Henry de Vere (ca 1146-ca. 1194) Lord of Drayton: married Hildeburge or

[Michael Rochester]

Hi: One of my ancestors, Henry de Vere, Lord of Drayton is shown on genealogics website to have married a woman named Hildeburg

https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00451626&tree=LEO

However, on wikitree, which I use as a secondary source for biographical information and skeletal information to verify later, claims Matilda (Cailly) de Bois. I emailed the author of the profile and he responded to me.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Vere-158

He wrote, "Daniel Power's 2004 book on the Norman Frontier is one source. p.486, viewable on Google Books, https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=Vlts5rwsNosC&q=Cailly#v=snippet&q=Cailly&f=false. Power did a lot of original research on families with lands on the Norman frontier, using French archives extensively: in this case, the archives of Seine-Maritime. See footnote 7 on p. 486. The source he refers to is not on the web: one would have to visit the archives to double check what Power says. It refers to Matilda as widow of "Henry de Ver".

Is it now establised that Henry Lord Drayton married Matilda Cailly? I assume Hildeburga was from these sources:

[S00058] The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden.
10:Append9:J page 114

[S03850] The House of Greene London, 1685 , Halstead, Robert.

If anybody can assert the provinence of either woman married Drayton I would love to know.

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

The book by Daniel Power, in its tree for the Baudemont family on p. 486, has another reference that actually provides a lot more information. To sum up that information - Matilda Cailly in fact married a Henry de Ver, but this Henry de Ver is likely not the Henry Lord Drayton you are looking for, as the Henry de Ver who married Matilda Cailly had only one son and heir who died without issue.

The reference of interest is "MRSN, ii, cxi-cxvi". MRSN resolves to Magni Rotuli Scaccari Normanniae sub regibus angliae (i.e., the Norman Pipe Rolls, which were published in 1840-44). The relevant discussion (on p. cxii-cxiv of the introduction to volume 2) can be found at https://archive.org/details/MagniRotuliScaccariiNormanniaeSubRegibusAngliae.Volume2.1844/page/n117/mode/2up.

In essence, the evidence appears to be as follows: (1) on 22 Sep 1204 King John ordered the land at Mutford held by Reginald de Bosco in right of his wife Matildis, relict of Henry de Vere (who at his decease had left a son and heir who was still a minor in 1204), to be delivered to Stephen de Longchamp [who had married Matildis's sister]. (2) on 9 Jan 1207 both the heir [that is, Henry de Vere's son] and the land at Mutford was ordered to be delivered into the hands of Robert Fitz-Roger, who also received the right of the heir's marriage. (3) a writ on 30 Jan 1207 specified that Robert Fitz-Roger was to receive the land that had been Henry de Ver's in Mutford and Cressingham. (4) in an inquest held pursuant to a writ dated 27 Jan 1221 it was determined that half ("a moiety") of Mutford was held by a Henry de Vere [this therefore must have been the son and heir who was still a minor in 1204]. (5) on 7 Feb 1233 the whole vill of Mutford reverted to the crown after this Henry de Vere had died without issue.

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

> > If anybody can assert the provinence of either woman married Drayton I would love to know.
> The book by Daniel Power, in its tree for the Baudemont family on p. 486, has another reference that actually provides a lot more information. To sum up that information - Matilda Cailly in fact married a Henry de Ver, but this Henry de Ver is likely not the Henry Lord Drayton you are looking for, as the Henry de Ver who married Matilda Cailly had only one son and heir who died without issue.
>

The wikitree entry for your Henry de Vere's grandson Henry (de Vere) de Drayton (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Vere-256) has a reference to Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley: Their Ancestors and Descendants (published 1878), which on pp. 48-49 has a "Pedigree of Drayton and Lovett" (viewable at https://books.google.com/books?id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA50&dq=Robert%20de%20Vere%20Drayton%20Manor&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false). This pedigree shows that Henry de Vere had only one son with Matilda de Cailly, who died unmarried 1232. But it also shows this Henry de Vere as having a son Walter de Drayton from an unnamed first wife, this son Walter dying in 1210 and being the ancestor of the Draytons. No idea what the sources or evidences for this might be.

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

There is also another pedigree published in 1847 (at https://archive.org/details/historyantiquiti01lips/page/n86/mode/2up?view=theater) showing Walter de Vere, who took the name and arms of Drayton in 5 Ric. I (i.e., 1193/94) and died 1210, as the son of Henry de Vere and Hildeburga; the sources for this pedigree are stated to be "Halstead's Genealogies, Hatton MSS., Inquis. post mort. &c." (in other words, it will take considerable work to determine what the actual evidences are).

[wjhonson]

The Barony of Mutford in Suffolk did not descend to Walter, because Walter was by a prior wife, Hildeberge
The Barony was the inheritence of Henry de Vere's second wife and when the only son of *this* marriage d.s.p. it would not go to his half-brother

[wjhonson]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 3:35:07 PM UTC-8, wjhonson wrote:
> The Barony of Mutford in Suffolk did not descend to Walter, because Walter was by a prior wife, Hildeberge
> The Barony was the inheritence of Henry de Vere's second wife and when the only son of *this* marriage d.s.p. it would not go to his half-brother

See

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogical_Memoirs_of_the_Extinct_Fami/oGMBAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA47&printsec=frontcover

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 1:06:30 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi: One of my ancestors, Henry de Vere, Lord of Drayton is shown on genealogics website to have married a woman named Hildeburg
>
> https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00451626&tree=LEO
>
> However, on wikitree, which I use as a secondary source for biographical information and skeletal information to verify later, claims Matilda (Cailly) de Bois. I emailed the author of the profile and he responded to me.
>
> https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Vere-158
>
> He wrote, "Daniel Power's 2004 book on the Norman Frontier is one source. p.486, viewable on Google Books, https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=Vlts5rwsNosC&q=Cailly#v=snippet&q=Cailly&f=false. Power did a lot of original research on families with lands on the Norman frontier, using French archives extensively: in this case, the archives of Seine-Maritime. See footnote 7 on p. 486. The source he refers to is not on the web: one would have to visit the archives to double check what Power says. It refers to Matilda as widow of "Henry de Ver".
>
> Is it now establised that Henry Lord Drayton married Matilda Cailly? I assume Hildeburga was from these sources:
>
> [S00058] The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden.
> 10:Append9:J page 114

All CP says of Henry is part of a single sentence. Referring to Robert (third son of Aubrey) it says "by his first wife (unknown) he had 2 sons, Henry and William; from Henry descended the Veres of Drayton . . ."

Note - CP can be viewed online with a free login here: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/271412?availability=Family%20History%20Library

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 1:06:30 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi: One of my ancestors, Henry de Vere, Lord of Drayton is shown on genealogics website to have married a woman named Hildeburg

> He wrote, "Daniel Power's 2004 book on the Norman Frontier is one source. p.486, . . .

> Is it now establised that Henry Lord Drayton married Matilda Cailly? I assume Hildeburga was from these sources:

Given that Power gives Matilda's mother as Hildeburge de Baudemont, (p. 486) I have to wonder if someone hasn't erroneously transferred to Henry de Vere's first wife the actual name of his second wife's mother.

taf

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

That is actually what Wikitree did initally - see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/563585/mother-of-walter-de-vere. So the question is whether Halstead did that as well (since that seems to be the source of the 1847 pedigree for this).

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 3:52:01 PM UTC-8, Carl-Henry Geschwind wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > Given that Power gives Matilda's mother as Hildeburge de Baudemont, (p. 486) I have to wonder if someone hasn't erroneously transferred to Henry de Vere's first wife the actual name of his second wife's mother.

> That is actually what Wikitree did initally - see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/563585/mother-of-walter-de-vere. So the question is whether Halstead did that as well (since that seems to be the source of the 1847 pedigree for this).

I note that Blomefield wrote "Henry married a Daughter and Heir of Hildeburg, who was Daughter and Heir of Baldric de Bosco or Bois. . . ." I could easily see that getting sloppily misread.

taf

[wjhonson]

I'm somewhat in agreement here. Once I saw the clear evidence from Magni Rotuli that Matilda was the daughter of Hildeburg, I thought the same thing. I'm going to go back to mark the first wife as *unknown* for now.

The two co-heiresses of Osbert de Cailly were this Matilda, and her sister Parnel wife to Stephen Longchamp.

Matilda went on to marry Reginald du Bois and they were both living, as a couple, in 1212

[taf]

Having found Halstead online, I am all the more certain that 1) he is the source of this information, and that 2) it results from just such a mistake as I have suggested. Halstead says of Henry: "He had in Marriage, with one of the Daughters of a great Lady, whose name was Hildeburga the Mannor of Mutford, and thirty pounds Land in Ampton, which she held of the Barony of Bouden, that did belong to her Father Baldwin of Boxo, a great Lord of that time."
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?cc=eebo2;c=eebo2;idno=a54500.0001.001;seq=276;vid=56582;page=root;view=text

It is clear that when he says "one of the Daughters of a great Lady, whose name was Hildeburga" and refers to her father Baldwin de Boxo, he is referring to the 'great lady' who was mother of his wife, and not to the wife herself, yet the poor choice of phrasing just begs to be misread.

taf

[wjhonson]

After Parnel's first husband Stephen de Longchamp was slain a the battle of Bouvines (9 Feb 1214) she then marries a Geoffrey du Bois.

It's a little curious that both sisters were now married to men named du Bois and I wonder if they might not be brothers.

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 7:13:33 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> After Parnel's first husband Stephen de Longchamp was slain a the battle of Bouvines (9 Feb 1214) she then marries a Geoffrey du Bois.
>
> It's a little curious that both sisters were now married to men named du Bois and I wonder if they might not be brothers.

Yes, the Magni Rotuli do mention that they were brothers (ii: cxv, at https://archive.org/details/MagniRotuliScaccariiNormanniaeSubRegibusAngliae.Volume2.1844/page/n119/mode/2up). But the footnotes to the pedigree in Power's book at https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=Vlts5rwsNosC&q=Cailly#v=snippet&q=Cailly&f=false states that there was a conflation here of Petronilla, wife of Geoffrey du Bois, and the widow of Stephen de Longchamp, who according to Power was an Alice de Cailly.

[Peter Stewart]

There appears to be a questionable coincidence of the name Hildeburga,
which was not very common by the late-12th/early-13th century in
Normandy - according to Daniel Power, the mother of Matilda de Cailly
was named Hildeburga and she was living in 1211, i.e. years after the
death of Matilda's first husband Henry de Ver. Perhaps Leo's source had
muddled mother with daughter in connection with him.

In the cartulary of Beaubec referenced by Power Matilda was identified
in 1199 as daughter of Osbert de Cailly and sister of Alicia the wife of
Stephen de Longchamp, with no mention of any husband (living or
deceased) of Matilda, and no suggestion of any son with prospective
rights in the property she was jointly donating to the abbey. By 1215
she was married to Reinald de Nemore (or de Bosco), who had died by 1223
when she was a widow. This suggests that her marriage to Henry de Ver
occurred between ca 1200-1204, in which case he could not have been the
lord of Drayton who allegedly died in 1194.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

I have just realized that Powers is here suggesting that there were *three* co-heiresses, not the two from Magni Totuli

[wjhonson]

But here

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Magni_Rotuli_Scaccarii_Normanniae_Sub_Re/DPwUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hildeburg%20lady%20of%20beaudemont&pg=PR117&printsec=frontcover&bsq=petron

it certainly seems like they are quoting some actual document when they make Petronilla and Geoffrey du Bois yet living in 1220 (when they are granting jointly) instead of Power's saying she was dead by 1202

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

Power in fn. 6 to the family tree gives a quote clearly showing that Petronilla, daughter of Osbert de Cailly, was already Geoffrey du Bois's wife in 1194, so I don't see how she could have been the widow of Stephen de Longchamp - was that an editorial gloss in the Magni Rotuli extract?

On the other hand, that extract you quote clearly shows that she was still married to Geoffrey du Bois in 1220. Power's evidence that she died in 1202 (as given in his fn. 6) is that by 1202 Geoffrey du Bois was (re)married to an Agnes Biset - but might that Geoffrey (lord of Bretizel, as shown in Power's Table 8) have been a different Geoffrey "of the forest"?

[wjhonson]

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-8, Carl-Henry Geschwind wrote:

>
> On the other hand, that extract you quote clearly shows that she was still married to Geoffrey du Bois in 1220. Power's evidence that she died in 1202 (as given in his fn. 6) is that by 1202 Geoffrey du Bois was (re)married to an Agnes Biset - but might that Geoffrey (lord of Bretizel, as shown in Power's Table 8) have been a different Geoffrey "of the forest"?

https://www.dhi.ac.uk/normans/viewPerson.jsp?id=189
Does not show a date for this grant including these two jointly
I wonder how he got 1202 ?

[Michael Rochester]

Thanks all for the feedback, as the book looked well documented from the snippets I saw when I perused it. It does look good, but perhaps for other lines of which descent are more solid.

! I am glad I hesitated before adding this woman, although she can be added as a spouse, not a mother of more Draytons with descendants. I already had a couple of lengthy Crispin lines in my tree, so this would have just repeated more lines over again. Lucky me! Appreciated.

[Michael Rochester]

Peter, I wondered that myself...perhaps the pedigree /Visitation chronicler recorded the wrong generation, and added it to the tree (as a possible explanation, when I first came across this line). I have seen generations added, and deleted, thus I use these pedigrees as a skeletal aid, at least the ones where "the bottom" people are at least 7-8 generations or 150 years after the recording.

[wjhonson]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Magni_Rotuli_Scaccarii_Normanniae_Sub_Re/DPwUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hildeburg%20lady%20of%20beaudemont&dq=hildeburg%20lady%20of%20beaudemont&pg=PR112&printsec=frontcover

States that Agnes wife to Goelles de Baudemont, was the sister of Joscelin Crispin

Meanwhile

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellaneous_writings_ed_by_A_B_Grimald/xT19euFnhaIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22joscelin%20crispin%22&pg=PA351&printsec=frontcover&bsq=%22joscelin%20crispin%22

states that Joscelin Crispin was the son of
William Crispin, Lord of /Bec/ who was the third son of his father
Gilbert, Count of /Brionne/ and Eu 1041- , Normandy, M; murdered in 1041

http://books.google.com/books?id=k7IKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA99
CP, "Devon"

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/normacre.htm#GeoffreyBrionnedied1015B

http://www.orbilat.com/Romance_Onomastics/Personal/Romance/Rom-C.html

[Peter Stewart]

On 04-Mar-21 12:52 PM, wjhonson wrote:
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Magni_Rotuli_Scaccarii_Normanniae_Sub_Re/DPwUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hildeburg%20lady%20of%20beaudemont&dq=hildeburg%20lady%20of%20beaudemont&pg=PR112&printsec=frontcover
>
> States that Agnes wife to Goelles de Baudemont, was the sister of Joscelin Crispin
>
> Meanwhile
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellaneous_writings_ed_by_A_B_Grimald/xT19euFnhaIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22joscelin%20crispin%22&pg=PA351&printsec=frontcover&bsq=%22joscelin%20crispin%22
>
> states that Joscelin Crispin was the son of
> William Crispin, Lord of /Bec/ who was the third son of his father
> Gilbert, Count of /Brionne/ and Eu 1041- , Normandy, M; murdered in 1041

This is hopelessly confused, in name's-the-same identification and in
chronology.

Agnes the wife of Goël de Baudemont was sister of Joscelin Crispin whose
father was Guillaume III of Le Bec: they were grandchildren of Guillaume
I of Le Bec (who died as a monk after 1076) and his wife Eva de Montfort.

Guillaume I was the second son of Gilbert Crispin, castellan of
Tillières, by Gunnor whose mother was a niece of Gilbert of Brionne
murdered in 1040/41.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I forgot to add that the Crispin family is tabulated by Daniel Power in
the book cited upthread, p. 495.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

"Halstead's Genealogies" refers to *Succinct Genealogies* (London, 1695)
that was published in an edition of just 24 copies under the name Robert
Halstead but actually compiled by Henry Mordaunt, earl of Peterborough
and his chaplain.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

It doesn't appear that p 495 can be viewed from my link
But I think I've figured out the line
Disconnected here

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/enguntac.htm#GuillaumeICrispindied1074

however it seems that Joscelin and his sister Agnes should be added right there where the line stops at William III

I now have Agnes needing to be born between 1100 and 1149

The confusion came when it was stated in one source that Hildeburg the lady of Baudemont had inherited from Baudemar whom I thought would be her father, not her brother.

By the way, Cawley has that William II witnessed a charter dated to 1077, that seems very early.
Could William be as young as say seven years old and be a witness?

I ask because one source states that his parents were married bef 1077 which seems an odd statement if their own son is a witness that same year. Surely we can say they were married quite much earlier.

[Peter Stewart]

Cawley is worse than useless - his chronology is whacky.

Guillaume II died ca 1100 according to Daniel Power. His father
Guillaume I became a monk from 1076 by when his wife was probably dead,
so was obviously married well before 1077, and his son Guillaume III was
betrothed to Jeanne de Trèves by November 1114. I don't see a problem
with his witnessing a charter in 1077, as an adult.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 04-Mar-21 5:05 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> Guillaume III was betrothed to Jeanne de Trèves by November 1114.

Correction - by December 1114. For some reason I can't work out the
19th-century editor misdated the 1114 charter in which Guillaume is
stated to have been obliged to marry Jeanne to 14 November instead of 21
December.

Peter Stewart

[Michael Cayley]

Another source for Henry de Vere who held Mutford: Copinger's Manors of Suffolk, Vil. V, pp. 86 and 89, viewable on Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/manorsofsuffolkn05copiuoft/page/n5/mode/2up?q=vere. To save others looking this up,

- p. 86 says of Mutford, Suffolk, "Henry de Vere, who possessed the other moiety of this manor, [footnote: T. de N. 300] left an only son, Henry de Vere, who died without issue, so that having no heirs his share also fell to the Crown.

- p. 89 says of the manor of Soca Luvel, "On the Close Rolls in 1206 we find an order to let Stephen de Longo Campo have land which belonged to Reginald de Bosco in Mutford, unless its value were more than £12 [footnote: Close Rolls, 6 John, 16, 167]: and also an order to give seisin for the King of lands in Mutford which belonged to Henry de Vere, and which had been delivered to Stephen de Longo Campo, and deliver same to Peter de Stoke. [footnote: ib. 13] Three years later on the same Rolls we find an order to restore to Stephen de Longo Campo lands in Mutford, if any, which had been seised and held by him in right of his wife. [footnote: Close Rolls, 6 John, 16, II ; 9 John, 12] There is also an order on the Close Rolls in 1209 to let R., the son of Roger, have lands which belonged to Henry de Vere in this place. [footnote: Close Rolls, 9 John, 17]"

Stephen de Longchamp's wife was Matilda de Cailly's sister Alice.

To sum up the discussion so far on the original question, there seem to be two possibilities:

1.There were two different Henry de Veres, one who married Matilda de Cailly and the other who was ancestor of the de Veres of Drayton and who may have married a Hildeburga (or variant spellings thereof)

2. Henry de Vere had two wives, as shown in some sources, one possibly named Hildeburga, and the other Matilda de Cailly

[Peter Stewart]

On 04-Mar-21 5:05 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

My own chronology in this post was offbeat - Guillaume I became a monk
of Bec abbey just before his death on 8 January 1074 and his wife Eva
was living at the time. She was later veiled as a widow and died on 23
January 1099.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 2:54:16 AM UTC-8, michae...@gmail.com wrote:

> To sum up the discussion so far on the original question, there seem to be two possibilities:
>
> 1.There were two different Henry de Veres, one who married Matilda de Cailly and the other
> who was ancestor of the de Veres of Drayton and who may have married a Hildeburga (or
> variant spellings thereof)

I think at this point, given the easily misread Halstead text and the seeming absence of any alternative origin for this information, I think saying he 'may have married a Hildeburga', even couched as a possibility, is giving too much weight to what seems clearly to have been nothing but a misreading.

(I have sent a correction to genealogics)

taf

[Michael Cayley]

I agree, on reflection. I have been substantially revising Henry de Vere's entry on WikiTree and refer to this as a misreading.

[Peter Stewart]

On 04-Mar-21 12:02 PM, Carl-Henry Geschwind wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 7:44:54 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
>> But here
>>
>> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Magni_Rotuli_Scaccarii_Normanniae_Sub_Re/DPwUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hildeburg%20lady%20of%20beaudemont&pg=PR117&printsec=frontcover&bsq=petron
>>
>> it certainly seems like they are quoting some actual document when they make Petronilla and Geoffrey du Bois yet living in 1220 (when they are granting jointly) instead of Power's saying she was dead by 1202
>
> Power in fn. 6 to the family tree gives a quote clearly showing that Petronilla, daughter of Osbert de Cailly, was already Geoffrey du Bois's wife in 1194, so I don't see how she could have been the widow of Stephen de Longchamp - was that an editorial gloss in the Magni Rotuli extract?
>

Yes, Stapleton had evidently not seen the cartulary of Beaubec and had a
mistaken fixed idea that Petronilla and Alicia were the same person. As
Power indicated, Petronilla was married to Geoffrey de Bosco by 1194
while Alicia's husband Stephen de Longchamp donated from Cailly property
to Beaubec in 1198 ("Stephanus de Longo Campo de donatione omnium que
habebat in haia Gonnor ... Actum anno quo Otho nepos Ricardi regis
unctus est in regem. Aelicia uxor predicti Stephani ...").

> On the other hand, that extract you quote clearly shows that she was still married to Geoffrey du Bois in 1220. Power's evidence that she died in 1202 (as given in his fn. 6) is that by 1202 Geoffrey du Bois was (re)married to an Agnes Biset - but might that Geoffrey (lord of Bretizel, as shown in Power's Table 8) have been a different Geoffrey "of the forest"?
>

Well spotted. However, I'm not certain that the 1220 dating for
Petronilla's donation to Saint-Amand de Rouen is secure. Her charter was
printed by François Pommeraye in his 1662 history of Saint-Amand with
1220 as a marginal gloss, but there is no dating in the text. (Maybe he
guessed the year from its position in the cartulary, following a charter
dated 1219.) There is also nothing at all to substantiate Stapleton's
misleading assumption that she was relict of anyone.

Peter Stewart