C.P. Addition: Joan de Bohun, wife of Stephen de Somery, Godfrey de Crowcombe, and Ebal de Mont (or des Monts), Knt.

692 views
Skip to first unread message

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 7, 2014, 3:51:55 PM3/7/14
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

The online Discovery catalog includes two letters of a certain Joan de Someri [Somery] in the collection of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and Exchequer [see abstracts further below]. In the first letter below dated 1273, Joan de Somery requests that Walter de Merton the Chancellor grant her nephew, John de Bohun, seisin of his land before his mother gets her dower.

Joan de Somery's nephew, John de Bohun, can be readily be identified as Sir John de Bohun, Knt. (born c. 1247, died 1284), son and heir of Sir Frank de Bohun, Knt., of Midhurst, Sussex (died died 14 Sept. 1273), by his 1st wife, Sibyl, daughter of William de Ferrers, Knt., 5th Earl of Derby [see Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 199-200 (sub Bohun)].

At the time, Joan de Somery wrote her letter on behalf of John de Bohun, John's father had just died. Joan was evidently attempting to arrange a quick grant to her nephew of his father's lands.

Sir Frank de Bohun's surviving wife was Nichole, widow of Bartholomew de [la] Chapelle, of Waltham, Lincolnshire, Otterbourne, Hampshire, etc., Serjeant of the King's Chapel. In 1275-6 Adam de Climpinge, chaplain, arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against John le Sage and Nichole, widow of Frank de Bohun, touching a tenement in Rustington, Sussex [Reference: Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 45 (1885): 296].

Curiously, Nichole was both step-mother and mother-in-law to Sir Frank de Bohun's son, Sir John de Bohun. Hence, to refer to Nichole as John's mother would be customary medieval custom.

But who was Joan de Somery? Reviewing available members of the Somery family, the only obviously candidate to be her is Lady Joan de Somery (died 1282), wife successively of Stephen de Somery (died 1239), Godfrey de Crowcombe (died 1246), and Ebal de Mont (or des Monts), Knt. (died 1268). She is mentioned but her family name not identified in Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 352, footnote k (sub Strange). Although she was known as Joan de Somery as an adult, this was not her birth name. Rather, she took the name from her first husband, Stephen de Somery. Her parentage has never been known.

Calendar of Inqs. Post Mortem 2 (1906): 386-387 refers to her as Lady Joan de Somery and states she died 24 June 1282. This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nywMAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA386

Joan de Somery's 2nd and 3rd husbands were both Stewards of the Household to King Henry III. As such, Joan would have held sufficient social rank to have written personal letters to the Chancellor and the Archbishop requesting their favor. As example of her favor with King Edward I, I find she was granted letters of protection in 1270, she then going with the king's license to France with Henry the king's son [see Calendar of Patents Rolls, 1266-1272 (1913): pg. 412].

For Joan de Somery to be Sir John de Bohun's aunt, she would necessarily have to be the sister of either his father or his mother.

In this case, Joan de Somery can immediately be ruled out as a sister of Sir John de Bohun's mother, Sibyl de Ferrers. While Sibyl de Ferrers had two sisters named Joan, both have contrary history. As such, Joan de Somery would necessarily be a hitherto unknown sister of Sir Frank de Bohun, Knt. [died 1273].

Joan's descent from the baronial Clare family is outlined below.

1. Richard Fitz Gilbert, of Clare, Suffolk, married Rohese (or Rose) Giffard.
2. Gilbert Fitz Richard, of Clare, Suffolk, married Alice de Clermont.
3. Richard Fitz Gilbert, of Clare, Suffolk, married Alice of Chester.
4. Roger de Clare, Earl of Clare or Hertford, married Maud de Saint Hilary
5. Aveline de Clare, married Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Knt., Earl of Essex.
6. Cecily Fitz Geoffrey, married Savary de Bohun, of Midhurst, Sussex.
7. Joan de Bohun, married (1st) Stephen de Somery, (2nd) Godfrey de Crowcombe, and (3rd) Ebal de Mont (or des Monts), Knt.

Lady Joan Somery's third husband was Sir Ebal de Mont (or Monts), Knt. (died 1268), of Milton, Cambridgeshire, Ketton, Rutland, etc., co-seigneur of Mont, canton Vaud, Steward of the Household to King Henry III, Constable of Windsor Castle. While Joan had no issue by her 1st and 2nd husbands, Joan and Ebal had one daughter, Eleanor, wife of Sir John le Strange, Knt., 1st Lord Strange of Knockin (died 1309) [see Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 352-353 (sub Strange)].

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Joan de Bohun (alias Joan de Somery) and her 3rd husband, Sir Ebal de Mont (or Monts), Knt.:

Elizabeth Alsop, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Stephen Bull, William Crymes, John Fenwick, William Goddard, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard.

For additional details on the Bohun family of Midhurst, Sussex, please see my book, Royal Ancestry (published 2013).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Item #1: Reference: SC 1/7/195
Description:

Joan de Someri to Walter de Merton, chancellor: for her nephew, John de Bohun, to have seisin of his land before his mother gets her dower.

Date: [1273 Oct]

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Item #2: Reference: SC 1/31/14
Description:

Joan de Someri to Walter Giffard, archbishop of York: request for a writ liberate for wax used by the late king.

Date: [c. 1272-1274]

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 7, 2014, 4:08:39 PM3/7/14
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post just now, I stated the following:

"As example of her favor with King Edward I, I find she was granted letters of protection in 1270, she then going with the king's license to France with Henry the king's son [see Calendar of Patents Rolls, 1266-1272 (1913): pg. 412]."

The king in 1270 was King Henry III, not Edward I.

For "Henry the king's son," read "Henry son of Edward the king's son." [i.e., the king's grandson]

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 8, 2014, 4:06:03 PM3/8/14
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

In a previous post, I presented contemporary evidence which indicates that Joan de Somery [died 1282], widow of Sir Eble de Mont (or de Monz, des Montes), was the aunt of Sir John de Bohun, Knt., of Midhurst, Sussex [died 1284].

For further evidence that the correct Joan de Somery has been located, I've since located a record which shows that this particular Joan de Somery was acquainted with Bartholomew de la Chapelle, whose widow, Nichole, later married Joan's brother, Sir Frank de Bohun, Knt., of Midhurst, Sussex.

Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258 (1908): 239 shows that in 1253 Bartholomew de la Chapelle released all his right to the manor of Milton, Cambridgeshire to Sir Eble de Mont (or Monz, Montes) and his wife, Joan [de Somery], when a chirograph was made in the said court between Lady Clarice de Craucumb and the said Eble and Joan touching the said manor. This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bivg6Arg23kC&pg=PA239

Lady Clarice de Craucumb named in this record was the heir (presumably niece] of Joan de Somery's 2nd husband, Sir Godfrey de Crowcombe [see Given-Wilson War, Government & Aristocracy in the British Isles, c.1150-1500 (2008): 26-54].

The manor of Milton, Cambridgeshire was originally held by Sir Godfrey de Crowcombe. At his death in 1246, the manor passed by inheritance to his heir, Clarice de Crowcombe. In 1252 she released the manor of Milton, Cambridgeshire to Godfrey's widow, Joan, and her new husband, Eble, in tail, with remainder to Eble's own heirs. The manor subsequently passed by descent to the heirs of Joan and Eble's daughter, Eleanor, wife of Sir John le Strange, Knt., 1st Lord Strange of Knockin.

For further particulars regarding the manor of Milton, Cambridgeshire, see VCH Cambridge 9 (1989): 179-182, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=15392&strquery=Godfrey%20Crowcombe

Also see Roberts, Excerpta è rotulis finium in Turri Londinensi asservatis, Henrico Tertio rege, AD 1216-1272 2 (1836): 127, 238, which may be viewed at the following weblinks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ev09AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA127

http://books.google.com/books?id=ev09AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA238

Furthermore, following the death of Bartholomew de la Chapelle in 1258, I find that by 1259 Eble de Mont was granted wardship of the lands late of Bartholomew de Chapelle "assigned to him by view of the treasurer and chamberlains in lieu of the fee which he receives at the Exchequer." Reference: Calendar of Liberate Rolls, 4 (1959): 461, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.abh6499.0004.001;view=1up;seq=473

In a later record, Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1266-1272 (1913): 60 indicates that in 1267 Eble de Mont (3rd husband of Joan de Somery) was granted the wardship of the lands and serjeantry of the king's chapel and the office of spigornel of the king's seal, late of Bartholomew de la Chapelle, deceased.

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h3v6/body/new/Henry3vol6page0060.pdf

Taken together, these records prove that Joan de Somery and her 3rd husband, Sir Eble de Mont, were well acquainted with Bartholomew de la Chapelle, whose widow, Nichole, married Joan's brother, Sir Frank de Bohun. During the minority of Bartholomew de la Chapelle's daughter and heiress, Joan de la Chapelle, the wardship of Bartholomew's offices and lands were held by Sir Eble de Mont. Joan de la Chapelle was subsequently married to Joan de Somery's nephew, Sir John de Bohun.

So, yes, the right Joan de Somery has been located.

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 9, 2014, 10:41:34 PM3/9/14
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is a record of the descendants of Joan de Bohun (also known as Joan de Somery), wife successively of Stephen de Somery, Godfrey de Crowcombe, Knt., and Eble de Mont/Monz/Montes, Knt., out to the 5th generation.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +

A. Joan de Bohun, died 1282.
+ Stephen de Somery, died 1239.
+ Godfrey de Crowcombe, Knt., died 1246.
+ Eble de Mont/Monz/Montes, Knt., died 1268.

B. (by 3rd m.) Eleanor de Mont/Monz/Montes, died before 1282.
+ John le Strange, Knt., 1st Lord Strange, of Knockin, died 1309.

C. John le Strange, 2nd Lord Strange, of Knockin, died 1310.
+ Iseult

D. John le Strange, 3rd Lord Strange, of Knockin, died 1323.
D. Roger le Strange, 4th Lord Strange, of Knockin, died 1349.
+ Maud (1st mar.).
+ before 1244 Joan de Ingham (2nd mar.).

E. (by 1st m.) Roger le Strange, Knt., 5th Lord Strange, of Knockin, died 1382.
+ Aline de Arundel, died 1386.

C. Eble le Strange, Knt., Lord Strange, died 1335.
+ Alice de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln, died 1348

C. Hamon le Strange, of Hunstanton, Norfolk, dead in 1317.
+ Margaret Vernon.

D. Hamon le Strange, Esq.
D. Edmund le Strange.

joe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 12, 2014, 10:15:04 PM3/12/14
to
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 10:41:34 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> B. (by 3rd m.) Eleanor de Mont/Monz/Montes, died before 1282.
>
> + John le Strange, Knt., 1st Lord Strange, of Knockin, died 1309.

Douglas, what is the source for "died before 1282". In the Shropshire Inquisition of her husband (1309), their son John le Strange is given a birth date of May 18, 1282.

Thanks,
Joe C

TJ Booth AOL

unread,
Mar 14, 2014, 11:47:44 AM3/14/14
to GenMedieval
Douglas,

Thank you for identifying the parents of Joan, wife of Ebal de
Mont/Monz/Montes, Knt . It was good detective work which prompted me to
want to know more about the 'other' Joan de Somery and her husbands.
Here are some additional items about Joan and her daughter Eleanor,
including a correction to the CP statement that Eleanor d. in 1282 (Joe
Cook's question). Records documenting tracing how Milton and
Reton/Retton/Retene were acquired by Joan's last 2 husbands, and
descended to the LeStrange family, are also noted.

While there are many spellings of her last husband's name, most of the
many entries in the Charter and Close Rolls call him "Ebulo de
Montibus", so pardon me for using that spelling. Rosie Bevan posted the
bios of he and [maybe?] his father from 'Knights of Edward I' on SGM in
2004 (same spelling as well).[1] That bio notes he d. bef 1 Apr 1268,
and that the queen (Eleanor de Provence) was executor - surely Ebulo's
dau named after the queen.

You had noted that Montibus had been named guardian ofBohun's future
wife, Joan de Capella, a fact noted in the VCH for Hampshire. [2] Here
is an additional record that Joan de Somery was involved in a land
transaction with John de Bohun and his wife Joan de Cappella (she then
about age 15) in 1271 - this is just 2 years before her letter to Walter
Merton mentioning 'her nephew, John de Bohun'. This transaction seems
likely associated with their marriage. Here is it in latin, perhaps a
newsgroup latin expert can fully translate it : "[28 Jan 1270/71] Hec
est convencio facta inter domina Johannam de Somery ex una parte et
Johannem de Bohun et Johannam uxorem ejus ex altera parte; videlicet,
cum dicta Johannam de Somery tenuit manerium de Newetimbre cum
pertinenciis in comitatu Sussex' ex commissione domini regis usque ad
legitimam etatem dicte Johanne filie et heredis quondam Bartholomei de
Capella, eadem Johanna de Somery recognovit dictum manerium cum suis
pertinenciis esse jus et hereditatem ipsius Johanne uxoris Johannis
predicti et eum cum suis pertinenciis eisdem reddidit, salvis bonis et
catallis ipsius Johanne de Somery ibidem inventis. Et pro hac
recognicione et reddicione predicti Johannes et Johanna uxor ejus
concesserunt et tradiderunt predicte Johanne de Somery officia
spigornelli et hostiarii capelle domini regis Anglie, que ad eos
pertinet de hereditate dicti Bartholomei, habenda et tenenda eidem
Johanne et heredibus suis vel assignatis suis cum omnibus exitibus,
libertatibus et pertinenciis suis sine ullo retenemento a festo
Purificacionis Beate Marie virginis anno regni regis Henrici filii regis
Johannis quinquagesimo quinto usque ad terminum quatuor annorum proximo
sequentium plene et integre completorum. Et predicti Johannes de Bohun
et Johanna uxor ejus et heredes dicti Johannis et dicte Johanne dicta
officia cum exitibus et omnia ad ea pertinentibus sicut supradictum est
dicte Johanne de Somery et heredibus suis vel assignatis suis contra
omnes gentes warantizabunt et defendent usque ad finem dicti termini. Et
in fine dicti termini revertentur dicta officia cum suis pertinenciis
dictis Johanni et Johanne uxori ejus sine omni contradiccione racione
hujusmodi concessionis supradicte. Et dictus Johannes de Bohun concessit
pro se et heredibus suis et in curia domini regis coram rege recognovit
quod, si contingat quod idem Johannes vel Johanna uxor ejus infra primum
annum vel in fine primi anni obierint, quod absit, pro quo dicta Johanna
vel heredes sui seu assignati sui impediantur vel in aliquo modo ipsam
vel ipsos impediri contingerit quominus officia predicta cum suis
pertinenciis ad terminum suum completum tenere non possit vel exitus
inde percipere ut supradictum est, quod vicecomites in quibus
comitatibus dictus Johannes vel heredes sui terras vel catalla habeant
levari possint de terris et catallis eorundem ad opus dicte Johanne de
Somery vel heredum seu assignatorum suorum triginta et tres libras
sterlingorum pro tribus annis residuis solvendas eidem infra quindena
per quam ipsos inde impediri aut eici contigerit. In cujus rei
testimonium partes mutuis scriptis in modum cyrographi confectis
mutuatim sigilla sua apposuerunt; hiis testibus, Benedicto de Blakeham,
Galfrido de Percy, Hugone Sturmy, militibus, Johanne de Kirkeby, Johanne
le Faukener, Hugone de Kendal, Gilberto de Chalhunte, Ricardo de Wy,
Ricardo de Candevere, Rogero de Havering', Stephano de Acton' et aliis.
Datum apud Westmonasterium xxviij. die Januarii anno supradicto."[3]

Based on the above record, the CP II:199-200 entry for John Bohun can be
expanded, to add the fact that Bohun and Joan were m. bef 28 Jan 1270/71.

As you know, John V LeStrange's mother, clearly documented in CP
XII/1:351, was also named Joan de Somery, (dau of Roger de Somery of
Dudley, Staffordshire by Nichole d'Aubeny). Since his mother received no
dower in any of the ipm's for his father (who drowned in 1275), CP
concluded she d. before her husband. Thus, any mention of a Joan de
Somery after that date is for the 'other' Joan de Somery. It seems
likely that the 'other' Joan used the surname of first husband Stephen
de Somery (of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire) because she held
Haslingfield in dower for her lifetime. Per Joan's ipm, writ dated 14
Aug 1282, [4], it is the only property mentioned there. Use of the
Somery surname also perhaps removed a possible legal objection that her
holding of Milton was held in dower of the heirs of Godfrey de
Crowcombe, and thus could not be inherited or granted.

Joan de Somery's ipm (date of writ, 14 Aug 1282) is surely the source
for the XIV:596statement that "She died bef 14 Aug 1282". Unfortunately,
the CP language has 'she' referring to Eleanor de Montibus, raising
questions about how Eleanor could be mother of John VI and his younger
brothers, since John VI (per his father's ipm) was age 27 'and more' in
1309. But since CP also notes John V's 2nd wife Maud de Walton was still
married to first husband John Spradling in 1290, Eleanor de Montibus is
certainly the mother of John, and in all likelihood of Hamon and Ebulo.
We only know Eleanor d. bef 6 Oct 1299 when John V and Maud were
entailed Middle Shropshire. To avoid future confusion, the CP entry
should be corrected to read "Joan de Somery died bef 14 Aug 1282". The
absence of Eleanor's name in her mother's ipm is not fatal, since her
mother likely previously granted her own properties away.

John V's mother was dead before 1276, so the following grant of Milton,
Cambridgeshire could only be by the 'other' Joan, despite several
usually reliable sources identifying her as John V's mother. "Joan de
Somery settles the manor and advowson of Midelton [Milton]
Cambridgeshire on John and Alianora, and the heirs of John by Alianora,
but, in default of such heirs, with remainder to Joan. In return, John
le Strange gives to Joan the value of half Midelton, to be taken out of
his manor of Hunstanston, and 100 solidates of land and rents elsewhere,
to hold to Joan for her life. If Hunstanston proved non-equivalent to
half Midelton, the overplus, if any, was to remain with John le Strange,
or the deficiency, if any, was to be made good to Joan out of Le
Strange’s nearest estates. On Joan’s death, and also on Alianora’s
death, without issue, Hunstanston was to revert to Le Strange. The
advowson and capital Messuages of either manor were to pass in exchange,
as if equal, and were not to be extended" [Hamon LeStrange (LeStrange
Records, Longmans Green; London; 1916, page 186 @
books.google.com/books?id=lfIxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA186 ]

The descent of Milton can be traced back to its acquisition by Godfrey
de Crowcombe. As you note, Godfrey de Crowcombe was well known to the
royal family. That Somery owned Midelton/Milton - unusual for the time -
is placed in good perspective in a recent book by Chris Given-Wilson,
portions of which are available online. In the chapter devoted to
Godfrey of Crowcombe, it notes that even Braxton found the Milton
transaction noteworthy, its form turning what started out as a dower
interest in Milton, into Joan's ownership of the property. "Godfrey had
one final arrangement to make, and it was for Joan, his second wife.
Initially he had assigned her in dower the manor of Milton just outside
Cambridge (this was property he acquired from Falkes de Breaute.). But
then he went further . . Godfrey granted Milton to Robert de Muscegros
and his heirs and assigns. . . Muscegros the Steward of the Queen [as
would be Joan's 3rd husband] was a fellow Somerset man and quite
possibly a Crowcombe protege. . . He attests all the surviving charters
in which Godfrey disposed of his estates. The idea now was for Muscegros
to grant Milton . . to Joan in hereditary right, which meant that,
unlike dower, it could pass to her heirs. . . [possibly] the Queen [was
involved], too . . Perhaps Joan, with Milton under her belt, was always
intended [by the Queen] for the man who became her next husband, the
queen's Savoyard kinsman and future steward, Ebulo de Montibus." [Chris
Given-Wilson;War Government and Aristicracy in the British Isles;
Woodbridge; Boydell Press; 2008; page 51]

The Milton grant itself, from Muscegros to Somery, happened several
years after Crowcombe died. Although portions are missing in the Charter
Roll transcript, the gist of the transaction is clear, and the mention
of the name 'Beche' suggests why CP first thought Joan was perhaps of
that family. "Feb 18 1250. Reading. [membrane 2] The like of a charter,
whereby Robert de Muscegros granted to Joan de Sumery, her heirs and
assigns, the manor of [Mi]delton, to hold by rendering . . [missing] . .
of Beche a pair of gilt spurs or 6rf. at Easter . . [missing] . .
Craucumbe, of whose gift the said Robert had the said manor . .
[missing] . . Witnesses . . [missing] . . de Eboraco, bishop of
Saresbery, Sir John Mansel, Sir Ralph son of Nicholas, Sir Paulinus
Peyvre, Sir Geoffrey de . . . [missing].[5]

In a like manner, the descent of Ketene (Keton/Ketton) Rutland from
Ebulo de Montibus to John VII LeStrange if fully documented. John VII
LeStrange, underage in 1317, is also identified as 'kinsman and heir of
Ebulo de Montibus'. Ketene was granted by Henry III's son Edward to
Ebulo de Montibus on 24 Mar 1257.[6] Ebulo then subinfeuded it to Ralph
de Greynham and Mabel his wife on 23 Nov 1265 for 200 pounds, the
transaction not recorded until a 1316 inspeximus about the time Greynham
d. Greynham was agreed to be responsible for the associated 1/4 knight's
fee (this is before Edward I's property reforms, so subinfeudation was
still legal). [7] Ralph Greynham d. about 1317, but the writ of
certiorari for an inquisition was not issued until 28 Nov 1322. In the
inquisition he is shown as having held Keton, Rutland of John [VII]
LeStrange [3rd Lord Strange], 'kinsman and heir of Ebulo de Montibus'.[8]

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

Footnotes
---------
[1] Rosie Bevan; Re: Elizabeth de Clinton, wife of Eble de Mounts
[Eubulo de Montibus]; 16 Sep 2004;
archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2004-09/1095287797
[2] William Page; 'Parishes: Otterbourne', A History of the County of
Hampshire: Volume 3 (1908), pp. 440-444. URL:
www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42023
[3] A.E. Stampt, editor; 'Close Rolls, February 1271', Calendar of Close
Rolls, Henry III: volume 14: 1268-1272 (1938), pp. 393-398. URL:
www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=95808
[4] Maxwell Lyte editor; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol II
(Edw I); London; 1906; page 243 @
books.google.com/books?id=nywMAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA243
[5] Maxwell Lyte editor; Cal Charter Rolls; Hen III Vol. I; London;
1903; page 347 @ books.google.com/books?id=rrsKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA347
[6] Maxwell Lyte editor; Calendar of Charter Rolls; Vol 2; London;
1906; page 24 @ books.google.com/books?id=tyUqAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA24 . Nov 5,
1259. Westminster. [membrane 6] Inspeximus and confirmation of a charter
whereby Edward, the king's eldest son, gave to Ebulo de Montibus, for
his homage and service, all the lands late of William de Buell in the
town of Ketene, to be held by the said Ebulo, his heirs and assigns,
from the said Edward by the service of the fourth part of the fee of one
knight; witnesses, Sir John son of Geoifrey, Sir Humphrey de Bonn, the
younger, Sir Roger de Monte Alto, steward of Chester, Sir Geoffrey dc
Genvile, Sir William de Pemes, Sir William de Wylton, Sir Stephen
Bauzan, Sir Geoffrey' de Langgele, Sir William de Chaeny, Sir Adam de
Jesemue, Sir John Burdet, Sir Eudo la Zuch and Sir Walter de Langele;
dated at Suthwerk, 24 March, 41 Henry III [1257].
[7] Maxwell Lyte editor; Calendar of Charter Rolls; Vol 3; London; 1908;
page 311 @ books.google.com/books?id=F1c4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA311 . Mar 25
1316. Westminster [membrane 3]. Inspeximus and confirmation of a
charter, dated at Westminster, 23 November, 50 Henry III, [1265]
inspecting and confirming a charter, whereby Ebulo de Montibus gave to
Ralph de Greynham and Mabel, his wife, all his manor of Ketene which he
had of the gift of Edward, the eldest son of King Henry, with all
thereto belonging. to be held by the said Ralph and Mabel his wife, and
the heirs of their bodies, from the said Ebulo and his heirs. by the
service of the fourth part of a knight's fee, when it occurs, in lieu of
all service and suit of court and all secular demands (secularibus
artionibus) ; for which gift the said Ralph and Mabel have paid the
donor 200l. with further grant that in case of failure of such heirs it
shall remain to the other heirs of the said Ralph ; witnesses, Gilbert
de Preston, Guichard de Charun, Bernard de Brus, Simon de Linden, Henry
do Longo Campo, Thomas de Normanvile, Stephen de Nevill, Ralph de Bello
Fago, knights, Richard de Ewell, Nicholas de Weston, Geofi'rey le Venur,
Robert de Scolthorp, Hugh Sterehare, Robert de Luttenham, William de
Castro:- witnesses to the charter of Henry III, Hugh 1e Bigod, Philip
Basset, Henry do Alemannia, Roger de Mortumer, Robert Walerand, Philip
Marmiun, John de Waus, Gerard de Fanecurt, William son of Karol, Ralph
de Crumbwell. By fine of 40s.
[8] Maxwell Lyte; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol VI (Edw II);
Hereford; 1910; page 228 @
archive.org/stream/cu31924099427845#page/n267/mode/2up

> Douglas Richardson <mailto:royala...@msn.com>
> Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:41 PM
> -------------------------------
> 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
> Douglas Richardson <mailto:royala...@msn.com>
> Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:06 PM

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 17, 2014, 3:58:49 AM3/17/14
to
On Friday, March 14, 2014 9:47:44 AM UTC-6, TJ Booth AOL wrote:
> Douglas

< Thank you for identifying the parents of Joan, wife of Ebal de Mont/Monz
< /Montes, Knt. While there are many spellings of her last husband's name,
< most of the many entries in the Charter and Close Rolls call him "Ebulo de
> Montibus", so pardon me for using that spelling.

Ebulo de Montibus is the Latin form of this man's name. The only reason why the name was left untranslated from the Latin in the Charter and Close Rolls is because the editor was unfamiliar with the vernacular form of this name.

I researched the matter this past week and located records of people in England with this rare given name. As best I can determine, the correct vernacular form is Eble (or Ebles) [I found both].

Below is a contemporary record in French quoting a lawsuit dated 1341 which uses the form Eble. Eble le Strange named in this record was the grandson of Eble de Monts and Joan de Bohun.

"Aleyse, Contasse de Nicol, par son attourne, et Roger cosyn et heir Eble Lestraunge ...."

Source: Year Books of Edward III: Year XV 6 (Rolls Ser. 31b) (1891): 188-191, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6bsvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188

When translating this record from the French into English, however, the editor used the Latin form, Ebulo. This shows he had no familiarity with the name. He did the same with the French name Aleyse, translating Aleyse into the Latin form Alesia. Alice would have been just fine thank you.

There is another contemporary record of the same Eble le Strange available for free viewing in the Discovery catalog at the following weblink:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9294643

The catalog gives the following description for this document:

"SC 8/176/8775

Petitioners: Eble (Ebulo) Lestraunge (Lestrange) and Alice de Lacy, countess of Lincoln, his wife." END OF QUOTE.

The actual petition, however, reads: "Eble Lestraunge & Aleise sa femme Countesse de Nicole". No Ebulo.

In the catalog entry, the archivist has correctly converted Aleise into the modern form, Alice, which is common practice by historians. But the archivist is not satisfied with the name form, Eble, and insists on providing us with the Latin form, Ebulo, in parenthesis.

Here is another item from the Discovery catalog which is stated to be in French.

"DL 25/1655
Document Note: The document mentions: Abel Strange (Eble; Lestraunge) / Alice Lacy, wife of Abel Strange countess of Lincoln. Sealed in Bolingbroke Castle." END OF QUOTE.

The item is also supposed to be available for free viewing. However, when I looked at the document just now, all I got was a picture of the seal, not the document itself.

Regardless the archivist appears to indicate that the original document refers Eble Lestraunge. However, the archvist has turned Eble Lestraunge into Abel Strange in his catalog entry! Once again we see the archivist has stumbled over the given name, Eble, and has turned it into an incorrect name form, Abel. As far as I know, Eble and Abel are completely different names.

I think from these few records, you can see that historians and archivists alike have a terrible time with the Latin form, Ebulo, and, strangely enough, also with the correct vernacular form, Eble. Or should I say lestrangely enough?

Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)

unread,
Mar 17, 2014, 6:28:10 AM3/17/14
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
From: Douglas Richardson, 17 March 2014 07:59
<snip>
> Below is a contemporary record in French quoting a lawsuit dated 1341 which uses the form Eble. Eble le Strange named in this record was the grandson of Eble de Monts and Joan de Bohun.
>
> "Aleyse, Contasse de Nicol, par son attourne, et Roger cosyn et heir Eble Lestraunge ...."
>
> Source: Year Books of Edward III: Year XV 6 (Rolls Ser. 31b) (1891): 188-191, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=6bsvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188
>
> When translating this record from the French into English, however, the editor used the Latin form, Ebulo. This shows he had no familiarity with the name. He did the same with the French name Aleyse, translating Aleyse into the Latin form Alesia. Alice would have been just fine thank you.
>

Notwithstanding the SC 8 catalogue translation below, I'm a bit doubtful whether Alesia was a Latin form of Alice. An entry in a 1322 Blackwell manor court roll (Worcester Cathedral Library, E9, m.9 dorso) which I often use for teaching records a lawsuit in which 'Alicia filia Ricardi Baret' sued her step-mother for a share of the goods and chattels which had belonged to Alice's deceased biological mother, 'Alesia mater sua'. They were consistently named Alicia and Alesia respectively in the entry, so at that time and place at least these were two distinct names. I've always wondered what the vernacular form of Alesia was, and I think it may well have been Aleyse.

Matt

> There is another contemporary record of the same Eble le Strange available for free viewing in the Discovery catalog at the following weblink:
>
> http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9294643
>
> The catalog gives the following description for this document:

> "SC 8/176/8775
>
> Petitioners: Eble (Ebulo) Lestraunge (Lestrange) and Alice de Lacy, countess of Lincoln, his wife." END OF QUOTE.
>
> The actual petition, however, reads: "Eble Lestraunge & Aleise sa femme Countesse de Nicole". No Ebulo.
>
> In the catalog entry, the archivist has correctly converted Aleise into the modern form, Alice, which is common practice by historians. But the archivist is not satisfied with the name form, Eble, and insists on providing us with the Latin form, Ebulo, in parenthesis.
>
<snip>


Peter Howarth

unread,
Mar 19, 2014, 2:13:45 AM3/19/14
to
It has been suggested that we should avoid using the Latin form of a name and instead use the vernacular, for example French.

My first point is that sometimes we use English forms of a name (John, Elizabeth), sometimes French forms (Henry, Denise), and sometimes Latin forms (Adam, Thomas, Ada, Agatha, Agnes, Barbara, Ella, Emma, Ida, Alexander, David, Michael, amongst others).

Secondly, by the fourteenth century French was a foreign language[1] that had to be learnt formally,[2] and therefore was not the vernacular. English was everyone's first language and had been since about 1200.[3]

Peter

[1] Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster, wrote in his memoirs 'Livre de Seyntz Medecines' (c.1354) that if his French was not very good, he should be excused because he was English and did not have much practice of French ("n'ai pas moelt hauntee de Frenceis").

[2] Around 1240 to 1250, Walter de Bibbesworth wrote his 'Tretiz de Language' to help Lady Denise Munchensy brush up her French and then teach it to her children. Judging by the large number of copies made of his work, there were many others who used it.

Later, Chaucer poked gentle fun at the prioress in his 'Canterbury Tales':
"And Frensch sche spak ful faire and fetysly,
After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe,
For Frensch of Parys was to hire unknowe."

[3] M T Clanchy, 'England and its rulers, 1066-1272' (1998) 183-4;
Hugh M Thomas, 'The English & the Normans' (2003) 382-4;
David Crystal, 'The Stories of English' (2004) 138

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 22, 2014, 12:44:10 PM3/22/14
to
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:13:45 AM UTC-6, Peter Howarth wrote:

< My first point is that sometimes we use English forms of a name (John,
< Elizabeth), sometimes French forms (Henry, Denise), and sometimes Latin forms < (Adam, Thomas, Ada, Agatha, Agnes, Barbara, Ella, Emma, Ida, Alexander,
< David, Michael, amongst others).

These are actually all modern English forms. Emma is a modern form, but it is actually a Latinized version of Em, Emm, Emme which forms were in use in the English vernacular down to the mid-1600's. I have an ancestress name Em/Emm/Emme in Dorset c.1630. However, for consistency, I now use Emma for medieval women.

Other names which are modern forms are the Latin names, Ida and Ele. In the medieval period, these names in the vernacular were Ide and Ele.

Some time before 1900 historians began using standardized modern forms for all given names, hence we have John, Robert, Thomas, Peter, Mary, Elizabeth, Alice, Cecily, etc. in most historical accounts. This is what is called a convention. I didn't invent this policy, but I do agree with it. For example, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex, used to be called Geoffrey Fitz Piers by historians but he is now Geoffrey Fitz Peter.

Where things get messy is when a historian encounters a Latin name like Ebulo, and the historian doesn't know the equivalent vernacular form. He often leaves it in the Latin form. King Charles I's French queen is invariably called Henrietta Maria by historians, but she signed her letters Henriette Marie, and was known as Mary at court. So historians are not always consistent.

The name Reynold switched over to Reginald about 1430. The name Alianor switched to Eleanor about the same time. The name Katherine with a K (and its various forms) occurs down to at least 1500. Then Catherine starts to appear with regularity along side Katherine. Katherine Chidiock [died 1479], wife successively of William Stafford, John Arundell, and Roger Lewknor, Knt., occurs in a couple of her charters as Catherine. So I call her Katherine (or Catherine).

Where possible, I avoid Latin forms such as Matilda, Cecilia, Alicia/Alesia, Maria, Euphemia, etc. Maud, Cecily, Alice, Mary, and Euphame are just fine.
If you're going to used standardized modern name forms for men, I believe you should do the same for women.

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 22, 2014, 3:18:07 PM3/22/14
to
In my post earlier today, I said:

"Other names which are modern forms are the Latin names, Ida and Ele. In the medieval period, these names in the vernacular were Ide and Ele."

I meant to say:

"Other names which are modern forms are the Latin names, Ida and Ela. In the medieval period, these names in the vernacular were Ide and Ele."

DR

Peter Howarth

unread,
Mar 22, 2014, 7:35:25 PM3/22/14
to
I am not trying to tell you what version of a name you should use. That is, of course, entirely up to you.

But it is not true to say that we, English-speakers in general, may not use Latin names. Thomas (declined Thomam, Thome, Thome, Thoma) was Latin and appeared in Domesday 1086, Curia Regis Rolls 1199-1220, and Hundred Rolls 1273. The English names Thome or Tom are also found in the Hundred Rolls 1273, and in the Yorkshire Poll Tax 1379. The French Mace appears in records in Magdalen College for c.1200-10. Yet nowadays the most commonly used version happens to be the Latin one.

There is therefore no rule stopping us from using Latin for a name, especially if the Latin version is in common use.

Ebles is a French name, used for example by a Duke of Aquitaine c.870-935, and by two Counts of Roucy in the 11th century. Ebles des Montes was a Savoyard, which would justify using that version of his name. Although Ebalus exists as the Latin equivalent, his putative grandson, according to Complete Peerage xii (i). p 340, was summoned to Parliament by the name of Ebulo (-onis) Lestraunge. Why? Is it based on an English form of the name? Certainly, Ebulo seems to be the preferred version amongst English archivists.

Just to add more complication to the name, the grandson used a seal inscribed S' EBELLE LETHRAVNG (illustrated, Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the Public Record Office, P461). Quite what the nominative of the Christian name was meant to be is difficult to guess. If it's first declension, Ebellam or Ebellas possibly. But given the strange version of his surname, perhaps the engraver got the whole name wrong.

Peter

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Mar 22, 2014, 7:45:43 PM3/22/14
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

I was contacted offlist by a newsgroup member who thought that Sir John le Strange, 1st Lord Strange of Knockin (born c.1254, died 1309) and his 1st wife, Eleanor de Monts, were the parents of a daughter, Hawise le Strange, wife of Sir Robert de Felton, Knt., Lord Felton [died 1314].

Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 289-290 (sub Felton) has a good account of Sir Robert de Felton, Lord Felton. Regarding his marriage, the following information is given:

"He married Hawise, daughter of Sir John Lestraunge, of Knockin, Salop, by Joan, 2nd daughter of Sir Roger de Somery, of Dudley, co. Worcester. She, who had the manor of Litcham [Norfolk] in marriage, was living 16 May 1303." END OF QUOTE.

Due to chronological considerations, Complete Peerage presumably placed Hawise le Strange as a daughter in the previous generation of the Strange family, i.e., as a daughter of John le Strange [died 1275], by his wife, Joan de Somery (living 1282).

On page 290, footnote b, the editor cites a Close Roll record in support of his text:

"On 16 May 1303, Robert de Felton had respite till Michaelmas following of an assize of novel disseizin against him and Hawise his wife, and John their son, concerning a tenement in Litcham, [Norfolk] as Robert was setting out against the Scots. (Supp. Close Roll, no. 6, m.3). In the inquisition of 5 June 1381 abstracted below, this Hawise is called Maud." END OF QUOTE.

On page 292, footnote e, an abstract of a inquisition post mortem dated 1281 is provided. Basically, it states that the manor and advowson of Litcham, Norfolk were granted by John le Strange (at an unknown date) to Robert de Felton and Maud [sic] his wife, and the heirs male of their bodies. This property subsequently descended to the male heirs of Robert de Felton and his wife.

Unfortunately the chronology of the Felton family presented by Complete Peerage is not as helpful as one would like. Complete Peerage reports that Sir Robert de Felton had a grant in 1298 in reward for his services in Flanders [see Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 289-290 (sub Felton)]. From 1298 onwards, Sir Robert de Felton occurs regularly in the records.

My research indicates that Sir Robert de Felton and his wife, Hawise, were certainly married before 1297, when he was granted a weekly market and yearly fair at Litcham, Norfolk [see Cal. Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, pg. 470]. This property formed part of Hawise' maritagium.

We can place the marriage of Robert and Hawise much earlier than this, however, as in 1305, their eldest son, John, as "John de Felton, Knt., son of Robert de Felton," owed John Baldwin, of Shrewsbury, merchant a debt of £6. See National Archives, C 241/49/233, which may viewed at the following weblink:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9686582

Assuming that John de Felton, already a knight, was then no less than 25 years old in 1305, it would place his birth as c.1280. If correct, then his mother, Hawise, could not possibly be a child of John le Strange, Knt., 1st Lord Strange (born c.1254, died 1309), by his 1st wife, Eleanor de Monts, as the newsgroup member thought was the case.

Rather, Complete Peerage is correct to place Hawise le Strange, wife of Sir Robert de Felton, one generation back in the Strange family pedigree as a child of John le Strange [died 1275], by his wife, Joan de Somery [living 1282].

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Robert de Felton, Lord Felton, and his wife, Hawise le Strange:

Dorothy Beresford, Essex Beville, James Cudworth, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas Lunsford, Herbert Pelham, John Stockman, John West.

For further particulars on the Felton and Strange familes, please see my book, Royal Ancestry (2013).

Renia

unread,
Mar 25, 2014, 8:02:33 AM3/25/14
to


On 22/03/2014 16:44, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:13:45 AM UTC-6, Peter Howarth wrote:
>
> < My first point is that sometimes we use English forms of a name
> (John, < Elizabeth), sometimes French forms (Henry, Denise), and
> sometimes Latin forms < (Adam, Thomas, Ada, Agatha, Agnes, Barbara,
> Ella, Emma, Ida, Alexander, < David, Michael, amongst others).
>
> These are actually all modern English forms. Emma is a modern form,
> but it is actually a Latinized version of Em, Emm, Emme which forms
> were in use in the English vernacular down to the mid-1600's. I have
> an ancestress name Em/Emm/Emme in Dorset c.1630. However, for
> consistency, I now use Emma for medieval women.

Emmot / Emmet was the older name for Jane, just to confuse matters.

Renia

unread,
Mar 25, 2014, 8:03:29 AM3/25/14
to
Spot the difference. I can't, or else I'm going funny.

joe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2014, 11:44:57 AM3/25/14
to
yup, it's you. They do differ :)

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Jan 30, 2021, 2:47:27 PMJan 30
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

Back in 2014 I identified Joan, wife successively of Stephen de Somery (died 1239), Godfrey de Crowcombe, Knt. (died 1246), and Eble de Monts (or de Monz), Knt. (died 1268), as the daughter of Savary de Bohun, Knt. (living 1248), of Midhurst, Climping, Ford, and Rustington, Sussex, by his wife, Cecily, daughter of Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex.

It appears that Joan had no surviving issue by her first two husbands, but by her third husband, Sir Eble de Monts, she is known to have had one daughter, Eleanor, who married John le Strange, Knt., 1st Lord Strange of Knockin. Eleanor and John le Strange have many descendants.

Recently I located a Common Pleas lawsuit which proves that Joan de Bohun and Sir Eble de Monts actually had two daughters, Eleanor and Beatrice, both of whom were living in 1272. Below is an abstract of that lawsuit.

In Hilary term 1272 Willa [Willelma], widow of William de Gloucester, sued John de Somery, custodian of Eleanor and Beatrice, daughters and heirs of Eble de Monts (who William, parson of Twyford, Buckinghamshire, called to warranty) in the Court of Common Pleas that the said John warranty to her a moiety of one messuage, lands, and rent in Gyllyng [Ealing], Middlesex, which the said Willa claimed as her dower.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP26/206, image 2915f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H3/KB26no206/aKB26no206fronts/IMG_2915.htm).

It appears that Beatrice de Monts must have died young, as the land holdings of Sir Eble de Monts were later exclusively in the hands of his other daughter and heiress, Eleanor, and her heirs. See, for example, National Archives, C 143/142/19 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of Joan de Bohun and her three husbands, Stephen de Somery, Sir Godfrey de Crowcombe, and Sir Eble de Monts.

Listed below are the names of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Joan de Bohun and her third husband, Sir Eble de Monts.

Elizabeth Alsop, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Stephen Bull, William Crymes, John Fenwick, William Goddard, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard.

Do you descend from this couple? If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.

Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist

+ + + + + + +

JOAN DE BOHUN. She married (1st) STEPHEN DE SOMERY, of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire, North Mimms and Shenley, Hertfordshire, etc., younger son of Miles de Somery, of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire. They had no issue. He was heir in 1235 to his brother, Roger de Somery. The king took his homage for the lands and tenements of his deceased brother, Roger, 8 Jan. 1236. STEPHEN DE SOMERY died testate shortly before 23 Jan. 1239, on which date the king ordered Richard de la Lade to permit the executors of the testament of Stephen de Somery to have free administration of Stephen’s goods. JHis widow, Joan, married (2nd) before 1241 (as his 2nd wife) GODFREY DE CROWCOMBE, Knt., of Milton, Cambridgeshire, Pinnock, Gloucestershire, Piddington and Stonesfield, Oxfordshire, Beer Crowcombe and Crowcombe, Somerset, Atherstone-on-Stour, Warwickshire, Corsley, Wiltshire, etc., Steward of the Household to King Henry III, 1225–36, Keeper of Woodstock and Oxford Castles, and, in right of his 1st wife, of Winstone, Gloucestershire. They had no issue. He entered the king’s household as a household knight sometime before 1209, and subsequently became a royal diplomat. He was in Poitou on the king’s service in 1221. He was granted a weekly market and yearly fair at Crowcombe, Somerset, 1227, Beer Crowcombe, Somerset, 1231, and Corsley, Wiltshire, 1232, and a yearly fair at Milton, Cambridgeshire, 1229. In 1244 he and Joan his wife, Joan, gave the king 5 marks for having a writ concerning liberties. In 1245 he gave Studley Priory, Oxfordshire the manor of Corsley, Wiltshire, requesting that the nuns support two chaplains celebrating divine service daily for the souls of himself and his 2nd wife, Joan. Sometime before 1246 he gave half the manor of Crowcombe, Somerset, together with the advowson of the church, to Studley Priory, Oxfordshire for the health of his souls and those of his wives, Alice and Joan. In August 1246 the king granted him timber to build a solarium at Studley, Oxfordshire. SIR GODFREY DE CROWCOMBE died c. Nov. 1246. In about Michaelmas 1247 Henry de Thomele, attorney of the Prioress of Studley, was required to appear to respond to Joan de Sumery on a plea of dower. On 5 Nov. 1250 Joan de Somery gave the king 15 marks for having a protestation concerning the manor of Milton, Cambridgeshire. Joan married (3rd) before 11 April 1252 (date of pardon) EBLE DE MONTS (or DE MONZ), Knt., of Milton, Cambridgeshire, Ketton, Rutland, etc., co-seigneur of Mont, canton Vaud, Steward of the Household to King Henry III, 1256–?68, Constable of Windsor Castle, younger son of Ebal de Monts, seigneur of Mont, canton Vaud, by his wife, Béatrice. They had two daughters, Eleanor and Beatrice. In 1244 he and his brother, Henri, co-seigneurs of Mont, confirmed the gift of their father, Ebal, in favor of the Chartreuse of Oujon. In 1250 he had custody of Ewell, Surrey, by bail of the king. In 1252 Clarice de Crowcombe, heir of Godfrey de Crowcombe, released the manor of Milton, Cambridgeshire to Eble and Joan his wife, Joan, in tail, with remainder to Eble’s own heirs. In 1254 the king granted him the manor of Pitney, Somerset, to hold until the legal age of the heirs of Sabina del Ortiay [Lorty]. In 1254 he and his brothers, Henri, seigneur of Mont, and Rodolphe, canon of Lausaunne, granted a vineyard to Bonvent convent. In 1258 he was paid 25 marks by the king, which he received in respect of his fee for the lands of Walton and Ewell. In 1257 the king granted him lands in Ketton, Rutland, to be held of the king by the service of one quarter of a knight’s fee. In 1259 at London he witnessed the will of Eble de Genève, son of the deceased Count Humbert de Genève, in favor of Peter of Savoy. In 1259 Annora de Capella granted Eble and Joan his wife one messuage and one carucate of land in Westbury, Buckinghamshire. In 1264–5 his estate at Milton, Cambridgeshire was seized by Philip de Colville and in 1266 was burnt and plundered by the Montfortian rebels. In 1267 he was granted the wardship of the lands and serjeantry of the king’s chapel and the office of spigornel of the king’s seal, late of Bartholomew de la Chapelle, deceased. SIR EBLE DE MONTS died in 1268. In 1270 his widow, Joan, was granted letters of protection, she then going with the king’s license to France with Henry son of Edward the king’s son. In Hilary term 1272 Willa [Willelma], widow of William de Gloucester, sued John de Somery, custodian of Eleanor and Beatrice, daughters and heirs of Eble de Monts (who William, parson of Twyford, Buckinghamshire, called to warranty) in the Court of Common Pleas that the said John warrant to her a moiety of one messuage, lands, and rent in Gyllyng [Ealing], Middlesex, which the said Willa claimed as her dower. About 1272–74 his widow, Joan, wrote Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York, requesting a writ liberate for wax used by the late king. In 1273 she wrote Walter de Merton, Chancellor requesting that her nephew, John de Bohun, have seisin of his land before his mother got her dower. In 1274–5 Alan Segyn and Alice his wife arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Joan de Somery and others touching a tenement in Milton, Cambridgeshire. In 1276, as “Joan de Somery,” she she settled the manor of Milton, Cambridgeshire on her son-in-law and daughter, John le Strange, and his wife, Eleanor; in return John le Strange gave the said Joan the value of half of Milton (to be taken out of his manor of Hunstanton, Norfolk), together with the advowson of Hunstanton, Norfolk, plus 100 solidates of lands and rents elsewhere for the term of her life., reserving a life interest in half its income. In 1278–79 she was returned as lady of Westbury, Buckinghamshire. In 1280 Lady Joan de Somery and her son-in-law, John le Strange, confirmed to Lilleshall Abbey, Shropshire the grant of the advowson of the church of Holme-next-the-Sea, Norfolk previously made by John’s grandfather, John le Strange. In 1281 Roger de Toftes and another were appointed to extend the manor of Hunstanton, Norfolk, held by Joan de Somery. In 1282 the king granted her the year waste and day, together with the goods of James Elfrych, of Hunstanton, Norfolk, forfeited to the king. Joan died 24 June 1282.

References:

Rymer, Fœdera 1 (1745): 6. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 10 (1809): 333. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 4 (1823): 255 (charter of Godfrey de Crowcombe). Hunter, Rotuli Selecti, ad Res Anglicas et Hibernicas (1834): 248. Roberts, Excerpta è rotulis finium in Turri Londinensi asservatis, Henrico Tertio rege, AD 1216–1272 2 (1836): 127, 188–189, 238, 295–296. Eyton, Antiqs. of Shropshire 10 (1860): 278 (author confuses Joan de Somery [née Bohun] above with another Joan de Somery, wife of John le Strange). Charrière, Mélanges: Les Dynastes de Mont soit des Mont, Seconde Maison (Mémoires & Docs. publiés par la Société d’Hist. de la Suisse Romande 28 (1873): 14–24. Twiss, Henrici de Bracton de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ Libri Quinque 1 (1878): 229–234. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 44 (1883): 186; 50 (1889): 230. Les Savoyards en Angleterre au XIIIe Siècle (1890): 204 (sub Mont). C.P.R. 1281–1292 (1893): 14. East Anglian, or Notes & Queries 6 (1895): 376–377. Somersetshire Pleas 1 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 11) (1897): 352. Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 137. C.P.R. 1272–1281 (1901): 468. List of Ancient Corr. of the Chancery & Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 110. Cal. IPM 1 (1904): 20; 2 (1906): 386–387, 448. VCH Oxford 2 (1907): 77–79; 5 (1957): 249–258; 8 (1964): 210–252; 11 (1983): 181–194, 259–285. C.P.R. 1247–1258 (1908): 239. VCH Hertford 2 (1908): 252, 264–273. C.P.R. 1266–1272 (1913): 60, 190, 215, 412. C.C.R. 1242–1247 (1916): 459. Le Strange, Le Strange Recs. (1916): 184–185. Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire (1920): 228–230. VCH Buckingham 4 (1927): 263–267. VCH Rutland 2 (1935): 254–265. C.P. 12(1) (1953): 352, footnote k (sub Strange); 14 (1998): 596 (sub Strange). Tout, Chapters in the Administrative Hist. of Mediæval England 6 (1933): 39–41. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 3–5. Cal. Liberate Rolls 4 (1959): 461. VCH Cambridge 5 (1973): 227–240; 9 (1989): 179–182. VCH Gloucester 11 (1976): 147–148. VCH Somerset 5 (1985): 54–64. Travers, Cal. Feet of Fines for Buckinghamshire 1259–1307 (Bucks. Rec. Soc. 25) (1989): 1. Church, Household Knights of King John (1999): 32. Given-Wilson, War, Government & Aristocracy in the British Isles, c.1150–1500 (2008): 26–54. Cassidy, Cal. of E403/17B, Issue Roll for Michaelmas term 1258/59 (available at http:// cmjk.com/rolls/Calendar%20issues%20Mich%201258.pdf). Court of Common Pleas, CP26/206, image 2915f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H3/KB26no206/aKB26no206fronts/IMG_2915.htm). Exchequer of Plea Rolls, E13/49, image 13 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/E2/E13no49/aE13no49fronts/IMG_0013.htm). Henry III Fine Rolls Project (available at www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/home.html). National Archives, SC 1/7/195; SC 1/31/14 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.ukwww.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

Child of Joan de Bohun, by Eble de Monts, Knt.:

a. ELEANOR DE MONTS, married JOHN LE STRANGE, Knt., 1st Lord Strange of Knockin [see STRANGE 5].

Peter G. M. Dale

unread,
Feb 1, 2021, 1:23:00 AMFeb 1
to
Greetings,

I’ve read these posts with interest. One question I have, and I’ve just commenced reviewing the matter, is whether Miles de Somery (b c 1180-1229) was married to a sister of Ralph I de Camoys (c 1190/5-1259), son of Stephen III de Camoys (d 1198) and Matilda de la Leghe (married a 2nd time to Hugh de Anestie). Possible evidence to support this theory:

[1] The chronology works - Miles’ children – Roger, Stephen (Joan de Bohun), Matilda (Geoffrey de Bacheworth), Amabel (Arnulph I de Mounteney), Ela (Hubert de Munchensy) and Muriel (Thomas de Picot) were, in my estimation, born c 1200-1215 which puts the dob of their mother c 1285.

[2] Miles’ eldest son was named Roger, after Miles’ father, and his 2nd son was named Stephen, which is not otherwise common in the Somery family.

[3] Members of both the Somery and Camoys families held property in Wisley, Surrey – perhaps the same property at different times. CIPM, Vol. I, #83 - Stephen de Sumery, (p. 20), states: “Writ to the sheriff of Surrey dated 1247, Inq. (undated.). "He died 7 years ago. -- Surrey. -- He was not seised of 4l. rent of a moiety of the manor of Wysheleg,' [PGMD – Wisley, Surrey] which Roger de Sumery, his elder brother, demised at fee farm to Robert de Briwes.”
(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044038076618&view=1up&seq=82)

[4] Parishes: Wisley, Pages 378-381, A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3, states re Wisley, Surrey: “Early in the 13th century Roger de Somerey was holding in sub-fee and demised the manor to Robert de Briwes, (fn. 3) who in 1243 leased it to Walter le Basle and Denise his wife. (fn. 4) Apparently this grant was for Walter's life, since Denise after her husband's death gave up her rights in the manor. (fn. 5) Robert de Briwes died in 1275 holding it of Ralph Camoys of Wotton, and left a son and heir John, then forty years of age. (fn. 6)”
(https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/surrey/vol3/pp378-381)

[5] Website - 'The Family of Kemmis' - Cameys of Flockthorpe – states, “V. Lord Stephen de Cameis: Baron by tenure of Flockthorpe Manor, Norfolk ... Married Matilda, daughter of Gilbert de la Leghe, of la Leghe, Effingham and Polesden, Surrey, whose family bore "or, on a chevron sable 3 lions rampant argent, armed and gules"; she held in her own right a Manor in North Denchworth, Berks (12) as two parts of a Knight's fee held of the Honor of Giffard, which Honor was then possessed by Walter Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, and also lands in Wiseley, Surrey;”
(https://www.kemmisfamily.info/TheKemmisBook/kemmis03.html)

[6] In 1240 Ralph de Camoys was a surety for Arnulph I de Mounteney who was the husband of Amabel de Somery, daughter of Miles de Somery and, possibly, niece of Ralph de Camoys. Arnulph’s other surety was Arnulph III de Mandeville who I speculate is Arnulph I de Mounteney’s maternal uncle. The ‘The Civil Pleas of the Suffolk Eyre of 1240’, (2009), edited by Eric James Gallagher, Vol. LII, p. 82, provides: “No. 415. (Norfolk, five marks) Hamo Chevere gives five marks for licence to agree with Arnulf de Mounteney concerning a plea of land by the surety of (C. ... .(il)) de Mounteney. Arnulf acknowledges that he owes the same Hamo forty-five marks concerning a fine made between them. He will pay to him twenty-five marks at the feast of St John the Baptist [Sunday 24 June] and twenty marks at the feast of St Michael [Saturday 29 September] by the surety of Ralph de Camoys and Ernulf de Mandeville who grant that if he does not pay they may be distrained until (etc ...(il)) and concerning the cost etc in the twenty-fourth year ... [unfinished] [chirograph CP 25(1) 156/66/806]”

Any thoughts on the above would be very welcome. Thank you!

Cheers,

Pete Dale

Peter G. M. Dale

unread,
Feb 4, 2021, 10:34:54 AMFeb 4
to
I'm just following-up on my earlier post. I hopeful someone (perhaps Mr. Richardson ?) has some insight or further thoughts on my proposed wife for Miles de Somery.

Many thanks in advance!

Cheers,

Pete
pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com

lancast...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 8, 2021, 12:22:46 PMFeb 8
to
Thank you Douglas.

I descend, via the Bozoun family of Whissonsett, from the Le Strange family of Hunstanton who descended from both of Joan Somery's grandsons who were named John Le Strange, like their father, and grandfather. I suppose there is no point posting the well-known senior line connection, but the junior line through Walton d'Eiville is less clear, but not uninteresting.

I've used Wikitree to post notes along a basic "consensus" line based on best secondary sources, but if you start at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Strange-850 and click forward through the generations you will see in the notes I have added that I feel there are some mysteries here that no one has really noticed or solved yet.

In particular I am pointing at the 15th century Le Stranges named Thomas. I have made profiles for two generations of them, but something seems wrong:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Strange-854
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Strange-855

You may notice from the notes that I have some of the Warwickshire wills which you can contact about if interested.

Regards
Andrew

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages