CP Correction: The Earls of Warwick and the Bohun family
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
The account in Complete Peerage of the Earls of Warwick includes the
following concerning Waleran, Earl of Warwick (d. bef 13 Oct 1204):
‘ He m., 1stly, Margery, da. of Humphrey de Bohun, by Margaret,
1st da. and eventually coh. of Miles (of Gloucester), Earl of
Hereford and Constable of England. ‘ [1]
Further, the next generation in the family (Henry, Earl of Warwick)
is expressly stated as being the son of Waleran by his first marriage,
to Margery de Bohun [2]. The marriages attributed to Henry, son of
Waleran and his wife Margery de Bohun includes the following:
‘ He m., lstly, after 1205, Margery, elder da. and (eventually,
in her issue) coh. of Henry de Oilly, of Hook Norton, Oxon., by
Maud, da. of Humphrey de Bohun, Constable of England.’ [3]
The relationships indicated above, if based on the previously
accepted reconstruction of the d’Oilly family [4], would result in an
unacceptably close relationship between Henry, Earl of Warwick and his
first wife Margery d’Oilly, as follows:
Humphrey de Bohun = Margaret of Gloucester
_______________________I____________________
I I
Margery = Waleran Henry d’Oilly = Maud
de Bohun I de Newburgh, I de Bohun
I E of Warwick I
I I
I____________ __________I
I I
Henry de Newburgh = Margery d’Oilly
Such a relationship (in the 2nd degree of consanguinity) would surely
have been noted, given the rank of the individuals involved; further,
the likelihood of a dispensation being granted for a marriage of such
closely related individuals would be near zero.
K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, in her work Domesday Descendants, reflects the
relationships as being not quite as close. She explicitly states that
Margery de Bohun, wife of Waleran Earl of Warwick, was the daughter of
Humphrey de Bohun, son of the Humphrey in the chart above, by his wife
Margaret, dowager duchess of Brittany, citing Sanders as her source [5].
This would reduce the degree of consanguinity to a level of 3rd-2nd
degrees, more likely acceptable, but somewhat unusual: given that Henry
de Newburgh was most likely the same age, or slightly older, than his
wife Margery d’Oilly, it would be expected that the shorter number of
generations would typically occur on the husband’s side.
Keats-Rohan agrees with the assignment of Matilda, wife of Henry
d’Oilly, as indicated above: however, she has apparently provided a more
reasonable explanation, in that she has introduced a 2nd Henry d’Oilly
as son of Henry and Maud de Bohun, and father of Margery, wife of Henry
Earl of Warwick [6]. This modification, taken together with the
identification of the Bohun parentage referred to above, would yield the
following:
Humphrey de Bohun = Margaret of Gloucester
_______________________I____________________
I I
Humphrey de = Margaret Henry = Maud
Bohun (d. ca I of Huntingdon d’Oilly I de Bohun
1187) I I
________I ________I
I I
Margery = Waleran Henry ‘II’ = 1) Sibyl
de Bohun I de Newburgh, d’Oilly I [7]
I E of Warwick I
I I
I____________ __________I
I I
Henry de Newburgh = Margery d’Oilly
This reconstruction provides a relationship in the 3rd degree of
consanguinity, which would still necessitate a dispensation. However,
given the frequency of marriages, and known dispensations for such
unions during this period, a request for Papal approval would most
likely have been granted.
Comment, criticism and relevant documentation are invited.
Best regards,
John *
NOTES
[1] Complete Peerage, Vol. XII/2 (Warwick), pp. 363-4. Footnote (a)
on p. 364, documenting the text at this point, cites:
‘Rows Rol, no. 34; Red Book Exch., vol. i, pp. 293-94, ante,
vol. vi, p. 457, sub Hereford [1200].’
[2] Ibid., p. 364: ‘5. HENRY, EARL OF WARWICK, s. and h., by 1st
wife.’
[3] Ibid. Footnote (j) refers back to footnote (g), which states:
‘In 1205 Thomas Basset, his 2nd wife’s father, paid 500 m.
for his wardship and marriage to one of his own daughters (Pipe
Roll, 7 John, p. 191; 8 John, p. 4; Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i,
pp. 35, 36, 37, 53, 55).’
[4] Rosie Bevan provided the following chart in her post of 7 July
2000, in the thread
<Re:Guy of Warwick/Wigots/Bigods/Wallingford/Arden>:
‘The facts that are known about the D'Oilly (AKA D'Oilli, D'Oyly)
family show this abbreviated genealogy
1. Faulk D'Aulnay (?)
2. Robert D'Oilly, Ist Lord of Hooknorton (d.1094) m Edgitha
daughter and heiress of Wigod of Wallingford
3. Matilda (Maud) D'Oilly (d.s.p.c.1149) m 1. Miles Crispin
(d.s.p.1107).2. Brian FitzCount
2. Nigel D'Oilly, 2nd Lord of Hooknorton m Agnes
3. Robert D'Oilly II, 3rd Lord of Hooknorton (d.1142) m
Edgitha FitzForne, daughter of Forne FitzSigulf.
4. Henry D'Oilly, 4th Lord of Hooknorton m Maud de Bohun.
They had issue
4. Edith D'Oilly m Gilbert Basset
5. Thomas Basset of Headington m Adeliza de
Dunstanville ’
[5] Domesday Descendants, p. 332:
‘De Bohun, Humfrid IV
Son of Humphrey III de Bohun and Margaret of Gloucester.... He
married Margaret... leaving a minor son Henry, later Earl of
Hereford (d. 1220) and a daughter who married Waleran of Newburgh
(Sanders, 93).
[6] Domesday Descendants, p. 621:
‘de Oilli, Henricus II
Son of Henry I d’Oilly (d. 1163) and Matilda de Bohun. Twice
married, to Sibil and to Matilda de Canteloup, he left issue a son
Henry (d.s.p. 1232) and two daughters Margery and Margaret.
Margery, wife of Henry de Newburgh, earl of Warwick (d. 1229),...’
[7] There were two wives of Henry ‘II’ d’Oilly; which was the mother
of the issue of Henry ‘II’ (or if there was issue by both) has
not been firmly ascertained.
* John P. Ravilious
John Ravilious
Hello All,
Correction to an oversight:
The documentation cited by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (DD, p. 621) concerning
Henry 'II' d'Oilly is inserted below.
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<183.153042...@aol.com>...
> Monday, 13 January, 2003
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> The account in Complete Peerage of the Earls of Warwick includes the
> following concerning Waleran, Earl of Warwick (d. bef 13 Oct 1204):
>
> ? He m., 1stly, Margery, da. of Humphrey de Bohun, by Margaret,
> 1st da. and eventually coh. of Miles (of Gloucester), Earl of
> Hereford and Constable of England. ? [1]
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SNIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> [6] Domesday Descendants, p. 621:
> ?de Oilli, Henricus II
> Son of Henry I d?Oilly (d. 1163) and Matilda de Bohun. Twice
> married, to Sibil and to Matilda de Canteloup, he left issue a son
> Henry (d.s.p. 1232) and two daughters Margery and Margaret.
> Margery, wife of Henry de Newburgh, earl of Warwick (d. 1229),...?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INSERT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
citations (verbatim):
Pipe Roll 11 Henry II, 71-ox; Red Book of the Exchequer, ed.
Hall (1897), pp. 264-68; Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall
(1897), pp. 312-13, 374-76; Salter, Cartulary of Oseney Abbey,
(1934-36), no. 20B.
>
>
> [7] There were two wives of Henry ?II? d?Oilly; which was the mother
> of the issue of Henry ?II? (or if there was issue by both) has
> not been firmly ascertained.
>
>
>
> * John P. Ravilious
Cheers,
John
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> The account in Complete Peerage of the Earls of Warwick includes the
> following concerning Waleran, Earl of Warwick (d. bef 13 Oct 1204):
>
> ' He m., 1stly, Margery, da. of Humphrey de Bohun, by Margaret,
> 1st da. and eventually coh. of Miles (of Gloucester), Earl of
> Hereford and Constable of England. ' [1]
>
> Further, the next generation in the family (Henry, Earl of Warwick)
> is expressly stated as being the son of Waleran by his first marriage,
> to Margery de Bohun [2]. The marriages attributed to Henry, son of
> Waleran and his wife Margery de Bohun includes the following:
>
> ' He m., lstly, after 1205, Margery, elder da. and (eventually,
> in her issue) coh. of Henry de Oilly, of Hook Norton, Oxon., by
> Maud, da. of Humphrey de Bohun, Constable of England.' [3]
>
> The relationships indicated above, if based on the previously
> accepted reconstruction of the d'Oilly family [4], would result in an
> unacceptably close relationship between Henry, Earl of Warwick and his
Thanks for posting that interesting condundrum - CP placing Henry and
Margery implausibly as first cousins, while in Keats-Rohan's version they
are second cousins!
I've been puzzling over the chronology. On the Oilly side, it looks as
though the probable birth date of Margery, daughter of Henry de Oilly, can
be tied down reasonably closely, from the facts that her husband Henry, earl
of Warwick, seems likely to have been born around 1190, was married to her
after 1205, but had fathered his son and heir apparently by about 1208. That
would place Margery de Oilly's birth in or about the early 1190s. So if K-R
is correct in marrying Maud de Bohun to the Henry de Oilly who died in 1163,
they can obviously not be Margery's parents, and an extra generation makes
sense.
However, the placement by K-R of Waleran's wife Margery, a generation later
than CP has her in the Bohun pedigree, namely as a daughter of the Humphrey
de Bohun who married Margaret, widow of Conan duke of Brittany, seems much
more problematic (at least, if this Margaret is supposed to be Margery's
mother).
On the chronology, Margaret was not widowed by Conan until 1171, so that
would place Margery's birth in the early 1170s or later. The CP account
shows Waleran's son Henry as a minor in 1205, but says he was granted
quittance for his father's debts in 1211, so if this implies he was of age,
he would be born 1190 or before. It's not impossible that Margery could have
borne Henry in her late teens, but this chronology would also make Waleran
about 20 years (or more) older than his wife, as his father died in 1153.
On top of that, Margaret was a daughter of Ada de Warenne, and Waleran was a
son of Ada's sister Gundred. So that solution would leave Waleran and
Margery themselves very closely related - in the 2nd and 3rd degrees.
At the least, it would be nice to track down exactly what K-R's evidence is
for her placement of Margery.
On the other hand, putting Margery back a generation, where CP had her, as a
daughter of Humphrey de Bohun and Margaret of Gloucester, takes us back to
square one, with Henry and Margery related in the 2nd and 3rd degrees. It
would also leave Margery rather old - I can't tell quite how old - to be
producing the son and heir around 1190.
I suppose another possibility is that Waleran had another wife between
Margery and Alice (whom he married c. 1196), who could be the mother of
Henry?
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
certainly want to review my file on this sequence, which has largely
taken the CP as its basis!
Cris
>Hello All,
>
> The account in Complete Peerage of the Earls of Warwick includes the
> following concerning Waleran, Earl of Warwick (d. bef 13 Oct 1204):
>
> ' He m., 1stly, Margery, da. of Humphrey de Bohun, by Margaret,
> 1st da. and eventually coh. of Miles (of Gloucester), Earl of
> Hereford and Constable of England. ' [1]
>
> Further, the next generation in the family (Henry, Earl of Warwick)
> is expressly stated as being the son of Waleran by his first marriage,
> to Margery de Bohun [2]. The marriages attributed to Henry, son of
> Waleran and his wife Margery de Bohun includes the following:
>
> ' He m., lstly, after 1205, Margery, elder da. and (eventually,
> in her issue) coh. of Henry de Oilly, of Hook Norton, Oxon., by
> Maud, da. of Humphrey de Bohun, Constable of England.' [3]
>
> The relationships indicated above, if based on the previously
> accepted reconstruction of the d'Oilly family [4], would result in an
> unacceptably close relationship between Henry, Earl of Warwick and his
> first wife Margery d'Oilly, as follows:
> [6] Domesday Descendants, p. 621:
> 'de Oilli, Henricus II
> Son of Henry I d'Oilly (d. 1163) and Matilda de Bohun. Twice
> married, to Sibil and to Matilda de Canteloup, he left issue a son
> Henry (d.s.p. 1232) and two daughters Margery and Margaret.
> Margery, wife of Henry de Newburgh, earl of Warwick (d. 1229),...'
>
>
> [7] There were two wives of Henry 'II' d'Oilly; which was the mother
> of the issue of Henry 'II' (or if there was issue by both) has
> not been firmly ascertained.
>
>
>
>* John P. Ravilious
--
John Ravilious
Dear Chris,
It is indeed another example of our need to examine beyond face value (in
CP or elsewhere).
Your solution, of another mother for Henry, Earl of Warwick besides Margery
de Bohun, would certainly make sense. A closer examination of the CP sources
is probably necessary.
Another example of CP's chronic chronologitis is the account of Henry, the
problematic Earl of Warwick - I did not launch into this, as [since the
marriage was the problem at hand, not the issue thereof] this was a separate
question. The CP account of Henry's marriages (vol. XII/2, pp. 364-5) is as
follows [note the footnoted reference and dates]:
' He m., lstly, after 1205 (j), Margery, elder da. and
(eventually, in her issue) coh. of Henry de Oilly,
of Hook Norton, Oxon., by Maud, da. of Humphrey de
Bohun, Constable of England (k). He m., 2ndly, before
1 May 1220, Philippe, lst da. and coh. of Thomas
Basset, of Headington, Oxon. (a) '
That Philippe Basset was the wife of Henry, Earl of Warwick at the 1220
date is certain: I have seen the text from Excerpta e Rotulis Finium (I: 48)
dated 1 May 1220. The interesting problem with the above dating in CP, in
footnote (g) - to which footnote (j) refers us back, is:
' In 1205 Thomas Basset, his 2nd wife's father, paid 500
m. for his wardship and marriage to one of his own
daughters (Pipe Roll, 13 John, p. 32; 8 John, p. 4;
Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, pp. 35, 36, 37, 53, 55). '
We know that Henry was married to Philippe Basset, daughter of Thomas, in
1220; and that Thomas had obtained his wardship and rights to his marriage in
1205. How then does one then readily come up with the idea that:
1. Thomas Basset had the rights to Henry of Warwick's
marriage in 1205;
2. Henry of Warwick was married 'lstly, AFTER 1205' to
someone other than a daughter of Thomas Basset; and
3. Oh, sometime before 1 May 1220, the previously
arranged marriage was finally achieved.
Now, by my reconstruction of the d'Oilly family, Thomas Basset was a 2nd
cousin of Margery d'Oilly [yet another reason why the Henry 'II' d'Oilly
provided by KSBK-R makes the most sense], so some chummy relations with
Henry 'II' d'Oilly would not be surprising; however, why would Thomas (having
the marriage of an Earl for his own daughter) then substitute his 2nd cousin
into the mix?
I expect further examination will show that there was some marriage
contract or other arrangement between the Earl of Warwick and Henry d'Oilly
for a marriage; however, the completion of the marriage is a question. It
certainly would fit the onomastic circumstances better, if Thomas, Earl of
Warwick (son of Henry) was named for a maternal grandfather - i.e. Thomas
Basset.
As we both know - in genealogy, every answer must yield at least two
questions.
d'Oilly vey!
John
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<b00taf$n3m$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Cristopher Nash
I'm afraid this may be still a bit more complicated. VCH VI
('Kirtlington'), note 77, p222, says "Thomas Basset, of Headington"
(whose manor of Kirtlington passed in 1230 "on his death" to his bro
Gilbert of Wycombe) "should not be confused with Thomas of
Headington, who left three coheiresses ... [incl] Philippa, Countess
of Warwick". Crouch (1990), too, speaks of a "possible confusion
between the Thomas Basset of [per a grant from William Marshal] and
his uncle, the more famous Thomas Basset of Headington" (163, 195).
And DD, 167, gives ambiguously as d. date for "Thomas II Basset" of
Headington, the fa. of Philippa who m. Henry, E of Warwick: "d.
1219/29". Suggesting to me that Keats-Rohan found record of a Thomas
of Headington dying 1219 and another dying 1229, without addressing
fully the matter of the risk of confusion between two possible
Thomases 'of Headington' of this generation. (I don't feel she is
altogether comfortable with this line; e.g. I note that she speaks
of Philippa as having only one sister and coheiress, Alice, but there
is good record of a 3d, Juliana.)
There were certainly two Thomas Bassets of Headington - fa. (d. ca.
1180 or 1182) and son (d. 1219 - some texts say 1220 - or 1229).
According to VCH V ('Headington'), 160, Philippa (Countess of
Warwick) succeeded to her fa's estates in 1220. A problem possibly
relevant to the questions you raise, John, is whether there could
have been three, the two later of whom - perhaps Thomas 'of
Headington' of Headington (d. 1219-20) and Thomas 'of Headington' of
Kirtlington (d. 1229-30) - may compete for a place with regard to
your points 1-2-3 above.
There are of course other Oxfordshire/Bucks Thomas Bassets in the
half century down to 1230 - notably of Wycombe, Bicester - etc. But
these manage to stand fairly clear of the present issue -- unless
Thomas of Headington of Kirtlington is by some chance a descendant of
the Wycombe line. I don't actually think that the outcome re
Margery/Margaret will be as complex as these notes may suggest; but
there _is_ a history of confusion here, and it's at least partly
associated with the chronologitis that bothers you too.
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
I think I ought to add, just to simplify _some_ of this for friends
here not familiar with the Basset tangle, that for my own money
"Thomas Basset, of Headington" of Kirtlington who d. 1229-1230 is
with little doubt in fact Thomas s. of Alan Basset of Wycombe (d.
1231/1233) and bro. of Gilbert (d. 1241, Alan's heir to Wycombe) and
nephew of Thomas of Headington who d. 1219-20 . Why he (of
Kirtlington) should have been previously called "of Headington" -
which brings him within range of the questions posed on this thread -
I've not explored.
This is in accord with the pedigree given by Scott Waugh, _The
Lordship of England: Royal Wardships and Marriage ... 1217-1327_
(1988; Fig. 5.2, p. 212), though Waugh doesn't identify these
individuals except by death date. It would resolve what is clearly a
(badly dealt-with) puzzle for Keats-Rohan.
Cris
--