info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: Margaret and Elizabeth, daughters of Sir Roger Damory, Lord Damory (he died 1322)
195 views
Skip to first unread message
celticp...@gmail.com
Oct 8, 2018, 1:42:59 PM10/8/18
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage C.P. 4 (1916): 42–45 (sub Damory) includes a good account of Sir Roger Damory, Lord Damory, who died in 1322. As the husband of Elizabeth de Clare (usually styled Elizabeth de Burgh), grand-daughter of King Edward I, Sir Roger and his wife are featured in most genealogical tables of the English royal family.
Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 45 gives the following information about their only known daughter, Elizabeth Damory:
"Elizabeth Damory, only daughter and heiress, born shortly before 23 May 1318."
Here is the documentation provided for this statement:
Nothing.
Complete Peerage 1 (1910): 418–419 (sub Bardolf) repeats the same information regarding Elizabeth Damory:
"She, who was born shortly before 23 May 1318, brought him large estates in Dorset, and was living 1360."
Once again, the source for the birth of Elizabeth Damory is not provided.
The medieval historian, Kathleen Warner, in The Unconventional King (2014) relates the following information regarding the birth of Elizabeth Damory:
"After Marguerite's funeral, Edward travelled via Bow, Thundersley and Cressing to Clare Castle in Suffolk, where he spent 23-27 March 1318 with Roger Damory and his wife, Edward's niece Elizabeth, who was about seven months pregnant. Shortly before 18 May, she gave birth to a daughter, also Elizabeth, who would be Damory's only legitimate child and therefore his heir. Edward gave Damory's valet the hugh sum of twenty pounds for bringing him news of the birth, an enormous increase on the price of the silver cup he had sent to little Elizabeth's half-sister Isabella Verdon the year before, although both girls were his great-nieces." END OF QUOTE.
Elsewhere Kathryn Warner's book, Isabella of France: The Rebel Queen (2016) states unequivocably that Elizabeth Damory was "certainly Roger Damory's only legitimate daughter," although she suggests that there may have been a second later daughter "who did not survive." I have added words in brackets for clarity.
"Elizabeth [de Clare] may have have been pregnant at this time [1322] or had recently given birth to a child who did not survive (as her daughter Elizabeth Damory was certainly Roger Damory's only living legitimate child): there are references in 1322/23 to a wet nurse serving her daughter, and Elizabeth Damory, born in May 1318, would then have been too old to need one." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage and Kathryn Warner are certain that Elizabeth Damory was born in 1318. They are both certain that Elizabeth was Sir Roger Damory's only surviving child. But was she?
The alleged record of Elizabeth Damory's birth in 1318 is found in wardrobe accounts of the tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth years of King Edward the Second, abstracts of which were published many years ago in Archaeologia 26 (1836): 338. The desired entry reads as follows:
“To John de Pyrro, valet of Sir Roger Dammori, of the King's gift, for the news which he brought to our said Lord the King, of the delivery of the Lady de Burgo, wife of him the said Sir Roger. Westminster, 23d of May [1318]. 20l.”
We see here the name of Sir Roger Damory's child born in 1318 is not named in the record, although Complete Peerage and Kathryn Warner have both assumed it must be Elizabeth Damory. But is that correct?
Unfortunately no inquisition post mortem appears to have been taken following the death of Sir Roger Damory in 1322. As such, it is difficult to say exactly what Damory children might have been living at the time of Sir Roger's death.
As it turns out, Sir Roger Damory and his wife, Elizabeth de Clare, actually had two daughters, namely Margaret and Elizabeth. I will discuss below the evidence which proves the exist of a second Damory daughter named Margaret who survived her father.
VCH Gloucester 9 (2001): 187–208 states that in 1317 Richard Thork and Susanna his wife quitclaimed to Roger Damory the manor of Hampen (in Shipton Oliffe), Gloucestershire.
Some years after Sir Roger Damory's death in 1322, an assize was held on 26 July 1329 to determine if Roger Turk and Richard his brother, Elizabeth de Burgh [i.e., the widow of Sir Roger Damory], and others unjustly disseised Jordan de Ingham of his free tenement in Nether Hannepenne [Hampen in Shipton Oliffe], Gloucestershire. Reference: JUST1, no. 1403, Image 6495f, Year: 1329
(available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1403/aJUST1no1403fronts/IMG_6495.htm).
The assize records states that Elizabeth de Clare (there called Elizabeth de Burgh) came into court and testified that her former husband, Sir Roger Damory, was survived by Margaret and Elizabeth, who she called his "daughters and heirs." The implication is that Margaret and Elizabeth Damory were both living in 1329.
As to which Damory child was born in 1318, Sir Roger and his wife, Elizabeth de Clare, were married in 1317. The child born in 1318 would have accordingly been their first and oldest child. This would appear to have been Margaret, as Margaret is listed first before the daughter Elizabeth in the 1329 assize record.
So when was Elizabeth Damory born? She must have been born no later than 1320, as contemporary records indicate that she was contracted to marry John Bardolf before 25 Dec. 1327, on which date his father, Thomas Bardolf, obtained a license to settle lands on the young couple [see Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1327–1330 (1891): 198]. In this period, a bride had to be at least seven for a marriage contract to be valid.
In summary, the evidence indicates that Sir Roger Damory and Elizabeth de Clare had at least two daughters, Margaret and Elizabeth. It appears that Margaret must have been the Damory child born in 1318, not her sister ELizabeth. The daughter Elizabeth was born say 1320, as she was contracted to marry John Bardolf sometime before 25 December 1327. Kathryn Warner suggest that there may been been a third daughter who had a wet nurse in 1322-23. This suggestion is quite plausble. If so, the third daughter was deceased before 1329.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage C.P. 4 (1916): 42–45 (sub Damory) includes a good account of Sir Roger Damory, Lord Damory, who died in 1322. As the husband of Elizabeth de Clare (usually styled Elizabeth de Burgh), grand-daughter of King Edward I, Sir Roger and his wife are featured in most genealogical tables of the English royal family.
Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 45 gives the following information about their only known daughter, Elizabeth Damory:
"Elizabeth Damory, only daughter and heiress, born shortly before 23 May 1318."
Here is the documentation provided for this statement:
Nothing.
Complete Peerage 1 (1910): 418–419 (sub Bardolf) repeats the same information regarding Elizabeth Damory:
"She, who was born shortly before 23 May 1318, brought him large estates in Dorset, and was living 1360."
Once again, the source for the birth of Elizabeth Damory is not provided.
The medieval historian, Kathleen Warner, in The Unconventional King (2014) relates the following information regarding the birth of Elizabeth Damory:
"After Marguerite's funeral, Edward travelled via Bow, Thundersley and Cressing to Clare Castle in Suffolk, where he spent 23-27 March 1318 with Roger Damory and his wife, Edward's niece Elizabeth, who was about seven months pregnant. Shortly before 18 May, she gave birth to a daughter, also Elizabeth, who would be Damory's only legitimate child and therefore his heir. Edward gave Damory's valet the hugh sum of twenty pounds for bringing him news of the birth, an enormous increase on the price of the silver cup he had sent to little Elizabeth's half-sister Isabella Verdon the year before, although both girls were his great-nieces." END OF QUOTE.
Elsewhere Kathryn Warner's book, Isabella of France: The Rebel Queen (2016) states unequivocably that Elizabeth Damory was "certainly Roger Damory's only legitimate daughter," although she suggests that there may have been a second later daughter "who did not survive." I have added words in brackets for clarity.
"Elizabeth [de Clare] may have have been pregnant at this time [1322] or had recently given birth to a child who did not survive (as her daughter Elizabeth Damory was certainly Roger Damory's only living legitimate child): there are references in 1322/23 to a wet nurse serving her daughter, and Elizabeth Damory, born in May 1318, would then have been too old to need one." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage and Kathryn Warner are certain that Elizabeth Damory was born in 1318. They are both certain that Elizabeth was Sir Roger Damory's only surviving child. But was she?
The alleged record of Elizabeth Damory's birth in 1318 is found in wardrobe accounts of the tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth years of King Edward the Second, abstracts of which were published many years ago in Archaeologia 26 (1836): 338. The desired entry reads as follows:
“To John de Pyrro, valet of Sir Roger Dammori, of the King's gift, for the news which he brought to our said Lord the King, of the delivery of the Lady de Burgo, wife of him the said Sir Roger. Westminster, 23d of May [1318]. 20l.”
We see here the name of Sir Roger Damory's child born in 1318 is not named in the record, although Complete Peerage and Kathryn Warner have both assumed it must be Elizabeth Damory. But is that correct?
Unfortunately no inquisition post mortem appears to have been taken following the death of Sir Roger Damory in 1322. As such, it is difficult to say exactly what Damory children might have been living at the time of Sir Roger's death.
As it turns out, Sir Roger Damory and his wife, Elizabeth de Clare, actually had two daughters, namely Margaret and Elizabeth. I will discuss below the evidence which proves the exist of a second Damory daughter named Margaret who survived her father.
VCH Gloucester 9 (2001): 187–208 states that in 1317 Richard Thork and Susanna his wife quitclaimed to Roger Damory the manor of Hampen (in Shipton Oliffe), Gloucestershire.
Some years after Sir Roger Damory's death in 1322, an assize was held on 26 July 1329 to determine if Roger Turk and Richard his brother, Elizabeth de Burgh [i.e., the widow of Sir Roger Damory], and others unjustly disseised Jordan de Ingham of his free tenement in Nether Hannepenne [Hampen in Shipton Oliffe], Gloucestershire. Reference: JUST1, no. 1403, Image 6495f, Year: 1329
(available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1403/aJUST1no1403fronts/IMG_6495.htm).
The assize records states that Elizabeth de Clare (there called Elizabeth de Burgh) came into court and testified that her former husband, Sir Roger Damory, was survived by Margaret and Elizabeth, who she called his "daughters and heirs." The implication is that Margaret and Elizabeth Damory were both living in 1329.
As to which Damory child was born in 1318, Sir Roger and his wife, Elizabeth de Clare, were married in 1317. The child born in 1318 would have accordingly been their first and oldest child. This would appear to have been Margaret, as Margaret is listed first before the daughter Elizabeth in the 1329 assize record.
So when was Elizabeth Damory born? She must have been born no later than 1320, as contemporary records indicate that she was contracted to marry John Bardolf before 25 Dec. 1327, on which date his father, Thomas Bardolf, obtained a license to settle lands on the young couple [see Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1327–1330 (1891): 198]. In this period, a bride had to be at least seven for a marriage contract to be valid.
In summary, the evidence indicates that Sir Roger Damory and Elizabeth de Clare had at least two daughters, Margaret and Elizabeth. It appears that Margaret must have been the Damory child born in 1318, not her sister ELizabeth. The daughter Elizabeth was born say 1320, as she was contracted to marry John Bardolf sometime before 25 December 1327. Kathryn Warner suggest that there may been been a third daughter who had a wet nurse in 1322-23. This suggestion is quite plausble. If so, the third daughter was deceased before 1329.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
celticp...@gmail.com
Oct 9, 2018, 7:54:56 AM10/9/18
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my post yesterday, I inadvertedly referred to the historian Kathryn Warner as both Kathryn and Kathleen. Her correct name is Kathryn Warner.
Since my first post in this thread, I've located an interesting record in the online Discovery catalog which concerns Sir Roger Damory's claims against the manors of Steeple Claydon and Whaddon, Buckinghamshire. The record is badly misdated as being 25 August, 14 Edward I [1286]. The correct dating is surely c.1317-1322, during the time of Sir Roger Damory's marriage to Elizabeth de Clare. Sir Roger's claims to these manors appear to have arose from his wife's dower from her 1st marriage to John de Burgh [died 1313], the son and heir apparent of Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster.
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster inherited the manors of Steeple Claydon and Whaddon, Buckinghamshire in 1297, as one of the co-heirs of his uncle, Richard Fitz John, Lord Fitz John. VCH Buckingham 4 (1927): 226-229 indicates that Earl Richard conveyed the manor to Hugh le Despenser the elder about 1308. Sometime before 1322 Sir Roger Damory besieged and took the manor of Steeple Claydon, Buckinghamshire.
This same document was published in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds 1 (1890): 44-45, where it is also misdated as being in 1286. See the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=l94rAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44
The document mentions three manors which Elizabeth de Clare held in Ireland presumably in right of her Burgh dower, namely Lyssethorethragh and Esclon manors, and also the manor of Grallagh (Ireland). I believe the latter two manors are Esclon, co. Limerick, and Grallagh, co. Tipperary. I haven't been able to identify Lyssethorethragh.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Roger Damory [died 1322] and his wife, Elizabeth de Clare:
Charles Barnes, George & Robert Brent, Nathaniel Burrough, William Clopton, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Elizabeth Haynes, Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Robert Peyton.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: Discovery Catalog
Reference: E 40/386
Description:
Indenture tripartite containing the agreement made beteen the Earl Dulvestere (of Ulster) on the one part, and Sir Hugh le Despencer, the father, and Sir Roger Damory on the others. Sir Roger having demanded Stepul Cleydon manor from Sir Hugh by writ of novel dissseisin, it is agreed, by command and request of the Earl, that Sir Hugh hold the said manor in peace according to the Earl's grant to him thereof, and that the Earl grant to Sir Roger and Elizabeth his wife the reversion of Whaddon manor for ever. If the Earl think this demand excessive for Stepul Cleydon manor, Sir Roger and his wife are willing to grant him Lyssethorethragh and Esclon manors, and also the manor of Grallagh (Ireland) to be held for the Earl's life, rather than lose this bargain, provided that those three manors return to Dame Elizabeth at the Earl's death. If the Earl will not agree to this bargain it is to be proposed that he give 500/. silver to Sir Roger for Stepulcleydon manor or 400/. or 500 marcs silver at least, to be paid at the Octaves of St. Hilary next in the house of Sir Hugh at London. If the Earl is willing to grant the said reversion and entail it on the children of Sir Roger and Dame Elizabeth, then Grallgh manor shall remain in their hands. If the Earl agree to perform one or other of the above points, let him give fit security to perform it within reasonable time; otherwise he shall be trusted and his good faith, but let him inform Sir Hugh, by letter under his seal, fully his will herein, and within what time he will do so, and let him inform Sir Roger inthe same way. For this end the"vadletz" of Sir Hugh and Sir Roger-John de Cromhale, Robert de Knaresburgh, and Henry de Lucy-shall go to Ireland and show the Earl the above business, taking one part of this indenture, another part being with Sur Hugh, and the third with Sir Roger.
Note: French
Date: Reading, 25 August, 14 Edward (I)
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
In my post yesterday, I inadvertedly referred to the historian Kathryn Warner as both Kathryn and Kathleen. Her correct name is Kathryn Warner.
Since my first post in this thread, I've located an interesting record in the online Discovery catalog which concerns Sir Roger Damory's claims against the manors of Steeple Claydon and Whaddon, Buckinghamshire. The record is badly misdated as being 25 August, 14 Edward I [1286]. The correct dating is surely c.1317-1322, during the time of Sir Roger Damory's marriage to Elizabeth de Clare. Sir Roger's claims to these manors appear to have arose from his wife's dower from her 1st marriage to John de Burgh [died 1313], the son and heir apparent of Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster.
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster inherited the manors of Steeple Claydon and Whaddon, Buckinghamshire in 1297, as one of the co-heirs of his uncle, Richard Fitz John, Lord Fitz John. VCH Buckingham 4 (1927): 226-229 indicates that Earl Richard conveyed the manor to Hugh le Despenser the elder about 1308. Sometime before 1322 Sir Roger Damory besieged and took the manor of Steeple Claydon, Buckinghamshire.
This same document was published in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds 1 (1890): 44-45, where it is also misdated as being in 1286. See the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=l94rAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44
The document mentions three manors which Elizabeth de Clare held in Ireland presumably in right of her Burgh dower, namely Lyssethorethragh and Esclon manors, and also the manor of Grallagh (Ireland). I believe the latter two manors are Esclon, co. Limerick, and Grallagh, co. Tipperary. I haven't been able to identify Lyssethorethragh.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Roger Damory [died 1322] and his wife, Elizabeth de Clare:
Charles Barnes, George & Robert Brent, Nathaniel Burrough, William Clopton, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Elizabeth Haynes, Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Robert Peyton.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Source: Discovery Catalog
Reference: E 40/386
Description:
Indenture tripartite containing the agreement made beteen the Earl Dulvestere (of Ulster) on the one part, and Sir Hugh le Despencer, the father, and Sir Roger Damory on the others. Sir Roger having demanded Stepul Cleydon manor from Sir Hugh by writ of novel dissseisin, it is agreed, by command and request of the Earl, that Sir Hugh hold the said manor in peace according to the Earl's grant to him thereof, and that the Earl grant to Sir Roger and Elizabeth his wife the reversion of Whaddon manor for ever. If the Earl think this demand excessive for Stepul Cleydon manor, Sir Roger and his wife are willing to grant him Lyssethorethragh and Esclon manors, and also the manor of Grallagh (Ireland) to be held for the Earl's life, rather than lose this bargain, provided that those three manors return to Dame Elizabeth at the Earl's death. If the Earl will not agree to this bargain it is to be proposed that he give 500/. silver to Sir Roger for Stepulcleydon manor or 400/. or 500 marcs silver at least, to be paid at the Octaves of St. Hilary next in the house of Sir Hugh at London. If the Earl is willing to grant the said reversion and entail it on the children of Sir Roger and Dame Elizabeth, then Grallgh manor shall remain in their hands. If the Earl agree to perform one or other of the above points, let him give fit security to perform it within reasonable time; otherwise he shall be trusted and his good faith, but let him inform Sir Hugh, by letter under his seal, fully his will herein, and within what time he will do so, and let him inform Sir Roger inthe same way. For this end the"vadletz" of Sir Hugh and Sir Roger-John de Cromhale, Robert de Knaresburgh, and Henry de Lucy-shall go to Ireland and show the Earl the above business, taking one part of this indenture, another part being with Sur Hugh, and the third with Sir Roger.
Note: French
Date: Reading, 25 August, 14 Edward (I)
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
warner....@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2018, 11:33:06 AM10/10/18
to
Elizabeth is also named as Roger Damory's 'daughter and heir' in Calendar of Patent Rolls 1334-1338, pp. 490-91, dated August 1338. See here: http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v3/body/Edward3vol3page0491.pdf
And at her mother Elizabeth de Burgh née de Clare's IPM taken in Lincolnshire and Dorset, late 1360/early 1361, in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem 1352-1360, no. 637, pp. 507. 509: 'Elizabeth daughter of the said Roger and Elizabeth [de Burgh], wife of John Bardolf, knight, aged 30 years and more, is the said Roger's heir to the manor' (Caythorpe, Lincs).
In none of these records is there a mention of Roger Damory's daughter Margaret, so it would seem, from the evidence you found above, that she died sometime between 1329 and early August 1337, and did not leave children. As she was named before Elizabeth in the document you cited, she would seem (as you suggest) to have been the elder daughter of Roger Damory and Elizabeth de Burgh, and perhaps was the daughter born on or just before 23 May 1318 when Edward II paid a messenger for bringing him news of a child born to the couple.
Kathryn Warner.
warner....@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2018, 11:36:48 AM10/10/18
to
Jan Wolfe
Oct 10, 2018, 5:24:23 PM10/10/18
to
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:42:59 PM UTC-4, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Thanks for posting this information, Douglas. Have you made a complete translation of the court document? Is there any indication of who the plaintiffs Henry de _____ and Margaret his wife were? I wondered if Margaret the wife of Henry could have been the same as Margaret the daughter of Roger Damory. Elizabeth states that Margaret and Elizabeth were the daughters and heirs of Roger, but she doesn't state that they were both her daughters. Have you considered the possibility that Roger Damory had a wife and daughter before his marriage to Elizabeth de Burgh? Is there any evidence about that possibility? It seems surprising that Elizabeth de Burgh would have arranged a marriage for the younger of two Damory daughters in 1327 rather than the older one, unless the older one was not expected to live a full life or was already married.
...
> Some years after Sir Roger Damory's death in 1322, an assize was held on 26 July 1329 to determine if Roger Turk and Richard his brother, Elizabeth de Burgh [i.e., the widow of Sir Roger Damory], and others unjustly disseised Jordan de Ingham of his free tenement in Nether Hannepenne [Hampen in Shipton Oliffe], Gloucestershire. Reference: JUST1, no. 1403, Image 6495f, Year: 1329
> (available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1403/aJUST1no1403fronts/IMG_6495.htm).
>
> The assize records states that Elizabeth de Clare (there called Elizabeth de Burgh) came into court and testified that her former husband, Sir Roger Damory, was survived by Margaret and Elizabeth, who she called his "daughters and heirs." The implication is that Margaret and Elizabeth Damory were both living in 1329.
...
> (available at http:// aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1403/aJUST1no1403fronts/IMG_6495.htm).
>
> The assize records states that Elizabeth de Clare (there called Elizabeth de Burgh) came into court and testified that her former husband, Sir Roger Damory, was survived by Margaret and Elizabeth, who she called his "daughters and heirs." The implication is that Margaret and Elizabeth Damory were both living in 1329.
Thanks for posting this information, Douglas. Have you made a complete translation of the court document? Is there any indication of who the plaintiffs Henry de _____ and Margaret his wife were? I wondered if Margaret the wife of Henry could have been the same as Margaret the daughter of Roger Damory. Elizabeth states that Margaret and Elizabeth were the daughters and heirs of Roger, but she doesn't state that they were both her daughters. Have you considered the possibility that Roger Damory had a wife and daughter before his marriage to Elizabeth de Burgh? Is there any evidence about that possibility? It seems surprising that Elizabeth de Burgh would have arranged a marriage for the younger of two Damory daughters in 1327 rather than the older one, unless the older one was not expected to live a full life or was already married.
0 new messages