Eleanor de Verdun, and her daughter, Maud, wife of John de Grey, of Wilton

211 views
Skip to first unread message

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 7:00:47 PM1/15/02
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

In the wake of the new discovery of Theobald de Verdun's wife, Margery
de Bohun, new attention has been turned to the baronial families of
Verdun and Bohun. As indicated by Complete Peerage, Theobald de
Verdun's step-mother, Eleanor, 2nd wife of John de Verdun, is thought
to have been a Bohun, she having sealed with those arms as reported by
Complete Peerage sub Verdun. Chris Philips reported his findings on
this matter in a post today.

As it turns out, Eleanor, 2nd wife of John de Verdun, does in fact
appear to have been a Bohun. My research indicates that Eleanor
evidently had as her maritagium the manor of Debden, Essex (a Bohun
manor), which property she in turn conveyed as a widow in 1275/6 to
John de Grey, of Wilton, co. Hereford, and his wife, Maud. The fine
conveying this property is found in Essex Feet of Fines, vol. 2, pg.
13. At his death years later, John de Grey is stated to have held the
manor of Debden of Eleanor de Verdun by the service of a rose, the
standard service for property granted in marriage in this period (see
Cal. IPM, vol. 6, pg. 311). As such, it seems rather clear that John
de Grey's wife, Maud, was the daughter of John de Verdun, by his 2nd
wife, Eleanor de Bohun.

We can be reasonably certain that Maud de Grey was Eleanor de Verdun's
daughter, as Eleanor being a Bohun surely had the manor of Debden in
marriage, and in turn passed it along to her daughter, Maud. In this
time period, a woman's maritagium almost always fell to her
descendants, unless she happened to be childless, when she sometimes
conveyed it away to strangers. In Eleanor's case, we know that she
had several other male children, so the odds that she would convey her
maritagium to the Grey family without there being a kinship is
virtually slim to none. Also, it appears that John de Grey and his
wife, Maud, were small children at the time of Eleanor de Verdun's
fine. Complete Peerage indicates that John de Grey was born about
1268 (he being aged 40 at his father's death in 1308). Eleanor de
Verdun's other known child, Humphrey, was born in 1267. It would be
odd for Eleanor to convey her property to children, unless of course
one of the parties was her own child.

Following John de Grey's death, the manor of Debden, Essex was in turn
held by John and Maud de Grey's son and heir, Henry de Grey, Lord
Grey, of Wilton (see Cal. IPM, vol. 8, pg. 261), as well as by a later
Henry Grey, Lord Grey, of Wilton (see Cal. IPM, vol. 17, pg. 253). At
the later Henry de Grey's death, he is stated to hold the manor of
"Weldebernys" in Debden of the Countess of Hereford (a Bohun
descendant). The passage of this manor down to John de Grey's son,
Henry, and thence to his heirs gives evidence that Henry was in fact
the son of John de Grey's wife, Maud de Verdun.

These new discoveries causes a ripple of corrections for Complete
Peerage as well as for the Plantagenet Ancestry manuscript. For
starters, it now appears that John de Grey had but one wife, Maud de
Verdun, not two as claimed by Complete Peerage. Also, it appears Maud
de Verdun was the mother of all of John de Grey's children, presumably
including Iseult Saint Pierre, living 1343, whose existence and
identity I mentioned in a post this past week.

As soon as I have time, I will post copies of the specifics of the
fines and inquisitions which show the links between the Bohun, Verdun,
and Grey families. I will also post a list of the colonial immigrants
who descend from this Bohun-Verdun-Grey combination. I haven't
checked my lists yet, but I'm sure this set of discoveries will change
many people's charts here on the newsgroup. Perhaps if John Ravilious
has a moment, he can post a tabular pedigree chart showing the
descent.

As for the identity of parentage of Eleanor de Bohun, Complete Peerage
indicates that she married before 1267 to John de Verdun, and that
they had a son, Humphrey de Verdun, born in 1267. If we assume that
Eleanor was around 20 at the time of marriage, say 1265, the
chronology would place Eleanor, born say 1245, as a hitherto unknown
daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford (died 1275), by his
2nd wife, Maud de Avenbury. The date of the marriage of Earl Humphrey
and Maud de Avenbury is not known, but presumably it was soon after
the death of his 1st wife, Maud of Eu, which took place in 1241. Earl
Humphrey and Maud are known to have had children, but no modern
descendants have been found for this couple.

If anyone has any further particulars which would shed additional
light on this matter, I would appreciate hearing from them at my
e-mail address below. In closing, I wish to thank John Ravilious,
Chris Phillips and Cristopher Nash for their continued helpful posts
on the Mortimer, Verdun, Bohun and Grey families. Yes, answers can
be found to ancient questions. Collegiality is the one of the keys to
finding those answers.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:08:56 AM1/16/02
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

Since making my post on Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun yesterday, I've
checked my files and found further confirmation which I believe
conclusively proves that Eleanor was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun
(died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex. The evidence consists of two
separate cases of consanguinity among descendants of Eleanor (de
Bohun) de Verdun where they intermarried with their Bohun related
kinfolk.

In the first instance, my notes record that there was a papal
dispensation recorded in 1334, for the marriage of Maud de Grey and
John de Lisle, 2nd Lord Lisle, of Rougement. As I recall, this
dispensation is mentioned by Complete Peerage sub Lisle. Maud and
John were stated to be related in the 4th degree in their petition for
a dispensation (i.e., third cousins to each other). Maud de Grey was
great-granddaughter of Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun. John de Lisle
was great-grandson of Alice (de Bohun) de Tony. If the degree of
kinship was correctly stated in the papal registers, it would appear
that Maud's ancestress, Eleanor de Bohun, and John's ancestress, Alice
de Bohun, were sisters. Since Alice is known to have been a daughter
of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex (died 1275), this in
turn tells us that Eleanor was daughter of the same Humphrey de Bohun.

In the second instance, my notes record there was a papal inquiry in
1334 regarding the marriage of Margaret Basset and John de Bohun, Earl
of Hereford and Essex. Margaret Basset was a great-granddaughter of
Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun. Margaret and her husband, John, were
closely related, but my notes don't tell how closely related the two
parties were, if the degree of kinship was stated. To resolve the
question of kinship, the Pope summoned a host of relatives of the
young couple. Among those summoned were several of Margaret Basset's
Grey relatives as well as Alice de Tony, widow of Walter de Beauchamp,
and her daughter and son-in-law, Margaret and Robert de Lisle. The
people required to give testimony presumably all had a tie to the
Bohun family. If nothing else, this document provides added evidence
that the Greys, Tonys, Beauchamps and Lisles all share a common
descent from the Bohun family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com


royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.02011...@posting.google.com>...

Nathaniel Taylor

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 11:14:37 AM1/16/02
to
In article <5cf47a19.02011...@posting.google.com>,
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

>Since making my post on Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun yesterday, I've
>checked my files and found further confirmation which I believe
>conclusively proves that Eleanor was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun
>(died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex. The evidence consists of two
>separate cases of consanguinity among descendants of Eleanor (de
>Bohun) de Verdun where they intermarried with their Bohun related
>kinfolk.

<snip>

>In the second instance, my notes record there was a papal inquiry in
>1334 regarding the marriage of Margaret Basset and John de Bohun, Earl
>of Hereford and Essex. Margaret Basset was a great-granddaughter of
>Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun. Margaret and her husband, John, were
>closely related, but my notes don't tell how closely related the two
>parties were, if the degree of kinship was stated. To resolve the
>question of kinship, the Pope summoned a host of relatives of the
>young couple. Among those summoned were several of Margaret Basset's
>Grey relatives as well as Alice de Tony, widow of Walter de Beauchamp,
>and her daughter and son-in-law, Margaret and Robert de Lisle. The
>people required to give testimony presumably all had a tie to the
>Bohun family. If nothing else, this document provides added evidence
>that the Greys, Tonys, Beauchamps and Lisles all share a common
>descent from the Bohun family.


Doug,

I find this description very interesting (for procedural as much as for
genealogical reasons). Can you cite the primary source(s) for this
particular case (or are all the sources cited in CP)? I'd like to examine
the original closely. Is the hearing discussed, and the parties named,
in the dispensation bull itself, or in some other narrative source
(episcopal letter, e.g.)?

Thanks.

Nat Taylor

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 10:27:29 AM1/17/02
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

Yesterday I spent further time researching the published literature
regarding the topic of the marriages of John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of
Wilton (died 1323). My research indicates that the original source
for John de Grey's two marriages to Anne de Ferrers and Maud Basset is
the 1619 Visitation of Leicester, published in 1870, as Harleian
Society Publications, vol. 2, pg. 74. As best I can determine, this
particular visitation is wildly inaccurate. Out of five marriages
reported for various Lord Greys of Wilton in this pedigree, I can only
document one of them. Of the other four, evidence exists to prove
that one is incorrect, one is unlikely, and two probably never took
place. Moreover, the pedigree overlooked John de Grey's marriage to
Maud de Verdun, for which marriage I found solid evidence this past
week. Needless to say, as a general rule, visitations are usually
more accurate than this.

I found all published sources I consulted to have followed the 1619
Visitation of Leicester in lockstep, with one exception. The
exception was Thomas Blore's History and Antiquities of the County of
Rutland, published 1811, pp. 164-165. Following the 1619 Visitation
of Leicester, Blore stated John de Grey married (1st) Anne de Ferrers,
by whom he had his eldest son, Henry (ancestor of the later Lords Grey
of Wilton). He varied from the visitation when he stated that John de
Grey married (2nd) "Matilda, daughter of John de Verdun, Constable of
Ireland," by whom he had his younger son, Roger (ancestor of the later
Lords Grey of Ruthin). Unfortunately, Blore gave no sources for his
Grey pedigree, so it is unknown where he found a record of John de
Grey's marriage to Maud de Verdun.

Blore withstanding, it appears that Maud de Verdun was the mother of
at least three of John de Grey's children, they being both sons, Henry
and Roger (who reportedly shared their mother's maritagium at Debden,
Essex), and at least one daughter, Joan, wife of Ralph Basset. I find
no evidence whatsoever that John de Grey was ever married to an Anne
de Ferrers.

Beyond this, William Harvey's History and Antiquities of the Hundred
of Willey, pg. 318, states that there is a pedigree of the Grey family
found in Harl. MS. 110, fo. 31, with a shield of 16 quarters, as
follows: 1 Grey, 2 Glanvile, 3 Fitzhugh, 4 Longchamp, 5 De la vach, 6
Grey, 7 Hastings, 8 Cantilupe, 9 Scote, 10 Bruse, 11 Brewer, 12
Valence, 13 Manchany, 14 Marshall, 15 Fitzosbert, 16 Hastings. I have
not seen this particular pedigree but it may well worth someone's time
to examine. It should be available at the British Library in the
London area. This pedigree appears to be different from the 1619
Visitation of Leicester, as the 1619 pedigree provided only eight arms
in the Grey quarterings, not sixteen.

Lastly, regarding the terminology, "it is said," the late Dr. David
Faris told me that those words are used in Complete Peerage when the
sole source for a marriage is a visitation pedigree, for whom no
independant verification has been found.

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 12:43:53 PM1/17/02
to
nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote in message news:<ntaylor-1601...@mid-tgn-mos-vty27.as.wcom.net>...

Dear Nat ~

Thank you for your good post. As I stated earlier, there were two
marriages between descendants of Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun and
their Bohun kinfolk which required a dispensation due to
consanguinity. In the first instance, a dispensation was granted
PRIOR to marriage for John de Lisle to marry Maud de Grey. The Papal
registers contain the petition for the required dispensation with the
statement that the couple were related in the 4th degree (i.e., third
cousins to each other). As best I can determine, the statement
regarding degree of kinship is absolutely correct.

In the second instance, it appears that no dispensation was requested
before Margaret Basset married her cousin, John de Bohun, Earl of
Hereford. Consequently, FOLLOWING their marriage, the Pope requested
an inquest be made as to the nature of their consanguinity. In a
rare instance among the Papal registers, the document records all the
parties who were summoned to testify in this case. As best I know,
the actual testimony has not survived, just the request for the
inquest and the list of the people who were summoned to testify. The
surviving list is invaluable as it documents the names of numerous
descendants of the Bohun family who were called to testify in this
matter as to the degree of kinship between the two parties.

I've asked Chris Phillips if he can locate the two items in question
in the Papal Registers and post them here on the newsgroup. Chris
said he'd be happy to find the items but it will be several days at
least before he can get to it.

I should be note that of the two marriages involving kinship here, one
couple followed church rules and applied for the required
dispensation. The other couple clearly did not. It is due to
situations like this that makes it unwise to assume that if a couple
weren't dispensed for their marriage that they weren't related. The
Basset-Bohun marriage illustrates the fact that not all marriages
requiring dispensation were properly dispensed.

As for other records relating to the Basset-Bohun inquest, it's
possible that some additional record of this matter exists in a local
episcopal register. At the present time, I'm not sure in what diocese
the couple resided. However, I believe that will be reflected in the
document recorded in the papal registers.

Chris Phillips

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 4:15:00 AM1/18/02
to
Nat Taylor wrote:
> > I find this description very interesting (for procedural as much as for
> > genealogical reasons). Can you cite the primary source(s) for this
> > particular case (or are all the sources cited in CP)? I'd like to
examine
> > the original closely. Is the hearing discussed, and the parties named,
> > in the dispensation bull itself, or in some other narrative source
> > (episcopal letter, e.g.)?

Douglas Richardson replied:


> Thank you for your good post. As I stated earlier, there were two
> marriages between descendants of Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun and
> their Bohun kinfolk which required a dispensation due to
> consanguinity. In the first instance, a dispensation was granted
> PRIOR to marriage for John de Lisle to marry Maud de Grey. The Papal
> registers contain the petition for the required dispensation with the
> statement that the couple were related in the 4th degree (i.e., third
> cousins to each other). As best I can determine, the statement
> regarding degree of kinship is absolutely correct.

...


> I've asked Chris Phillips if he can locate the two items in question
> in the Papal Registers and post them here on the newsgroup. Chris
> said he'd be happy to find the items but it will be several days at
> least before he can get to it.

In the meantime, if anyone has a chance before then, Complete Peerage
(vol.8, p.76) gives the reference for the Lisle-Grey dispensation as Cal.
Papal Letters vol.2, p.380 (actually, this is also said to be a
"post-nuptial" dispensation - "16 Dec. 1332, when they had dispensation to
remain within the marriage they had contracted while ignorant that they were
within the 4th degree...").

I can't see a reference in CP to the Bohun-Basset case, but from previous
notes supplied by Douglas Richardson, I think it's also Cal. Papal Letters,
either vol.1, p.503 or vol.2, p.398.

Chris Phillips


Nathaniel Taylor

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 12:09:24 PM1/18/02
to
In article <5cf47a19.0201...@posting.google.com>,
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

>> >my notes record there was a papal inquiry in
>> >1334 regarding the marriage of Margaret Basset and John de Bohun, Earl
>> >of Hereford and Essex. Margaret Basset was a great-granddaughter of
>> >Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun. Margaret and her husband, John, were
>> >closely related, but my notes don't tell how closely related the two
>> >parties were, if the degree of kinship was stated. To resolve the
>> >question of kinship, the Pope summoned a host of relatives of the
>> >young couple. Among those summoned were several of Margaret Basset's
>> >Grey relatives as well as Alice de Tony, widow of Walter de Beauchamp,
>> >and her daughter and son-in-law, Margaret and Robert de Lisle. The
>> >people required to give testimony presumably all had a tie to the
>> >Bohun family. If nothing else, this document provides added evidence
>> >that the Greys, Tonys, Beauchamps and Lisles all share a common
>> >descent from the Bohun family.
>>

>> I find this description very interesting (for procedural as much as for
>> genealogical reasons). Can you cite the primary source(s) for this
>> particular case (or are all the sources cited in CP)? I'd like to examine
>> the original closely. Is the hearing discussed, and the parties named,
>> in the dispensation bull itself, or in some other narrative source
>> (episcopal letter, e.g.)?

>


>The Papal registers contain the petition for the required dispensation

>[in the Lisle-Grey case]


>
>In the second instance, it appears that no dispensation was requested
>before Margaret Basset married her cousin, John de Bohun, Earl of
>Hereford. Consequently, FOLLOWING their marriage, the Pope requested
>an inquest be made as to the nature of their consanguinity. In a
>rare instance among the Papal registers, the document records all the
>parties who were summoned to testify in this case. As best I know,
>the actual testimony has not survived, just the request for the
>inquest and the list of the people who were summoned to testify. The
>surviving list is invaluable as it documents the names of numerous
>descendants of the Bohun family who were called to testify in this
>matter as to the degree of kinship between the two parties.
>
>I've asked Chris Phillips if he can locate the two items in question
>in the Papal Registers and post them here on the newsgroup.

Thanks Doug & Chris. I have access to the Cal. Papal Regs. and will follow up.

_Calendar of entries in the Papal registers relating to Great Britain and
Ireland: Papal letters_. Ed. W. H. Bliss et al. 19 vols. to date.
London: HM Stationery Office [etc.], 1898-.

>I should be note that of the two marriages involving kinship here, one
>couple followed church rules and applied for the required
>dispensation. The other couple clearly did not. It is due to
>situations like this that makes it unwise to assume that if a couple
>weren't dispensed for their marriage that they weren't related. The
>Basset-Bohun marriage illustrates the fact that not all marriages
>requiring dispensation were properly dispensed.

A good point, worth noting. It is also true that requests for
dispensations which may have been made may not all survive. People
interested in the law and norms on this sort of thing should see:

Helmholz, R. H. Marriage litigation in medieval England.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

And for those interested in where the originals of such cases may be
located, medieval church court documentation surviving at the diocesan
level in England is surveyed in volume 2 of:

The Records of the medieval ecclesiastical courts: reports of the Working
Group on Church Court Records. Ed. Charles Donahue, Jr. 2 vols.
Comparative studies in continental and Anglo-American legal history, 6-7.
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1989-1994. [1. The continent. -- Pt. 2.
England.]

Nat Taylor

Nathaniel Taylor

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 11:52:21 PM1/18/02
to
In article <001001c1a000$6bc066a0$324c86d9@oemcomputer>,
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote:

>Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>
>> . . . As I stated earlier, there were two


>> marriages between descendants of Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun and
>> their Bohun kinfolk which required a dispensation due to
>> consanguinity. In the first instance, a dispensation was granted
>> PRIOR to marriage for John de Lisle to marry Maud de Grey. The Papal
>> registers contain the petition for the required dispensation with the
>> statement that the couple were related in the 4th degree (i.e., third
>> cousins to each other).

[and elsewhere:]

>>I should be note that of the two marriages involving kinship here, one
>>couple followed church rules and applied for the required

>>dispensation. The other couple clearly did not...

> . . . Complete Peerage


>(vol.8, p.76) gives the reference for the Lisle-Grey dispensation as Cal.
>Papal Letters vol.2, p.380 (actually, this is also said to be a
>"post-nuptial" dispensation - "16 Dec. 1332, when they had dispensation to
>remain within the marriage they had contracted while ignorant that they were
>within the 4th degree...").
>
>I can't see a reference in CP to the Bohun-Basset case, but from previous
>notes supplied by Douglas Richardson, I think it's also Cal. Papal Letters,
>either vol.1, p.503 or vol.2, p.398.

I find both marriages in _Cal. Papal Letters_, vol. 2 (1304-1337). As
Chris points out, both are *post facto* hearings. But there's an
interesting difference:

The Lisle / Bohun marriage was brought up by the parties to "at the king's
request ... to grant a dispensation to [John de Lisle and Matilda de Gray]
to remain in the marriage which the contracted in ignorance that they were
related in the fourth degree." (2:280, 17 kal. Jan 1332)

The Basset / Bohun (Hereford) marriage appears *twice* in the registers.
The first mandate (11 kal. Mar 1331, 2:349), tells the bishops of
Lichfield & Coventry, and London, "to summon the parties to London, and
hear the cause touching the marriage of John, earl of Hereford, and
Margaret Bassett, who after their marriage discovered that they were
related in the fourth degree, and thereupon ceased to live together.
Margaret's relations, and especially Thomas de Modoville, knight, and
Alice de Bellocampo, of the dioceses of London and Worcester, are to
appear as witnesses."

Three years later (2 kal. Feb. 1334, 2:398), the mandate was reissued to
the Bishop of London "to summon to some place in the dioceses of London or
Lincoln, suspected by neither party, those concerned in the case touching
the marriage of John, earl of Hereford, and Margaret Basset. After
consummation of the marriage, it came to the knowledge of the earl that he
and Margaret were related in the fourth degree, whereupon petition was
made to the pope, Thomas de Mandeville, knight, Alice de Beauchamp, and
other kinsfolk of Margaret, and a papal mandate was issued to the bishop
of Lichfield and Coventry, who refused to act. The pope now orders a full
report to be made to him, and the following witnesses to be cited:
Bertrand de Verduyn, clerk; Ralph Basset, Henry de Grey, Roger de Grey,
John de Verduyn, Robert de Lylle, William de Ruysshton, Thomas de Gobioun,
Oliver de Bohun, Thomas de Mandeville, Thomas de Aledone, knights; Joan,
wife of the said Ralph; Joan de Verduyn, Alice de Beauchamp, Margaret de
Lylle, Elizabeth Peverel, Alice de Mungomery, Petronilla de Nevile, Sibyl
de Bibbesworth, and Hawisia de Ferrers."

It is unclear who originally motivated the action: third parties who
wanted a formal annulment (or who wanted a dispensation with order that
the spouses live together)? Why did both spouses avoid any action? So as
not to disinherit children? The request for a hearing 'suspected by
neither party' doesn't clarify the motivations to avoid this process. In
the second sentence, perhaps the abstract *should* read: "... whereupon
petition was made to the pope *by* Thomas de Mandeville, knight, Alice de
Beauchamp, and other kinsfolk of Margaret."

So: two interesting windows into the nature, timing, and likely response
to consanguinity hearings.

Nat Taylor

cbe...@paradise.net.nz

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 2:19:03 AM1/19/02
to
Hi Nat

Thanks for presenting these fascinating texts. The trick with these seems to try to
read between the lines.

I read it that it was the earl who motivated the action which arose from the discovery
of the consanguinity by the wording "IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
EARL that he and Margaret were related in the fourth degree, whereupon petition

was made to the pope, Thomas de Mandeville, knight, Alice de Beauchamp, and

other kinsfolk of Margaret..

The fact that Margaret's relations are being called as witnesses and not her
husband's suggests they are being called to defend or answer over some aspect of
Margaret's ancestry. It is likely that the earl's ancestry was so well documented, no
witnesses were needed to comment over it.

I also read it that it was the bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (it was a combined
see) who refused to act in the investigation. As the action seems to have been
initiated by the earl and it is unlikely he would both initiate then stall it, the bishop is
likely to have been got at by Margaret's party.

The fact that the second mandate ordered that the investigation should be held in
in secret either in London or Lincoln, and the bishop of Lichfield and Coventry was
excluded, suggests that there WAS obstruction and interference in the proceedings.
If so, it would mean that one party was resisting the investigation. Assuming the earl
had initiated the action, and there was resistance by the other party, it would imply
that the earl was hoping to divorce his wife. Whether he was using the pretext of
consanguinity to achieve it is not known to us. If the couple were just wanting a
dispensation to live together, there would have been no need for disagreement for it
is very likely that it would have been granted by the Pope, as they generally were in
such circumstances, especially if there were children involved.

I think this interpretation is consistent with the facts presented.

Cheers

Rosie

On 18 Jan 2002 at 23:52, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

Date forwarded: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:44:14 -0700
Date sent: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:52:21 -0500
From: nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor)
Organization: .
Subject: Consanguinity cases (was re: Verdun, Bohun, etc.)
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Forwarded by: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com

Chris Phillips

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 5:18:13 PM1/19/02
to
Many thanks to Nat Taylor for posting the extracts from the papal register,
and to Rosie Bevan for her interesting comments.

Rosie's interpretation sounds like the right one to me. It reads as though
John de Bohun had withdrawn from "conjugal relations" with Margaret, and was
trying to ger rid of her altogether on grounds of consanguinity. (If the
bishop of Lichfield was uncooperative, as Rosie suggests, perhaps it could
reflect local influence on the part of the Bassets, a Staffordshire family.)

It's interesting that Complete Peerage doesn't mention this business - and
gives no indication of the date of the marriage, which these records
provide - but perhaps some of what it does say fits in with this picture.
John died fairly soon afterwards, in January 1335/6, having been excused the
constableship on grounds of his infirmity as early as 1330. After his death,
there was "dissension" over her dower between Margaret and John's brother
and heir, Humphrey, which had to be settled by the Archbishop of Canterbury
as Chancellor.

Wouldn't it be satisfying to place all the witnesses in the Bohun/Basset
family tree? I can do a few of the easy ones:

> Alice de Beauchamp

Granddaughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d.1275), whose daughter Alice married
Roger de Tony.

> Ralph Basset ... Joan, wife of the said Ralph

Margaret Basset's parents.

> Bertrand de Verduyn, clerk; John de Verduyn, Joan de Verduyn

I suppose the Verduns can come in either because John de Verdun's 2nd wife
was Eleanor de Bohun, Margaret's great grandmother, or more obliquely, as
John's son Theobald married Margery de Bohun. Cris Nash has given us a
Bertram de Verdun among the children of Theobald (d.1309) - not sure about
the others.

> Henry de Grey, Roger de Grey

Margaret Basset's maternal uncles.

> Robert de Lylle ... Margaret de Lylle

Presumably, the parents of the John de Lisle of the other dispensation -
Margaret being a daughter of Alice de Beauchamp.

> Petronilla de Nevile

I believe Douglas Richardson has a tentative identification for her on the
Beauchamp side.

> Hawisia de Ferrers

At first, this brought to mind the "said to be" identification of John de
Grey's wife as an Anne Ferrers. But I reckon it's more probably connected
with the marriage of Eleanor, daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d.1265) to
Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Derby. Their son, John de Ferrers, married
Hawise, daughter of Robert Muscegros. Though Hawise had by the time of this
case remarried to Sir John de Bures, could this be the same Hawise, referred
to by the surname of her more prominent husband?

Chris Phillips

Gordon Johnson

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 8:22:33 PM1/19/02
to

*** In a time when divorce was almost impossible, a nobleman wishing
to cancel his marriage (usually because he has another lady lined up)
could have the marriage annulled on various grounds, consanguinity
being the easiest to manipulate, due to most of the nobility being
related to some extent.
When you see a couple asking for a papal dispensation in order to
marry, that gives the new wife pretty good protection in advance. An
appeal for an existing marriage to be looked at due to suspected
consanguinity is more than likely an attempt to have the marriage
annulled.
Incidentally, although the discussion was of English cases, most of
the Scottish material available can be found in Scottish Record
Society volumes under the title "Scottish Supplications to Rome"(+
dates covered), though some Scottish material appears in the mostly
English "Cal. of Papal Registers" vols.
Scottish dispensations can also be found in the "Papal Letters to
Scotland" vols. also produced by the SRS.
Gordon.

KinHelp - Scottish Historical & Genealogical Services
Website: http://www.web-ecosse.com/genes/genes2.htm
Pre-1700 is our speciality.

Nathaniel Taylor

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 8:26:42 PM1/19/02
to

>I read it that it was the earl who motivated the action which arose from


the discovery
>of the consanguinity by the wording "IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
>EARL that he and Margaret were related in the fourth degree, whereupon
petition
>was made to the pope, Thomas de Mandeville, knight, Alice de Beauchamp, and
>other kinsfolk of Margaret..
>
>The fact that Margaret's relations are being called as witnesses and not her
>husband's suggests they are being called to defend or answer over some
aspect of
>Margaret's ancestry. It is likely that the earl's ancestry was so well
documented, no
>witnesses were needed to comment over it.

Rosie's explanation is the most likely; it also fits with the legal resort
of 'suit of kin' to summon relatives as witness to the descent or status
of a defendant: the earl would be seeking the divorce from the wife, whose
relatives would be subpoena'd, effectively to admit their kinship. But
this still has oddities: why should the second mandate summon the
witnesses to a hearing 'suspected by neither party'? Why wouldn't the
earl be complicit? The 'obstruction' by the bp. of Lichfield/Coventry may
not have any bearing on the case specifically: he may just have been a
slacker.

Nat Taylor

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 10:15:33 PM1/19/02
to
Dear Nat, Chris, etc.

I can identify one of the other parties who were called to testify in
the Bohun-Basset case. Elizabeth Peverel was Elizabeth (de Lisle)
Peverel, who was the daughter of Robert de Lisle, 1st Lord Lisle of
Rougemont, and his wife, Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth married
before 1330 to Edmund Peverel, Knt., of Ashby David, co. Northampton.
She is mentioned in Complete Peerage under her father's account.
Elizabeth descends from the Bohun family through her maternal
grandmother, Alice (de Tony) de Beauchamp, who was also called to
testify, along with her parents.

Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel is in the ancestry of several colonial
immigrants as follows:

l. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

The descents from Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel down to these
immigrants will be found in the forthcoming book, Plantagenet
Ancestry, 3rd edition.

I suspect Pernel de Neville was Pernel, sister of Margaret (de
Beauchamp) de Lisle. Due to the commonplace nature of the surname,
Neville, however, I've been unable to trace the subsequent history of
this woman.

It is interesting to see members of the Bohun, Verdun, and Grey family
all appear as witnesses in this inquest. What a great piece of
evidence!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<005701c1a137$0a273760$500e86d9@oemcomputer>...

The...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 19, 2002, 11:29:48 PM1/19/02
to
Saturday, 19 January, 2002


Hello Nat, et al.,

In addition to the facts already presented (and pondered) concerning the
matter between John de Bohun and his second wife, Margaret Basset, I would
like to add the following :

1. John de Bohun did manage to obtain a dispensation for
his first marriage to Alice de Arundel (aka Alice
FitzAlan), which dispensation was dated 8 Kal. Mar.
1325 [CP Vol. VI - Hereford, p. 471 note h].

Or at least, someone handled that for him, evidently
in advance [sounds like a thoughtful wife, no ?].
Dispensations are just one of those things husbands
tend to forget (to do), for which they need reminders...

2. If in fact John de Bohun, or someone of his entourage,
was the instigator in the Case of the Divisive
Dispensation, it is interesting that he, Earl of
Hereford and Essex, and lst cousin to the King (Edward
III), failed to succeed in the endeavour.

He is reported to have died 20 Jan. 1335/6. Perhaps
the wheels of Papal ponderment ground more slowly than
he would have liked.

It is known that Margaret had 'dissension' with her brother-in-law
Humphrey de Bohun, succeeding Earl of Hereford and Essex, in re: to her dowry
[CP Vol. VI, p. 471, note n], so certainly the passing of John did not
resolve residual personality problems here.

Certainly a most interesting case. Thanks for sharing your analyses in
the matter.

John *

* John P. Ravilious


Chris Phillips

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 4:41:14 AM1/20/02
to
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> I suspect Pernel de Neville was Pernel, sister of Margaret (de
> Beauchamp) de Lisle. Due to the commonplace nature of the surname,
> Neville, however, I've been unable to trace the subsequent history of
> this woman.

Complete Peerage, vol.9, p.488 shows under Neville (of Hornby), John de
Neville, b.1269, marrying Pernel (----). John died by Spring 1309, and
Pernel was living September 1346, but dead by June 1349 (citing Cal. Close
Rolls, 1346-49, p.155; Yorks Deeds (Yorks Arch Soc), vol.ii, p.49). John's s
and h was b 1299 or 1300.

Chris Phillips

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 3:44:07 AM1/20/02
to
In message <005701c1a137$0a273760$500e86d9@oemcomputer>
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote:

> Many thanks to Nat Taylor for posting the extracts from the papal register,
> and to Rosie Bevan for her interesting comments.

<snip>



> Wouldn't it be satisfying to place all the witnesses in the Bohun/Basset
> family tree? I can do a few of the easy ones:
>
> > Alice de Beauchamp
>
> Granddaughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d.1275), whose daughter Alice married
> Roger de Tony.

I am lost with this one. Can you show Alice de Beauchamp's parents,
etc?

<snip>

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org

Chris Phillips

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 11:27:57 AM1/20/02
to
[I wrote:]

> > > Alice de Beauchamp
> >
> > Granddaughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d.1275), whose daughter Alice
married
> > Roger de Tony.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:]


> I am lost with this one. Can you show Alice de Beauchamp's parents,
> etc?

Sorry for being too cryptic. Alice was a daughter of Roger de Tony (d.
before 1264) by his wife Alice, the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (d.1275).
The marriage between Roger de Tony and Alice de Bohun is the one that
Complete Peerage (vol.12, part 1, p.772) puts into a footnote, attributing
Roger's children instead to a wife Isabel. But as Douglas Richardson has
pointed out, the manors of Newton (Tony) and East Coulston were settled on
Roger and Alice in marriage, and Newton passed down in the male line from
Roger.

Evidently Alice, the wife of Walter de Beauchamp (d.1302) - already known to
be a daughter of Roger de Tony - was also a daughter of his marriage to
Alice de Bohun, as (i) East Coulston passed to Walter and Alice, and to
their descendants and (ii) this must have been the basis of the
consanguinity in the Lisle-Grey case we've been discussing, in which both
parties were great great grandchildren of Humphrey de Bohun (d.1275).

On the groom's side:
1. Humphrey de Bohun
2. Alice m. Roger de Tony
3. Alice m. Walter de Beauchamp
4. Margaret m. Robert de Lisle
5. John de Lisle

On the bride's
1. Humphrey de Bohun
2. Eleanor m. John de Verdun
3. Maud m. John de Grey
4. Henry de Grey
5. Matilda

As well as being concerned in the Lisle-Grey case, Alice was one of the two
witnesses "especially" summoned to appear in the Bohun-Basset case, where
both the parties were again great great grandchildren of Humphrey de Bohun.
Of the witnesses we've identified, she was presumably the eldest, being a
niece of John de Bohun's great grandfather Humphrey de Bohun (d.1265) and
also a niece of Margaret Basset's great grandmother Eleanor de Bohun, the
wife of John de Verdun.

The other "key witness" named in the first item in the papal registers,
quoted by Nat Taylor, was Sir Thomas de Modoville or de Mandeville. Can
anyone fit him into the family tree?

Chris Phillips


Douglas Richardson

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 1:15:35 PM1/20/02
to
Dear Nat ~

Thanks for posting the abstracts from the Papal Registers on the
newsgroup. I had assumed from my file notes that John de Lisle and
Maud de Grey obtained their dispensation for marriage prior to getting
married. However, as you are aware, the actual abstract shows that
they got their dispensation after marriage. My notes also didn't
indicate that John de Bohun and Margaret Basset were related in the
4th degree. It was nice to have that confirmed as well.

Since the both brides were granddaughters of Maud de Verdun, for a 4th
degree relationship to be correct in both cases, it would mean that
Maud's mother, Eleanor de Bohun, was the daughter of Earl Humphrey de
Bohun, died 1275. That fits the chronology of the Bohun family just
fine.

As far as the maternity of Eleanor de Bohun, we know that Earl
Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275) had two wives, Maud of Eu (died 1241)
and Maud de Avenbury. At this point, I can only make guesses as to
Eleanor's birthdate, given we know so little about her life. However,
I think it is safe to assume that she was older than John de Verdun's
oldest son who was presumably born in or before 1244. We can guess at
that date as we know John de Verdun's third son, Theobald, was born
about 1248. If so, then it would place Eleanor's birth as being in or
before 1243.

As for Eleanor's son-in-law, John de Grey, his father's IPM shows that
he was aged 40 in 1408, or born about 1268. However, he must have
been closer to 50 in 1408, as he shows up regularly in the records
from 1277 functioning as an adult [see Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward
I, vol. 2 (Harleian Soc. Pub., vol. 81) (1929), pp. 148-150]. As
such, he was clearly not a child in 1275/6, as I previously thought,
when Eleanor de Verdun gave property in Debden, Essex to him and his
wife, Maud. As for an approximate birth date for John de Grey, we
know that John de Grey's parents, Reynold and Maud de Grey, were
married in or before 1257. If we pegged John de Grey's birth at
1258/60, he would still be in the 40-50 age bracket at the time of his
father's death. That would makes him 17-19 when he first shows up in
the records. If correct, then we might assume his wife, Maud de
Verdun, was born say 1260/2. That would make Maud 13-16 years old in
1275/6 when her mother settled property at Debden, Essex on Maud and
her husband, John de Grey.

As for Maud de Avenbury, 2nd wife of Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died
1275), I believe she is closely related to the Eleanor de Avenbury,
living 1313, who married Sir Roger le Rous, of Harescombe, co.
Gloucester, died 1294. Sir Roger le Rous and his wife, Eleanor de
Avenbury, are in the ancestry of several immigrants, among them Agnes
Harris and Thomas Owsley. Perhaps Ronny Bodine has material on the
Avenbury family in his files he can share with us. Sir Roger le Rous
and Eleanor his wife are Individuals #4144 and 4145 in Ronny's book,
Ancestry of Dorothea Poyntz.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com


nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote in message news:<ntaylor-1801...@mid-tgn-nou-vty20.as.wcom.net>...

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Jan 20, 2002, 4:20:04 PM1/20/02
to
In message <5cf47a19.02012...@posting.google.com>
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

<snip>

> As for Maud de Avenbury, 2nd wife of Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died
> 1275), I believe she is closely related to the Eleanor de Avenbury,
> living 1313, who married Sir Roger le Rous, of Harescombe, co.
> Gloucester, died 1294. Sir Roger le Rous and his wife, Eleanor de
> Avenbury, are in the ancestry of several immigrants, among them Agnes
> Harris and Thomas Owsley. Perhaps Ronny Bodine has material on the
> Avenbury family in his files he can share with us. Sir Roger le Rous
> and Eleanor his wife are Individuals #4144 and 4145 in Ronny's book,
> Ancestry of Dorothea Poyntz.

Glad to see this book mentioned. For at #9944 he has Walter de
Beauchamp (d. 1303) married to #9945 Alice de Bohun daughter of #19890
Humphrey V de Bohun (d.1275), earl of Hereford, etc and #19891 Maud de
Lusignan.

Ronny, are you there to help us?

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages