C.P. Correction: Robert Willoughby's alleged wife, Alice Skipwith
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 660-661 (sub Willoughby) has a good
account of the life of Robert de Willoughby, Knt. (died 1396), 4th
Lord Willoughby of Eresby. The author of Complete Peerage has the
following to say about Sir Robert de Willoughby's alleged three
marriages:
"He married, 1stly, in or before 1370, Alice. He married, 2ndly,
before 29 March 1372, Margery, daughter of William (la Zouche), 2nd
Lord Zouche (of Haryngworth), by Elizabeth, daughter of William (de
Ros), 2nd Lord Ros (of Helmsley). She died 18 Oct. 1391 and was
buried at Spilsby aforesaid (M.I.). [Her] will dated 11 Oct. at
Eresby, proved 7 Nov. 1391 at Stowe Park (Lincoln Reg.). He married,
3rdly, Elizabeth, de jure suo jure (according to modern doctrine)
Baroness Latimer, widow of John (de Neville), 3rd Lord Neville (of
Raby), daughter and heiress of William (de Latimer), 4th Lord Latimer,
by his wife Elizabeth. She died 5 Nov. 1395, and was probably buried
at Spilsby. [Her] will dated 18 Oct. at Eresby, directing burial at
Spilsby, proved 10 Nov. 1395 at Lincoln."
Complete Peerage assigns the first wife, Alice, as the mother of Sir
Robert's son and heir, William; his middle children, Robert, Thomas,
John, and Brian, are assigned as children of the second wife, Margery
la Zouche; and the last child, Margaret, is assigned as a child of the
third wife, Elizabeth Latimer.
This seems very straightforward. However, what evidence does Complete
Peerage provide for the first wife, Alice Skipwith? Here is what the
author says in footnote c on page 661:
"She [Alice] is said to have been a daughter of Sir William de
Skipwith, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, by Alice, daughter and heiress
of Sir William de Hiltoft, of Ingoldmells, Lincolnshire. See Nichols,
Hist. and Antiq. of co. Leicester, vol. iii, p. 369; Massingberd,
Hist. of Ormsby, pp.68-69, 92. The alleged descent of Skipwith from
Stuteville is discussed by C.T. Clay in Early Yorkshire Charters, vol.
ix, p.138."
I examined the first two sources given by the author of Complete
Peerage as evidence for Alice Skipwith's existence and marriage.
Both sources state without any documentation that Sir William de
Skipwith had a daughter, Alice, who married Robert de Willoughby, 4th
Lord Willoughby of Eresby. But did she exist?
These same two sources also indicate that Sir William de Skipwith had
a grandson, Thomas Skipwith, who married Margaret Willoughby of the
Eresby family. As best I can determine, if Alice Skipwith really was
the mother of Sir Robert de Willoughby's son and heir, William, this
would make Thomas Skipwith and Margaret Willoughby related in the 2nd
and 3rd degrees of kindred, too closely related to obtain a
dispensation to marry. If the marriage of Thomas and Margaret took
place (as I believe it did), it makes it extremely doubtful that
Margaret was the granddaughter of Alice Skipwith.
Regarding the chronology of the Willoughby family, Complete Peerage
states that Sir Robert de Willoughby and Margery la Zouche were
married before 29 March 1372. Actually, I have elsewhere located a
document in the helpful online A2A Catalogue
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp) which proves that this couple
were married before 1 October 1369:
Lincolnshire Archives: Holywell, Reference: Holywell 87/53
Creation dates: 1 October 1369
Grant by Thomas de Hynton, parson, of a mediety of the church of St.
Elena of Theddlethorp, John de Fulstow of Keddington and John de
Irland of Bessby, to Margery wife of sir Robert de Wilughby kt., son
of John de Wilughby and after her death to John de Wilughby lord of
Eresby, of all the lands and tenements which John de Newerk of Fulstow
holds for the term of his life, and which after his death return to
Thomas, John and John.
Witnesses:- William de Skipwith kt., Robert de Hernak, William at
Halle of Beesby, Robert de Beeseby Robert Seryveyn of Fulstow John de
Markby of the same.
Endorsed:- Fulstow. Johannes Will. dns. de Eresby Roberti uxor
Margareia (16th century).
Two seals. END OF A2A CATALOGUE ITEM.
So, when was Sir Robert Willoughby's son and heir, William, born?
Complete Peerage states that he was born about 1370 (citing Ch. Inq.
p.m., 20 Ric. II, no. 54). If so, it would make William the child of
Margery la Zouche.
The document cited by Complete Peerage as evidence of William
Willoughby's birthdate is the inquisition post mortem for his father,
Sir Robert de Willoughby, taken in 1396. Modern abstracts of the
inquests which make up this record are printed in Calender of
Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 17 (1988): 340-344. Following Sir
Robert de Willoughby's death, inquests were taken in various counties
as follows: Buckingham, Bedford, London, Leicester, Norfolk, Suffolk,
York, Cambridge, Northampton, and Lincoln. These various inquests
indicate that Sir Robert's son and heir, William, was then aged 30,
not stated, 24, 24, 28, 28, 24, 26, 24, 24.
As we can see, a range in dates is provided for William Willougby's
age from 24 to 30 years. However, the most common age given is 24
years (this age was given in four different inquests). Age 24 is also
the age provided by the jurors in Lincolnshire, who seemingly would
have been in the best position to provide the correct answer as to the
heir's age. Lincolnshire was the chief seat of residence of the
Willoughby family. Assuming 24 is correct age, it would place William
Willoughby's birth at about 1372, three years after his father married
Margery la Zouche [Note: I assume that the author of Complete Peerage
moved William's birthdate back to 1370, to accomodate the traditional
view that Alice Skipwith was his mother].
This date may be a little on the short side, as elsewhere I find that
William Willoughby had license to marry Lucy le Strange at Middle,
Shropshire shortly after 3 Jan. 1382/3 [Reference: R. Stretton Regs.
of Bishops of Coventry & Lichfield (Colls. Hist. Staffs. n.s. 8)
(1905): 84. This marriage license was overlooked by Complete
Peerage]. Inasmuch as marriages of high born English nobles were
usually performed at around the age of 13 or 14, this would put
William Willoughby's birth at around 1369/70. Please see my post of
earlier this week which indicate that Robert de Willoughby's parents
were seemingly married when his father was aged 8; also please see the
marriage settlement of Humphrey Bourgchier and Elizabeth Tilney which
implies that their marriage is to take place before Humphrey reached
his 14th year of age.
Is there any further evidence that Margery la Zouche was the mother of
William Willoughby? Yes, there is. I find that the 1623 Visitation
of Wiltshire states that Robert de Willoughby married Margery la
Zouche. The visitation further indicates that Margery la Zouche was
the mother of Robert's son and heir, William, and his second son, Sir
Thomas. Alice Skipwith is not mentioned at all.
"Robtus Dns Willoughbie de Eresbie ob: Anno 20: Ri:. 2 = Dau of the Lo
Zouch" [Reference: H. St. George, Wiltshire Vis. Peds. 1623 (H.S.P.
105-106) (1954): 216–218 (Willoughbie pedigree)].
Is there any heraldic evidence that Margery la Zouche is the mother of
William Willoughby? Yes, there is. Gervase Holles published a record
of the Willoughby effigies and stained glass windows in the church at
Spilsby, Lincolnshire [Reference: Gervase Holles, Lincolnshire Church
Notes (Lincoln Rec. Soc. 1) (1911): 84-90]. This is the church where
the early Lords Willoughby lie buried. Among numerous shields and
coats of arms in the church, Mr. Holles records a series of windows in
the north isle of the Spilsby church, which windows appear to
represent various marriages of the early Lords Willoughby. These
windows include one for Robert Willoughby's marriage to Margery la
Zouche, and one for Robert's son and heir, William's marriage to Lucy
le Strange. The arrangement of these windows suggests to me that
Margery la Zouche was the mother of William Willoughby, otherwise one
should find a window commemorating the supposed marriage of Robert
Willoughby to Alice Skipwith. I might note that the Skipwith arms are
no where to be found in the Spilsby church. The Latimer arms for Sir
Robert Willoughby's 3rd wife are found in this church, however.
What about onomastic evidence? Did William Willoughby name a daughter
Alice or Margery. The answer: He named a daughter, Margery. He
named no daughter, Alice.
So, then what is the source which states that Alice Skipwith was the
first wife of Sir Robert de Willoughby? Collins' Peerage of England 6
(1812): 591-619 contains an account of the early Willoughby family.
Reviewing this account, I find that the author states that Sir Robert
de Willoughby married "first, Alice, daughter of Sir William Skipwith,
by whom he had William, his son and heir." The author gives as his
source: Segar's MS. Baronage, which work I have not seen. The author
adds that Alice Skipwith was "according to my MS. [mother of] "four
other sons," viz., Robert, Thomas, John, and Bryan. The latter
statement is definitely erroneous.
The author adds: "Sir William Dugdale says, the four youngest [sons]
were "by his second wife, Elizabeth, sister and heir to John Nevill,
Lord Latimer ... His second wife, according to several MSS. was
Margaret, or Margery, daughter of William, Lord Zouch, of
Harringworth, by whom he had no issue." Again, Dugdale is in error as
to the order of Sir Robert de Willoughby's marriages, as well as which
wife was the mother of Sir Robert Willoughby's children. Confusion
abounds in these early sources!
Did Alice Skipwith exist? I have found no evidence that such a woman
existed. If she did exist, she can't have been the mother of Robert
Willoughby's son and heir, William, otherwise the later intermarriage
between the Skipwith and Willoughby families would have been
disallowed as I have noted above.
Reviewing the evidence, I find every single piece of evidence pointing
to the fact that Margery la Zouche was the mother of William
Willoughby. This is based on chronology, heraldic evidence,
onomastics, and the later Skipwith-Willoughby intermarriage. The
traditional view that Alice Skipwith was the mother of William
Willoughby appears to be erroneous.
Interested parties can find representations of the monumental brass of
Margery la Zouche, wife of Sir Robert de Willoughby, at the following
two websites:
www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/pic_lib/Spilsby_Brass.htm
www.gothiceye.com/popup.asp?Ref=L019
The brass displays the arms of Zouche and Roos for her parents, as
well as those of Mortimer, Bohun, Beaumont, and Welles. I'm unable to
explain the latter four arms on this brass, unless they are intended
for Margery's relatives of these surnames.
For interest sake, I've listed below the names of the New World
immigrants who descend from Sir William Willoughby, son and heir of
Sir Robert de Willoughby, by his wife, Margery la Zouche:
Elizabeth Alsop, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, George & Nehemiah
Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Edward Carleton,
Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth &
John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas
Nelson, Ellen Newton, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard.
Sir William Willoughby is also in the ancestry of H.R.H Charles,
Prince of Wales.
If anyone has any further particulars on this matter, I would
appreciate hearing from them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 660-661 (sub Willoughby) has a good
> account of the life of Robert de Willoughby, Knt. (died 1396), 4th
> Lord Willoughby of Eresby. The author of
"this article in"
an abstract of a
> document in the helpful online A2A Catalogue
> (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp) which proves that this couple
> were married before 1 October 1369:
>
> Lincolnshire Archives: Holywell, Reference: Holywell 87/53
> Creation dates: 1 October 1369
>
> Grant by Thomas de Hynton, parson, of a mediety of the church of St.
> Elena of Theddlethorp, John de Fulstow of Keddington and John de
> Irland of Bessby, to Margery wife of sir Robert de Wilughby kt., son
> of John de Wilughby and after her death to John de Wilughby lord of
> Eresby, of all the lands and tenements which John de Newerk of Fulstow
> holds for the term of his life, and which after his death return to
> Thomas, John and John.
>
> Witnesses:- William de Skipwith kt., Robert de Hernak, William at
> Halle of Beesby, Robert de Beeseby Robert Seryveyn of Fulstow John de
> Markby of the same.
>
> Endorsed:- Fulstow. Johannes Will. dns. de Eresby Roberti uxor
> Margareia (16th century).
>
> Two seals. END OF A2A CATALOGUE ITEM.
Seems fairly factual. But the practice in such critical cases is to
get hold of (a copy of) the original to see whether the abstract has
been correctly made.
This is an interesting work. It is the "Wiltshire Visitation
Pedigrees" and has a curious history, as related in its preface:
Unusually the signed records of the Visitation are not in the College of
Arms, they are (mostly) in Harleian MS 1165 in the British Library.
The College's records were taken from these signed papers but include
amplifications of the pedigrees by Henry St George and Sampson Lennard,
the heralds. The editor states that the College's record "contains a
large amount of valuable material that is not in Harl MS 1165".
Finally the published book of these Visitation Pedigrees is taken from
a manuscript in the hand of Thomas Lyte and made about 1628. The
editor states "Lyte's version is not a verbatim reproduction of" the
College's manuscript.
So there you have it, a very much third hand book.
Let's assume that what is published is the original record. It was
done in 1623 and it related to events prior to 1400, more than 200
years previously. In no way can this be considered to be satisfactory
as contemporary evidence of the family. And it is obvious that the
record is about the younger son of John Willoughby and the elder one is
included to give importance to the family. So one doubts that this
cadet branch would have had any records to back up their assertions.
> Is there any heraldic evidence that Margery la Zouche is the mother of
> William Willoughby? Yes, there is. Gervase Holles published a record
> of the Willoughby effigies and stained glass windows in the church at
> Spilsby, Lincolnshire [Reference: Gervase Holles, Lincolnshire Church
> Notes (Lincoln Rec. Soc. 1) (1911): 84-90]. This is the church where
> the early Lords Willoughby lie buried. Among numerous shields and
> coats of arms in the church, Mr. Holles records a series of windows in
> the north isle of the Spilsby church, which windows appear to
> represent various marriages of the early Lords Willoughby. These
> windows include one for Robert Willoughby's marriage to Margery la
> Zouche, and one for Robert's son and heir, William's marriage to Lucy
> le Strange. The arrangement of these windows suggests to me that
> Margery la Zouche was the mother of William Willoughby, otherwise one
> should find a window commemorating the supposed marriage of Robert
> Willoughby to Alice Skipwith. I might note that the Skipwith arms are
> no where to be found in the Spilsby church. The Latimer arms for Sir
> Robert Willoughby's 3rd wife are found in this church, however.
And were these second and third wives buried in the church? And might
Alice Skipwith not have been buried there?
The first is a good picture though the second looks to be a poor copy of
the first.
> The brass displays the arms of Zouche and Roos for her parents, as
> well as those of Mortimer, Bohun, Beaumont, and Welles.
Of the first four, the top left is unreadable, the top right could be
Sire Edmund de Boun "Azure a bend argent between six lions rampant or".
The second down on the left is Willoughby, as in the above visitation
pedigrees.
The second down on the right is a cadet (the canton) Zouche which is
"Gules, ten bezants, four, three, two and one".
> I'm unable to explain the latter four arms on this brass, unless they
> are intended for Margery's relatives of these surnames.
The third one down on the left, three bougets, could be any of a number
of families, but Ros of Ingmanthorp bore "Azure, three water bougets
or".
The third one down on the right might be a Holand "azure, on a semy of
fleur-de-lys, a lion rampant guardant".
The bottom left, a rampant lion, could be Welles: "Or a lion rampant
double queued sable, langued, etc, gules".
The final one on the bottom right is an impalement of Willoughby and the
cadet Zouche, presumably for Margaret's marriage.
<snip of the litany>
I look forward to someone getting hold of a copy of the original grant
by Thomas de Hynton.
E&OE
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
no....@no.thanks
><snip of the litany>
Let's take a closer look at the litany.
In message from royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) of 10 Jun
Douglas Richardson wrote:
>For interest sake, I've listed below the names of the New World
>immigrants who descend from Sir William Willoughby, son and heir of
>Sir Robert de Willoughby, by his wife, Margery la Zouche:
>
>Elizabeth Alsop, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, George & Nehemiah
>Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Edward Carleton,
>Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth &
>John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas
>Nelson, Ellen Newton, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard.
By his phrasing, Mr. Richardson is claiming that these are all of the New World
immigrants who descend from Sir William Willoughby. Not a partial list, not
"some of the New World immigrants ... ", but "the New World immigrants ... ".
How Mr. Richardson generates these litanies is unclear. It's certainly not from
his Plantagenet Ancestry book, as one of the New World immigrants Mr. Richardson
covers in PA is Sir Marmaduke Beckwith, a descendant of Sir William Willoughby.
Mr. Richardson didn't include Sir Marmaduke in his litany, thus misleading the
Beckwith descendants into thinking that this discovery has no interest for them.
Other New World immigrants that Mr. Richardson appear to be unaware of also
descend from Sir William Willoughby, but Mr. Richardson's phrasing implies that
these other New World immigrants don't exist.
David Greene
statement that Robert de Willoughby, Lord Willoughby of Eresby, had a
first wife named Alice and that she was the mother of his son and
heir, William. (Let me state that I am working from printed material I
have available in my own study, so my comments should be taken as
merely suggestive.)
In his description of Robert de Willoughby, Dugdale states that he
died on 9 Aug. 20 Rich. II and adds (among other details) that he was
seized of a number of manors including, "by the Curtesy of England, in
right of Elizabeth his wife (Widow of William Latimer)," various named
manors in Bedfordshire. He left "issue by Alice his wife, William his
son and heir, Twenty four yeares of age; and by Elizabeth his second
wife, sister and heir to John Nevill Lord Latimer, Four other Sons:
Robert, Thomas, John and Bryan." (Dugdale, Baronage [London, 1675-76],
2:84.)
Dugdale cites for Robert's death date, the manors of which he was
seized, and for his "leaving issue": "Esc. 20 R 2, n. 54." "Esc."
stands for "Escheator," and the citation is for an Inquisition post
mortem. For the second [sic] wife Elizabeth, he cites "Ex coll. R. Gl.
S.," which stands for the collections of Robert Glover (d. 1588),
Somerset Herald, the most accurate and scholarly of the Tudor heralds.
The IPM for Robert has been published and has already been cited,
without anything suggesting that he had a wife named Alice. The
implication--uncertain, of course--is that Dugdale found her in
Glover's collections.
Of the later scholars who planned revisions of Dugdale, the most
important was Francis Townsend (1749-1819), Windsor Herald. He left a
large collection of material on this incomplete project, now part of
the collections of the College of Arms. Some brief notes from it were
published by Sir Charles George Young (1795-1869), then York Herald,
later Garter, in John Gough Nichols's early journal, Collectanea
Topographica et Heraldica. On pp. 154-55 of volume 7 (1841) of that
journal, Young published Townsend's comments on Robert de Willoughby
and his marriages (the use of first person in the quotation is
Townsend's, not Young's):
"This Robert, the father, appears to have had three wives, Alice,
Margery, and Elizabeth. I rank Alice first, because I find that upon
the death of Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, Robert de Willoughby,
grandson of this Robert, was found to be next heir through his
grandmother Alice, who was sister of Elizabeth, the grandmother of the
Duke, and that William the son of Robert and Alice was 28 years old
when his father died in 20 Ric. II, and that Robert himself at the
death of his father, ao. 46 Edw. III, had a wife named Margery. His
third wife was Elizabeth, the daughter of William Lord Latimer and
widow of John Lord Neville, who died ao. 12 Ric. II by whom he had an
only daughter named Margaret, one year old at her mother's death, ao.
19 Ric. II [citing "Esc. 19 Ric. II. no. 51"]. Margery, the second
wife, was a daughter of Lord Zouche of Haryngworth, but whether she or
Alice was mother of the younger sons named in the text [i.e.,
Dugdale's Baronage] I cannot ascertain. Glover says Robert and Bryan
died without issue. Of John no further notice occurs, but that of his
existence. Thomas, the third son, was a knight, and married Elizabeth,
daughter of his father's third wife by her first husband John Lord
Neville, and heir of her brother John Neville, Lord Latimer."
Unfortunately, Townsend (or more likely Young) does not give a
citation for much of the above, but it appears that Townsend found a
document [IPM?] that says that Robert Willoughby was the son of
William Willoughby and that William was son of Robert Willoughby of
Eresby and wife Alice. The clue that Alice was the sister of
Elizabeth, grandmother of Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, is, of
course, very important. (This Robert de Vere was also 9th Earl of
Oxford and led a rather spectacular career--see Complete Peerage, new
ed., 10:227-32.) The Duke's paternal grandmother was Elizabeth "the
King's kinswoman," daughter of Hugh de Courtenay, 10th Earl of Devon
(ibid., 10:225). His paternal grandmother was the wife of Ralph de
Ufford, Chief Justice of Ireland (ibid., 10:226); I cannot identify
her from my limited home resources, but I'm sure that one of the group
members can.
Note that Robert de Willoughby (husband of Alice, Margery and
Elizabeth) was son of John de Willoughby, Lord Willoughby, and his
wife, Cecily Ufford. Robert was coheir of William de Ufford, 2nd Earl
of Suffolk (ibid., 12, pt. 2:660), Cecily's brother. William de
Ufford, 2nd Earl, was a son of the first earl and d.s.p.s. (ibid., 12,
pt. 1:432-34; 12, pt. 2:152-53); Ralph de Ufford was brother of Robert
de Ufford, 1st Earl of Suffolk (ibid., 10:226). These interconnections
(and Townsend's statement) might suggest--but hardly prove--that
Alice, first wife of Robert de Willoughby, and [ELizabeth?], wife of
Ralph de Ufford, were sisters.
As I say above, this material is not conclusive, but it is suggestive
enough that I hope that those who have been discussing the problem of
Robert de WIlloughby's wives will follow through.
DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<804764b...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
> > 105-106) (1954): 216?218 (Willoughbie pedigree)].
Louise Staley
Many thanks for this interesting post. I have a couple of
comments/questions interspersed.
> On 29 Jun 2004 14:40:11 -0700, David Greene <am...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> in John Gough Nichols's early journal, Collectanea
> Topographica et Heraldica. On pp. 154-55 of volume 7 (1841) of that
> journal, Young published Townsend's comments on Robert de Willoughby
> and his marriages (the use of first person in the quotation is
> Townsend's, not Young's):
>
> "This Robert, the father, appears to have had three wives, Alice,
> Margery, and Elizabeth. I rank Alice first, because I find that upon
> the death of Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, Robert de Willoughby,
> grandson of this Robert, was found to be next heir through his
> grandmother Alice, who was sister of Elizabeth, the grandmother of the
> Duke
>
<snip>
>
> Unfortunately, Townsend (or more likely Young) does not give a
> citation for much of the above, but it appears that Townsend found a
> document [IPM?] that says that Robert Willoughby was the son of
> William Willoughby and that William was son of Robert Willoughby of
> Eresby and wife Alice. The clue that Alice was the sister of
> Elizabeth, grandmother of Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, is, of
> course, very important. (This Robert de Vere was also 9th Earl of
> Oxford and led a rather spectacular career--see Complete Peerage, new
> ed., 10:227-32.) The Duke's paternal grandmother was Elizabeth "the
> King's kinswoman," daughter of Hugh de Courtenay, 10th Earl of Devon
> (ibid., 10:225). His paternal grandmother was the wife of Ralph de
> Ufford, Chief Justice of Ireland (ibid., 10:226); I cannot identify
> her from my limited home resources, but I'm sure that one of the group
> members can.
Please correct me if I am wrong but this appears to be suggesting:
1. Robert Vere 9th Earl of Oxford, Duke of Ireland
2. Thomas Vere 8th Earl of Oxford
3. Maud Ufford
4. John Vere (son of John Vere 7th Earl of Oxford & Maud Badlesmere)
5. Elizabeth Courtenay (daur. of Hugh Courtenay EoD & Margaret Bohun)
6. Ralph Ufford Justicar of Ireland
7.
Whereas I thought the ancestry of Robert Vere was [from CP]:
"VII. 7. JOHN (DE VERE), EARL OF OXFORD, nephew and heir, being only son
of Alfonso de VERE, 3rd son of the 5th Earl, was born about 12 March
1311/2."
"VIII. 8. THOMAS (DE VERE), EARL OF OXFORD, and Hereditary Chamberlain of
England, 2nd but 1st surviving son and heir, was born probably in 1336 or
1337."
"IX. 9. ROBERT (DE VERE), EARL OF OXFORD and Hereditary Chamberlain of
England, only son and heir, born 16 January 1361/2, succeeded his father
in September 1371." CP 10:222-7
1. Robert Vere 9th Earl of Oxford, Duke of Ireland
2. Thomas Vere 8th Earl of Oxford
3. Maud Ufford
4. John Vere 7th Earl of Oxford
5. Maud Badlesmere (daur. of Bartholomew Badlesmere & Margaret Clare)
6. Ralph Ufford Justicar of Ireland
7.
In other words, the first construction places John Vere who married
Elizabeth Courtenay as the father, not brother, of Thomas Vere 8th Earl of
Oxford.
In CP 10:225, 14:518 the John de Vere who married Elizabeth Courtenay is
not credited with any children and died v.p. before 23 June 1350. His
widow remarried to Andrew Luttrell. Hugh Courtenay 2nd Earl of Devon and
Margaret Bohun had multiple children although none of them were named
Alice.
>
> Note that Robert de Willoughby (husband of Alice, Margery and
> Elizabeth) was son of John de Willoughby, Lord Willoughby, and his
> wife, Cecily Ufford. Robert was coheir of William de Ufford, 2nd Earl
> of Suffolk (ibid., 12, pt. 2:660), Cecily's brother. William de
> Ufford, 2nd Earl, was a son of the first earl and d.s.p.s. (ibid., 12,
> pt. 1:432-34; 12, pt. 2:152-53); Ralph de Ufford was brother of Robert
> de Ufford, 1st Earl of Suffolk (ibid., 10:226). These interconnections
> (and Townsend's statement) might suggest--but hardly prove--that
> Alice, first wife of Robert de Willoughby, and [ELizabeth?], wife of
> Ralph de Ufford, were sisters.
>
CP 10:226-7 has this to say about the life of Sir Thomas Vere 8th Earl of
Oxford. "In October 1360 he was with the King at Calais. During 1361 and
1362 he was under orders to accompany the King's son Lionel, Earl of
Ulster (husband of his wife's half-sister), on his expedition to Ireland."
I had assumed this meant that Maud Ufford's mother was Maud of Lancaster,
known wife of Ralph Ufford Justicar of Ireland. However the suggestion
above in David Green's post is that the mother of Maud Ufford was
Elizabeth and this Elizabeth was the sister of Alice, wife of Robert
Willoughby 4th Baron Willoughby of Eresby.
1-Son Skipwith?
+Unknown
|--2-Alice Skipwith
+Robert Willoughby 4th Baron Willoughby of Eresby
|--3-William Willoughby 5th Baron Willoughby of Eresby
+Lucia Strange
|--4-Robert Willoughby 6th Baron Willoughby of Eresby
|--2-Elizabeth Skipwith
+Ralph Ufford Justicar of Ireland
|--3-Maud Ufford
+Thomas Vere 8th Earl of Oxford
|--4-Robert Vere 9th Earl of Oxford
>
> As I say above, this material is not conclusive, but it is suggestive
> enough that I hope that those who have been discussing the problem of
> Robert de WIlloughby's wives will follow through.
>
> DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
> Coeditor and publisher
> The American Genealogist [TAG]
Comments?
Louise
--
Quod dixi dixi
Rosie Bevan
Thank you for this very interesting and informative post. The source of the
information may well come from an inquisition post mortem pertaining to
Robert de Willoughby as the published don't necessarily include all the
information. Another source which may be the same, that William de
Willoughby was son of Alice comes from the inquisition for Maud widow of
Thomas de Vere, earl of Oxford made in 1413 [CIPM XIX no. 1045].
"1045 Writ 27 Jan 1413
RUTLAND. Inquisition. Uppingham. 6 March.
She held the manor of Market Overton for life with reversion to Richard de
Veer, now earl of Oxford. John de Horsham, clerk, granted the manor by
charter to William de Wyngefeld, knight, and Joan his wife for the term of
their lives with remainder to Thomas de Veer and Maud and the heirs of
Thomas. William and Joan died, and Thomas being already dead Maud entered
and held until the forfeiture of Robert and from then until she died. The
king by letters patent of 21 Dec 1406 [CPR 1405-8, p.314] granted, with the
assent of parliament, the reversion of the manor which was in the kings
hands on 1 March 1401 to Philippa widow of Robert duke of Ireland and to
Richard son and heir of Aubrey earl of Oxford. On 20 May 1407 Philippa
released her rights to Richard by indenture and the manor should descend to
him. It is held of Edward de Hastynges by knight service, annual value 20
marks.
Date of death as above [25 Jan 1413]. Robert de Wylughby, son of William,
son of Alice sister of Elizabeth mother of Maud, is her heir, aged 27 years
and more."
This aligns with Townsend's statement that Elizabeth was grandmother of
Robert de Vere, for this inquisition states she was the mother of Maud
d'Ufford wife of Thomas de Vere, and this causes considerable problems and
is most likely wrong as Maud's identity appears solid (CP X 226 "Maud da and
h. of Sir Ralph de Ufford, Chief Justice of Ireland, br. of Robert (de
Ufford), 1st earl of Suffolk, by Maud, widow of William (de Burgh), 3rd earl
of Ulster, and da. of Henry, 3rd earl of Lancaster, grandson of Henry
III."). Maud was acknowledged in Robert, Earl of Suffolk's will (1368) as
his niece " ma trescher niece Doxon" [Testamenta Vetusta, p. 74 ; Topog &
Geneal. v. 2 p. 274].
Robert de Willoughby was descended from Cecily d'Ufford and it was probably
through this connection that he was heir of Maud d'Ufford, though why his
Scales and Ferrars cousins were not included seems odd. Nevertheless it is
significant that Robert de Willoughby's grandmother is stated to be Alice,
and this cannot be discounted lightly despite the apparent fudging of the
jurors' thoughts on his relationship with Maud d'Ufford.
Cheers
Rosie
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> Robert de Willoughby was descended from Cecily d'Ufford and it was
probably
> through this connection that he was heir of Maud d'Ufford, though why his
> Scales and Ferrars cousins were not included seems odd. Nevertheless it
is
> significant that Robert de Willoughby's grandmother is stated to be Alice,
> and this cannot be discounted lightly despite the apparent fudging of the
> jurors' thoughts on his relationship with Maud d'Ufford.
Thanks to David, Louise and Rosie for a very interesting discussion. It does
seem difficult to construct any explanation of Robert de Willoughby's stated
heirship other than through Cecily. If so, it only goes to demonstrate how
much scope there is for records to mislead, even where sworn evidence from
presumably unbiased jurors is concerned.
It seems strange that an apparently non-existent Elizabeth figures as the
sister of Alice, and mother of the younger Maud. Is there some confusion
with the Elizabeth who was half-sister of the younger Maud, and coheir of
their mother? Or could it be that whoever Alice was, she was the (eventual)
coheir of a sister named Elizabeth?
Chris Phillips
Louise Staley
David Greene, Rosie Bevan and Doug Richardson have raised interesting, if
conflicting, problems with the accepted Willoughby and Vere descents. I am
interested in exploring whether there is in fact a problem with CP's
account or whether the problem lies in the IPM of Maud wife of Thomas de
Vere [CIPM XIX no. 1045].
Initially Doug raised the problem that if Alice Skipwith is the mother of
William Willoughby then there are consanguinity problems with a later
Skipwith/Willoughby marriage and suggested this was a reason for
overturning Alice Skipwith as the mother of William Willoughby.
On 10 June 2004 Doug wrote "These same two sources also indicate that Sir
William de Skipwith had a grandson, Thomas Skipwith, who married Margaret
Willoughby of the Eresby family. As best I can determine, if Alice
Skipwith really was the mother of Sir Robert de Willoughby's son and heir,
William, this would make Thomas Skipwith and Margaret Willoughby related
in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of kindred, too closely related to obtain a
dispensation to marry. If the marriage of Thomas and Margaret took place
(as I believe it did), it makes it extremely doubtful that Margaret was
the granddaughter of Alice Skipwith."
The traditional Willoughby line makes Margaret the daughter of John
Willoughby 3rd Baron Willoughby of Eresby rather than his son Robert
although the chronology does appear to favour Robert rather than John as
the father of Margaret. This would create consanguinity problems but only
if Margaret was by Alice Skipwith. Is there a source that makes her this
rather than a daughter by one of Robert’s other wives?
On 29 June 2004 David Greene dug out Dugdale and found the passage that
mentions Alice as the first wife of Robert Willoughby and that Robert left
"issue by Alice his wife, William his son and heir, Twenty four yeares of
age" (Dugdale, Baronage [London, 1675-76], 2:84.). David examined
Dugdale's sources and suggested they implied Dugdale found Alice in
Glover's collections. Searching further, David cited a passage from
Townsend published by Young in Collectanea Topographica et Heraldica which
also suggested that Townsend had looked at Glover and also found an IPM
that mentioned Alice and that Alice was the sister of Thomas de Vere's
grandmother, Elizabeth.
Enter Rosie Bevan, IPM guru extraordinaire. Also on 29 June 2004 Rosie
posts the IPM of Maud wife of Thomas de Vere [CIPM XIX no. 1045].
Presumably here is the passage that Dugdale/Glover/Townsend relied on.
"Date of death as above [25 Jan 1413]. Robert de Wylughby, son of William,
son of Alice sister of Elizabeth mother of Maud, is her heir, aged 27
years and more."
If correct, this account is a major problem for the accepted Ufford
pedigree.
1. Maud Ufford
2. Ralph Ufford Justicar of Ireland
3. Maud of Lancaster
4. Robert Ufford 1st Baron Ufford
5. Cecilia Valoignes
6. Henry Earl of Lancaster
7. Maud Chaworth
Maud of Lancaster was pregnant in November 1345 [CP X 226 (k)] yet Ralph
Ufford's IPM returned him as having no issue in July 1346 (he died in
April 1346). Given he was probably in Ireland it is quite possible the
recent birth of a daughter was not known or the child was posthumous. It
is still odd that Lionel of Antwerp witnessed on 10 July 1346 that Ralph
Ufford "has died without issue" [A2A D/EX 13/1] since Lionel was Ralph
Ufford's step-son-in-law even if he was only 7 at the time. However the
property in the A2A reference was granted in tail male and Ralph had no
male heirs, perhaps a translator or scribe left out the word “male” in the
reference. Be that as it may, it appears if Maud was the daughter of Maud
of Lancaster she was born between November 1345 and July 1346. So far so
good.
CP tells us that Thomas de Vere and Maud Ufford were married before 10
June 1350 [CP 10:226-7] when Maud was 3 or 4 and Thomas was about 14.
Their eldest child was born in 1362 when Maud would have been 16/17. Seems
a bit young to be married but the childbirth dates fit with the times.
Additionally Maud (Ufford) Vere requested burial at Bruisyard Abbey, SFK,
the Poor Clares Abbey founded by Maud of Lancaster. So there seems no
reason to overturn the Vere pedigree and replace Maud of Lancaster with
Elizabeth [Skipwith].
However, even if the relationships in Maud's IPM are incorrect as to who
her mother was, it is still the case that it asserts Maud's heir was
Robert Willoughby. There is no known relationship at the third generation
level between Maud Ufford and Robert Willoughby. Robert Willoughby's
ahnentafel shows:
1. Robert Willoughby 6th Baron Willoughby of Eresby, Earl of Vendosme
2. William Willoughby 5th Baron Willoughby of Eresby
3. Lucia Strange
4. Robert Willoughby 4th Baron Willoughby of Eresby
5. Alice Skipwith
6. Roger Strange 5th Baron Strange of Knockyn
7. Aline Fitzalan
The speculation so far has centred on the Ufford connection in the fourth
generation:
8. John Willoughby 3rd Baron Willoughby of Eresby
9. Cecilia Ufford (co-heiress of her brother)
10.William Skipwith
11.Alice Hiltoft
12.Roger Strange 4th Baron Strange of Knockyn
13.Maud
14.Edmund Fitzalan 2nd Earl of Arundel
15.Alice Warenne (daur. of William Warenne & Joan Vere)
The problem here though, as Rosie has pointed out, is Cecilia Ufford was a
co-heiress, along with her sisters Margaret and Katharine of their brother
William 2nd Earl of Suffolk. Both Margaret and Katharine left issue and
their issue continues to the present day. Ralph Ufford, father of Maud,
was the uncle of Cecilia Ufford, the great grandmother of Robert
Willoughby making Maud and Robert 1st cousins three times removed. There
is no obvious way that Robert Willoughby could be the sole heir of Maud
Ufford.
We are then left with guessing which part of the IPM is wrong. On the
Ufford side Maud's IPM says her mother was named Elizabeth. I would have
thought even the most incompetent jury would get the deceased mother's
name right when that mother is the great-granddaughter of Henry III. Even
if they got the name Maud mixed up with Elizabeth the jury returned that
Alice was the sister of Maud Ufford's mother, in other words that Alice
was the daughter of Henry of Lancaster. Surely someone would have found a
hitherto unnoticed additional daughter of Henry of Lancaster by now? On
the Willoughby side the IPM does accurately reflect the relationships for
all three generations. This is weird, we are assuming the jury gets the
deceased mother's name wrong but manages 3 generations of 3 times removed
cousins correctly.
Additionally, Maud's IPM only mentions one property, the manor of Market
Overton and goes into some detail as to how that manor should descend to
Richard Vere Earl of Oxford. It appears Robert Willoughby was not actually
heir of anything. A possible explanation, originally put forward by Rosie,
is that because there was nothing to inherit the jury didn’t really care
who got named as the heir so it didn’t matter that William Ferrers 5th
Baron Ferrers of Groby and Robert Scales 6th Baron Scales were left out.
Or that the Willoughbys had enough political pull to corrupt the jury’s
return, although why they would bother is unclear.
Having spent some time writing this post I feel I have not added to the
sum of knowledge on this topic much at all. Still perhaps it might help
someone untangle this knot in the future.
regards
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
> Having spent some time writing this post I feel I have not added to the
> sum of knowledge on this topic much at all. Still perhaps it might help
> someone untangle this knot in the future.
Well, Louise, you have certainly elucidated the questions, very
brilliantly, and that is a most valuable contribution to untangling the
knot.
Maybe the documentation as copied later or perhaps the testimony as
presented were more to blame than the IPM jury, who could only do their
best with the evidence and expect this to be recorded properly.
Still, it's another interesting example of the necessity to examine
_every_ source with a critical eye & in the context of whatever else may
be known.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
Louise Staley wrote:
> Additionally, Maud's IPM only mentions one property, the manor of Market
> Overton and goes into some detail as to how that manor should descend to
> Richard Vere Earl of Oxford. It appears Robert Willoughby was not actually
> heir of anything. A possible explanation, originally put forward by Rosie,
> is that because there was nothing to inherit the jury didn't really care
> who got named as the heir so it didn't matter that William Ferrers 5th
> Baron Ferrers of Groby and Robert Scales 6th Baron Scales were left out.
> Or that the Willoughbys had enough political pull to corrupt the jury's
> return, although why they would bother is unclear.
The other odd thing is that, although there was apparently nothing to
inherit, the jury named an heir who was related through the mother of the
deceased, not the father. Normally, I'd have expected this only if the
inquisition concerned land inherited from the mother. Even if the jury was
confused about the facts, it seems strange that this finding would have been
accepted in the circumstances.
Chris Phillips
Louise Staley
Dear Group,
This IPM is still nagging at me. It seems the traditional pedigree can
only be accommodated if we assume something like the following
conversation took place:
Escheator of Rutland: G'day my Lord. Maud Vere died last week. I've got to
do her IPM. There's nothing to inherit but the powers that be still
require it.
Robert Willoughby 6th Baron Willoughby of Eresby: Hail escheator. I'm
related to her somehow, let's solve the problem and make me the heir.
Escheator: Oh, how?
Robert: She was related to my great-grandmother somehow, but if you say
that you'll have to deal with the Lords Ferrers and Scales and you know
what a pain in the arse those Scales are. Why don't you say she was the
daughter of my grandmother's sister. I think her name was Elizabeth.
Escheator: Good idea my Lord, it all seems too complicated for nothing
otherwise. I'll tell the jury.
As Chris Phillips has pointed out the IPM is very specific in making the
inheritance come through the female line, implying there were no male
heirs. Apart from the obvious problem that Maud Ufford's mother was named
Maud, not Elizabeth, if Alice was a Skipwith she was not an heiress, she
had a brother John, Sheriff of Lincolnshire who left issue. So it is
impossible that Robert was the heir of Maud through Alice if she was a
Skipwith. We also know Robert was not the sole heir of his
great-grandmother Cecilia Ufford. I am also troubled by the fact the IPM
correctly gets the Earls of Oxford inheritance right, and that was much
more complicated, but completely fouls up on the deceased mother's name
and ancestry even though it asserts it was through this mother that Maud
was an heiress (even if it wasn't of anything material).
I suspect we can never know but I still think it's weird.
Rosie Bevan
Vere, Countess of Oxford, and that I quoted the only one with the statement
of Maud's heir in the published volume. All the properties described were
held by Maud as dower and reverted to Richard, earl of Oxford on her death.
The Sussex inquisition for the manor of Westdean, which she held for life,
was the only one to return that her heir was unknown.
The writ to the escheator for the inquisition post mortem usually instructed
him to list the lands held by the deceased, giving their value, tenure,
service, when the deceased died, the next heir and their age. It was a
fairly standard format of which the next heir of the deceased was a part.
It is possible that the document described by David Greene, giving the
statement about Alice, was William de Willoughby's IPM in 1409, when Robert
was said to be 24. However this information was not included in the
published volume, as the statement of the heir is not always necessarily
repeated in full for every county, but usually says something like, "heir as
above". The only way to check this is to obtain a copy of William
Willoughby's inquisitions from the National Archives.
Three years later it may have been the same escheator who performed the
inquisition for Maud de Vere and knowing that Robert de Willoughby's father
had inherited lands of William de Ufford including the manor of Ufford as
described in his inquisition post mortem, cobbled together a statement of
the heir from the facts he already knew. As this statement may have been a
formality, because there was nothing to inherit, the exact details may have
not been considered important to get right. The impression this leaves us is
to doubt whether jurors were ever called at all because it is difficult to
imagine that ten juries from ten counties could all get it wrong. I wonder
whether this is evidence that escheators took short cuts when they thought
they were in command of the facts.
Incidentally if Robert de Willoughby was 27 in 1412, this places his birth
around 1385. William, his father, must have been born earlier than 1372 as
suggested by Douglas Richardson, because he would then have been only 13. A
date of around 1367 seems more feasible.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <car...@bigpond.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Robert de Willoughby's alleged wife, Alice
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Several months ago, I posted the message below which detailed evidence
indicating that the mother of William de Willoughby, 5th Lord
Willoughby was Margery la Zouche, daughter of William la Zouche, 2nd
Lord Zouche of Harringworth. On the whole, this seems to be a rather
straight forward genealogical problem. The evidence shows that
William's parents, Robert and Margery, were married before 1 October
1369. From his father's inquisition post mortem, it appears that
William was born about 1372, a full three years afer the date we know
his parents were married. Onomastic, heraldic, and visitation evidence
also support this conclusion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
> 105-106) (1954): 216-218 (Willoughbie pedigree)].