Re: Oliver Arundel of Carhayes

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 15, 2000 at 8:00:00 PM UTC+13, Stewart, Peter wrote:
> You wrote:
> Does anyone know who the parents were of Sir Oliver Arundel of
> Carhayes, Cornwall, who married Margaret Arundel, daughter of Raynulph de
> Arundel, Lord Albominster? They had two sons, John Arundel of Trerise, who
> marriedJane Tredannam, & Ralph Arundel of Carshayes, who married Elizabeth
> Seneschal. Birth/death/marriage dates appreciated for both children too, and
> anythingon Elizabeth's Seneschal line, if you have it.
>
> I'm afraid you are out of luck - the early generations of the Arundells are
> hazy at best, and notoriously muddled by secondary sources. Perhaps a
> participant in SMG is working even now in the family's archives held in
> Exeter, and can answer you question definitely, but failing that you can pay
> your money & take your choice.
>
> The most frequently cited references have been:-
>
> 1. *Notes by the 12th Lord Arundell of Wardour on the Family History*,
> edited by ED Webb (London, 1916)
> 2. *The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel.....*, by JP
> Yeatman (London, 1883)
> 3. *The Visitations of the County of Cornwall....*, edited by JL Vivian
>
> I have not seen the first of these. (Can someone tell us if it's worth an
> effort?)
>
> The second is a very lavish production, dedicated to the then lord Arundell
> of Wardour. It is a hideously sycophantic piece of work by a barrister and
> minor historian who could not write for toffee and - to judge from his
> proof-reading - could barely read either. (The man also wrote a feudal
> history of Derbyshire and some other once-popular books.) Yeatman attempts
> to prove that the Arundells were a cadet branch of the d'Aubigny (or de
> Albini) earls of Arundel, and tries to interrrelate their descendants in
> some extra ways to gild the lily. He blithely gives two different versions
> of one bit of the information you are seeking. In a table headed "Pedigree
> of the Family of Albini of England" on page 154 he shows "Sir Oliver de
> Arundel, of Trenarren, ancestor of the Lords Arundel of Trerice" and his
> wife as "Margery, d. and heir of Ralf de Arundel, of Albominster and
> Streeton, 2nd son of John Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel". This Sir Oliver's
> father is given as "Odo de Arundel", the second son of "Sir Renfred de
> Arundel" and "Alice, dau and co-heir of Richard, Pincerna of Conarton".
> However, in another table headed "The Pedigree of the Arundels of Lanherne
> and Wardour shewing the presumed descent from the Earls of Arundel" on page
> 214, Yeatman gives the wife of this Sir Oliver and ancestress of the Trerice
> branch as "Margaret, dau of Robert de Hochesham (?)".
>
> Vivian, expressing doubt over the correct generation, makes the
> corresponding Sir Oliver probably a son of Sir Renfrey de Arundell, who died
> before 14 December 1280, and Alice de la Hurne (Lanherne), heiress of
> Connerton etc. His wife is stated to be Margery, daughter of Rayner de
> Albini, of Stratton who was the son of either an Aubigny (Albini) or
> Fitzalan earl of Arundel.
>
> Both of these sources should now be considered nearly worthless for the
> early Arundells, and a thorough genealogical study of this family is
> overdue. Meanwhile, the best guide is *The Cornish Lands of the Arundells of
> Lanherne, Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries* by HSA Fox and OJ Padel, Devon
> & Cornwall Record Society, new series, volume 41 (Exeter, 2000). There the
> Trerice branch is shown to descend from Ralph Arundell, who died before
> 1369, and his wife Joan, daughter of Michael de Treres. This Ralph, whom
> Yeatman makes a gransdson of the Sir Oliver of Trenarren discussed above,
> was actually the younger (?) son of a John Arundell of the main Lanherne
> branch, though it is not certain to which generation he belonged.
>
> Peter Stewart


Hi Peter,

Currently trying to join the British Nobility Project post 742.
The Arundel, Courtenay and Vincent families of Cornwall are a current interest of mine.

I have the following information:

Sir Oliver Arundel, Lord of Carshay, or the English Castle, who married Margery, daughter and coheiress of Ralph. Lord of Albominster, son of George, Lord Arundel. and the lady Maud his wife, and left a son and heir, Ralph Arundel.

Source: Arundel of Trerice, Cornwall. Page 512 to 514.
A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, enjoying territorial possessions or high official rank; but univested with heritable honours
by Burke, John, 1787-1848. Publication date 1835-38

https://archive.org/details/genealogicalheral01burk/page/512.

Currently unsupported by any other source. I think I have already found errors in this document with other Arundel's.

Regards
Bill Irving (Irving-332)
New Plymouth, New Zealand

[taf]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 2:27:54 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Currently trying to join the British Nobility Project post 742.
> The Arundel, Courtenay and Vincent families of Cornwall are a current
> interest of mine.
>
> I have the following information:
>
> Sir Oliver Arundel, Lord of Carshay, or the English Castle, who married
> Margery, daughter and coheiress of Ralph. Lord of Albominster, son of
> George, Lord Arundel. and the lady Maud his wife, and left a son and heir,
> Ralph Arundel.
>
> Source: Arundel of Trerice, Cornwall. Page 512 to 514.
> A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and
> Ireland, enjoying territorial possessions or high official rank; but
> univested with heritable honours
> by Burke, John, 1787-1848. Publication date 1835-38
>

> Currently unsupported by any other source. I think I have already found
> errors in this document with other Arundel's.

Burkes' Commoners is indeed untrustworthy, similar to the sources Peter described, it is reciting old traditions that have little foundation in primary records. You should note one thing that Peter said, however, and you should go back and give his post another read. Modern analysis of the Arundels of Trerice, in these traditions made to descend from this Oliver, instead derive from the Lanherne branch. Thus not only is the ancestry of Oliver problematic, the lines tracing back to him are.

The first place you should look is at the Cornwall Record Office web site. Their online catalogue includes abstracts of numerous Arundel documents, and at least you can get a feel for how much of the traditional pedigrees can be supported from surviving documentation.

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 4:19:17 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> The first place you should look is at the Cornwall Record Office web site.
> Their online catalogue includes abstracts of numerous Arundel documents,
> and at least you can get a feel for how much of the traditional pedigrees
> can be supported from surviving documentation.

The link for the search page is:
http://crocat.cornwall.gov.uk/DServe/searchpage.htm

I took a quick look, and there are dozens of documents naming Oliver. However, the pedigree presented by Vivian is immediately obliterated. He shows Remfrey Arundell to have married Alice Lanhearne, and by her have Ralph, who married Eve, leaving John. He speculates that Oliver and Otho were two other sons of Renfrey and Alice. However, we find documents indicating that Otho (Odo) was son of Eve, that John was son of Remfrey, yet nonetheless heir of Eve's dower when she died (though in actuality they passed to Alice, who was John's guardian). Ralph had "sons and daughters" when he died, so the most likely reconstruction, just based on these documents, is that rather than Ralph being son of Remfrey, that Remfrey was son of Ralph. This matches the Burkes' account, but then they go and kick Oliver about 150 later than he actually lived - he seems to have been of the generation of Renfrey, active in the second half of the 13th century, but the Burkes put him in the 15th century.

All that aside, you seem to be interested in the potential link to nobility through Oliver's wife, but the accounts of her family in the family history sources looks contrived. For a modern alternative derivation of her, Charles Henderson, Essays in Cornish History, pp. 186-7, describes the passage of Carhays. He writes (reconstructed from snippets),

"Though Carhays was an independent manor in the thirteenth century, and the seat of an important family, its early history is obscure, and has never been unravelled. This is largely due to a confusion of surnames, and the following account is an attempt to explain it in the light of contemporary records. The history of Carhays may be held to begin in the reign of King Henry III, when one John Fitz Ralph was styled Lord of 'Karyshays'. He died in 1242 and seems to have invited the Grey Friars or Franciscans to establish a friary at Bodmin. He was ever after regarded as first founder of their house. He also seems to have founded the Leper Hospital at St. Lawrence, near Bodmin, of which his descendants, the Trevanions, claimed to be patrons in later years. This John Fitz Ralph may be identical with 'John of London', a merchant, who, according to another authority, was the first founder of the Grey Friars at Bodmin. Next we meet with his son, Ranulph fitz John, 'Lord of Cariheys'. This person has puzzled Cornish historians, but I think he is without doubt the same as Ranulph fitz John, surnamed 'de Albo Monasterio', or Blanch-Minster, Lord of Week St. Mary, Stratton, and the Isles of Scilly. The Blanch-Minsters were important people with castles at the three places named. Their assumption of the name Carhays shows that they had some sort of mansion there. Ranulph fitz John left, at least, two daughters, who inherited Carhays and other lands in Bodmin, &c. : Joan, who married John de Kellerion and seems to have had no issue ; Margery, who married Sir Oliver Arundell, a younger son of the Arundells of Treloy (Lanherne), and had issue a son and heir, Ralph Arundell, to whom she made over her share of Carhays; but afterwards, in 1287, dispossessed him and gave her 'whole manor of Cariheys with the mill and lands in Portalan and Pengelly to Roger de Inkepenne and Emmeline his wife for ever'. In 1289 Joan de Kellerion, the other sister, did the same, so that Inkepenne and his wife Emmeline were possessed of the whole. It is possible that Emmeline was an elder sister of Margery and Joan. Roger de Inkepenne had been steward to Edmund Earl of Cornwall, and in 1 2 8 9 he handed over the manor of 'Karyheis' with all its houses, villeins, mills, streams, fisheries, and tin works to his master, the earl, as security for the payment of arrears in his steward's accounts. The earl died in 1299, and at Roger de Inkepenne's request the Crown took possession.

In the meantime the young Ralph Arundell, who had been wrongfully dispossessed, was appealing for restitution of his property. In 1301 he complained that Roger de Inkepenne, when sheriff, had made a forcible entry into his house at Caryhaies, had broken open his coffer, although sealed with the seals of the Archdeacon of Cornwall and Sir Lawrence de Arundell (his father Sir Oliver's executors). Out of the coffer he had stolen two silver cups, one worth 10s., the other called a 'note' (i.e. nut) worth 40s., together with deeds and muniments. He also claimed to be restored to his 'Manor of Kaeryhaes', of which his mother and the Inkepennes had dispossessed him. The jury gave their verdict in his favour and and awarded him £84 damages. Ralph Arundell thus recovered Carhays."

taf

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the information and new sources. I am not concerned with nobility area. This allows me to connect to a project within Wikitree and therefore to access others with similar family(?) interests.

I am interested in the Arundell’s as they seem to be connected to my great grandmother’s Vincent family in Cornwall. Short versions is: Isabel Arundell 1489 – 1542 marries Thomas Trefusis about 1510. Katherine Trefusis married John Bowden 1632. Catherine Bawden marries Caleb James 1737. Catherine James married Hugh Bryant 1769. Mary Bryant marries Charles Vincent 1833. Charles is my 3rd great grandfather.

As I find each new family connection I try to research and add to Wikitree these new ancestors. Just completed my Trefusis / Tefuses family entries into Wikitree. My interest lies in my own genealogical family tree. I would like to make sure that any information within Wikitree, that my family is connected to, is researched correctly and supported by reliable sources.

By the 14th C the Cornwall Arundel / Arundell’s seem to be sorted into different groups:
Arudnell of Lanherene
Arundell of Trerice
Arundell of Tolverne
Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 02 Arundell of Cornwall by Walter Hawken Tregellas https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arundell_of_Cornwall_(DNB00)

I assume that they all start out from the same source during the reign of William I? As they acquire, by whatever means, land and manors, the family splits into its various groups. So there must be some common areas that can be agreed on and some that are under dispute. Therefore some names and connections can be proven by existing documents.

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

I notice you have not mentioned the Visitation of Cornwall in 1620. This mentions Oliver.
https://archive.org/stream/visitationofcoun00sain#page/270/mode/2up/search/Arundel

Page 271 (Additions) Arundell. Raynulfe, Lord of Albominster & Stratton, 2nd son of John, Earle of Arundell temp H III. So sometime between 1216 and 1272.

Oliver Arundell of Carshayes, Knight married to Margery, daughter and heir of Raynulph de Arundell. Lord of Albominster & Stratton, 2nd son to John Earle of Arundell. According to this document, Oliver is not the son of Raynulph de Arundell.

Their son was Randulph Arundell who married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Sir John Seneschall. Lord of Trerise. Sometime in the mid 11C Trerice becomes connected to the Arundell’s.

However in the preface page ix “The pedigrees of Arundel … at page 271, were evidently interpolations… This I take as an indication that no proof was supplied to the Visitation Clerks to prove the information.

However the footnotes are interesting.

1. Ex. h Rot. Fin. 65 Hen. III., m. 1, Cornw. Oliverus de Arundell et Margeria ux. eius, Joh'es de Kelerion et Johanna ux. eius dant dimid. manor, etc.
Ped. fin. Cornw., Hill., 2 Edvv. I., No. 1. Olyver de Arundell qu. Kobert Tyi'el def. Tregenewe. Olyver gave one sparrowhawk quitclaim.

In the 65 (?) year of Henry III (not possible) in Cornwall Oliver was born to Arundell and Margaret, from John of Kelerion and Joan. They gave her half a manor in Cornwall Hill during the 2 year of Edward I (1274). Oliver de Arundell gave Robert Tyiel of Tregenewe one sparrowhawk to quit his claim. (Possible translation.)

However no original source quoted for this information.

I post additional footnotes with comments for your comments.

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

2 Brev. Cornub. 31 Edw. I., 87/2. Ealph, son of Oliver de Arundell, held one knight's fee which his ancestors held in Trekynnen in Trigg.

Cor. Eeg. Cornw. 31 Edw. I., Hill., m. 172. The jury present Roger de Ingepenne, Viscomes Cornubise, among other offences, for forcibly entering the house of Caiyhayes and breaking open the coffer of Ralph, son of Oliver de Arundell, which was sealed with the seals of the Arch-deacon of Cornwall and Lawrence de Arundell, and taking away one silver cup value 10s. and
another value 40s., together with deeds, etc.

Ped. fin. Cornw., Mich., 18 Edw. II., No. 4. John de Carmenowe Chivaler qu. Ralph de Arundell of Karyhays def. Reskere, Dysard, Landu, and Treuryek next the village of St. Wenn, which Isabella de Buleghe held for life of the inheritance of Ralph, settled upon John de Carmenowe and John de C. his son, rem. to the right heirs of John de C.

(Possible translation)
Cornwall in the 31 year of the reign of Edward I (1303) L, 87/2. Ralph, son of Oliver of Arundel, held one knight's fee which his ancestors held at the Trekynnen Trigg.

Court Register Cornwall, 31 Edw. I (1303) Hill. M. 172. The jury present Roger Inkpen, Viscomes Cornwall, among other offenses, for forcibly entering the house of Caiyhayes and breaking open the coffer of Ralph, son of Oliver Arundel, which was sealed with the seals of the Arch- Deacon of Cornwall and Lawrence of Arundel, and taking away one silver cup value 10s and another value 40s, together with deeds, etc. ((This supports your previous statement. Seems to indicate that Roger Inkpen was a Viscount? According to Wikipedia High Sheriff’s of Cornwall, Roger de Ingepenne was appointed Michaelmas 1286 until 1287. (Hughes, A. (1898). List of Sheriffs for England and Wales from the Earliest Times to A.D. 1831. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.))

Cornwall, 18 Edw. 2 (1325) John Knight of Carmenowe and Ralph of Arundel of Caryhays defend Resko, Dysard lands, and next to the village of St. Treuryek, which Isabella Buleghe held for the life, from the inheritance of Ralph, and settled upon John de Carmenow and John de Carmenowe his son, and the rightful heirs of John de Carmenowe.

3 There is apparently confusion here. Segar says that Randell (Ralph) Arundell married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of John Steward (Seneschall), and had a son Ralph, married to Jane, daughter and heir of Michael Trerice, temp. Edw. III (1327-1377), whose son Nicholas continued the line.

Harley Manuscript 4031, folio 274, attributes two wives to Ralph, son of Oliver Arundell, the first named; the name of the second agrees with Segar's account, but gives the descent as above, without mentioning a second Ralph, who, however, must have existed, as we find from proceedings Coout Register Cornwall, 50 Edward III (1377) John Arundell and Jane, daughter of Lupus of Cai-antock

The British Museum lists persons found in the Harley manuscripts Arundell appears 31 times. There are no folio numbers quoted only Pages, Codex number or MS Vol, and article. Fo 274 does not appear?
https://archive.org/details/CatalogueOfTheHarleianManuscripts4/page/n15

Some of the above supports your previous message.

[taf]

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> I notice you have not mentioned the Visitation of Cornwall in 1620. This
> mentions Oliver.

No, I haven't. This is 350 years after the fact, and any family fiction has likely already arisen and been incorporated within it. This tells you what the family thought their ancestry was, not what it really was.

> Page 271 (Additions) Arundell. Raynulfe, Lord of Albominster & Stratton,
> 2nd son of John, Earle of Arundell temp H III. So sometime between 1216
> and 1272.
>
> Oliver Arundell of Carshayes, Knight married to Margery, daughter and heir
> of Raynulph de Arundell. Lord of Albominster & Stratton, 2nd son to John
> Earle of Arundell. According to this document, Oliver is not the son of
> Raynulph de Arundell.

Compare this with the text I posted - Oliver married Margery, daughter of Ranulph Fitz John, but there is no suggestion that either Ranulph or John was an Arundell, let alone an earl.

> Their son was Randulph Arundell who married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of
> Sir John Seneschall. Lord of Trerise. Sometime in the mid 11C Trerice
> becomes connected to the Arundell’s.

I don't know for certain, but that may be too early. This branch came to be called the Arundell of Trerice branch, but that doesn't mean they held Trerice from Domesday, only that at the time antiquarians began categorizing the branches, they held it.

> However in the preface page ix “The pedigrees of Arundel … at page 271,
> were evidently interpolations… This I take as an indication that no proof
> was supplied to the Visitation Clerks to prove the information.

Worse than that. Read the material at the beginning of the volume that describes the history of the manuscript used to prepare the publication. The Harleian Society did not have access to the original visitation in the College of Arms, but only to manuscript 'copies' of it that were passed down through the collections of one antiquarian after another until being acquired by some repository (usually the British Library, but sometimes one of the university libraries). Usually these were copies that an antiquarian would make from the original at the CoA, with copying errors, omissions, and often with additions made by one or more of the subsequent owners centuries later (and not always reflecting reality). When people talk about the errors in the visitations, sometimes it is an error only in these derivative manuscript copies.

In the case of Cornwall, we are lucky, in that the manuscript used for the publication was not derivative from the one in the College of Arms, it was the other way round. If I recall correctly, they think the manuscript they had access to was the original that was prepared by the herald when doing the visiting, and from which he prepared the formal neat copy to be deposited at the CoA, so this is the original document. Nonetheless the manuscript passed from the herald's personal estate into the hands of a series of owners before it was acquired by the British Library (or whoever). When they say the information is interpolated, they are basically saying that during this time in private hands, someone added this material to what was originally in the manuscript, and so this material is not part of the original visitation at all.

>
> However the footnotes are interesting.
>
> 1. Ex. h Rot. Fin. 65 Hen. III., m. 1, Cornw. Oliverus de Arundell et
> Margeria ux. eius, Joh'es de Kelerion et Johanna ux. eius dant dimid.
> manor, etc.

Fine roll, 55 Hen III (65 is likely an OCR error)

From the Fine Rolls Henry III project, #1512:

[No date]. Cornwall. Oliver de Arundel and Margeria his wife, John de Kelerion’ and Joan his wife give half a mark for having a writ ad terminum. Order to the sheriff of Cornwall.

https://finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_068.html

> Ped. fin. Cornw., Hill., 2 Edvv. I., No. 1. Olyver de Arundell qu. Kobert
> Tyi'el def. Tregenewe. Olyver gave one sparrowhawk quitclaim.

Feet of Fines, Hillary term, 2 Edw I
https://archive.org/details/publications81devo/page/n377

Robert Tyrel (another OCR error) acknowledged the land to belong to Oliver by Robert's gift, and in exchange Oliver gave him a sparrowhawk (goshawk).


taf

[taf]

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Cor. Eeg. Cornw. 31 Edw. I., Hill., m. 172. The jury present Roger de
> Ingepenne, Viscomes Cornubise, among other offences, for forcibly entering
> the house of Caiyhayes and breaking open the coffer of Ralph, son of Oliver
> de Arundell, which was sealed with the seals of the Arch-deacon of Cornwall
> and Lawrence de Arundell, and taking away one silver cup value 10s. and
> another value 40s., together with deeds, etc.

> Court Register Cornwall

Cor. Reg. is actually Coram Rege, which term was variously used by antiquarians to refer to the Rotuli curiae regis, the Placita de banco and the Placita coram regus, among others.


Note that Lawrence and the Archdeacon were Ralph's guardians - basically, his is claiming that Roger plundered his inheritance.

> Ped. fin. Cornw., Mich., 18 Edw. II., No. 4. John de Carmenowe Chivaler
> qu. Ralph de Arundell of Karyhays def. Reskere, Dysard, Landu, and
> Treuryek next the village of St. Wenn, which Isabella de Buleghe held
> for life of the inheritance of Ralph, settled upon John de Carmenowe and
> John de C. his son, rem. to the right heirs of John de C.

Feet of Fines, Cornwall, Michaelmas term, 18 Edw II
https://archive.org/details/publications81devo/page/n619

22 messuages, 20 acres, etc, John acknowledges it to be the rightful property of Oliver. In exchange Oliver gives 22 messuages, 16 acres, etc. to John outright. The remaining 6 messuages and 4 acres are currently being held by Isabel for life, of the inheritance of Ralph (most likely explanation - this is the widow's dower of Isabel, who would be Ralph's remarried step-mother), and Ralph also gives the right of inheritance of this on Isabel's death to John. All this goes to John for life, and then to his son John, and if John the younger dies without issue, then it goes to the right heirs of John the elder.

> Harley Manuscript 4031, folio 274, attributes two wives to Ralph,

> The British Museum lists persons found in the Harley manuscripts Arundell
> appears 31 times. There are no folio numbers quoted only Pages, Codex
> number or MS Vol, and article. Fo 274 does not appear?
> https://archive.org/details/CatalogueOfTheHarleianManuscripts4/page/n15

That is not exactly what you are looking at there. The link you give is not an index to the collection - it is an index to the published collection catalogue. Unfortunately, the catalogue is selective in terms of the level of detail it gives. To find ms 4031, just search your volume for those digits, and you find several entries where that is the codex number. All are pedigrees of one family or another, all in vol. III, p. 109 or 110. Go find volume three of the catalogue (the index is vol. IV), go to p. 109, and you find what the catalogue has to say about this manuscript.

https://archive.org/details/CatalogueOfTheHarleianManuscripts3/page/n117

Note that folio 274 is not individually described, apparently falling within a group of pedigrees relating to the Repington family.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 6:26:32 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Cor. Eeg. Cornw. 31 Edw. I., Hill., m. 172. The jury present Roger de
> > Ingepenne, Viscomes Cornubise, among other offences, for forcibly entering
> > the house of Caiyhayes and breaking open the coffer of Ralph, son of Oliver
> > de Arundell, which was sealed with the seals of the Arch-deacon of Cornwall
> > and Lawrence de Arundell, and taking away one silver cup value 10s. and
> > another value 40s., together with deeds, etc.
>
> > Court Register Cornwall
>
> Cor. Reg. is actually Coram Rege, which term was variously used by
> antiquarians to refer to the Rotuli curiae regis, the Placita de
> banco and the Placita coram regus, among others.

Here is the case itself, or rather, two cases - one about the chest of goods and documents being raided, the other over Carhays. Note that the presentation is in parallel, with the English translation on even numbered pages and legal Latin on odd pages (so the English for the second case skips from 262 to 264):

https://books.google.com/books?id=8Pw9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR186
https://books.google.com/books?id=dbFKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR262

taf

[taf]

In the old post of Peter that Bill quoted, he mentioned a recent study of the Arundells of Cornwall, but I don't have access to it, so let's see what can be done from scratch with the Trerice branch of the family.

First, Henderson's account, some of which I quoted earlier in the thread, continues:
"Ralph Arundell thus recovered Carhays. He married Elizabeth Seneschal and died before 1336, leaving his son and heir, Ralph, a manor. In 1336 the young heir unsuccessfully claimed some of his father's lands in Ardevora Veor, Gargus, and , and Boswellick from his mother. This Ralph Arundell seems to have adopted the nickname of Petit and to be identical with 'Ralph Petit Lord of Caryhays' in 1365 and 1379. In the latter year he entailed the Manor of Carihays with Porthallan and Pengilly on John Trevarthian, jun., Joan his wife, and her issue. This Joan was clearly Petit's own daughter and heiress. She seems to have had no issue by Trevarthian, and so Carhays came to her children by her second husband, Robert Trevanion, about the year 1390. "

Now, if this account is correct, then it is easy to show that the Trerice line did not descend from the last-mentioned Ralph, as shown in the antiquarian sources. In 1369, Joan, late wife of Ralph de Arondel of Treres, appointed an attorney to deliver to her daughter by Ralph, also named Joan, certain lands as had been agreed upon in a grant (CRO AR/32/1). The same year, 'Joan who was wife of Ralph Darundell de Treres' (endorsed as 'Johanne que fuit uxor Radulphi de Trerys') granted rents to John de Arundel, knt. (also witnessed by John Darundell junior). Likewise, in 1370, William de Lambroun was appointed as guardian for Thomas, son of Ralph Arundel de Treris (CRO AR/41/5). Again in 1378, the same William was appointed guardian of Nicholas, son of Ralph (CRO AR/41/6). Presumably, Thomas had died, and so custody of the next eldest son (the eventual heir) was in turn given William so that he continued to control the inheritance.

Thus Ralph of Trerice was already dead by 1369, while Ralph of Carhays was still living in 1379 according to Henderson.


In 1358, Sir John Arundel of Conerton granted to Ralph Arundel de Trerys lands in Crenver and Boutfold, for a service of one peppercorn annually (CRO AR/1/104 - in their annotation they point out that Vivian cites this as referring to Ralph as cousin of Sir John, but that nothing in the original document says so). In 1371, there were three Johns of the Lanherne line living. Sir John had apparently just remarried to Isabel, daughter of Thomas de Molton and makes a settlement on his heirs by her body, with default to John, son of Sir John, and later provisions to be carried out during the life of John, son of John, son of Sir John (CRO AR/20/4). From an agreement on 1394, it is clear that Joan, widow of the father of (a) John Arundel of Lanherne remarried to William Lambroun (CRO AR/17/1). The document also mentions the rents given Sir John, an apparently distinct person, by Joan, widow of Ralph (see above). The CRO annotations identify this woman as Joan Luscott, but Vivian wrongly shows her husband d. 1400 (her proof of age says that she was born in 1353, and married to John but childless in 1367). The John of 1394 is apparently the same John who in 1396 was found to be aged 28, son of Sir John Arundell, son of Elizabeth, daughter of Oliver de Carmynowe. I suspect that this ipm is in error in calling the father a knight.

From this chain of documents alone, I would conclude: 1) that nothing in Vivian's account should be given the benefit of the doubt; 2) that Ralph of Trerice was a close relative of Sir John, having both been given lands outright, and his widow having diverted rents to Sir John; 3) that Ralph's children seem to have been contemporaries of Sir John's documented grandson.

1. Sir John, fl. 1334, m. Joan (Cal. ipm 1442)
2. Sir John, d. by 1376 (CRO AR/3/79) m.1 by 1334 Elizabeth Carmylowe, m.2 ca. 1371, Isabel de Molton
3. John, m. by 1367 Joan, b. 1353 (m.2 William Lambroun)
4. John b. ca. 1368, fl. 1394, 1396

A. Ralph of Trerice, fl. 1350 (CRO T/489), dead by 1369, m. Joan
B. Thomas (minor 1370), Nicholas (minor 1378), Joan

While it is possible that Ralph was son of Sir John and Elizabeth Carmylowe, I can't get past the fact that he appears active, holding land due to his marriage to an heiress, more than a decade before John, the eldest son of Sir John and Elizabeth Carmylowe, is first found married. It is always possible that young John had an earlier marriage, evidence of which I have yet to find, but this raises doubts in my mind whether Ralph was son of Sir John, as opposed to a nephew or even a much younger brother. Clearly this will require a more thorough survey of available records to sort out (if it is even possible).


And I will throw out one additional document. Unfortunately I have yet to identify which Ralphs this refers to, but:

1350: John le Sor de Taluern and Ralph Arrundel senior are bound to pay L20 ro Ralph Hamely if he brings or causes to be brought Joan, wife of Ralph, son of Ralph Arrundel senior by the specified date (CRO AR/24/3).

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 6:30:46 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Ralph had "sons and daughters" when he died, so the most likely
> reconstruction, just based on these documents, is that rather
> than Ralph being son of Remfrey, that Remfrey was son of Ralph.
> This matches the Burkes' account, but then they go and kick Oliver
> about 150 later than he actually lived - he seems to have been of
> the generation of Renfrey, active in the second half of the 13th
> century, but the Burkes put him in the 15th century.

Here I had concluded that Renfrey was son of Ralph, and that Oliver appeared to be the same generation as Renfrey. The answer is found in a document at Kew, rather than one in Cornwall:

E 40/183
Ralph de Arundell to Oliver de Arundell, his son, of land in Bodvalue
13th century

The Cornwall records are consistent with a single Oliver, a contemporary and frequent co-witness with Renfrey, son of Ralph de Arundel, and here we have an Oliver, son of Ralph. Applying Occam:

Ralph de Arundell (d. 1276), m. Eve, and had children (the first is oldest, order of rest uncertain)
a. Renfrey, ancestor of the Lanherne branch
b. Otho
c. Oliver, m. Margery daughter of Ranulf de Blancminster of Carhays
d. (probably) Lawrence, guardian of Ralph, son of Oliver

taf

[taf]

> L20 to Ralph Hamely if he brings or causes to be brought Joan, wife of

> Ralph, son of Ralph Arrundel senior by the specified date (CRO AR/24/3).

And here is another transaction involving the same John Soor, Sir John Arundel, and Ralph Arundel of Trerice. On 18 Nov. 1359, Ralph Arundel of Trerice and Joan his wife acknowledged that a whole set of properties (more than 30 messuages) belonged to Sir John, which he held by Ralph's gift to the two Johns, and for this, John Arundel and Soor gave the tenements to Ralph and Joan.
https://archive.org/details/publications81devo/page/n813

With the confluence of names and chronology, the most likely conclusion is that the two Ralphs with wife Joan each associated with John le Soor are the same couple, and that Ralph de Arundell of Trerice was the young Ralph with the wife Jane in need of delivery in 1350, the son of Ralph senior. Given that there seems general agreement that the connection between the Arundel and Soor families was in the generation of the elder Sir John in my earlier scheme, I would suggest the following pedigree:

1. Sir John, m. Joan le Soor
2a. Sir John, d. by 1376, m. Elizabeth Carmynowe
3a. John, m. Joan (and on with the Lanherne branch)
(probably)
2b. Ralph sen. fl. 1350
3b. Ralph jun. d. by 1369, m. Joan
4b. Nicholas, minor 1378

Note that since we have two Ralphs, it is not clear that it was Joan, the wife of Ralph the younger in this reconstruction who was the Trerice heiress - it may have been the wife of Ralph the elder.

And another datapoint for Ralph of Trerice being dead,

1370: Feb. 8. Pardon to Thomas Belluiter, servant of Roland Rosculian, of the Westminster, king's suit for having broken and entered the close and houses of Joan late the wife of Ralph Arondell of Treres, at Treres, ravished the said Joan, taken her away with a boy of hers, robbed her of a cloak (clamide) and stolen other goods and chattels found there. Pardon, also, to him of all other felonies and trespasses touching the said rape, whereof he is indicted or appealed, and of any consequent outlawry.
By p.s.
The like to the following for the same felony :—
Roland Rosculian. By p.s.
Thomas Sporier.

taf

[taf]

As long as we are talking about Trerice:

1277: Odo de Treres [CPR per Deputy Keeper vol but not found in published CPR]
1290-1300: Odo de Treres & Roes his wife (CRO T/467)
c1290: Odo de Trerys (CRO T/468)
1291/2: Odo de Treres (CRO T/469)
1291/2: Odo de Treres & Roes his wife (CRO T/470)
1294(?): Odo de Treres (CRO T/471)
1295: Odo de Trenres & Roesie his wife (CRO T/472)
1299: Odo de Treres [inquisition into lands of Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, dec.]
c1301/2: Odo de Treres & Roeysie his wife (CRO T/473)
c1300: Odo de Treres & Roeysie his wife (CRO T/474)
1312: Odo de Treres (Year Books Edw II, 1313)
1315: Roesea, widow of Odo de Treres, & Odo her son (CRO T/475)
1317: Odo, son of Odo de Treres (CCR)
1317/8: Odo, son of Odo de Treres (CRO T/476)
1320: Odo de Treres (CRO T/477)
1322/3: Odo de Treres (CRO T/478)
1323: Odo de Treres (CRO T/479)
1323/4: Odo de Treres (CRO T/480)
1324/5(?): Odo de Treres (CRO T/481)
1325: Odo de Treres (CRO T/481)
1325: Odo de Treres, clerk (Ancient Deeds A10096)
1326: Odo de Treres (CRO T/482)
1327/8: Odo de Treres (CRO T/483)
1333: Odo de Treres (CRO T/484)
1336: Odo de Treres (CRO T/485)
1337: Michael de Treres (CRO T/488)
1337: Michael de Treres (Ancient Deeds A10330)
1338: Michael de Treres (Ancient Deeds A9952)
1345: Odo, heir of Michael de Treres (CRO AR/46/9, AR/46/10) [bond for marriage, John & Ralph Soor]
1345: Alice, who was wife of Michael (CRO AR/46/11) [lease to John le Sooor during minority of his son Odo]
1350: Ralph Arundel of Treres (CRO T/489) [other party Drogone Sor]
1369: Ralph Arundel of Treres (CRO AR/1/241) [21 July]
1369: Joan, widow Ralph de Arondel of Treres (CRO AR/32/1) [11 November]
1371: creditor: Ralph Arundel of Trerice, now deceased (TNA C 241/148/18)
1385: Seyncryda held by "heirs of Michael Treres" (CRO AR/2/376)

So we have:
Odo de Treres fl. 1277-1312(if these are all the same and not two successive) d. in or bef 1315 m. Roese fl. 1315

Odo de Treres fl. 1315-1336 son of Odo & Roese (if he is the 1225 clerk, then Michael would be his brother)

Michael de Treres fl. 1337, d. by 1345, m. Alice, fl. 1345

Odo de Treres, son Michael, minor 1345, app. d.s.p. by 1350, leaving sisters whose representatives were the later 'heirs of Michael'

Ralph Arundel fl. 1350, pres. m. one of the sisters (? the same who d. 21 July-27 Nov. 1369, leaving minor children)

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

The following pedigree is provided by J. Jackson Howard and H. Seymour Hughes, eds., _Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families of England Based on the Lawson Manuscript, Part III Arundell_ (Printed for Private Circulation, 1887), p. 221.

In a deed without date, between Randulphus de Arundel and Reinfredus de Arundel, his father, relating to lands in Trewyn, mention is made of Margaret, mother of the said Reinfred.

_____=Margaret. [had issue]
Sir Renfred de Arundel.

By a deed, without date, "Ego Reynfric de Arundel confirmavi Odoni de Arundel fileo meo vnam acram t're in T'hougeneb. In another deed, without date, Renfrey de Arundell and Ralph his son, and Evoca, the wife of the latter, are named.

Sir Renfred de Arundel=____ [had issue]
Ralf de Arundel, Lord of Treloy and St. Colomb.
Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke
Odo de Arundel of Trenarren, co. Cornwall. (See Arundel of Trerice pedigree.)

Of Ralf de Arundel, Lord of Treloy and St. Colomb, the authors state:

Sheriff of Cornwall 1260. Presented to the Rectory of St. Colomb 44 Hen. III (1260). Dead before Oct. 1275. Lord of Manor of Trembleth and Trederesuc jure uxoris. The original grant of Trembleth from Richard de Rupe to Ralf de Arundel is at Wardour. In 1260 Ralf de Arundel grants to Michael de Gargoed and Muriel his wife lands in Treloy. In a deed dated the Sunday next after the feast of SS Peter and Paul 1249, Ralf de Arundel was authorized by Thomas de Tracy to deliver the Castle of Restormel and the Barony of Kardinan into the hands of Simon de Montford, Earl of Leicester. (Wardour Muniments.)

Of the son Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke, the authors state:

Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke. Had the wardship of Ralph, son and heir of Sir Oliver of Carhays, 31 Edw. I. (1302-3).
Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke=Margery, da. of Sir Robert de Flamanc, Lord of Nantalon. Assize Roll, 22 Edw. I. (1293-4). By deed he gave lands to his da. Marg. on her mar. to Lawrence de Arundel.
[Lawrence and Margery had issue]
Eva=(1284-5) William Roscarroc
Emmot, wife of Renfrid de Reswalstes
Alice, wife of Osbert de Laund

Ralf de Arundel, Lord of Treloy and St. Colomb=Eva, eldest da. and coh. of Richard de Rupe, Lord of Tremodrud, in parish of Duloe.

Of Eva, wife of Ralf de Arundel, Lord of Treloy and St. Colomb, the authors state:

Living 12 Edw. I (1283-4). Richard de Rupe, lord of Tremodrud, gave Tredreysuc in free marriage with Evoca, his eldest da., to Ralf de Arundel. The confirmation of this grand is dated 9 Feb. 1269. By deed, dated Oct. 1275, Renfred de Arundel assigned dower to the Lade Eva out of the lands of her late husband. By deed, dated 14 Aug. 1485, Eva de Arundell "in legitima viduitate mea dedi," etc., "Odo de Arundell fileo meo," etc.


[Ralf de Arundel and Eva had issue]
Renfred de Arundel, Lord of Morchard, co. Devon.
Odo of Arundel

Concerning Renfred de Arundel, Lord of Morchard, co. Devon, the authors state:

Lord of Lanherne jure uxoris. Mar. before 52 Hen. III. (1267-8). Dead before 14 Dec. 1280. [He married] Alice, da. of John de Lanhern by Margerie his wife, da. and heiress of Richard Fitz John. Living 30 Edw. I (1301-2). Styled Alice de la Hurne, Lady of Conorton, in a writ of quo warranto 12 Edw. I (1283-4), by which she claimed assize of bread, etc., in her manor of Conorton. Married to her second husband before 12 Edw. I (1290-1). The marriage settlement of John de la Hurne with Margerie, da. and heiress of Richard Fitz John of Connerton, is among the Wardour Muniments.

Concerning Odo of Arundel, the authors state:

Had grant of Trembleth from his mother. Executor "testamenti domini Reynfridi fratris sui 19 kalend. Januarij 1281." A receipt from Odo de Arundel dated 1281 is among the Wardour Muniments.

[John Higgins]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 1:09:16 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> The following pedigree is provided by J. Jackson Howard and H. Seymour Hughes, eds., _Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families of England Based on the Lawson Manuscript, Part III Arundell_ (Printed for Private Circulation, 1887), p. 221.
>

Is anyone aware of an electronic copy of this four-volume work anywhere? I've been unable to find it in the usual places. For some reason Google Books has it available for preview only - even though it was published in 1887.

[Jan Wolfe]

John, I took photos of much of this book when I borrowed it from a library. I can share my images with you if you are interested.

This is an very large book, in width and height. It may not have fit in the machinery that Google used to make images of book pages.

[taf]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 1:09:16 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> The following pedigree is provided by J. Jackson Howard and H. Seymour
> Hughes, eds., _Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of Roman
> Catholic Families of England Based on the Lawson Manuscript, Part III
> Arundell_ (Printed for Private Circulation, 1887), p. 221.
>
> In a deed without date, between Randulphus de Arundel and Reinfredus de
> Arundel, his father, relating to lands in Trewyn, mention is made of
> Margaret, mother of the said Reinfred.

> By a deed, without date, "Ego Reynfric de Arundel confirmavi Odoni de
> Arundel fileo meo vnam acram t're in T'hougeneb. In another deed, without
> date, Renfrey de Arundell and Ralph his son, and Evoca, the wife of the
> latter, are named.
>
> Sir Renfred de Arundel=____ [had issue]
> Ralf de Arundel, Lord of Treloy and St. Colomb.
> Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke
> Odo de Arundel of Trenarren, co. Cornwall. (See Arundel of Trerice
> pedigree.)

In another undated muniment, Randulph confirms all the lands that his father Remfrey had granted to his (Randulph's) brother Odo. (CRO AR/1/79) It refers to one of the properties previously being held by Margaret, mother of Remfrey, so this ties it all together nicely (but is it asking too much to want a date on one of these - CRO suggests it postdates AR/1/69, c. 1260, in which Ralph accepts quitclaim of lands that his father Remfrey previously held of the grantor).


We know from this there were two Odos. In an earlier post, I showed a charter whereby Eva, widow of Ralph, named her son Odo. Here we have and Odo, son of Reinfred, who was also father of the Ralph who married Eva. That would make the two uncle and nephew. In 1268 an Odo de Arundel shows up in Bronescombe's register as canon of St. Crantock but resigned soon after, while Vivian shows a (apparently) different Odo with a wife and daughter.

The question then, is which Odo was which. Unless there was yet a third Odon, based on the date the cleric had to be the Odo who was Ralph's brother and not his son, and hence the descent given by Vivian on his Arundel of Lanherne pedigree can't belong to this elder Odo - it must be his nephew, Ralph's son.

Also, here we likely have the origin of Vivian's seemingly-botched pedigree. He had Ralph, husband of Eve, as son of Remfrey and Alice - it looks like he was son of one Reinfred, and father of another, and Vivian combined the two into a father married to Alice.

> Of the son Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke, the authors state:
>
> Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke. Had the wardship of Ralph, son and
> heir of Sir Oliver of Carhays, 31 Edw. I. (1302-3).
> Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke=Margery, da. of Sir Robert de Flamanc,
> Lord of Nantalon. Assize Roll, 22 Edw. I. (1293-4). By deed he gave lands
> to his da. Marg. on her mar. to Lawrence de Arundel.
> [Lawrence and Margery had issue]
> Eva=(1284-5) William Roscarroc
> Emmot, wife of Renfrid de Reswalstes
> Alice, wife of Osbert de Laund

The placement of Lawrence would seem to be a based on chronology, as they mention no document making it explicit and I have not found any that with a relationship statement. If the marriage of his daughter Eva is correctly dated, it would seemingly place her a generation before Ralph, son of Oliver, and hence likewise put Lawrence in the generation before Oliver.

> Ralf de Arundel, Lord of Treloy and St. Colomb=Eva, eldest da. and coh. of
> Richard de Rupe, Lord of Tremodrud, in parish of Duloe.
>
> Of Eva, wife of Ralf de Arundel, Lord of Treloy and St. Colomb, the authors
> state:
>
> Living 12 Edw. I (1283-4). Richard de Rupe, lord of Tremodrud, gave
> Tredreysuc in free marriage with Evoca, his eldest da., to Ralf de Arundel.
> The confirmation of this grand is dated 9 Feb. 1269.

The original is CRO AR/1/65, dated 9 October 1259. Reichel in his Devon Feet of Fines, identifies Ralph's wife with the Eva, daughter of Richard, who executed a fine in 1244, and it is unlikely she was acting independently 15 years before her marriage, so this grant was probably not contemporaneous with her marriage, but later.
https://archive.org/details/publications61devo/page/n445

> By deed, dated Oct.
> 1275, Renfred de Arundel assigned dower to the Lade Eva out of the lands
> of her late husband.

CRO AR/19/1

> By deed, dated 14 Aug. 1485, Eva de Arundell "in
> legitima viduitate mea dedi," etc., "Odo de Arundell fileo meo," etc.

CRO AR/4/179, see also a bond between the two, AR/3/27, both 1285.

> Concerning Renfred de Arundel, Lord of Morchard, co. Devon, the authors
> state:
>
> Lord of Lanherne jure uxoris. Mar. before 52 Hen. III. (1267-8). Dead before
> 14 Dec. 1280. [He married] Alice, da. of John de Lanhern by Margerie his
> wife, da. and heiress of Richard Fitz John. Living 30 Edw. I (1301-2).
> Styled Alice de la Hurne, Lady of Conorton, in a writ of quo warranto 12
> Edw. I (1283-4), by which she claimed assize of bread, etc., in her manor
> of Conorton. Married to her second husband before 12 Edw. I (1290-1). The
> marriage settlement of John de la Hurne with Margerie, da. and heiress of
> Richard Fitz John of Connerton, is among the Wardour Muniments.

This last is CRO AR/1/103, dated "[13th century; c.1240?]". Their catalogue entry discusses an obvious flaw in the document regarding the party acting on John's behalf. It appears to contain a botched process whereby John's deceased father Andrew Fitz Richard was mistakenly begun to be written then corrected to Lawrence Fitz Richard, his uncle.

> Concerning Odo of Arundel, the authors state:
>
> Had grant of Trembleth from his mother. Executor "testamenti domini
> Reynfridi fratris sui 19 kalend. Januarij 1281." A receipt from Odo de
> Arundel dated 1281 is among the Wardour Muniments.

This last is CRO AR/21/1.

In 1285, Alice, widow of Reinfred granted to Odo the rights to land held by Eva, widow of Ralph that would fall to Alice in her role as guardian of her son John, son of Reinfred, for the term of John's minority. Witnessed by Oliver. CRO AR/1/81

[taf]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 2:18:14 PM UTC-8, John Higgins wrote:

> Is anyone aware of an electronic copy of this four-volume work anywhere?

FHL has it on film, so it should be going online at some point.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 8:15:48 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
...

> In another undated muniment, Randulph confirms all the lands that his father Remfrey had granted to his (Randulph's) brother Odo. (CRO AR/1/79) It refers to one of the properties previously being held by Margaret, mother of Remfrey, so this ties it all together nicely (but is it asking too much to want a date on one of these - CRO suggests it postdates AR/1/69, c. 1260, in which Ralph accepts quitclaim of lands that his father Remfrey previously held of the grantor).
>

...
The Howard and Hughes book includes an image of the grant by "Reynfric de Arundel to Odo, his son, of half an acre of land in Trehougeneb." Would you like to look at the image for clues to the date of the grant?
TNA tentatively dates this grant c.1240-50, see
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/efa111a6-0de2-4afe-925d-0fe64142865a

[taf]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 6:03:17 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> The Howard and Hughes book includes an image of the grant by "Reynfric
> de Arundel to Odo, his son, of half an acre of land in Trehougeneb."
> Would you like to look at the image for clues to the date of the grant?
> TNA tentatively dates this grant c.1240-50,

I could do no better, and indeed would be much less able to date it than the local expertise at CRO (whose dating is simply copied by TNA).

taf

[John Higgins]

"at some point" is the key issue here. If anyone with connections at the FHL is reading this, maybe you can get this work prioritized for scanning. One can hope...

[taf]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 8:50:45 PM UTC-8, John Higgins wrote:
> On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 5:16:58 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
>
> > FHL has it on film, so it should be going online at some point.
>

> "at some point" is the key issue here. If anyone with connections at the
> FHL is reading this, maybe you can get this work prioritized for scanning.
> One can hope...

They used to have an online form where you could recommend something be prioritized (don't know if it is still available), though it may have just been a placebo - I certainly haven't seen any of the films I have been waiting for go hot.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 1:09:16 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> Of the son Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke, the authors state:
>
> Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke. Had the wardship of Ralph, son and
> heir of Sir Oliver of Carhays, 31 Edw. I. (1302-3).
> Lawrence de Arundel of Bledbrooke=Margery, da. of Sir Robert de Flamanc,
> Lord of Nantalon. Assize Roll, 22 Edw. I. (1293-4). By deed he gave lands to
> his da. Marg. on her mar. to Lawrence de Arundel.
> [Lawrence and Margery had issue]
> Eva=(1284-5) William Roscarroc
> Emmot, wife of Renfrid de Reswalstes
> Alice, wife of Osbert de Laund

In an earlier postI said that if Lawrence had a daughter married in 1286, he must have belonged to an earlier generation than Oliver. However, I am beginning to question this date.

The date Vivian gives for Eva is 13 Edward I, and yet surrounding dateas are out of whack. He shows Eva's sister active 5 Edward III, and Eva's son marrying the daughter of someone fl. 1347, while her grandson is shown participating in a fine 12 Henry VI, almost 150 years after his grandmother supposedly married.

There are two hints of a close association with Eva, wife of Ralph. First, obviously, Laurence named a daughter Eva. She is shown as his first, though it is unclear whether the order is relevant. Given naming trends, an eldest daughter seems more likely to have been named for the child's paternal grandmother than an aunt by marriage (though this is far from definitive). Likewise, in the document in which Reinfred assigns Eva her dower, she 'did not have a seal of her own so she used that of Laurence de Arundel'.

The Flemanc marriage is found in (yet another) an undated charter. Maclean's Parochial and family history of the parish and borough of Bodmin shows her brother John to have been appointed Keeper of Newcastle upon Tyne, 8 Edw. I.

I think there are some things to be worked out before I am fully comfortable accepting the placement of Lawrence de Arundel as brother of Ralph rather than son, most importantly confirming the date of the marriage of daughter Eva. If accurate, than the accepted Roscarrock pedigree would seem to be missing a generation.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 1:09:16 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
>

> In a deed without date, between Randulphus de Arundel and Reinfredus de
> Arundel, his father, relating to lands in Trewyn, mention is made of
> Margaret, mother of the said Reinfred.
>
> _____=Margaret. [had issue]
> Sir Renfred de Arundel.
>
> By a deed, without date, "Ego Reynfric de Arundel confirmavi Odoni de
> Arundel fileo meo vnam acram t're in T'hougeneb. In another deed, without
> date, Renfrey de Arundell and Ralph his son, and Evoca, the wife of the
> latter, are named.

An earlier family member is found in an now-lost grant made from 'William de Harundel' to 'Remfrey de Harundel', summarized in a later one dated to about 1250/1 from Lawrence Fitz Richard to 'Ralph de Harundel', son of Remfrey, which records the latter's acquisition of Treloy. The Description given by CRO is as follows (AR/1/29):

Parties: 1) Laurence son of R[ichar]d 2) Ralph son of Remfrey de Harundel [Arundel]. Inspeximus by (1) of a charter of William de Harundel, as follows: [William] de Harundel to Remfrey de Harundel, for his homage and service, the whole vill of Treloy, that is 5 and a half acres of land, except for the vills of Treberuet, Tredreisuc and Hendre with appurtenances, and except for the land which was of Hillebrand [Latin: terra que fuit Hillebrandi], with all their appurtenances; for Remfrey and his heirs to hold of William freely, in fee and hereditarily, doing for William royal service and common tallages which arise in the county [Latin: cadunt per communem comitatum], for all service. Warranty, or if that is not possible then an exchange of equal value. Now party (1) grants that (2) and his heirs shall hold the vill of Treloy with all its appurtenances of (1) freely as stated.

Also noteworthy about this: Lawrence Fitz Richard was the paternal uncle and guardian of John de Lanherne, whose daughter Alice would later marry the son of Ralph.

taf

[taf]

Speaking of old books still restricted by Google, Notes by the 12th Lord of Arundell of Wardour on the Family History, E.D. Webb, includes the following:

"Mr. Charles Bowles (brother of Canon Bowles the poet), resident at Shaftesbury, who was a lawyer and good antiquary, in his “ Short Account of the Hundred of Penwith, Cornwall,” Shaftesbury, 1808, gives an account of an action in which Sir Reinfric Arundell, 12 Ed. I., recovered his rights in the Hundred of Penwith, which included the Manor of Connorton, in right of his wife Alice de la Herne, the jurors deciding that the aforesaid Alice and all her predecessors from the time of the aforesaid grant, Henry II., A.D. 1154, “had enjoyed the royal rights in the said manor "-—“ the right of appointment of a judge to try all causes of trespass, debt, detinue, &c., the regalia of navigable harbours and havens, the right to present to all churches . . . to the royal mines of gold and silver, to wrecks, escheats, deodands, treasure-trove, waifs, estrays, and to droits of admiralty happening therein. . . ”"
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89095160032;view=1up;seq=17

This looks like it is worth following up, but "Short Account of the Hundred of Penwith, Cornwall", published 1805, is completely inaccessible, no preview or limited, nothing, on Google Books and I can't find it anywhere else.


As an aside, while I was trying to track this down, I came across another apparent reference to Reinfred, husband of Alice: in 1302, John de Arundel testified in defence of certain Cornwall market rights being challenged by the king that they had been enfeoffed to his father 'Rene', by Walter de Raythe, to whom King John had granted them. There is obviously a problem with the chronology - either it wasn't King John who made the original grant, or the Walter de Raythe who received that grant from the King was not the same man as the one who enfeoffed 'Rene'.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89095765046;view=1up;seq=296

taf

[taf]

Regarding this, I see that Yeatman deployed it, attempting to identify the William de Harundel in the grant with the earl of Arundel. Specifically, there were two lawsuits.

In 1217, Egidia, widow of Roger, sued William de Arundel over the rights to 1/3 of Treloy. This was not resolved, because William was absent, and he was given a later date to appear, but there is no further record of the case. (Yeatman sees in this the Earl being on crusade, and then dying.)

In 1225, William de Arundel was sued by Ralph, the son of Roger, who argues that though his father, Roger, had enfeoffed 5 1/2 acres in Treloy to William, father of William, he had no right to do so since the land was held by military service and it was done without licence. The case was won by William, who would then be the same man who granted it to Remfrey, father of the Ralph of ca. 1250/1. (Of this, Yeatman concludes that since the decision went counter to established law, William must have been influential, and hence again must be the new Earl.)

Arguing against Yeatman's interpretation is that if these William really were the Earls, not local men, then presumably Remfrey was an associate of theirs and likewise not local, but then that wouldn't explain how his mother Margaret held a small local holding. One can come up with ad hoc scenarios, but it seems likely that Remfrey and his mother were local, and so were the Williams.

taf

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Cornwall Feet of fines, Volume 1: Richard I – Edward III 1195 – 1377
Edited by Joseph Hambley Rowe, Exeter: The Devon and Cornwall Record Society
https://archive.org/details/publications81devo/page/n251

Feet of Fines No 183, page 96.
At Lancaveton (Launceston), 3 weeks from the day of St Michael, in the 46th year of the reign of King Henry (20 Oct. 1262). Before Robert de Brywes, Richard de Middelton and William de Staunton, justices itinerant, and other liegemen of our Lord the King then there present. Between Ralph de Arundel & Eva his wife, claimants by Stephen de Putyford in Eva’s place, and Richard de la Roche (Eva’s father, Ralph’s wife), opponent: as to 1 messuage & I acre of land in Trenbleyth (Trembleah in St Ervan). Plea of warranty of charter was summoned. Richard acknowledged the messuage & land and likewise the whole of that tenement which Ralph & Eva held of the said Richard in Tredreyseg (Tredressick in St Minver) on the day this agreement was made, as well in demesnes, homages, rents, services of free men, villenages, wards, reliefs, escheats, meadows, pasture’s, ponds, mills as in all other things to the said tenement belonging without exception to be the right of Ralph & Eva as those which they have by gift of Richard. To have & to hold to Ralph and Eva & their heirs of the body of Eva of Richard and his heirs for ever. Rendering therefore the services of 1 knight’s fee for all service, suit of court, custom & extraction. And Richard & his heirs shall warrant, acquit and defend all the said tenements to Ralph & Eva & the heirs of the body of Eva by the said services against all men for ever. Should Eva die without heir of her body than the tenements shall in their entirety revert to Richard & his heirs quit for ever. For this Ralph & Eva gave Richard 1 sore sparrow Hawk.

This imples Eva and Ralph were alive in 1262 and that Eva was the daughter of Richard de la Roche.

It also implies that Eva at this point had no children?. If she had children then the clause "Should Eva die without heir of her body than the tenements shall in their entirety revert to Richard..." would not be required.

IS this source reliable?

[taf]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:28:08 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Cornwall Feet of fines, Volume 1: Richard I – Edward III 1195 – 1377
> Edited by Joseph Hambley Rowe, Exeter: The Devon and Cornwall Record Society
> https://archive.org/details/publications81devo/page/n251
>
> Feet of Fines No 183, page 96.

. . . . .

> This imples Eva and Ralph were alive in 1262

Well, yes, but since we know that Ralph died in 1275, and that Eva survived him, we don't gain anything from that conclusion.

> and that Eva was the daughter of Richard de la Roche.

That is certainly a likely scenario, though it is not explicit, and Richard could be a brother of Eva, brother-in-law, step-father, uncle, guardian, etc. Many an erroneous connection has been posited based on the erroneous application of a strict formula when interpreting a fine - sometimes the people involved aren't related at all (but in this case, a relationship seems likely).

> It also implies that Eva at this point had no children?. If she had
> children then the clause "Should Eva die without heir of her body than the
> tenements shall in their entirety revert to Richard..." would not be
> required.

No, incorrect. This was standard language because any children who might have existed at the time could potentially predecease Eva. It refers to a conditional as it might come to exist at the time of Eva's death, not reflecting the current situation.


> IS this source reliable?

Yes, and less so, depending on what you are looking at. The text of the actual primary records usually as reliable as the original record, but there are rare errors in the originals in in transcription/translation. The footnotes represent the conclusions of the editor, and these are generally good but I am aware of several instances in which these are erroneous conclusions regarding the relationships of the people involved.

taf

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Feet of Fines No 614. Pages 376-377.
At Westminster, on the Octave of St Martin, 33 Edward III (18 Nov 1359). Between Ralph Arundell of Trerees & Joan, his wife, claimants and John Arundell, knight, & John Soor, deforciants; … Plea of convent was summoned. Ralph & Joan acknowledged the tenements to the right of John Arundel, as those which he & John Soor have by gift of Ralph and Joan. The land in question was Helygyn, Udno, Kestelwartha, Tregendien, Boswengar, Biaurepeir, Shepstel, Treggesuen & Woen.

Is Ralph Arundell of Trerees the same as Trerice? No footnote comments on this.

Are the claiments from the same family group Sir John Arundell and John Soor. Examination of the lands held or acquired, the family connections should be established.

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Feet of Fines No 500. Pages 289-290..
At York, on the Octave of St Martin 2 Edward III (18 Nov 1328). Between William de Tremur & Joan his wife, claiments and Joan, (footnote says: This is probably John De Arundel I, whose wife has conjecturally been given as Joan, daughter of John le Sor), who was the wife of John Darundell (John de Arundell) of Trebleith (In St Ervan although it could also be in St Wenna.) The land in question was Helygyn, Udno, Kestelwartha, Tregendien, Boswengar, Biaurepeir, Shepstel, Treggesuen & Woen.

John Arundell I died 1306 or 1309 (according to National Archieves UK) which is why – “Who was the wife of”- instead of “is the wife of”.

National Archives http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd9f6758-cf9e-4e11-ae34-159fba9f0778.
Ralph Arundell son of Remfrey; sheriff in 1259-60; took possession of Restormel Castle on behalf of Thomas de Tracy in July 1265; married Eve de la Roche in 1242 x 1245 and was given Trembleath manor by Eve's father Sir Richard de la Roche (Rupe) in circa 1255 [Trembleath became the family's principal residence in the later thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries]; purchased Mitchell manor in circa 1270; died Aug 1275 x Feb 1276.

Therefore can it be said that John de Arundell (I) in Feet of Fine 500 is the son of Ralph Arundell.

[Jan Wolfe]

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 5:54:09 PM UTC-5, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Feet of Fines No 500. Pages 289-290..

...

> Therefore can it be said that John de Arundell (I) in Feet of Fine 500 is the son of Ralph Arundell.

_Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families_ shows the children of Renfred de Arundel and Alice, da. and coheir of John de Lanhern, as

John de Arundel=Joan da. and coheir of John le Sor of Talvern.
Ralf de Arundel
Benedict de Arundel
Ellen, wife of Sir Richard Sergeaulx
Rose

"John de Arundel, under age and in ward to his grandmother, Eva de Rupe, 12 Edw. I (1283-4). Held Treloy 23 July 1279. Gave lease of Trederesec to John de Umphaville and John his son 28 Edw. I. (1299-1300). To this deed a fragment of an armorial seal is appended. Arms: Six roses, three, two, and one, three being on a chief. Legend s. 10H .... Had the right of hold a Fair at St. Columb, granted to him 23 July 1279. No proof can be found of the date of his decease, nor of his being alive after 28 Edw. I. (1299-1300). He was certainly dead before 2 Edward II. (1308-9), for John his son was then in wardship to the Bishop of Exeter."

"Joan, da. and coheir of John Sor of Talvern. The charters of the Sor family at Wardour give no proof of this marriage. In 1340, Rosea, wife of John le Sor, by her will, s.d., gave her goods to her daughters Joan, Isabella, Margaret, Joan, and Alice. Inventory of goods dated 7 Jan. 1340. By fine, 8 Edw. III. (1334-5), Sir John Arundell conveyed to Ralf Arundell, Parson of St. Columb, and John Aldestowe, the manors of Morchard and Yewton, co. Devon, and the manor of Trembleth in Cornwall in trust for himself for life; also Morchard, which Jane, widow of John Arundell held in dower, with remainder to his son John and Elizabeth his wife, da. of Oliver Carminowe."

[taf]

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:02:53 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Feet of Fines No 614. Pages 376-377.
> At Westminster, on the Octave of St Martin, 33 Edward III (18 Nov 1359).
> Between Ralph Arundell of Trerees & Joan, his wife, claimants and John
> Arundell, knight, & John Soor, deforciants; … Plea of convent was summoned.
> Ralph & Joan acknowledged the tenements to the right of John Arundel, as
> those which he & John Soor have by gift of Ralph and Joan. The land in
> question was Helygyn, Udno, Kestelwartha, Tregendien, Boswengar, Biaurepeir,
> Shepstel, Treggesuen & Woen.
>
> Is Ralph Arundell of Trerees the same as Trerice? No footnote comments on
> this.

Yes.

> Are the claiments from the same family group Sir John Arundell and John
> Soor. Examination of the lands held or acquired, the family connections
> should be established.

Sir John is of the Lanherne line. It is either the son of Reinfred II or his grandson (both were Sir John, making it hard to distinguish when one dies and the other succeeds, and all I have handy to go by is Vivian, who has proven unreliable for such details with this family.

Note, however, that there is a second part of this grant. Ralph and Joan gave it to Sir John and John, who then gave it back to Ralph and Joan, with remainder to Joan's heirs. In other words, this was not really a gift or land transfer, Ralph and Joan started with it, and Ralph and Joan ended with it. Rather, this was a it really was a maneuver to alter the inheritance, adn Sir John and John are just proxies in this.

This is one of the two documents I pointed out earlier in which you have John le Soor taking an interest in a Ralph Arundel with wife Joan.

taf

[taf]

How so? Ralph died 1275/6, leaving widow Eve and several children. By 1286, Remfrey (II) died, leaving widow Alice. Her minor son John was the heir of Eve. The most likely reconstruction is that John was grandson of Ralph, the son and heir, Remfrey.

Be cautious too about all the string of Johns. The identity of Joan that you cite comes from a pedigree that had only one John about the husband of Elizabeth Carminowe, but then the National Archives reconstruction (probably taken directly from CRO) has two Johns there, meaning that we can't necessarily take for granted that the wives are correctly described (e.g. if there were two Johns, maybe one married Joan and the other married le Soor, and the two somehow got spliced together).

taf

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Vivian does proved this warning about the family tree. He does seem to indicate that part if it is correct although this may be his use of the Wardour information which you have previously cast doubt on.

Warning regarding the information contain in the Visitations of Cornwall at Foot of page 2.
"The portion of this pedigree printed in italic is the original Visitation of Cornwall, 1620. The remainder of the pedigree is compiled from evidences which are given. The Arundell pedigree is very confused for the first three generations, and the Editor has not been able to procure any reliable evidence which would warrant his altering them, he therefore presents them as from the Coll. of Arms and the pedigree given at Wardour Castle. As an instance in proof of incorrectness it may be stated that Gilbert A. de Foresta and Rosamond his wife were living and parties to proceedings, 44 Hen. III at least 150 years after the period in which they appear on the pedigree."

"See Note 5. The descent from Sir Renfrey, who married Alice de Lanherne, may be relied upon as correct and proved by clear evidence. The descent as given in Poles' Devon runs thus. Ralph Arundell lived 15 Stephen, and had issue Renfry, who had issue Sir Ralph, who had issue Sir Renfry who mar. Alice, da. of Sir John Lanherne."

"Note 5: Ralph de Arundell recovered seizin of John de Umfravile and Alice his wife in Bishop's Morchard, &c., county Devon. Rot Originalium I9 Edward I, Roll 25. (1291) Radulphus de Arundell qu. Gilbert de la Foresta anil Rosamond his wife def. In Nansmael. Ped. Fin. 46 Henry III, No. 7. (1262) Rosamond de la Foresta held one great fee in Trenansleye. Brevia. ' ornub. 31st Edward I (1303)."

I do have some problems trying to read the latin phrase abbreviations used in Vivian. So Rot Orginalium = Orginal scroll? qu = ?. def. = defined? ornub =?

[taf]

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 2:07:07 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:

> "Note 5: Ralph de Arundell recovered seizin of John de Umfravile and Alice
> his wife in Bishop's Morchard, &c., county Devon. Rot Originalium I9 Edward
> I, Roll 25. (1291) Radulphus de Arundell qu. Gilbert de la Foresta anil
> Rosamond his wife def. In Nansmael. Ped. Fin. 46 Henry III, No. 7. (1262)
> Rosamond de la Foresta held one great fee in Trenansleye. Brevia. ' ornub.
> 31st Edward I (1303)."
>
> I do have some problems trying to read the latin phrase abbreviations used
> in Vivian. So Rot Orginalium = Orginal scroll? qu = ?. def. = defined?
> ornub =?

The first is probably a reference to the Exchequer of Pleas records, Rotulorum Originalium in Curia Scaccarii Abbreviatio, published 1805-1810.

https://books.google.com/books?id=FSZDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA69


For def., it becomes apparent once you recognize the grouping:

Radulphus de Arundell qu. Gilbert de la Foresta and Rosamond his wife def. In Nansmael. Ped. Fin. 46 Henry III, No. 7. (1262)

Ped. Fin. is Feet of Fines. Fines have two (sets of) parties, the claimant (querent, hence qu.) and the deforciant (def.). Originally meaning "one who wrongfully keeps the owner of lands and tenements out of the possession of them", when fines started to be used as legal fictions between allies in order to divert possession or inheritance, it began to mean nothing more precise than "one against whom a fictitious action of fine was brought").

https://archive.org/details/publications81devo/page/n237


For 'ornub., take a close look at the page image. There was a printing fault here - a gap where a letter should be, apparently a broken or displaced in the press. This was Cornub. (Cornwall), but only a small portion of the top of the C made it onto the page. That being said, I am not sure what records would be abbreviated as Brevia Cornub.

taf

[taf]

Just to help in keeping things straight, here is how I see the main Lanherne line running:

A. William, fl. 1217, d. bef. 1225

B. William, fl. 1225
-------
(connection uncertain)
-------
1. Margaret

2. Remfrey, d. by 1250

3. Ralph, m. Eva (de Rupe), fl. 1250, d. 1275/6

4. Remfrey, d. by 1279, m. Alice (de Lanherne) %

5. John, d. 1306 x 1309 m. Joan (le Soor)

6. Sir John fl. 1334, d. (?) 1355 x 1358 #

7. Sir John d. 1374 x 1376 m. by 1334 Elizabeth Carminowe, m. by 1371 Isabel de Molton

8. John, dvp. m. Joan (de Lustock)

9. John, b. ca. 1368

% apparently the Remfrey who was called 'my uncle' 'avunculo meo' by Ralph de Treuitkey, son of Joel de Treuitkey (AR/1/454)

# A 16 July 1355 receipt (AR/26/1) between John Aroundel "junior", knight, and John Soor de Leye (Atley) implies that two Sir John Arundells were living at the time. The 1359 fine involving Sir John and John le Soor makes no such distinction, perhaps indicating that only one survived at that date. The same applies to two other grants fromt he immediate period that now only call the subject Sir John, no longer junior. One in 1359 is also between Sir John and John Soor de Leye (AR/1/46). The 1620 visitation of Cornwall, in the supplementary pedigree of Arundell of Trerice, includes in a note the following: "By deed 2 Mar. 32 Ed, III., Sir John Arundell of Lanherne granted to his cousin Ralph Arundell of Trerice lands in Caeruner and Dunsfield. Communicated by Lo. Arundell of Wardour." This is AR/1/104, which CRO dates as 5 March 1358, with the properties now identified as Carenuer [Crenver] and Boutfold. To this they ave appended a note: "This deed is cited by Vivian, The Visitations of Cornwall, p3, note 2, saying that Ralph Arundell of Trerice is here described as being the `cousin' of Sir John Arundell. Although he may have been cousin, the deed does not say so." Nonetheless, it suggests that by early 1358 there was only one living Sir John. We would thus have a range 16 July 1355-5 March 1358 for the death of Sir John senior.

taf

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

+Just to backtrack a little.

Jan Wolf and yourself quote "Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families" I have found on the internet various referenced abbreviations of Gen Col, does this refer to the this document?

There are plenty of references to this document but I have found a digital version, so far, on the internet that I can read. Does anyone have a WWW address for the document?

Same for the Wardour Muniments, any www address, plenty of indexes refer to it.

Bigger question is what documents can be trusted that do not contain some bias.

[Jan Wolfe]

I have not found a copy of _Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families_ online. I think that it is too large to fit in the usual machinery used to image books. I borrowed it from a library some time ago and took pictures of much of it. Let me know if you would like to see my images of the Arundel volume.

The abstracts of the "AR" documents are on TNA's website (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/), for example, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/e298ffdb-e4ed-447c-8f0f-2415d448020d for AR/26/1. One can browse the abstracts in this set of documents using the links near the top of the page.

[taf]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 2:02:29 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> +Just to backtrack a little.
>
> Jan Wolf and yourself quote "Genealogical Collections Illustrating the
> History of Roman Catholic Families" I have found on the internet various
> referenced abbreviations of Gen Col, does this refer to the this document?

This was a book, published in 1887. Whether Gen. Col. refers to this book is likely dependent on context, as it is not the only book with a title beginning, containing, or easily summarized with the words Genealogical Collections or even General Collections. (there was also a periodical series entitled Collectanea Genealogica.)

> There are plenty of references to this document but I have found a digital
> version, so far, on the internet that I can read. Does anyone have a WWW
> address for the document?

We discussed this earlier in the thread and none were located by either John Higgins or myself.

> Same for the Wardour Muniments, any www address, plenty of indexes refer to
> it.

This refers to all of the grants, charters, receipts, taxation and other historical documents formerly held by the Lords Arundell of Wardour. As best I can tell, this collection was divided into at least two parts, with some now being held by the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, and some by the Cornwall Record Office - all of the CRO references I have been giving (the ones beginning AR) come from this collection. (Likewise, you will find summaries of these same documents in The National Archives' online catalogue.) The originals are not available online, but the CRO catalogue provides a detailed summary of every document, including all primary parties, relational statements, witnesses, etc., and often attempts to identify the properties and individuals named. Scans of individual items can be requested for a for a fee.

An overview can be found here:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/cd9f6758-cf9e-4e11-ae34-159fba9f0778
For the item-level detailed descriptions, go here and search for Arundel, Arundell, Arrundel, Arondel, etc.
http://crocat.cornwall.gov.uk/DServe/searchpage.htm

> Bigger question is what documents can be trusted that do not contain some
> bias.

Well, all documents have the potential for bias and error. As a general rule, primary documents are usually (though not always) better than secondary sources, contemporary ones are more likely to be accurate than those from significantly later referring back, and relational statements that are incidental to the subject of the document are preferred to those that are directly related to it. (In other words, if a grant says 'I leave this to my nephew X' the fact that X is a nephew is incidental to them being the recipient of the grant. However, if they say 'I claim this property that was formerly held by my grandfather X' they are making a claim based on the relationship, and hence they might have motive to give incorrect information. Still, such statements are usually given the benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence otherwise.

taf

[taf]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 12:42:36 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> Just to help in keeping things straight, here is how I see the main Lanherne line running:

As happens periodically, we are retreading old ground, in part. In 2004, Louise Staley made a detailed set of posts on this family:

http://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?p=56972

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

Your 1-9 generally agrees with the pedigree in _Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families_, except,
6. appears to have died by 3 Edw III when his son was a ward of the Bishop of Exeter. The wife of 6. is shown as Isabella, da. and heir of John de la Bere of Talvern.
8. had two sons named John according to the pedigree. The elder died by 1377.
Joan de Luscote had a 2nd husband Sir William Lambron who was living in 1394. His wife Joan, da. and heir Ralf Soor of Talverne is shown as the mother of Anora, da. and Sir William Lambron, who was the wife of your 9. (the younger son John of 8.)

[taf]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:31:07 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> > 5. John, d. 1306 x 1309 m. Joan (le Soor)
> >
> > 6. Sir John fl. 1334, d. (?) 1355 x 1358 #
> >
> > 7. Sir John d. 1374 x 1376 m. by 1334 Elizabeth Carminowe, m. by 1371 Isabel de Molton
> >

> Your 1-9 generally agrees with the pedigree in _Genealogical Collections
> Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families_, except,
> 6. appears to have died by 3 Edw III when his son was a ward of the Bishop
> of Exeter.

Does it cite any kind of document for this - I am not finding it in the Episcopal registers and having a hard time harmonizing it with other solid dates. If this is really the case, then the Sir John junior of 1355 would have to be #8, but later documents don't call him a knight.

> The wife of 6. is shown as Isabella, da. and heir of John de la Bere of
> Talvern.

Does it give any evidence for this?

> 8. had two sons named John according to the pedigree. The elder died by
> 1377.

Again, does it explain this and/or give evidence for the two Johns?

> Joan de Luscote had a 2nd husband Sir William Lambron who was living in
> 1394. His wife Joan, da. and heir Ralf Soor of Talverne is shown as the
> mother of Anora, da. and Sir William Lambron, who was the wife of your 9.
> (the younger son John of 8.)

I put her toponym in parentheses because I have not seen primary documentation for it and things seem rather confused with Joans rather thick on the ground - see Louise's analysis.

taf

[taf]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 4:54:47 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:31:07 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
>
> > > 5. John, d. 1306 x 1309 m. Joan (le Soor)
> > >
> > > 6. Sir John fl. 1334, d. (?) 1355 x 1358 #
> > >
> > > 7. Sir John d. 1374 x 1376 m. by 1334 Elizabeth Carminowe, m. by 1371 Isabel de Molton
> > >
>
> > Your 1-9 generally agrees with the pedigree in _Genealogical Collections
> > Illustrating the History of Roman Catholic Families_, except,
> > 6. appears to have died by 3 Edw III when his son was a ward of the Bishop
> > of Exeter.
>
> Does it cite any kind of document for this - I am not finding it in the
> Episcopal registers and having a hard time harmonizing it with other solid
> dates. If this is really the case, then the Sir John junior of 1355 would
> have to be #8, but later documents don't call him a knight.

Let me add that I have seen very similar language for placing the death of John #5 before 1309 - 3 Edward II. While it is certainly possible that one was dead by 3 Edward II when his son was in the Bishops custody, and the next by 3 Edward III when his son was in the Bishop's custody, I have to wonder if there is some confusion here.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:54:47 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
...

> > 6. appears to have died by 3 Edw III when his son was a ward of the Bishop
> > of Exeter.
>
> Does it cite any kind of document for this - I am not finding it in the Episcopal registers and having a hard time harmonizing it with other solid dates. If this is really the case, then the Sir John junior of 1355 would have to be #8, but later documents don't call him a knight.
>
> > The wife of 6. is shown as Isabella, da. and heir of John de la Bere of
> > Talvern.
>
> Does it give any evidence for this?
>
> > 8. had two sons named John according to the pedigree. The elder died by
> > 1377.
>
> Again, does it explain this and/or give evidence for the two Johns?
>
> > Joan de Luscote had a 2nd husband Sir William Lambron who was living in
> > 1394. His wife Joan, da. and heir Ralf Soor of Talverne is shown as the
> > mother of Anora, da. and Sir William Lambron, who was the wife of your 9.
> > (the younger son John of 8.)
>
> I put her toponym in parentheses because I have not seen primary documentation for it and things seem rather confused with Joans rather thick on the ground - see Louise's analysis.
>
> taf

No evidence is cited for the wife of 6 in the pedigree.
No citation is given for the date of the wardship of 7.
For the elder of the two sons of 8. named John, it states:

"John de Arundel. Died s.p. Mentioned in entail of 45 Edw. III. From a petition to Parliament, dated 51 Edw. III (1377), it is evident that he was the eldest son of John de Arundel and Joan his wife, and appears to have died before that date. By deed dated 10 April 14 Richard II (1390), 'Johannes Arundell de Trembleyth' grants release to his mother Joan Arundell from all claims upon lands of Modeshold, Trefrynk, and Treby (Wardour Muniments).

Please download my images of the book here, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bobwolfe/genjan/Catholic_Families_Part3_Arundell/
This is a zip file of the images. For some of the pedigree pages I took pictures of the left and right pages and another picture of both in one image. I plan to delete this zip file in a few days, so anyone who wants to read the book, please download it now.

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Fantastic. down-loaded successfully. Plenty to read.
Thank you for providing this document.

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Item 7. Sir John d. 1374 x 1376 m. by 1334 Elizabeth Carminowe, m. by 1371 Isabel de Molton.

Item 8. John, dvp. m. Joan (de Lustock)

Feet of Fines No 695. Page 445-447.
At Westminster, on the Octave of St Michael, 46 Edward III (6 Oct 1372). Before William de Fynchedenm John Moubray, William de Wichyngham & Roger de Kirketon, justices and afterwards on the Octave of St Hilary in the 47th year (20 Jan 1373 or 4) … Between John Arundell, (son of Sir John de Arundell III by Elizabeth, daughter of Oliver Carminow), & Joan, (Daughter of Sir Wm Lustock and was Lady of Loddiwell in her own right, 14 January, 49 Edward III (1376) on which day he executed a charter concerning her lands. After John Arundell’s death she married as his second wife Sir Wm Lambrom), his wife, claiments and John Roskyer & Walter Shyef, deforciants…
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031894408;view=1up;seq=1

John Arundell named as the son of John Arundell III and wife Elizabeth Carminow.

John Arundell (IV) was alive in 1372 but not in 1376. Death is therefore though to be about 1373/5.

John died married Joan Lustock.
Joan Lustock then married William Lambourn.

We should believe a legal document that was there to safeguard land transactions. I assume that the itinerant justices would see the relevant documents at this legal hearing.

National Archive has:
John Arundell IV son of John III ?; known as Sir John Arundell of Treloy; married Joan Luscott in 1362 x 1367 which brought to the Arundells (after the deaths of Joan and her second husband Sir William Lambourn in 1397 x 1407) the Devonshire manors of Battishorne, Darracott, Gratton, Loddiswell, Ideford, and Spreacombe and land in Buckland Dinham and Luscott; died 1372 x 1376, predeceasing his father.

[taf]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 9:02:12 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Item 7. Sir John d. 1374 x 1376 m. by 1334 Elizabeth Carminowe, m. by 1371
> Isabel de Molton.
>
> Item 8. John, dvp. m. Joan (de Lustock)
>
> Feet of Fines No 695. Page 445-447.
> At Westminster, on the Octave of St Michael, 46 Edward III (6 Oct 1372).
> Before William de Fynchedenm John Moubray, William de Wichyngham & Roger
> de Kirketon, justices and afterwards on the Octave of St Hilary in the
> 47th year (20 Jan 1373 or 4) … Between John Arundell, (son of Sir John
> de Arundell III by Elizabeth, daughter of Oliver Carminow), & Joan,
> (Daughter of Sir Wm Lustock and was Lady of Loddiwell in her own right,
> 14 January, 49 Edward III (1376) on which day he executed a charter
> concerning her lands. After John Arundell’s death she married as his
> second wife Sir Wm Lambrom), his wife, claiments and John Roskyer &
> Walter Shyef, deforciants…
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031894408;view=1up;seq=1
>
> John Arundell named as the son of John Arundell III and wife Elizabeth
> Carminow.
>
> John Arundell (IV) was alive in 1372 but not in 1376. Death is therefore
> though to be about 1373/5.
>
> John died married Joan Lustock.
> Joan Lustock then married William Lambourn.
>
> We should believe a legal document that was there to safeguard land
> transactions.

But what does the legal document tell us? That in 1373 a John Arundell and his wife Joan used intermediaries to resettled lands, some of which had formerly belonged to William Luscote, on themselves and their heirs, and in default of that, on the right heirs of Joan, and finally on the heirs male of William. No explicit relationship is given.

> I assume that the itinerant justices would see the
> relevant documents at this legal hearing.

I don't think your assumption is correct. This was a transaction between two people that was being registered. The role of the royal official was to take a fee to record the transaction, not swear to the accuracy of the claims it contained. The whole process was originally created to record the settlement between people who had a dispute over land, but was hijacked to be used by a person and their friends to subvert normal ownership and inheritance, sometimes at the expense of another claimant, and under these circumstances one cannot assume that the document is entirely accurate - it is not uncommon to find people making mutually-exclusive claims to land ownership rights, and this would be sorted out in the courts, not by the clerk recording the fine.

> National Archive has:
> John Arundell IV son of John III ?; known as Sir John Arundell of Treloy;
> married Joan Luscott in 1362 x 1367 which brought to the Arundells (after
> the deaths of Joan and her second husband Sir William Lambourn in 1397 x
> 1407) the Devonshire manors of Battishorne, Darracott, Gratton, Loddiswell,
> Ideford, and Spreacombe and land in Buckland Dinham and Luscott; died 1372
> x 1376, predeceasing his father.

Based on what? This family (as with many such families) has been beat around by antiquarians for centuries, and they tend to develop a 'traditional' pedigree that incorporates both authentic relationships that can be supported by the documentary record, and other claimed connections that were just guesswork but have accumulated a veneer of acceptability simply because they have been around for a long time.

The 1374 fine has the tone of the type of transaction that one might see accompanying a new marriage, protecting the wife from being at the mercy of her step-sons as a widow. Except it is from 1373, while her husband's heir was born ca. 1368. Given that the lands in question were to go to the heirs of Joan if she had none by John Arundell, are we sure that the family later held these lands because they descended from John (#8) and Joan, rather than because John (#9) married a daughter of Lambourn by Joan? I am not saying this is the case, but absent an explicit document, the inheritance of Lustock lands may not be sufficient to prove that John (#9) was son of John Arundell and Joan Lustock.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

Bill, I think your quote of the fine confuses the footnotes (which are the authors conclusions) with the statements in the fine. For a full view copy, see https://archive.org/details/publications81devo/page/n949 or the abstract here, http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_288_50.shtml#753, which includes a link to the original document.

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

> Feet of Fines No 695. Page 445-447.
> At Westminster, on the Octave of St Michael, 46 Edward III (6 Oct 1372).
> Before William de Fynchedenm John Moubray, William de Wichyngham & Roger
> de Kirketon, justices

I do not see these 4 justices as simply clerks taking a fee for recording a land transaction. They would have been referred to as clerks but they were not they were referred to as justices.

Define: Medieval itinerant justices
An eyre or iter was the name of a circuit traveled by an itinerant justice in medieval England (a justice in eyre), or the circuit court over which they presided, or the right of the monarch (or justices acting in their name) to visit and inspect the holdings of any vassal.

The statement that the land had previously belonged to William Luscote, whose daughter was called Joan and who married a John Arundell, should imply a family connection.

The 200 pound sterling that is given over by John Arundell and Joan, a very large amount of money, in the final line has to be payment to own this land.

Why would he author/translator of this document jnvent a family connection of John and Joan in the footnotes.

I'm implying anything about John #9 only that your Items 7 & 8 have some comfirmation by this feet of Fine case.

[taf]

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 1:20:19 AM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:

> I do not see these 4 justices as simply clerks taking a
> fee for recording a land transaction. They would have
> been referred to as clerks but they were not they were
> referred to as justices.

Fines are not straightforward because they had become a complete fiction. They started out as legal cases in which the justices mediated between the two competing claimants. This process would come to be hijacked: in order to subvert ownership or inheritance, two parties would invent a conflict between them, then come into court and agree to 'settle their dispute'. The justices would then be faced with two parties that agreed on the facts before the court, leaving the justices with nothing to do but ratify it, not seek out an alternative version denied by both parties.

> The statement that the land had previously belonged to
> William Luscote, whose daughter was called Joan and who
> married a John Arundell, should imply a family
> connection.

That the land was previously held by another party is consistent with a family connection, but not probative. That William had a daughter named Joan is not found in the document, and hardly adds given how extremely common the name Joan was. What does suggest a family connection is that the land not only once belonged to William Luscote, but that in the case of failure of issue of Joan, it was to revert to the heirs male of William Luscote's body.

> The 200 pound sterling that is given over by John
> Arundell and Joan, a very large amount of money, in the
> final line has to be payment to own this land.

Yes, it is payment to own the land, but it is land that was supposed to belong to John Reskymer on the death of William and they are paying him so that they receive it instead. I don't see how this payment argues in favor of a blood relationship.

> Why would he author/translator of this document jnvent a
>family connection of John and Joan in the footnotes.

'Invent' makes to it sound so sinister. If for a century antiquarians had been writing that this was the case, the editor may simply have accepted it without question.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 6:26:43 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
...

> As happens periodically, we are retreading old ground, in part. In 2004, Louise Staley made a detailed set of posts on this family:
>
> http://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?p=56972
>
> taf

Here is the Google Groups link to the 2004 thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/6T7u14gv8VU/a0R6fwqpSsEJ

Note that Louise's "POST 3 of 4" shows that the will of Rosea, wife of John le Soor, provides evidence against rather than supporting the claim that the first John de Arundell married Joan, daughter of John le Soor (at least not the daughter John le Soor by his wife Rosea).

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

The " on page 222 indicates that a Joan was the daughter and coheir of Sir William Luscote, and that this Joan married a John Arundell.

"Miltondaumarl' and the moiety of the advowson of the church of Yeddeford' - which William Luscote held for life; should indicate that at this hearing evidence was provided that showed this to be true, otherwise why would it be written down, except as evidence of ownership.

As a Joan was a daughter and coheir of Sir William Luscote then to provide this information at the hearing, Joan presumable had a copy of this document, which probably means she, Joan, was the co-heir mentioned.

What evidence do you have these court hearings were corrupt?

Jan, Post 4 from the Norwegian website in 2004.
---Generation 7---
Again all sources are in agreement that Sir John IV Arundell married Joan,
daughter of Sir William Luscote. Sir John IV Arundell died before 5th
November 1376 v.p., his wife survived him. Joan Luscote married as her
second husband Sir William Lambourne before 23 July 1394. Her IPM survives
as C.I.P.M. 29 Edw. III, No. 31.

Seems that Louise Staley agrees that Joan was a Luscote.

I note that this website only uses Cornwall Visitation, history of the Roman Catholic Families of England and Wardour Muniments (which I cannot access), and at times Cornwall record Office material. I have not seem any references to them accessing the feet of Fines documents,

[bill.irvin...@gmail.com]

Page 222 in the History of the Roman Catholic Families of England. I placed the title inside "" marks and it seems to have taken this as an indication it remove the contents?

[taf]

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 1:07:49 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> The " on page 222 indicates that a Joan was the daughter and coheir of Sir
> William Luscote, and that this Joan married a John Arundell.

Based on what evidence? If we really want to clean up this pedigree, we have to set aside all of the old guesses provided without proof or explanation and see what can be found in the contemporary record.

> "Miltondaumarl' and the moiety of the advowson of the church of Yeddeford'
> - which William Luscote held for life; should indicate that at this hearing
> evidence was provided that showed this to be true, otherwise why would it be
> written down, except as evidence of ownership.

And that evidence would be both parties stating it. Court proceedings are adversarial - they don't delve into issues that are not in conflict between the parties. Why it was included is that it established what precisely was being transferred, the right of inheritance on the death of the current holder. John Reskymer would have put this forward demonstrating he had the right to transfer the entail, and John Arundell would have confirmed this, because it gave Reskymer the right to sell it to him. Everybody involved is happy and there is no conflict between parties that the justices need to resolve.

And while we are at it, this is a selective interpretation of the fine. The argument is that since the Arundells ended up with William de Luscote's properties, then Joan was the Luscote heiress. There are two problems with this. First, the Arundells also ended up with Richard Stapleton's properties, so why isn't Joan his heiress instead. Second, with the 200 pounds changing hands, this is an outright sale, so why is inheritance invoked at all.

As I said before, the only thing in the whole fine that makes a genealogical connection more likely is that the reversion was settled on the heirs of the body of John and Joan, then the heirs of the body of Joan, then the heirs male of the body of Luscote - and remember, this was all land set to pass out of the Luscote family with William's death (or never held by them at all).

> As a Joan was a daughter and coheir of Sir William Luscote

Except she wasn't, not of the William in this fine at the time it was executed, and the lands were in no sense inherited, except by purchase of the right of inheritance from the heir, Reskymer. The heir of William to the land involved in this fine was John Reskymer (who was also the heir of Richard Stapleton). William was still living at the time, and he had or at least had the potential to have male issue, so at the time this wa

> then to provide
> this information at the hearing, Joan presumable had a copy of this
> document, which probably means she, Joan, was the co-heir mentioned.

What document? According to the fine, Joan was not coheiress, Reskymer was the heir.

> What evidence do you have these court hearings were corrupt?

Corrupt? Who said anything about corrupt? That they were used as a legal fiction, a trumped up conflict that then enabled ownership or inheritance of land to be diverted from its 'natural' course is well understood.

> ---Generation 7---
> Again all sources are in agreement that Sir John IV Arundell married Joan,
> daughter of Sir William Luscote. Sir John IV Arundell died before 5th
> November 1376 v.p., his wife survived him. Joan Luscote married as her
> second husband Sir William Lambourne before 23 July 1394. Her IPM survives
> as C.I.P.M. 29 Edw. III, No. 31.
>
> Seems that Louise Staley agrees that Joan was a Luscote.

No, Louise agrees that the three sources she was comparing all said she was. That is not the same thing. Joan's assignment as a Luscote dates back to Collins in the prior century, and these 'traditional' assignments were often repeated unquestioningly by the 19th century antiquarians. The important question is whether any of them gave any evidence that this was the case.

> I note that this website only uses Cornwall Visitation, history of the Roman
> Catholic Families of England and Wardour Muniments (which I cannot access),
> and at times Cornwall record Office material. I have not seem any references
> to them accessing the feet of Fines documents,

What website? That was a post to soc.genealogy.medieval (this newsgroup) by Louise Staley that happened to be archived on the norwegian website. Louise was comparing the pedigrees in these three sources. The 'Wardour Muniments' are the materials in the Cornwall Record Office, and for the most part are fully accessible. These together are just a small fraction of the historical records out there - there are Feet of Fines, Fine Rolls, Patent Rolls, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Close Rolls, Feudal Aids, Ancient Deeds, Episcopal Registers, and records at The National Archives and South West Heritage Trust (i.e. Devon Record Office) and on and on. I have referred to material found in almost all of these at some point in this thread, but have in no way made an exhaustive survey. Knock yourself out.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:50:24 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 1:07:49 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:

> > What evidence do you have these court hearings were corrupt?
>
> Corrupt? Who said anything about corrupt? That they were used as a legal
> fiction, a trumped up conflict that then enabled ownership or inheritance
> of land to be diverted from its 'natural' course is well understood.

Just as an example of this:

"It became common for the parties to collude in bringing fictitious actions, purely so that their agreeements (sic) could be recorded as final concords."

Christ Philips, 'A Short Introduction to Feet of Fines', Foundations, volume 4, pages 45-55 (2012).
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/FinesArticle.pdf

[taf]

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:50:24 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 1:07:49 PM UTC-8, bill.irvin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The " on page 222 indicates that a Joan was the daughter and coheir of Sir
> > William Luscote, and that this Joan married a John Arundell.
>
> Based on what evidence? If we really want to clean up this pedigree, we
> have to set aside all of the old guesses provided without proof or
> explanation and see what can be found in the contemporary record.

OK, here is proof of the relationship.

Proof of age of Joan, daughter and heir of Alice, late the wife of William Luscote.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0060644317;view=1up;seq=194

"Writ to the escheator to take proof of the age of the said Joan, kinswoman and one of the heirs of Thomas Achard and Gilbert de Knovill, whose lands are in the custody of the said William de Luscote by the king’s commitment. 24 October, 41 Edward III.

Proof of age taken at Jevelcestre, 3 November, 41 Edward III. (Partly illegible.)
John Doe, aged 50 years, says that the said Joan was of full age, to wit, 14 years, on Monday after St. James last, and was born at Purloke and baptised in the church there on Monday after St. James, 27 Edward III ; and this he knows because he held a court there John Gatebrugg, aged 45 years, John . . . . ., aged 43 (l) years, . . . . . . . ., aged 40 years, Peter Grist, aged 50 years, and Thomas le Forister, aged 48 years, agree in all things with John D00, and say they were present at the said court. William Clotesham, aged 50 years, Walter Attemore. aged 45 years, John Cartere, aged 48 years, William Hamelyn, aged 35 years, William Cheleworth, aged 46 years, and Richard Tatenas, aged 40 years. agree in all things, and say that on the day of the baptism they visited Alice, Joan’s mother, who gave them each a silk purse that they might bear witness to Joan’s age. And they say that John Arundel has married the said Joan, but so far they have no issue.
The escheator by Thomas Colbrand, his bailiff, warned William Luscote to be present at the said proof, and he was present but had nothing to say for the king or himself against the said proof. C. Edw. III. File 197. (5.)"


From this we know Joan was heiress of Thomas Achard, so his ipm:

https://archive.org/stream/cu31924011387895#page/n251/mode/2up/search/achard

"Writ to the escheator in co. Gloucester and the march of Wales thereto
belonging to enquire as to the lands and heir of the said Thomas
Achard, and who has been in possession of his lands since his death.
24 June, 36 Edward III.
March of Wales [now Monmouth]. Inq. taken at Chapstowe, Monday
before St. Margaret, 36 Edward III.
Reodwyk. A third part of a messuage, a third part of a carucate of
land, 8a. several pasture, and lis. id. rent, held of the king in chief
by knight's service, as of his pourparty of the lands late of John de
Knovill according to the partition made between him, William de
Luscote and Alice, late his wife, now deceased, sister and heir of
Michael son of Amy one of the daughters and heirs of the said
John de Knovill (the said Michael having died while a minor in the
king's wardship), and John Duyn, son and heir of Eleanor the third
of the daughters and heirs of the said John de Knovill.
He held no other lands &c., in the said county or march.

He died on the last day of June, 34 Edward III. Joan, daughter of the
aforesaid William de Luscote and Alice, aged 7 years and more, and
the aforesaid John Duyn, aged 24 years and more, are his heirs.

Eleanor, his wife, has been in possession of the premises since his
death, pretending (prodestando) that he is still alive."


This is a little confusing - it seems to be missing something, but fortunately we get the same basic data elsewhere:


"Peter Achard.

Writ to the escheator to enquire as to the lands and heir of the said Peter, and who has been in possession of his lands since his death and received the issues. 12 February, 37 Edward III.
Gloucester and the March or Wales. Inq. taken at Magor, Thursday before St. Gregory, 37 Edward III.
Redewyk within the lordship of Magor. A messuage, a carucate of land and 20s. rent, held for life of the king in chief by knight's service, of the right and inheritance of Cecily sometime his wife, because there was issue between them.

He died on Monday before St. Leonard, 36 Edward III. John Duyn son of Eleanor one of the sisters of the said Cecily, aged 24 years and more, and Joan daughter of Alice daughter of Amy her other sister, aged 7 years and more, are the heirs of Cecily to the aforesaid lands. The jurors do not know who is Peter's heir.

The escheator has had possession of the premises since the death of the said Peter, and has received the issues to the king's use, because the premises are held of the king in chief by knight's service. C. Edw. III. File 177. (1.)"


See also Fine Roll:
https://archive.org/details/calendaroffiner07greauoft/page/238
https://archive.org/details/calendaroffiner07greauoft/page/256

And more relevant IPMs:
Alice, late wife of John Knovill
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=188
Alice, late wife of William Luscote
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=240
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=247
Margaret Dynham or Douvedale (formerly wife of Gilbert de Knovill)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=354
Proof of age of Thomas Achard(lands held by Luscote):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=354


We also see a later marriage of Joan:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009518316;view=1up;seq=278

"Walter atte Treween
Writ of Mandamus, 2 June, 5 Richard II
597. DEVON. Inq. taken at Tavystok, Friday before St. Margaret, 6 Richard II. Walter atte Trewen, the elder, gave the under-mentioned messuage etc. in Lamerton and rent etc. in Whytechurche to him and the heirs of his body, saving the reversion to himself and his heirs. He died seised of such estate therein, without heir of his body; and Walter the elder died seised of the reversion. From Walter the elder the reversion descended to William, his son and heir, and from William to William atte Trewen, his son and heir, who was 21 years of age on Friday after Holy Trinity last.
Lamerton. A messuage, a garden, 100 a. arable, 6 a. meadow, 100 a. moor and
waste, 56s. rent, a court and 20 a. wood and underwood.
Whytechurche. 4/. rent and a court.
All held of Edward Courtenay, earl of Devon, by service of a fourth part of a knight's fee.
The said Walter named in the writ was a bastard, and died without heir of his body on the feast of St. Nicholas, 1 Richard II.
Inasmuch as he held the premises of the said Edward Courtenay, as of the castle of Plympton, and because the said Edward was then a minor in the king's wardship, Richard Kendale, late escheator, seized the premises into the king's hands. William atte Trewen, son of Walter, died 20 years ago; and Hugh Courtenay, late earl of Devon, grandfather of the above Edward Courtenay, because the said William son of Walter died in seisin of the manor of Were and held it of him by knight's service, seized William, son of the said William. son of Walter, and granted his marriage and wardship, together with the custody of all the lands etc. held of him (the earl) in the county of Devon,
including the premises, to William de Luscote, to whose daughter Joan the said William son of William was married 10 years ago. William Luscote took the profits of the premises after the death of the said Walter named in the writ by virtue of the king’s letters patent, and died after the feast of St. George last. Henry atte Bear’, his executor, now occupies them, but has taken none of the profits of them.
Footnote:—Born at Were and baptized in the church of that town. C. Ric. II. File 21 (14)"

So, William de Luscote died 23 April 1382, and his daughter Joan married the minor William atte Treween, son of William, son of Walter about a decade before.

And as I said above. Joan was only heiress of her mother, because William remarried and had at least one son:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009518308;view=1up;seq=384

John son and heir of William Luscote
867. DEVON. Inq. taken at Barnastaple, Friday after the Nativity of the Blessed Mary, 19 Richard II, before William Onbyry, king’s commissioner, and the escheator. The said John son of William held the under-mentioned parts of knight’s fees.
Ebberlegh with Wonteslegh. A twenty-first part of a knight’s fee, held of the king, as of the castle of Barnastapol.
Medeneford. A twenty-first part of a knight’s fee, similarly held.
He died on 10 February, 10 Richard II. John his son, aged 6 years and more, is his heir, and the marriage of the said heir pertains to the king because the king was then lord of the castle and town of Barnastaple by the death of James Daudelegh of Helee, knight, and the forfeiture of Robert late duke of Ireland. John Brithteston and Alice his wife hold and detain the said heir in their custody, to the very great damage and contempt of the king.
C. Ric. II File 60 (15)"




So, Joan was heiress of her mother, maternal uncle, maternal grandmother, and coheiress of her maternal-line great-grandfather, but not of her father. As of November 1367, Joan daughter of William Luscote and his deceased wife Alice had recently married John Arundel, and not yet had children. In 1376, John's heir was Ralph, a minor who apparently died before attaining majority. Ralph's heir was his brother John, b. ca. 1368. That makes it hard to fit in an older son also named John, as given by Gen. Col. Joan then almost immediately remarried.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 12:40:52 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
...

> So, Joan was heiress of her mother, maternal uncle, maternal grandmother, and coheiress of her maternal-line great-grandfather, but not of her father. As of November 1367, Joan daughter of William Luscote and his deceased wife Alice had recently married John Arundel, and not yet had children. In 1376, John's heir was Ralph, a minor who apparently died before attaining majority. Ralph's heir was his brother John, b. ca. 1368. That makes it hard to fit in an older son also named John, as given by Gen. Col. Joan then almost immediately remarried.
>
> taf

Perhaps John Arundel had another wife before 1367 and the son John who had died by 1376 or 1377 was the son of such an earlier wife.
If Joan, daughter of William Luscote and his wife Alice, married William atte Treween 10 years before 1382, then her husband John Arundel must have died by 1372. This would not be inconsistent with Gen. Col., which states that he died before 5 Nov. 50 Edw. III. 1376.
Is there evidence that this William atte Treween died by 1394?
Alternatively, perhaps William Luscote had another daughter named Joan by his second wife.
Joan Luscote, daughter of William Luscote and Alice, was the coheir of her mother's cousin Thomas Achard, who was the son of Cecily de Knoville, sister of her mother's mother. IPM: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=593
The relationships are described in the IPM of Alice, late the wife of John de Knoville, which you cited in your post (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=188).

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:07:34 AM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> Perhaps John Arundel had another wife before 1367 and the son John who
> had died by 1376 or 1377 was the son of such an earlier wife.

That is certainly possible, but until I have a chance to track down the reference used by Gen. Col. that supposedly demonstrates that this John existed, I am going to remain skeptical.

> If Joan, daughter of William Luscote and his wife Alice, married William
> atte Treween 10 years before 1382, then her husband John Arundel must
> have died by 1372. This would not be inconsistent with Gen. Col., which
> states that he died before 5 Nov. 50 Edw. III. 1376.

That would certainly be an issue, but the phrasing in the ipm seems awfully vague/imprecise, suggesting to me that the 'about 10 years ago' was no more precise than some of the '30 years and more' ages.

> Is there evidence that this William atte Treween died by 1394?

Not that I am aware. What are you thinking here (why is 1394 relevant - I think I know but I would rather be sure before addressing it, lest I go down a blind alley)?

> Alternatively, perhaps William Luscote had another daughter named Joan
> by his second wife.

This is certainly a possibility, particularly given how much younger William atte T would have been than the Joan who married John Arundell. William de Luscote had multiple children by this second wife - I find a couple of documents than name William and his sons John and William. In 1380, William and his wife Margery had licence for a chapel.

> Joan Luscote, daughter of William Luscote and Alice, was the coheir of her
> mother's cousin Thomas Achard, who was the son of Cecily de Knoville, sister
> of her mother's mother. IPM: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=593
> The relationships are described in the IPM of Alice, late the wife of John
> de Knoville, which you cited in your post
> (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=188).

Yes, these relationships, all or in part, are given independently in all of the documents I listed without quoting. None of them, though, give Alice's surname, calling her brother simply 'Michael'. Secondary sources call him Michael l'Archdeckne, son of Thomas, but I haven't taken the time to see if I can prove this. The only seemingly-conflicting data I came across regarding the descent of Joan from John de Knovill instead names Alice's mother as Anne, but in some medieval script Amie and Anne would look almost identical, so this needn't trouble us.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:37:10 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:07:34 AM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

...

> > Is there evidence that this William atte Treween died by 1394?
>
> Not that I am aware. What are you thinking here (why is 1394 relevant - I think I know but I would rather be sure before addressing it, lest I go down a blind alley)?

Gen. Col. states that Joan married William Lambron before 23 July 1394.
...

> Yes, these relationships, all or in part, are given independently in all of the documents I listed without quoting. None of them, though, give Alice's surname, calling her brother simply 'Michael'. Secondary sources call him Michael l'Archdeckne, son of Thomas, but I haven't taken the time to see if I can prove this. The only seemingly-conflicting data I came across regarding the descent of Joan from John de Knovill instead names Alice's mother as Anne, but in some medieval script Amie and Anne would look almost identical, so this needn't trouble us.
>
> taf

Gen. Col. states the name of Alice's father as Thomas Archdeacon. The pedigree here, https://books.google.com/books?id=DRwiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA237, doesn't mention this Thomas, nor does the CP article about Thomas l'Arcedekne. Chronologically, perhaps he could have been a younger son of Thomas l'Arcedekne (i.e, a younger brother of Thomas' son and heir John).

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:37:10 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:07:34 AM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> ...
> > > Is there evidence that this William atte Treween died by 1394?
> >
> > Not that I am aware. What are you thinking here (why is 1394 relevant - I think I know but I would rather be sure before addressing it, lest I go down a blind alley)?
>
> Gen. Col. states that Joan married William Lambron before 23 July 1394.

That is what I thought you had in mind, but I have to say, Louise is right that the fact that William de Lambron executed documents in Trerice is prima facia evidence that his wife was Joan, widow of Ralph Arundel of Trerice, rather than her contemporary, Joan, widow of John of Treloy, so we are back to the same problem as throughout this thread - is this connection supported by contemporary documents, or might we dealing with a mistaken identification that has become ossified in the antiquarian pedigree tradition (even in William's HOP account)?

> > Yes, these relationships, all or in part, are given independently in all
> > of the documents I listed without quoting. None of them, though, give
> > Alice's surname, calling her brother simply 'Michael'. Secondary sources
> > call him Michael l'Archdeckne, son of Thomas, but I haven't taken the
> > time to see if I can prove this.
>

> Gen. Col. states the name of Alice's father as Thomas Archdeacon. The
> pedigree here, https://books.google.com/books?id=DRwiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA237,
> doesn't mention this Thomas, nor does the CP article about Thomas
> l'Arcedekne. Chronologically, perhaps he could have been a younger son of
> Thomas l'Arcedekne (i.e, a younger brother of Thomas' son and heir John).

Alice's brother Michael was a minor in the king's hands, so there ought to be some documentation of him, but with all of the different ways to spell the surname, it makes a search tedious (plus, Google can't get it though their intuitive algorithms, even after the umpteenth time I tell them, that when I type Knoville, I really mean Knoville and not Knoxville).

taf

[P J Evans]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:33:26 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

[snip]

> Alice's brother Michael was a minor in the king's hands, so there ought to be some documentation of him, but with all of the different ways to spell the surname, it makes a search tedious (plus, Google can't get it though their intuitive algorithms, even after the umpteenth time I tell them, that when I type Knoville, I really mean Knoville and not Knoxville).
>
> taf

I have a family named Sirrs. Search algorithms have a hard time with it, including FamilySearch. (The usual variant is Surr. Not much better.)

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> Chronologically, perhaps he could have been a younger son of Thomas
> l'Arcedekne (i.e, a younger brother of Thomas' son and heir John).

The ipm of Alice, widow of John de Knovyll helps with the chronology a little. It reports that Michael was a minor when he died in May 26 Edward III, (1352, putting his birth no earlier than 1331, while the February 1354 ipm gives Alice's age as 19, so born 1333/4. (It also says that Alice and William had issue at the time - Joan de Luscote was 1 in June 1355, and 1 1/2 just after Whitsun the same year in two inquests-this seemingly places her birth before the February 1354 inquest.)

taf

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:42:10 PM UTC-8, P J Evans wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:33:26 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> [snip]
> > Alice's brother Michael was a minor in the king's hands, so there ought to be some documentation of him, but with all of the different ways to spell the surname, it makes a search tedious (plus, Google can't get it though their intuitive algorithms, even after the umpteenth time I tell them, that when I type Knoville, I really mean Knoville and not Knoxville).
> >
>

> I have a family named Sirrs. Search algorithms have a hard time with it,
> including FamilySearch. (The usual variant is Surr. Not much better.)

Well, that's just your fault for not having ancestors with more normal surnames. I have a Haswell family, and though even an inadvertent link hit causes Google to 'learn' what adds to bombard me with, after hundreds of searches since Google first went live, they still insist that I really want 'has well', 'has good', 'have well', 'had well', etc., and I have to go back and add the quotes every blasted time.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 9:40:52 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Margaret Dynham or Douvedale (formerly wife of Gilbert de Knovill)
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=354
> Proof of age of Thomas Achard(lands held by Luscote):
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=354

Oops, I mistakenly gave the same URL for both of these - the latter should be:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.l0066756867;view=1up;seq=402

And here is the proof of Alice's surname, or at least of her mother's husband, though unfortunately only a fragment survives so all we have is the writ (23 October 1329) to go by:

Proof of age of Cecily the wife of Peter Acard, Eleanor the wife of John de Duyn, and Amy the wife of Thomas the Ercedekne, daughters and heirs of John de Knovyle
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101073590695;view=1up;seq=254

This is backed up by the Fine Roll, which orders the escheator to make a division of the inheritance of John de Knovill into three equal parts to John de Dunne, Thomas le Ercedekne, and Peter Achard, whose wives Eleanor, Amy and Cecily had proven their ages:
https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero04greauoft/page/202

and later, to deliver the the pourparty to Thomas le Ercedekne, who had married Aly, the third heir.
https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero04greauoft/page/272

taf

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> Gen. Col. states the name of Alice's father as Thomas Archdeacon. The
> pedigree here, https://books.google.com/books?id=DRwiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA237,
> doesn't mention this Thomas, nor does the CP article about Thomas
> l'Arcedekne. Chronologically, perhaps he could have been a younger son
> of Thomas l'Arcedekne (i.e, a younger brother of Thomas' son and heir
> John).

Anyone have a death date for this Thomas, husband of Alice de la Roche? If online pedigrees are correct in putting his death in 1331, then Amy couldn't have been a second wife, which otherwise would be a nominal possibility, because her children were not born until several years later.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

CP states:
He m., 2ndly, Maud. (a) He d. shortly before 21 Aug. 1331. (b) His
widow was living 11 June 1362. (a)
footnotes:
(a) Genealogists call her, without proof, da. of John de Mules. She was one of the heirs of John Tracy, from whom she inherited half a small fee in Trevisquite. In July 1334), being then widow of Sir Thomas I'A., she was accused of adultery with one Julian de Tregenhay. (Grandisson's Register, pp. 758, 1484).
(b) Writ of diem cl. ext., 21 Aug. 5 Edw. III. Inq., Cornwall, Monday before the Nativity of the Virgin [2 Sep.] 1331. (Ch. Inq. p. m., Edw. Ill, file 27, no. 2).

[Jan Wolfe]

There is a 7-page IPM for John Arundell, Knight (the one who married Anora Lambron), taken in 1442. Is this online yet? If not, I can send photos of it from the book if someone would like to read it carefully.

These inquisitions are nos. 609 and 610, p. 507-514, in CIPM 16 to 20 Henry VI 1437-1442. The inquisitions recite fines from the previous century or more (some, perhaps all, already discussed in this thread or noticed in the Arundell archive), starting with a fine of Oliver Carminow and Elizabeth his wife in 1319. For each property, the inquisitions state the descent of the property to John Arundell, mentioning each step and stating the order of deaths in the chain.

One small thing I noticed is the 1372 fine we discussed was "afterwards granted
and recorded on the octave of Hilary 1374." I think this means that John Arundell (the one who was married to Joan, daughter of William Luscote and Alice, in 1367) was still alive on the octave of Hilary 1374. If so, that's the earliest that Joan could have married a second husband. (I see that date was previously stated in the thread, but I hadn't thought about it carefully.)

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> Gen. Col. states the name of Alice's father as Thomas Archdeacon.
> The pedigree here, https://books.google.com/books?id=DRwiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA237,
> doesn't mention this Thomas, nor does the CP article about Thomas
> l'Arcedekne. Chronologically, perhaps he could have been a younger
> son of Thomas l'Arcedekne (i.e, a younger brother of Thomas' son
> and heir John).

Looking for yet another spelling turned up a study of the Cornwall Archdeacon family that appeared in Records and Transactions of the Devonshire Association vol. 21 (1919) beginning p. 181, as part of an article by A. W. Searley on Haccombe.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015063773694;view=1up;seq=199

He points out that in 1321, a Thomas l'Archdeacon was summoned to Parliament as Baron, but at the same Parliament a Thomas attended as Knight of the Shire for Cornwall. He identities the Baron with the son of Odo, while the Knight of the Shire he with the husband of Anne (sic) one of the daughters and co-heiresses of John de Knoville, speculating that this Thomas was first cousin of the other, perhaps son of the John, brother of Odo, knowledge of whose existence he credits to Maclean. He gets a bit confused and inaccurate in describing this, saying that Cecily de Knoville d.s.p. (she left a son and heir who in turn d.s.p. leading the estate to revert to his cousins), and says the sisters had a brother Michael, d.s.p., but this is clearly the result of an erroneous document (quoted) that makes Alice daughter of Anne (sic), sister and heiress of Michael, son of John de Knovill - mistakenly shifting Michael up a generations. He goes on to relate how this second Thomas had three arrest warrants issued against him in 1337, was excommunicated and underwent public confession, penance and absolution. He says this Thomas died c. 1354, but provides no basis for this.

Having said all that, I don't think Searley is right. Thomas, son of Odo died in 1331 leaving an heir aged 25 and more (ipm). The other Thomas died (we are told) in ca. 1354, marrying a woman b. ca. 1314 (father's ipm), and neither his immediate nor eventual heir were born before 1331. It sure looks to me like this other Thomas was a generation younger than the Baron. Making him son of the elder Thomas is an attractive proposition, but Maclean points out two other L'Arcedeknes, Odo and Ralph, who were active in the late 1310s and either could be younger brother of one Thomas and father of the other.

IPM of 'Thomas son of Odo Lerchdekne':
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101073590695;view=1up;seq=309
IPM of John de Knovill:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101073590687;view=1up;seq=41
Maclean:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89095160388;view=1up;seq=90

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:18:16 PM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> There is a 7-page IPM for John Arundell, Knight (the one who married Anora Lambron), taken in 1442. Is this online yet? If not, I can send photos of it from the book if someone would like to read it carefully.
>
> These inquisitions are nos. 609 and 610, p. 507-514, in CIPM 16 to 20 Henry VI 1437-1442. The inquisitions recite fines from the previous century or more (some, perhaps all, already discussed in this thread or noticed in the Arundell archive), starting with a fine of Oliver Carminow and Elizabeth his wife in 1319. For each property, the inquisitions state the descent of the property to John Arundell, mentioning each step and stating the order of deaths in the chain.
>

...

The earlier (1435) IPMs for the above John Arundell are online:
http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/24-384/

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 5:18:16 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> There is a 7-page IPM for John Arundell, Knight (the one who married Anora
> Lambron), taken in 1442. Is this online yet? If not, I can send photos of
> it from the book if someone would like to read it carefully.
>
> These inquisitions are nos. 609 and 610, p. 507-514, in CIPM 16 to 20 Henry
> VI 1437-1442.

I can see these on Hathi (indeed, I have now found accessible copies of all of the published ipm volumes), but I am told that in other countries the same link only get the nearly worthless 'Limited access'.

> One small thing I noticed is the 1372 fine we discussed was "afterwards
> granted and recorded on the octave of Hilary 1374." I think this means
> that John Arundell (the one who was married to Joan, daughter of William
> Luscote and Alice, in 1367) was still alive on the octave of Hilary 1374.
> If so, that's the earliest that Joan could have married a second husband.

I have seen it claimed that this John died 5 November 1376 while with the English fleet, citing Pine's The New Extinct Peerage, but I lack access to this source to know what the original evidence is.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 7:20:21 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> I can see these on Hathi (indeed, I have now found accessible copies of all
> of the published ipm volumes)

That isn't right - I still haven't located the last two of Edward III 1370-1377.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 6:45:12 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> He points out that in 1321, a Thomas l'Archdeacon was summoned to Parliament
> as Baron, but at the same Parliament a Thomas attended as Knight of the
> Shire for Cornwall. He identities the Baron with the son of Odo, while the
> Knight of the Shire he with the husband of Anne (sic) one of the daughters
> and co-heiresses of John de Knoville,

Regarding this 'other' Thomas l'Ercedekne, the Arundell muniment collection includes two items dated after the death of the more prominent Thomas in 1331:

A grant dated 1334 (AR/1/12) by which Thomas le Ercedekne de Treworthouwal transferred land in Mengen to Ralph Coulyng de Truru. The lands are identified as Mingham, in St Columb Major, and Trethowell, in Kea.

The sale of a ship to Sir John Darundell (John II, the grandfather of Joan's husband), witnessed by Sir Thomas Lercedekne, knight, 1336. (AR/15/1)

taf

[taf]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:51:27 PM UTC-8, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> "John de Arundel. Died s.p. Mentioned in entail of 45 Edw. III. From a
> petition to Parliament, dated 51 Edw. III (1377), it is evident that he
> was the eldest son of John de Arundel and Joan his wife, and appears to
> have died before that date. By deed dated 10 April 14 Richard II (1390),
> 'Johannes Arundell de Trembleyth' grants release to his mother Joan
> Arundell from all claims upon lands of Modeshold, Trefrynk, and Treby
> (Wardour Muniments).

I am still looking at this claimed evidence for two Johns. This first part, the entail, only shows that there was a son John - the entail may just as well have been intended to settle the land on a younger son, so unless this entail explicitly names the younger John as son and heir, it is not probative.

Second, the parliamentary petition. I haven't identified this document, but the logic would appear to be as follows. Ralph was the heir when he died in 1382, with his heir being his brother John. If a John was acting as heir earlier, in 1377, then there must have been an elder John who dsp, with heir Ralph, before Ralph died leaving heir John. It is unclear why he concludes such a John was son of the elder John by Joan. It is not workable to have Joan childless in 1367, and then have had two older children before Ralph's brother and eventual Arundell heir was born.

Finally, we have the statement that John freed his mother Joan of claims upon her lands in 1390. This cannot be relevant to this a hypothetical older John, as that older John would have predeceased Ralph - if he didn't, then it requires the whole reconstruction to be scrapped.

The critical ipm is unfortunately partly unreadable:

Ralph Arundell, kinsman and heir of John Arundell of Trembleyth, knight
Writ of devenerunt, 1 1 . . . , 1 1 Richard II
507. CORNWALL. Inq. taken at Launceston, Thursday after St. Peter’s Chains, 12
Richard II. John Arundell of Trembleyth, knight, did not hold any lands &c. ... on the day of his death, but the under-mentioned manor &c. came to the king’s hands by the death of the said John and by reason of the minority of the said Ralph, his kinsman and heir, to wit, son of John de Arundell, knight, son and heir of ... his son, who has died [while a minor in the king’s wardship].
Conerton. The manor, and two-thirds of the hundred of Penewyth, held of the heir of John de Welyngton, a minor in the king’s wardship, by . . .
The said Ralph died on the last day . . . , 6 Richard II. John Arundell, his brother, aged 22 years . . . , is his next heir.
C. Ric. II File 49 (1)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?q1=arundell;id=uc1.31158009518308;view=1up;seq=240;start=1;sz=10;page=root;num=192;size=100;orient=0

A couple of things to take from this. First, it implies that Ralph was the heir at the time of Sir John's death, as his grandson, as son of his son John (partly unreadable but that seems to be the direction it is going) and died in 1382/3. This would also mean that Ralph's father d.v.p., but the death date given him by Pine (which I haven't seen) makes this difficult. Second, the age given heir John here is problematic. The inquest was taken in 1387/8. if John was aged 22, that would put his birth ca 1364-6, which is inconsistent with Joan having no children in 1367. I massaged this to give John's birth ca. 1368, which is about the earliest possible for there to have been a Ralph and then a John born after this date. Critically, this would make John a minor rather than of full age - maybe the family got away with a fudge. If you conclude that the ipm age is correct, then none of these sons were born to Joan.

taf

[taf]

With regard to the Knovill descent of the Arundells, as it turns out it is laid out in a Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls entry.

De Banco. Mich. 5 Hen. 4. m. 90
John Arundell, Chivaler, Philip Byenham and Lucy Duyn, sued Roland Rake and Marjory, his wife, for the manor and advowson of Pukynton.

John de Knovill, seized 10 E. 2.
+-Amice
++--Alice
+++---Joan
++++----John Arundell, plaintiff
+-Alianora
++--Alice
+++---Philip Byenham, plaintiff
++--Lucy Duyn, plaintiff
+-Cecilia

https://archive.org/stream/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich#page/233/mode/1up

This matches what we have seen, and adds further confirmation that John Arundell (V) was son of Joan Luscote. Also, there is clarity on the Anne/Amie issue: here she is called Amice (Amicie, i.e. Amy).

For the original suit, see the following link, where the descents are right above the blue marker card:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no571/aCP40no571fronts/IMG_0185.htm

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:47:11 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> With regard to the Knovill descent of the Arundells, as it turns out it is laid out in a Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls entry.
>
> De Banco. Mich. 5 Hen. 4. m. 90
> John Arundell, Chivaler, Philip Byenham and Lucy Duyn, sued Roland Rake and Marjory, his wife, for the manor and advowson of Pukynton.
>
> John de Knovill, seized 10 E. 2.
> +-Amice
> ++--Alice
> +++---Joan
> ++++----John Arundell, plaintiff
> +-Alianora
> ++--Alice
> +++---Philip Byenham, plaintiff
> ++--Lucy Duyn, plaintiff
> +-Cecilia

More on this suit an be found in a document calling for a jury to be appointed A/17/70:

King's instruction to sheriff of Somerset, to summon a jury Parties: 1-3) John Arundell, knight, Philip Byenham and Lucy Duyn 4) Roland Rake. ) King's instruction to the sheriff of Somerset, to summon before his justices at Westminster, Hilary term 1402 (or 1416 or 1425), 12 knights or other freemen of the neighbourhood? [Latin: de vis'u] of Pukynton, of whom each has 100 shillings of land, tenements or rent, and who have no connection, either with parties (1) to (3), kinsmen and heirs of Cecily daughter of John de Knouill, or with party (4). They are to decide whether (4) was a tenant of one third of the manor of Pukynton and of the advowson of its church, on the day that (1)-(3) placed a brief in the king's court at Westminster (10 July 1401, 2 Henry), concerning which (1)-(3) plead enforcement by virtue of a fine levied in court, Trinity term 1317 (10 Edward II), between Alice who was wife of John de Knouill, plaintiff, and John Taleford and David Aunselyn, deforciants, concerning that manor and advowson; on account of which fine the brief should not be quashed [Latin: cassari], according to (1)-(3); or whether on that day (10 July 1401) party (4) had no interest in that one third part of the manor and advowson, except at will [Latin: ad voluntatem] of Elizabeth who was wife of William de Monte Acuto, late Earl of Salisbury [died either 1344 (4th Earl) or 1397 (5th Earl)]; she held that one third part in dower by endowerment of the earl her husband; so that the brief should be quashed [Latin: cassari], according to (4). Also whether Cecily had the following daughters, namely Amity and Eleanor, through whom (1)-(3) should have enforcement against (4) concerning the two remaining parts of the manor and advowson, by virtue of that fine, according to (1)-(3); or not, according to (4).

'Amity and Eleanora' daughters of Cecily are clearly Amice and Eleanor, sisters of Cecily.

Some background is found in other documents in the collection. John de Knoville enfeoffed Puckington to John de Taleforde and Daid Aunselyn in 1316 (AR/1/1104) and then in 1317 Taleforde and Aunselyn enfeoffed it back to Alice widow of John de Knoville with remainder to her daughter Cecily for life and were Cecily to die without heirs of her body to her right heirs.(AR/1/1107) Arundell, Duyn and Byenham were thus making claim as right heirs of Cecily. It is curious that neither side seems to have remembered Cecily's son Thomas.

taf