Marriage of William 2nd Lord Stourton and Margaret Chideock

[Richard Smith]

The second edition of Complete Peerage, sub Stourton [CP, vol 12A, 302]
says that William Stourton, the future 2nd Baron, married Margaret
Chideock by 18 May 1450, and citing CCR, Hen VI, vol 5, 153. This is
one of a series of close roll entries regarding the death of Sir John
Chideock, the provision of a dowry for John's wife Katherine, and the
admission of John's two daughters and coheirs, which establish that John
Chideock's daughter Margaret was married to William Stourton, son to Sir
John Stourton.

Sir John Chideock had a theoretical claim to the Barony of FitzPayn,
created by writ in 1299, and he is listed as such in Complete Peerage,
though I don't believe he tried to claim the title (which went into
abeyance on his death). In his entry [CP, vol 5, 459-62], it says his
daughter Margaret had married William Stourton by 5 Apr 1441, but gives
no source or explanation for believing this.

Can anyone identify what the source may be? A marriage in 1441 is
earlier than I would have expected from when I estimate their children
to have been born, even allowing for the fact that Margaret was probably
only 12 at the time and likely wouldn't have started having children for
some years.

I've scanned through CPR and CCR for 1441 but found nothing. I did
wonder whether it might have been something to do with the death of Sir
John Chideock's stepfather Ralph Bush, who still had control of John's
mother's dower, but he didn't die until 11 July 1441 and I can't see
anything relevant.

Any ideas?

Richard

[Adrian]

ODNB has m. before 18 May 1450 [under Stourton family (c1380-1485)]. I
don't know which of the sources cited this is based on.

Adrian

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Richard Smith]

On 20/08/17 13:37, Adrian wrote:
> ODNB has m. before 18 May 1450 [under Stourton family (c1380-1485)]. I
> don't know which of the sources cited this is based on.

Thanks. I hadn't thought to look in the ODNB.

18 May 1450 is the date of the earliest of the series of close roll
entries following Sir John Chideock's death [CCR, Hen VI, vol 5, 153-55]
which makes it clear that William, son of Sir John Stourton (as the 1st
Baron then was), was married to Margaret, daughter and coheiress of the
late Sir John Chideock.

However nothing in those close roll entries implies the marriage had
just happened, and so should be seen as contradicting the suggestion
that the marriage had happened by 5 April 1441 [CP, vol 5, 462]. My
only reason for questioning that date, besides the lack of a citation,
is that William's IPM taken on 18 February 1477/8 found his son and
heir, John, to be aged 24, putting his birth in 1453-4 [Charles Mowbray,
/The History of the Noble House of Stourton/ (1899), 243].

Twelve years or more is an unusually long time between the marriage and
the birth of the eventual heir, though obviously there could have been
older sons who predeceased their father, and some of the daughters may
well have been older than John. Also, Sir John Chideock's IPM tells us
that Margaret was "21 and more" in 1450 [CP, vol 5, 460-62], meaning she
may only have been 12 when she married; if so, a period without any
pregnancies would be expected.

Richard

[taf]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 6:47:34 AM UTC-7, Richard Smith wrote:

> My
> only reason for questioning that date, besides the lack of a citation,
> is that William's IPM taken on 18 February 1477/8 found his son and
> heir, John, to be aged 24, putting his birth in 1453-4 [Charles Mowbray,
> /The History of the Noble House of Stourton/ (1899), 243].

Vivian reports a 1476 pre-marriage agreement for Margaret Stourton, another child of William and Margaret Chideock. This would likely also place the child's birth in the 1450s.

taf

[Richard Smith]

On 20/08/17 14:57, taf wrote:

> Vivian reports a 1476 pre-marriage agreement for Margaret Stourton,
> another child of William and Margaret Chideock. This would likely also
> place the child's birth in the 1450s.

I assume you're referring to J.L. Vivian's printed /Visitations of
Devon/ (1895), p 189, sub Chudleigh of Ashton. Sadly, like many of his
contemporaries, Vivian wasn't very good at citing sources, and fails to
here. Burke's /Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies/ (1841) mentions it too;
it has marginally more detail, though still does not cite a source.

James Chudleigh, esq. of Ashton, who m. Margaret, daughter of
William, Lord Stourton, of which marriage the beginning of the
coventant runs thus: "That James Chudleigh, shall marry Margaret,
daughter to William, Lord Stourton, who giveth him an hundred Marks,
anno, 15 Edward IV. 1476"

I suspect Avice Stourton was also born in the 1450s, but the details on
her life are very sketchy.

[Adrian]

On 19/08/2017 22:36, Richard Smith wrote:

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 29 March 2004 Jim Webber raised the problem of chronology of the
Chidiok daughters. I'm not sure if it was resolved, don't think so. See

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-03/1080591386

Adrian

[taf]

This will be of minimal help, but John Chideock was born 1 November 1401.

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/22-223/

taf

[Richard Smith]

On 20/08/17 17:31, Adrian wrote:

> On 29 March 2004 Jim Webber raised the problem of chronology of the
> Chidiok daughters. I'm not sure if it was resolved, don't think so. See
>
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-03/1080591386

Thanks. It's a difficult family to search for in the archives as there
are so many different spellings of Chideock.

I can however answer one of Jim's questions:

> To make the apparent chronology problems worse, Leo van de Pas, in a
> post to SGM on 5 Sep 1998, stated that Margaret Chidiok's daughter
> Catherine Stourton m. William de la Pole, b. c1478, d. 20 Nov 1539.
> If Catherine were approximately the same age as her husband, she would
> have been born c1478, and her mother Margaret Chidiok might well have
> been aged 50 or more at her birth!

The post by Leo that Jim refers to is this one:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1998-09/0905002266


Unless the conventional understanding of the family is very wrong,
Katherine Stourton was indeed much older than William de la Pole who was
her third husband. Her second husband, Henry Grey, 7th Baron Grey of
Codnor, was born c1435, more than 40 years older than de la Pole. Her
first husband was Sir William Berkeley who died in 1486; Wikipedia says
they married in about 1475 but gives no source, and I've not
investigated them yet. Wikipedia also says Katherine was born c1455,
again giving no source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Stourton,_Baroness_Grey_of_Codnor

Richard

[taf]

Looking further into the Chideock/Stourton thread, I find a conflict between CP and a primary record regarding the marriage(s) of the John Chideocks.

CP V 456-8 reports that:

John Chideock, aged 40+ in 1388, married Joan, daughter and eventual coheiress of John de Seint Lou by Alice, daughter and coheiress of John Pavely. He died 1390, and she remarried John Bache, who d. 1409. John Chideock and Joan were parents of:

John Chideock, aged 12+/15+ in 1390, married bef. 1390, Alianor, daughter of Ioun Fitz Warin, by Maud, daughter of John Argentein. He died 25 or 28 Sep. 1415. She remarried Ralph Busshe and died 1 or 7 Dec. 1433. Their son was:

John Chideock, born 1 Nov. 1401.

This account contrasts with a 1423 inquisition intended to correct a previous inquisition into the heirs of John de Pavely. It reports that the earlier inquisition on the 1418 death of Ellen, widow of Walter Pavely, concluded that the Pavely heirs were William Cheyne, son of Joan, daughter of John Pavely, John Chidyok, son of Ela, daughter of Agnes, another daughter of John Pavely, and Ellen (sic) daughter of Richard de Sancto Mauro, son of Elizabeth (sic) daughter of John Pavely. The new inquisition concludes that the daughter of John Pavely was actually named Alice, and that her grandmother, Pavely's daughter, was Ela.

So, CP gives:

John Pavely
Agnes Pavely m. John de St Lou
Joan de St Lou m. John Chideock
John Chideock m. Eleanor
John Chideock, fl. 1423

The ipm gives:

John Pavely
Agnes Pavely
Ela
John Chideock fl. 1423

The account in CP seems to be well-supported, so it looks like the inquisition - both inquisitions, in fact - have dropped out a generation, confused John Chideock's mother Eleanor FitzWaryn with his grandmother, Joan de St. Lou. Given, then, that both junior heirs seem to be great-great-grandchildren of John Pavely, I have to wonder if the line to William Cheyne, shown as Pavely's grandson, hasn't also suffered a trim.

Has anyone looked into this further?

taf

[Richard Smith]

On 20/08/17 18:38, taf wrote:
> Looking further into the Chideock/Stourton thread, I find a conflict between CP and a primary record regarding the marriage(s) of the John Chideocks.
>
> CP V 456-8 reports that:
>
> John Chideock, aged 40+ in 1388, married Joan, daughter and eventual
> coheiress of John de Seint Lou by Alice, daughter and coheiress of John
> Pavely. He died 1390, and she remarried John Bache, who d. 1409. John
> Chideock and Joan were parents of:
>
> John Chideock, aged 12+/15+ in 1390, married bef. 1390, Alianor,
> daughter of Ioun Fitz Warin, by Maud, daughter of John Argentein. He
> died 25 or 28 Sep. 1415. She remarried Ralph Busshe and died 1 or 7 Dec.
> 1433. Their son was:
>
> John Chideock, born 1 Nov. 1401.
>
> This account contrasts with a 1423 inquisition intended to correct a
> previous inquisition into the heirs of John de Pavely. It reports that
> the earlier inquisition on the 1418 death of Ellen, widow of Walter
> Pavely, concluded that the Pavely heirs were William Cheyne, son of
> Joan, daughter of John Pavely, John Chidyok, son of Ela, daughter of
> Agnes, another daughter of John Pavely, and Ellen (sic) daughter of
> Richard de Sancto Mauro, son of Elizabeth (sic) daughter of John Pavely.
> The new inquisition concludes that the daughter of John Pavely was
> actually named Alice, and that her grandmother, Pavely's daughter, was Ela.

To assist anyone else following this thread, the 1423 and 1418 IPMs are,
CIPM vol 22, no 354 and CIPM vol 21, no 221, respectively:

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/22-354/
http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-221/

In order that the corrections in the 1423 IPM make any sense, one has to
assume the 1418 IPM on that site has been edited to apply *some* of the
corrections made in 1423. The version you quote above does not have
these corrections applied.

So according to the corrected IPM, John Pavely had three heirs:

* William Cheyney (aged 30+), son of Joan, dau. of John Pavely;
* John Chideok (aged 20+), son of Ela, dau. of Agnes, dau. of John
Pavely; and
* Alice (aged 12+), dau of Richard de Sancto Mauro, son of Elizabeth,
dau. of Agnes, dau. of John Pavely.

If these relationships are correct we would expect to be able to verify
them via other IPMs.

William Cheyney's descent can be verified easily enough by the IPM of
Ralph Cheyney [CIPM vol 18, no 440-45].

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp125-144

Ralph died 11 Nov 1400. His widow Joan was daughter of John Pavely,
knight. His son and heir was William Cheyney, aged 26+, who was also
heir to Joan.

However the other two descents are contradicted by the 1375 IPM of John
de Sancto Laudo [CIPM vol 14, no 155].

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol14/pp164-182

John held Westbury, Wilts for life after the death of his first wife,
Alice, one of the daughters and heirs of John Pavely. John de Sancto
Laudo's heir was his son Alexander by his second wife Margaret. Alice's
heirs were her two daughters:

* Joan (aged 21+), wife of John Chideock "the younger"; and
* Ela de Bradeston (aged 18+).

Chronologically, John Chideock "the younger" must be man described in CP
as the 4th Baron. According to CP, his father was also called John and
died in 1388, so the epithet "the younger" makes sense in 1375.

> So, CP gives:
>
> John Pavely
> Agnes Pavely m. John de St Lou
> Joan de St Lou m. John Chideock
> John Chideock m. Eleanor
> John Chideock, fl. 1423

Minor correction: according to CP, in generation 2, the wife of John de
St Lou was *Alice* not *Agnes*. It's the 1418/23 IPMs that name her
Agnes. With the name changed back to Alice, the first three generations
are confirmed perfectly by the IPM of John de Sancto Laudo, as Sancto
Laudo is the Latin form of St L.

The picture can be completed using the IPM of his widow Margaret [CIPM
vol 19, no 957-60] in 1412.

http://www.history.ac.uk/cipm-19-part-ix

This says that Alexander, her and John's son, had died without issue.
John's heirs were now:

* William, Lord Botreaux (aged 22+), son of Elizabeth, dau. of John de
Sancto Laudo by his second wife Margaret;
* John Chideock (aged 26+), son of John Chideock by Joan, dau. of John
de Sancto Laudo by his first wife Alice; and
* Alice (aged 3), dau. of Richard Seymour, son of Richard Seymour by
Ela, dau. of John de Sancto Laudo by his first wife Alice.

Noting that Sancto Mauro is a Latinised form of Seymour, the latter two
heirs are recognisably close to heirs given in the 1418/1423 IPMs.

> The ipm gives:
>
> John Pavely
> Agnes Pavely
> Ela
> John Chideock fl. 1423
>
> The account in CP seems to be well-supported, so it looks like the
> inquisition - both inquisitions, in fact - have dropped out a
> generation, confused John Chideock's mother Eleanor FitzWaryn with his
> grandmother, Joan de St. Lou.

Possibly coupled with a bit of confusion with his great aunt Ela de St
Lo. The 1423 correction results in both St Lo heiresses being called
Ela, so it's clear one the uncorrected one must be wrong: it should be
Joan not Ela. But perhaps that went unnoticed because it was assumed
"Ela" referred to the 6th Baron's mother Eleanor rather than the 5th
Baron's mother Joan.

With that understood, the only other error is the substitution of the
name Agnes for the name Alice as the heirs' great grandmother.

It also helps to know that before marrying Richard Seymour, Ela de St Lo
had been married to Thomas de Bradeston who died 1374 [CP vol 11, 360].

> Given, then, that both junior heirs seem to be
> great-great-grandchildren of John Pavely, I have to wonder if the
> line to William Cheyne, shown as Pavely's grandson, hasn't also
> suffered a trim.

I think the Cheyne line is probably right as the chronology seems
reasonable. William Cheyney was 30 and more in 1418, so born in or
before 1488. His mother Joan (née Pavely) was baptised at Westbury,
Wilts on 14 Nov 27 Ed III (1353) [CIPM vol 12, no 177].

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol12/pp155-169

The difference in the number of generations is explained by John
Pavely's IPM [CIPM vol 11, no 160].

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol11/pp148-162

John died on 21 Oct 1361 having been married twice. His first wife was
Elizabeth, who was the mother of Alice, wife of John de St Lo "the
younger". Alice died half a day after her father, and left three
daughters Joan aged 11 years, Elizabeth aged 8 years, and Ela aged 6
years; evidently Elizabeth died without issue, and Joan and Ela de St Lo
are the daughters mentioned elsewhere. John's second wife was Agnes
(who had died on 5 Oct 1361), and she was the mother of Joan, then aged
8. This is the Joan Pavely who later married Ralph Cheyney. The fact
she was younger than her niece, Joan de St Lo, the future wife of John
Chideock, explains the difference in generations.

The fact that John, his second wife, and his older daughter all died
within the space of three weeks may well be explained by the fact that
the Black Death had just returned, and the 1361/2 outbreak is thought to
have killed 20% of the population.

That was an interesting diversion.

Richard