Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Le Strange first cousin marriage?
363 views
Skip to first unread message
joe...@gmail.com
Mar 11, 2014, 8:37:00 PM3/11/14
to
I was looking at my notes because of the recent posts on the Le Strange family, and I seem to have the following first cousin marriage:
Owen ap Gruffyd m. Johanna Corbet.
I have Joanna Corbet daughter of Katherine le Strange, and grandaughter of John le Strange (died 1234) & Amicia
and Owen son of Gruyffyd ap Gwenwynw and Hawise le Strange; Hawise also the daughter of John le Strange (died 1234) and Amicia.
Surely a pure first cousin marriage was not in the cards in the 13th century.
Any insight here or correction?
--Joe C
Owen ap Gruffyd m. Johanna Corbet.
I have Joanna Corbet daughter of Katherine le Strange, and grandaughter of John le Strange (died 1234) & Amicia
and Owen son of Gruyffyd ap Gwenwynw and Hawise le Strange; Hawise also the daughter of John le Strange (died 1234) and Amicia.
Surely a pure first cousin marriage was not in the cards in the 13th century.
Any insight here or correction?
--Joe C
joe...@gmail.com
Mar 19, 2014, 7:33:15 AM3/19/14
to
It looks like genealogics also has this same odd first cousin marriage.. surely this is not correct?
taf
Mar 19, 2014, 10:27:51 AM3/19/14
to gen-medieval
both the Welsh unions - Strange and Corbet, although he does not cover
the Corbet family to show the Corbet/Strange one.
I haven't had a chance to look at any primary documentation, but as I
see it there are three possible explanations:
1. Joanna was actually daughter of Corbet by his second wife, Matilda,
rather than by his first wife Catherine. Approximate birthdates
assigned Joanna's children make this difficult to uphold, yet this may
be begging the question, as the dates may derive from her assumed
placement as daughter of Corbet's first wife.
2. The marriages themselves are dubious - it wouldn't be the first
time that in pedigrees a wife has been misidentified, at a minimum
placed within the wrong branch of the respective families. If Joanna
was a much-younger sister or a niece of Robert Corbet rather than his
daughter, or even belonged to the Caus branch of the family, this
would all sort itself out, Same with the Strange marriage (either
Strange marriage).
3. The marriages are authentic: the Welsh being slow to come under the
full control of the church and to adopt their practices with regard to
marriage and legitimacy. This seems a little late for such a hold-out,
but not impossibly so.
taf
TJ Booth AOL
Mar 19, 2014, 2:13:26 PM3/19/14
to GenMedieval
Missed the early posts on this, but there is no question Elizabeth
LeStrange m. Gruffydd Fychan Ap Madog, by contract, 8 Jul 1304.
It sounds like you have the wrong LeStrange family - Amicia is not a
familiar name, and I have no idea who she i But Elizabeth was dau of
John V LeStrange of Knockin, Shropshire, by his second wife Maud de
Walton. Elizabeth's grandparents were John IV LeStrange by Joan de
Somery. Maud and her last husband Thomas Hastang were involved in a
suit over the marriage rights :
UK National Archives; SC 8/2/75; about 1315. Petition. Thomas
Hastang (Hastings) and Maud Hastings wife of Thomas Hastings, widow of
John Lestrange [of Knockin]. The petitioners request that they have the
wardship of the heir of Madoc ap Griffith Maillor as John Lestrange held
it, and that they may have the marriage of the heir, as no marriage
contract can be made without his consent by a letter under his seal, and
that he accept this because the children were already betrothed during
their fathers' lives and for the sum of £50 paid by the petitioners. The
marriage of the ward had been given by Madoc to John Lestrange, lord of
Knockyn and Maud, and he was betrothed to Elizabeth their daughter for
£50 with the consent of the king. Following Madoc's death his lands were
seized into the king's hands, and the wardship granted to John Lestrange
until the heir was of age. After the death of Lestrange, the king
granted the wardship to Edmund Hakelute.1)
There are other records associated with this.
See also LeStrange, Hamon, LeStrange Records: A Chronicle of the Early
LeStranges of Norfolk and the March of Wales (Longmans; London; 1916.
Page 215, online @ books.google.com/books?id=lfIxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA215.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
> taf <mailto:t...@clearwire.net>
> Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:27 AM
> 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
LeStrange m. Gruffydd Fychan Ap Madog, by contract, 8 Jul 1304.
It sounds like you have the wrong LeStrange family - Amicia is not a
familiar name, and I have no idea who she i But Elizabeth was dau of
John V LeStrange of Knockin, Shropshire, by his second wife Maud de
Walton. Elizabeth's grandparents were John IV LeStrange by Joan de
Somery. Maud and her last husband Thomas Hastang were involved in a
suit over the marriage rights :
UK National Archives; SC 8/2/75; about 1315. Petition. Thomas
Hastang (Hastings) and Maud Hastings wife of Thomas Hastings, widow of
John Lestrange [of Knockin]. The petitioners request that they have the
wardship of the heir of Madoc ap Griffith Maillor as John Lestrange held
it, and that they may have the marriage of the heir, as no marriage
contract can be made without his consent by a letter under his seal, and
that he accept this because the children were already betrothed during
their fathers' lives and for the sum of £50 paid by the petitioners. The
marriage of the ward had been given by Madoc to John Lestrange, lord of
Knockyn and Maud, and he was betrothed to Elizabeth their daughter for
£50 with the consent of the king. Following Madoc's death his lands were
seized into the king's hands, and the wardship granted to John Lestrange
until the heir was of age. After the death of Lestrange, the king
granted the wardship to Edmund Hakelute.1)
There are other records associated with this.
See also LeStrange, Hamon, LeStrange Records: A Chronicle of the Early
LeStranges of Norfolk and the March of Wales (Longmans; London; 1916.
Page 215, online @ books.google.com/books?id=lfIxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA215.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
> taf <mailto:t...@clearwire.net>
> Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:27 AM
>
> These marriages are broadly reported as you have them. Bartrum shows
> both the Welsh unions - Strange and Corbet, although he does not cover
> the Corbet family to show the Corbet/Strange one.
>
> I haven't had a chance to look at any primary documentation, but as I
> see it there are three possible explanations:
>
> 1. Joanna was actually daughter of Corbet by his second wife, Matilda,
> rather than by his first wife Catherine. Approximate birthdates
> assigned Joanna's children make this difficult to uphold, yet this may
> be begging the question, as the dates may derive from her assumed
> placement as daughter of Corbet's first wife.
>
> 2. The marriages themselves are dubious - it wouldn't be the first
> time that in pedigrees a wife has been misidentified, at a minimum
> placed within the wrong branch of the respective families. If Joanna
> was a much-younger sister or a niece of Robert Corbet rather than his
> daughter, or even belonged to the Caus branch of the family, this
> would all sort itself out, Same with the Strange marriage (either
> Strange marriage).
>
> 3. The marriages are authentic: the Welsh being slow to come under the
> full control of the church and to adopt their practices with regard to
> marriage and legitimacy. This seems a little late for such a hold-out,
> but not impossibly so.
>
> taf
>
> -------------------------------
> These marriages are broadly reported as you have them. Bartrum shows
> both the Welsh unions - Strange and Corbet, although he does not cover
> the Corbet family to show the Corbet/Strange one.
>
> I haven't had a chance to look at any primary documentation, but as I
> see it there are three possible explanations:
>
> 1. Joanna was actually daughter of Corbet by his second wife, Matilda,
> rather than by his first wife Catherine. Approximate birthdates
> assigned Joanna's children make this difficult to uphold, yet this may
> be begging the question, as the dates may derive from her assumed
> placement as daughter of Corbet's first wife.
>
> 2. The marriages themselves are dubious - it wouldn't be the first
> time that in pedigrees a wife has been misidentified, at a minimum
> placed within the wrong branch of the respective families. If Joanna
> was a much-younger sister or a niece of Robert Corbet rather than his
> daughter, or even belonged to the Caus branch of the family, this
> would all sort itself out, Same with the Strange marriage (either
> Strange marriage).
>
> 3. The marriages are authentic: the Welsh being slow to come under the
> full control of the church and to adopt their practices with regard to
> marriage and legitimacy. This seems a little late for such a hold-out,
> but not impossibly so.
>
> taf
>
> 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
willac...@yahoo.co.uk
Mar 19, 2014, 2:41:57 PM3/19/14
to
The marriage of Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn and Hawise le Strange is well attested:
https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lestuoft#page/114/mode/2up
The above makes no mention of the supposed marriage of Katherine le Strange and Robert Corbet.
There is a picture of Hawise le Strange's seal available here:
https://archive.org/stream/collectionshisto01powy#page/48/mode/2up
The same source notes that "Joanna, the wife of Owen, is said to have been the daughter of Sir Robert Corbet of Wattlesburgh and Moreton Corbet, by his first wife, Catherine (Ida?), daughter of John le Strange, who would thus have been his first cousin.":
https://archive.org/stream/collectionshisto01powy#page/54/mode/2up
The reference is given as "Mr. J. Morris's MSS." This seems to be the source of the claimed marriage of Robert Corbet and Catherine le Strange.
Eyton states that the first wife of Robert Corbet was named Ida, but he does not identify her as a le Strange:
https://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesshro16eytogoog#page/n210/mode/2up
Histfam cites Rot.Fin.46 Hen.3. m 10 as the source of the marriage of Robert Corbet of Moreton and Ida:
https://histfam.familysearch.org//getperson.php?personID=I4950&tree=PagetHeraldicBaronag
Confusingly, in 'The Family of Corbet: Its Life and Times', VOL 2, by A.E. Corbet, the wife of Sir Robert Corbet of Chetton (ob. s.p. circa 1262) is also identified as an Ida:
https://archive.org/stream/familyofcorbetit02corb#page/n54/mode/1up
The above also mentions Ida (identified as the wife of Sir Robert Corbet of Chetton) on p. 168:
"This mention of inheritance seems to imply some connection with the de Brocs, and it is not unlikely that Robert's wife, whose name was "Ida," was one of the many heiresses in the Manor of Chetton."
A.E. Corbet does not cite any primary source to support the claim that Robert Corbet of Chetton's wife was called Ida. Furthermore, in Antiquities of Shropshire, VOL 1, p. 178, Eyton demonstrates that the King granted Robert Corbet possession of Chetton "in reward of faithful services":
https://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesshro05eytogoog#page/n211/mode/2up
So it looks like Morris' MSS is the only source which identifies Owen de la Pole's wife Joan as the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton. If we accept that she was the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton then she must have been the daughter of his first wife Ida__.
The claim that Robert Corbet of Chetton's wife was called Ida looks dubious.
https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lestuoft#page/114/mode/2up
The above makes no mention of the supposed marriage of Katherine le Strange and Robert Corbet.
There is a picture of Hawise le Strange's seal available here:
https://archive.org/stream/collectionshisto01powy#page/48/mode/2up
The same source notes that "Joanna, the wife of Owen, is said to have been the daughter of Sir Robert Corbet of Wattlesburgh and Moreton Corbet, by his first wife, Catherine (Ida?), daughter of John le Strange, who would thus have been his first cousin.":
https://archive.org/stream/collectionshisto01powy#page/54/mode/2up
The reference is given as "Mr. J. Morris's MSS." This seems to be the source of the claimed marriage of Robert Corbet and Catherine le Strange.
Eyton states that the first wife of Robert Corbet was named Ida, but he does not identify her as a le Strange:
https://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesshro16eytogoog#page/n210/mode/2up
Histfam cites Rot.Fin.46 Hen.3. m 10 as the source of the marriage of Robert Corbet of Moreton and Ida:
https://histfam.familysearch.org//getperson.php?personID=I4950&tree=PagetHeraldicBaronag
Confusingly, in 'The Family of Corbet: Its Life and Times', VOL 2, by A.E. Corbet, the wife of Sir Robert Corbet of Chetton (ob. s.p. circa 1262) is also identified as an Ida:
https://archive.org/stream/familyofcorbetit02corb#page/n54/mode/1up
The above also mentions Ida (identified as the wife of Sir Robert Corbet of Chetton) on p. 168:
"This mention of inheritance seems to imply some connection with the de Brocs, and it is not unlikely that Robert's wife, whose name was "Ida," was one of the many heiresses in the Manor of Chetton."
A.E. Corbet does not cite any primary source to support the claim that Robert Corbet of Chetton's wife was called Ida. Furthermore, in Antiquities of Shropshire, VOL 1, p. 178, Eyton demonstrates that the King granted Robert Corbet possession of Chetton "in reward of faithful services":
https://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesshro05eytogoog#page/n211/mode/2up
So it looks like Morris' MSS is the only source which identifies Owen de la Pole's wife Joan as the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton. If we accept that she was the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton then she must have been the daughter of his first wife Ida__.
The claim that Robert Corbet of Chetton's wife was called Ida looks dubious.
taf
Mar 19, 2014, 2:44:54 PM3/19/14
to gen-medieval
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:13:26 AM UTC-7, TJ Booth AOL wrote:
> Missed the early posts on this, but there is no question Elizabeth
> LeStrange m. Gruffydd Fychan Ap Madog, by contract, 8 Jul 1304.
>
> It sounds like you have the wrong LeStrange family - Amicia is not a
> familiar name, and I have no idea who she i But Elizabeth was dau of
> John V LeStrange of Knockin, Shropshire, by his second wife Maud de
> Walton. Elizabeth's grandparents were John IV LeStrange by Joan de
> Somery. Maud and her last husband Thomas Hastang were involved in a
> suit over the marriage rights :
>
This is an entirely different marriage, involving a different
> Missed the early posts on this, but there is no question Elizabeth
> LeStrange m. Gruffydd Fychan Ap Madog, by contract, 8 Jul 1304.
>
> It sounds like you have the wrong LeStrange family - Amicia is not a
> familiar name, and I have no idea who she i But Elizabeth was dau of
> John V LeStrange of Knockin, Shropshire, by his second wife Maud de
> Walton. Elizabeth's grandparents were John IV LeStrange by Joan de
> Somery. Maud and her last husband Thomas Hastang were involved in a
> suit over the marriage rights :
>
generation of the Strange family and a different Welsh dynasty.
The possibly problematic connection is that of Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn
ap Owain Cyfeiliog of southern Powys (Powys Wenwynwyn or Powys
Cyfieliog), who died about 1286, not Gruffydd ap Madoc of Rhuddallt, a
scion of Powys Fadog, who married Elizabeth le Strange in 1304.
taf
taf
Mar 19, 2014, 5:15:26 PM3/19/14
to gen-medieval
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:41:57 AM UTC-7, willac...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> So it looks like Morris' MSS is the only source which identifies Owen de la Pole's wife Joan as the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton. If we accept that she was the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton then she must have been the daughter of his first wife Ida__.
>
While I can't demonstrate definitively otherwise, I doubt this only
> So it looks like Morris' MSS is the only source which identifies Owen de la Pole's wife Joan as the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton. If we accept that she was the daughter of Robert Corbet of Moreton then she must have been the daughter of his first wife Ida__.
>
traces to Morris. The same information appears in Burke's 1866
Extinct Peerages, and more notably, Bartrum gives the same information
and except where otherwise indicated he derived his information from
Welsh pedigree sources. Given that Morris was an 'admirable Welsh
genealogist', it seems likely he and Bartrum are deriving it from the
same ancient pedigree.
Burke:
http://books.google.com/books?id=K3MaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115
Bartrum: http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5572/Bleddyn%20ap%20Cynfyn%2030.png?sequence=1
That Robert Corbet married Catherine Strange may in fact trace to
Morris. The information appears to relate to an attempt to identify a
medieval seal that shows "Hawise de Keveoloc" holding two shields, one
with a single lion rampant, the other with two lions passant. Morris
saw this to be Hawise Gadarn, wife of John de Cherleton. The single
lion rampant would have been her ancestral arms, while he suggested
that the other arms with two lions passant were those of her Strange
maternal grandmother, her mother being Joan, daughter of Robert Corbet
and Catherine le Strange. This hypothesis was published in 1852,
quoting a letter from Morris to this effect. However, it was quickly
realized that the seal actually belonged to her paternal grandmother,
Hawise le Strange, wife of Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, who would have been
holding her husband's arms (1 lion) in one hand and her own (2 lions)
in the other. It could be that this Corbet/le Strange marriage crept
in as a way to make the heraldry match the hypothesis, while failing
to recognize a better alternative.
Massie quoting a letter from Morris containing the information:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QjgGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA173
Discussion of the seal that corrects the erroneous assignment:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YoZbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA144
taf
willac...@yahoo.co.uk
Mar 20, 2014, 6:26:05 AM3/20/14
to
> Hawise also the daughter of John le Strange (died 1234) and Amicia.
Hawise was in fact their granddaughter, and is shown as the daughter of John III le Strange and his wife Lucy:
https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lestuoft#page/100/mode/2up
The pedigree above says that they were married c. 1260, but on p. 114 they are shown to have been married in 1242 and the reference provided proves that 1242 is the correct date:
https://archive.org/stream/calendarcharter00stamgoog#page/n287/mode/2up
John III le Strange's wife Lucy is thought to have been the daughter of Robert Tregoz and Sibylla de Ewias:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-01/1043649867
Does anyone know of any further evidence which supports Lucy's identification as a Tregoz?
joe...@gmail.com
Mar 20, 2014, 8:47:27 AM3/20/14
to
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:26:05 AM UTC-4, willac...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Hawise also the daughter of John le Strange (died 1234) and Amicia.
>
>
>
> Hawise was in fact their granddaughter, and is shown as the daughter of John III le Strange and his wife Lucy:
>
> https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lestuoft#page/100/mode/2up
>
>
> > Hawise also the daughter of John le Strange (died 1234) and Amicia.
>
>
>
> Hawise was in fact their granddaughter, and is shown as the daughter of John III le Strange and his wife Lucy:
>
> https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lestuoft#page/100/mode/2up
>
>
> Does anyone know of any further evidence which supports Lucy's identification as a Tregoz?
histfam claims as a source Paget Heraldic Baronage, Paget, Chart #508, which I have not seen directly.
I have not seen anything that would identify her parents with certainty, or even to which Tregoz generation she belongs for sure.
--JC
willac...@yahoo.co.uk
Mar 20, 2014, 9:23:08 AM3/20/14
to
>
> histfam claims as a source Paget Heraldic Baronage, Paget, Chart #508, which I have not seen directly.
>
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_059.html#it582_010
"Shropshire. Robert Corbet and Ida, his wife, give 2 m. for a pone. Order to the sheriff of Shropshire."
0 new messages