Llywellyn Fawr
Graeme Wall
John. Is it known who her mother was?
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Llywellyn Fawr (Llewellyn the Great) married Joan, natural daughter of King
>John. Is it known who her mother was?
The only place where her mother is named is in the Tewkesbury Annals, where
Joan's death is recorded. The Tewkesbury annalist says Joan was a daughter
of King John and of "Regina Clementia". Nobody knows who this "Queen
Clementia" was.
--
Ceterum censeo DSH delendam esse.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
R. Battle
Joan, wife of Llywelyn):
> The only place where her mother is named is in the Tewkesbury Annals, where
> Joan's death is recorded. The Tewkesbury annalist says Joan was a daughter
> of King John and of "Regina Clementia". Nobody knows who this "Queen
> Clementia" was.
There is an entry in the /Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III/
[1225-1232] (London, 1903), p. 230 (m. 11) that might suggest an area of
future research regarding this Clementia (thanks to Todd Farmerie for
pointing out the possible connection). This entry also provides evidence
for the existence of Susanna, daughter of Llywelyn and Joan, discussed
some time ago in this group. It is quoted below in Latin; perhaps someone
with some Latin expertise could provide a translation to the group.
-Robert Battle
-------------------
"/De filia Lewelini./--Rex dilecto et fideli suo Nicholao de Verdun et
Clementie uxori sue, salutem. Sciatis quod nos vobis benigne concedimus
quod fidelis noster et dilectus frater L. princeps Norwallie et Johanna
uxor sua et dilecta soror nostra Susannam filiam suam, neptem nostram,
vobis committere duxerit (/sic/) nutriendam, eam salvo et secure et sine
omni dampno et occasione suscipiatis et penes vos retineatis. In cujus
rei testimonium etc. vobis mittimus. Teste me, apud Westmonasterium,
xxiiij die Novembris, anno etc." (1228)
Douglas Richardson
Regarding the identity of Clemence, mother of Joan of England, wife of
Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North Wales, the following information
might be helpful.
The actual entry in the Tewksbury annals which pertains to Joan's
mother, "Queen" Clemence, reads as follows:
Year: A.D. 1236
Obiit domina Johanna domina Walliae, uxor Lewelini filia regis
Johannis et regina Clemencie, iii. kal. Aprilis."
[Died lady Joan lady of Wales, wife of Llywelyn, daughter of King John
and Queen Clemence, 3 Kal. April."
Reference: Henry Richard Luard, Annales Monastici, 1 (1864): 101.
In this case, the monk was evidently indulging in medieval legalism.
Before her death, Joan had been legitimized by the Pope. On the
basis of that legitimization, the Tewksbury monk evidently chose to
elevate Joan's mother to the status of Queen, as if Joan's mother had
been King John's wife. In point of fact, King John and Joan's mother,
Clemence, were never married. By referring to Joan's mother as
"Queen" Clemence, the monk who recorded Joan's death was showing his
extreme respect for Joan, not attempting to alter the facts.
The item from the Patent Rolls cited by Robert Battle below involving
Joan's daughter, Susanna, was located by me some years ago.
Basically, the document states that King Henry III is entrusting the
care of his niece, Susanna (daughter of Llywelyn and Joan), to the
care of Nicholas de Verdun and Clemence, his wife.
On the surface, there would be nothing to suggest any connection
between Susanna of Wales and Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
However, Susanna was almost certainly being held in England as a
hostage as a guarantee for good behavior on the part of her father,
Llywelyn. Her brother, David, for instance, was being held hostage in
England at the time of the Magna Carta.
My experience with foreign hostages has been that they were often
placed with their English relatives, if any were available. To verify
that, one has only to consult the long list of Scottish hostages in
this period, who I discovered were repeatedly placed with their
English kinsmen. Being a hostage in this period basically meant the
person was under house arrest. Under such circumstances, it is easy
to understand why such persons were placed with their own relations.
The fact that Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun, is mentioned at
all catches the eye. Under normal circumstances, the wife would not
be named. The fact that she was so named suggests she had some
interest in Susanna. Given the fact we know that Susanna's
grandmother was named Clemence, it becomes readily apparent that
Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun, was Susanna's own grandmother.
That this is true is underscored by the fact that when the king later
granted Susanna's care to another individual, no mention was made of
the other man's wife. Even more important, the name Clemence is
extremely rare among English noble women of this period. The fact
that anyone named Clemence would be associated with Susanna is
important.
As for the identity of Clemence de Verdun, Paget shows that she was
the daughter of Roger de Dauntsey, of Wiltshire. It is interesting
that Clemence would hail from Wiltshire. Over the years, I've
noticed that King John had a strong attachment to Wiltshire, it being
the home of his most trusted allies, the Longespee, Marshal, and
Basset families and Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex. Surely, given
that his strongest supporters were all Wiltshire people suggests that
King John spent much time there.
Back in 1992, I shared my findings on Clemence de Dauntsey with Gary
Boyd Roberts, who in turn placed her name as Joan's mother in his
book, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants, published in 1993. On page
305, he notes that I was then planning an article on Princess Joan and
her mother, Clemence. Due to circumstances beyond my control, the
article was never published as scheduled. However, I do plan to
include a discussion of Clemence de Dauntsey in my forthcoming book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, 3rd edition. For those interested in obtaining
a copy of the book, please contact me privately at my e-mail address
below.
In this case, I think the evidence is suggestive but not conclusive
that Clemence de Dauntsey was Princess Joan's mother. Perhaps with a
little prodding of the records by the master sleuth, Robert Battle,
the desired conclusive evidence of Joan's parentage will yet be
located.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"R. Battle" <bat...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.A41.4.33.011114...@dante04.u.washington.edu>...
CE Wood
One source for the speculation that Agatha Ferrers was Joan's mother
is Sir William Dugdale, in The Baronage of England (1675-6). He states
his source to be Dr David Powel's History of Wales (1584). Powel's
work is an enlarged edition of H Lhoyd's translation of The Historie
of Cambria by the twelfth century Saint Caradoc of Llancarfan.
Is Clemence now regarded as Joan's mother, rather than Agatha?
CEWood
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.01111...@posting.google.com>...
Sutliff
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.01111...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>Given the fact we know that Susanna's grandmother was named Clemence, it
becomes readily apparent that Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun, was
Susanna's own grandmother.
Very sorry, but no sale, nothing is readily apparent at least not on this
evidence. You simply have not offered sufficent proof to connect the two
women named Clemence. This is simply too great a leap (sadly once again)
based on the presented evidence.
<snip>
> Even more important, the name Clemence is extremely rare among English
noble women of this period. The fact that anyone named Clemence would be
associated with Susanna is important.
Possibly not quite as rare as implied. For example, Clemence, wife of Hubert
de St. Clair of Walkern, Hertford; Clemence, wife of William de Aldithley of
Heleigh, Staffs.; Clemence de Chedle, wife of William de Baggiley of
Cheadle, Cheshire, Clemence de Norreys of Over Walton, Cheshire, wife of
William Danyers; Clemence de Orreby, wife of Robert de Banastre; Clemence de
la Mare, wife of Eudes de Lungvilliers; Clemende de Banastre of Mollington
Banastre, Cheshire, wife of William de Lea... Some of these women were
contemporary to the time discussed. Clemence is certainly not as common as
Maud, Eleanor or Margaret, but infinitely more common than Cassandra (de
Lisle), Basilia, Burga or Eustacia.
Henry Sutliff
Douglas Richardson
I read your comments about my Clemence de Verdun post with interest.
I fear, however, that I'm less impressed with your response than you
were with my original post. I suggest we try reviewing the matter
once again, this time for emphasis.
First, I stated that hostages in this period were usually placed with
relatives. You glossed over this point. Why is that? If Susanna's
grandmother was living in England, it would have been natural for the
king to place Susanna in the grandmother's household, provided he
could vouch for the loyalty of the grandmother and her husband. In
this case, Nicholas de Verdun was one of King Henry III's most trusted
subjects. In your next response, please discuss the issue of
placement of hostages with relatives. Were hostages placed with
relatives? If so, how often did it happen? Please explain why you
think this is or is not an issue in the case of Susanna and Clemence.
Take as long as you need to research the subject.
Second, I noted that it was probable that Clemence de Verdun had some
interest in Susanna, otherwise she wouldn't have been named in the
grant of Susanna's custody. I noted that the wife of the next
guardian wasn't mentioned. You made no comment about this. Why is
that? In your next response, please provide an explanation of the
inclusion of Clemence de Verdun in the one grant, and the exclusion of
the second guardian's wife in the next grant. If the grant was purely
custodial and not filial, surely Nicholas de Verdun's name alone would
have been sufficient in the king's grant. Do you agree or disagree?
Third, I stated that the given name Clemence is rare. You encounter
MANY Joans, Isabels, Elizabeths, Katherines, Margarets, etc., in the
medieval period, but SELDOM a Clemence. I'll repeat that again for
emphasis. You SELDOM encounter a Clemence. In fact, I only know of
one other Clemence of the baronial rank in this period and she was
foreign born. Moreover, to my knowledge, I don't believe I have any
women named Clemence in my colonial, early modern or medieval ancestry
at all. NONE WHATSOEVER. Citing a few stray women named Clemence
throughout all of English history doesn't change the rarity of this
given name in this period. In your next response, please provide an
frequency analysis of the name Clemence compared to say Joan,
Margaret, Isabel, etc., or, if you will, Burgia, Basile, or Eustache.
More importantly, please cite examples of high born English women with
this given name. Take as long as you need to research the subject.
Lastly, I ended my post regarding Clemence de Dauntsey by stating that
I considered the evidence I presented was merely suggestive, nothing
more. As such, my comments required no "leap" on your part.
Suggestive evidence is not the same thing as COMPELLING evidence.
Anyone named Clemence found in association with Princess Joan or
Joan's children needs close examination in my opinion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Sutliff" <ss...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<CJFI7.42059$hZ.39...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Paul C. Reed
their dates for us?
[Doug posted:]
> First, I stated that hostages in this period were usually placed with
> relatives. You glossed over this point. Why is that? If Susanna's
> grandmother was living in England, it would have been natural for the
> king to place Susanna in the grandmother's household, provided he
> could vouch for the loyalty of the grandmother and her husband. In
> this case, Nicholas de Verdun was one of King Henry III's most trusted
> subjects. In your next response, please discuss the issue of
> placement of hostages with relatives. Were hostages placed with
> relatives? If so, how often did it happen? Please explain why you
> think this is or is not an issue in the case of Susanna and Clemence.
> Take as long as you need to research the subject.
>
Doug, since it was you who made the statement that hostages were usually placed with relatives, would it not be better
for you to set forth for our education "how often it happened"? Was it not more likely that the main consideration in
placing a hostage would be to put them with someone the king could trust and was on the king's side (rather than just
that they be a relative)?
Paul
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Third, I stated that the given name Clemence is rare. You encounter
> MANY Joans, Isabels, Elizabeths, Katherines, Margarets, etc., in the
> medieval period, but SELDOM a Clemence. I'll repeat that again for
> emphasis. You SELDOM encounter a Clemence. In fact, I only know of
> one other Clemence of the baronial rank in this period and she was
> foreign born. Moreover, to my knowledge, I don't believe I have any
> women named Clemence in my colonial, early modern or medieval ancestry
> at all. NONE WHATSOEVER. Citing a few stray women named Clemence
> throughout all of English history doesn't change the rarity of this
> given name in this period. In your next response, please provide an
> frequency analysis of the name Clemence compared to say Joan,
> Margaret, Isabel, etc., or, if you will, Burgia, Basile, or Eustache.
> More importantly, please cite examples of high born English women with
> this given name. Take as long as you need to research the subject.
There's an interesting analysis of given names from Essex, 1182-1272,
compiled by "Nicolaa de Bracton" (Susan Carroll-Clark):
http://members.tripod.com/nicolaa5/articles/names.html
The table lists 2 occurrences of the name "Clemencia", out of a total of
1407 women in the sample.
The names are taken from feet of fines, so they're not exactly "high born",
but there will be some degree of selection according to status.
Chris Phillips
Paul C. Reed
Nichola 4, Nesta 3, etc.
I think that Hap's valid point was that there are indeed other women of that
period in the English gentry named Clemence/Clementia.
For all we know, "regina clementia" was a lowly maiden in the royal household.
One must also account for the term "regina" used in the annal. Was the
annalist really ignorant of the fact that readers would be well aware there was
no Queen Clemence in England? Or perhaps her mother was foreign born, and he
presumed they would not be so aware of Continental royalty.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
What is meant by accounting for the term Regina in the annals? What else can
it mean but a queenly personage? Certainly it is not referring to the low
born.
It seems rather obvious that the annalist was either protecting the real
identity of Joan's mother by calling her by a pseudonym, or referring to her
by a coded name to avoid any repercussions upon his person. What makes the
most sense to me is that the woman called Clemencia could have personally
been an outspoken moralist who ignored and covered up her own bearing of an
illegitimate child -- perhaps even seeking the help of King John and causing
the annalist to fear to
expose the true name of the mother of Joan.
- Ken
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for your good post regarding the frequency of the name,
Clemence. According to your post, the name "Clemencia" occurs twice
out of 1,407 names sampled in Essex in the period, 1182-1272. I'd say
two occurrences out of 1,407 names makes Clemence a rare name for this
period. Ditto for the name Cassandra which I note had the same
frequency. As with Clemence, I don't have any female ancestors named
Cassandra in the colonial, early modern or medieval period. Both
names are exceedingly rare.
My impression is that the name Burgia and its counterpart, Erneburg,
are principally found in the North of England, which would explain why
you found no examples of the name among Essex women. Also, I believe
the name Eustache was more popular among French families, than among
the English. As such, I'm not surprised it didn't turn up on the
Essex radar either.
I find statistical analyses of naming patterns fascinating. Thanks so
much for sharing your findings with us, Chris. If you still have
access to the material, perhaps you can share what other names had a
frequency of two in this study.
The rarity of the name Clemence underscores my point that any woman
named Clemence associated with Prince Llywelyn's wife Joan or their
children merits close examination.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<006601c16dc6$ca1f84e0$cd0086d9@oemcomputer>...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> What makes the
> most sense to me is that the woman called Clemencia could have personally
> been an outspoken moralist who ignored and covered up her own bearing of an
> illegitimate child -- perhaps even seeking the help of King John and causing
> the annalist to fear to expose the true name of the mother of Joan.
All this from the word "regina"?
taf
D. Spencer Hines
top of speculation on top of plausibility on top of likelihood ---- and
then coming to a "conclusion".
Yet we are seeing more and more of that everyday on SGM.
Bad Rice.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3BF3FDAD...@interfold.com...
Graeme Wall
reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote:
> Graeme Wall <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Llywellyn Fawr (Llewellyn the Great) married Joan, natural daughter of
> > King John. Is it known who her mother was?
>
> The only place where her mother is named is in the Tewkesbury Annals, where
> Joan's death is recorded. The Tewkesbury annalist says Joan was a daughter
> of King John and of "Regina Clementia". Nobody knows who this "Queen
> Clementia" was.
>
Many thanks.
Chris Phillips
> Thanks for your good post regarding the frequency of the name,
> Clemence. According to your post, the name "Clemencia" occurs twice
> out of 1,407 names sampled in Essex in the period, 1182-1272. I'd say
> two occurrences out of 1,407 names makes Clemence a rare name for this
> period. Ditto for the name Cassandra which I note had the same
> frequency. As with Clemence, I don't have any female ancestors named
> Cassandra in the colonial, early modern or medieval period. Both
> names are exceedingly rare.
>
> My impression is that the name Burgia and its counterpart, Erneburg,
> are principally found in the North of England, which would explain why
> you found no examples of the name among Essex women. Also, I believe
> the name Eustache was more popular among French families, than among
> the English. As such, I'm not surprised it didn't turn up on the
> Essex radar either.
>
> I find statistical analyses of naming patterns fascinating. Thanks so
> much for sharing your findings with us, Chris. If you still have
> access to the material, perhaps you can share what other names had a
> frequency of two in this study.
The Essex names study
(http://members.tripod.com/nicolaa5/articles/women.html) is one of several
to which links are collected at the Medieval Names Archive:
http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/english.shtml
Most of these have been compiled by Creative Anachronism enthusiasts - who
actually seem to be very careful and exacting in their use of the sources.
I hadn't connected Burga with Erneburga previously - there are also 2
Erneburgas in the Essex sample. There is quite a long "tail" of rare names
with only one or two occurrences in the distribution.
Although samples of this size are obviously not big enough to reach firm
conclusions about rare names, I think the lists are quite interesting. For
example, it's interesting how uncommon Elizabeth is in the list (4), as Paul
Reed pointed out. On the other hand, there are 55 Isabels or Isabellas.
It's quite tempting to try to "join the dots" of the occurrences of these
rare names. I know Adrian Channing has investigated how many occurrences of
the name "Ida" fit into a single extended family (there are 8 Idas in the
Essex sample).
I wonder if it could be that several of the women called Clemence mentioned
by Henry Sutliff are related? I notice that four of the seven he mentions
lived in Cheshire, and another one in the neighbouring county of
Staffordshire.
Chris Phillips
Paul C. Reed
Clemence, second wife of Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester, and widow of
Alan de Dinan, a lady certainly in royal circles.
Clemence married the Earl as her second spouse in 1199-1200 (before Oct. 7).
Clemence was daughter of William de Fougers by his wife Agatha du Hommet, sister
and daughters of Constables of Normandy.
Of course, the first wife of Earl Ranulph was Constance, daughter of Conan IV of
Bretagne (Brittany).
Llywelyn's wife Joan is stated to be born before his second marriage in 1200
(but as her son was of age in in Oct. 1229--born 1208--she would probably be
born at least as early as 1192, being sixteen at his birth). She was married to
Llywelyn in 1206 (betrothed by 15 Oct. 1204). King John was born 24 Dec.
1167.
Professor Charles J. Jacobs, in his article "'Queen Clemencia' Mother of Joan,
Princess of North Wales: an Attempted Identification" (TAG 48:176-8), thought
that Constance was born 1161/2. Dugdale states that Ranulph divorced Constance
because King John had been having relations with her. Jacobs theorized that the
gossip was that Joan's mother was a wife of Earl Ranulph who had a child by King
John. He further theorized that the Tewkesbury scribe, knowing that the wife of
the Earl was at that time named Clemence, confused the two women.
Why not just pick on Clemence, widow of Alan de Dinan, and subsequently of
Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester?
Warren, in his _King John_, concluded that Clementia was "presumably lowborn"
(i.e., the type of girl who might belong to someone's household).
Paul
PS I don't have the Tewkesbury Annals here. Does anyone know when it was
composed. at least the period when the entry for 1236 would have been put down?
Rosie Bevan
Thank you for your fascinating posts concerning Clemence de Dauntsey.
As you say, the reference to 'Queen' Clemence was probably the annalist's
politic way of saying that as Joan had been legitimised by the Pope,
Clemence had technically been married to King John and therefore was his
queen. However no-one in their right mind would believe this to be true, as
there is nothing to suggest that John had another queen in official records.
The reliability that Clemence was the name of Joan's mother, given the
proximity of Tewksbury to the Welsh border where Joan's parentage was
presumably common knowledge, should be sound. Though, as Spencer commented,
we have to be very careful of making too many assumptions of this nature, as
we simply don't know.
Hap, Paul and Chris have shown that although Clemence was not a common name
at the time, there were several ladies around who could be candidates as
Joan's mother, as well as Clemence de Dauntsey.
Paul is correct in saying that hostages were placed with barons whom the
king (in this case, Henry) could trust, and not their relatives. There would
be
very litle point in doing the latter if the aim of the exercise were to
ensure the co-operation of those he couldn't trust. Of course, it would have
been possible on occasion to come to a mutually satisfying arrangement
whereby the child was placed with a relative concerned about its
welfare. Henry most likely conscious of this when placing his niece.
Was Nicholas de Verdun of Alton Staffordshire?
I agree with you that the evidence you have brought forward about the
placement of Susannah is suggestive, but not conclusive. Have you any more
information as to whether Susannah survived and went on to marry?
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey
> Dear Chris ~
>
> Thanks for your good post regarding the frequency of the name,
> Clemence. According to your post, the name "Clemencia" occurs twice
> out of 1,407 names sampled in Essex in the period, 1182-1272. I'd say
> two occurrences out of 1,407 names makes Clemence a rare name for this
> period. Ditto for the name Cassandra which I note had the same
> frequency. As with Clemence, I don't have any female ancestors named
> Cassandra in the colonial, early modern or medieval period. Both
> names are exceedingly rare.
>
> My impression is that the name Burgia and its counterpart, Erneburg,
> are principally found in the North of England, which would explain why
> you found no examples of the name among Essex women. Also, I believe
> the name Eustache was more popular among French families, than among
> the English. As such, I'm not surprised it didn't turn up on the
> Essex radar either.
>
> I find statistical analyses of naming patterns fascinating. Thanks so
> much for sharing your findings with us, Chris. If you still have
> access to the material, perhaps you can share what other names had a
> frequency of two in this study.
>
> The rarity of the name Clemence underscores my point that any woman
> named Clemence associated with Prince Llywelyn's wife Joan or their
> children merits close examination.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
> cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message
news:<006601c16dc6$ca1f84e0$cd0086d9@oemcomputer>...
> > Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > Third, I stated that the given name Clemence is rare. You encounter
> > > MANY Joans, Isabels, Elizabeths, Katherines, Margarets, etc., in the
> > > medieval period, but SELDOM a Clemence. I'll repeat that again for
> > > emphasis. You SELDOM encounter a Clemence. In fact, I only know of
> > > one other Clemence of the baronial rank in this period and she was
> > > foreign born. Moreover, to my knowledge, I don't believe I have any
> > > women named Clemence in my colonial, early modern or medieval ancestry
> > > at all. NONE WHATSOEVER. Citing a few stray women named Clemence
> > > throughout all of English history doesn't change the rarity of this
> > > given name in this period. In your next response, please provide an
> > > frequency analysis of the name Clemence compared to say Joan,
> > > Margaret, Isabel, etc., or, if you will, Burgia, Basile, or Eustache.
> > > More importantly, please cite examples of high born English women with
> > > this given name. Take as long as you need to research the subject.
> >
> >
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> As for the identity of Clemence de Verdun, Paget shows that she was
> the daughter of Roger de Dauntsey, of Wiltshire.
In which work is this identification made? Is a source given?
How about dates?
taf
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
I have a couple of quick observations to make. My research indicates
that foreign born hostages in this period were usually placed with
relatives, not unrelated barons. This pattern is demonstrated by the
long lists of Scottish hostages found in the book, Calendar of
Documents pertaining to Scotland (Note: I'm saying this title from
memory). If someone has access to this book, perhaps they would be
king enough to post the information relating to hostages here on the
newsgroup. One well known Scottish hostage of this period, for
example, was the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. The
daughter was placed with a relative of her mother's and died in
England in the relative's custody. As I recall, this event took place
about 1212. Alan, lord of Galloway, presumably would have held the
same rank in England as did Llywelyn, Prince of North Wales.
The grant of Susanna's custody to Nicholas de Verdun and his wife,
Clemence de Dauntsey, suggests to me that Susanna's custody, like of
Alan of Galloway's daughter, was to Susanna's own relations.
Otherwise, Clemence's name would not have been included in the grant
of custody.
Although Clemence de Dauntsey's family is little known to researchers,
her family was hardly inconsequential. Among Clemence's immediate
relations was Roger de Dauntsey, of Dauntsey and Wilsford, Wiltshire,
2nd husband of Maud de Mandeville, Countess of Essex (died 1236),
widow of Henry de Bohun (died 1220), Earl of Hereford.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
cbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<048901c16e40$be075b40$04794fcb@cbevan>...
Graeme Wall
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
>
> Obiit domina Johanna domina Walliae, uxor Lewelini filia regis
> Johannis et regina Clemencie, iii. kal. Aprilis."
>
> [Died lady Joan lady of Wales, wife of Llywelyn, daughter of King John
> and Queen Clemence, 3 Kal. April."
>
[snip]
I`m not very well up on this system of dating, how does it translate into
conventional terms?
Paul C. Reed
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Hi Rosie ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> I have a couple of quick observations to make. My research indicates
> that foreign born hostages in this period were usually placed with
> relatives, not unrelated barons. This pattern is demonstrated by the
> long lists of Scottish hostages found in the book, Calendar of
> Documents pertaining to Scotland (Note: I'm saying this title from
> memory).
[snip]
I think there's a definite difference between Scottish hostages and English or Welsh ones. I'd like to
see a good study of English hostages.
Paul
Chris Phillips
> [Douglas Richardson wrote]
> > Obiit domina Johanna domina Walliae, uxor Lewelini filia regis
> > Johannis et regina Clemencie, iii. kal. Aprilis."
> >
> > [Died lady Joan lady of Wales, wife of Llywelyn, daughter of King John
> > and Queen Clemence, 3 Kal. April."
> >
> [snip]
>
> I`m not very well up on this system of dating, how does it translate into
> conventional terms?
That would be the 30 March in conventional tems.
Chris Phillips
Paul C. Reed
It bothers me that Doug has completely ignored my posts on this subject, including giving him a fair chance to reply about the
chronology of Clemence de Dauntsey, wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
Doug had planned an article on this (to appear in The Genealogist) nearly ten years ago, so has had time to work things out. As far
as I can see, chronology makes the claim that Clemence was mother of Joan extremely doubtful. I'll explain below, and see if Doug has
more information which can clear things up.
[NB I have left this line alone publicly until now, but respond because Doug has indicated this will shortly go to press in PA3 and
has no further comment until it is in print. I've found that once things are in print, it's very difficult to keep people from
claiming it, in spite of sound reasoning or evidence to the contrary. Thus, it is my opinion that it is best to vet important things
before they get in print. It is also my opinion that ALL weaknesses in connections ought to be thoroughly examined before hand, and
then thoroughly pointed out and explained to readers in what does appear in print, so that they can judge the soundness of
questionable links for themselves. I would be making this review of this line regardless of who proposed it. Those who know me know
that I'm a stickler for accuracy where things are going to appear in print, regardless of where the information comes from. If it is
accurate, I am happy to have our knowledge added to; if it is not accurate, well....]
First, let's work back from the chronology concerning Clemence de Dauntsey, wife of Nicholas de Verdun. Their ONLY child, Rohese de
Verdun, married ca. 4 Sep. 1225. Given that by that time Nicholas had become the family heir, one would expect an arranged marriage
for his daughter Rohese. She may therefore have been under eighteen in 1225, or born say 1207-9. On that basis, we might guess that
Clemence was born by about 1180-90. As Rohese was her only child, we would not expect Clemence to be an older woman when she married
Nicholas de Verdun (why would he not take a younger bride, given his options?).
Nicholas de Verdun was second son of Betram de Verdun. Though Betram died at Joppa 24 Aug. 1192, his eldest son, Thomas de Verdun,
did not have livery of the lands until 1194, and was therefore born ca. 1173. In 1195, Thomas was party to the contract to marry his
sister Lasceline to Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (her father Bertram had been Seneschal of Ireland). Thus, it would be likely she was
younger in 1195 (born after 1173).
Nicholas de Verdun was therefore not born before 1175, possibly later. Given this, we might guess that his wife Clemence would be
younger than him. Nicholas de Verdun succeeded as heir at the death of his brother Thomas s.p. in 1199. Given that Rohese de Verdun
was not married until 1225, it may be that Nicholas de Verdun married Clemence after 1199, having succeeded to Alton, Staffords.,
Brandon Castle, Warw., Belton, Leics., Farnham Royal, Bucks., etc., before the date of their marriage.
Nicholas de Verdun died in 1231. His wife Clemence de Dauntsey survived him and was given livery of her own inheritance 23 Oct.
1231. She was definitely daughter of Roger de Dauntsey of Wilsford and Steeple Lavington, Wilts., as Lady Clemence de Verdun gave
"Stupellaunton" to Sir John Fitz Alan with her daughter Maud de Albo Monasterio in free marriage [but Rohese is supposed to be only
daughter by Nicholas de Verdun].
Paget says she was daughter of Roger de Dauntsey by a daughter of Peter/Robert de la Mare, who held Steeple Lavington [Market
Lavington]. Paget says that Sir Roger Dauntsey had -L- 11.17.0 rent in Steeple Lavington with her in free marriage [this would seem
to be the land Clemence passed to her daughter].
Paget seems to have confused the various Peter and Robert de la Mares, if VCH Wilts. is correct. Paget says that Peter de la Mare of
Lavington was born by 1180, and died ca. 1 Feb. 1252, son of Robert, who was dead by 1212, but VCH Wilts. says that the Peter who
succeeded in 1211 [sic] was then a minor. There were several Peters and Roberts in a row. If Peter were actually born after 1190,
and Clemence was married say 1205....
Doug stated that Sir Roger de Dauntsey, father of Clemence, married, second, Maud, daughter of Geoffrey FitzPiers, Earl of Essex.
Maud had married (1) Henry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, who was born ca. 1176 and died 1 June 1220. Maud's father, Geoffrey Fitz
Piers, married Beatrice de Say by 25 Jan. 1184/5. After her brother's death in 1226/7, her son Humphrey de Bohun succeeded to the
Earldom of Essex. As he did not immediately have livery of his father's lands in 1220 [William Brewer had custody of Caldicot and
Walton], but was granted livery in 1221, Humphrey would be born ca. 1200.
The legitimate son of Joan by Llywelyn was born ca. 1208. It is likely she was actually older than sixteen at his birth, or born
before 1192. King John was married in 1189, aged about 22. Thus we might expect that Joan was born more likely about 1187-9 [if she
were born after John's legal marriage, it might have made it more difficult for the Pope to legitimize her]. If we assumed that Joan
was daughter of a Clemence, and that Clemence was eighteen when Joan was conceived, Clemence would be born in or before 1169-71. Thus
it would be expected that the father of that Clemence would be born BEFORE 1250--possibly [read, likely] a decade or more earlier.
If Maud, Countess of Essex, were born about 1185, she would have been 35 at the death of her first husband Henry de Bohun, Earl of
Hereford, her son Humphrey being then just about to come of age. If her second husband Sir Roger de Dauntsey were grandfather of
Joan, he would be at least SEVENTY years old in 1220. If would seem to me absurd to assume that the expectant heiress of the Earldom
of Essex, widow of the Earl of Hereford, in her thirties, who could have chosen any noble in England, would have chosen a 70 year old
man as her spouse.
Roger de Dauntsey was still alive in 1242, when he held the manor of Wilsford, Wilts., as a life tenant of the Earl of Hereford [his
stepson] as a life tenant. The Earl did not regrant the manor until 1255, to Nicholas St. Bride and his wife Maud for their lives.
Thus, it is possible that Roger de Dauntsey did not die until 1255.
Given all of the above, there is no reason to believe that Clemence de Dauntsey, wife of Nicholas de Verdun, was born earlier than
1185. Her husband was born after 1174. Llywelyn's wife Joan was likely born 1187-9, almost the same time Clemence de Dauntsey was
born.
This does not absolutely make it impossible for Clemence de Dauntsey to have been mother of Joan, but if Clemence were able to bear
children by 1190, but did not have her next daughter until 1205-10, that's an awfully questionable gap.
I'd say given this chronology, it would be more likely that Clemence de Fougers, widow of Alan de Dinan, who married as her second
husband Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester, but had no children by him, would be a better candidate (until disproved for similar
reasons).
Paul
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
> Doug stated that Sir Roger de Dauntsey, father of Clemence, married, second,
> Maud, daughter of Geoffrey FitzPiers, Earl of Essex.
In rereading posts, I realized that Doug did not actually state that Roger, husband
of Maud, was the same Roger who was father of Clemence. He actually wrote:
"Among Clemence's immediate
relations was Roger de Dauntsey, of Dauntsey and Wilsford, Wiltshire,
2nd husband of Maud de Mandeville, Countess of Essex (died 1236),
widow of Henry de Bohun (died 1220), Earl of Hereford."
Doug, how were the two Rogers related?
There seems to be yet another Roger de Dauntsey [liv. 1257], son of Miles de Dauntsey, who had younger brothers Gilbert [d. by 1282] and
Richard.
But still, we have Joan, born say 1187-9, and Clemence de Dauntsey, whose daughter Rohese de Verdun was married in 1225.
Paul
Rosie Bevan
My own calculations made the time difference between the births of Joan and
Rohese at about 23 years which I think makes them improbable as sisters.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
> Doug stated that Sir Roger de Dauntsey, father of Clemence, married,
second, Maud, daughter of Geoffrey FitzPiers, Earl of Essex.
Rosie Bevan
I didn't say it was impossible, only improbable. What is the probability of
a woman sexually active, not using contraception during her fertile years,
having two children 23 years apart? Don't forget these people had little
control over fertility.
The mother of Joan would have been born about 1172 and
marriageable about 1184. At that time Nicholas de Verdun was clearly
unmarriageable. It am not sure whether Nicholas de Verdun actually took
livery of his inheritance when he succeeded his brother in 1199, and was
thus of age - perhaps Paul can help with this. As Paul said, if not already
married, Nicholas' marriage would have been arranged soon after. The birth
of his heir around 1210-1213 was quite sometime after this, which indicates
the couple, or at least his wife may have been quite young when married.
Whereas if he had married the mother of Joan in say 1200, she would have
been about 28 years old and should have been able to have a child within the
following decade, having already proved her fertility. In 1210-1213 when
Rohese was born, the mother of Joan would have been in her late 30s early
40s.
The chronology of Joan's mother and Clemence de Dauntsey is a little
asynchronous and Paul deserves full credit for pointing this out.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com>
To: "'Rosie Bevan'" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 9:17 PM
Subject: RE: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
> not necessarily rosie
> i had my son when i was 26 and my dau at age 42. i was married at age
> 17..so look at all the years i was fertile. it would not be impossible
> to have sisters born 23 years apart.
> my two bio kids are 15 years apart.
> regards
> roz
Chris Phillips
> As far
> as I can see, chronology makes the claim that Clemence was mother of Joan
extremely doubtful. I'll explain below, and see if Doug has
> more information which can clear things up.
Thanks for that very full analysis of the chronology surrounding Clemence.
It's unfortunate that Paget seems a bit ambivalent and/or confused about the
identity of Clemence's de la Mare grandmother. I wonder if he gives a dated
source for his statement about the settlement of rent in Steeple Lavington,
that could help to pin down this end of things.
But it does seem that in any case the chronology of Rohese de Verdun does
seem to make it unlikely that Joan could have been Clemence's daughter, if
Rohese was her daughter.
I'm just a little curious about those conflicting statements that Rohese was
the only daughter of Nicholas and Clemence on the one hand, and that
Clemence made a grant to another daughter, Maud "de Albo Monasterio", on the
other. Do you happen to have sources for these statements? I don't know
anything about the Verduns, but from what you say, it sounds as though
Rohese would be Nicholas' heiress, so her status as his only daughter would
be recorded. (I suppose it is clear that Rohese's mother was Clemence, not
another wife?)
I suppose "de Albo Monasterio" would be Whitchurch. Incidentally, it's
interesting to see the name Clemence turning up in connection with a
Whitchurch family right at the end of the 13th century:
John de Wytchurche of Broughton (in Whitchurch) to Nicholas Zely and
Clemence his wife: Grant, indented, for their lives, of a messuage and land
in Wimpstone (Wymistone) and Whitchurch: (Warw.)
28 Edw. (I)
[PRO catalogue: E 210/8428]
Perhaps that's just a coincidence, though.
Chris Phillips
Roz Griston
it is not entirely improbable that joan's mother could have had other
children who did not survive, miscarriages and some who were just not
recorded or their records have not been found yet.
another factor to consider in the lack of children in the intervening
years..is did the father go off to the crusades? war? something that
would require long periods of absence.
most of these marriages were political alliances, not love matches. the
stud could leave the broodmare and go dally elsewhere. that was an
accepted behaviour.
what i am saying, is it is not impossible. the degree of probability is
what is important.
the most important thing to recognise is joan's mother is not
verifiable at this time, but is possibly identifiable. that statement
needs to made perfectly clear upon publication, if verification has not
been found by then.
roz
Hi Roz
Cheers
Rosie
> ten years ago, so has had time to work things out. As far
> > as I can see, chronology makes the claim that Clemence was mother
of
> Joan
> extremely doubtful. I'll explain below, and see if Doug has
> > more information which can clear things up.
> >
Rosie Bevan
I have been wondering about the same thing about Maud.
Is there is some confusion over Maud de Verdun, daughter of Rohese, who
married John FitzAlan Lord of Clun and Oswestry d.1267? CP I p.239-240.
I also have in my files that John's father, same name, d. 1240, married
secondly Hawise Blancminster, but regrettably no source. I wonder if Maud
was actually married firstly to a Blancminster and married secondly John
d.1267.
In 42 Hen III (1257) A part of the manor of Steeple Lavington was listed in
the hands of Patrick Chaworth.
In 19 Edw I (1291) Steeple Lavington is listed in the IPM of Roger de Somery
but for the life of me I can't work out how it got there. Unless his wife
was holding it in dower when he died. Thomas Le Despenser = Rohese>Rohese
Despenser>Gilbert de Segrave=Amabilia de Chacombe=(2) Roger de Somery.
(Theobald le Botiller died in 1230. Rohese de Verdun did not die until
1246/47. Did she remarry Thomas le Dispensator and have a daughter Rohese?).
The chronology looks a bit iffy, though.
In 2 Edw II (1308) it is in the hands of Peter de la Mare when it is
described as of Devizes Castle.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
Kay Allen AG
before my husband. And they were the only two children. Needless to say, my
huisband was quite a surprise :-)
Kay Allen AG
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> Hi Roz
>
> I didn't say it was impossible, only improbable. What is the probability of
> a woman sexually active, not using contraception during her fertile years,
> having two children 23 years apart? Don't forget these people had little
> control over fertility.
>
> The mother of Joan would have been born about 1172 and
> marriageable about 1184. At that time Nicholas de Verdun was clearly
> unmarriageable. It am not sure whether Nicholas de Verdun actually took
> livery of his inheritance when he succeeded his brother in 1199, and was
> thus of age - perhaps Paul can help with this. As Paul said, if not already
> married, Nicholas' marriage would have been arranged soon after. The birth
> of his heir around 1210-1213 was quite sometime after this, which indicates
> the couple, or at least his wife may have been quite young when married.
> Whereas if he had married the mother of Joan in say 1200, she would have
> been about 28 years old and should have been able to have a child within the
> following decade, having already proved her fertility. In 1210-1213 when
> Rohese was born, the mother of Joan would have been in her late 30s early
> 40s.
>
> The chronology of Joan's mother and Clemence de Dauntsey is a little
> asynchronous and Paul deserves full credit for pointing this out.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com>
> To: "'Rosie Bevan'" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz>
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 9:17 PM
> Subject: RE: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
>
> > not necessarily rosie
> > i had my son when i was 26 and my dau at age 42. i was married at age
> > 17..so look at all the years i was fertile. it would not be impossible
> > to have sisters born 23 years apart.
> > my two bio kids are 15 years apart.
> > regards
> > roz
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rosie Bevan [SMTP:cbe...@paradise.net.nz]
> > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:18 PM
> > To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
> >
> > Bravo, Paul, on an excellent piece of analysis.
> >
> > My own calculations made the time difference between the births of Joan
> > and
> > Rohese at about 23 years which I think makes them improbable as
> > sisters.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Rosie
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net>
> > To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 5:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
> >
> >
> > > Dear group,
> > >
> > > It bothers me that Doug has completely ignored my posts on this
> > subject,
> > including giving him a fair chance to reply about the
> > > chronology of Clemence de Dauntsey, wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
> > >
> > > Doug had planned an article on this (to appear in The Genealogist)
> > nearly
> > ten years ago, so has had time to work things out. As far
> > > as I can see, chronology makes the claim that Clemence was mother of
> > Joan
> > extremely doubtful. I'll explain below, and see if Doug has
> > > more information which can clear things up.
> > >
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> Is there is some confusion over Maud de Verdun, daughter of Rohese, who
> married John FitzAlan Lord of Clun and Oswestry d.1267? CP I p.239-240.
>
> I also have in my files that John's father, same name, d. 1240, married
> secondly Hawise Blancminster, but regrettably no source. I wonder if Maud
> was actually married firstly to a Blancminster and married secondly John
> d.1267.
It does look as though that's the same marriage. It's unfortunate that CP
(being volume 1, I suppose), doesn't give a source for that statement (I
haven't checked vol.14).
If that's the case, Clemence's settlement of her marriage portion on
Rohese's daughter Maud would surely confirm that Rohese was her daughter.
If the account in CP vol.1 is correct (and if Maud was the mother of John
FitzAlan's son and heir, which isn't stated explicitly), it's interesting to
note it would mean that John FitzAlan the younger (d.1271/2) was a great
grandson of Clemence the wife of Nicholas de Verdun, while his wife Isabel
de Mortimer (a granddaughter of Gladys Ddu) was a great great granddaughter
of "Queen Clemence" the mistress of King John. On the hypothesis that these
two Clemences were the same, this couple would be second cousins.
Chris Phillips
Gryphon801
Chris Phillips
I wrote:
> If the account in CP vol.1 is correct (and if Maud was the mother of John
> FitzAlan's son and heir, which isn't stated explicitly), it's interesting
to
> note it would mean that John FitzAlan the younger (d.1271/2) was a great
> grandson of Clemence the wife of Nicholas de Verdun, while his wife Isabel
> de Mortimer (a granddaughter of Gladys Ddu) was a great great
granddaughter
> of "Queen Clemence" the mistress of King John. On the hypothesis that
these
> two Clemences were the same, this couple would be second cousins.
Sorry - I should have said: on the hypotheses that the two Clemences were
the same AND that Gladys was the daughter of "Queen Clemence's" daughter
Joan!
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
> Dear group,
>
> It bothers me that Doug has completely ignored my posts on this subject, including giving him a fair chance to reply about the
> chronology of Clemence de Dauntsey, wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
Dear Paul ~
As I explained to the newsgroup yesterday, I'm busy right now
finishing up the new Plantagenet Ancestry book. As such, I must beg
off answering anyone's questions, including your's, until the book is
finished. Once the book is out, I'll be more than happy to take up
the subject of Clemence de Verdun with you.
Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Telephone: (801) 680-5811
Paul C. Reed
> Paul Reed wrote:
> > As far
> > as I can see, chronology makes the claim that Clemence was mother of Joan
> extremely doubtful. I'll explain below, and see if Doug has
> > more information which can clear things up.
>
> Thanks for that very full analysis of the chronology surrounding Clemence.
>
> It's unfortunate that Paget seems a bit ambivalent and/or confused about the
> identity of Clemence's de la Mare grandmother. I wonder if he gives a dated
> source for his statement about the settlement of rent in Steeple Lavington,
> that could help to pin down this end of things.
>
Paget [which is a typescript] stated that the wife of Sir Roger de Dauntesey was
daughter of Robert de la Mare in both the section on de la Mare and the section
on Verdun, but there is a pencil correction in Verdun with Peter written over
Robert in superscript. I don't know if that was Paget's correction, or someone
else trying to reconcile the chronology of the Peters and Roberts succeeding
each other several times over in a close period of time.
Paget gave no specific date, and the source he cites would seem to be a record
well after the fact. He gives it twice, once as "C. Hen. 3. file 47 No 20" and
another time as "Ch. Hen. 3. file 47 n 20". A rent of 11 pounds is actually not
that great of an amount, compared to the marriage settlements of prominent
peers.
> But it does seem that in any case the chronology of Rohese de Verdun does
> seem to make it unlikely that Joan could have been Clemence's daughter, if
> Rohese was her daughter.
>
As far as we know, Clemence was the only wife of Nicholas de Verdun. That is
not to say there could not have been another wife, we just don't have record of
it.
>
> I'm just a little curious about those conflicting statements that Rohese was
> the only daughter of Nicholas and Clemence on the one hand, and that
> Clemence made a grant to another daughter, Maud "de Albo Monasterio", on the
> other. Do you happen to have sources for these statements?
Rohese was the daughter and heir of Nicholas de Verdun. The citation about Maud
[was the Welsh border family Whitechurch the English equivalent of Albo
Monasterio? I think Bradney's Monmouth says something about this], was given by
Paget as "Esch. 1. Edw. 1. no. 6" which translates to our CIPM 2:6 (no. 6).
> I don't know
> anything about the Verduns, but from what you say, it sounds as though
> Rohese would be Nicholas' heiress, so her status as his only daughter would
> be recorded. (I suppose it is clear that Rohese's mother was Clemence, not
> another wife?)
If Clemence were not mother of Rohese, it would make the chronology even more
implausible. Clemence was the wife of Nicholas as his death. If she were
indeed daughter of Sir Roger de Dauntsey who married in 1220 (as a second wife
who survived in 1231, Clemence well could have been), she would be even younger
than the mother of Rohese de Verdun. The man who married the daughter of Robert
de la Mare was styled Sir Roger de Dauntsey. The husband of Maud/Matilda de Say
was Sir Roger de Dauntsey. One wonders if there were two different Rogers, or
if they were the same man. (I thought that as Doug has been studying this
problem for ten years that he may have come across other documents than I have,
and could reconcile this for us.)
Paul C. Reed
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Then I hope that if you discuss this in PA3, you will spell out the difficulties with such a proposed identification as well (or it
creates a headache later as inexperienced people try to sort out the different sides).
Again, it is my opinion that weaknesses should always be pointed out when something goes into print. With the millions of eyes that
will eventually see it, someone will eventually notice errors, if they are there, so it is better to be forthright from the start.
My hope is that in ensuing years, as more records come to light [assize records, etc.], those millions of eyes will help add to our
understanding.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> I have been wondering about the same thing about Maud.
>
> Is there is some confusion over Maud de Verdun, daughter of Rohese, who
> married John FitzAlan Lord of Clun and Oswestry d.1267? CP I p.239-240.
>
> I also have in my files that John's father, same name, d. 1240, married
> secondly Hawise Blancminster, but regrettably no source. I wonder if Maud
> was actually married firstly to a Blancminster and married secondly John
> d.1267.
Rosie,
You're right. It would seem the information given in CIPM 2:6 was
confused. It was recorded in 1272, giving information about why
they had right to land in Steeple Lavington. Unless I misread the
entry, it said that it had been given by Lady Clemence de Verdun
to her daughter, Maud de Albo Monasterio, in free marriage to
Sir John FitzAlan.
Clemence was a widow in 1231, and in that year given right to
her own inheritance (presumably as her dower). Maud le Botiler
would not be born before 1225 [when Rohese de Verdun married
Theobald le Botiler]. It would seem that Lady Clemence de Verdun
have land [or rents] in Steeple Lavington not to her daughter, but to
her granddaughter, after 1231, when she had it in her hands to pass.
If this is correct, it would indicate that Clemence was the mother of
Rohese de Verdun, as it was the granddaughter Maud who married
Sir John FitzAlan (Maud's son John was b. 14 Sep. 1246, 21 years
after Rohese married).
Thank you. This is interesting.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
It's a good reason.
However, he feels that once the line is in print ---- people will cling
to it ---- so he wants to triple-check it *now* before that happens.
Once the potential error is on the street, in print, it's much harder to
correct.
That's also a sound reason.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.01111...@posting.google.com...
canberra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
> "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:<3BF5EE6A...@uswest.net>...
> > Dear group,
> >
> > It bothers me that Doug has completely ignored my posts on this subject,
including giving him a fair chance to reply about the
> > chronology of Clemence de Dauntsey, wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
>
> Dear Paul ~
>
> As I explained to the newsgroup yesterday, I'm busy right now
> finishing up the new Plantagenet Ancestry book. As such, I must beg
> off answering anyone's questions, including your's, until the book is
> finished. Once the book is out, I'll be more than happy to take up
> the subject of Clemence de Verdun with you.
Dear Douglas,
In this case I think you are a little ungracious. I understand that the
mother of Joan of Wales is to be mentioned in your new Plantagenet Ancestry
Book and Paul Reed kindly is trying to let you "prevent instead of curing
later". The least you could have said was what your position is, say, "under
the circumstances, nothing 'new' or 'definite' will be said about Joan's
mother." In which case you would have shown that you appreciated and made
use of Paul's concern.
Really, disappointing.
Leo van de Pas
Rosie Bevan
Further to my post yesterday, I note that Burke (yes, I know) says that
Nicholas Verdun had livery of his lands in Ireland in 6 John. Unless there
is another reason for the delay, it indicates he came of age in 1205 and was
therefore born in 1184. Nicholas appears to have been the third son of
Bertram de Verdun. This would make Nicholas about 12 years younger than
Clemence mother of Joan.
For the benefit of those following the discussion, "Esch. 1. Edw. 1. no. 6"
which translates to our CIPM 2:6 (no. 6)"refers to an IPM of Robert
Waleraund who held lands in Steeple Lavington and Hurst. Fortunately I have
part of the text contained in 'Calendarium Genealogicum : Henry II and
Edward I', v.1, p.194 which goes
"Dicunt [juratores] quod Robertus Walleraund' habuit dictam terram [in
Stupellavinton] de dono dominae Matildae de Albo Monasterio quondam uxoris
domini Johannis filii Alani, et praedicta Matilda habuit dictam terram in
liberum maritagium de domina Clementia de Verdun matre sua"
However as you say this IPM took place in 1272 some years after Maud
received the maritagium, the jurors may have mistakenly believed that as
Clemence gave the maritagium she was mother of Maud not grandmother. The way
I read it Matilda was known as 'de Albo Monasterio' after her marriage to
John FitzAlan. I wonder whether she contracted a third marriage after that
to Richard de Amundville.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
>
>
Chris Phillips
Gryphon801 wrote [of John FitzAlan (d.1271/2) and his wife Isabel de
Mortimer, possible 2nd cousins]
> Wouldn't a dispensation be required for their marriage, then?
That's what I wondered.
Maybe someone who's studied these matters closely can say how likely it is
that there wouldn't be a record of a dispensation for a marriage between 2nd
cousins in the mid-13th century.
Chris Phillips
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
>I have a couple of quick observations to make. My research indicates
>that foreign born hostages in this period were usually placed with
>relatives, not unrelated barons.
It seems to me that such a claim, if it is going to used as evidence
for a relationship, ought to be backed up by some sort of statistical
study of a significant number of randomly chosen examples, rather than
just by anecdotal evidence obtained from a few examples. If a hostage
was being held for the most obvious reason (i.e., to ensure the good
behavior of the hostage's relatives), then having a policy of placing
a hostage with a relative sounds strange, because of the possible
conflicts of interest that might often arise as a result.
Personally, I found the supporting evidence for the identity of Joan's
mother to be weak, even before Paul gave his analysis of the
chronological problems. Given that "high profile" claims like this
tend to get endlessly repeated once they are printed in a reference
like "Plantagenet Ancestry", I hope that you will hold off doing a
rush job to include it in the edition that will appear shortly, and
instead consider first submitting it to a more specialized journal, in
order to see if any broad consensus develops as to whether or not the
identification is correct.
Stewart Baldwin
Paul C. Reed
Chris Phillips wrote:
My question would be concerning illegitimacy. Since Joan was legitimized, I
would think her case would not be applicable in the eyes of the church after the
fact.
Line 1:
1) Clemence de Dauntsey = Nicholas de Verdun
2) Rohese de Verdun = Theobald le Botiler
3) Maud le Botiler = John FitzAlan
4) John FitzAlan = Isabel de Mortimer
Line 2:
1) [Clemence de Dauntsey] = King John
2) Joan = Llwelyn
3) Gwladys = Ralph de Mortimer
4) Roger de Mortimer = Maud de Briouze
5) Isabel de Mortimer = John FitzAlan
These were high profile families, and both were powerful Marcher lords, who
would have been aware of their ancestry. The proposed relationship would
definitely been within prohibited degrees. I would think that the families
would have definitely taken care to procure a dispensation to avoid later
complications IF Gwladys were daughter of Joan, and IF Joan were daughter of
Clemence de Dauntsey.
For instance, there was a carefully orchestrated series of arranged marriages
involved in these families. Agatha de Ferrers (granddaughter of William
Marshal) married Hugh, son of Ralph de Mortimer. Hugh's brother Roger de
Mortimer married Maud de Braose (another granddaughter of William Marshal).
Maud's father William de Braose was son of Reginald de Braose, whose sister
Margery was mother of Gilbert de Lacy, who married Isabel le Bigod (another
granddaughter of William Marshal). Gilbert de Lacy's granddaughter Maud de
Joinville married Roger de Mortimer (grandson of Maud de Braose). That Roger's
sister Maud married Theobald de Verdun (grandson of Margery de Lacy [daughter of
Gilbert] by John le Botiler (son of Rohese de Verdun). Joan, daughter of John
Fitz Geoffrey by Isabel Bigod (widow of Gilbert de Lacy) married Theobald le
Botiler (great-grandson of Theobald le Botiler [husband of Rohese], by his first
wife Joan). John FitzAlan, was son of Maud le Botiler (daughter of Rohese de
Verdun), whose half-sister married Walter de Lacy (son of Gilbert by Isabel
Bigod).
If you don't think these people were keenly aware of their immediate relations
and ancestry, you do not properly comprehend the care which these important
families took in arranging matches and lands for possible inheritance purposes
and political ties. In fact, Roger de Mortimer (d. 1330) had to obtain a
dispensation for the marriage of his daughter Catherine to Thomas, son of Guy de
Beauchamp, as both were descendants of Roger de Mortimer (d. 1214). A marriage
within these degrees could thus be arranged, but the prominence of the families
makes it virtually certain they would have had to procure a dispensation.
In light of this, and the likelihood of Gwladys being a daughter of Joan, I
don't see how Clemence de Dauntsey could be Joan's mother.
Paul
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Rohese was the daughter and heir of Nicholas de Verdun. The citation about Maud
> [was the Welsh border family Whitechurch the English equivalent of Albo
> Monasterio? I think Bradney's Monmouth says something about this], was given by
> Paget as "Esch. 1. Edw. 1. no. 6" which translates to our CIPM 2:6 (no. 6).
I don't know about this specific instance, but the Warennes of
Whitchurch sometimes appear simply as Whitchurch, Albo
Monasterio, and Bloncminster.
taf
Paul C. Reed
> Dear Paul
>
> Further to my post yesterday, I note that Burke (yes, I know) says that
> Nicholas Verdun had livery of his lands in Ireland in 6 John. Unless there
> is another reason for the delay, it indicates he came of age in 1205 and was
> therefore born in 1184. Nicholas appears to have been the third son of
> Bertram de Verdun. This would make Nicholas about 12 years younger than
> Clemence mother of Joan.
Rosie,
You are correct. There was at least one other son of Bertram de Verdun. He
died without issue, presumably before 1199. As I did not remember if he were
second or third son, I tried to err on the side of caution.
If you put Thomas as born in 1174, and another son born 1176, you would probably
have to put the daughter Lasceline as born in 1178, if not before, so that she
could give consent or her own free will to the marriage arranged in 1195 to the
Earl of Ulster. That would mean Nicholas de Verdun was not born until about
1180, if not 1184 (as you note). This would make sense, if he married after
1199 (by which time he succeeded to the patrilinial estates) and had a daughter
and heir who married in 1225, at the King's request (having his daughter and
heir at age 21, or shortly thereafter). I do not, in fact, have evidence as to
when Nicholas was given livery of his parents' lands. You may well be correct.
I had supposed that Doug would have already worked this out and could help us.
(Doug has stated that PA3 will include ALL descents from Geoffrey Plantagenet
and Henry II, both legitimate and illegitimate. Given that he describes his
text as a little over 500 pages, and that I have on my score card well over 500
Colonial immigrants who descent from those persons, I am amazed that he can
present an authoritative account in that many pages. I will be very interested
to see what comes out in the end, and very interested to see his list of
immigrants to be included in that work.)
Paul
Paul C. Reed
"Paul C. Reed" wrote:
> Rosie Bevan wrote:
>
> > Dear Paul
> >
> > Further to my post yesterday, I note that Burke (yes, I know) says that
> > Nicholas Verdun had livery of his lands in Ireland in 6 John. Unless there
> > is another reason for the delay, it indicates he came of age in 1205 and was
> > therefore born in 1184. Nicholas appears to have been the third son of
> > Bertram de Verdun. This would make Nicholas about 12 years younger than
> > Clemence mother of Joan.
>
> Rosie,
>
> You are correct. There was at least one other son of Bertram de Verdun. He
> died without issue, presumably before 1199. As I did not remember if he were
> second or third son, I tried to err on the side of caution.
[snip]
I guess I should say that Burke's _Extinct Peerage_ (yes, it has been printed, and
is thus authoritative), gives the children of Bertram de Verdun and his second wife
Rohese [the first wife is stated to be Maud, daughter of Robert de Ferrers, Earl of
Derby, but Paget does not distinguish between them] as:
1. William dsp 1199 [but this was Thomas]
2. Thomas
3. Bertram
4. Robert
5. NICHOLAS
6. Walter, constable of Bruges Castle, in Valois, father of Ralf de Verdun.
7. Leceline.
Burke states that Thomas married Eustachia, daughter of Gilbert Bassett, who had no
issue by Thomas, but married (2) Richard de Camville [this is true]. Burke's says
that Thomas de Verdun died in Ireland in 1199 without issue, and was succeeded by
his brother Nicholas [this is true].
Burke states that Nicholas de Verdun paid 100 pounds "6th John, paid to the
king...as also courser and palfrey, for livery of those lands in Ireland whereof his
father died possessed.." Nicholas took part against King John, but was eventually
restored by Henry III [of which I know from actual records].
Paul
The...@aol.com
Hello Paul, Chris, Rosie, Leo et al.,
I'm not sure if this will help with the tangled web we weave [or, that
was woven for us....]
The family that Maud evidently had married into ( de Albo Monasterio )
evidently is known in some circles as Whitchurch; I see same in my records as
de Blancminster.
I am searching for notes as to other members; the one track I do show,
one William de Blancminster, was the father of Eleanor, wife of Roger le
Strange of Wrockwardine (d. ca. Oct 1276), and thereby the grandfather of
Fulk, lst Lord Strange of Blackmere.
It would be interesting if Maud was earlier the wife of this William de
Blancminster; she would thereby be an ancestress not only of the Lords
Strange, but also of the Talbots, Earls of Shrewsbury, and many others
besides.
Good luck, and good hunting to all.
John
Bryant Smith
<SNIP>
> Given that "high profile" claims like this
> tend to get endlessly repeated once they are printed in a reference
> like "Plantagenet Ancestry", I hope that you will hold off doing a
> rush job to include it in the edition that will appear shortly, and
> instead consider first submitting it to a more specialized journal, in
> order to see if any broad consensus develops as to whether or not the
> identification is correct.
With great respect, there is never any end of dogs to hang
in a subject like medieval genealogy, and if Mr. Richardson
were to wait on the glacial process of submission to and
publication in a "specialized journal" and then for a possible
"broad consensns," over this dog, who knows what other dogs
might turn up in the meantime? "Finis sit litium" -- there
has to come a point at which a publisher closes the book and
signs off on the page proofs. PA2 is in need of updating, has
been for a long time. Imprimatur.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
>
> Stewart Baldwin
Dewayne E. Perry
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>
> Mediaeval Genealogy is not properly conducted by piling assumption on
> top of speculation on top of plausibility on top of likelihood ---- and
> then coming to a "conclusion".
it is not only here but everywhere. in software engineering and computer
science research we refer to this as reducing it to a previously unsolved
problem :-)
cheers - dewayne
ps you heard about the mathematician who awakened by a fire in his
room saw a glass of water on the nightstand and went back to sleep?
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
>With great respect, there is never any end of dogs to hang
>in a subject like medieval genealogy, and if Mr. Richardson
>were to wait on the glacial process of submission to and
>publication in a "specialized journal" and then for a possible
>"broad consensns," over this dog, who knows what other dogs
>might turn up in the meantime? "Finis sit litium" -- there
>has to come a point at which a publisher closes the book and
>signs off on the page proofs. PA2 is in need of updating, has
>been for a long time. Imprimatur.
If we were talking about a relatively clear-cut case, then I would
agree with you. However, significant doubt has already been expressed
with regard to the present case (and with very good reason). When it
comes to correctness vs. quickness of publication, I will go with
correctness any day of the week.
Stewart Baldwin
D. Spencer Hines
I like that. <g>
| ps you heard about the mathematician who awakened by a fire in his
| room saw a glass of water on the nightstand and went back to sleep?
Do you have one about a chemist ---- and an historian?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Dewayne E. Perry" <de-p...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3BF7E7AD...@swbell.net...
Doug McDonald
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
>
> If we were talking about a relatively clear-cut case, then I would
> agree with you. However, significant doubt has already been expressed
> with regard to the present case (and with very good reason). When it
> comes to correctness vs. quickness of publication, I will go with
> correctness any day of the week.
In a case like this, he (Richardson) has to make a decision.
The first thing to remember that that his new book WILL HAVE MISTAKES
IN IT!!! His older ones prsumably did, everybody's seems to in this sort
of business. If ever, at some time in the future, some set of
lines becones clearly established, then either there will never be new
lines
proposed or there will be mistakes.
That said, at some point he has to stop worrying and PUBLISH. If there
is
really serious doubt, then I say, leave it out. If minor doubt,
footnote.
Doug McDonald
Graeme Wall
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote:
[snip]
> > >
> > > [Died lady Joan lady of Wales, wife of Llywelyn, daughter of King John
> > > and Queen Clemence, 3 Kal. April."
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I`m not very well up on this system of dating, how does it translate into
> > conventional terms?
>
> That would be the 30 March in conventional tems.
>
Thank you very much.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
David Greene
published by--a "specialized journal" in genealogy is very strange. None of the
major journals in the field take a long time to publish a good, well-written
article. Delays sometimes occur when articles call for a great deal of editing
or for additional research on the part of editors, but such articles are in the
minority.
Perhaps there are such delays in journals in Mr. Smith's own field. If so,
please don't assume that that is also true of the scholarly journals in
genealogy!
DAVID L. GREENE, CG, FASG
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]
"Bryant Smith" <ski...@racsa.co.cr> wrote in message
news:a9b2ce02.01111...@posting.google.com...
> With great respect, there is never any end of dogs to hang
> in a subject like medieval genealogy, and if Mr. Richardson
> were to wait on the glacial process of submission to and
> publication in a "specialized journal" and then for a possible
> "broad consensns," over this dog, who knows what other dogs
> might turn up in the meantime? "Finis sit litium" -- there
> has to come a point at which a publisher closes the book and
> signs off on the page proofs. PA2 is in need of updating, has
> been for a long time. Imprimatur.
> Saludos
> Bryant Smith
> Playa Palo Seco
> Costa Rica
--
Posted from r-246.28.alltel.net [166.102.246.28]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I guess I should say that Burke's _Extinct Peerage_ (yes, it has been printed, and
> is thus authoritative), gives the children of Bertram de Verdun and his second wife
> Rohese [the first wife is stated to be Maud, daughter of Robert de Ferrers, Earl of
> Derby, but Paget does not distinguish between them] as:
For Bertram see a recent article on him by Richard Dace, "Bertran
de Verdun: Royal Service, Land and Family in the Late Twelfth
Century", which appeared in vol. 20 (1999) of Medieval
Prosopography. This confirms the Ferrers marriage prior to that
to Rohese, and gives an account of his family.
taf
Louise Staley
John wrote in message
> Sunday, 18 November, 2001
<snip>
> The family that Maud evidently had married into ( de Albo
Monasterio )
> evidently is known in some circles as Whitchurch; I see same in
my records as
> de Blancminster.
>
> I am searching for notes as to other members; the one
track I do show,
> one William de Blancminster, was the father of Eleanor, wife of
Roger le
> Strange of Wrockwardine (d. ca. Oct 1276), and thereby the
grandfather of
> Fulk, lst Lord Strange of Blackmere.
Dear John et. al.,
This may not be of relevance however I have another Blancminster
family which I believe ties to the one above.
This Blancminster min-thread is Ralph, father of Alice
Blancminster who married Sir Richard Hewis, their daughter Emma
married John Colshull. So why may this be of interest to the
William Blancminster above?
The le Strange connection above leads through to Lord Bonville.
Lord Bonville is said by some sources to be the sister of
Philippa Bonville however the currently accepted relationship is
that Philippa was Lord Bonville's sister. According to Weis MC
Sureties she is said to have brought the manors of Swannacote and
Weeks St Mary to the Grenville family when she married William
Grenville.
However, these manors actually descended from the Blancminsters
through the Coleshulls. The IPMs of John Coleshull (d 1418), Joan
(d 1497), Anne Arundel (d 1507) all show them holding Swannacote
and Weeks St Mary. After Anne Arundel died s.p. the manors were
divided among the children of Elizabeth Arundel and another
daughter. By the end of the 16th century these manors were in
Grenville hands although not before.
1-Ralph Blancminster
sp:
2-Alice Blancminster
sp: Sir Richard Hewis
3-Emma Hewis
sp: John Colshull , par: John Colshull
4-John Colshull d: Bef 10 Sep 1418
sp: Anne Wife of John Colshull
5-Sir John Colshull b: Abt 1416, d: 1483
sp: Elizabeth Cheney , par: Sir Edmund Cheney and Alice Stafford
5-Joan Colshull d: 20 Dec 1497
sp: Renfrew Arundel , par: John Arundel and Margaret Burghersh
6-Edmond Arundel d: Bef 5 Dec 1503 s.p.
sp: Joan Walgrave
6-Anne Arundel d: 25 Aug 1507 s.p.
sp: John Croker b: 1458, par: Sir John Croker and Daughter
Fortescue
sp: John Nathan
6-Elizabeth Arundel
sp: Edward Stradling
6-Daughter Arundel
sp: Son Whittington
Somewhere in all this will be the link for William Blancminster
and Ralph Blancminster. From the dates, it would appear William
could be the grandfather of Ralph Blancminster
In the IPM of Joan Coleshull mention is made of a fine levied in
1486 that shows she held the land as an heir of a Guy
Blancminster, rector of Lansalos.
"in trinity term 1 Hen.VII [1486] a fine was levied between
Robert Throgmerton and Edward Bartlet, plaintiffs, and William
Houghton kt., and Joan his wife deforciants of the manors of
Byenamye, Stratton, Swancote, St Mary Wke, St. Cler Colshill,
Leskerdcolshill and Wykenurg with lands [details given] and 20s.
rent there and in Tremyeth and the advowson of St. Mary Wyke
which were by that fine settled on the said William and Joan and
her heirs with remainders to Thomas Nevell kinsman and heirs of
William Nevell of Pykell, chr. and. the right heirs of Guy de
Blanchminster late rector of Lansalos."
If you have anything that sheds further light on these
relationships I would appreciate your thoughts.
Louise
Chris Phillips
I wrote:
> > Maybe someone who's studied these matters closely can say how likely it
is
> > that there wouldn't be a record of a dispensation for a marriage between
2nd
> > cousins in the mid-13th century.
Paul Reed wrote:
> If you don't think these people were keenly aware of their immediate
relations
> and ancestry, you do not properly comprehend the care which these
important
> families took in arranging matches and lands for possible inheritance
purposes
> and political ties.
No, I wasn't suggesting that - the reason I pointed that they would be
second cousins, on the two hypotheses we've been discussing, was that I
thought it was another piece of circumstantial evidence against those
hypotheses (or at least, against both of them being true), just as the
chronology you put forward argues against Clemence Dauntsey being the same
person as "Queen Clemence".
Of course, if the article on Arundel in Complete Peerage. vol.1, is wrong,
and the inquisition that you and Rosie have cited is correct in saying that
Maud is a daughter, not a granddaughter, of Clemence, that would make the
relationship even closer, and the chronology probably even more difficult -
certainly if viewed in generational terms, as it would mean the younger John
FitzAlan married the granddaughter of his putative first cousin (Gladys).
Incidentally, one point that might have contributed to confusion about
whether Maud was Clemence's daughter or her granddaughter is mentioned in
Complete Peerage, vol.1, p.240, note a: "This Rohese's children bore her
name of Verdun and not their father's of Butler." A note in the Butler
article (vol.2, p.448, note d) says the same thing, and names her sons as
John de Verdon, Theobald de Verdon senior and Theobald de Verdon junior. The
source cited is "Lynch [Feudal Baronies in Ireland, 1830] (p.81)".
Chris Phillips
Karen Repko
> Bryant Smith's comment about the "glacial process" of submitting to--and being
> published by--a "specialized journal" in genealogy is very strange. None of the
> major journals in the field take a long time to publish a good, well-written
> article. Delays sometimes occur when articles call for a great deal of editing
> or for additional research on the part of editors, but such articles are in the
> minority.
>
> Perhaps there are such delays in journals in Mr. Smith's own field. If so,
> please don't assume that that is also true of the scholarly journals in
> genealogy!
>
> DAVID L. GREENE, CG, FASG
> Coeditor and publisher
> The American Genealogist [TAG]
Good morning Mr. Greene,
Do you have a secured server that the American Genealogist can
be subscribed from.
Cheers,
Karen
Paul C. Reed
> Dear Paul
>
> Further to my post yesterday, I note that Burke (yes, I know) says that
> Nicholas Verdun had livery of his lands in Ireland in 6 John. Unless there
> is another reason for the delay, it indicates he came of age in 1205 and was
> therefore born in 1184. Nicholas appears to have been the third son of
> Bertram de Verdun. This would make Nicholas about 12 years younger than
> Clemence mother of Joan.
>
Rosie,
Upon review, it may be that Nicholas de Verdun succeeded his brother [d. 1199]
by 1201 [mentioned in Pipe Rolls], but that he got respite for his lands in
Ireland until 1206. But we still have Thomas de Verdun as eldest son, born ca.
1174. Gerard de Camville purchased the marriage of Thomas's widow Eustachia
Basset in 1199 and married her to his son Richard de Camville [Pipe Roll].
>
> For the benefit of those following the discussion, "Esch. 1. Edw. 1. no. 6"
> which translates to our CIPM 2:6 (no. 6)"refers to an IPM of Robert
> Waleraund who held lands in Steeple Lavington and Hurst. Fortunately I have
> part of the text contained in 'Calendarium Genealogicum : Henry II and
> Edward I', v.1, p.194 which goes
> "Dicunt [juratores] quod Robertus Walleraund' habuit dictam terram [in
> Stupellavinton] de dono dominae Matildae de Albo Monasterio quondam uxoris
> domini Johannis filii Alani, et praedicta Matilda habuit dictam terram in
> liberum maritagium de domina Clementia de Verdun matre sua"
>
> However as you say this IPM took place in 1272 some years after Maud
> received the maritagium, the jurors may have mistakenly believed that as
> Clemence gave the maritagium she was mother of Maud not grandmother. The way
> I read it Matilda was known as 'de Albo Monasterio' after her marriage to
> John FitzAlan. I wonder whether she contracted a third marriage after that
> to Richard de Amundville.
Didn't the IPM of Maud [12 Edw. I] style her "Maud (late) the wife of Richard de
Amundevyl alias Lady Maud de Verdoun" and find [her grandson] Richard, minor son
of John FitzAlan her heir?
This would indicate to me that Maud, wife of Sir John Fitz Alan [m. by 20 Oct.
1242] was born Verdun [she was not widow of a Verdun], as Lady Clemence de
Verdun gave Maud the land in Steeple Lavington herself.
Maud was Maud d'Amundeville when the other IPM was taken 1 Edw. I. I wonder if
it could be possible the jury confused Albo Monasterio
[Blanchminster/Whitechurch being a place in Devon] and with Amundeville (it's a
stretch, but...).
Nicholas de Verdun had sided with the Barons against King John, and was thus
dispossessed of his lands. Steeple Lavington, Wilts., was given to Ralph Harang
14 Dec. 1216. Nicholas was finally restored 15 June 1217.
Nicholas de Verdun's only known child, Rohese, married, at the King's request,
shortly after 4 Sep. 1225, Theobald le Botiller. He was aged 6 in 1206 [at his
father's death], and succeeded to his father's lands 1221-2. Theobald had m.
(1) Joan, sister and in her issue coheir of her brother John du Marais.
Theobald died in 1230, but his eldest son by his first wife did not succeed
until 1244 [b. ca. 1223]. Given Theobald's birth in 1200, it would lead me
again in the direction of thinking Rohese was not born until say 1205. Given
that she married at the King's request and was a prominent heiress, since there
is no record of another husband at that time, I'd be inclined to believe that
was her first marriage. Also, given that her husband died in 1230, if Rohese
were married more than once, I'd tend to think it was more likely that she
married after his death. She founded Grace Dieu Monastery, Leics.
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> The family that Maud evidently had married into ( de Albo Monasterio )
> evidently is known in some circles as Whitchurch; I see same in my records as
> de Blancminster.
>
> I am searching for notes as to other members; the one track I do show,
> one William de Blancminster, was the father of Eleanor, wife of Roger le
> Strange of Wrockwardine (d. ca. Oct 1276), and thereby the grandfather of
> Fulk, lst Lord Strange of Blackmere.
This should be Robert le Strange of Wrockwardine (his brother
Roger was of Ercall and Ellesmere, and d.s.p.).
Just to throw some more data into the mix, Eyton, vol. 10, pp.
14-22, and/or vol. 2 (or perhaps 9), pp. 209-11 gives an account
if Warenne of Whitchurch. I am having difficulty reading my
notes from more than a decade ago (perhaps if someone else has
access, they could help me out here), but it appears that he
shows William Fitz Ranulph de Warenne of Whitchurch, (possibly
identical to the brother of William de Warenne and Reginald de
Warenne of Wormgay - a possibility definitively refuted by Clay)
fl. 1176 - 1201 to be the father of William de Warenne alias
William de Albo Monasterio, who d. ca. 1240. This man was father
of (in addition to younger son was Griffin de Warenne of
Ightfield, fl. 1240 - 1272) a son and heir, William de Albo
Monasterio, alias William de Whitchurch, alias William de
Blancminster, who fl. 1241 - 1246, and was dead by 1260. He
married Clemence, and had daughter and heiress Alianore, wife of
Robert le Strange.
Farrer does not give as much detail, and appears to be missing a
generation, but shows Ranulf, d.b. 1176, father of William, d.b.
1203, husband of Emma, then Matilda (d.aft. 1238). He is then
father of William, d.b. 1260, father of Eleanor. (I suspect that
Eyton's extra William, d. ca. 1240, was actually the husband of
Matilda, otherwise she lived more than 35 years after her
husband, and their "son" died some 50+ years after his father,
who was not especially young, having been active for 25 years.)
It looks to me like:
Ranulf de Warenne (of Whitchurch) d. bef. 1176
|
William d. 1201-1203 = Emma
|
William d. ca. 1240 = Matilda/Maud fl. 1238
|-----------------------------------|
William d. bef. 1260 = Clemence Griffin d.aft. 1272
| of Ightfield
Eleanor = Robert le Strange
of Blackmere, d. ca. 1276
If Maud was the daughter of Rohese and granddaughter of Clemence,
she must have been second wife of William, d. ca. 1240. Perhaps
Farrer was right about the dual marriage, in which case Emma
would be the first wife and Maud the second wife of William d.
ca. 1240. Maud could have married William shortly before his
death, and subsequently married John Fitz Alan. Since William d.
bef. 1260 and Griffin were active immediately following their
father's death, they could not have been sons of a Maud, b. aft.
1225, (assuming she is the same as Maud, dau. Rohese, dau.
Clemence).
I know Clay had something to say on these families, but I can't
find my photocopies.
taf
Chris Phillips
> > However as you say this IPM took place in 1272 some years after Maud
> > received the maritagium, the jurors may have mistakenly believed that as
> > Clemence gave the maritagium she was mother of Maud not grandmother. The
way
> > I read it Matilda was known as 'de Albo Monasterio' after her marriage
to
> > John FitzAlan. I wonder whether she contracted a third marriage after
that
> > to Richard de Amundville.
Paul Reed replied:
> Didn't the IPM of Maud [12 Edw. I] style her "Maud (late) the wife of
Richard de
> Amundevyl alias Lady Maud de Verdoun" and find [her grandson] Richard,
minor son
> of John FitzAlan her heir?
>
> This would indicate to me that Maud, wife of Sir John Fitz Alan [m. by 20
Oct.
> 1242] was born Verdun [she was not widow of a Verdun], as Lady Clemence de
> Verdun gave Maud the land in Steeple Lavington herself.
>
> Maud was Maud d'Amundeville when the other IPM was taken 1 Edw. I. I
wonder if
> it could be possible the jury confused Albo Monasterio
> [Blanchminster/Whitechurch being a place in Devon] and with Amundeville
(it's a
> stretch, but...).
I think that any marriage to de Albo Monasterio would have to have come
between Maud's marriages to FitzAlan and d'Amundeville, if the information
in Complete Peerage vol.1 is correct. That states that John FitzAlan died
1267, and Maud died 1283, but Richard d'Amundeville was still living 1286/7.
Do we know she was Maud d'Amundeville in 1 Edward I? (I haven't seen this
inquisition post mortem - apart from the extract posted by Rosie - but was
actually hoping to have a look at it later today.)
As I mentioned previously, CP also states that Rohese's children used the
surname de Verdon, not Butler, which could explain the terminology of Maud's
IPM, if she were Rohese's daughter.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how Maud _could_ have been the
daughter of a Verdun without appearing among Nicholas de Verdun's heirs. It
seems that the 1 Edward I IPM probably was mistaken in calling Clemence her
mother, rather than her grandmother.
On the chronology, I could only estimate that Maud would have married by the
mid-1240s in order to be the mother of John FitzAlan's son. I'd be grateful
for the source of that more precise date - by 20 October 1242 - if you have
it to hand. (Sorry if I've missed that in an obvious place.)
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> It looks to me like:
>
> Ranulf de Warenne (of Whitchurch) d. bef. 1176
> |
> William d. 1201-1203 = Emma
> |
> William d. ca. 1240 = Matilda/Maud fl. 1238
> |-----------------------------------|
> William d. bef. 1260 = Clemence Griffin d.aft. 1272
> | of Ightfield
> Eleanor = Robert le Strange
> of Blackmere, d. ca. 1276
>
> If Maud was the daughter of Rohese and granddaughter of Clemence,
> she must have been second wife of William, d. ca. 1240. Perhaps
> Farrer was right about the dual marriage, in which case Emma
> would be the first wife and Maud the second wife of William d.
> ca. 1240. Maud could have married William shortly before his
> death, and subsequently married John Fitz Alan. Since William d.
> bef. 1260 and Griffin were active immediately following their
> father's death, they could not have been sons of a Maud, b. aft.
> 1225, (assuming she is the same as Maud, dau. Rohese, dau.
> Clemence).
I should add that it doesn't take much of a genius to hypothesize
that the (? first) wife of William, d. ca. 1240, and mother of
Griffin de Warenne of Ightfield was Welsh, perhaps kin to
Gruffudd ap Gwenwynwyn, husband of Hawise le Strange, or Gruffudd
(de Sutton) ap Gervase Coch, husband of Matilda le Strange (his
sister-in-law Margaret le Strange married a Thomas de
Blancminster, who by generation would be brother of this
William), respectively sister and first cousin of Robert le
Strange of Blackmere.
taf
Rosie Bevan
Willielmi de Blauminster alias Blauminster reveals that Alianora
(Blancminster) Estrange had three sisters. Inquiries were held in Essex and
Shropshire.
9 Edw I (1280) Bertraya filia Willielmi de Blauminster
Elynora Extranea, Johann de Barentyne, et Matilda de Bracy, soreres
praedictae Bertreyae, sunt haeredes ipsius Bertreyae et sunt plenaria
aetate. Salop.
Alienora Le Estrange, Johanna de Barentyn uxor domini Willielmi de Barentyn
militis, Matilda uxor Willielmi de Bracy, sorores ipsius Bertteyae, sunt
haeredes propinquiores ipsius Berttreyae ; et sunt aetate triginta annorum
et amplius. Essex
Eleanor appears to be a widow at this time. All three sisters are are said
to be 30 years or more.
She held a fourth part of Blamunster manor in Shropshire
Lands in 'Estaines ad montem' and Cavenell Parva in Essex
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
> The...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > The family that Maud evidently had married into ( de Albo
Monasterio )
> > evidently is known in some circles as Whitchurch; I see same in my
records as
> > de Blancminster.
> >
> > I am searching for notes as to other members; the one track I do
show,
> > one William de Blancminster, was the father of Eleanor, wife of Roger le
> > Strange of Wrockwardine (d. ca. Oct 1276), and thereby the grandfather
of
> > Fulk, lst Lord Strange of Blackmere.
>
> It looks to me like:
>
> Ranulf de Warenne (of Whitchurch) d. bef. 1176
> |
> William d. 1201-1203 = Emma
> |
> William d. ca. 1240 = Matilda/Maud fl. 1238
> |-----------------------------------|
> William d. bef. 1260 = Clemence Griffin d.aft. 1272
> | of Ightfield
> Eleanor = Robert le Strange
> of Blackmere, d. ca. 1276
>
> If Maud was the daughter of Rohese and granddaughter of Clemence,
> she must have been second wife of William, d. ca. 1240. Perhaps
> Farrer was right about the dual marriage, in which case Emma
> would be the first wife and Maud the second wife of William d.
> ca. 1240. Maud could have married William shortly before his
> death, and subsequently married John Fitz Alan. Since William d.
> bef. 1260 and Griffin were active immediately following their
> father's death, they could not have been sons of a Maud, b. aft.
> 1225, (assuming she is the same as Maud, dau. Rohese, dau.
> Clemence).
>
Rosie Bevan
Willielmi de Blamunster alias Blauminster.
(Doesn't pay to post first thing in the morning before a cup of coffee!)
Cheers
R
> > > The family that Maud evidently had married into ( de Albo
> Monasterio )
> > > evidently is known in some circles as Whitchurch; I see same in my
> records as
> > > de Blancminster.
> > >
> > > I am searching for notes as to other members; the one track I do
> show,
> > > one William de Blancminster, was the father of Eleanor, wife of Roger
le
> > > Strange of Wrockwardine (d. ca. Oct 1276), and thereby the grandfather
> of
> > > Fulk, lst Lord Strange of Blackmere.
> >
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Alienora Le Estrange, Johanna de Barentyn uxor domini Willielmi de Barentyn
> militis, Matilda uxor Willielmi de Bracy, sorores ipsius Bertteyae, sunt
> haeredes propinquiores ipsius Berttreyae ; et sunt aetate triginta annorum
> et amplius. Essex
>
> Eleanor appears to be a widow at this time. All three sisters are are said
> to be 30 years or more.
That matches the ca. 1276 death I had for Robert. This age puts
their births prior to 1250 (perhaps long prior, as I have seen
the same heir ranging from aged 30 and more to aged 50 and more
for the same set of inquisitions). Still this puts their birth
about the time of their grandfather's death, their father's birth
perhaps ca. 1210/5, barely younger that Maud de Verdun's mother
Rohese, which would make his hypothesized step-mother younger
than he was. This is looking less likely.
Is it possible that Clemence had a daughter Maud born before she
married Nicholas de Verdun who married a Blancminster, and who
was confused with her niece Maud, wife of John Fitz Alan in the
later ipm?
(I wish I could find my Clay material regarding Warenne of
Whitchurch.)
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> 9 Edw I (1280) Bertraya filia Willielmi de Blauminster
> Elynora Extranea, Johann de Barentyne, et Matilda de Bracy, soreres
> praedictae Bertreyae, sunt haeredes ipsius Bertreyae et sunt plenaria
> aetate. Salop.
> Alienora Le Estrange, Johanna de Barentyn uxor domini Willielmi de Barentyn
> militis, Matilda uxor Willielmi de Bracy, sorores ipsius Bertteyae, sunt
> haeredes propinquiores ipsius Berttreyae ; et sunt aetate triginta annorum
> et amplius. Essex
>
> Eleanor appears to be a widow at this time. All three sisters are are said
> to be 30 years or more.
>
> She held a fourth part of Blamunster manor in Shropshire
> Lands in 'Estaines ad montem' and Cavenell Parva in Essex
There is a surviving 15th century manuscript which is a copy of a
list of Shropshire tennants in chief (apparently dated after the
above 9 Edward I ipm, and sometime prior to 21 Edward I). It
says with respect to Albo Monasterio:
Bogo de Knovile per Alianorem ejus ux. et Rob. de Bracy per
Matildam ux. suam t. maner. de A. M. (Albo Monasterio) cum
membris, sc. Hilton, Burthall', Wodhows, Magna Asche, Parva
Asche, Tildestoke, Hethley, et Kempley, de Comite Warene, et ipse
de d'no R. in cap. ut membrum Baroniae suae. Et habet ibi lib.
cur. suam bis in anno, plac. [de] sang. et hutens lev. et furcas,
marcat. et fer. et warann. nesciunt quo waranto. De quib.
membris Nich. Audeleche t. Kempley. Et Joh'es fil. Hug. t. vill.
de Hynton de predictis Bogone et Rob'to.
Under Adurley, which included "Chalverhall", we see:
Will. de Calverhall' t. vill. de Chalverhall de Burgon' (sic) de
Knovell' et Alianora ex. ej. et ipse pred'c'o Joh'e*. (* = Joh'es
Lamare per Petronillam ux. ej.)
Now Bogo de Knoville was married to Eleanor, widow of Robert le
Strange. We have a conflict with respect to the husband of
Matilda - William or Robert. Maybe this record mistakes her son
for her husband, or alternatively, Bertrada's ipm mistakenly
repeated the name of Joan's husband when describing Maud. It
does appear that Joan, wife of Sir William de Barrington
d.s.p.(s.), as only two of the daughters are represented, unless
there has been a formal partition, and that Petronilla, wife of
John la Mere, is representative of the Barrington share.
(FWIW, at this time Ightfield was controlled by their first
cousin, "Joh'es fil. Griffini de Ightfeld".
taf
Cristopher Nash
You may have in mind his Chap. I, "The Early Generations of the
Family of Warenne" [subsec. 3, 'Some Other Branches of the Warenne
Family: (i) The Warennes of Whitchurch'], _Early Yorkshire Charters_,
Yorks Archeol Soc Recs VIII (1949) [Extra Series VI], 35-8, which
discusses Rosie's family group in relation to possible Warenne
connections with 'Blancmoster'[sic]/Barington. No mention of
Maud/Matilda, though he (or, say, Farrer) may well open this up
further elsewhere.
Calthorpe posters here may be interested in Clay's effort, pp. 38-9,
to show poss. desc. of the Calthorpes of Burnham Thorpe, Norf from
Philip de Warrene.
Cris
--
Bryant Smith
> I have this in my notes of Joan, and wonder if it is outdated:
>
> One source for the speculation that Agatha Ferrers was Joan's mother
> is Sir William Dugdale, in The Baronage of England (1675-6). He states
> his source to be Dr David Powel's History of Wales (1584). Powel's
> work is an enlarged edition of H Lhoyd's translation of The Historie
> of Cambria by the twelfth century Saint Caradoc of Llancarfan.
>
> Is Clemence now regarded as Joan's mother, rather than Agatha?
And if so which Clemence?
I too am still on Square One. Has the provenance of Dugdale's
statement been verified all the way back to St. Caradoc? If so
is the Tewkesbury Chronicle deemed a more reliable source and if
so why? It would be useful to know exactly what Caradoc wrote,
especially since Tewkesbury is a little oracular to my taste.
But I have a simpler problem, back here at Square one:
Whose Little Girl was Agatha? Did she ever marry anyone? Did
they have children?
Bryant Smith
> I have this in my notes of Joan, and wonder if it is outdated:
>
> One source for the speculation that Agatha Ferrers was Joan's mother
> is Sir William Dugdale, in The Baronage of England (1675-6). He states
> his source to be Dr David Powel's History of Wales (1584). Powel's
> work is an enlarged edition of H Lhoyd's translation of The Historie
> of Cambria by the twelfth century Saint Caradoc of Llancarfan.
>
> Is Clemence now regarded as Joan's mother, rather than Agatha?
Further to my earlier post, William Addams Reitwiesner, 5 Sep 1996,
said Agatha was a daughter to the Earl of Derby but while that tells
me she was near the "man line" of the Ferrers, there are three earls
who might possibly be her father, and the question becomes, which
earl?
Todd A. Farmerie
> WOO...@MSN.COM (CE Wood) wrote in message news:<7cb87ccf.01111...@posting.google.com>...
> > I have this in my notes of Joan, and wonder if it is outdated:
> >
> > One source for the speculation that Agatha Ferrers was Joan's mother
> > is Sir William Dugdale, in The Baronage of England (1675-6). He states
> > his source to be Dr David Powel's History of Wales (1584). Powel's
> > work is an enlarged edition of H Lhoyd's translation of The Historie
> > of Cambria by the twelfth century Saint Caradoc of Llancarfan.
> >
> > Is Clemence now regarded as Joan's mother, rather than Agatha?
Agatha was nothing but a guess, but since the only actual source
from the period specifically states that Joan was daughter of
"regina Clementia", this must be prefered over anyone's guess.
Now as to which Clemence, certainly not Clemence de Dauntsey, but
beyond that, we are back to guesses.
taf
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/8/01 9:38:13 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< Agatha was nothing but a guess, but since the only actual source
from the period specifically states that Joan was daughter of
"regina Clementia", this must be prefered over anyone's guess.
Now as to which Clemence, certainly not Clemence de Dauntsey, but
beyond that, we are back to guesses. >>
That is not that the man said. Anyway, Clemence de Dauntsey is still a
candidate.
She has not been disproved.
Anyway,m CE Wood wrote that this identification as Agatha was from 12th
AJones9446
>candidate.
>She has not been disproved.
>
>Anyway,m CE Wood wrote that this identification as Agatha was from 12th
>century Saint Caradoc of Llancarfan.
>
>> > Sir William Dugdale, in The Baronage of England (1675-6). He states
>> > his source to be Dr David Powel's History of Wales (1584). Powel's
>> > work is an enlarged edition of H Lhoyd's translation of The Historie
>> > of Cambria by the twelfth century Saint Caradoc of Llancarfan.
>> >
The Dictionary of National Biography in the entry for Caradog of Llancarfan (he
was a monk, but not a saint) states "it is more probable that he died before
1147, the latest possible date for the publication of the Historia Brittonum".
None of his chronicle has survived but his date of death would preclude his
having had anything to say about the mother of Joan.
Alan Jones
Chris Phillips
> Now as to which Clemence, certainly not Clemence de Dauntsey, but
> beyond that, we are back to guesses. >>
Ken Finton wrote:
> That is not that the man said. Anyway, Clemence de Dauntsey is still a
> candidate.
> She has not been disproved.
I think we have established that there was no such person as Clemence de
Dauntsey. That identification of the wife of Nicholas de Verdun was a
blunder by Paget.
As for Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun, identified by Paul Reed as the
daughter of Philip le Butiller, unless I've missed something she has not
been disproved. We have some chronological arguments that _may_ imply she
would have been too young to be Joan's mother, and an argument about
consanguinity, but that depends on the identification of Gladys Ddu as
Joan's daughter, which is still under debate.
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 12/8/01 9:38:13 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << Agatha was nothing but a guess, but since the only actual source
> from the period specifically states that Joan was daughter of
> "regina Clementia", this must be prefered over anyone's guess.
> Now as to which Clemence, certainly not Clemence de Dauntsey, but
> beyond that, we are back to guesses. >>
>
> That is not that the man said.
Your point being? The above statement stands alone.
> Anyway, Clemence de Dauntsey is still a candidate.
> She has not been disproved.
Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun has not been completely
disproven. Clemence "de Dauntsey" is straight out, as the
Dauntsey connection was not until much too late, and the Clemence
that had been called "de Dauntsey" was actually "le Boteler".
Thus "Clemence de Dauntsey" has been thoroughly disproven.
taf