information.
Accept, etc.
(Signed) M. D'ANTAS.
About the most important question, the identity of this Beatrice Talbot-Fettiplace as you know, all is speculative and based in heraldics but there are already new and appealing speculations not yet brought to this newsgroup.
Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
sangreel
Aug 15, 2013, 12:53:12 AM8/15/13
to
I have also been researching this issue for a book about the Berkshire Monumental Brasses. While I can not at this time add to the discussion, I thought it wise to post what I have found. In Morley's book "Monumental Brasses of Berkshire 14th to 17th century" published 1924 this book having etchings of the brasses at Mr. Morley's disposal, I found on page 79 the Brass to William Feteplace [brother of Sir. Thomas] and wife [Elizabeth] dated 1516, the etching of his brass that included the coats of arms of William. They are:
[Childery, Co. Berks]
1] Quarterly Ar a fess charged with a crescent Or., between 3 Swans heads erased.
2] an eagle displayed Ar. -Walrond
3] Barry of 8 Ar and Gu, on a chief, a lion passant az. -Englefield
4] 2 bars between 3 annulets -Rykhill
and a single coat of arms, 2 chevrons, this being the coat of William Feteplace.
The notes state William Feteplace, Esq. had brothers: Richard, Antony and Sir. Thomas.
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:48:20 PM UTC-7, Nat Taylor wrote:
> Thanks Joe for forwarding this directly to me.
>
>
>
> I'll admit that I am only occasionally reading sgm these days (having joined it close to its inception back in 1995), but it does look like interesting stuff is being discussed here now, more frequently than at many times in the past. I wish I had more time to read and contribute!
>
>
>
> I'm glad that Beatrice is being discussed. I tried to do a systematic collection of her heraldry from the English sources, in a memo based on sgm posts I put together back in 2002; it is at:
>
>
>
> http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Fettiplace.pdf
>
>
>
> Nat Taylor
>
> a genealogist's sketchbook:
>
> http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:02 PM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:19:37 PM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> I think it is a bit misleading to state that ‘Beatrice bore the arms of Portugal’ as the arms are actually Portugal quartered with five crescents in saltire (see Planche article). The conclusion being the Beatrice married to Gilbert Talbot was not a daughter of a king of Portugal but a descendant of one through a collateral descent – possibly Sousa who used the same quartering. (This is my understanding though Francisco and Nat Taylor have study the problem in detail and can surely give a better explanation as to Beatrice’s possibly ancestry).
[Childery, Co. Berks]
1] Quarterly Ar a fess charged with a crescent Or., between 3 Swans heads erased.
2] an eagle displayed Ar. -Walrond
3] Barry of 8 Ar and Gu, on a chief, a lion passant az. -Englefield
4] 2 bars between 3 annulets -Rykhill
and a single coat of arms, 2 chevrons, this being the coat of William Feteplace.
The notes state William Feteplace, Esq. had brothers: Richard, Antony and Sir. Thomas.
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:48:20 PM UTC-7, Nat Taylor wrote:
> Thanks Joe for forwarding this directly to me.
>
>
>
> I'll admit that I am only occasionally reading sgm these days (having joined it close to its inception back in 1995), but it does look like interesting stuff is being discussed here now, more frequently than at many times in the past. I wish I had more time to read and contribute!
>
>
>
> I'm glad that Beatrice is being discussed. I tried to do a systematic collection of her heraldry from the English sources, in a memo based on sgm posts I put together back in 2002; it is at:
>
>
>
> http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Fettiplace.pdf
>
>
>
> Nat Taylor
>
> a genealogist's sketchbook:
>
> http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:02 PM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:19:37 PM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
>
> >
>
Douglas Richardson
Aug 15, 2013, 2:39:54 AM8/15/13
to
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:59:06 PM UTC-6, bwilson wrote:
< Thank you everyone for the information. I am not a medieval genealogist, as <you can tell ... thus my confusion of dower and dowry. And, yes, the arms she <bore vary, sometimes in saltire and other times in cross ... and are not <simply Portugal ancient. But perhaps the quarterings tell us who her mother <was?
Bradford ~
As I understand it, the royal house of Portugal had an ancient set of arms and a modern set. I have seen a book which shows the arms supposedly used by João I, King of Portugal [died 1433], and, unless I am mistaken, these match exactly the arms that were used by Beatrice, wife successively of Gilbert Talbot, K.G., 5th Lord Talbot, and Thomas Fettiplace, Esq. So far, so good.
The problem is that Beatrice quartered the arms of Portugal with another set of arms. Historians have grappled over the meaning and identification of the second set of arms.
< I noticed that no one in this discussion has determined whether there are any <records of the marriage settlement prior to the marriage of Gilbert Talbot and <Beatrice of Portugal. That would seem a good place to find pointers to her <origin. Perhaps there are no such records, but has anyone checked? I am not <skilled enough to know where to look.
As best I know, there is no record of any marriage settlement in England for Gilbert Talbot, Lord Talbot, and his wife, Beatrice.
There was probably a marriage agreement in Portugal, where the marriage may have taken place. But, if so, it has never come forward to anyone's attention.
< And, yes, it seemed to me that C. Doria confused the two Beatrices from <Portugal which Planche so clearly sorted out.
You are correct. There were two Beatrice's, who are sometimes confused. They have separate histories. The other Beatrice of Portugal was a bastard (but legitimated) daughter of João I, King of Portugal [died 1433]. She married (1st) Thomas Arundel, K.G., Earl of Arundel and Surrey, and (2nd) John Holand, K.G., Duke of Exeter, Earl of Huntingdon and Ivry. She has no descendants.
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:59:06 PM UTC-6, bwilson wrote:
< Thank you everyone for the information. I am not a medieval genealogist, as <you can tell ... thus my confusion of dower and dowry. And, yes, the arms she <bore vary, sometimes in saltire and other times in cross ... and are not <simply Portugal ancient. But perhaps the quarterings tell us who her mother <was?
As I understand it, the royal house of Portugal had an ancient set of arms and a modern set. I have seen a book which shows the arms supposedly used by João I, King of Portugal [died 1433], and, unless I am mistaken, these match exactly the arms that were used by Beatrice, wife successively of Gilbert Talbot, K.G., 5th Lord Talbot, and Thomas Fettiplace, Esq. So far, so good.
The problem is that Beatrice quartered the arms of Portugal with another set of arms. Historians have grappled over the meaning and identification of the second set of arms.
< I noticed that no one in this discussion has determined whether there are any <records of the marriage settlement prior to the marriage of Gilbert Talbot and <Beatrice of Portugal. That would seem a good place to find pointers to her <origin. Perhaps there are no such records, but has anyone checked? I am not <skilled enough to know where to look.
There was probably a marriage agreement in Portugal, where the marriage may have taken place. But, if so, it has never come forward to anyone's attention.
< And, yes, it seemed to me that C. Doria confused the two Beatrices from <Portugal which Planche so clearly sorted out.
Matt Tompkins
Aug 15, 2013, 5:37:10 AM8/15/13
to
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:06:38 PM UTC-7, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:
> > If - the english version - Beatrice married first Talbot and second Fettiplace we have to deal with two implausibilities:
> > - As already pointed, Talbot's first marriage was with an english of the highest rank and Beatrice was an obscure portuguese of old royal lineage but also of third class presente lineage (applys to Pinto, Queiróz, Chacim and others with crescents in their arms).
> > - The widowed lady Talbot, married the late husband's steward, a mere squire.
> > If - the english version - Beatrice married first Talbot and second Fettiplace we have to deal with two implausibilities:
> > - As already pointed, Talbot's first marriage was with an english of the highest rank and Beatrice was an obscure portuguese of old royal lineage but also of third class presente lineage (applys to Pinto, Queiróz, Chacim and others with crescents in their arms).
> > - The widowed lady Talbot, married the late husband's steward, a mere squire.
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:10:47 AM UTC+1, taf wrote:
>From the point of view of logic, neither of these are as persuasive as they might at first appear, but more importantly, there survive separate inquisitions post mortem (post-death inquests) for the two women:
>Arundel, Beatrice, Countess of (1439/40) TNA C 139/98/28
>Talbot, Beatrice, who was the wife of Gilbert, kt (1447/8) TNA C 139/130/7
>While sometimes multiple inquests were performed for the same person, it would be uncommon for a Countess to be relegated to the status of only a wife of a knight so these are almost certainly separate individuals. Consulting the originals should prove it one way or the other.
>
A pity this didn't come up 12 hours earlier, when I was in TNA - I could have had a quick look at the Beatrice Talbot IPM, but I'm back in Leicester now. However the other IPM (C 139/98/28) is alone sufficient to confirm (if confirmation were necessary) that the widowed countess of Arundel re-married to the earl of Huntingdon, not lord Talbot, and it has been published, in Calendar of Inquisitions post Mortem 25 (1437-42), documents 134-6.
>From the point of view of logic, neither of these are as persuasive as they might at first appear, but more importantly, there survive separate inquisitions post mortem (post-death inquests) for the two women:
>Arundel, Beatrice, Countess of (1439/40) TNA C 139/98/28
>Talbot, Beatrice, who was the wife of Gilbert, kt (1447/8) TNA C 139/130/7
>While sometimes multiple inquests were performed for the same person, it would be uncommon for a Countess to be relegated to the status of only a wife of a knight so these are almost certainly separate individuals. Consulting the originals should prove it one way or the other.
>
It is not an IPM proper, but is rather Beatrice's Assignments of Dower out of the estates of John Arundel, earl of Arundel (in the counties of Essex, Wilts and Salop), made on the occasion of her re-marriage to John Holand, earl of Huntingdon. The writs de dote assignanda were quite explicit on this point - below are quotes from two of the calendar entries (which include useful cross-references to various relevant CPR and CCR entries - there has always been plenty of evidence available for this marriage).
Matt Tompkins
[p. 94] "BEATRICE, WIFE OF JOHN, EARL OF HUNTINGDON, WHO WAS WIFE OF THOMAS, EARL OF ARUNDEL
134 Writ de dote assignanda. ‡ 24 February 1437. [Wymbyssh].
Henry V, by his special grace and licence, granted that his beloved Beatrice, who was wife of Thomas, late earl of Arundel, who held of Henry V in chief, might, after the return of the inquisitions [post mortem] to Chancery, sue for livery of her rightful dower from those lands, tenements, knights’ fees, advowsons of churches, franchises, liberties and other possessions in England, Wales, or the Marches, that were of the late earl and taken into the king’s hand, taking the issues from the time of the late earl’s death, as more fully contained in letters patent of Henry V [CPR 1413–16, p. 400]. On 28 April 1416, a writ de dote assignanda was issued to the escheator as clear by inspection of the rolls [CClR 1413–19, p. 313]. The escheator left office before the execution of the writ and on 20 January 1433, we, by our special grace and with assent of our council, granted that Beatrice might marry our beloved kin, John, earl of Huntingdon, as contained in our letters patent [CPR 1429–36, p. 250]. This is the order to assign rightful dower to the earl of Huntingdon and Beatrice, in her right, taking the issues from the time of the late earl’s death [CClR 1435–41, p. 87].
ESSEX. Assignment of dower [indented]. [Various places]. 5 October 1437. [Paule].
[Assignment: ms faded and torn in places.]
John Horseley, attorney of John, duke of Norfolk, Thomas Stokdale, attorney of Edward Nevyll and Elizabeth his wife, and John Fox, attorney of Roland Lentale, knight, and Edmund son of Roland, next heirs of Thomas, late earl of Arundel.
The following was assigned to John, earl of Huntingdon, and Beatrice his wife, who was wife of Thomas, late earl of Arundel, in name of Beatrice’s dower." [details snipped by me]
[p. 97] "136 Writ. ‡ 12 January 1437. [Wymbyssh].
Henry V, by his special grace and licence, granted that his beloved Beatrice, who was wife of Thomas, late earl of Arundel, who held of Henry V in chief, might, after the return of the inquisitions [post mortem] to Chancery, sue for livery of her rightful dower from those lands, tenements, knights’ fees, advowsons of churches, franchises, liberties and other possessions in England, Wales, or the Marches, that were of the late earl and taken into the king’s hand, taking the issues from the time of the late earl’s death, as more fully contained in letters patent of Henry V [CPR 1413–16, p. 400]. On 28 April 1416, a writ de dote assignanda was issued to the escheator as clear by inspection of the rolls [CClR 1413–19, p. 313], but the escheator left office before executing the writ. Henry V then issued another writ de dote assignanda, also as clear by inspection of the Chancery rolls [CClR 1413–19, p. 407]. Beatrice afterwards beseeched Henry V to provide suitable remedy because, in no small amount of damage and injury to her, the escheator had assigned Beatrice her dower from lands and tenements from the inheritance of Elizabeth, wife of Gerard Vfflete, knight, Joan de Beauchamp, Lady Bergavenny, and Margaret, wife of Roland Lenthale, knight, sisters and heirs of the late earl, but not from the inheritance of John de Arundel, chevalier, kin and heir male of the late earl. Henry V then issued another writ to the escheator, noting that if this was the case, the escheator should assign rightful dower to Beatrice from lands and tenements from the inheritance of John [CClR 1413–19, p. 466]. The escheator returned to Chancery that he had assigned 1/3 rents and profits of the lordship of Teirtref, from free tenants and neifs, 1/3 Clun forest, with 1/3 parks there, and 1/3 all profits, agistments, amercements and other perquisites from the forest and parks, the hunting and taking of game as well as taking waifs and strays, as clear by the assignment remaining in the Chancery files. John, earl of Huntingdon, who took Beatrice as his wife, and Beatrice have now complained that, although the escheator assigned the thirds to Beatrice, they are not able to take the issues because there are no boundaries between 1/3 lordship, forest, and parks and 2/3 lordship, forest, and parks. This has caused no small amount of damage and injury to them, and they have beseeched the king to provide suitable remedy.
Order, therefore, to separate and make boundaries between the thirds and two-thirds, in the presence of those with an interest.
SHROPSHIRE AND THE ADJACENT MARCH OF WALES. Assignment of dower. Clun. 21 October 1437. [Lee].
Assignment of dower to John, earl of Huntingdon, and Beatrice his wife, who was wife of Thomas, late earl of Arundel, to separate and make boundaries between the dower lands of 1/3 lordship of Teirtref and 1/3 forest of Clun, with 1/3 parks there, and 2/3 lordship, forest, and parks. In the presence of Geoffrey Harley and other trustworthy persons." [details snipped]
Matt Tompkins
Aug 15, 2013, 5:49:01 AM8/15/13
to
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:37:10 AM UTC+1, Matt Tompkins wrote:
but is rather Beatrice's Assignments of Dower out of the estates of John Arundel, earl of Arundel
Tsk - recte Thomas Arundel
but is rather Beatrice's Assignments of Dower out of the estates of John Arundel, earl of Arundel
joe...@gmail.com
Aug 15, 2013, 7:52:52 AM8/15/13
to
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:16:30 PM UTC-4, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:
> Thank you for the links to the article referred by Richardson.
>
> Against all improbabilities I have to change my opinion as the heraldic evidence is clear. I had never seen the seal of lady Talbot and all the heraldics that I knew were referred to Beatrice Fettiplace.
Of course it is worth mentioning that Beatrice being both the wife of Talbot and Fettiplace makes perfect sense in the context that Thomas Fettiplace served as steward of the manor of Lord Talbot in Oxfordshire beginning in 1413; so when Lord Talbot was killed in probably 1422, Thomas Fettiplace had already been a member of Beatrice's household for nine years.
> Thank you for the links to the article referred by Richardson.
>
> Against all improbabilities I have to change my opinion as the heraldic evidence is clear. I had never seen the seal of lady Talbot and all the heraldics that I knew were referred to Beatrice Fettiplace.
--Joe C
joe...@gmail.com
Aug 15, 2013, 8:31:29 AM8/15/13
to
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:53:12 AM UTC-4, sangreel wrote:
> I have also been researching this issue for a book about the Berkshire Monumental Brasses. While I can not at this time add to the discussion, I thought it wise to post what I have found. In Morley's book "Monumental Brasses of Berkshire 14th to 17th century" published 1924 this book having etchings of the brasses at Mr. Morley's disposal, I found on page 79 the Brass to William Feteplace [brother of Sir. Thomas] and wife [Elizabeth] dated 1516, the etching of his brass that included the coats of arms of William. They are:
>
> [Childery, Co. Berks]
>
>
>
> 1] Quarterly Ar a fess charged with a crescent Or., between 3 Swans heads erased.
>
> 2] an eagle displayed Ar. -Walrond
>
> 3] Barry of 8 Ar and Gu, on a chief, a lion passant az. -Englefield
>
> 4] 2 bars between 3 annulets -Rykhill
>
These are really the arms of William's wife Elizabeth; not William; this William being the grandson of the Sir Thomas whose wife was Beatrix.
> I have also been researching this issue for a book about the Berkshire Monumental Brasses. While I can not at this time add to the discussion, I thought it wise to post what I have found. In Morley's book "Monumental Brasses of Berkshire 14th to 17th century" published 1924 this book having etchings of the brasses at Mr. Morley's disposal, I found on page 79 the Brass to William Feteplace [brother of Sir. Thomas] and wife [Elizabeth] dated 1516, the etching of his brass that included the coats of arms of William. They are:
>
> [Childery, Co. Berks]
>
>
>
> 1] Quarterly Ar a fess charged with a crescent Or., between 3 Swans heads erased.
>
> 2] an eagle displayed Ar. -Walrond
>
> 3] Barry of 8 Ar and Gu, on a chief, a lion passant az. -Englefield
>
> 4] 2 bars between 3 annulets -Rykhill
>
Elizabeth was Elizabeth Waring daughter of Thomas Waring and Joan WALROND, she being the daughter of Thomas WALROND and Alice ENGLEFIELD, daughter of Nicholas Englefield and Elizabeth Quartermain.
The other quartering is not Rhykill, but Aldrington.
The first quartering is that of Selden.
Joe C
Matt Tompkins
Aug 15, 2013, 10:33:45 AM8/15/13
to
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 5:58:11 PM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 617-620 has a good account of Gilbert Talbot, K.G., 5th Lord Talbot (died 1418). Regarding his marriage to his surviving wife, Beatrice of Portugal, the following information is given: "He married, about 1415, Beatrice, a Portuguese lady, perhaps of the family of Pinto.
Gilbert Talbot's marriage to Beatrice can be put back at least a couple of years earlier, using one of the IPMs taken after his death in 1419. That for Shropshire (CIPM xxi.318), taken on 3 Dec 1418, says, inter alia:
> Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 617-620 has a good account of Gilbert Talbot, K.G., 5th Lord Talbot (died 1418). Regarding his marriage to his surviving wife, Beatrice of Portugal, the following information is given: "He married, about 1415, Beatrice, a Portuguese lady, perhaps of the family of Pinto.
"Jointly with his wife Beatrice, who survives, he held the manors of Black Park and Whitchurch with the advowsons of Whitchurch and Ighfield, by the grant of Roger Thresk, parson of Whitchurch, Edward Sprynghose and John Camvyle, esquires, to them and his heirs and assigns, by their charter shown to the jurors and dated at Black Park on 23 Oct 1413. ...
They also held jointly the manor of Dodington by the grant of Roger Thresk, parson, and others as above by their charter shown to the jurors and dated at Black Park on 9 Apr 1414.'
Incidentally, both of these dates, 9 Apr 1414 and 23 Oct 1413, show that Gilbert Talbot was married to his Beatrice while Thomas, earl of Arundel, was still alive - he died in Oct 1415. Consequently the earl's widow Beatrice, countess of Arundel, cannot have been the same person as Gilbert Talbot's wife Beatrice.
Matt Tompkins
Douglas Richardson
Aug 15, 2013, 2:46:16 PM8/15/13
to
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:31:29 AM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> These are really the arms of William's wife Elizabeth; not William; this William being the grandson of the Sir Thomas whose wife was Beatrix.
>
> Joe C
>
> These are really the arms of William's wife Elizabeth; not William; this William being the grandson of the Sir Thomas whose wife was Beatrix.
>
Dear Joe ~
Thomas Fettiplace (living 1442) was never knighted. He was an esquire.
DR
joe...@gmail.com
Aug 15, 2013, 3:46:01 PM8/15/13
to
-JC
Steve Wilson
Aug 15, 2013, 5:14:27 PM8/15/13
to
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:06:38 PM UTC-4, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:
[snip]
> Beatrice married Talbot between 1415 (death of Arundel) and 1419 (death of Talbot) and they had one only daughter so for all we know, it was a marriage of short duration, in the limit less than one year.
One daughter of this marriage (Ankaret) is well attested, as she inherited her father's titles. However, Visitation pedigrees of the Cholmondleigh/Cholmeley family suggest the possibility that another daughter (Elizabeth) was also born to the couple:
"Richard Cholmeley, eldest son, [married] Elizabeth, da. of Gilbert, Lord Talbot, and Katherine, his wife, da. of the King of Portugal"
http://books.google.com/books?id=GmqlIibS95IC&pg=PA185&dq=%22his+wife,+da.+of+the+King+of+Portugal%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=10ENUuazGJjb4AOTu4GQBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22his%20wife%2C%20da.%20of%20the%20King%20of%20Portugal%22&f=false
Despite the use of the mistaken given name Katherine, this is clearly a reference to Gilbert Talbot and his Portuguese wife Beatrice (who by all accounts would appear not to have literally been a daughter of the King).
The charter of 23 Oct 1413 mentioned in the Shropshire CIPM cited by Matt Tompkins shows the marriage of Beatrice to Gilbert Talbot must have lasted almost six years (if not slightly longer), ending with his death in France in 1419.
Six years would certainly have been enough time for the marriage to produce at least two daughters (Ankaret and Elizabeth). However when Ankaret, who succeeded her father as Baroness Talbot and Baroness Strange of Blackmere, died in 1421, these titles passed to her uncle, rather than to a younger sister.
Is anyone aware of any primary documents that might shed light on whether or not this Elizabeth Talbot, wife of Richard Cholmeley, actually existed and, if so, why she would not have inherited her sister's titles?
[snip]
> Beatrice married Talbot between 1415 (death of Arundel) and 1419 (death of Talbot) and they had one only daughter so for all we know, it was a marriage of short duration, in the limit less than one year.
"Richard Cholmeley, eldest son, [married] Elizabeth, da. of Gilbert, Lord Talbot, and Katherine, his wife, da. of the King of Portugal"
http://books.google.com/books?id=GmqlIibS95IC&pg=PA185&dq=%22his+wife,+da.+of+the+King+of+Portugal%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=10ENUuazGJjb4AOTu4GQBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22his%20wife%2C%20da.%20of%20the%20King%20of%20Portugal%22&f=false
Despite the use of the mistaken given name Katherine, this is clearly a reference to Gilbert Talbot and his Portuguese wife Beatrice (who by all accounts would appear not to have literally been a daughter of the King).
The charter of 23 Oct 1413 mentioned in the Shropshire CIPM cited by Matt Tompkins shows the marriage of Beatrice to Gilbert Talbot must have lasted almost six years (if not slightly longer), ending with his death in France in 1419.
Six years would certainly have been enough time for the marriage to produce at least two daughters (Ankaret and Elizabeth). However when Ankaret, who succeeded her father as Baroness Talbot and Baroness Strange of Blackmere, died in 1421, these titles passed to her uncle, rather than to a younger sister.
Is anyone aware of any primary documents that might shed light on whether or not this Elizabeth Talbot, wife of Richard Cholmeley, actually existed and, if so, why she would not have inherited her sister's titles?
jhigg...@yahoo.com
Aug 15, 2013, 5:50:42 PM8/15/13
to
This Richard was the father of William, who married Maud, daughter of Sir John Cheney, and had two sons, ancestors repectively of the Marquesses of Cholmondeley and the Cholmeley baronets - both families still extant. Recent editions of BP say that Richard's wife was Ann, daughter of Sir John Bromley. This agrees with a detailed discussion and pedigree of the family in Ormerod's Chester (Helsby ed.), 2:637-8, which says that Richard's first wife (and mother of his son) was Anne Bromley and his second wife (by whom he had no issue) was Alice, daughter of Richard Henhull.
I'd guess that the Devon visitation has misidentified Richard's wife. And the disposition of the peerage titles of her supposed sister Ankaret would support this conclusion.
TJ Booth
Aug 15, 2013, 6:18:24 PM8/15/13
to GenMedieval
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:14 PM, "Steve Wilson" <sjwilson77@gmail .. >
wrote
<Snip>
Please see Brad Verity's post of April 13 this year @
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2013-04/1367261161
Richard I Cholmondley son of William b. perhaps 1430 m. Ellen
Davenport/Damport
Richard II Cholmondley d. bef 20 Dec 1482 m.(1) Elizabeth Corbet; m.(2)
Eleanor Dutton
Richard III Cholmondley son of Eleanor m. Elizabeth Brereton.
The pedigrees are wishful thinking.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
wrote
<Snip>
> "Richard Cholmeley, eldest son, [married] Elizabeth, da. of Gilbert, Lord
> Talbot, and Katherine, his wife, da. of the King of Portugal"
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=GmqlIibS95IC&pg=PA185&dq=%22his+wife,+da.+of+the+King+of+Portugal%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=10ENUuazGJjb4AOTu4GQBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22his%20wife%2C%20da.%20of%20the%20King%20of%20Portugal%22&f=false
>
> Despite the use of the mistaken given name Katherine, this is clearly a
> reference to Gilbert Talbot and his Portuguese wife Beatrice (who by all
> accounts would appear not to have literally been a daughter of the King).
>
<Snip>>
> Talbot, and Katherine, his wife, da. of the King of Portugal"
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=GmqlIibS95IC&pg=PA185&dq=%22his+wife,+da.+of+the+King+of+Portugal%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=10ENUuazGJjb4AOTu4GQBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22his%20wife%2C%20da.%20of%20the%20King%20of%20Portugal%22&f=false
>
> Despite the use of the mistaken given name Katherine, this is clearly a
> reference to Gilbert Talbot and his Portuguese wife Beatrice (who by all
> accounts would appear not to have literally been a daughter of the King).
>
> Is anyone aware of any primary documents that might shed light on whether
> or not this Elizabeth Talbot, wife of Richard Cholmeley, actually existed
> and, if so, why she would not have inherited her sister's titles?
<Snip>
> or not this Elizabeth Talbot, wife of Richard Cholmeley, actually existed
> and, if so, why she would not have inherited her sister's titles?
Please see Brad Verity's post of April 13 this year @
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2013-04/1367261161
Richard I Cholmondley son of William b. perhaps 1430 m. Ellen
Davenport/Damport
Richard II Cholmondley d. bef 20 Dec 1482 m.(1) Elizabeth Corbet; m.(2)
Eleanor Dutton
Richard III Cholmondley son of Eleanor m. Elizabeth Brereton.
The pedigrees are wishful thinking.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
jhigg...@yahoo.com
Aug 15, 2013, 7:01:31 PM8/15/13
to
I agree with your comment of "wishful thinking" insofar as the Cholmeley pedigree in the Devon visitation - especially in its early generations. OTOH the pedigree of the family in Ormerod/Helsby, while it may not be entirely accurate in all points, appears to have a reasonable amount of evidence to support it.
Douglas Richardson
Aug 16, 2013, 3:42:12 PM8/16/13
to
Here's one record of the "other" Beatrice of Portugal:
In 1420, as John Arundell, Knt., sued Beatrice, widow of Thomas, late Earl of Arundel and Surrey, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste in Cocking, Sussex [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/637, rot. 98f].
See the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/CP40no637/aCP40no637fronts/IMG_0098.htm
The plaintiff in this lawsuit is Sir John Arundel, K.B., Lord Arundel and Mautravers [died 1421], which Sir John was the heir male of Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey [died 1415].
Please note that the name Fitz Alan is nowhere to be found in this lawsuit, it having been dropped as the surname of this family the century previous to this lawsuit.
In 1420, as John Arundell, Knt., sued Beatrice, widow of Thomas, late Earl of Arundel and Surrey, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste in Cocking, Sussex [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/637, rot. 98f].
See the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/CP40no637/aCP40no637fronts/IMG_0098.htm
The plaintiff in this lawsuit is Sir John Arundel, K.B., Lord Arundel and Mautravers [died 1421], which Sir John was the heir male of Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey [died 1415].
Please note that the name Fitz Alan is nowhere to be found in this lawsuit, it having been dropped as the surname of this family the century previous to this lawsuit.
0 new messages