Fw: Turnham

Rosie Bevan

unread,

Feb 20, 2003, 9:50:01 PM2/20/03

to

I think the two puzzles I mentioned in my last post are now solved. The
Eleanor married to Ralph Fitz Bernard was actually granddaughter of Edelina,
and daughter of Clemence and Wandril de Corcell.

DD 426 sub de Curcellis, Wandregesil, explains part of it but does not
mention that Clemence de Broc was his wife.
"Wandregesil II de Curcellis held a third part of a fee at Frome in 1212
(Fees, 81), which passed to his daughter and heiress Eleanor, wife of Ralph
fitzBernard by 1219 (Fess, 262).

1. Stephen de Turnham=Edelina de Broc
2.Mabel=Thomas de Bavelingham
2.Alice=Adam de Bendeges
2.Beatrice=Ralph de Fay
2.Clemence=Wandril de Curceles
3.Eleanor=Ralph fitzBernard
2.Eleanor=Roger de Leyburn
3.Roger de Leyburn

Both Clemence and Eleanor were dead in 1220.

Cheers

Rosie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Turnham

> Dear Chris and Hap
>
> It was Ralph fitz Bernard who was married to Eleanor. Robert de Leyburne
had
> evidently married another daughter of Stephen de Turnham, and she was dead
> by 1220. Whether or not she was also named Eleanor is unclear.
>
> The evidence for this comes from a curia regis suit in the Trinity term of
> 1220, in which Edelina de Broc sued Richard Malherbe for 4L 18s. rent, and
> William de Bathonia for 25 acres of meadow and 12 1/2 of wood with
> appurtenances in Artingdon, Surrey. They in turn called to warrant the
heirs
> of Stephen de Turnham who were Thomas de Bavelingham and Mabel his wife,
> Adam de Bendenges and Alice his wife, Ralph de Fay and Beatrice his wife,
> Roger de Leyburn, Ralph fitz Bernard and Alianore his wife.
>
> "Et ipsi Ricardus et Willelmus vacaverunt inde ad warrantum heredes
Stephani
> de Turnham quondam viri ipsius Edeline, scilicet Thomam de Bavelingeham et
> Mabiliam uxorem ejus Adam de Bendeng' et Aliciam uxorem ejus Radulfum de
Fay
> et Beariciam uxorem ejus Rogerum de Leyburn' Radulfum filium Bernardi et
> Alienoram uxorem ejus..."
> [CRR v.IX, p.85]
>
> VCH Surrey v.3 p.4, in a section dealing with this case, states that
Eleanor
> was wife of Roger de Leyburne and uses as a source Maitland, Bracton's
> Notebook, 1410 ; Excerpta e Rot. Fin. (rec. Com.), ii, 25. As the Roger in
> the curia regis roll is without a wife, the obvious conclusion to draw is
> that he was the representative of the unnamed daughter i.e her son and
heir.
> If she was indeed named Eleanor, it would seem there were two in the
family.
>
> The curious thing here is that Clemence, daughter of Stephen de Turnham is
> not mentioned, even though she was alive in 1220 and married to Wandril de
> Curceles, attorney for Robert de Turneham and Joan Fossard, and had two
> later husbands [EYC v.2 no.995]. Artindon had descended via Edeline de
Broc
> so the obvious inference is that Clemence was not a daughter of Edeline.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
>
>
>
> "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:b33ni8$60b$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Hap Sutliff wrote [extracts from three posts]:
> > > Edelina de Broc of Saltwood Castle, Kent. d. bef Nov. 1221. Her
husband
> > was
> > > Stephen de Turnham d. 1214. They had five daughters: Eleanor, Alice,
> > > Clemence, Mabel and Beatrix.
> > ...
> > > I meant to add that Hugh Neville was of Hallingbury, Essex and Hugh de
> > Plaiz
> > > was of Barnham, Suffolk. Each left issue from other marriages than
> > Beatrix.
> > > Also FWIW I need to check my sources again, but Eleanor/Alianor may
have
> > > also been married first to Ralph FitzBernard of Bradwell, Essex, but
> this
> > > seems unlikely as both men survived her. My guess is that it likely
came
> > > from the Ellis article previously cited.
> > ...
> > > An addition to my correction. Alianor de Turnham is shown as wife of
> Ralph
> > > FitzBernard in a note at CP V:400. However, there still seems to be
> > > something amiss as Ralph d. bef 1238 and Roger d. abt. 1251. Alianor
is
> > > shown as to have died before 1220 (CP VII:630). Ralph FitzBernard
> married
> > > secondly Joan _____. There is no mention of a divorce from either, but
> > > clearly this cannot fit for Alianor to have married both and to have
> > > predeceased both men unless she was divorced from one of them.
> >
> >
> > Yes, according the the CP article on Leyburn which you cite, the
wardship
> of
> > the heir of Robert de Leyburn was granted to Stephen de Thurnham in
1199,
> > and Roger de Leyburn in 1214 had possession of the manor of [Great]
> Berwick
> > [Shropshire], which he had with Eleanor, daughter and coheir of Stephen
> > (although further down the account says only that Roger and Eleanor were
> > married by 1219).
> >
> > So if it's correct that Eleanor was dead by 1220, it seems to be
> impossible
> > that she was, as CP vol. 5, p. 400, says, also married to Ralph
> FitzBernard
> > (d. by 1238). Ralph's son John left a son and heir Ralph who was said to
> be
> > 13, 14, or 15 in 1259, so we might guess that John would be born in the
> > 1220s. John does not appear to have been (as CP says), the son of
Ralph's
> > subsequent wife, Joan the daughter of Robert Aguillon:
> > http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/vol5.shtml#fitzbernard
> >
> > Indeed, footnote n of CP vol. 7, p. 630 (Leyburn), says:
> > "The husbands of the other 4 daughters [of Stephen de Thurnham] were
> Thomas
> > de Bavelingham, Adam de Bending, Ralph son of Bernard of Tong, and Ralph
> de
> > Faye (Coram Rege Roll, Mich. 8-9 Hen. III, rot. 7)."
> >
> > So it looks as though Ralph FitzBernard was married to one of Eleanor's
> four
> > sisters. Hopefully the references given in the Leyburn or FitzBernard
> > accounts should clear this up. As the daughters were coheirs, if Ralph's
> son
> > John was a son of the marriage, the FitzBernards would presumably have
> > acquired some land as a result, as the Leyburns acquired Great berwick
(CP
> > vol. 7, pp. 630, 640).
> >
> > Chris Phillips
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Rosie Bevan

unread,

Feb 20, 2003, 10:36:35 PM2/20/03

to

Further confirmation on the identity of Eleanor, wife of Ralph FitzBernard
comes from VCH Surrey v.3 p.48 under the section on the manor of Peper
Harow

"The actual tenant of Peper Harow in 1086 was a certain Girard one of whose
successors, Osbert of Peper Harow, sold Peper Harow to Ralph de Broc. His
son-in-law Stephen de Turnham received a confirmation of the sale from King
John in 1205. Stephen's daughter Clemency received Peper Harow as her
portion on her marriage with her first husband Alan de Plugenhay; she
afterwards married Wandrith de Corcell, and her third husband, Henry
Braybrok, who evidently survived her, sued Ralph son of Bernard and his wife
Eleanor, daughter of Clemency by Wandrith de Corcell, [Curia regis Roll no.
162 (Hil. 43 Hen III), m. 21] for Peper Harow as having been settled on him
at his marriage with Clemency."

Chris Phillips

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 4:09:18 AM2/21/03

to

Rosie Bevan wrote:
> Further confirmation on the identity of Eleanor, wife of Ralph FitzBernard
> comes from VCH Surrey v.3 p.48 under the section on the manor of Peper

> Harow.

Thanks to Rosie for those excellent posts solving the puzzle of the two
Eleanors (and knocking flying the misinterpretations in CP like ninepins).

That seems like a complete solution. The one detail that puzzles me is the
statement from VCH about Braybrok's suit against Ralph and Eleanor:

> Stephen's daughter Clemency received Peper Harow as her
> portion on her marriage with her first husband Alan de Plugenhay; she
> afterwards married Wandrith de Corcell, and her third husband, Henry
> Braybrok, who evidently survived her, sued Ralph son of Bernard and his
wife
> Eleanor, daughter of Clemency by Wandrith de Corcell, [Curia regis Roll
no.
> 162 (Hil. 43 Hen III), m. 21] for Peper Harow as having been settled on
him
> at his marriage with Clemency."

Presumably this record of 43 Henry III (1259) is referring back to a suit
some time before? According to the CP footnote, Ralph FitzBernard died by
1238, having remarried before that time. (That's assuming it was the same
Ralph who married Eleanor, of course ...)

Chris Phillips

Rosie Bevan

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 5:33:19 AM2/21/03

to

Hi Chris

Not having seen the roll entry, I don't know how it relates to the case. It
may just bring up the case as an example, which apparently hinged on
whether, after the death of Wandrith de Corcell, Edelina had any right to
enfeoff Clemence and Henry de Braybrook. The case was recorded in Maitland,
Bractons Note Book p.116, which I've not seen.

With hindsight, it should have been possible to spot Eleanor's relationship
sooner, because of the order in which she was placed in the reporting of the
case. Often the heirs are listed in descending order of closeness of
relationship to the deceased. In this case it was the three daughters
followed by the two grandchildren of Stephen de Turnham.

For anyone with fitzBernard descent, the de Curcells are covered in DP 403
and DD 426. If anyone wants the entries, I'm happy to reproduce them on
list.

Incidentally, in 1215 King John gave 300 marks for Edelina's remarriage
[H&G, v.5 p508], but I haven't seen any mention of a subsequent husband.

Cheers

Rosie

Sutliff

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 3:12:40 PM2/21/03

to

Thanks very much to all helping with this. That this helps correct and
extend the information in CP is very much appreciated.

HS

"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message

news:b34qbu$shh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

Cristopher Nash

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 3:25:48 PM2/21/03

to

Rosie wrote <Re: Turnham> -

>For anyone with fitzBernard descent, the de Curcells are covered in DP 403
>and DD 426. If anyone wants the entries, I'm happy to reproduce them on
>list.

I see these, and would just appreciate some clarification on the
sequence with relation to the Picot/Malet/FitzBernard connections.
Are we ok with --

- where the father of both Eugenia and Alice is Ralph Picot? Can I
assume that we're either talking about different Ralph Picots or
discarding AR7's account (which gives as sources Sanders & VCH (Camb)
VI:159-60 etc.) ?

Cheers,

Cris

--

Patricia Junkin

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 8:12:57 PM2/21/03

to

Could this be the same Picot family of Roxton, Beds ca. 1212?
Thanks.
Pat

----------
>From: Cristopher Nash <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Picot/Malet/FitzBernard (was Re: Turnham)
>Date: Fri, Feb 21, 2003, 3:26 PM

Douglas Richardson

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 10:50:51 AM2/22/03

to

Ralph Picot was of Tong, Kent.

DR

paju...@erols.com ("Patricia Junkin") wrote in message news:<E18mODc-...@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>...

Jim Dempsey

unread,

Mar 2, 2003, 3:58:37 PM3/2/03

to

Rosie,
I just joined the list and am appreciating all the Turnham info from
you and others, especially DD reference given.
I hate to bother you but, could you give me the full reference for
"Fees" in your message below? I assume Fess, 262 is Fees, 262.
Thank you
Jim

rbe...@paradise.net.nz ("Rosie Bevan") wrote in message news:<075401c2d953$98658c20$de00...@mshome.net>...