Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Clanvowe
735 views
Skip to first unread message
jd...@me.com
Dec 25, 2016, 8:30:32 AM12/25/16
to
Greetings
During the last 18 years the origins of family Clanvowe have been raised on a number occasions on this list. As there are no recent posts, it is hoped that the questions posed have been resolved.
The claims for the Clanvowe pedigree do not easily come together and there is no published pedigree that makes sense. As a consequence, from the claims and documents that are available, an attempt has been made to rationalise the conflicting claims back to the Lord Rhys. The line is not proven.XxEro#2*Net
It is claimed that family Clanvowe was illegitimately descended from Rhys Gryg, aka Rhys the Hoarse, aka Rhys Fychan, the most active son of The Lord Rhys. See: The Clanvowes AD Powell Radnorshire Transactions vol 58 1988 pp 21 - 24.
The ancestors of family Clanvowe had resided in Gladestry, Radnorshire and “had been reeves from time beyond memory.” According to Powell; “several branches of Rhys Gryg’s descendants had property in the Gladestry neighbourhood.”
Unfortunately, Powell and the Radnorshire Society, which published the article, do not provide the detail nor specific evidence to confirm the claim. It is thus necessary to look elsewhere.
The Visitations of Gloucester 1623 pp 130 provide some evidence for the Clanvowe line as it connects to family Poyntz through the marriage of Elizabeth de Clanvowe to John Poyntz. The document appears to be reasonably accurate, but in respect of the family Clanvowe the stated timeline is not feasible.
The lineage back in time from Philip de Clanvowe corresponds with other records, see inquisition #1643 below, until it is proposed that Rhys Michell is the father of Rhys Fychan. Unfortunately, the author of the entry for family Poyntz within this version of the Visitation of Gloucester, did not define to which Rhys Fychan he or she was eluding. There were two persons who bore the name of Rhys Fychan; Rhys Ieuanc, son of Rhys Michell, and also Rhys Gryg, the grandfather of Rhys Ieuanc. It appears, as a matter of common sense, that the author has misdirected themself as to the correct identity of Rhys Fychan.
If the Rhys Fychan in the Clanvowe lineage is identified as Rhys Ieuanc, then the timeline is incorrect. If Rhys Gryg is identified as the Rhys Fychan in the Clanvowe lineage, the timeline is appropriate and corresponds with the claim made by Powell.
In the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous II, pp. 404, Inquisition no. 1643. The entry reads as follows:
1643. Commission to Peter de Grauntsoun, Richard de Penebrugge, Adam Lucas, and John de Mershton. Witness: - Edward, duke of Cornwall and earl of Chester, guardian of England. Berkhampstede. 10 May 13 Edward III. [1339.] By the council. Inquisition before the said Adam and John in the presence of Jewan ap Res, supplying the place of Hugh Tyrel, keeper of the manor of Radenore. Webbeleye. Thursday before St.Barnabas. Philip de Clanvowe and his ancestors have been reeves in fee of the land of Glaudestre, an appurtenance of the manor of Radenore, receiving yearly from that manor 7 ells of cloth worth 5 marks a cloth, which the said Philip had from Margaret de Mortuo Mari in her time; Philip ap Howel, his uncle, whose heir he is, had the same from Edmund de Mortuo Mari in his time and from Maud his mother in her time; Howel ap Meurik, father of the said Philip ap Howel and grandfather of the said Philip deClanvowe, whose heir he is, had the same from the said Maud in her time; Meuric ap Phelip, father of the said Howel, had the same from William de Breosa in his time; and so the said Philip de Clanvowe and his ancestors had the same from time beyond memory until the manor came to the king's hand by the death of Margaret de Mortuo Mari by reason of the minority of Roger son and heir of Edmund de Mortuo Mari; the cloth is in arrear for the whole time of Hugh Tyrel as keeper of the manor. C. Inq. Misc. File 137.
There is an additional view of the Clanvowe ancestry posed by Peter C Bartrum in his book, Welsh Genealogies - AD300 - 1400. It appears that Bartrum has made a similar error both in the proposed timeline and in the identity of Rhys Fychan, which renders the work to be of doubtful value. Bartrum does, however, confirm the existence of a son named Philip for both Rhys Michell and Rhys Gryg. See Bartrum, Rhys ap Tewdwr pp 08 & pp 26.
Sir Joseph Bradney in his book, The History of Monmouthshire Vol 04 Pt II pp 243, concurs with the view that the Clanvowes descended from Rhys Gryg. But Bradney has an extra generation between Philip ap Rhys and Muerig. This proposal conflicts with both the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623 and also the line set out in inquisition #1643 above. With an extra generation as described, the time line also becomes unsustainable. The removal of Rhys ap Philip from the Clanvowe pedigree proposed by Bradney resolves the issue of the unsustainable timeline, avoids a clash with the content of inquisition #1643 and brings the pedigree in line with an amended Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623.
Whilst Powell claims that family Clanvowe was illegitimately descended from Rhys Gryg, he does not say which son was illegitimate. Neither the Visitations of Gloucester, Bradney nor Bartrum provide any clue in this respect. There may be a clue arising from the marriage, c1240, of Gwenlynn Michell to Gilbert Talbot. There are a number of sources, including Bartrum, for this alleged union, but none reference the original source. It is generally claimed that “Gilbert (d. 1274) married Gwenlynn Mechyll, daughter and sole heiress of Rhys Mechyll, whose armorials the Talbots thenceforth assumed in lieu of their own former arms.” See Some Feudal Coats of Arms Joseph Foster 1902.
It thus appears that Philip ap Rhys born about 1185, is an illegitimate son of Rhys Gryg. Because he was illegitimate, the line could not use the arms of the Welsh royal family. Instead, the family Clanvowe, adopted its own coat of arms. Sissons states that Hywell ap Meurig had one of the earliest Welsh coats of arms. See Development of Welsh Heraldry 1991. According to Powell; “The arms {of family Clanvowe} were those borne by Howel ap Meuric.” Powell is quoting Denham Young in a History of Heraldry 1254 to 1310 Clarendon Press 1965.
There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de Clanvowe and who bore his children. Again reference is made to the Visitations of Gloucester 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no suggestion of any other wife.
It is the contention of Bartrum, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was the daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and he later married Phillippa de Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville were married before the date of the hearing.
It is likely that they had been married for a year or two before the court hearing which gave them the manor of Yazor. There would also have been a gap between the death of Philip and any previous wife and his marriage to Philllippa. Philip’s alleged first marriage would, therefore, have been concluded no later than 1314. However, Bartum claims, without any evidence, that Philip had all of his children by his first wife, a total of five according to Bartrum, but there were six children. If a period of circa two years is assumed to produce each child, Philip would need to have been married by 1302. In 1302, Philip was about 16 years of age. Whilst this is possible, it is unlikely. Again, it appears that Bartrum has not paid sufficient attention to the timeline in his construction of the Clanvowe ancestry.
Sir Joseph Bradney makes no claims in respect of who married Sir Philip de Clanvowe, thereby casting doubt on the claim made by Bartrum in respect of a daughter of Sir Walter Bredwardine.
A further suggestion was made by a US genealogist named Douglas Richardson. In one of his books he is said to show a Phillippa Talbot as having married Philip de Clanvowe, arising from the use of the term nepos in a Papal letter of 1354. However, in 2003 he appears to have retracted the claim. There is no other evidence which suggests that Phillippa Talbot existed.
Richardson suggests that the marriage of Gwenlynn Michell, as discussed above, is what may be referenced in the papal letter of 1354. It is understood that the term nepos originally meant a grandchild, but was subsequently used more widely to include other male family members, nephews. It was possible to become a nepos by marriage. On the Medieval Genealogy web site, under the heading “Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 4: Devon”, it is suggested that; “On this view nepos would be used in the loose sense of “younger male relation” rather than specifically as nephew or grandson.”
The use of the term nepos in the Papal letter of 1354 was most likely in reference to the relationship between John de Clanvowe and the elder Sir Richard Talbot arising from the earlier marriage of Gwenlynn Michell to Gilbert Talbot.
Bartrum does not disclose the source for his belief that there was a marriage between a daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and Philip de Clanvowe. If there was such a marriage, the marriage was short. The first wife would have died, possibly in childbirth.
It thus appears that Philip de Clanvowe married Phillippa de Baskerville, probably around 1315, or earlier if this was his first marriage, and by Phillippa he had his children as shown in the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623.
In this scenario the Clanvowe line from Elizabeth de Clanvowe to the Lord Rhys would be thus:
The Lord Rhys and Gwenllian ferch Madog ap Maredudd
|
Rhys Grigg and A Mistress
|
Philip ap Rhys and Margaret ferch Gruffyd Maelor
|
Meurik ap Philip and Unknown
|
Hywel ap Meurik and Matilda ferch John ap Thomas Clanvowe
|
William ap Hywell and Unknown
|
Sir Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville
|
John Poyntz and Elizabeth de Clanvowe
Have these conflicting claims been resolved elsewhere? Is there any further evidence which adds clarity to the Clanvowe line?
Regards
John Ritchings
During the last 18 years the origins of family Clanvowe have been raised on a number occasions on this list. As there are no recent posts, it is hoped that the questions posed have been resolved.
The claims for the Clanvowe pedigree do not easily come together and there is no published pedigree that makes sense. As a consequence, from the claims and documents that are available, an attempt has been made to rationalise the conflicting claims back to the Lord Rhys. The line is not proven.XxEro#2*Net
It is claimed that family Clanvowe was illegitimately descended from Rhys Gryg, aka Rhys the Hoarse, aka Rhys Fychan, the most active son of The Lord Rhys. See: The Clanvowes AD Powell Radnorshire Transactions vol 58 1988 pp 21 - 24.
The ancestors of family Clanvowe had resided in Gladestry, Radnorshire and “had been reeves from time beyond memory.” According to Powell; “several branches of Rhys Gryg’s descendants had property in the Gladestry neighbourhood.”
Unfortunately, Powell and the Radnorshire Society, which published the article, do not provide the detail nor specific evidence to confirm the claim. It is thus necessary to look elsewhere.
The Visitations of Gloucester 1623 pp 130 provide some evidence for the Clanvowe line as it connects to family Poyntz through the marriage of Elizabeth de Clanvowe to John Poyntz. The document appears to be reasonably accurate, but in respect of the family Clanvowe the stated timeline is not feasible.
The lineage back in time from Philip de Clanvowe corresponds with other records, see inquisition #1643 below, until it is proposed that Rhys Michell is the father of Rhys Fychan. Unfortunately, the author of the entry for family Poyntz within this version of the Visitation of Gloucester, did not define to which Rhys Fychan he or she was eluding. There were two persons who bore the name of Rhys Fychan; Rhys Ieuanc, son of Rhys Michell, and also Rhys Gryg, the grandfather of Rhys Ieuanc. It appears, as a matter of common sense, that the author has misdirected themself as to the correct identity of Rhys Fychan.
If the Rhys Fychan in the Clanvowe lineage is identified as Rhys Ieuanc, then the timeline is incorrect. If Rhys Gryg is identified as the Rhys Fychan in the Clanvowe lineage, the timeline is appropriate and corresponds with the claim made by Powell.
In the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous II, pp. 404, Inquisition no. 1643. The entry reads as follows:
1643. Commission to Peter de Grauntsoun, Richard de Penebrugge, Adam Lucas, and John de Mershton. Witness: - Edward, duke of Cornwall and earl of Chester, guardian of England. Berkhampstede. 10 May 13 Edward III. [1339.] By the council. Inquisition before the said Adam and John in the presence of Jewan ap Res, supplying the place of Hugh Tyrel, keeper of the manor of Radenore. Webbeleye. Thursday before St.Barnabas. Philip de Clanvowe and his ancestors have been reeves in fee of the land of Glaudestre, an appurtenance of the manor of Radenore, receiving yearly from that manor 7 ells of cloth worth 5 marks a cloth, which the said Philip had from Margaret de Mortuo Mari in her time; Philip ap Howel, his uncle, whose heir he is, had the same from Edmund de Mortuo Mari in his time and from Maud his mother in her time; Howel ap Meurik, father of the said Philip ap Howel and grandfather of the said Philip deClanvowe, whose heir he is, had the same from the said Maud in her time; Meuric ap Phelip, father of the said Howel, had the same from William de Breosa in his time; and so the said Philip de Clanvowe and his ancestors had the same from time beyond memory until the manor came to the king's hand by the death of Margaret de Mortuo Mari by reason of the minority of Roger son and heir of Edmund de Mortuo Mari; the cloth is in arrear for the whole time of Hugh Tyrel as keeper of the manor. C. Inq. Misc. File 137.
There is an additional view of the Clanvowe ancestry posed by Peter C Bartrum in his book, Welsh Genealogies - AD300 - 1400. It appears that Bartrum has made a similar error both in the proposed timeline and in the identity of Rhys Fychan, which renders the work to be of doubtful value. Bartrum does, however, confirm the existence of a son named Philip for both Rhys Michell and Rhys Gryg. See Bartrum, Rhys ap Tewdwr pp 08 & pp 26.
Sir Joseph Bradney in his book, The History of Monmouthshire Vol 04 Pt II pp 243, concurs with the view that the Clanvowes descended from Rhys Gryg. But Bradney has an extra generation between Philip ap Rhys and Muerig. This proposal conflicts with both the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623 and also the line set out in inquisition #1643 above. With an extra generation as described, the time line also becomes unsustainable. The removal of Rhys ap Philip from the Clanvowe pedigree proposed by Bradney resolves the issue of the unsustainable timeline, avoids a clash with the content of inquisition #1643 and brings the pedigree in line with an amended Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623.
Whilst Powell claims that family Clanvowe was illegitimately descended from Rhys Gryg, he does not say which son was illegitimate. Neither the Visitations of Gloucester, Bradney nor Bartrum provide any clue in this respect. There may be a clue arising from the marriage, c1240, of Gwenlynn Michell to Gilbert Talbot. There are a number of sources, including Bartrum, for this alleged union, but none reference the original source. It is generally claimed that “Gilbert (d. 1274) married Gwenlynn Mechyll, daughter and sole heiress of Rhys Mechyll, whose armorials the Talbots thenceforth assumed in lieu of their own former arms.” See Some Feudal Coats of Arms Joseph Foster 1902.
It thus appears that Philip ap Rhys born about 1185, is an illegitimate son of Rhys Gryg. Because he was illegitimate, the line could not use the arms of the Welsh royal family. Instead, the family Clanvowe, adopted its own coat of arms. Sissons states that Hywell ap Meurig had one of the earliest Welsh coats of arms. See Development of Welsh Heraldry 1991. According to Powell; “The arms {of family Clanvowe} were those borne by Howel ap Meuric.” Powell is quoting Denham Young in a History of Heraldry 1254 to 1310 Clarendon Press 1965.
There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de Clanvowe and who bore his children. Again reference is made to the Visitations of Gloucester 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no suggestion of any other wife.
It is the contention of Bartrum, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was the daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and he later married Phillippa de Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville were married before the date of the hearing.
It is likely that they had been married for a year or two before the court hearing which gave them the manor of Yazor. There would also have been a gap between the death of Philip and any previous wife and his marriage to Philllippa. Philip’s alleged first marriage would, therefore, have been concluded no later than 1314. However, Bartum claims, without any evidence, that Philip had all of his children by his first wife, a total of five according to Bartrum, but there were six children. If a period of circa two years is assumed to produce each child, Philip would need to have been married by 1302. In 1302, Philip was about 16 years of age. Whilst this is possible, it is unlikely. Again, it appears that Bartrum has not paid sufficient attention to the timeline in his construction of the Clanvowe ancestry.
Sir Joseph Bradney makes no claims in respect of who married Sir Philip de Clanvowe, thereby casting doubt on the claim made by Bartrum in respect of a daughter of Sir Walter Bredwardine.
A further suggestion was made by a US genealogist named Douglas Richardson. In one of his books he is said to show a Phillippa Talbot as having married Philip de Clanvowe, arising from the use of the term nepos in a Papal letter of 1354. However, in 2003 he appears to have retracted the claim. There is no other evidence which suggests that Phillippa Talbot existed.
Richardson suggests that the marriage of Gwenlynn Michell, as discussed above, is what may be referenced in the papal letter of 1354. It is understood that the term nepos originally meant a grandchild, but was subsequently used more widely to include other male family members, nephews. It was possible to become a nepos by marriage. On the Medieval Genealogy web site, under the heading “Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 4: Devon”, it is suggested that; “On this view nepos would be used in the loose sense of “younger male relation” rather than specifically as nephew or grandson.”
The use of the term nepos in the Papal letter of 1354 was most likely in reference to the relationship between John de Clanvowe and the elder Sir Richard Talbot arising from the earlier marriage of Gwenlynn Michell to Gilbert Talbot.
Bartrum does not disclose the source for his belief that there was a marriage between a daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and Philip de Clanvowe. If there was such a marriage, the marriage was short. The first wife would have died, possibly in childbirth.
It thus appears that Philip de Clanvowe married Phillippa de Baskerville, probably around 1315, or earlier if this was his first marriage, and by Phillippa he had his children as shown in the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623.
In this scenario the Clanvowe line from Elizabeth de Clanvowe to the Lord Rhys would be thus:
The Lord Rhys and Gwenllian ferch Madog ap Maredudd
|
Rhys Grigg and A Mistress
|
Philip ap Rhys and Margaret ferch Gruffyd Maelor
|
Meurik ap Philip and Unknown
|
Hywel ap Meurik and Matilda ferch John ap Thomas Clanvowe
|
William ap Hywell and Unknown
|
Sir Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville
|
John Poyntz and Elizabeth de Clanvowe
Have these conflicting claims been resolved elsewhere? Is there any further evidence which adds clarity to the Clanvowe line?
Regards
John Ritchings
Hans Vogels
Dec 26, 2016, 3:58:56 AM12/26/16
to
The Lord Rhys was Lord Rhys ap Gruffudd ap Rhys ap Tewdwr Mawr?
Hans Vogels
Op zondag 25 december 2016 14:30:32 UTC+1 schreef jd...@me.com:
Hans Vogels
Op zondag 25 december 2016 14:30:32 UTC+1 schreef jd...@me.com:
jd...@me.com
Dec 26, 2016, 5:31:49 AM12/26/16
to
Greetings
Yes.
Regards
John Ritchings
Paulo Canedo
Aug 17, 2017, 8:19:22 AM8/17/17
to
Who was Phillipa de Baskerville?
Candice Vader
Aug 17, 2017, 2:03:09 PM8/17/17
to
jd...@me.com
Aug 18, 2017, 11:29:11 AM8/18/17
to
On Thursday, 17 August 2017 13:19:22 UTC+1, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Who was Phillipa de Baskerville?
Greetings
> Who was Phillipa de Baskerville?
Phillippa de Baskerville was the daughter of Walter de Baskerville and Sybille D’Evereux. She was born before 1283 as her father died in 1282 at a young age. Her mother then married the Sir John de Acton who died in 1312 and who had previously been married to Margery de Aller.
Phillippa married Sir Philip de Clanvowe before the Fleet of Fines case in 1318 which gave them the manor of Yazor and which had been held by Walter de Baskerville.
Set out below is an updated part copy of a previous post upon this subject:
“There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de Clanvowe and who bore his children.
Again reference is made to the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no suggestion of any other wife.
It is the contention of Bartrum, quoting the Book of Baglan, pp 193, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was a daughter of Walter de Bredwardine. No forename has been suggested for this daughter of Walter de Bredwardine. Bartrum further claims that Philip later married Phillippa de Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville were married before the date of the hearing.
It is likely that they had been married for a year or two before the court hearing which gave them the manor of Yazor. There would also have been a gap between the death of any previous wife and Philip’s marriage to Philllippa. Philip’s alleged first marriage would, therefore, have been concluded no later than 1314. However, Bartum claims, without any evidence, that Philip had all of his children by his first wife, a total of five according to Bartrum, but there were six children. If a period of circa two years is assumed to produce each child, Philip would need to have been married by 1302. In 1302, Philip was about 16 years of age. Whilst this is possible, it is unlikely. Again, it appears that Bartrum has not paid sufficient attention to the timeline in his construction of the Clanvowe ancestry.
Sir Joseph Bradney makes no claims in respect of who married Sir Philip de Clanvowe, thereby casting doubt on the claim made by Bartrum in respect of a daughter of Sir Walter Bredwardine.
A further suggestion was made by a US genealogist named Douglas Richardson. In one of his books he is said to show a Phillippa Talbot as having married Philip de Clanvowe, arising from the use of the term nepos in a Papal letter of 1354. However, in 2003 he appears to have retracted the claim. There is no other evidence which suggests that Phillippa Talbot existed.
Richardson suggests that the marriage of Gwenlynn Michell, as discussed above, is what may be referenced in the papal letter of 1354. It is understood that the term nepos originally meant a grandchild, but was subsequently used more widely to include other male family members, nephews. It was possible to become a nepos by marriage. On the Medieval Genealogy web site, under the heading “Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 4: Devon”, it is suggested that; “On this view nepos would be used in the loose
sense of “younger male relation” rather than specifically as nephew or grandson.”
The use of the term nepos in the Papal letter of 1354 was most likely in reference to the relationship between John de Clanvowe and the elder Sir Richard Talbot arising from the earlier marriage of Gwenlynn Michell to Gilbert Talbot.
It thus appears that Philip de Clanvowe married Phillippa de Baskerville, probably around 1315, or earlier if this was his first marriage, and by Phillippa he had his children as shown in the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623.”
Any further evidence in respect of this matter would be welcome.
Regards
John
Paulo Canedo
Aug 18, 2017, 1:26:04 PM8/18/17
to
wjhonson
Aug 18, 2017, 2:56:48 PM8/18/17
to
https://books.google.com/books?id=yv7lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA34
https://books.google.com/books?id=yv7lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA35
Collections towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford, by the Rev Morgan G Watkins (1897), "Parish of Eardisley", p35
Hal Bradley
Aug 18, 2017, 5:07:36 PM8/18/17
to jd...@me.com, Gen-Medieval
The i.p.m. of Walter de Baskerville (Writ, 22 Feb. 14 Edw. I. [CIPM v. 2,
no. 595]) notes that he held land in "Westbradewardin" in the county of
Hereford. Walter of Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville are the same
person. Walter's death apparently occurred 1285/6, unless you know of a
reason why the i.p.m. would have been delayed for several years. His son
and heir Roger was aged 24 years at the time of the i.p.m., so it could not
have been due to waiting for the heir to come of age.
Hal Bradley
> -------------------------------
> 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
no. 595]) notes that he held land in "Westbradewardin" in the county of
Hereford. Walter of Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville are the same
person. Walter's death apparently occurred 1285/6, unless you know of a
reason why the i.p.m. would have been delayed for several years. His son
and heir Roger was aged 24 years at the time of the i.p.m., so it could not
have been due to waiting for the heir to come of age.
Hal Bradley
> 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
wjhonson
Aug 18, 2017, 8:24:42 PM8/18/17
to
It seems there is confusion on which Walter this was, and how many Walters there were.
There was a writ diem clausit suum dated 1284
And was not his next brother his heir male, named Richard who was also of Orcup in 1316
wjhonson
Aug 18, 2017, 8:41:35 PM8/18/17
to
Message has been deleted
jd...@me.com
Aug 19, 2017, 3:43:31 PM8/19/17
to
May I first make it clear that I am relatively new to Medieval genealogy in that it is only within the last couple of years that I was able to link a Poyntz Devonshire ancestor to Sir Humphry Poyntz and from him to the earlier members of the family. Any interest in other Medieval families is tangential to family Poyntz.
I share the frustration concerning the lack of reliable on-line data concerning families Baskerville and Bredwardine. I have not been able to determine the father of Walter de Baskerville. As a consequence, I regret that I am unable to assist with the information requested on these families. The suggestion by Hal Bradley that Walter de Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville were one and the same person is an intriguing one.
There is more information concerning Sybille D’Evereux. The following may assist:
Visitation of Gloucestershire 1623. Family Poyntz p131. The entry is incorrect in that it suggests a marriage to the son of Sibil’s husband, John de Acton.
“The second, to Sybil, a well-dowered widow, added lands in Herefordshire and Hampshire. Sybil was the niece of Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester, who bequeathed to her in 1302 one cup to the value of 100 shillings, and one silver pot for wine, and another pot for water, and the best gold brooch I have, except those specifically bequeathed' (Reg Geynes, 58). Sybil's family had prospered in the church. Another uncle was Walter Giffard, Bishop of Bath and Wells 1264, Archbishop of York 1266- 79. Her aunts were the Abbesses of Wilton and Shaftesbury (Sanders 1960, 86- 7).” The History of Acton Court pp15
Sibilla is reported to have married Walter de Baskerville who died dsp. 1282. In the 1280’s, Matilda, the widow of William de Ebroicis (and Sibilla’s mother), contested William de Ebroicis (Sibilla’s half brother) over 8 pounds of rent in Guleing (Gloucester) and Trumpeton (Cambridgeshire). William Devereux granted the right to the said rent to Matilda, and Baldwin de Frevil (son of Matilda). The remainder to Alexander de Freville (brother of Baldwin), and Margaret and Sibilla (and heirs of Sibilla) the daughters of Matilda. Sibilla married a second time to John de Acton.
On Nov 11, 6 Edward II (1312), an IPM was done for John de Acton in regards to the manors of Couerne and Yausore, both in Herefordshire. The Couerne listing leads as follows:
10 d. yearly rent held of Richard Baskerville by service of ½ d. yearly; and a fourth part of the manor held, as the dower of Sybil his wife, of Richard de Baskerville by service of a ¼ knights fee: she was dowered by Walter de Baskerville, her first husband. Yausore was held as above, by service of ¼ knights fee. On November 20 of the same inquisition regarding Somerset, there is reference to the property of Ceddre Manor, a capital messuage of 40 acres arable land, 10 acres meadow, water-mill, rents, etc. held jointly by John de Acton with Sibyl, his wife, of a gift of William de Ebroycis of the Bishop of Bath. This was held by service of ½ knight’s fee, and was to go to his heir.
Sybil is mentioned in the will of her uncle, Godfrey Giffard,. Recorded in: William Thomas's A Survey of the Cathedral Church of Worceste. Appendix, pp.77-81 (1736)
I hope this assists in identifying the appropriate Walter de Baskerville.
Regards
John
John Ritchings
Aug 19, 2017, 9:58:34 PM8/19/17
to Hal Bradley, John Ritchings, Gen-Medieval
Greetings Hal
Many thanks for this advice. Very interesting as I have never come across the suggestion that Walter de Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville were one and the same person. If this be the case, then Philip de Clanvowe only had the one wife, namely, Phillippa de Baskerville or Bredwardine. In terms of the time line, that makes much more sense.
I will follow this up as there are clashes with dates that I have found elsewhere.
Thanks again.
Regards
John
> On 18 Aug 2017, at 22:07, Hal Bradley <colonial...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The i.p.m. of Walter de Baskerville (Writ, 22 Feb. 14 Edw. I. [CIPM v. 2, no. 595]) notes that he held land in "Westbradewardin" in the county of Hereford. Walter of Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville are the same person. Walter's death apparently occurred 1285/6, unless you know of a reason why the i.p.m. would have been delayed for several years. His son and heir Roger was aged 24 years at the time of the i.p.m., so it could not have been due to waiting for the heir to come of age.
>
> Hal Bradley
>
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com <mailto:GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Many thanks for this advice. Very interesting as I have never come across the suggestion that Walter de Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville were one and the same person. If this be the case, then Philip de Clanvowe only had the one wife, namely, Phillippa de Baskerville or Bredwardine. In terms of the time line, that makes much more sense.
I will follow this up as there are clashes with dates that I have found elsewhere.
Thanks again.
Regards
John
> On 18 Aug 2017, at 22:07, Hal Bradley <colonial...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The i.p.m. of Walter de Baskerville (Writ, 22 Feb. 14 Edw. I. [CIPM v. 2, no. 595]) notes that he held land in "Westbradewardin" in the county of Hereford. Walter of Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville are the same person. Walter's death apparently occurred 1285/6, unless you know of a reason why the i.p.m. would have been delayed for several years. His son and heir Roger was aged 24 years at the time of the i.p.m., so it could not have been due to waiting for the heir to come of age.
>
> Hal Bradley
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:29 AM, <jd...@me.com <mailto:jd...@me.com>> wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 August 2017 13:19:22 UTC+1, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> > Who was Phillipa de Baskerville?
>
> Greetings
>
> Phillippa de Baskerville was the daughter of Walter de Baskerville and Sybille D’Evereux. She was born before 1283 as her father died in 1282 at a young age. Her mother then married the Sir John de Acton who died in 1312 and who had previously been married to Margery de Aller.
>
> Phillippa married Sir Philip de Clanvowe before the Feet of Fines case in 1318 which gave them the manor of Yazor and which had been held by Walter de Baskerville.
> On Thursday, 17 August 2017 13:19:22 UTC+1, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> > Who was Phillipa de Baskerville?
>
> Greetings
>
> Phillippa de Baskerville was the daughter of Walter de Baskerville and Sybille D’Evereux. She was born before 1283 as her father died in 1282 at a young age. Her mother then married the Sir John de Acton who died in 1312 and who had previously been married to Margery de Aller.
>
>
> Set out below is an updated part copy of a previous post upon this subject:
>
> “There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de Clanvowe and who bore his children.
>
> Again reference is made to the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no suggestion of any other wife.
>
> It is the contention of Bartrum, quoting the Book of Baglan, pp 193, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was a daughter of Walter de Bredwardine. No forename has been suggested for this daughter of Walter de Bredwardine. Bartrum further claims that Philip later married Phillippa de Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville were married before the date of the hearing.
>
> It is likely that they had been married for a year or two before the court hearing which gave them the manor of Yazor. There would also have been a gap between the death of any previous wife and Philip’s marriage to Philllippa. Philip’s alleged first marriage would, therefore, have been concluded no later than 1314. However, Bartum claims, without any evidence, that Philip had all of his children by his first wife, a total of five according to Bartrum, but there were six children. If a period of circa two years is assumed to produce each child, Philip would need to have been married by 1302. In 1302, Philip was about 16 years of age. Whilst this is possible, it is unlikely. Again, it appears that Bartrum has not paid sufficient attention to the timeline in his construction of the Clanvowe ancestry.
>
> Sir Joseph Bradney makes no claims in respect of who married Sir Philip de Clanvowe, thereby casting doubt on the claim made by Bartrum in respect of a daughter of Sir Walter Bredwardine.
>
> A further suggestion was made by a US genealogist named Douglas Richardson. In one of his books he is said to show a Phillippa Talbot as having married Philip de Clanvowe, arising from the use of the term nepos in a Papal letter of 1354. However, in 2003 he appears to have retracted the claim. There is no other evidence which suggests that Phillippa Talbot existed.
>
> Richardson suggests that the marriage of Gwenlynn Michell, as discussed above, is what may be referenced in the papal letter of 1354. It is understood that the term nepos originally meant a grandchild, but was subsequently used more widely to include other male family members, nephews. It was possible to become a nepos by marriage. On the Medieval Genealogy web site, under the heading “Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 4: Devon”, it is suggested that; “On this view nepos would be used in the loose
> sense of “younger male relation” rather than specifically as nephew or grandson.”
>
> The use of the term nepos in the Papal letter of 1354 was most likely in reference to the relationship between John de Clanvowe and the elder Sir Richard Talbot arising from the earlier marriage of Gwenlynn Michell to Gilbert Talbot.
>
> Bartrum’s belief that there was a marriage between a daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and Philip de Clanvowe is based upon an unsubstantiated claim in the Book of Baglan. Bartrum has a second reference for his claim in the form of the Harley Genealogies, MS 3859, which are held in the British Library. If there was such a marriage, the marriage was short. The first wife would have died, possibly in childbirth.
>
> It thus appears that Philip de Clanvowe married Phillippa de Baskerville, probably around 1315, or earlier if this was his first marriage, and by Phillippa he had his children as shown in the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623.”
>
> Any further evidence in respect of this matter would be welcome.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> John
>
>
> -------------------------------
> Set out below is an updated part copy of a previous post upon this subject:
>
> “There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de Clanvowe and who bore his children.
>
> Again reference is made to the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no suggestion of any other wife.
>
> It is the contention of Bartrum, quoting the Book of Baglan, pp 193, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was a daughter of Walter de Bredwardine. No forename has been suggested for this daughter of Walter de Bredwardine. Bartrum further claims that Philip later married Phillippa de Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville were married before the date of the hearing.
>
> It is likely that they had been married for a year or two before the court hearing which gave them the manor of Yazor. There would also have been a gap between the death of any previous wife and Philip’s marriage to Philllippa. Philip’s alleged first marriage would, therefore, have been concluded no later than 1314. However, Bartum claims, without any evidence, that Philip had all of his children by his first wife, a total of five according to Bartrum, but there were six children. If a period of circa two years is assumed to produce each child, Philip would need to have been married by 1302. In 1302, Philip was about 16 years of age. Whilst this is possible, it is unlikely. Again, it appears that Bartrum has not paid sufficient attention to the timeline in his construction of the Clanvowe ancestry.
>
> Sir Joseph Bradney makes no claims in respect of who married Sir Philip de Clanvowe, thereby casting doubt on the claim made by Bartrum in respect of a daughter of Sir Walter Bredwardine.
>
> A further suggestion was made by a US genealogist named Douglas Richardson. In one of his books he is said to show a Phillippa Talbot as having married Philip de Clanvowe, arising from the use of the term nepos in a Papal letter of 1354. However, in 2003 he appears to have retracted the claim. There is no other evidence which suggests that Phillippa Talbot existed.
>
> Richardson suggests that the marriage of Gwenlynn Michell, as discussed above, is what may be referenced in the papal letter of 1354. It is understood that the term nepos originally meant a grandchild, but was subsequently used more widely to include other male family members, nephews. It was possible to become a nepos by marriage. On the Medieval Genealogy web site, under the heading “Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 4: Devon”, it is suggested that; “On this view nepos would be used in the loose
> sense of “younger male relation” rather than specifically as nephew or grandson.”
>
> The use of the term nepos in the Papal letter of 1354 was most likely in reference to the relationship between John de Clanvowe and the elder Sir Richard Talbot arising from the earlier marriage of Gwenlynn Michell to Gilbert Talbot.
>
> Bartrum’s belief that there was a marriage between a daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and Philip de Clanvowe is based upon an unsubstantiated claim in the Book of Baglan. Bartrum has a second reference for his claim in the form of the Harley Genealogies, MS 3859, which are held in the British Library. If there was such a marriage, the marriage was short. The first wife would have died, possibly in childbirth.
>
> It thus appears that Philip de Clanvowe married Phillippa de Baskerville, probably around 1315, or earlier if this was his first marriage, and by Phillippa he had his children as shown in the Visitations of Gloucestershire 1623.”
>
> Any further evidence in respect of this matter would be welcome.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> John
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com <mailto:GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Douglas Richardson
Aug 21, 2017, 3:53:35 PM8/21/17
to
Dear John ~
While all things are possible, unless Hal has better evidence than what he has cited, I sincerely doubt that Walter de Baskerville is the same person as Walter de Bredwardine.
Below are six example of men named Bredwardine taken from various fines in this period. As you can see, the Bredwardine surname is not unknown.
1. CP 25/1/81/22, number 136: (1292)
Persons: John de Bradewardyn; Hugh de Crassewelle; Julian
Places: Westbradewardyn [Herefordshire]
2. CP 25/1/259/18, number 26: (1326)
Persons: Roger de Bradwardyn; Alice; Henry de Wenland'; William de Harpedene; Elizabeth
Places: Pupplinton'; Wygorn'; Northwyk'; Wygorn' [Worcestershire]
3. CP 25/1/260/20, number 11: (1334)
Persons: Nicholas de Muro; Margaret; Robert de Whyteneye; Roger de Bredewardyn; Nicholas; Bertrand de Muro
Places: Pupplynton'; Wygorn' [Worcestershire]
4. CP 25/1/83/51, number 8: (1403-1404)
Persons: John Bradwardyn; John Symondes; John Janyes; John Bene; Margaret
Places: Kenchestre; Kenchestre; Malmeshull' Lacy; Malmeshull' Lacy; Erdeshope [Herefordshire]
5. CP 25/1/290/60, number 91: (1405)
Persons: Gilbert Denys; Thomas Rede; Thomas [M]elreth'; Robert Childewall'; William Bradwardyn; Geoffrey Barbour; Denise
Places: Kermerdyn; Horton'; London'; Abyndon'; Langelee Marys; Euere; Stanewell' [Buckinghamshire. Middlesex]
6. CP 25/1/83/54, number 5: (1425)
Persons: Roger Jones; Thomas Bradwardyn'; John Dudeley; Margery; Margaret; Walter Clerkys; Isabel; Walter Clerkes
Places: Biford' [Herefordshire]
Inasmuch we are currently discussing Walter de Baskerville, below is the abstract of a Common Pleas lawsuit involving his widow, Sibyl. Sibyl, of course, was also the widow of John de Acton (died 1312), whose inquisition post mortem specifically mentions his wife, Sibyl's dower lands in Cowarne, Herefordshire. As a descendant of John de Acton (like you), I'm personally interested in this family line.
+ + + + +
Date: Hilary term 1314
Parties mentioned: Sibyl, widow of Walter de Baskervill; Richard de Baskervill; John de Wallewayn, John Aubray, Alice daughter of the said John Aubrey.
Re: The 4th part of the manor of Cowarne, Herefordshire.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 41f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0041.htm).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 7:58:34 PM UTC-6, John Ritchings wrote:
< Greetings Hal
<
< Many thanks for this advice. Very interesting as I have never come across the < suggestion that Walter de Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville were one and < the same person. If this be the case, then Philip de Clanvowe only had the one
< wife, namely, Phillippa de Baskerville or Bredwardine. In terms of the time
< line, that makes much more sense.
<
< Regards
< John
While all things are possible, unless Hal has better evidence than what he has cited, I sincerely doubt that Walter de Baskerville is the same person as Walter de Bredwardine.
Below are six example of men named Bredwardine taken from various fines in this period. As you can see, the Bredwardine surname is not unknown.
1. CP 25/1/81/22, number 136: (1292)
Persons: John de Bradewardyn; Hugh de Crassewelle; Julian
Places: Westbradewardyn [Herefordshire]
2. CP 25/1/259/18, number 26: (1326)
Persons: Roger de Bradwardyn; Alice; Henry de Wenland'; William de Harpedene; Elizabeth
Places: Pupplinton'; Wygorn'; Northwyk'; Wygorn' [Worcestershire]
3. CP 25/1/260/20, number 11: (1334)
Persons: Nicholas de Muro; Margaret; Robert de Whyteneye; Roger de Bredewardyn; Nicholas; Bertrand de Muro
Places: Pupplynton'; Wygorn' [Worcestershire]
4. CP 25/1/83/51, number 8: (1403-1404)
Persons: John Bradwardyn; John Symondes; John Janyes; John Bene; Margaret
Places: Kenchestre; Kenchestre; Malmeshull' Lacy; Malmeshull' Lacy; Erdeshope [Herefordshire]
5. CP 25/1/290/60, number 91: (1405)
Persons: Gilbert Denys; Thomas Rede; Thomas [M]elreth'; Robert Childewall'; William Bradwardyn; Geoffrey Barbour; Denise
Places: Kermerdyn; Horton'; London'; Abyndon'; Langelee Marys; Euere; Stanewell' [Buckinghamshire. Middlesex]
6. CP 25/1/83/54, number 5: (1425)
Persons: Roger Jones; Thomas Bradwardyn'; John Dudeley; Margery; Margaret; Walter Clerkys; Isabel; Walter Clerkes
Places: Biford' [Herefordshire]
Inasmuch we are currently discussing Walter de Baskerville, below is the abstract of a Common Pleas lawsuit involving his widow, Sibyl. Sibyl, of course, was also the widow of John de Acton (died 1312), whose inquisition post mortem specifically mentions his wife, Sibyl's dower lands in Cowarne, Herefordshire. As a descendant of John de Acton (like you), I'm personally interested in this family line.
+ + + + +
Date: Hilary term 1314
Parties mentioned: Sibyl, widow of Walter de Baskervill; Richard de Baskervill; John de Wallewayn, John Aubray, Alice daughter of the said John Aubrey.
Re: The 4th part of the manor of Cowarne, Herefordshire.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 41f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0041.htm).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 7:58:34 PM UTC-6, John Ritchings wrote:
< Greetings Hal
<
< Many thanks for this advice. Very interesting as I have never come across the < suggestion that Walter de Bredwardine and Walter de Baskerville were one and < the same person. If this be the case, then Philip de Clanvowe only had the one
< wife, namely, Phillippa de Baskerville or Bredwardine. In terms of the time
< line, that makes much more sense.
<
< John
krot...@gmail.com
Aug 21, 2017, 8:24:16 PM8/21/17
to
> Inasmuch we are currently discussing Walter de Baskerville, below is the abstract of a Common Pleas lawsuit involving his widow, Sibyl. Sibyl, of course, was also the widow of John de Acton (died 1312), whose inquisition post mortem specifically mentions his wife, Sibyl's dower lands in Cowarne, Herefordshire. As a descendant of John de Acton (like you), I'm personally interested in this family line.
>
> + + + + +
> Date: Hilary term 1314
>
> Parties mentioned: Sibyl, widow of Walter de Baskervill; Richard de Baskervill; John de Wallewayn, John Aubray, Alice daughter of the said John Aubrey.
>
> Re: The 4th part of the manor of Cowarne, Herefordshire.
>
> Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 41f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0041.htm).
I am also interested in the Baskerville/Acton/Poyntz lineages. However, from what this thread is showing, some of the dates are a bit stretched. Walter Baskerville died about 1285 or so, with a son aged 24, thus born about 1261. He also had a daughter Phillippa that married Phillip Clanvowe. This thread states she was "born before 1283" as her father was said to have died in 1282. Phillippa and Phillip were said to have a daughter Elizabeth that married John Poyntz per the Poyntz pedigree in the Visitation of Gloucestershire 1623. I have Elizabeth born about 1325, as she had a son Robert Poyntz born in 1359. This would make her about 34 at his birth. While she could have been having kids at age 40, that would must likely be pushing the bounds for that era. Are there any dates for the marriage of Phillip and Phillippa? If they married about 1310, that would make Phillippa at least 30 at her marriage, and 45 at her daughters birth. Even if Elizabeth was born 5 years earlier, her mother would still be 40. While the dates work, they push the bounds. Also Roger Baskerville, the son of Walter and Sybille Baskerville, was born about 1261, making his mother born by 1243 (aged 18 at his birth) Apparently, Sybille remarried to John de Acton about 1288, and had kids with him? She would have been 45 or so. Can someone straighten me out? Thanks for any help, and sorry for any rambling.
>
> + + + + +
> Date: Hilary term 1314
>
> Parties mentioned: Sibyl, widow of Walter de Baskervill; Richard de Baskervill; John de Wallewayn, John Aubray, Alice daughter of the said John Aubrey.
>
> Re: The 4th part of the manor of Cowarne, Herefordshire.
>
> Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 41f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0041.htm).
jd...@me.com
Aug 22, 2017, 3:36:10 PM8/22/17
to
Thank you both for your observations. I comment as follows: From my introductory research in this area it appears that family Baskerville held at least the manors of Eardisley, Bredwardine and Yazor. These manors are circa ten kilometres apart and form a triangle on the map.
Eardisley was held from circa 1272 until 1684 - see Herefordshire County Council web site: Herefordshire Through Time.
It is not known when the Baskervilles occupied Bredwardine. In 1313 tenements were passed from Roger Baskerville to John D’Evereux; - Feet of Fines C25/1/82/29 #35 - and the Baskervilles were still in residence in 1415. See the Bredwardine church web site:
http://www.bredwardine-brobury.org.uk/pages/church.htm
Similarly, it is not known when Walter de Baskerville occupied Yazor.
Whilst the main centre for family Baskerville appears to be Castle Eardisley, there are branches of the family occupying additional manors.
In 1292 John Bredwardine is mentioned in Feet of Fines CP 25/1/81/22 #136 regarding a transaction in Bredwardine. It thus appears that both family Bredwardine and family Baskerville held land in Bredwardine at the same time.
There appears from the CIPM of 1285/6 that there was a Walter de Baskerville living in Bredwardine at that time who also held lands at Pikethorn in Shropshire. There is no record of this Walter holding Yazor.
If this be the case then Walter de Baskerville who died in 1285/6 is not the same Walter de Baskerville who died in 1282 at Yazor. There is further evidence to support this suggestion in that Walter de Baskerville de Bredwardine had a son, Roger, who was his heir. Walter de Baskerville had no heirs and his lands were dowaged to his wife, Sybil.
In that this Walter died in 1282, it may have been the case that he did not know he had a daughter, who may have been born after his death.
There were, therefore, two Walter de Baskervilles, one of whom had a daughter, Phillippa, who subsequently married Philip de Clanvowe before 1318. Feet of Fines CP 25/1/82/33 #137.
The Book of Baglan states: “Sr ph’e Clanvow, knight, ma on of the da & coheires of Sr walter Bedwarden, knight.”
I understand that the Book of Baglan is not the most reliable of sources, but I will pose a question based upon this claim. If Sir Philip de Clanvowe married the daughter of Sir Walter de Bredwardine, what was it that she inherited to bring to the marriage? There does not appear to have been a manor. With whom was she a coheire? Bartram shows that Walter de Bredwardine had a male heir, Roger.
In previous postings the problems with the time line for these claims made in Baglan and quoted by Bartram have been highlighted. For these reasons and those shown above, I remain sceptical concerning the alleged marriage of Sir Philip de Clanvowe to the daughter of Sir Walter Bredwardine.
Like you, I believe that there are two separate families in the Bredwardines and Baskervilles. However, a suggestion that there is historical confusion concerning the identity of Walter de Baskerville by a source which is said to be unreliable is not, IMHO, out of the question.
It would not be a surprise if Baglan’s reference to Sir Walter de Bredwardine is a mistaken identity for Sir Walter de Baskerville.
I have previously indicated that I am relatively new to Medieval genealogy, so I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood some aspect of the times.
To conclude on a related subject, I note that our interests are of a similar line. Earlier this year, Acton Court was open to the public for ten days, so I crawled up the M5 with all the other traffic to Iron Acton.
Only the part of the property built in 1535 remains, although there are some ruins of the older part of the house. The current property is frail, which is why there is very limited opening to the public.
The frailness has contributed to the preservation of parts of its original state and so it is well worth the visit just to sample what is a simplicity of Tudor building. Having said that, there is an Holbein freeze in the property!
If you have a chance to visit Acton Court, it is well worth the visit, irrespective of the fact that your ancestors lived there.
Web site: http://www.actoncourt.com
All comment would be welcome
Regards
John
wjhonson
Aug 22, 2017, 3:44:41 PM8/22/17
to
Joe
Aug 22, 2017, 6:05:18 PM8/22/17
to
> She brought Yazor
I think it is pretty clear that the Walter de Baskerville who died in 1286 (holding holding Pikethorn, Salop and West Bredwardine, Hereford, son Roger age 24), is different than the Water de Baskerville (d. 1284) who married Sybil d’ Ebroices.
The Walter de Baskerville who married Sybil died without issue and was succeeded by his brother Richard Baskerville. This Richard was married to a Philippa. Given this and the fine below, isn’t the most likely conclusion have to be that Philippa Baskerville who married Phillip Clanvowe was a daughter of this Richard Baskerville? It reads to me as a straight forward father settling land on his daughter in marriage ("heirs of their bodies" with reversion back to the father's heirs if they have no children).
CP 25/1/82/33, number 137.
County: Herefordshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: Three weeks from Easter, 11 Edward II [14 May 1318].
Parties: Philip de Clanuowe and Philippe, his wife, querents, by Nicholas de Hert, put in the place of Philippe by the lord king's writ, and Richard de Baskeruill', deforciant.
Property: The manor of Yaesouere.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Philip has acknowledged the manor to be the right of Richard. For this, Richard has granted to Philip and Philippe 75 acres of wood in the manor and has rendered it to them in the court, to hold to Philip and Philippe and the heirs of their bodies, of Richard and his heirs for ever, rendering yearly 1 rose at the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist, and doing to the chief lords all other services. And besides Richard granted for himself and his heirs that all the rest of the manor - which Sibel, who was the wife of John de Acton', held in dower of the inheritance of Richard on the day the agreement was made, and which after the decease of Sibel ought to revert to Richard and his heirs - after the decease of Sibel shall remain to Philip and Philippe and their aforesaid heirs, to hold together with the wood of Richard and his heirs by the aforesaid services for ever. In default of such heirs, all the manor shall revert to Richard and his heirs, quit of the other heirs of Philip and Philippe, to hold of the chief lords for ever.
Warranty: Warranty by Richard and his heirs.
Note: This agreement was made in the presence of Sibel, and she did fealty to Philip and Philippe in the court.
Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.)
Persons: Philip de Clanvowe, Philippe de Clanvowe, Nicholas de Hert, Richard de Baskerville, John de Acton, Sibel de Acton
Places: Yazor
krot...@aol.com
Aug 22, 2017, 8:29:01 PM8/22/17
to coc...@gmail.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I can go along with this, but seems to bring up another problem. The lineage of Walter of Pikethorn is easily traced back several generations, but who, then are the ancestors of Walter of Yazor. The Poyntz lines ties Walter (of Yazor) and his brother Richard together, AFAIK, Sybil, widow of Walter, remarried to John de Acton, and had Maud de Acton, who married John Poyntz. The same John Poyntz married Elizabeth Clanvowe, daughter of Philip Clanvowe, and Philippa Baskerville, who was as you say, daughter of Walter's (of Yazor) brother, Richard. In another line of conversation "Hounding the Baskervilles" the line of Walter/Sibyl seems to go back thru the Baskervilles of Eardisley. Has this line been proven satisfactorily? If so, it connects into an earlier part of the Poyntz family, as Ralph, Lord of Eardisley, is said to have married a daughter of Drogo, brother of Richard, Lord of Clifford, both of whom were Fitzpons,
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <coc...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 22, 2017 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: Clanvowe
> She brought YazorI think it is pretty clear that the Walter de Baskerville who died in 1286 (holding holding Pikethorn, Salop and West Bredwardine, Hereford, son Roger age 24), is different than the Water de Baskerville (d. 1284) who married Sybil d’ Ebroices. The Walter de Baskerville who married Sybil died without issue and was succeeded by his brother Richard Baskerville. This Richard was married to a Philippa. Given this and the fine below, isn’t the most likely conclusion have to be that Philippa Baskerville who married Phillip Clanvowe was a daughter of this Richard Baskerville? It reads to me as a straight forward father settling land on his daughter in marriage ("heirs of their bodies" with reversion back to the father's heirs if they have no children).CP 25/1/82/33, number 137.County: Herefordshire.Place: Westminster.Date: Three weeks from Easter, 11 Edward II [14 May 1318].Parties: Philip de Clanuowe and Philippe, his wife, querents, by Nicholas de Hert, put in the place of Philippe by the lord king's writ, and Richard de Baskeruill', deforciant.Property: The manor of Yaesouere.Action: Plea of covenant.Agreement: Philip has acknowledged the manor to be the right of Richard. For this, Richard has granted to Philip and Philippe 75 acres of wood in the manor and has rendered it to them in the court, to hold to Philip and Philippe and the heirs of their bodies, of Richard and his heirs for ever, rendering yearly 1 rose at the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist, and doing to the chief lords all other services. And besides Richard granted for himself and his heirs that all the rest of the manor - which Sibel, who was the wife of John de Acton', held in dower of the inheritance of Richard on the day the agreement was made, and which after the decease of Sibel ought to revert to Richard and his heirs - after the decease of Sibel shall remain to Philip and Philippe and their aforesaid heirs, to hold together with the wood of Richard and his heirs by the aforesaid services for ever. In default of such heirs, all the manor shall revert to Richard and his heirs, quit of the other heirs of Philip and Philippe, to hold of the chief lords for ever.Warranty: Warranty by Richard and his heirs.Note: This agreement was made in the presence of Sibel, and she did fealty to Philip and Philippe in the court.Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.)Persons: Philip de Clanvowe, Philippe de Clanvowe, Nicholas de Hert, Richard de Baskerville, John de Acton, Sibel de ActonPlaces: Yazor -------------------------------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
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <coc...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 22, 2017 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: Clanvowe
> She brought YazorI think it is pretty clear that the Walter de Baskerville who died in 1286 (holding holding Pikethorn, Salop and West Bredwardine, Hereford, son Roger age 24), is different than the Water de Baskerville (d. 1284) who married Sybil d’ Ebroices. The Walter de Baskerville who married Sybil died without issue and was succeeded by his brother Richard Baskerville. This Richard was married to a Philippa. Given this and the fine below, isn’t the most likely conclusion have to be that Philippa Baskerville who married Phillip Clanvowe was a daughter of this Richard Baskerville? It reads to me as a straight forward father settling land on his daughter in marriage ("heirs of their bodies" with reversion back to the father's heirs if they have no children).CP 25/1/82/33, number 137.County: Herefordshire.Place: Westminster.Date: Three weeks from Easter, 11 Edward II [14 May 1318].Parties: Philip de Clanuowe and Philippe, his wife, querents, by Nicholas de Hert, put in the place of Philippe by the lord king's writ, and Richard de Baskeruill', deforciant.Property: The manor of Yaesouere.Action: Plea of covenant.Agreement: Philip has acknowledged the manor to be the right of Richard. For this, Richard has granted to Philip and Philippe 75 acres of wood in the manor and has rendered it to them in the court, to hold to Philip and Philippe and the heirs of their bodies, of Richard and his heirs for ever, rendering yearly 1 rose at the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist, and doing to the chief lords all other services. And besides Richard granted for himself and his heirs that all the rest of the manor - which Sibel, who was the wife of John de Acton', held in dower of the inheritance of Richard on the day the agreement was made, and which after the decease of Sibel ought to revert to Richard and his heirs - after the decease of Sibel shall remain to Philip and Philippe and their aforesaid heirs, to hold together with the wood of Richard and his heirs by the aforesaid services for ever. In default of such heirs, all the manor shall revert to Richard and his heirs, quit of the other heirs of Philip and Philippe, to hold of the chief lords for ever.Warranty: Warranty by Richard and his heirs.Note: This agreement was made in the presence of Sibel, and she did fealty to Philip and Philippe in the court.Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.)Persons: Philip de Clanvowe, Philippe de Clanvowe, Nicholas de Hert, Richard de Baskerville, John de Acton, Sibel de ActonPlaces: Yazor -------------------------------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
Joe
Aug 23, 2017, 2:32:15 AM8/23/17
to
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC-7, krot...@gmail.com wrote:
> I can go along with this, but seems to bring up another problem. The lineage of Walter of Pikethorn is easily traced back several generations, but who, then are the ancestors of Walter of Yazor.
Walter Baskerville of Yazor is the main Baskerville of Eardisley line. Walter and his brother Richard would be the sons of Walter Baskerville and Susannah Crigdon. The Eardisley line and the Bredwardine line apparently permantently split more than a century before.
> I can go along with this, but seems to bring up another problem. The lineage of Walter of Pikethorn is easily traced back several generations, but who, then are the ancestors of Walter of Yazor.
> The Poyntz lines ties Walter (of Yazor) and his brother Richard together, AFAIK, Sybil, widow of Walter, remarried to John de Acton, and had Maud de Acton, who married John Poyntz. The same John Poyntz married Elizabeth Clanvowe, daughter of Philip Clanvowe, and Philippa Baskerville, who was as you say, daughter of Walter's (of Yazor) brother, Richard.
Sybil didn’t have any children by her second husband, John de Acton. I believe the correct construction for the Acton’s goes like this:
John III de Acton (d. 1312) m.1st Margaret Aller m. 2nd Sybil d'Ebroicis
John IV de Acton (d.v.p.) m. Helen Le Brun
John V de Acton (b. c1288 – 1362 d.s.p.) the heir in 1312 (& Maud)
> In another line of conversation "Hounding the Baskervilles" the line of Walter/Sibyl seems to go back thru the Baskervilles of Eardisley. Has this line been proven satisfactorily?
wjhonson
Aug 23, 2017, 2:55:15 PM8/23/17
to
Their son John who married an Ellen, was "aged 24" in the 1312 IPM of his father
On Nov 11, 6 Edward II (1312), an IPM was done for John de Acton in regards
to the manors of Couerne and Yausore, both in Herefordshire. The Couerne
10d. yearly rent held of Richard Baskerville by service of 1/2d. yearly; and
a fourth part of the manor held, as the dower of Sybil his wife, of Richard
de Baskerville by service of a 1/4th's knights fee: she was dowered by Walter
Douglas Richardson
Aug 23, 2017, 3:29:16 PM8/23/17
to
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 6:30:32 AM UTC-7, jd...@me.com wrote:
< There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de
< Clanvowe and who bore his children. Again reference is made to the
< Visitations of Gloucester 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of
< Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no
< suggestion of any other wife.
< It is the contention of Bartrum, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was < the daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and he later married Phillippa de
< Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated
< 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville < were married before the date of the hearing.
Dear John ~
< There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de
< Clanvowe and who bore his children. Again reference is made to the
< Visitations of Gloucester 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of
< Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no
< suggestion of any other wife.
< It is the contention of Bartrum, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was < the daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and he later married Phillippa de
< Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated
< 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville < were married before the date of the hearing.
I would never accuse Mr. Bartrum with whom I corresponded of being a great genealogist. To his credit, however, he did attempt to harmonize often conflicting statements and produce what he felt was the best solution. His contention that Philip de Clanvowe had two wives is presumably his attempt to harmonize two sources, Llyfr Baglan (which is fairly reliable) and Duncumb, Collections Towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford 3 (1882): 187.
Williams, Llyfr Baglan (1910): 193 states that Philip de Clanvowe's wife was "on of the da & coheires of Sr walter Bedwarden, knight.” That's pretty straight forward. Duncumb, on the other hand, identified Sir Philip de Clanvowe's wife Philippe as the "only surviving daughter and heiress" of Sibyl de Acton, widow," presumably by her husband, Walter de Baskerville, who Duncumb states "died in 1283 without male issue."
As Mr. Bartrum would have it, we have two wives for Sir Philip de Clanvowe, one being the daughter and co-heiress of Sir "Walter Bedwarden," and the other being the "daughter and heiress of Sibyl de Acton," presumably by her marriage to Walter de Baskerville.
In this matter, however, the historian Mr. Duncumb was entirely wrong, and Bartrum should have realized it. Walter de Baskerville died without issue, and his heir was his brother Richard de Baskerville. Simply put, Walter de Baskerville had no surviving issue, male or female.
Where Duncumb got confused was that following the death of Sibyl de Acton, he alleges that Sir Philip de Clanvowe and his wife, Philippe, "made claim to Yasoure" [Herefordshire], which claim was "resisted by Richard de Baskerville." Duncumb cites as his source Fines Co. Heref., 7 Edw. II. No. 72. I haven't tried to find this fine (if it exists), but it clearly has a different regnal date than the 1318 fine which Chris Phillips has abstracted on his medieval genealogy website concerning the manor of Yazor, Herefordshire.
Whatever the case, Duncumb got his facts wrong. In 1318, Richard de Baskerville, Walter's heir, conveyed the reversion of the manor of Yazor, Herefordshire to Sir Philip de Clanvowe and his wife, Philippe. This agreement was made during the lifetime of Sibyl de Acton, not afterwards. So Duncumb's story is wrong.
Interested parties can view Williams, Llyfr Baglan (1910): 193 at the following weblink:
https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE81852
I might point out that there is no indication in the 1318 fine that Sir Philip de Clanvowe's wife, Philippe, had any claim to the manor of Yazor by inheritance. Nor can she have had such a claim, as Richard de Baskerville was duly recognized in his lifetime as the legitimate heir of his brother, Walter de Baskerville. So much for Duncumb and Bartrum.
Finally I should mention that there is a corresponding fine involving the fourth part of the manor of Much Cowarne, Herefordshire, which property Sibyl de Acton also held in dower of her Baskerville marriage. An abstract of this fine may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_82_33.shtml#136
In this fine dated 1318, the grantor Richard de Baskerville states that the property in question was held in dower by Sibyl de Acton. He agreed to convey the reversion of the property following Sibyl's death to John Walewayn and to John Aubrey and Alice, daughter of the said John Aubrey.
As I indicated in an earlier post, the above fine recorded in 1318 had its origins in a Common Pleas lawsuit as far back as Hilary term 1314. Here is the reference again for the 1314 lawsuit:
Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 41f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0041.htm).
Joe
Aug 23, 2017, 4:46:58 PM8/23/17
to
> John de Acton and Sybil did have children together.
> Their son John who married an Ellen, was "aged 24" in the 1312 IPM of his father
>
I don’t think so Will. There are problems with the idea that Sybil was the mother of the heir in 1312.
> Their son John who married an Ellen, was "aged 24" in the 1312 IPM of his father
>
The main one would be who is John Acton who married Helen Le Brun. In 1266, John Le Brun died holding the manors of Elkston and Winston. He was succeeded by another John Le Brun who in 1303 granted these manors to John de Acton and Helen (daughter of John Le Brun) his wife with reversions to his other daughter and her husband, Elizabeth and William Maleherbe. A similar grant of Bere was made to Elizabeth with reversions to John and Helen de Acton. Elkston, Winston and Bere can then be traced for hundreds of years in the Acton and then the Poyntz family. So how do we explain the shared descent of all of the Aller manors, along with Elkston and Winston. The answer is this:
John III de Acton (say 1230/40 - d. 1312) m.1st Margaret Aller m. 2nd Sybil d'Ebroicis
John IV de Acton (bef. 1265 - d.v.p.) m. Helen Le Brun
John V de Acton (b. c1288 – 1362 d.s.p.) the heir in 1312 (& Maud)
This construction explains the descent of all property, and fixes a number of chronological problems. Sybil would have been significantly younger than John III de Acton, but also could not possibly have been the grandmother of someone born in 1288.
This brings up the 1312 IPM of John de Acton which says his heir was “John his son, aged 24 years and more” http://tinyurl.com/IPMActon1312 But apparently this is an error by the editors of the Cal. IPM. It actually says “John, son of John de Actone”. http://tinyurl.com/ycuurwhr Comparing this wording to the IPMs of the time makes it pretty clear that the heir was not his son – it was in fact his grandson.
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
Aug 23, 2017, 5:52:33 PM8/23/17
to Joe, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
From: Joe <coc...@gmail.com>
Sent: 23 August 2017 21:46
<snip>
I don't think it's entirely clear, Joe. The wording given in your second reference (Abstracts of IPMs for Gloucestershire) is at best ambiguous. Even if it reproduces exactly what the original text said, with no addition or omission, I'd tend, on balance, to understand it with the meaning given in your first reference (CIPM 25-411).
But it's quite likely that both references have shortened a much longer phrase in the original text. The problem is that IPMs are generally verbose and repetitive, and the published calendars and abstracts provide only a precis, not a full, word-for-word translation. If the original text uses a dozen words to say that the heir John was the son of the subject of the IPM (a typical form of words would be 'John son of the John de Acton named in the writ', for example) then one calendarer might reduce that to the equally unambiguous but terser 'John his son' - but another to 'John son of John de Actone'.
To be quite sure you'd have to look at the original ipm.
Matt Tompkins
Sent: 23 August 2017 21:46
<snip>
> This brings up the 1312 IPM of John de Acton which says his heir was “John his son, aged 24 years and more” http://tinyurl.com/IPMActon1312 But apparently this is an error by the editors of the Cal. IPM. It actually says “John, son of John de Actone”. http://tinyurl.com/ycuurwhr Comparing this wording to the IPMs of the time makes it pretty clear that the heir was not his son – it was in fact his grandson.
>
-------------------------------
>
I don't think it's entirely clear, Joe. The wording given in your second reference (Abstracts of IPMs for Gloucestershire) is at best ambiguous. Even if it reproduces exactly what the original text said, with no addition or omission, I'd tend, on balance, to understand it with the meaning given in your first reference (CIPM 25-411).
But it's quite likely that both references have shortened a much longer phrase in the original text. The problem is that IPMs are generally verbose and repetitive, and the published calendars and abstracts provide only a precis, not a full, word-for-word translation. If the original text uses a dozen words to say that the heir John was the son of the subject of the IPM (a typical form of words would be 'John son of the John de Acton named in the writ', for example) then one calendarer might reduce that to the equally unambiguous but terser 'John his son' - but another to 'John son of John de Actone'.
To be quite sure you'd have to look at the original ipm.
Matt Tompkins
Joe
Aug 23, 2017, 6:26:32 PM8/23/17
to
> -------------------------------
> I don't think it's entirely clear, Joe. The wording given in your second reference (Abstracts of IPMs for Gloucestershire) is at best ambiguous. Even if it reproduces exactly what the original text said, with no addition or omission, I'd tend, on balance, to understand it with the meaning given in your first reference (CIPM 25-411).
>
> But it's quite likely that both references have shortened a much longer phrase in the original text. The problem is that IPMs are generally verbose and repetitive, and the published calendars and abstracts provide only a precis, not a full, word-for-word translation. If the original text uses a dozen words to say that the heir John was the son of the subject of the IPM (a typical form of words would be 'John son of the John de Acton named in the writ', for example) then one calendarer might reduce that to the equally unambiguous but terser 'John his son' - but another to 'John son of John de Actone'.
>
> To be quite sure you'd have to look at the original ipm.
>
> Matt Tompkins
Robert de la Felde, son of the said Robert
Edmund le Archer, son of the said Nicholas
William de Staure, son of the said William
Peter de la Mare, son of the said Robert
Thomas de Monemuth, brother of the said John
Theobald de Verdun, son of the said Theobald
John Pippard, son of the said Ralph
William de Insula, son of the said Florence
John de Chausy, son of the said John
John, son of the said Nicholas son of Ralph
John, son of John de Actone
It doesn’t say “John de Actone, son of the said John” as all of the other IPMs read. It may be just the particular wording of this particular IPM and is not conclusive evidence. However, it at least opens up the possibility of a relationship other than father and son. And given all of the other evidence of dates and property inheritance, the heir being a grandson fits the best.
jd...@me.com
Aug 24, 2017, 5:58:34 AM8/24/17
to
Many thanks for this explanation.
There is new information for me from this round of correspondence which I wish to study. I am grateful to all those who contributed.
You may rest assured, Douglas, that all my research is documented and is being backed up on iCloud. I have thousands of records to support my research. I use only source documents wherever possible. However, we have a particular problem here in Devonshire in that many of the records were destroyed in the bombing of Exeter during the Second World War. Consequently, we have to find third party sources and validate their data.
You are probably aware that the South West Heritage Trust has assumed responsibility for the Devonshire archives. It is in the process of digitising the records which has brought to light records which had been buried in the archives for hundreds of years. It was this revelation that assisted me to make the Poyntz family connection in Devonshire.
Regards
John
Douglas Richardson
Aug 24, 2017, 9:36:43 AM8/24/17
to
Dear John ~
Like you, I'm also a descendant of Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., who died in 1487. For your interest, I've copied below my current file account of him. This is an expanded account of what I previously published in my Royal Ancestry book (5 volume set) or my Magna Carta Ancestry book (4 volume set).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + +
HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., of Langley (in High Bickington) and Umberleigh, Devon, Elkstone, Gloucestershire, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey (or Ansty Cruse) and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, Escheator of Devonshire, 1460–61, younger son by his father’s 1st marriage. He married before Hilary term 1458 (date of lawsuit) ELIZABETH POLLARD, daughter and heiress of Richard Pollard, of Langley (in High Bickington), Devon, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, by Thomasine, daughter and co-heiress of Robert Cruse (or Cruys). They had two sons, Nicholas and William, and one daughter, Katherine (wife of Fulk Prideaux). In 1458 he sued Dennis Moppe, of West Worcombe, Devon, husbandman, and three others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass at Mortehoe, Devon. In 1472 he sued Henry Dunslegh, of East Anstey, Devon, husbandman in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £8. In 1474 John Cruys sued Humphrey and his wife, Elizabeth, for an illegal entry into the manors of Cruwys Morchard and Rackenford, Devon. In 1480 he leased messuages, lands, etc. in Northcote and Codlemore (in Bittadon), Devon from Walter Halle. The same year he and his wife, Elizabeth, John Prous, and John Chalvedon sued John Cruys for an unjust disseisin in Woolacombe, Anstey Cruwys [East Anstey], Cruys Sydeham, and Little Rackenford, Devon. On 23 April 1486 he and his wife, Elizabeth, settled a moiety of the manor of Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon on themselves for life, with remainder to Fulk Prideaux, Esq., and his wife, Katherine (daughter of the said Humphrey and Elizabeth) and the heirs of Katherine. HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., died 10 October 1487. In 1510 John Forde and Robert Loty, executors of the will of Elizabeth Poyntz, sued Richard Reigne [Reigny], John Berry, of Collaton, Devon, and Patrick Pollard in the Court of Common Pleas regarding replevin.
References: Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 420 (East Ansty, a Pollard & Cruse fam. property). Fosbrooke, Abstracts of Recs. & MSS respecting the County of Gloucester 2 (1807): 525–526. Berry, County Gens.: Sussex Fams. (1830): 351–353 (Poyntz ped.). Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 3 (1836): 537–540 (sub Poyntz). St. George & Lennard, Vis. of Devon 1620 (H.S.P. 6) (1872): 215 (Pollard ped.) (Pollard arms: Argent, a chevron sable, charged with a mullet for difference, between three escallops gules). Fourth Rpt. (Hist. MSS Comm. 3) (1874): 378. Colby, Vis. of Devon 1564 (1881): 175–176 (Pridieulx ped.). Chitting & Phillipot, Vis. of Gloucester 1623, 1569 & 1582–3 (H.S.P. 21) (1885): 128–129 (Poyntz ped.: “Humffrey Pointes m. to …. Pollard.”), 130–135 (Poyntz ped.: “Humfridus Poyntz ob. Ao 3. H. 7. = …. filia et heires …. Pollard.”). Maclean, Hist. & Gen. Mem. of the Fam. of Poyntz (1886): 94–95, 256. Trans. Bristol & Gloucs. Arch. Soc. 12 (1888): 123–169. Vivian, Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): 59 (Beare ped.): 597–599 (Pollard ped.). Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 467, 468. Procs. Bath Natural Hist. & Antiq. Field Club 9 (1901): 62. Wrottesley Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 408–409, 435, 452. Papal Regs.: Letters 9 (1912): 242. Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries 13 (1925): 134–137. C.F.R. 19 1452–1461 (1939): 39–40; 22 1485–1509 (1963): 69, 84. Lacy, Reg. of Edmund Lacy 3 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc. n.s. 13) (1967): 207–208. List of Escheators for England & Wales (List & Index Soc. 72) (1971): 36. Richardson, Agnes [Harris] Spencer Edwards (1987). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/788, image 1509d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no788/bCP40no788dorses/IMG_1509.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/841, image 427f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no841/aCP40no841fronts/IMG_0427.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/852, image 844f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no852/aCP40no852fronts/IMG_0844.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/853, image 290f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no853/aCP40no853fronts/IMG_0290.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/874, image 773f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E4/CP40no874/aCP40no874fronts/IMG_0773.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/990, image 433f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no990/aCP40no990fronts/IMG_0433.htm). National Archives, CP 25/1/46/93, #1 (fine dated 23 April 1486 — Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., and Elizabeth, his wife, deforciants) [see abstract of fine at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html]. North Devon Rec. Office: Barnstaple Borough, B1/A63; B1/A68 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
Like you, I'm also a descendant of Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., who died in 1487. For your interest, I've copied below my current file account of him. This is an expanded account of what I previously published in my Royal Ancestry book (5 volume set) or my Magna Carta Ancestry book (4 volume set).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., of Langley (in High Bickington) and Umberleigh, Devon, Elkstone, Gloucestershire, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey (or Ansty Cruse) and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, Escheator of Devonshire, 1460–61, younger son by his father’s 1st marriage. He married before Hilary term 1458 (date of lawsuit) ELIZABETH POLLARD, daughter and heiress of Richard Pollard, of Langley (in High Bickington), Devon, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, by Thomasine, daughter and co-heiress of Robert Cruse (or Cruys). They had two sons, Nicholas and William, and one daughter, Katherine (wife of Fulk Prideaux). In 1458 he sued Dennis Moppe, of West Worcombe, Devon, husbandman, and three others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass at Mortehoe, Devon. In 1472 he sued Henry Dunslegh, of East Anstey, Devon, husbandman in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £8. In 1474 John Cruys sued Humphrey and his wife, Elizabeth, for an illegal entry into the manors of Cruwys Morchard and Rackenford, Devon. In 1480 he leased messuages, lands, etc. in Northcote and Codlemore (in Bittadon), Devon from Walter Halle. The same year he and his wife, Elizabeth, John Prous, and John Chalvedon sued John Cruys for an unjust disseisin in Woolacombe, Anstey Cruwys [East Anstey], Cruys Sydeham, and Little Rackenford, Devon. On 23 April 1486 he and his wife, Elizabeth, settled a moiety of the manor of Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon on themselves for life, with remainder to Fulk Prideaux, Esq., and his wife, Katherine (daughter of the said Humphrey and Elizabeth) and the heirs of Katherine. HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., died 10 October 1487. In 1510 John Forde and Robert Loty, executors of the will of Elizabeth Poyntz, sued Richard Reigne [Reigny], John Berry, of Collaton, Devon, and Patrick Pollard in the Court of Common Pleas regarding replevin.
References: Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 420 (East Ansty, a Pollard & Cruse fam. property). Fosbrooke, Abstracts of Recs. & MSS respecting the County of Gloucester 2 (1807): 525–526. Berry, County Gens.: Sussex Fams. (1830): 351–353 (Poyntz ped.). Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 3 (1836): 537–540 (sub Poyntz). St. George & Lennard, Vis. of Devon 1620 (H.S.P. 6) (1872): 215 (Pollard ped.) (Pollard arms: Argent, a chevron sable, charged with a mullet for difference, between three escallops gules). Fourth Rpt. (Hist. MSS Comm. 3) (1874): 378. Colby, Vis. of Devon 1564 (1881): 175–176 (Pridieulx ped.). Chitting & Phillipot, Vis. of Gloucester 1623, 1569 & 1582–3 (H.S.P. 21) (1885): 128–129 (Poyntz ped.: “Humffrey Pointes m. to …. Pollard.”), 130–135 (Poyntz ped.: “Humfridus Poyntz ob. Ao 3. H. 7. = …. filia et heires …. Pollard.”). Maclean, Hist. & Gen. Mem. of the Fam. of Poyntz (1886): 94–95, 256. Trans. Bristol & Gloucs. Arch. Soc. 12 (1888): 123–169. Vivian, Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): 59 (Beare ped.): 597–599 (Pollard ped.). Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 467, 468. Procs. Bath Natural Hist. & Antiq. Field Club 9 (1901): 62. Wrottesley Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 408–409, 435, 452. Papal Regs.: Letters 9 (1912): 242. Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries 13 (1925): 134–137. C.F.R. 19 1452–1461 (1939): 39–40; 22 1485–1509 (1963): 69, 84. Lacy, Reg. of Edmund Lacy 3 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc. n.s. 13) (1967): 207–208. List of Escheators for England & Wales (List & Index Soc. 72) (1971): 36. Richardson, Agnes [Harris] Spencer Edwards (1987). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/788, image 1509d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no788/bCP40no788dorses/IMG_1509.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/841, image 427f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no841/aCP40no841fronts/IMG_0427.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/852, image 844f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no852/aCP40no852fronts/IMG_0844.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/853, image 290f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no853/aCP40no853fronts/IMG_0290.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/874, image 773f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E4/CP40no874/aCP40no874fronts/IMG_0773.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/990, image 433f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no990/aCP40no990fronts/IMG_0433.htm). National Archives, CP 25/1/46/93, #1 (fine dated 23 April 1486 — Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., and Elizabeth, his wife, deforciants) [see abstract of fine at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html]. North Devon Rec. Office: Barnstaple Borough, B1/A63; B1/A68 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
jd...@me.com
Aug 25, 2017, 3:55:32 AM8/25/17
to
Many thanks for the notes concerning our mutual ancestor, Humphrey. I will read these with interest.
Your publications have been frequently quoted to me. However, they are not available in the UK and the nearest library copy is in Baltimore, USA. Whilst many Hitchins/Richins etc family members emigrated to the USofA, particularly with the Church of Latter Day Saints, I do not have any US ancestors. It has been suggested that one family member, a Hitchens, in c16 emigrated to Delaware and married a local Nantichoke woman.
The experts at WikiTree advised me that we do have at least one area of difference in the Poyntz ancestry. I do not know whether this is so as these experts did not produce any evidence. The upshot of the claim was that I was banned from WikiTree for disagreeing with you. This was, for me, an event producing such trauma that it is unlikely that I will ever recover.
I am a hobby genealogist since 1972, so I am not so well organised as your goodself. I am well behind in documenting the recent Poyntz work by myself and another family member. I will get that up to date and respond to your notes. It is probably most appropriate that I do so directly to your e-mail address as above?
Regards
John
wjhonson
Aug 25, 2017, 11:13:42 AM8/25/17
to
Douglas Richardson
Aug 30, 2017, 10:47:48 AM8/30/17
to
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 1:55:32 AM UTC-6, jd...@me.com wrote:
< Greetings Douglas
<
< Many thanks for the notes concerning our mutual ancestor, Humphrey. I will <read these with interest.
<
< Your publications have been frequently quoted to me. The experts at WikiTree < advised me that we do have at least one area of difference in the Poyntz
If you would be so kind, please forward me the contact information for the person(s) who banned you. I will address this matter personally.
< It is probably most appropriate that I do so directly to your e-mail address
< as above?
Yes, by all means, you're more than welcome to correspond with me privately at my e-mail address.
> Regards
> John
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 1:55:32 AM UTC-6, jd...@me.com wrote:
< Greetings Douglas
<
< Many thanks for the notes concerning our mutual ancestor, Humphrey. I will <read these with interest.
<
< ancestry. I do not know whether this is so as these experts did not produce
< any evidence. The upshot of the claim was that I was banned from WikiTree for < disagreeing with you. This was, for me, an event producing such trauma that <it is unlikely that I will ever recover.
Dear John ~ I'm extremely sorry to hear that you were banned from WikiTree for disagreeing with me. Free enquiry is the CENTRAL focus of my scholarly pursuits. The idea that you would be banned for simply expressing an alternative view is not anything I would support. Honest scholars can disagree and still be friends.
< any evidence. The upshot of the claim was that I was banned from WikiTree for < disagreeing with you. This was, for me, an event producing such trauma that <it is unlikely that I will ever recover.
If you would be so kind, please forward me the contact information for the person(s) who banned you. I will address this matter personally.
< It is probably most appropriate that I do so directly to your e-mail address
< as above?
> Regards
> John
jd...@me.com
Aug 30, 2017, 3:43:11 PM8/30/17
to
The next generation of our family do not want to follow on with our genealogical research. My only reason for entering my family’s research on to WikiTree was to publish the research for any and all to make any use of the data.
I am not impressed by the manner in which WikiTree manages its affairs and so there is no sorrow in ceasing to have any connection with WikiTree. My comment was made with typical British humour.
Having said that to use your name and reputation in the manner that it was, for me, would be unacceptable conduct. I will prepare a summary for you as the matter does have a lengthy exchange of correspondence and forward to you at your e-mail address. Please feel free to use the data as you wish.
Regards
John
0 new messages