Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: Aleise de Warenne [died c.1337], wife of Edmund, Earl of Arundel, and her daughter, Joan, wife of Sir Roger Husee, Lord Husee
250 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Feb 27, 2017, 7:37:57 PM2/27/17
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 1 (1910): 241–242 (sub Arundel) includes an account of Sir Edmund de Arundel (or Fitz Alan), Earl of Arundel, who was beheaded in 1326. Regarding his marriage and death, the following information is given:
"He married, in 1305, while still a minor, Alice, only daughter of William de Warenne (only son and heir apparent of John, Earl of Surrey and Sussex), by Joan, daughter of Robert (de Vere), Earl of Oxford. Having been captured in Shropshire by the Queen's party, he was, without trial, beheaded at Hereford, 17 Nov. 1326, in his 42nd year. He was subsequently attainted, when his estates and honours became forfeited. His widow (who, in her issue was, in 1347, sole heiress of her brother John, Earl of Surrey and Sussex, and consequently of the great family of Warenne) was living in 1330, but died before 23 May 1338." END OF QUOTE.
The above information is correct, but the only documentation provided in the notes concerns a record involving the death date of Alice, wife of Earl Edmund, namely Patent Roll, 12 Edward III, pars ii, m. 33." This reference can be converted into the modern citation, namely Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1338–1340 (1895):83, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406;view=1up;seq=93
This record reads as follows:
Date: 23 May 1338.
Pardon, on a like certificate, to John Duraunt, chaplain, of his outlawry in the county of Sussex for non-appearance before the justices of the Bench to answer touching a plea of Richard, earl of Arundel, executor of the will of Alice, late the wife of Edmund, Earl of Arundel, that he render an account for the time wherein he was receiver of the said Alice. END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above record that Alice, Countess of Arundel, died testate before 23 May 1338, and that her executor was her son, Richard, Earl of Arundel. So far, so good.
Recently I encountered a Common Pleas lawsuit which proves that Alice, Countess of Arundel, died before Easter term 1337, as indicated by the following lawsuit abstract:
Date: Easter term 1337. Sussex. Richard, Earl of Arundel, executor of the will of Alesie [Aleise], widow and executrix of Edmund, late Earl of Arundel, sued William son and heir of Ellis de Cheyney, of Tortington, Sussex in the Court of Common Pleas, in a plea that he render to him and Roger Husee and Joan his wife, co-executrix with the said Richard of the will of the said earl, a debt of £70. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/310, image 44f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no310/aCP40no310fronts/IMG_0044.htm).
We learn from the above lawsuit that Aleise [Latin form: Alesie] de Warenne, Countess of Arundel, died before Easter term 1337. She is named as the widow and executrix of Edmund, late Earl of Arundel. Her own executor is named as her son, Richard, Earl of Arundel, which agrees with the Patent Roll item cited above. But we also learn that Earl Richard served as executor of the will of his father, along with Joan, wife of Roger Husee. Due to the context of this lawsuit, it seems certain to me that Joan Husee was another child of Edmund, Earl of Arundel, and his wife, Aleise de Warenne.
But who is Joan Husee? To answer that question, I turned to the account of Sir Roger Husee, Lord Husee, in Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 12–14 (sub Husee). There we learn that Sir Roger Husee, born 1305, died 1361, married before 13 Feb. 1350/1 to Margery, widow of Herbert de Saint Quintin. No mention is made of an earlier marriage for Sir Roger Husee in the 1330's, but such a marriage is certainly plausible.
So was Joan, wife of Roger Husee, mentioned in the 1337 lawsuit the daughter of Edmund, Earl of Arundel? To answer that question I turned to Allen, History and Antiquities of London, Westminster, Southwark, and Parts Adjacent 3 (1839): 543. The author gives a list of the "eminent persons" buried in the church of the Black Friars, London, including the following individuals: "William and Dame Jane Huse, children to Dame Ellis, countess of Arundel. And by them lieth Dame Ellis, daughter to the earl of Warren, and afterwards countess Arundel."
This item may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3fo-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543
So here we have record of the burial of Dame Jane Husee and she is clearly identified as the daughter of Aleise [here called Ellis] de Warenne, Countess of Arundel. Also, being styled "dame" in this record, we learn that Jane Husee was the wife of a knight or a peer. This agrees with her husband being Sir Roger Husee, Lord Husee.
Insofar as the given name of the Countess of Arundel is concerned, we see above that Complete Peerage calls her Alice. The lawsuit calls her Alesie [Aleise in vernacular]. And Allen calls her Ellis. So what was her name?
National Archives, SC 8/246/12263 is the petition of Richard, Earl of Arundel to the king dated 1349. The modern archivist indicates that this records names Earl Richard's parents, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, and Alice his wife.
This petition may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9439869#imageViewerLink
On line 7 of the petition the name of Earl Richard's mother is given as Aleise (not Alice).
Are the names Alice and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin forms: Alesia/Alesie] the same name? Matthew Tompkins raised this question time ago on the newsgroup. At the time, I noted that women known as Aleise/Aleyse [Latin forms: Alesia/Alesie] are sometimes styled Alicia [i.e., Alice] in contemporary medieval records. I assumed that the two names were interchangeable. However, after further studying this matter, I now believe Alice and Aleise/Aleyse were separate and distinct given names. At a later date, hopefully I can discuss the evidence which indicates this is the case.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Edmund de Arundel (or Fitz Alan), Earl of Arundel, and his wife, Aleise de Warenne:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 1 (1910): 241–242 (sub Arundel) includes an account of Sir Edmund de Arundel (or Fitz Alan), Earl of Arundel, who was beheaded in 1326. Regarding his marriage and death, the following information is given:
"He married, in 1305, while still a minor, Alice, only daughter of William de Warenne (only son and heir apparent of John, Earl of Surrey and Sussex), by Joan, daughter of Robert (de Vere), Earl of Oxford. Having been captured in Shropshire by the Queen's party, he was, without trial, beheaded at Hereford, 17 Nov. 1326, in his 42nd year. He was subsequently attainted, when his estates and honours became forfeited. His widow (who, in her issue was, in 1347, sole heiress of her brother John, Earl of Surrey and Sussex, and consequently of the great family of Warenne) was living in 1330, but died before 23 May 1338." END OF QUOTE.
The above information is correct, but the only documentation provided in the notes concerns a record involving the death date of Alice, wife of Earl Edmund, namely Patent Roll, 12 Edward III, pars ii, m. 33." This reference can be converted into the modern citation, namely Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1338–1340 (1895):83, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406;view=1up;seq=93
This record reads as follows:
Date: 23 May 1338.
Pardon, on a like certificate, to John Duraunt, chaplain, of his outlawry in the county of Sussex for non-appearance before the justices of the Bench to answer touching a plea of Richard, earl of Arundel, executor of the will of Alice, late the wife of Edmund, Earl of Arundel, that he render an account for the time wherein he was receiver of the said Alice. END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above record that Alice, Countess of Arundel, died testate before 23 May 1338, and that her executor was her son, Richard, Earl of Arundel. So far, so good.
Recently I encountered a Common Pleas lawsuit which proves that Alice, Countess of Arundel, died before Easter term 1337, as indicated by the following lawsuit abstract:
Date: Easter term 1337. Sussex. Richard, Earl of Arundel, executor of the will of Alesie [Aleise], widow and executrix of Edmund, late Earl of Arundel, sued William son and heir of Ellis de Cheyney, of Tortington, Sussex in the Court of Common Pleas, in a plea that he render to him and Roger Husee and Joan his wife, co-executrix with the said Richard of the will of the said earl, a debt of £70. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/310, image 44f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no310/aCP40no310fronts/IMG_0044.htm).
We learn from the above lawsuit that Aleise [Latin form: Alesie] de Warenne, Countess of Arundel, died before Easter term 1337. She is named as the widow and executrix of Edmund, late Earl of Arundel. Her own executor is named as her son, Richard, Earl of Arundel, which agrees with the Patent Roll item cited above. But we also learn that Earl Richard served as executor of the will of his father, along with Joan, wife of Roger Husee. Due to the context of this lawsuit, it seems certain to me that Joan Husee was another child of Edmund, Earl of Arundel, and his wife, Aleise de Warenne.
But who is Joan Husee? To answer that question, I turned to the account of Sir Roger Husee, Lord Husee, in Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 12–14 (sub Husee). There we learn that Sir Roger Husee, born 1305, died 1361, married before 13 Feb. 1350/1 to Margery, widow of Herbert de Saint Quintin. No mention is made of an earlier marriage for Sir Roger Husee in the 1330's, but such a marriage is certainly plausible.
So was Joan, wife of Roger Husee, mentioned in the 1337 lawsuit the daughter of Edmund, Earl of Arundel? To answer that question I turned to Allen, History and Antiquities of London, Westminster, Southwark, and Parts Adjacent 3 (1839): 543. The author gives a list of the "eminent persons" buried in the church of the Black Friars, London, including the following individuals: "William and Dame Jane Huse, children to Dame Ellis, countess of Arundel. And by them lieth Dame Ellis, daughter to the earl of Warren, and afterwards countess Arundel."
This item may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3fo-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543
So here we have record of the burial of Dame Jane Husee and she is clearly identified as the daughter of Aleise [here called Ellis] de Warenne, Countess of Arundel. Also, being styled "dame" in this record, we learn that Jane Husee was the wife of a knight or a peer. This agrees with her husband being Sir Roger Husee, Lord Husee.
Insofar as the given name of the Countess of Arundel is concerned, we see above that Complete Peerage calls her Alice. The lawsuit calls her Alesie [Aleise in vernacular]. And Allen calls her Ellis. So what was her name?
National Archives, SC 8/246/12263 is the petition of Richard, Earl of Arundel to the king dated 1349. The modern archivist indicates that this records names Earl Richard's parents, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, and Alice his wife.
This petition may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9439869#imageViewerLink
On line 7 of the petition the name of Earl Richard's mother is given as Aleise (not Alice).
Are the names Alice and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin forms: Alesia/Alesie] the same name? Matthew Tompkins raised this question time ago on the newsgroup. At the time, I noted that women known as Aleise/Aleyse [Latin forms: Alesia/Alesie] are sometimes styled Alicia [i.e., Alice] in contemporary medieval records. I assumed that the two names were interchangeable. However, after further studying this matter, I now believe Alice and Aleise/Aleyse were separate and distinct given names. At a later date, hopefully I can discuss the evidence which indicates this is the case.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Edmund de Arundel (or Fitz Alan), Earl of Arundel, and his wife, Aleise de Warenne:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John Watson
Feb 28, 2017, 6:29:40 AM2/28/17
to
An interesting find. It appears that before marrying Roger Husee, Joan de Arundel may have been married to Robert de Etchingham who died about 1329.
VCH Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, under Padbury states that, "in 1334 Nicholas and Joan de la Beche made good their rights against Joan widow of Robert Etchingham, who had married Roger Husee and claimed dower in the manor of Padbury" [64].
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp209-215
The reference for this statement is:
[64] De Banco R. 287, m. 196. The plea dragged on from Mich. 5 Edw. III to Mich. 8 Edw. III.
The record of this plea (or at least the first part of it) can be seen here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no287/aCP40no287fronts/IMG_0396.htm
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
Feb 28, 2017, 1:28:40 PM2/28/17
to
Nice work, John. Great find. I figured that my post would generate additional evidence that Sir Roger Husee had an earlier wife named Joan (or Jane). I wasn't expecting that Joan was married previously to Robert de Echingham.
What do you know of Robert de Echingham?
Thanks for sharing your information with the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
What do you know of Robert de Echingham?
Thanks for sharing your information with the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Jan Wolfe
Feb 28, 2017, 1:35:56 PM2/28/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:28:40 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Nice work, John. Great find. I figured that my post would generate additional evidence that Sir Roger Husee had an earlier wife named Joan (or Jane). I wasn't expecting that Joan was married previously to Robert de Echingham.
>
> What do you know of Robert de Echingham?
>
> Thanks for sharing your information with the newsgroup.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
...
> Nice work, John. Great find. I figured that my post would generate additional evidence that Sir Roger Husee had an earlier wife named Joan (or Jane). I wasn't expecting that Joan was married previously to Robert de Echingham.
>
> What do you know of Robert de Echingham?
>
> Thanks for sharing your information with the newsgroup.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
See http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/Echyngham.pdf (p. 17)
Douglas Richardson
Feb 28, 2017, 1:50:09 PM2/28/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:
< VCH Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, under Padbury states that, "in 1334 Nicholas and < Joan de la Beche made good their rights against Joan widow of Robert
< Etchingham, who had married Roger Husee and claimed dower in the manor of
< Padbury" [64].
< http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp209-215
<
< The reference for this statement is:
< [64] De Banco R. 287, m. 196. The plea dragged on from Mich. 5 Edw. III to
< Mich. 8 Edw. III.
>
> The record of this plea (or at least the first part of it) can be seen here:
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no287/aCP40no287fronts/IMG_0396.htm
The first part of this rather lengthy lawsuit reads as follows:
< Etchingham, who had married Roger Husee and claimed dower in the manor of
< Padbury" [64].
< http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp209-215
<
< The reference for this statement is:
< [64] De Banco R. 287, m. 196. The plea dragged on from Mich. 5 Edw. III to
< Mich. 8 Edw. III.
>
> The record of this plea (or at least the first part of it) can be seen here:
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no287/aCP40no287fronts/IMG_0396.htm
Date: Michaelmas term 1331
Buckinghamshire.
Roger Husee and Joan his wife by William de Norwik their attorney sued Nicholas de la Beche [in the Court of Common Pleas] regarding the third part of the manor of Padbury with appurtenances in Padbury as the right of dower of the said Joan of the dotation of Ribert de Echyngham formerly her husband.
Calendar of Close Rolls, 1327-1330 (1896): 407-408 reads in part as follows:
Date: 16 July 1328. "Simon de Echyngham acknowledges that he owes to Joan, late the wife of Robert de Echyngham, 3,000l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Sussex. - Robert de Bardelby received the acknowledgement by writ." END OF QUOTE.
Thus it would appear that Sir Roger Husee married Joan de Arundel, widow of Robert de Echingham, after 16 July 1328 (date of Close Roll item) and before Michaelmas term 1331 (date of lawsuit). Joan, wife of Sir Roger Husee, was living Easter term 1337.
Adrian
May 3, 2017, 10:05:05 AM5/3/17
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Looking at this message from February, the extract from Allen is using
the same wording as is in John Stow's Survey of London, except that Stow
refers to "Jane Huse" not "Dame Jane Huse" (page 304 of the Everyman
History edition and also in the Tufts Digital Library edition edited by
Lethbridge Kingsford)
Adrian
the same wording as is in John Stow's Survey of London, except that Stow
refers to "Jane Huse" not "Dame Jane Huse" (page 304 of the Everyman
History edition and also in the Tufts Digital Library edition edited by
Lethbridge Kingsford)
Adrian
0 new messages