Help on Beauchamp line
ED MANN
>
> I have
>
> [1] William de Beauchamp (1197-1267)
> + Isabel Maudit
> [2] William de Beauchamp (1237-1298)
> + Maud FitzJohn
> [3] Isabel de Beauchamp (1252-1306)
> + Hugh le Despencer (1260-1326) m as 2nd Eleanor de Clare
> (1292-1337)
> [2] Isabel Beauchamp (b 1249)
> + William le Blount
>
> The two Isabels' being so close makes me wonder if this is correct?
I have:
Descendants of William de Beauchamp
1 Sir William de Beauchamp aka: 5th Baron Beauchamp b: Abt. 1197 d:
Aft. 7 Jan 1268/69 ref #: BxP:30
+Isabel Mauduit b: Abt. 1227 d: Bef. 1268 ref #: Ä84-28
2 Sir William de Beauchamp aka: 1st Earl of Warwick b: 1237 d: Bef.
22 Jun 1298 ref #: Ä86-29
+Maud FitzJohn d: Abt. 18 Apr 1301 ref #: W4-4
3 [1] Isabel de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1260 d: Bef. Jun 1306 ref #: W4-5
+Sir Patrick de Chaworth aka: Knt. d: Bef. 7 Jul 1283 ref #:
BxP:111
*2nd Husband of [1] Isabel de Beauchamp:
+Sir Hugh le Despencer b: 1 Mar 1260/61 d: 27 Oct 1326 ref #:
BxP:166
3 Sir Guy de Beauchamp aka: 2d Earl of Warwick b: 1278 d: 12 Aug 1315
ref #: W5-5
+Alice de Toeni b: Abt. 1283 d: 8 Jan 1324/25 ref #: W101A-5
2 Sir Walter de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1243 d: 1303 ref #: Ä84-29
+Alice de Toeni d: Aft. 1306 ref #: (Ä84-29)
3 Walter de Beauchamp d: 1328 ref #: BxP:34
3 William de Beauchamp ref #: BxP:34
3 Sir Giles de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1273 d: Oct 1361 ref #: Ä84-30
+Catherine de Bures b: Bef. 1315 d: Aft. 1354 ref #: W57-6
2 Isabel de Beauchamp b: 1236 d: 1306
+Sir William le Blount b: 1233 d: 1316
3 Sir Walter le Blount b: Abt. 1270 d: 1322 ref #: BxP:54
+Johanna de Soddington b: Abt. 1274 ref #: BxP:54
2 Sarah de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1255 d: Aft. 1316 ref #: Ä84A-29
+Richard de Talbot aka: Governor of Cardiff b: 1250 d: Bef. 1306 ref
#: BxP:526
3 Sir Gilbert Talbot aka: 1st Baron Talbot b: 18 Oct 1276 d: 24 Feb
1345/46 ref #: Ä84A-30
+Anne le Boteler ref #: BxP:526
3 Richard Talbot b: Abt. 1278 ref #: BxP:526
+Joane Mortimer ref #: BxP:385
3 Gwenllian Talbot b: Abt. 1282 ref #: BP1:620
+Sir Payne de Turberville aka: Custos of Glamorgan ref #: BP1:620
2 John de Beauchamp d: Aft. 1296 ref #: Ä197-29
3 Richard de Beauchamp d: 1325 ref #: Ä197-30
+Eustache ref #: (Ä197-30)
2 Joan de Beauchamp d: Aft. 1297 ref #: BxP:520
+Sir Bartholomew de Sudeley aka: Knt. d: Abt. 29 Jun 1280 ref #:
Ä222-31
3 Sir John de Sudeley aka: 1st Lord Sudeley b: Abt. 1257 d: 1336 ref
#: Ä222-32
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
Π= Hardy, _Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America_,
[page].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
Kay Robinson
[1] William de Beauchamp (1197-1267)
+ Isabel Maudit
[2] William de Beauchamp (1237-1298)
+ Maud FitzJohn
[3] Isabel de Beauchamp (1252-1306)
+ Hugh le Despencer (1260-1326) m as 2nd Eleanor de Clare
(1292-1337)
[2] Isabel Beauchamp (b 1249)
+ William le Blount
The two Isabels' being so close makes me wonder if this is correct?
Kay
Please note that dial in my sig is spelt wrong
Kay Robinson <ad...@dail.pipex.com>
=================================================
Researching: Ward; Moncreiff; Stafford; Howard;
Eyre; Jones; Blount; Stanley; Fitzherbert
Kay Robinson
>Kay Robinson wrote:
>>
>> I have
>>
>> [1] William de Beauchamp (1197-1267)
>> + Isabel Maudit
>> [2] William de Beauchamp (1237-1298)
>> + Maud FitzJohn
>> [3] Isabel de Beauchamp (1252-1306)
>> + Hugh le Despencer (1260-1326) m as 2nd Eleanor de Clare
>> (1292-1337)
>> [2] Isabel Beauchamp (b 1249)
>> + William le Blount
>>
>> The two Isabels' being so close makes me wonder if this is correct?
>
>I have:
>
>Descendants of William de Beauchamp
>
> 1 Sir William de Beauchamp aka: 5th Baron Beauchamp b: Abt. 1197 d:
>Aft. 7 Jan 1268/69 ref #: BxP:30
> +Isabel Mauduit b: Abt. 1227 d: Bef. 1268 ref #: Ä84-28
Thanks Ed, to the rescue as per normal, you're a knight in shining
armour :-)
Cristopher Nash
>Hello Ed,
>
> You posted:
>>>Descendants of William de Beauchamp
>1 Sir William de Beauchamp aka: 5th Baron Beauchamp b: Abt.
>1197 d: Aft. 7 Jan 1268/69 ref #: BxP:30
> +Isabel Mauduit b: Abt. 1227 d: Bef. 1268 ref #: Ä84-28
>2 Sir William de Beauchamp aka: 1st Earl of Warwick b: 1237 d:
>Bef. 22 Jun 1298 ref #: Ä86-29
> +Maud FitzJohn d: Abt. 18 Apr 1301 ref #: W4-4
>3 [1] Isabel de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1260 d: Bef. Jun 1306
> ref #: W4-5
> +Sir Patrick de Chaworth aka: Knt. d: Bef. 7 Jul 1283
> ref #: BxP:111
>*2nd Husband of [1] Isabel de Beauchamp:
> +Sir Hugh le Despencer b: 1 Mar 1260/61 d: 27 Oct
>1326 ref #: BxP:166
>3 Sir Guy de Beauchamp aka: 2d Earl of Warwick b: 1278 d: 12 Aug
>1315 ref #: W5-5
>*===>+Alice de Toeni b: Abt. 1283 d: 8 Jan 1324/25 ref
>#: W101A-5
>2 Sir Walter de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1243 d: 1303 ref #: Ä84-29
>*===>+Alice de Toeni d: Aft. 1306 ref #: (Ä84-29)
>Since you used two different sources for your information, is there reason
>to believe
>that these two *Alice de-Toeni*s _are_ or _are not_ one and the same?
>Chronologically,
>they could be, as the later *death date* given falls within the range of
>the second *death
>date*. Do you have parents listed for her/them?
>
>And----
>
>>>7 [9] Sir John de Neville aka: 3d Baron Neville of Raby b: Abt.
>>>1331 d: 17 Oct 1388 ref #: W45-6
> +[10] Maud de Percy b: Abt. 1335 d: Bef. 18 Feb
>1378/79 ref #:W8-8
>====>*2nd Wife of [9] Sir John de Neville:
> +Margaret de Fiennes b: Abt. 1262 d: 7 Feb 1333/34
> ref #: Ä120-32<<
>
>Can this possibly be true? or is there another Margaret de-Fiennes?
>I have her as wife of "Edmund de-Mortimer, VII Lord Mortimer of Wigmore"
>who is in
>generation 4 of this chart and mother of Isolde and Sir Roger.
>John de-Neville b. 1331
>Margaret de-Fiennes b. 1262
>
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Harriet Marvin
As you may have guessed, there are a number of individuals named Margaret
de Fiennes, but I think it would be best to note in any case that Margaret
de Fiennes da. of Sir William de Fiennes and wife of Edmund de Mortimer of
Wigmore was not the mother of Isolde/Isolt, whose mother remains unknown.
Cris
Don Stone
> >who is in
> >generation 4 of this chart and mother of Isolde and Sir Roger.
> >John de-Neville b. 1331
> >Margaret de-Fiennes b. 1262
>
> de Fiennes, but I think it would be best to note in any case that Margaret
> de Fiennes da. of Sir William de Fiennes and wife of Edmund de Mortimer of
> Wigmore was not the mother of Isolde/Isolt, whose mother remains unknown.
An article in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register (the
famous author's name escapes me at the moment), vol. 116: 16-7, gives
Isolt as the daughter of Edmund de Mortimer, and this opinion has been
followed by Weis/Sheppard/Faris in Ancestral Roots (9-30, 207-30) and by
Faris in Plantagenet Ancestry (Audley 13). But as I recall, the editor
of the Register, in an introduction to the article, seemed to be happier
with the hypothesis that Isolt was the sister of Edmund de Mortimer,
referring to an article by Josiah Wedgewood entitled "The Parentage of
James de Audley, K.G.". This article appeared in Collections for a
History of Staffordshire, ed. by the William Salt Soc., NS vol. 9, 1906;
on p. 262 Wedgewood says "Hugh d'Audelee, the elder, Baron Audley of
Stratton, b. c. 1260, m. Isolda, probably sister of Edmund Mortimer of
Wigmore and had with her Arley (staffs.) for life." This works well
chronologically (Edmund Mortimer was b. 1261, according to
Weis/Sheppard/Faris), and an otherwise unknown first wife of Edmund is
no longer required. The source which Wedgewood footnotes for Isolda is
"Extracts from the Plea Rolls", by Maj.-Gen. G. Wrottesley, Collections
for a History of Staffordshire, ed. by the William Salt Soc., part 1,
vol. 6, 1885. On p. 250, from the Stafford Assize Roll, 21 Edward I
[1292/3], we read "Hugh de Audelegh and Isolda his wife were summoned to
show their title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren,
fair, market, and wayf in Arlegh. Hugh and Isolda state they held the
manor for term of their lives of the inheritance of Edmund de Mortimart,
without whom they cannot answer; and Edmund being summoned stated one
John de Burgo had the manor with the said liberties and John had given
the manor to Robert Burnel, who conveyed it to the present King, who had
given it to Latard de Heny; and Letard [sic] with the King's license had
given the manor to Roger de Mortimer the father of Edmund, and that from
time out of memory all the said franchises had been annexed to the
manor. The King's attorney disputed the claim, and it was adjourned to
be heard _coram Rege_. m.36 [membrane 36, I suppose]." Note that the
precise relationship between Edmund and Isolda is not specified.
-- Don Stone
Cristopher Nash
Don, I think this old conjecture has always been intriguing. The key, for
me, is the trajectory of [Upper] Arley (which is said to be conveyed to
Roger de Mortimer ca. 1276).
What I have from VCH Worc (Arley) is: "It passed from Roger to his son
Edmund in 1282 [CP V, 379], and was granted by the latter to his daughter
Iseult and her first husband Walter de Balun for their lives. After
Walter's death Iseult married Hugh de Audley, and on his forfeiture in 1322
the manor was granted by the King to Iseult [Cal.Close, 1323-7, p. 467],
who held it until her death about 1339-40 [Abbrev.Rot.Orig. (Rec. Com.),
ii, 130]. The reversion after her death, during the minority of Roger de
Mortimer, had been granted in 1336 to William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton
[Duchy of Lanc. Royal Chart., no. 277], who had married Elizabeth widow of
Edmund de Mortimer, grandson of the Edmund who had granted the manor to
Iseult. [Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271; CP V, 379]. Roger came of age about
1348, but Elizabeth held the manor until her death in 1356, when it passed
to her son Roger [Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271], who had become Earl of March
by the reversal of his grandfather's attainder in 1354 [CP V, 243]."
Unfortunately ambiguous phrasing leaves it unclear how much of the critical
bit (sentence 1) is based on firsthand sight (if indeed hands are gifted
with that faculty) of contemporary documents, how much a potentially blurry
CP précis. Sentence 3 with its "[Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271..." reference
looks tasty, though.
Let's hear what you think.
Cris
Don Stone
>
> Don, I think this old conjecture has always been intriguing. The key, for
> me, is the trajectory of [Upper] Arley (which is said to be conveyed to
> Roger de Mortimer ca. 1276).
>
> What I have from VCH Worc (Arley) is: "It passed from Roger to his son
> Edmund in 1282 [CP V, 379], and was granted by the latter to his daughter
> Iseult and her first husband Walter de Balun for their lives. After
> Walter's death Iseult married Hugh de Audley, and on his forfeiture in 1322
> the manor was granted by the King to Iseult [Cal.Close, 1323-7, p. 467],
> who held it until her death about 1339-40 [Abbrev.Rot.Orig. (Rec. Com.),
> ii, 130]. The reversion after her death, during the minority of Roger de
> Mortimer, had been granted in 1336 to William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton
> [Duchy of Lanc. Royal Chart., no. 277], who had married Elizabeth widow of
> Edmund de Mortimer, grandson of the Edmund who had granted the manor to
> Iseult. [Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271; CP V, 379]. Roger came of age about
> 1348, but Elizabeth held the manor until her death in 1356, when it passed
> to her son Roger [Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271], who had become Earl of March
> by the reversal of his grandfather's attainder in 1354 [CP V, 243]."
>
> Unfortunately ambiguous phrasing leaves it unclear how much of the critical
> bit (sentence 1) is based on firsthand sight (if indeed hands are gifted
> with that faculty) of contemporary documents, how much a potentially blurry
> CP précis. Sentence 3 with its "[Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271..." reference
> looks tasty, though.
>
> Let's hear what you think.
Cris:
I looked up the two references to the Calendars of the Close Rolls
contained in the quote you supplied from the Victoria History of the
County of Worcester (Upper Arley). Neither of these references (quoted
below) gives any information that I can see about Isolde's parentage. I
share your suspicion that the VCH reference to Isolt as a daughter of
Edmund may have come from the old Complete Peerage rather than from
newly-discovered information in primary sources. The new Complete
Peerage, under Audley, gives the following as a reference for the
statement that Isolt was the daughter of Edmund de Mortimer by Margaret
de Fiennes: Addit. MSS, no. 5485, f. 160. Possibly a smoking gun can
be found in this manuscript, or perhaps the identification of Edmund as
father of Isolt was a guess/inference.
-- Don Stone
Cal. Close Rolls, 1323-7, p. 467:
[Membrane 8. 1326. April 12. Kenilworth.] To James de Thiknes, parson
of the church of Estinton, fermor of the lands that belonged to Hugh de
Audeleye, the elder, in the king's hands. Order to deliver to Isolda,
late the wife of the said Hugh, the manor of Arley, co. Stafford,
excepting the weirs in the Severn and the ferry (_passagio_) and the
whole wood within the bounds of the chace of Edmund de Mortuo Mari of
Wyre, and all the lands that belonged to Adam de la Boure in Arleye, as
the king learns by inquisition taken by John de Hampton and Richard de
Haukeslouwe that the aforesaid Hugh held the manor, with the above
exceptions, together with Isolda, and that the aforesaid Edmund granted
the manor to Walter Baloun, formerly the husband of Isolda, and to
Isolda for their lives, and that the manor, with the above exceptions,
was taken into the king's hands by Hugh's forfeiture, and is still in
his hands for this cause, and that neither Walter and Isolda, nor Isolda
when she was single, nor Hugh and Isolda after their marriage remitted
or released her right to any one at any time, or changed her estate in
any way, and that the manor is held of the king in chief, by what
service it is unknown. The king has pardoned Isolda, in consideration
of a fine, the trespass that she and Walter made in acquiring the manor,
with the above exceptions, for life without licence from him and from
the late king, and has granted that she shall hold the same for life
according to the form of the acquisition. By a fine of 10_l_
[pounds]. This fine is enrolled in the great fines under the same
date.
Cal. Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 271:
[Membrane 12. 1356. July 8. Westminster.] To John de Swynnerton,
escheator in the counties of Salop and Stafford and the march of Wales
adjacent to Salop. Order not to intermeddle further with the manors
taken into the king's hand by the death of Elizabeth late wife of
William, earl of Northampton and formerly the wife of Edmund de Mortuo
Mari, tenant in chief, delivering the issues thereof etc. as above, as
the king has learned by divers inquisitions taken by the escheator that
Elizabeth, at her death, held for her life the manor of Arleye in the
county of Stafford and the manor of Clubury in Salop, except the park
and chace adjacent to the manor of Clubury, of the inheritance of Roger
de Mortuo Mari, earl of March, Edmund's son and heir, and the king has
lately taken Roger's homage for all the lands of his inheritance.