Sir Lewis de Clifford K.G. from Devon, son of Peter?

[Andrew Lancaster]

Sir Lewis Clifford is a subject who comes up every now and then here. Over time I have to realize there are two bits of information which seem to have been spotted long ago but not well followed-up. Perhaps I am missing something here but it looks like we can state the following. Feedback requested:

1. Lewis was UNCLE to William Clifford the sheriff of Kent. The connection between the two is a subject of speculation with William even being called a son of Lewis. William's father, the brother of Lewis, was named Hugh.

This confirmed in various records involving none other than John Fastolf, and some legal problems he had in Norfolk. See:
*Common Pleas suit in 1410, De Banco, Mich. 25 Hen. VI, m. 557, reported by Wrotteseley in The Genealogist, N.S., vol. xviii, p.234 https://archive.org/details/genealogist1819selb/page/234
*Smith, Anthony Robert. "Aspects of the Career of Sir John Fastolf (1380-1459)." Trinity Term 1982. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:82b30e31-1412-495b-bc5d-426dd6aac852/
*Bellewes, G.O. Ed. Harwood, H. W. Forsyth. "Savage of Bobbing Court, Kent." The Genealogist: New Series. Vol. XXIX. Pg. 207. https://archive.org/stream/genealogist2919selb#page/n435/mode/2up

The case is also mentioned in Paston letters.

2. As suggested by CP there are leads connecting Lewis to Devon. But I've come to realize how clear these leads are. In a 1917 article about Lewis's son Lewis, who probably died young, he makes an aside:
"In John of Gaunt's Register, March 21, 1373, we read "que les villes de Houxham, Colyn Johan et Stokes, sont a une honuree dame q'est taunte a nostre bien ame chivaler monsire Lowys de Clifford"

*Kittredge, G. L. “Lewis Chaucer or Lewis Clifford?” Modern Philology, vol. 14, no. 9, 1917, pp. 513–518. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/433151.

The first two manors are clearly Huxham, Columbjohn. There are many places called Stoke in the general area. Possibly many others have worked this out but I suddenly realized that we know enough to be able to identify a widow who was reputedly a Clifford, who might have been holding these exact manors in 1373: Joane, the widow of the younger Roger de Priaux, said to be a daughter of Peter Clifford.

I also now notice that Sir Lewis and the Devon Cliffords do not only appear together in the Register of John of Gaunt, but also in the Register of the Black Prince, who Lewis and the Devon Cliffords served earlier. (Both registers are online.) Peter Clifford is mentioned for example.

So possibly Lewis is the son of Peter Clifford?

I understand that this Devon family do descend from the original Herefordshire Cliffords, making them related to the more famous line.

[Andrew Lancaster]

What I have not found yet is any complete explanation of the Devon family, and the related Prideaux family in Devon. I do not for example have a copy of "House of Clifford" and I am not sure if it contains any missing links. What I have seen so far:
*Vivian's edition of Dover pedigrees, based on visitations and also other sources like Burkes. The Clifford pedigree unfortunately relies on Burkes and simply connects everything back to the Westmorland family. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002002213917&view=1up&seq=209 The Prideaux shows Joane the daughter of Peter Clifford https://hdl.handle.net/2027/yale.39002002213917?urlappend=%3Bseq=630
*William Pole's Description of Devon contains sections about many relevant places, including this one about Columb John https://books.google.be/books?id=WF4OAAAAQAAJ&vq=clifford&pg=PA170
*Maclean's The parochial and family history of the deanery of Trigg Minor, in the county of Cornwall. See under Orcheton https://archive.org/details/cu31924081264826/page/n223 Pedigree here https://archive.org/details/cu31924081264826/page/n245
*A Prideaux blog page with no sourcing information https://www.aaprideaux.com/general/sir-roger-de-pridias-1294-1347/

Can anyone help find more of the puzzle?

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Andrew ~

The original Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1446 involving Sir John Fastolf which you've cited in your post can be viewed at the following weblink:

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/743, image 1129f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no743/aCP40no743fronts/IMG_1129.htm).

As indicated by Wrottesley's published abstract of this case, the lawsuit specifically identifies Alexander Clifford as kinsman and heir of Sir Lewis Clifford, he being the son of Lewis, son of Lewis, son of William, son of Hugh, brother of the said Sir Lewis.

The 1446 lawsuit refers to an earlier grant made in 1384 by King Richard II to Sir Lewis Clifford of 24 marks yearly rent from a third of the manor of Hickling, Norfolk.

The original Hickling grant can be found at Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1381–1385 (1897): 477-478, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337612&view=1up&seq=489

As to your suggestion that Sir Lewis Clifford's unidentified aunt in 1373 was Joan (allegedly Clifford), widow of Roger Prideaux, this seems to be incorrect. Maclean, History of Trigg Minor 2 (1876): 200 shows that in 1322 Sir John de Clifford and Clarice his wife settled the manor of Combe-in-Teignhead, Devon on Roger Prideaux and Elizabeth their daughter and the heirs of their bodies. This manor subsequently descended in the Prideaux family.

Elizabeth de Clifford was almost certainly the heiress of her father as claimed by Maclean. My research indicates that the manors of Columbjohn, Eveleigh (in Broadclyst), Combe-in-Teignhead, Godford (in Awliscombe), and Stoke [Stoke Canon intended?], Devonshire were all earlier land holdings of the senior Clifford family of Devon. See my book Royal Ancestry, Volume One published in 2013 for further particulars. Columbjohn, Combe-in-Teignhead, and Godford were later held by the Prideaux family, presumably as the lineal heirs of the Clifford family.

Although Elizabeth de Clifford would be rather old in 1373, it's entirely possible that she was still living in that year. If so, it would appear that she was the aunt [taunte] of Sir Lewis Clifford living in 1373. However, the unnnamed aunt cannot in any case be Joan, the alleged 2nd wife of Roger Prideaux, as Joan would have had no rights to either Columbjohn or Stoke, they being Clifford lands. On Elizabeth de Clifford's death, all rights to her family lands would have been vested in her surviving husband or their sons, but not to her husband's 2nd wife, Joan.

Having said that, if Elizabeth de Clifford was the aunt of Sir Lewis Clifford living in 1373, it is difficult to explain, however, how she and not Sir Lewis was the heir of the Clifford family, unless Sir Lewis Clifford and his known brother, Hugh Clifford, were somehow heirs of the half-blood, or of illegitimate descent. A settlement could also divert an inheritance in this time period but, if the latter case is the explanation, a record would survive to document the flow of lands to the Prideaux family away from the male heirs of the Clifford family.

Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist

[Andrew Lancaster]

Thanks Douglas

Your response shows the importance of trying to get the Devon evidence together. What I understand so far (and please have a look at the links in my second post) however is that Joane the second wife claimed a dower and that the 3 manors named by John of Gaunt do not sound like any kind of inheritance as such. The Prideaux and Clifford families both had much more. So I am thinking this was a widow's residency "for life". I guess Stoke might be the one which is right next to the other two, forming a compact unit with them.

The heir of Roger and Elizabeth was clearly not Joane or Hugh, but Sir John de Prideaux, knight of the shire. (See his HOP bio.)

Does that make any sense to you and others?

Best Regards
Andrew

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Andrew ~

With regard to the aunt of Sir Lewis Clifford living in 1373, my guess is that she was a Prideaux widow just as you think. However, the Prideaux widow who was seemingly living in 1373 was seemingly named Joan, not Elizabeth.

While it is tempting to think that Sir Lewis Clifford is the nephew of Elizabeth de Clifford who married the younger Roger Prideaux circa 1322, it's entirely possible that Sir Lewis had a double relationship to the Prideaux family. Sir Lewis could be related to the Prideaux family once through Elizabeth de Clifford, wife of Roger Prideaux, and related in a second manner through Joan de Bigbury, wife of the next Roger Prideaux. If so, then Sir Lewis Clifford actually might be the nephew of Joan de Bigbury, and not of Elizabeth de Clifford. This would suggest that Sir Lewis Clifford's mother could possibly be the sister of Joan de Bigbury, wife of Roger Prideaux the younger.

Insofar as the Prideaux-Bigbury connection is concerned, below is a Common Pleas lawsuit I came across today involving these very families. William, the minor son and heir of William de Bigbury, mentioned here was surely the son and heir of William de Bigbury who married in 1320 Maud, daughter of Giles de Brewes, Knt., of Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, and Woodlands (in Horton) and Knowlton, Dorset. Sir Thomas de Monthermer, one of the defendants, was, of course, the grandson of King Edward I. Sir Thomas' wife was a Brewes, which would explain his interest in young William de Bigbury.

Below is an abstract of the 1332 lawsuit:

In Easter term 1332 John de Chevereston sued Thomas de Monthermer, Knt., and Roger Prideaux, Knt., in the Court of Common Pleas in a Devon plea regarding custody of William son and heir of William de Bikebury, whose custody he claimed belonged to him.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/290, image 72d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no290/bCP40no290dorses/IMG_0072.htm).

Joan de Bigbury, wife of Roger Prideaux, is presumably the daughter of the William de Bigbury who was the minor named in 1332 lawsuit above.

With regard to other Clifford related items involving Devon in this time period, I note that in 1327 and 1328 John de Berkedon the younger sued Peter de Clifford in the Court of Common Pleas in a Devon plea regarding a debt. Reference: Index of Placita de Banco 1327–1328 1 (PRO Lists and Indexes 32) (1910): 93.

I presume that Peter de Clifford is closely related to Sir John de Clifford, living 1322, father of Elizabeth de Clifford, wife of Roger Prideaux. This Peter de Clifford might well be the father of Sir Lewis Clifford and his brother, Hugh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[celticp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 12:09:11 PM UTC-6, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

< Joan de Bigbury, wife of Roger Prideaux, is presumably the daughter of the < William de Bigbury who was the minor named in 1332 lawsuit above.

In my post just now, I suggested that Joan de Bigbury, wife of Roger Prideaux, was the daughter of William de Bigbury, which individual was a minor in 1332. Actually I think the chronology suggests that Joan de Bigbury was the sister of William de Bigbury, who was the minor in 1332. If so, it would mean that Joan and her brother William were both children of William de Bigbury who married Maud de Brewes in 1320.

If Joan de Bigbury was Sir Lewis Clifford's maternal aunt, it would in turn mean that Sir Lewis' maternal grandparents would be William de Bigbury and Maud de Brewes.

All hypothetical, of course.

[Andrew Lancaster]

Yes it is indeed by no means proven. However if we could trust the Vivian pedigree of Prideaux, it would look very likely. Obviously the Maclean one disagrees.

From some of the old secondary sources I have the impression that both the Bigburys and Trevardyns might have married both the Prideauxs and the Cliffords.

At least we can say that some of these secondary sources look encouraging, as if there might be more medieval evidence out there.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

I've been looking at this old topic again, and here are some notes:

With the help of Chris Phillips I looked at the wording of the fine which Sir John de Clifford and his wife Claricia made with Sir Roger de Pridias/Prideaux in 1332 concerning 3 Devonshire Clifford manors for their son and daughter, Roger and Elizabeth. A couple of interesting things about that. First, the fine says John and Clarice will hold of the chief lords for their lives. Scan: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_43_45-53/IMG_0192.htm

So I guess John and Clarice died very soon after. In the 1332 Devonshire Lay subsidy (not online except through paywalls etc) they are not listed as the tax payers. Instead, the 3 Clifford manors named in the fine are all apparently being held by Sir Roger de Prideaux already. If they did not die, then at least they were not registered as the ones paying taxes. It is worth noting then that either Clarice or Elizabeth could be expected to live at Columbjohn as a widow if they survived, because it was one of the manors involved in the fine. Columbjohn is exactly where an aunt of Sir Lewis de Clifford was living in 1373 according to the register of John of Gaunt. Obviously both women look like possible aunts to a Clifford, but we do not know when they died.

Do all records after 1332 indicate that the Prideaux family were holding Columbjohn? Strangely enough no, after a series of records showing the Prideaux family holding the manors, in 1361 when Henry de Grosmont died, and his vast estates were split between his daughters, Columbjohn and Eveleigh (a lost settlement in Broad Clyst) are said to be held by John de Clifford: 'Close Rolls, Edward III: July 1361', in Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: Volume 11, 1360-1364, ed. H C Maxwell Lyte (London, 1909), pp. 195-211. I have no good explanation for this. It kind of looks like someone dug up an out of date list. It is perhaps worth noting though that the Prideaux situation would have been hanging a bit in 1361 because that is when the heir seems to have reached age but then also died. Nevertheless it gives me some small amount of doubt that John and Clarice died in 1332.

A second interesting point about that fine is that if Elizabeth has no heirs, the next in line are the heirs of her husband Roger. This means for one thing that there is no need to assume that the later Prideaux generations who held the Clifford manors were actually descended from her. What's more that they were not seems confirmed by the fact that the widow of the last Roger de Prideaux, named Joan, pleaded to the Black Prince mentioning that the heir of Roger was also her heir. Black Prince's register: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000000339921&seq=130&q1=prideaux I guess this also implies that Elizabeth had no brothers or sisters, or otherwise why are they not mentioned anywhere given this deal which effectively moved the main manors of their family over to Elizabeth's in-laws?

The only way to keep Elizabeth Clifford in the most obvious Prideaux family tree I can propose then, is to use the approach which Maclean used, of having a rapid sequence of 3 Roger de Prideaux's despite the lack of any evidence for more than 2. Maclean's Prideaux pedigree: https://archive.org/details/cu31924081264826/page/220/mode/2up (In other words Joan's husband Roger would then not be the widow of Elizabeth, but her son instead.) This possibility can't ruled out so far but I can't see any reason to believe in it either.

Continuing with this Prideaux widow named Joan, Maclean (and Douglas Richardson in the above old discussion, who I think was following him) say she was a Bigbury. I can't find any good evidence for this either. Maclean himself only calls it a tradition and cites a story told by Leland: https://archive.org/details/cu31924081264826/page/200/mode/2up . Leland did not actually say this Joan was a Bigbury, but only, in effect, that her son was kin of the Bigbury family: https://books.google.be/books?id=_E4VAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA47

In fact, Vivian proposed that this Joan was another Clifford, and more specifically that she was a daughter of Peter de Clifford who was clearly a close relative of John: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002002213917&seq=630 . (For more background about why I think Peter and John were closely related, for example brothers or first cousins, see the research notes I have posted on the Wikitree profile for their predecessor, and possible uncle, Sir Reginald de Clifford https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Clifford-2199
.) I can't find any reason to believe this either, but I suppose this is also not impossible. It would mean Joan (and not only Clarice and Elizabeth) could herself be an aunt of Lewis and Hugh de Clifford, if they were for example grandsons of Peter de Clifford.

Going through the 3 obvious options:
*possible widow aunt 1. Clarice de Clifford could be an aunt through marriage if Lewis and Hugh were sons (or perhaps also if they were grandsons) of a brother of Sir John de Clifford.
*possible widow aunt 2. Elizabeth de Clifford her daughter presumably had no siblings based on the above information. What's more unless there we accept Maclean's extra generation she must have died before her husband remarried to Joan, long before 1373, and had no sons, because Roger junior's widow Joan was the mother of his sons. If we do accept the extra generation, then she could be a widow in 1373, but the only way she can be an aunt in the normal sense is through sisters or sisters in law. Because Hugh and Lewis shared her surname, this scenario needs one of her Prideaux sisters-in-law to be married to a Clifford. Of course when two families are lining up alliances, such things can happen.
*possible widow aunt 3. Concerning Joan, the widow of the last Roger de Prideaux, as we have seen she may herself have been a Clifford by marriage or birth, and this would create some possibilities for her to be an aunt to Lewis and Hugh. This is not really strongly suggested by the records. But it is a set of scenarios which are difficult to disprove.

But Wait! The last two options don't look so good but there is more to report here. I found that Peter de Clifford of Netherton, the probable brother of John, had a widow named "Joan Prideaux" when, in 1355, she appealed to the Black Prince for her rights as a widow: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000000339921&seq=97&q1=prideaux She was clearly not Peter's first wife (see e.g. the 1346 feudal aids less than 10 years earlier, which name his wife as Isabel de Brand), but as men are able to have children later in life, she could have had Clifford children with Peter.

Having spent time on the Prideaux family I think this Joan is probably a member of the same Orcheton family we are discussing with all the Rogers. But was she born a Prideaux or had she remarried to a Prideaux by 1355? (This raises the possibility that she could even be the SAME Joan who was the widow of the last Roger de Prideaux!) Coming back to Elizabeth, and looking for a way, I suppose if Joan the widow of Peter de Clifford was her husband's sister then Peter's children might see her as an aunt? On the other hand if Joan the widow of Peter de Clifford was the same person as Joan the widow of the last Roger de Prideaux, then I suppose nephews and nieces of Peter de Clifford could call her an aunt (even if she had no "biological" Clifford children). At this point I am sure I am missing some things, and I think the above summary covers most of the research updates I wanted to cover. Concerning the speculations, I hope these notes are at least stimulating of further consideration.