CP Correction - Birthdates of Maud & Blanche of Lancaster
Brad Verity
castle of Melbourne 4 May 35 Edward III [1361]:
"He died on Tuesday before Easter last. His daughters Maud lady of
Henaud, aged 21 years on the feast of St. Ambrose last, and Blanche,
lady of Richmond, aged 19 years at the feast of the Annunciation last,
are his heirs."
The Stafford IPM of the Duke, taken at Newcastle under Lyme 6 May
1361, returned the exact same ages and dates. The other IPMs,
including those of Lancaster and Leicester, were less specific,
returning only the daughters' ages without providing dates.
The Tuesday before Easter in 1361 was 23 March, which is the correct
day that the Duke died. The feast of St. Ambrose is 7 December, which
would put the date of Maud of Lancaster's birth as 7 Dec. 1339. In
November 1347, the Northampton IPM of Hugh de Audley, Earl of
Gloucester, found Maud to be aged 6. In truth the IPM was taken the
month before her eighth birthday, so it was off by one year. As the
Lancasters held no lands in Northampton, the jurors there may not have
been aware of the particulars of Maud's birthdate. This is still
closer than the birthdate of 4 April 1335, which Plantagenet Ancestry
1st Edition gives to her (without providing a source). That would
have her age 12 in 1347, and the Northampton jurors making her half
the age she would have been.
The feast of the Annunciation is March 25th, so Blanche of Lancaster
was born 25 March 1342. This makes her two years to the month younger
than her husband John of Gaunt, age 17 at her marriage in May 1359,
and age 18 at the birth of her first child, Philippa, in 1360. She
was then age 26 at her death in September 1368. The birthdate of 25
March 1345 that Plantagenet Ancestry 1st Edition assigns to her would
make her 14 at marriage and 15 when she had her first child - not
impossible biologically, but PA1 does not cite a source for the
birthdate.
The birthdates that Kenneth Fowler, modern biographer of Henry of
Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster, gives to Maud (1341) and Blanche (early
1347) are off, especially for Blanche who would be age 12 at marriage
and 13 at birth of her first child in this scenario.
The Derby and Stafford IPMs were accurate as to Duke Henry's date of
death. He was Earl of Derby when his daughters were born, which may
be why the jurors knew more specifics as to their ages. Since they
are not far off from chronology of the sisters in other records, I
think it's fairly safe to accept their accuracy.
One other point on which I would question Fowler is his statement
(unsourced) that we know Isabel, Duchess of Lancaster, wife of Duke
Henry, survived her husband. As Fowler seemed to use CP for much of
his genealogical information, it may be that CP makes the same
statement. If so, I wonder on what evidence. For the last appearance
of Duchess Isabel in the Chancery Rolls is in 1356. On Duke Henry's
death, his estates were partitioned into two shares among his
daughters. There is no mention of his wife at all in any of the
records surrounding the partition, nor in Duke Henry's IPM. As these
estates could not have been partitioned without mention of which lands
the widow was to hold in dower, the conclusion must be that Isabel
predeceased her husband Duke Henry.
Cheers, -----Brad
Peter Stewart
> According to the Derby IPM of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, taken at his
> castle of Melbourne 4 May 35 Edward III [1361]:
>
> "He died on Tuesday before Easter last. His daughters Maud lady of
> Henaud, aged 21 years on the feast of St. Ambrose last, and Blanche,
> lady of Richmond, aged 19 years at the feast of the Annunciation last,
> are his heirs."
>
> The Stafford IPM of the Duke, taken at Newcastle under Lyme 6 May
> 1361, returned the exact same ages and dates. The other IPMs,
> including those of Lancaster and Leicester, were less specific,
> returning only the daughters' ages without providing dates.
>
> The Tuesday before Easter in 1361 was 23 March, which is the correct
> day that the Duke died. The feast of St. Ambrose is 7 December, which
> would put the date of Maud of Lancaster's birth as 7 Dec. 1339. In
> November 1347, the Northampton IPM of Hugh de Audley, Earl of
> Gloucester, found Maud to be aged 6. In truth the IPM was taken the
> month before her eighth birthday, so it was off by one year. As the
> Lancasters held no lands in Northampton, the jurors there may not have
> been aware of the particulars of Maud's birthdate. This is still
> closer than the birthdate of 4 April 1335, which Plantagenet Ancestry
> 1st Edition gives to her (without providing a source). That would
> have her age 12 in 1347, and the Northampton jurors making her half
> the age she would have been.
The birthdate intended _may_ have been 4 April 1339 - St Ambrose was
commonly celerated on 7 December, but he died on 4 April 397 and his
feast day was observed on that date in some places (as throughout
England later, from the calendar of saints in the Book of Common
Prayer). At any rate PA1 was probably using a source that had worked it
out from St Ambrose's date of death.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity wrote:
> One other point on which I would question Fowler is his statement
> (unsourced) that we know Isabel, Duchess of Lancaster, wife of Duke
> Henry, survived her husband. As Fowler seemed to use CP for much of
> his genealogical information, it may be that CP makes the same
> statement. If so, I wonder on what evidence. For the last appearance
> of Duchess Isabel in the Chancery Rolls is in 1356. On Duke Henry's
> death, his estates were partitioned into two shares among his
> daughters. There is no mention of his wife at all in any of the
> records surrounding the partition, nor in Duke Henry's IPM. As these
> estates could not have been partitioned without mention of which lands
> the widow was to hold in dower, the conclusion must be that Isabel
> predeceased her husband Duke Henry.
Thanks for that useful discussion of the ages of Duke Henry's daughters.
CP does say "His widow [sic] surv. him", but doesn't cite a source for this.
However, this immediately follows the details of his will (P.C.C. Islip 172,
printed in "Nichol's Royal Wills"), so maybe she's mentioned there. The only
bits quoted by CP relate to his funeral arrangements and religious gifts.
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
> The birthdate intended _may_ have been 4 April 1339 - St Ambrose was
> commonly celerated on 7 December, but he died on 4 April 397 and his
> feast day was observed on that date in some places (as throughout
> England later, from the calendar of saints in the Book of Common
> Prayer). At any rate PA1 was probably using a source that had worked it
> out from St Ambrose's date of death.
Thanks for this, Peter. That explains how the date of 4 April was
arrived at. The Derby IPM jurors in May 1361 specifically say "the
feast of St. Ambrose last", but if by that they meant the April 4th
date, then Maud of Lancaster was born 4 April 1340, still aged 7 in
November 1347, when the Northampton IPM jurors returned her as age 6.
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:
> CP does say "His widow [sic] surv. him", but doesn't cite a source for this.
How frustrating. The author of the medieval Lancaster articles in CP
seemed rather confused. Douglas pointed out last year how Henry, Earl
of Lancaster, was incorrectly assigned as his second wife the lady who
in reality was the widow of his brother. Perhaps the author didn't
realize that a widowed Countess or Duchess of Lancaster would merit a
lot of mention in the 14th century Chancery Rolls.
> However, this immediately follows the details of his will (P.C.C. Islip 172,
> printed in "Nichol's Royal Wills"), so maybe she's mentioned there. The only
> bits quoted by CP relate to his funeral arrangements and religious gifts.
The will of Duke Henry is abstracted in 'Testamenta Vetusta', Volume
1, p. 65. Per the editor, it was dated at Leicester Castle 15 March
1360.
"...and also we will that our Lord the King, my Lady the Queen, be
invited to our funeral; and Monsr. the Prince, and my lords his
brothers, my wife Lady Isabell, our sisters, and our brothers their
Lords, and other distinguished persons of our blood"
If the original will still exists, I'm going to order a copy, as there
are a couple of things about the Testamenta Vetusta abstract that seem
a little fishy:
1) The will is dated 15 March 1360 at Leicester, and is very short.
The Duke died 25 March 1361 at Leicester. It seems more like a will
from a deathbed rather than a full year beforehand, so the editor may
have dated it incorrectly by one year.
2) The Duke lists his "wife" Isabell immediately after the brothers
(one of whom was his son-in-law by then) of the Prince of Wales.
Isabel, the sole surviving sister of the Black Prince was alive and
still unmarried in 1360/1361. Perhaps there was a
mistranslation/mistranscription?
If the will truly was written in March 1360, I would have to argue
that Duchess Isabel died in the ensuing year. If March 1361 is the
accurate dating, and since it is highly unlikely that the Duchess died
within 10 days after it was written, the text of the original will
becomes key here.
Unless the Duchess died two months after her husband, before his IPMs
were taken, I cannot imagine that she could have survived without a
single mention in the Rolls and Rolls of records that survive. As the
widowed Duchess of Lancaster, she would have controlled some (at least
one-third) of the many strategic castles and manors that made up the
vast estates of the family.
Very bizarre - something is not right at all. A piece of this is
definitely missing.
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> If the will truly was written in March 1360, I would have to argue
> that Duchess Isabel died in the ensuing year. If March 1361 is the
> accurate dating, and since it is highly unlikely that the Duchess died
> within 10 days after it was written, the text of the original will
> becomes key here.
>
> Unless the Duchess died two months after her husband, before his IPMs
> were taken, I cannot imagine that she could have survived without a
> single mention in the Rolls and Rolls of records that survive. As the
> widowed Duchess of Lancaster, she would have controlled some (at least
> one-third) of the many strategic castles and manors that made up the
> vast estates of the family.
>
> Very bizarre - something is not right at all. A piece of this is
> definitely missing.
I haven't looked into this, but my understanding is that Earl Henry died
of the plague - if his wife Isabel was with him at Leicester and also a
victim, she may well have died within a few days of her husband.
His will being made shortly before 25 March 1360/1, wouldn't this have
been dated 1360 (Annunciation style) in the original document, and
consequently in Testamenta Vetusta, and 1361 (modern style, year
beginning 1 January) by later historians?
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity wrote in message:
> The will of Duke Henry is abstracted in 'Testamenta Vetusta', Volume
> 1, p. 65. Per the editor, it was dated at Leicester Castle 15 March
> 1360.
...
> are a couple of things about the Testamenta Vetusta abstract that seem
> a little fishy:
From the reference given by CP, PCC Islip 172, the will must have been
entered in the archbishop's register - the main series of PCC wills,
available online from the PRO, doesn't begin until the 1380s.
The original registers are held by Lambeth Palace Library
(http://www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/), but I'm sure they would be able to
supply a copy as the medieval registers have been published as microform. So
you may also be able to see a microform copy at a really good reference
library.
> 1) The will is dated 15 March 1360 at Leicester, and is very short.
> The Duke died 25 March 1361 at Leicester. It seems more like a will
> from a deathbed rather than a full year beforehand, so the editor may
> have dated it incorrectly by one year.
I agree with Peter Stewart that, in view of the date of his death, "15 March
1360" is quite likely to refer to 1360/1. This is the date given by CP,
which used a different printed version, in Nichols' "Royal Wills".
If the extracts given by CP came from Nichols, that seems to be a transcript
rather than an abstract, which may be helpful if it's difficult to get a
copy of the original. The language is French.
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
> From the reference given by CP, PCC Islip 172, the will must have been
> entered in the archbishop's register - the main series of PCC wills,
> available online from the PRO, doesn't begin until the 1380s.
>
> The original registers are held by Lambeth Palace Library
> (http://www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/), but I'm sure they would be able to
> supply a copy as the medieval registers have been published as microform. So
> you may also be able to see a microform copy at a really good reference
> library.
Thanks for this, Chris. I'm going to be in London for parts of July
and August, and will make the Lambeth Palace Library one of my stops.
> I agree with Peter Stewart that, in view of the date of his death, "15 March
> 1360" is quite likely to refer to 1360/1. This is the date given by CP,
> which used a different printed version, in Nichols' "Royal Wills".
Yes, and I hadn't thought of Peter's suggestion that Duchess Isabel
may have died of the plague within days or weeks of her husband.
Though the text of the original should be double-checked to make sure
the Isabel mentioned was indeed the Duchess of Lancaster.
Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad
Gordon Kirkemo
I am trying to determine the ancestry of Agnes de Meriet, wife of William
Daumarle (or de Albemarle) as identified in AR7 Line 124A. Richard
Borthwick posted a message on 31 Jan 1998 in which he identified the father
of Agnes as Sir John de Meriet.
I did a search of the Archive and found references to a Sir John de Meriet
as the husband of Elizabeth who later married Sir Leonard Carew (1342-1370)
and a John who married Eleanor de Beauchamp. I found no ancestry for either
Sir John.
Chris, I did find your posting of 21 Feb 2002 in which you referenced an
article by B.W. Greenfield titled "Meriet of Meriet and of Hestercombe"
(Somerset Arch and Nat Hist Soc Procs vol. 28, pp. 99-215, 1882). You
indicated this was a very detailed treatment of the Meriets.
I subsequently did a Google search and found an interesting website:
(http://www.accessgenealogy.com/scripts/data/database.cgi?file=Data&report=S
ingleArticle&ArticleID=0012675)
in which a descent for Meriets is posted. That descent is as follows:
1. Eadnoth the Statter
2. Harding Fitz Eadnoth
3. Nicholas Fitz Harding
4. Henry Fitz Nicholas
5. Nicholas de Meriet
6. Hugh de Meriet
7. Nicholas de Meriet
8. John de Meriet
9. Sir John de Meriet
10. William de Meriet
11. Simon de Meriet
12. Sir John de Meriet
13. John Meriet
The website goes on to say from the last John, and through several
generations covering 230 years, the line continued to Henry Merritt, born
(c1590) in Kent, England who immigrated (c1628) to Scituate in
Massachusetts.
Interestingly, DD (p.904) identifies #3 above as the ancestor of a family
surnamed Meriet. Sadly, no spouses are identified.
I'm hoping the article you referenced might confirm this line and have
additional information regarding spouses and details. Failing that, I'm
hoping someone can verify, or correct the above line, and can identify which
of the Sir Johns is the father of Agnes de Meriet.
Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo