CP Corrections - Edward Courtenay, 3rd Earl of Devon
Brad Verity
LORD COURTENAY, called "the blind Earl," grandson and h., being s. and
h. of Edward de Courtenay, of Goodrington"
Edward de Courtenay, father of the 3rd earl, was a knight. At no
point in contemporary records (Chancery Rolls and the Register of the
Black Prince) have I seen him styled as 'of Goodrington'.
CP's source for much of its Courtenay articles was the late 18th
century Collins's Peerage, which states, "Third [son of the 2nd Earl],
Edward, of Godlington, who married Emeline, daughter and heir of Sir
John Dawney, and had with her sixteen manors."
Collins's source, in turn, for its Courtenay article was the 1735 book
by Ezra Cleaveland "The Genealogical History of the Noble Family of
Courtenay". Cleaveland says "3. Edward, firnamed of Godlington; he
married Emeline Daughter and Heir of Sir John Dawney, and had by her
fixteen Manours."
The HOP article on Sir Edward's younger son Sir Hugh Courtenay, styles
the father "Edward Courtenay of Goodrington, Devon" and states that
"Goodrington, Allington and Stancombe, Devon, were settled on [Sir
Hugh] Courtenay and his first wife in September 1387, within three
months of their marriage."
Historian Martin Cherry in his article 'The Liveried Personnel of
Edward Courtenay, Earl of Devon, 1384-5' in "Devon and Cornwall Notes
and Queries" states, "The two men were associated frequently together
and the earl granted Hugh a considerable part of those lands brought
to the earldom by their mother, Emmeline Dauney, namely the manors of
Goodrington, South Allington and Stancombe Dauney, Hinton and Mudford
(Somerset) and Corfton (Dorset). [footnote: 'CAD., III', B3,889,
D494.]"
From Catalogue of Ancient Deeds: "D. 494. Grant by Edward Courtenay,
earl of Devon, and Hugh Courtenay, his brother, to Hamo de Breirton,
clerk, Roger Grey, John Wodham, and Thomas Kerdyngton, clerk, of their
manors of Gothelyngton, Stancombe, and Alyngton, co. Devon, and
further grant by the said earl, to the same, of his manors of Hynton
and Modeford, co. Somerset, on condition that after the said Hugh
shall have married Elizabeth de Audeleye, the said grantees, at the
request of the said Hugh and Elizabeth or of the said earl, made at
Acford FitzPayn, co. Dorset, shall, within three months afterwards,
grant the said manors to the said Hugh in tail male, and to the said
Elizabeth, with remainder in fee to the said earl; if Hugh die after
the said marriage, before the said re-feoffment is made, Elizabeth is
to have the premises for her life with remainder to the heirs male of
Hugh's body and to the said earl in fee, if Hugh die before marrying
Elizabeth, the said earl is to have the premises in fee. Thursday
after St. Gregory, 10 Richard II. [1386/7]"
The manor of Gothelyngton [Goodrington], however, is not listed in the
1346 IPMs of Sir John Dauney, the 1371 IPMs of his daughter Emeline,
or the 1377 IPMs of the 2nd Earl of Devon, so it's not clear how it
came to the 3rd earl of Devon and his brother Hugh in 1386/7, and
there's certainly no evidence beyond the 1735 assertion of Cleaveland
that their father Sir Edward Courtenay ever held the manor of
Goodrington, or was styled so.
CP: "by Emmeline (d. 1372 before 20 Sep.), da. and h. of Sir John
Dawnay"
The first writ of diem clausit extremum for Emmeline (aka Emma,
Emelyna), late the wife of Edward de Courtenay, knight, was issued 1
Apr. 1371 to the escheators of Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset.
The Somerset IPM returned "She died on 20 March last." The Devon IPM
returned that "She died on Friday in the first week of Lent, 45 Edward
III." The Cornwall IPM returned "She died on Friday after St. Peter
in Cathedra, 45 Edward III."
The 20th of March in 1371 was a Thursday, and I'm not sure how to
figure the other two IPM dates, but it's safe to say that Emmeline
died March 1371.
Emmeline (Dauney), Dame Courtenay, was born 1327/28, as she was found
to be aged 18 years and more in the 1346 Somerset and Cornwall IPMs of
her father Sir John Dauney. The Devon IPM taken in Oct. 1346 ("Friday
after St. Denis, 20 Edward III") returned her as aged 16 years and
more, but a more detailed follow-up IPM taken in Devon a month later
("Monday after St. Katherine, 20 Edward III") returned her as aged 19
years and more.
CP: "which Edward was 3rd s. of the last Earl"
I have a lot of questions I'm trying to sort out about the second son
of the 2nd Earl of Devon, Thomas Courtenay, but that's the topic for
another post.
CP: "but d.v.p., between 1364 and 1372."
Sir Edward Courtenay had to have predeceased his wife Emmeline. By
her right he was a tenant in chief of the king, yet there is no
surviving IPMs for him or even a writ of diem clausit extremum in the
Fine Rolls. Had he survived his wife he would have held her lands by
the courtesy of England until his own death, at which an IPM would
have been ordered.
From Fine Rolls: "20 Sept. 1372, Wallingford. Grant to William, lord
de Latymer, of the wardship of all the lands late of Emmeline late the
wife of Edward de Courtenaye, who (que) held in chief, to hold the
same, with the issues from 13 August last, until the lawful age of
Edward, her son and heir, together with the marriage of the said heir,
and so from heir to heir, paying 1000 marks at the Exchequer as
follows..."
In 1372, the teenaged Edward was heir only to his mother's Dauney
inheritance. The heir to the earldom of Devon was his first cousin
Hugh, Lord Courtenay, who dsp in Feb. 1374. So it's not surprising
that Edward's wardship went to Lord Latymer and not to Edward's
paternal grandfather the 2nd Earl of Devon.
The last appearance in the Chancery Rolls of Sir Edward Courtenay,
father of the 3rd Earl, is in 1368.
From Patent Rolls: "2 Feb. 1368, Westminster. Edward Courteney,
'chivaler,' and two brothers, from the port of Dover to the parts of
Prues with 17 persons, 20 horses, 20s. for himself and each of his
brothers for their expenses, and a letter of exchange of James Jakmyn,
merchant of Lombardy, for 130l. payable to him and his brothers at
Calais. By letter of p.s."
Perhaps Sir Edward Courtenay died abroad on this military expedition.
CP: "He [3rd Earl of Devon] was b. about 1357, being still a minor 14
Aug. 1377"
The 3rd Earl was born 3 May 1357.
From his mother's IPM taken at St. Germans, Cornwall, 18 Feb. 1372:
"heir as above, who will be fifteen years of age at the Invention of
the Holy Cross [3 May] next." From his grandfather the 2nd Earl of
Devon's IPM taken at Jevele, Somerset "Friday after Holy Trinity"
1377: "Heir as above, aged 20 years on the feast of the Invention of
the Holy Cross [3 May] last." And from the Devon IPM taken at Exeter
6 May 1378 ("Thursday after the Invention of the Holy Cross, 1 Richard
II"): "Edward son of Edward de Courtenay, aged 21 years at the feast
of the Invention of the Holy Cross last, is his heir."
The Proof of Age for the 3rd Earl of Devon does not survive, though
there was one.
From Fine Rolls: "6 July 1378, Beckley. To Richard de Kendale
escheator in Devon and Cornwall. Order to cause Edward son and heir
of Emelina who was wife of Edward de Courtenay knight, being cousin
and heir of Hugh de Courtenay earl of Devon, to have seisin of the
lands of his mother and of the said earl his grandfather; as he has
proved his age before the escheator, and the king has taken his homage
and fealty. By K. on information of Simon de Burle the
under-chamberlain."
CP: "He m. Maud, said to be da. of Thomas (Camoys), Lord Camoys."
Maud (aka Matilda), Countess of Devon, was indeed the daughter of Lord
Camoys, and was married to Earl Edward by 1382-3. Whether they
married before 1378, and thus Earl Edward's guardian Lord Latymer
profited from it, is not known.
Martin Cherry notes that Thomas Camoys, knight, was among those who
received livery from the 3rd Earl of Devon in 1384-5, "He [Camoys]
appears to have had little connection with Devon matters--his major
area of landed interest being Sussex--but was Earl Edward's
father-in-law. Countess Matilda Courtenay was the daughter of Sir
Thomas Camoys by his first wife, Elizabeth, daughter of William
Louches: 50s. was paid to Elizabeth Camoys out of the issues of the
earl's manor of Waddesdon (Bucks.) in 1382-3. [footnote: BL., Add.Ch.,
64,318.]"
Cheers, ---Brad
Douglas Richardson
I believe if you check a bit further, you'll find that the manors of
Goodrington (in Paignton), Stancombe, and South Allington (in
Chivelstone), Devon were all part of the inheritance of Emeline
Dauney, wife of Sir Edward de Courtenay. Sir Edward would held these
manors in right of his wife, Emeline. On Emeline's death in 1372,
these manors fell by inheritance to their son and heir, Edward
Courtenay, Earl of Devon, who in turn settled these manors in 1387 on
his younger brother, Sir Hugh Courtenay.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.03122...@posting.google.com>...
Brad Verity
> I believe if you check a bit further, you'll find that the manors of
> Goodrington (in Paignton), Stancombe, and South Allington (in
> Chivelstone), Devon were all part of the inheritance of Emeline
> Dauney, wife of Sir Edward de Courtenay.
Great. Where should I check further? None of the above three manors
are mentioned in her 1371 IPMs nor the 1346 IPMs of her father.
> Sir Edward would held these
> manors in right of his wife, Emeline.
Yes, Sir Edward would've held all the Dauney manors his wife received
from her father. But none of those three manors were held by her (or
her father), so how could they have been held by him?
> On Emeline's death in 1372,
Emmeline died March 1371.
> these manors fell by inheritance to their son and heir, Edward
> Courtenay, Earl of Devon, who in turn settled these manors in 1387 on
> his younger brother, Sir Hugh Courtenay.
The 1387 grant of these manors (actually it was an enfeoffment as part
of the marriage contract of Hugh Courtenay and Elizabeth de Audley)
that I transcribed in my previous post, does not specify that the
manors had descended to the two Courtenay brothers from their mother.
It merely states that "Gothelyngton, Stancombe, and Alyngton, co.
Devon" were "their" manors, so belonged to both brothers at the time
the enfeoffment was made. Curiously "Hynton and Modeford, co.
Somerset" are described as belonging only to the 3rd Earl of Devon
("his" manors), and these two Somerset manors are indeed of the Dauney
inheritance, mentioned in both the Somerset IPM of Emmeline and the
Somerset IPM of her father Sir John Dauney.
After Sir John Dauney's Devon IPM was submitted in Oct. 1346, the King
ordered it to be redone because he had heard that Dauney held "divers"
lands in Devonshire, yet only one manor, Cornwode, had been returned.
A new Devon IPM was done in November, returning a very thorough list
of Dauney lands in that county, and none of the three manors
(Goodrington, Stancombe and South Allington) are mentioned at all. So
Emmeline did not inherit these manors.
Was Sir Edward Courtenay, Emmeline's husband, granted the three
Devonshire manors, and the couple held them that way? Well, if the
manors were held of the king, then on Sir Edward's death a writ of
diem clausit extremum would be expected - and none was ever issued.
Perhaps the manors were granted to Sir Edward and Emmeline jointly, or
they were held of someone other than the King? In that case no writ
of d.c.e. would be needed on Sir Edward's death, but the manors would
most certainly have turned up in Emmeline's Devon IPM after her death.
The only conclusion I can come to - despite the 1735 assertion by Ezra
Cleaveland that Sir Edward Courtenay was surnamed "of Godrington" - is
that he and his wife never held that manor. Cleaveland also states
that Emmeline brought her husband sixteen manors, and examination of
the IPMs of Emmeline and her father proves that to be incorrect.
I went back further than Cleaveland and checked Dugdale's Baronage.
He mentions Sir Edward Courtenay and Emeline Dauney, but makes no
mention at all of Goodrington.
Thanks and Happy Holidays, ----Brad
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity wrote:
> CP: "by Emmeline (d. 1372 before 20 Sep.), da. and h. of Sir John
> Dawnay"
>
> The first writ of diem clausit extremum for Emmeline (aka Emma,
> Emelyna), late the wife of Edward de Courtenay, knight, was issued 1
> Apr. 1371 to the escheators of Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset.
> The Somerset IPM returned "She died on 20 March last." The Devon IPM
> returned that "She died on Friday in the first week of Lent, 45 Edward
> III." The Cornwall IPM returned "She died on Friday after St. Peter
> in Cathedra, 45 Edward III."
>
> The 20th of March in 1371 was a Thursday, and I'm not sure how to
> figure the other two IPM dates, but it's safe to say that Emmeline
> died March 1371.
Many thanks for posting another set of detailed CP corrections and
additions.
Unfortunately, these dates seem a bit problematic. Easter Sunday was 6 April
(1371) in 45 Edward III, so Lent would have begun 19 February 1370/1, and
the first Friday in Lent would be 21 February 1370/1.
On the other hand, according to Glenn Gunhouse's online calendar of saints'
days, the feast of St Peter's Chair at Antioch was 22 February (though one
source gives 21 February), so that looks as though it should indicate Friday
28 February. But in that case, why not "Friday after St Matthew the
Apostle"? Maybe the Friday just before St Peter was meant, as in the Devon
inquisition.
Chris Phillips
ADRIANC...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
> Brad Verity wrote:
> > CP: "by Emmeline (d. 1372 before 20 Sep.), da. and h. of Sir John
> > Dawnay"
> >
> > The first writ of diem clausit extremum for Emmeline (aka Emma,
> > Emelyna), late the wife of Edward de Courtenay, knight, was issued 1
> > Apr. 1371 to the escheators of Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset.
> > The Somerset IPM returned "She died on 20 March last." The Devon IPM
> > returned that "She died on Friday in the first week of Lent, 45 Edward
> > III." The Cornwall IPM returned "She died on Friday after St. Peter
> > in Cathedra, 45 Edward III."
> >
> > The 20th of March in 1371 was a Thursday, and I'm not sure how to
> > figure the other two IPM dates, but it's safe to say that Emmeline
> > died March 1371.
>
Chris Phillips replied,
>
> Many thanks for posting another set of detailed CP corrections and
> additions.
>
> Unfortunately, these dates seem a bit problematic. Easter Sunday was 6 April
> (1371) in 45 Edward III, so Lent would have begun 19 February 1370/1, and
> the first Friday in Lent would be 21 February 1370/1.
>
> On the other hand, according to Glenn Gunhouse's online calendar of saints'
> days, the feast of St Peter's Chair at Antioch was 22 February (though one
> source gives 21 February), so that looks as though it should indicate Friday
> 28 February. But in that case, why not "Friday after St Matthew the
> Apostle"? Maybe the Friday just before St Peter was meant, as in the Devon
> inquisition.
>
> Chris Phillips
>
Perhaps I have had too much Christmas cheer, but I calculate 40 days back
from 6th April 1370/1 to be 25 Feb, making 1st Friday the 28th
Adrian
Chris Phillips
[I wrote]
> > Unfortunately, these dates seem a bit problematic. Easter Sunday was 6
April
> > (1371) in 45 Edward III, so Lent would have begun 19 February 1370/1,
and
> > the first Friday in Lent would be 21 February 1370/1.
>
> from 6th April 1370/1 to be 25 Feb, making 1st Friday the 28th
Luckily I looked in the Book of Common Prayer rather than trying to work it
out, otherwise I should probably have reached the same conclusion. But Ash
Wednesday is 46 days before Easter Sunday, not 40 - the 40 days evidently
being weekdays, with 6 Sundays having to be added as well:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm
Chris Phillips
ADRIANC...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Yes, you are right - I have joust counted the days from Ash Wednesday to
Easter in a modern diary which comes to 46 days.
Clifford Webb's "Dates and Calendars for the Genealogist" gives Lent as the
40 days before easter and Ash Wednesday as 39 days before Easter, both must
therefor exclude Sundays, yet the same table gives Passion Sunday as 14 days
before easter, which must include Sundays.
Did Jesus have Sundays off when he was 40 days in the Wilderness - it would
seem so. :-)
regards,
Adrian
T. Stanford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
Exactly right. Sometimes a Catholic upbringing pays off!
Douglas Richardson
>
> > I believe if you check a bit further, you'll find that the manors of
> > Goodrington (in Paignton), Stancombe, and South Allington (in
> > Chivelstone), Devon were all part of the inheritance of Emeline
> > Dauney, wife of Sir Edward de Courtenay.
>
> Great. Where should I check further? None of the above three manors
> are mentioned in her 1371 IPMs nor the 1346 IPMs of her father.
>
>
Where should you check further?
Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 391 A.D. 1346 "De Johanna Daune pro di. f. m in
Godryngton, Lidewicheston et Bromyston, tento de honore de Merschwode,
quod Elizabetha Daune quondam tenuit xx s."
The manor of Goodrington (in Paington), Devon was a Dauney property.
Brad Verity
> Where should you check further?
>
> Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 391 A.D. 1346 "De Johanna Daune pro di. f. m in
> Godryngton, Lidewicheston et Bromyston, tento de honore de Merschwode,
> quod Elizabetha Daune quondam tenuit xx s."
Thanks for this citation, Douglas. It's very interesting. Do you
know what the above translates to? I'm not certain what the
abbreviations mean.
I have no idea who Johanna Dauney and Elizabetha Dauney are, do you?
The widow of Sir John Dauney in 1346 was Sybil, so neither of these
two ladies mentioned in Feudal Aids were Emmeline Courtenay's mother.
Perhaps 'Johanna' should be John?
I double-checked Sir John Dauney's Nov. 1346 Devon IPM, and there is
mention of Stancomb, which is one of the two other Devon manors
mentioned along with Goodrington in the 1387 enfeoffment for Hugh
Courtenay's marriage.
"Stancomb. 10l. yearly rent which Joan, late the wife Nicholas
Dauney, used to pay from her manor of Stancomb, which she held in
dower."
Perhaps this widowed Joan Dauney is the same as 'Johanna' in the 1346
Feudal Aids entry?
There is no mention of Stancomb in Emmeline's 1371 Devon IPM.
> The manor of Goodrington (in Paington), Devon was a Dauney property.
Apparently so, but then why is it not listed in Emmeline's 1371 IPM?
Perhaps her sons Edward and Hugh Courtenay inherited it from another
Dauney relation after their mother's death?
But if that was the case, then their father Sir Edward Courtenay never
held it in right of his wife.
Is this the only mention of Goodrington in Feudal Aids? What exactly
are the entries in Feudal Aids? I've heard of the work, but am not
sure what it documents.
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
Douglas Richardson
The full title of this work is:
Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids: With Other
Analogous Documents, Preserved in the Public Record Office, A. D.
1284–1431. 6 vols. London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1899–1920.
The UCLA Card Catalog shows they have a copy of all 6 volumes. This
work is indispensible for tracing English manorial ownership between
1284 and 1431.
The entry in question I quoted indicates that Joan Dauney held the
manor of Goodrington (in Paignton), Devon in 1346. Since this was a
Dauney manor, she almost certainly held the manor in dower as a widow.
The previous owner of record was Elizabeth Dauney (who is listed in
an earlier entry in Feudal Aids). Presumably Elizabeth is an earlier
Dauney widow who also held the manor in dower.
I don't know the exact identity of Joan Dauney, but I would guess she
was probably the widow of Sir Nicholas Dauney, grandfather of Emeline
(Dauney) Courtenay. On Joan Dauney's death, the manor would have
reverted to Emeline as heiress of the Dauney family. If Joan was the
widow of Emeline's grandfather, I would guess that the manor reverted
to Emeline long before Emeline's death. Goodrington, Devon was one of
many manors held by the Dauney family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.03122...@posting.google.com>...
Brad Verity
> > > Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 391 A.D. 1346 "De Johanna Daune pro di. f. m in
> > > Godryngton, Lidewicheston et Bromyston, tento de honore de Merschwode,
> > > quod Elizabetha Daune quondam tenuit xx s."
> bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:
> >
> > Thanks for this citation, Douglas. It's very interesting. Do you
> > know what the above translates to? I'm not certain what the
> > abbreviations mean.
Rosie Bevan kindly e-mailed me a translation:
"From Joan Daunay for half a knight's fee in Godrington, Lidewicheston
et
Bromyston, held of the honour of Merschwode (Marshwood?) which
Elizabeth
Daunay once held. 20 shillings"
I wonder if the honour of Merschwode in the entry above is related to
the manor of "Mersschewodevale" (aka "Merswodevale") mentioned in the
IPMs of the 2nd Earl of Devon and his widow Margaret?
IPM taken at Exeter 1377: "Norton by Stokeflemmyng. The manor, and
divers lands &c., rents and services in Clyfton Dertemuth and
Hardenesse, held of the earl of March, as of his manor of
Merswodevale."
IPM taken Exeter 1392: "Norton by Stoke Flemyng. The manor, and
divers messuages, lands, rents and services in Clifton Dertemouth and
Hardenasse, held of the earl of March, as of his manor of
Mersschewodevale, services not known."
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:
> Dear Brad ~
>
> The full title of this work is:
>
> Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids: With Other
> Analogous Documents, Preserved in the Public Record Office, A. D.
> 1284?1431. 6 vols. London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1899?1920.
>
> The UCLA Card Catalog shows they have a copy of all 6 volumes. This
> work is indispensible for tracing English manorial ownership between
> 1284 and 1431.
Thanks - I'll look into it after the Library reopens.
> The entry in question I quoted indicates that Joan Dauney held the
> manor of Goodrington (in Paignton), Devon in 1346. Since this was a
> Dauney manor, she almost certainly held the manor in dower as a widow.
Do we know for sure from the 1346 entry that Joan Dauney held the full
manor of Goodrington, etc., rather than just half a knight fee's
worth?
> The previous owner of record was Elizabeth Dauney (who is listed in
> an earlier entry in Feudal Aids). Presumably Elizabeth is an earlier
> Dauney widow who also held the manor in dower.
I'm confused - does the entry show that Joan and Elizabeth Dauney held
half a knights fee or held the full three manors mentioned (presuming
that "Lidewicheston" and "Bromyston" were, like Goodrington, full
manors)?
> I don't know the exact identity of Joan Dauney, but I would guess she
> was probably the widow of Sir Nicholas Dauney, grandfather of Emeline
> (Dauney) Courtenay. On Joan Dauney's death, the manor would have
> reverted to Emeline as heiress of the Dauney family. If Joan was the
> widow of Emeline's grandfather, I would guess that the manor reverted
> to Emeline long before Emeline's death.
I feel like a broken record here. There is no mention in the 1371
Devon IPM taken after Emeline's death, of the manor of Goodrington (or
of "Lidewicheston" or "Bromyston", or Paignton). If she had inherited
it from a grandmother (or however this 1346 Johanna Dauney was
related) prior to her death, wouldn't it be listed among the several
holdings in Devon that Emmeline had when she died?
> Goodrington, Devon was one of
> many manors held by the Dauney family.
Yes, thank you for the 1346 Feudal Aids entry that shows the Dauneys
had some interest in it (I'm not sure it indicates they were holding
the full manor - but I admit I don't know how knights fees worked).
But there is not yet any evidence that Goodrington was ever held by
Emmeline Dauney and her husband Sir Edward Courtenay.
Cheers, ------Brad
Douglas Richardson
> I feel like a broken record here. There is no mention in the 1371
> Devon IPM taken after Emeline's death, of the manor of Goodrington (or
> of "Lidewicheston" or "Bromyston", or Paignton). If she had inherited
> it from a grandmother (or however this 1346 Johanna Dauney was
> related) prior to her death, wouldn't it be listed among the several
> holdings in Devon that Emmeline had when she died?
>
>
> Cheers, ------Brad
Dear Brad ~
IPM's don't always list every manor held by a particular family. The
reasons for this are several. If a manor is held in dower by a widow
in the family, the property may not appear on a list of a man's
holdings, even though he holds the reversion of the property on the
widow's death. Also, it was common practice to enfeoff trustees with
family properties. Properties held in trust are often omitted from an
IPM. Next, manors were sometimes settled on children at marriage. If
the children later died without issue, the manors would come back to
the father, brother, or nearest heir. Lastly, family properties could
be tied up for years by a widow's 2nd husband, especially if the woman
was an heiress. This situation will preclude a manor from being
listed in a family IPM.
Manors float in and out of successive IPMs in any given family. Any
one given IPM provides only a partial snapshot of the family's
holdings. It is important to study ALL family holdings in ALL
counties over several successive generations to get the full picture
of a family's land holdings. Feudal Aids is just one of the sources
which helps round of the picture.
Suffice to say, Goodrington (in Paignton), Devon was definitely a
Dauney family property. I presume the manor fell to Edward Courtenay
and his wife, Emeline Dauney, on the death of Joan Dauney sometime
after 1346. This would be the normal course of events. The manor was
subsequently settled on their younger son, Sir Hugh Courtenay.
Brad Verity
[snip]
> Manors float in and out of successive IPMs in any given family.
In this case, Goodrington floated out of successive IPMs for both Sir
John Dauney (1346) and his daughter Emmeline (1371).
> Any
> one given IPM provides only a partial snapshot of the family's
> holdings. It is important to study ALL family holdings in ALL
> counties over several successive generations to get the full picture
> of a family's land holdings.
Have you done this for the Dauneys?
> Feudal Aids is just one of the sources
> which helps round of the picture.
Yes, thank you for that.
> Suffice to say, Goodrington (in Paignton), Devon was definitely a
> Dauney family property.
Apparently.
> I presume the manor fell to Edward Courtenay
> and his wife, Emeline Dauney, on the death of Joan Dauney sometime
> after 1346. This would be the normal course of events.
Here's where we disagree. With no record, we can't be sure this
happened in their lifetimes. In the various reasons you give for
properties not being listed in IPMs, 1) A manor being held in dower by
a widow; 2) A manor settled on children at marriage; and 3) A manor
tied up by a widow's second husband do not apply to the case of
Emmeline's 1371 IPMs.
That leaves the manor of Goodrington being entrusted to feoffees
before Emmeline's 1371 death as the possible reason it was not
mentioned in her Devon IPM. Wouldn't there be a record of: 1) her
inheriting the manor from whomever (Joan Dauney?) after 1346; and 2)
enfeoffing it to trustees prior to 1371?
> The manor was
> subsequently settled on their younger son, Sir Hugh Courtenay.
Yes. He and his brother the 3rd Earl of Devon were in possession of
it by 1386.
I guess this is an instance where we have to agree to disagree,
Douglas. You feel the evidence is sufficient to show Emmeline and Sir
Edward Courtenay possessed the manor of Goodrington, and I feel it
isn't.
Thanks and Cheers, -------Brad
Douglas Richardson
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Manors float in and out of successive IPMs in any given family.
>
> In this case, Goodrington floated out of successive IPMs for both Sir
> John Dauney (1346) and his daughter Emmeline (1371).
Yes, that is correct. It happens all the time.
> > Feudal Aids is just one of the sources
> > which helps round of the picture.
>
> Yes, thank you for that.
>
> > Suffice to say, Goodrington (in Paignton), Devon was definitely a
> > Dauney family property.
>
> Apparently.
>
> > I presume the manor fell to Edward Courtenay
> > and his wife, Emeline Dauney, on the death of Joan Dauney sometime
> > after 1346. This would be the normal course of events.
>
> Here's where we disagree. With no record, we can't be sure this
> happened in their lifetimes. In the various reasons you give for
> properties not being listed in IPMs, 1) A manor being held in dower by
> a widow; 2) A manor settled on children at marriage; and 3) A manor
> tied up by a widow's second husband do not apply to the case of
> Emmeline's 1371 IPMs.
> That leaves the manor of Goodrington being entrusted to feoffees
> before Emmeline's 1371 death as the possible reason it was not
> mentioned in her Devon IPM. Wouldn't there be a record of: 1) her
> inheriting the manor from whomever (Joan Dauney?) after 1346; and 2)
> enfeoffing it to trustees prior to 1371?
The manor of Goodrington was probably excluded from John Dauney's IPM
in 1346, as it was then held in dower by Joan Dauney, presumably his
father's widow. That is very normal. The manor was likewise probably
excluded from Emeline Courtenay's IPM in 1371, as it was then held by
trustees for her uses, or settled on a child in marriage. This is
also very normal. If the manor was not held in chief of the king,
there would typically be no record of Emeline's obtaining the
reversion of Goodrington on the death of Joan Dauney. Also, Emeline
would not need a license from the king to alienate the manor to
trustees, either for her benefit or the benefit of her children.
>
> > The manor was
> > subsequently settled on their younger son, Sir Hugh Courtenay.
>
> Yes. He and his brother the 3rd Earl of Devon were in possession of
> it by 1386.
>
> I guess this is an instance where we have to agree to disagree,
> Douglas. You feel the evidence is sufficient to show Emmeline and Sir
> Edward Courtenay possessed the manor of Goodrington, and I feel it
> isn't.
Actually the evidence is quite sound. Goodrington was a Dauney family
property. Under the normal course of events, it would have fallen to
Emeline (Dauney) Courtenay as heiress of the Dauney estates after the
death of Joan Dauney, who presumably held it in dower in 1346. The
failure for the property to be listed in two successive IPMs isn't as
important as you think. Emeline surely had possession of the manor in
her lifetime, but whether or not she resided there is another
question.
> Thanks and Cheers, -------Brad
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Brad Verity
> The manor of Goodrington was probably excluded from John Dauney's IPM
> in 1346, as it was then held in dower by Joan Dauney, presumably his
> father's widow. That is very normal. The manor was likewise probably
> excluded from Emeline Courtenay's IPM in 1371, as it was then held by
> trustees for her uses, or settled on a child in marriage. This is
> also very normal. If the manor was not held in chief of the king,
> there would typically be no record of Emeline's obtaining the
> reversion of Goodrington on the death of Joan Dauney. Also, Emeline
> would not need a license from the king to alienate the manor to
> trustees, either for her benefit or the benefit of her children.
Thank you for this more thorough explanation, Douglas. I believe I
understand it all better now.
> Actually the evidence is quite sound. Goodrington was a Dauney family
> property. Under the normal course of events, it would have fallen to
> Emeline (Dauney) Courtenay as heiress of the Dauney estates after the
> death of Joan Dauney, who presumably held it in dower in 1346. The
> failure for the property to be listed in two successive IPMs isn't as
> important as you think. Emeline surely had possession of the manor in
> her lifetime, but whether or not she resided there is another
> question.
I just thought of something. Since Goodrington was not held of the
king, but of the Honour of Merschewode, if we found out which family
held the honour of Merschewode, could we track Goodrington through
that family's 14th-century IPMs? I've seen several IPMs with
extensive list of knights fees that the deceased held.
Does Feudal Aids say who held that honour in the 14th century?
Thanks and Cheers, ----Brad
Douglas Richardson
Dear Brad ~
Yes, this is possible. However, you have to be careful. In this
situation, we have Emeline Dauney, an heiress, whose husband
predeceased her. If Emeline Dauney remarried, we might or might not
know it. If she contracted a second marriage, her surviving husband
might have held Goodrington for a period of time until his death some
years later. An inquisition might show the 2nd surviving husband as
the owner of the manor after Emeline died. Likewise, if Emeline
conveyed the manor to trustees, sometimes the trustees will be listed
as the owners in inquisitions, not Emeline, or her heirs. A worse
case scenario is that Goodrington doesn't show up in any inquisition
at all. Then you are left to guess who held the manor at any given
decade.
Tracing title history can be simple, or it can be complex. The
ownership of some manors is easy to trace, going from father to son in
successive generations, with an occasional widow holding dower thrown
into the mix. Other manors with co-heiresses, split ownerships, and
subtenancies can be extremely difficult to trace.
Another indirect way to trace the ownership of a manor is to see who
held the advowson of the parish in which the manor is located at what
time period. In this case, Goodrington is located in Paignton parish,
so you would want to see who held the advowson of Paington in the 14th
Century. This information can be obtained from the published
registers of the various Bishops of Exeter in that time period. It
should be mentioned that owner of the manor is not always the same
person as the owner of the advowson, especially if there was more than
one manor in the parish.
Good luck!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com