Another look at Margaret (Mowbray) Lucy
Douglas Richardson
This past year I presented evidence Margaret, wife of Sir Reginald
Lucy, of Dallington, co. Northampton, was the daughter of Sir John de
Mowbray. The evidence consists of Reginald and Margaret's license to
marry, which record I found in an episcopal register published in
1905:
"Kal. Jul. [1 July] 1369. At Heywod. To Reginald de Lucy, son of Sir
Geoffrey de Lucy, and Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Moubrey, to be
married in the chapel within Bretteby [Bretby] Castle [co. Derby]"
[Reference: Lichfield Episcopal Registers, Register of [Bishop] Robert
de Stretton, published in William Salt Archaeological Society, n.s., 8
(1905): 47].
After posting announcement of this discovery, I initially identified
Margaret de Mowbray as the daughter of Sir John de Mowbray, 4th Lord
Mowbray, by his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John de Segrave, 4th
Lord Segrave. However, Chris Phillips subsequently posted a document
from the Patent Rolls which suggested that John de Mowbray's first
daughter was Eleanor supposedly born in 1364:
(1) 28 April 1369 Westminster
The like [Inspeximus and confirmation of] of the following,
notwithstanding
&c [that the isle and the manor are held in chief and in the king's
ward]
(in French):-
Letters patent of the said John [John de Moubray, lord of then isle of
Axiholm, deceased], dated at Eppeworth on the Annunciation, 38 Edward
III
[25 March 1364], granting for life to his servant John de Disworth for
the
news which he brought him of the deliverance of his wife of Eleanor
her
first daughter, an annuity of 40s. out of the manor of Melton Moubray,
with
power of distraint.
[Cal. Pat. Rolls 1367-70, p.237. There is another inspeximus of this
grant
in Cal. Pat. Rolls 1399-1401, p.525]
As Chris pointed out, if Eleanor Mowbray was born in 1364, then it
would be virtually impossible for Margaret (Mowbray) Lucy to be her
sister, due to the squeeze necessary to fit in the births of Eleanor's
younger brothers, John and Thomas, and her younger sister, Joan,
before their parents' respective deaths.
Last night, however, I was going through the 1563/4 Visitation of
Yorkshire where I found a list of the children of John Mowbray, by
Elizabeth Segrave [Reference: Harleian Soc. Pub., 16 (1881): 233]. No
indication of birth order was made, but the usual way to read
visitations is from left to right, with the older children being
placed on the left. Sons were often listed first, then daughters.
The order below is the list from left to right.
1. Thomas Mowbray Duke of Norfolk.
2. Eleanor wyff to John Lord Welles.
3. Margaret wyff to Sir Thomas Lucy.
4. Genet wyff to Sir Thomas Grey Lord of Horton in Northumberland who
had issu.
In the above list of Mowbray children, we find Eleanor Mowbray listed
on the left of her two sisters, Margaret Lucy and Genet Grey,
suggesting that Eleanor was older than Margaret and Genet. If the
list of the children is correct, then we are immediately placed with a
problem of resolving the chronological crunch in this family.
Reading the Patent Rolls document cited by Chris Phillips again, it is
apparent that the document in question doesn't state Eleanor Mowbray
was born in 1364, ONLY that her father made a formal gift in that year
to his servant for bringing him the news of her birth. Obviously
Eleanor could have been born earlier than 1364. With that problem
resolved, the chronogical barrier of Margaret Lucy being the daughter
of John de Mowbray, 4th Lord Mowbray, is now removed.
In any case, we should suspect that Eleanor Mowbray, her parents'
eldest daughter, was born earlier than 1364, as her parents were
married as small children and presumably consumated their marriage
about 1352, when Eleanor's mother was 14. Yet, if we believe Eleanor
was born in 1364, then Eleanor's mother gave birth to her first child
at age 26, which would be most unusual for this time period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah, Home of the
Winter 2002 Olympics
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Brad Verity
> Reading the Patent Rolls document cited by Chris Phillips again, it is
> apparent that the document in question doesn't state Eleanor Mowbray
> was born in 1364, ONLY that her father made a formal gift in that year
> to his servant for bringing him the news of her birth. Obviously
> Eleanor could have been born earlier than 1364. With that problem
> resolved, the chronogical barrier of Margaret Lucy being the daughter
> of John de Mowbray, 4th Lord Mowbray, is now removed.
Except that it's not resolved. Why would Lord Mowbray wait years to
make the grant to his servant that brought him news of Eleanor's
birth? And wasn't another grant also made the following year (1365)
to the servant that brought him news of his son John's birth? If both
births occurred sometime prior to 1364, and the servants that brought
him the news were waiting several years for him to make good on his
promise, why wouldn't Lord Mowbray make the grants at the same time?
And the servants would have been cheated out of years of revenue from
their shares of the grants, which seems to take away the point of the
grants in the first place.
Also, chronology is still a problem - if Margaret was Lord Mowbray and
Lady Segrave's second daughter, why was she married off (as an
orphaned girl a year after her parents' death) at such a young age in
1369, before her elder sister Eleanor? The events of John Mowbray,
Earl of Nottingham's life support that he was born in 1365 - why
should we believe different about him or Eleanor?
What pedigree in the Visitation of Yorkshire of 1563/4 contains the
Mowbrays in it? The family died out by the 1480s, so who was the
informant in the 1563/4 Visitation? And since this Visitation has
been around for centuries, why has no other genealogist assigned
Margaret to Lord Mowbray and Lady Segrave before now?
> In any case, we should suspect that Eleanor Mowbray, her parents'
> eldest daughter, was born earlier than 1364, as her parents were
> married as small children and presumably consumated their marriage
> about 1352, when Eleanor's mother was 14. Yet, if we believe Eleanor
> was born in 1364, then Eleanor's mother gave birth to her first child
> at age 26, which would be most unusual for this time period.
Have you checked for a marriage date for Eleanor Mowbray to John, Lord
Welles, or dates for the birth of their children? That could help
establish if Eleanor was born in 1364.
There could be many reasons why Elizabeth, Lady Segrave did not give
birth until the age of 26, but all would be speculation without any
evidence yet to back them up. She certainly seemed to have children
in rapid succession after 1364. How do we know she and Lord Mowbray
were married (as opposed to betrothed) when young children - what is
the source for this?
I understand the desire to give Margaret (Mowbray) Lucy a descent from
Edward I, and there's a possibility that she was. Certainly the name
'Margaret' would seem a natural choice for Lady Segrave to give a
daughter. But the primary sources, and the tight chronology, just
don't support it. The Segraves and the Mowbrays double-betrothed
their children (if I recall CP correctly) - a son of each couple was
betrothed to a daughter of each couple. Perhaps Margaret of
Brotherton (Lady Segrave's mother) stood as godmother to the 3RD Lord
Mowbray's daughter - that could explain the name 'Margaret.'
However, I'm also not convinced yet that Margaret Mowbray Lucy was the
daughter of the 3rd Lord Mowbray and his second wife Elizabeth, the
widow of Sir Hugh Courtenay. There are several contemporary entries
related to Elizabeth's death in the Cal. Rolls, and all state she was
dead without issue - wouldn't her daughter Margaret have turned up?
I don't know that this is resolved at all, Douglas.
Best regards, ------Brad Verity
Douglas Richardson
In my post earlier today, I put forth my view that Eleanor Mowbray,
daughter of Sir John de Mowbray, 4th Lord Mowbray, and his wife,
Elizabeth de Segrave, was probably born earlier than 1364, the year in
which her father made a gift to his servant who brought him news of
her birth.
After posting to the newsgroup, Chris Phillips e-mailed me and pointed
out the existence of an undated charter in which various feoffees
settled the manor of Welle, co. Lincoln on Eleanor Mowbray and her
husband, John Welles, and their issue. A full transcript of this
charter is published in Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, 5th
series, 9 (1935-37): 48. In the charter, Eleanor is specifically
called "Alianore fil dni Johis de Moubray dni de Axiholm (that is,
Eleanor daughter of Sir John de Mowbray lord of Axholme). So there
can be no question as to Eleanor's identity.
Complete Peerage, 12 Part 2 (1959): 442-443, note j, states this
charter is dated 1361-1368 in British Museum Index to Charters and
Rolls, vol. 1, pg. 793. Yet, the editor of Complete Peerage
maintains "Eleanor was not born until 1364." Misc. Gen. et Heraldica,
5th ser., 9: 47, states the charter is not dated, but it observes that
Richard de Ravenser, Provost of Beverley, one of the feoffees, died in
1386.
Since Eleanor Mowbray had to be at least seven before she could
legally contract a marriage to John Welles, the date of this charter
is paramount in establishing whether or not she was born in 1364, or
before that date. If the charter dates from 1361-1368, then she
obviously would have been born in or before 1361 (being at least 7 or
more in 1368).
Tonight I checked various sources regarding Richard de Ravenser, the
chief feoffee named in the charter. According to the charter, he was
then "p'posit'r ecclie Beuerlaci" (that is, provost of Beverley).
Rummaging through the stacks here at the Family History Library, I
located the book, Memorials of Beverley Minster: The Chapter Act Book
of the Collegiate Church of S. John of Beverley, volume 2, published
in 1903, as Surtees Society, vol. 108. On pages lxvi to lxix, a full
account of Richard de Ravenser's ecclesiastical career is given. This
information shows that he was appointed provost of Beverley on 4 Oct.
1360, and held the position until c. 1369, when he exchanged it with
another party. He subsequently served several other church posts,
including archdeacon of Lincoln, before his death in 1386.
Accordingly, the outside limits of the charter must fall within 1360
and c.1369, when Richard de Ravenser was provost of Beverley. The
date of the charter can be further limited, however, as it refers to
John Welles' father, John de Welles, as "quond dni de Welle" (that is,
formerly lord Welles), showing that the charter was given after the
father's death on 11 October 1361. Likewise, Eleanor's father, John
de Mowbray, who died in 1368, was evidently still living at the date
of the charter. As such, the date of the charter can be pinpointed
with further accuracy to fall between 1361 and 1368, which is the very
date given the charter by the British Museum Index to Charters and
Rolls.
Given that the charter dates from 1361 to 1368, this means that
Eleanor de Mowbray was born sometime in or before 1361, which is
earlier than Complete Peerage supposed, and that she married as a
child sometime before 1368. We should suspect this was the case as we
know from other sources that Eleanor's younger sister, Margaret Lucy,
was married as a child in 1369.
This, of course, rearranges the chronology of the Mowbray family and
allows sufficient time for the birth of Eleanor's sister, Margaret,
before the births of their younger siblings, John, Thomas, and Joan,
in the mid to late 1360's. I therefore conclude that Margaret
Mowbray, wife of Sir Reginald Lucy, was in fact the daughter of Sir
John de Mowbray, 4th Lord Mowbray, by his wife, Elizabeth de Segrave,
as indicated by the 1563/4 Visitation of Yorkshire. For further
details of this discovery, please see the forthcoming book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, 3rd edition. Margaret (Mowbray) Lucy is in the
ancestry of three colonial immigrants, namely Robert Abell, Richard
More (the Mayflower passenger) and Rev. John Oxenbridge.
In closing, I wish to thank Chris Phillips for pointing out the
Welles-Mowbray charter to me and for suggesting the charter might have
an earlier date than supposed by Complete Peerage. Chris has proven
once again that collegiality is the key to solving many of these
unsolved mysteries. Way to go, Chris!
Best always,
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah, Home of the Winter 2002
Olympics
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0202...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.02020...@posting.google.com>...
> royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message
>
> > Reading the Patent Rolls document cited by Chris Phillips again, it is
> > apparent that the document in question doesn't state Eleanor Mowbray
> > was born in 1364, ONLY that her father made a formal gift in that year
> > to his servant for bringing him the news of her birth. Obviously
> > Eleanor could have been born earlier than 1364. With that problem
> > resolved, the chronogical barrier of Margaret Lucy being the daughter
> > of John de Mowbray, 4th Lord Mowbray, is now removed.
>
> Except that it's not resolved. Why would Lord Mowbray wait years to
> make the grant to his servant that brought him news of Eleanor's
> birth? And wasn't another grant also made the following year (1365)
> to the servant that brought him news of his son John's birth? If both
> births occurred sometime prior to 1364, and the servants that brought
> him the news were waiting several years for him to make good on his
> promise, why wouldn't Lord Mowbray make the grants at the same time?
> And the servants would have been cheated out of years of revenue from
> their shares of the grants, which seems to take away the point of the
> grants in the first place.
>
Answer: I don't know why Lord Mowbray waited to formalize the gift to
his servant. I'm a historian and genealogist, not a psychologist.
> Also, chronology is still a problem - if Margaret was Lord Mowbray and
> Lady Segrave's second daughter, why was she married off (as an
> orphaned girl a year after her parents' death) at such a young age in
> 1369, before her elder sister Eleanor? The events of John Mowbray,
> Earl of Nottingham's life support that he was born in 1365 - why
> should we believe different about him or Eleanor?
Answer: Eleanor Mowbray did marry before her sister, Margaret
Mowbray. Eleanor married in or before 1368, and Margaret was married
in 1369. See my second post.
> What pedigree in the Visitation of Yorkshire of 1563/4 contains the
> Mowbrays in it? The family died out by the 1480s, so who was the
> informant in the 1563/4 Visitation? And since this Visitation has
> been around for centuries, why has no other genealogist assigned
> Margaret to Lord Mowbray and Lady Segrave before now?
>
Answer: The Mowbray information was recorded in the pedigree of the
Ogle family. The Ogles descended from the Mowbray family through
their ancestress, Joan (Mowbray) Gray, sister of Margaret (Mowbray)
Lucy. The Ogles were evidently proud of their Mowbray ancestry, as
well they should have been.
> > In any case, we should suspect that Eleanor Mowbray, her parents'
> > eldest daughter, was born earlier than 1364, as her parents were
> > married as small children and presumably consumated their marriage
> > about 1352, when Eleanor's mother was 14. Yet, if we believe Eleanor
> > was born in 1364, then Eleanor's mother gave birth to her first child
> > at age 26, which would be most unusual for this time period.
>
> Have you checked for a marriage date for Eleanor Mowbray to John, Lord
> Welles, or dates for the birth of their children? That could help
> establish if Eleanor was born in 1364.
Answer: I posted on this question tonight. It appears Eleanor
Mowbray was married before 1368. This establishes she was born before
1361, as she had to be at least 7 to legally contract a marriage.
This revised birthdate is earlier than we originally supposed.
> There could be many reasons why Elizabeth, Lady Segrave did not give
> birth until the age of 26, but all would be speculation without any
> evidence yet to back them up. She certainly seemed to have children
> in rapid succession after 1364. How do we know she and Lord Mowbray
> were married (as opposed to betrothed) when young children - what is
> the source for this?
Answer: The Papal registers give the date at which Elizabeth de
Segrave and John de Mowbray were dispensed to marry. They were then
still young children when this occurred. Elizabeth de Segrave, then
wife of John de Mowbray, had seisin of her father's lands in 1353,
shortly before her 15th birthday. I believe the granting to Elizabeth
of her lands indicates she had already consumated her marriage (this
being the "cove and keye" principle). There is no reason to suppose
that she did not start having children at that point. As such, her
eldest surviving child, Eleanor Mowbray, could have been born anytime
after 1353. I note that Eleanor's husband, John Welles, was born in
1352. Couples married as children like Eleanor and John were usually
the same approximate age. As a general rule, there wasn't more than
5 years difference in age between a young groom and his child bride.
As such, I would guess Eleanor was born in or before 1357.
> I understand the desire to give Margaret (Mowbray) Lucy a descent from
> Edward I, and there's a possibility that she was. Certainly the name
> 'Margaret' would seem a natural choice for Lady Segrave to give a
> daughter. But the primary sources, and the tight chronology, just
> don't support it. The Segraves and the Mowbrays double-betrothed
> their children (if I recall CP correctly) - a son of each couple was
> betrothed to a daughter of each couple. Perhaps Margaret of
> Brotherton (Lady Segrave's mother) stood as godmother to the 3RD Lord
> Mowbray's daughter - that could explain the name 'Margaret.'
>
> However, I'm also not convinced yet that Margaret Mowbray Lucy was the
> daughter of the 3rd Lord Mowbray and his second wife Elizabeth, the
> widow of Sir Hugh Courtenay. There are several contemporary entries
> related to Elizabeth's death in the Cal. Rolls, and all state she was
> dead without issue - wouldn't her daughter Margaret have turned up?
Answer: I wasn't aware of any records that state Elizabeth de Vere
died without issue. Can you provide those citations? I'd like to see
them. As I recall the records you cite, they indicate only that the
Courtenay lands which Elizabeth de Vere held in dower by her lst
marriage were to return to the Courtenay family following her death,
as her son by that marriage had died young. This doesn't mean that
she didn't have children by her 2nd Mowbray marriage.
> I don't know that this is resolved at all, Douglas.
Answer: See my second post.
> Best regards, ------Brad Verity
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Brad Verity
> Given that the charter dates from 1361 to 1368, this means that
> Eleanor de Mowbray was born sometime in or before 1361, which is
> earlier than Complete Peerage supposed, and that she married as a
> child sometime before 1368. We should suspect this was the case as we
> know from other sources that Eleanor's younger sister, Margaret Lucy,
> was married as a child in 1369.
Douglas,
Very good show! This charter regarding the manor of Welle is
contemporary evidence of Eleanor being married in the 1360s, and much
stronger evidence than the Ogles (who got the Lucy husband's first
name wrong) 200 years later in the Visitation pedigree of 1563/4.
> This, of course, rearranges the chronology of the Mowbray family and
> allows sufficient time for the birth of Eleanor's sister, Margaret,
> before the births of their younger siblings, John, Thomas, and Joan,
> in the mid to late 1360's.
Yes. It opens the possibility of Joan Mowbray Gray being born before
her brothers, and in addition to Margaret, makes possible the fourth
daughter Anne Mowbray, Abbess of Barking, whom Mr. Reitweisner
mentioned in another thread.
I still feel bad for the servant John de Disworth, but hopefully he
was somehow getting his 40s. a year before the formal grant in 1364.
Good digging and congratulations to you and Chris Phillips.
Best regards, -------Brad Verity
Brad Verity
> Answer: I wasn't aware of any records that state Elizabeth de Vere
> died without issue. Can you provide those citations? I'd like to see
> them.
From the Calendar of Close Rolls. Dated 1375 Nov. 27 at Westminster:
"To Thomas Sewale escheator in Buckinghamshire. Order to remove the
king's
hand, and not to meddle further with the manor of Wavyngdon taken into
the
king's hand by the death of Elizabeth who was wife of Hugh de
Courtenay the
younger, delivering to Hugh de Courtenay earl of Devon any issues
thereof
taken; as the king has learned by inquisition, taken by the escheator,
that
the said Elizabeth at her death held no lands in that bailiwick in her
demesne as of fee nor in service, but held the same manor in fee tail
by
grant of the said earl made by fine levied in the king's court with
his
licence to the said Hugh the younger and Elizabeth and to the heirs of
their
bodies, with reversion for lack of such an heir to the earl and his
heirs,
that HUGH THE YOUNGER AND ELIZABETH ARE DEAD WITHOUT ISSUE, wherefore
the
said manor ought by the form of that fine to revert to the earl and
his
heirs, and that it is held in chief by knight service."
There were other related ones, but this was the only one I had copied.
> As I recall the records you cite, they indicate only that the
> Courtenay lands which Elizabeth de Vere held in dower by her lst
> marriage were to return to the Courtenay family following her death,
> as her son by that marriage had died young. This doesn't mean that
> she didn't have children by her 2nd Mowbray marriage.
Well, the wording "Hugh the Younger and Elizabeth are dead without
issue" is open to interpretation: they are dead without issue of each
other, or each are dead without issue, which is why I asked the
question.
It's a moot point of course, if Margaret Mowbray Lucy was not
Elizabeth's daughter.
Best regards, -----Brad
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I still feel bad for the servant John de Disworth, but hopefully he
> was somehow getting his 40s. a year before the formal grant in 1364.
I have to say, I still find this very irregular, for the reasons
brought up earlier. It makes me wonder if the record of the gift
mistakenly recorded the name of the daughter, and that this grant
in fact was for news of a later daughter.
taf
Chris Phillips
> Reading the Patent Rolls document cited by Chris Phillips again, it is
> apparent that the document in question doesn't state Eleanor Mowbray
> was born in 1364, ONLY that her father made a formal gift in that year
> to his servant for bringing him the news of her birth. Obviously
> Eleanor could have been born earlier than 1364. With that problem
> resolved, the chronogical barrier of Margaret Lucy being the daughter
> of John de Mowbray, 4th Lord Mowbray, is now removed.
It does appear we may have jumped to the conclusion that the grant to John
de Disworth of an annuity of 40s out of the manor of Melton Mowbray, "for
the news which he brought him of the deliverance of his wife of Eleanor her
first daughter", dated on the Annunciation, 38 Edward III [25 March 1364],
was made shortly after Eleanor's birth.
In the Calendar of Patent Rolls 1367-70, p.237, this appears among a number
of John de Mowbray's grants, inspected and confirmed by the king in April
1369, after John's death. In the printed abstract, this grant is grouped
with two others, also to John de Disworth: one dated 12 January 40 Edward
III [1366/7], of a rent of 33s 4d from Wresell, Yorkshire and the other on
the Annunciation 41 Edward III [25 March 1367], of the keeping of his wood
of Shyrehache, Bedfordshire, taking 2d a day etc.
The birth of Eleanor is not mentioned in the printed abstracts of the 2nd
and 3rd grants, but it's not clear whether it would have been mentioned in
the original grants (or even in the enrolments that are abstracted in the
printed edition).
Two of these three grants, including the first, are dated on the
Annunciation, probably a natural enough date for a grant of this nature.
This is (I think) in contrast to the grant by John de Mowbray to Joan de
Canleye, "for bringing news of the birth of his eldest son", dated on the
Wednesday after St Laurence, 39 Edward III [13 August 1365], of a rent of 10
marks out of the manor of Melton Mowbray. Two of John de Mowbray's
inquisitions post mortem state that his eldest son John was born on the
feast of St Peter's Chains (1 August). (Actually, these two indicate that
the year of his birth was 1364, not 1365 - on the whole the ages given in
the inquisitions indicate either 1364 or 1365, being divided about equally.)
So I would guess that the grant relating to the birth of John was made
shortly after John's birth.
Given the evidence presented by Douglas Richardson, that Eleanor was married
before c.1369, and probably before her father's death in 1368, it does
appear that her birth must be placed before 1364.
This would ease the chronology of the known children of John Mowbray, which
on the accepted version stood thus:
Eleanor - shortly before 25 March 1364
John - 1 August 1365
Thomas - probably March 1366/7 (age from an inquisition would indicate march
1365/6)
This leaves Joan, who would have to be conceived before about October 1367,
when John de Mowbray left England, and presumably born by June 1368, which
most of the inquisitions give as his date of death, his wife having died
before him.
That chronology looked just about possible, but left no room at all for
manoeuvre, and no room for Margaret, or for Anne, William Addams
Reitwiesner's "cancelled abbess" or Barking.
It would be interesting to know whether any parallels are known to these
grants to servants for bringing the news of children's births - were they
typically rewarded just once, immediately after the birth, or several times,
in the following years? I haven't seen any before, and I suspect these are
just a lucky survival.
Chris Phillips
Paul K. Davis
> I still feel bad for the servant John de Disworth, but hopefully he
> was somehow getting his 40s. a year before the formal grant in 1364.
>
Perhaps, what the father had done, was make a pledge of a reward on
the first birthdays of his children, to the servants who brought him
word of their birth. This would avoid giving rewards for still births
and sick infants who died shortly after birth. {It might have been
any of a variety of formulas, the second birthday, the first feast day
after the first birthday, etc. etc.)
- PKD [Paul K. Davis - paulk...@earthlink.net]
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for your kind words. Chris Phillips was a great help in this
matter.
As you noted, the Welles-Mowbray charter proves that Eleanor Mowbray
was married as a child to John Welles sometime in or before 1361/8.
This is a minimum of 18 years earlier than the date used by Complete
Peerage for this marriage ("before 1386"). This is a rather serious
gaffe on the part of Complete Peerage's editor.
In light of child marriages, Complete Peerage tells us that Eleanor's
spouse, John Welles, was born in 1352. Since there was usually no
more than 5 years age difference in couples married as children, we
should suppose that Eleanor was born in or before 1357. Since
Eleanor's mother, Elizabeth de Segrave, was aged 19 in 1357, a
birthdate of 1357 or earlier for Eleanor poses no problem.
As I recall, Eleanor's parents were married at ages 8 and 9
respectively. If Eleanor was born in 1357 and married at age 8 or 9,
it would peg her marriage to John Welles as circa 1365/6, which date
would fit the evidence just fine. Also, we have indications from
other sources that Eleanor's sister, Margaret Lucy, and her brother,
Thomas Mowbray, were married as children.
Best always,
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah, Home of the Winter 2002
Olympics
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.02020...@posting.google.com>...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> >
> > I still feel bad for the servant John de Disworth, but hopefully he
> > was somehow getting his 40s. a year before the formal grant in 1364.
>
> the first birthdays of his children, to the servants who brought him
> word of their birth. This would avoid giving rewards for still births
> and sick infants who died shortly after birth. {It might have been
> any of a variety of formulas, the second birthday, the first feast day
> after the first birthday, etc. etc.)
Or, based on the new chronology, he might have done it at the
time of her betrothal.
taf
Chris Phillips
> Perhaps, what the father had done, was make a pledge of a reward on
> the first birthdays of his children, to the servants who brought him
> word of their birth. This would avoid giving rewards for still births
> and sick infants who died shortly after birth. {It might have been
> any of a variety of formulas, the second birthday, the first feast day
> after the first birthday, etc. etc.)
The first birthday idea would be quite an appealing one in the case of
the eldest son John de Mowbray, as it could explain why the grant was
dated just after the birthday mentioned in the inquisitions, but in a
year which conflicted with the other estimate of the birthdate of his
brother Thomas.
But I think we'd still have chronological difficulties if Eleanor were
shifted back by only a year, to 1363.
Chris Phillips