CP Addition: Munchensy/Hulle
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 422-424 (sub Munchensy) presents an account
of the life of William de Munchensy, of Norfolk, who died in 1287.
According to the editor, he married a certain Amice _____, whose
parentage has not been ascertained, by whom he had a daughter, Denise,
who was a minor at her father's death and who obtained her lands in
1297.
Recently I located an entry in an archbishop's register dated 23 July
1283 which states that "Sir William de Monte Caniso [Munchensy] and
the Lady Amy de Hulle have duly contracted marriage." [Reference: D.
Douie, The Register of John Pecham, Archbishop of Canterbury,
1279-1292 2 (Canterbury & York Soc. 65) (1968): 246].
I assume the William de Munchensy involved in this record is the man
whose history is covered by Complete Peerage. If so, this record
would appear to supply William's wife's name.
While the chronology involved with William's daughter, Denise, is a
bit tight, it may well have been that William's wife was pregnant when
he married her. I note that following William's death, Denise's
relatives endeavored to prove she was a bastard, and not her father's
lawful heir. The attempt was not successful and Denise was eventually
declared her father's heir.
The style "Lady Amy de Hulle" suggests that William de Munchensy's
wife might well have been the widow of a deceased knight, which would
justify referring to her as "Lady Amy." If so, a search of the
surviving records of this time period should turn up a knight named
Hulle who left a widow named Amy or Amice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
The...@aol.com
Dear Douglas,
Thanks for that find. This will likely provide another link
in the chain - although, it doesn't affect any descent I am aware
of (Denise de Munchensy, daughter of Sir William de Munchensy, dsp
before 13 April 1314).
CP indicates Denise de Munchensy was born " before 22 July
1283 ", and that her mother Amy d. in July of that year, evidently
during or soon after childbirth [cf. CP Vol XII/2 (Vere), p. 255
and esp. note (g) ]. From your information, it sounds like either
(A) Sir William sought to make the relationship legitimate in the
hopes of fathering an heir thereby, or (B) this is evidence of a
" crossbow wedding " . ;)
Will advise if any Hulles are found amongst the chaff.
Cheers,
John P. Ravilious
Greg Vaut
Is this William de Munchensy (father of Denise) the same William who was
the son of Warin de Munchensy, Lord of Swanscomb (d ca 20 July 1255) who
married Joan Marshal and Denis de Anesty?
Greg
Douglas Richardson
Dear John ~
Thanks for sharing this information. Much appreciated. My guess is
that there was some irregularity with the marriage of William and
Amice. If Amice was married previously, a good bet would be that
Amice's former husband and William were related to each other somehow.
This would create a state of affinity. Such a relationship, if
distant, might not have been known at the time Amice and William
married.
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> CP indicates Denise de Munchensy was born " before 22 July
> 1283 ", and that her mother Amy d. in July of that year, evidently
> during or soon after childbirth [cf. CP Vol XII/2 (Vere), p. 255
> and esp. note (g) ]. From your information, it sounds like either
> (A) Sir William sought to make the relationship legitimate in the
> hopes of fathering an heir thereby, or (B) this is evidence of a
> " crossbow wedding " . ;)
>
> Will advise if any Hulles are found amongst the chaff.
Actually, that Vere page you mention does specify the de Hulle connection,
describing her as the widow of Sir John de Hull, of Hill Croome, co
Worcester, citing the Register of Bishop Giffard, Worc Hist Soc, vol. ii,
pp. 314, 358-61, 364; cf VCH Worc vol. iii, p. 320.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for pointing out the added Munchensy-Hulle citations which are
found in the Vere account of Complete Peerage. This appears to be
another instance of a fact being stated in one part of Complete
Peerage, but being ignored in another. I assume that the Archbishop's
record which I posted is not included in the citations mentioned by
the Vere account in Complete Peerage. If so, it would be a new source
to prove William de Munchensy's marriage to Lady Amice de Hulle.
I sure wished Complete Peerage had a modern index!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<bbj5hh$36r$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out the added Munchensy-Hulle citations which are
> found in the Vere account of Complete Peerage. This appears to be
> another instance of a fact being stated in one part of Complete
> Peerage, but being ignored in another. I assume that the Archbishop's
> record which I posted is not included in the citations mentioned by
> the Vere account in Complete Peerage. If so, it would be a new source
> to prove William de Munchensy's marriage to Lady Amice de Hulle.
It looks as though the archbishop's register was not in print when the Vere
article was written, but the footnote does mention a declaration that the
couple were lawfully married by the Archbishop of Canterbury, 23 August
1283. This sounds like the same record, but is a month later than the one
you mention. Perhaps something has gone wrong with the month.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Dear Chris ~
When you have the opportunity, I suggest you double check the date I
cited from the Archbishop's register. Hopefully I wrote down the date
correctly. As I understand the translation from the Latin provided in
the modern transcript, the register states that Sir William de
Munchensy and Lady Amice de Hulle had "contracted marriage." This
does not necessarily mean that the marriage occured on that specific
date, just that they were married as of that date. The register may
state that the Archbishop himself married the couple, but, if so, I
failed to record that in my notes.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> When you have the opportunity, I suggest you double check the date I
> cited from the Archbishop's register. Hopefully I wrote down the date
> correctly. As I understand the translation from the Latin provided in
> the modern transcript, the register states that Sir William de
> Munchensy and Lady Amice de Hulle had "contracted marriage." This
> does not necessarily mean that the marriage occured on that specific
> date, just that they were married as of that date. The register may
> state that the Archbishop himself married the couple, but, if so, I
> failed to record that in my notes.
I read the footnote in the CP Vere article as saying that this was the
archbishop judging that a marriage that had taken place some years before
was valid:
"William m. Amy before sunrise on the Tuesday after the feast of St
Bartholomew (24 Aug.) 1279 ... About the time of Amy's death the validity of
this marriage was challenged, apparently on the ground that it took place at
the church door. But as a result of proceedings in Worcester Cathedral ...
(28 Oct.) 1283 ... Bishop Giffard gave sentence that William and Amy were
lawfully married. This was in accordance with a similar declaration by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, 23 Aug. 1283."
Maybe the date should be July (perhaps a reference to the Kalends of August
could have been misunderstood?), although CP's reckoning is that Denise was
born "shortly before 22 July 1283", because she had livery of her father's
lands 22 July 1297.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for the clarification on this matter. By any chance, you do
know why being married at the church door would create an impediment
to a valid marriage? I've heard of a woman being dowered by her
husband at the church door.
Douglas Richardson
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<bblnd3$3le$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification on this matter. By any chance, you do
> know why being married at the church door would create an impediment
> to a valid marriage? I've heard of a woman being dowered by her
> husband at the church door.
No - same here. I suppose the question is why they should have been married
at the church door. I can only suggest the detail about being married before
sunrise is a hint that the marriage was clandestine. I assume that wasn't
normal.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
If the marriage ceremony was performed before sunrise that might well
have created the problem. The Papal Petitions contain references to
many indults allowing individuals to celebrate mass before sunrise.
Since such indults were clearly considered a special allowance, I
assume that under normal circumstances, all services before sunrise
(i.e., in the dark) were forbidden. Perhaps someone familiar with
Catholic tradition can advise us better on this custom.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<bbms2v$qvu$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> Dear Chris ~
>
> If the marriage ceremony was performed before sunrise that might well
> have created the problem. The Papal Petitions contain references to
> many indults allowing individuals to celebrate mass before sunrise.
> Since such indults were clearly considered a special allowance, I
> assume that under normal circumstances, all services before sunrise
> (i.e., in the dark) were forbidden. Perhaps someone familiar with
> Catholic tradition can advise us better on this custom.
Midnight Mass? (A long tradition, held at midnight on Christmas eve)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org