More C.P. Additions: Birth and marriage of Sir William de Warenne (died 1286)
Douglas Richardson
In my post earlier today, we saw that Complete Peerage cited Lewes
Priory Annals as a source for the death and burial of Sir John de
Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey, who died in 1310. Inexplicably, Lewes
Priory Annals was not cited as a source for the death of the earl's
wife, Countess Alice de Lusignan, even though the annals were
evidently the source for Complete Peerage's statement that Countess
Alice died 9 February 1255/6. Moreover, no mention is made that
Countess Alice was buried before the high altar of Lewes Priory, even
though such a statement is made regarding her husband, Earl John.
These inconsistencies are puzzling indeed.
Even more surprising, however, is the lapse in reporting the birth and
marriage records of Sir William de Warenne, son and heir apparent of
Earl John and his wife, Countess Alice. Complete Peerage, 12(1)
(1953): 507 (sub Surrey) gives an account of the brief life of Sir
William de Warenne. In that accouint, Lewes Priory Annals is cited
as a source that William de Warenne was knighted at Winchester in
1285. Yet no mention whatsoever is made of William de Warrene's birth
as given in the Lewes Priory annals, even though his birth is duly
recorded there as are the births of his two older sisters, Eleanor de
Percy and Isabel de Balliol, both of whom are well attested by other
records.
William's birth record in the Annals reads as follows:
sub A.D. 1255:
"Item hoc anno in nocte Sancti Mauri Abbatis [15 January 1255/6] ...
Alicia peperit filium qui vocatus Willelmus die dominica." [Reference:
Sussex Arch. Colls. 2 (1849): 26 (Annals of Lewes Priory ].
An English translation of the above reads as follows:
"Likewise in this year in the night of St. Maurus Abbot ... Alice gave
birth to a son, who was named William the next Sunday."
As for Sir William de Warenne's marriage, Complete Peerage states that
William married "probably in June 1285" Joan, daughter of Robert de
Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford. No source is given for this marriage, or
for the date of the marriage.
Lewes Priory Annals, however, duly records the marriage as follows:
sub A.D. 1284:
"Item Willelmus de Warrenna desponsavit filiam Comitis Oxonie."
An English translation of the above reads as follows:
"Likewise William de Warenne married the daughter of the Earl of
Oxford."
As I commented in another post of this week, due to the computation of
the church calendar then in use, the date 1284 employed by the priory
annals would fall anytime between 25 March 1284 and 24 March 1284/5.
As for the date June 1285 suggested for William and Joan's marriage by
Complete Peerage, I believe the source for this date is an idemnity
dated June 1285, which concerns a marriage settlement of William de
Warenne and Joan, daughter of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As I
recall, a transcript of this document is found in Genealogist, n.s. 36
(1920): 137-138. Although this document would surely be the source of
Complete Peerage's date for the marriage, it is odd that it is not
cited as its source. Moreover, I don't know that the idemnity can be
used as a date of the actual marriage. Rather, I believe the
indemnity merely reflects that the couple were married IN or BEFORE
June 1285. This would surely be the case if the couple were married
in the period, March 1284-March 1285, as indicated by Lewes Priory
Annals. In any event, a copy of the actual indemnity should be posted
and studied for its exact wording.
Elsewhere, I see that Complete Peerage refers to a marriage settlement
of Sir William de Warenne and his wife, Joan de Vere, and the heirs of
Joan, which document was recorded by her parents in the Patent Rolls
on 10 June 1285 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1281-1292, pg.
173]. This record establishes only that Sir William and Joan were
married sometime before 10 June 1285, not that they were "probably"
married in that month as alleged by Complete Peerage.
For interest's sake, reference to the various properties settled on
Sir William de Warenne and his wife, Joan de Vere, can be found in the
following published Feet of Fines:
Feet of Fines for Essex, 2 (1913-1928): 50.
Travers, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Buckinghamshire 1259-1307 (Bucks.
Rec. Soc. 25) (1989): 53.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> As for the date June 1285 suggested for William and Joan's marriage by
> Complete Peerage, I believe the source for this date is an idemnity
> dated June 1285, which concerns a marriage settlement of William de
> Warenne and Joan, daughter of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As I
> recall, a transcript of this document is found in Genealogist, n.s. 36
> (1920): 137-138. Although this document would surely be the source of
> Complete Peerage's date for the marriage, it is odd that it is not
> cited as its source.
Dear Douglas
If CP does not cite the indemnity as the source, I doubt you can state
it would "surely be the source", particularly in the light of what you
then go on to say.
> Moreover, I don't know that the idemnity can be
> used as a date of the actual marriage.
Then why assume that CP did so (apart from the fact that you seem
determined to impugn CP in any way possible, despite having relied
heavily on it in your own published work, all of which necessarily
requires just as much correction and addition as you impute to CP)?
> Rather, I believe the
> indemnity merely reflects that the couple were married IN or BEFORE
> June 1285. This would surely be the case if the couple were married
> in the period, March 1284-March 1285, as indicated by Lewes Priory
> Annals. In any event, a copy of the actual indemnity should be posted
> and studied for its exact wording.
Good idea - have you had any luck in finding it amongst the vast
material at your disposal?
>
> Elsewhere, I see that Complete Peerage refers to a marriage settlement
> of Sir William de Warenne and his wife, Joan de Vere, and the heirs of
> Joan, which document was recorded by her parents in the Patent Rolls
> on 10 June 1285 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1281-1292, pg.
> 173].
Would it not be more logical to suppose that this was the source of
CP's "June 1285 date" (supra)?
> This record establishes only that Sir William and Joan were
> married sometime before 10 June 1285, not that they were "probably"
> married in that month as alleged by Complete Peerage.
>
Agreed.
According to Dugdale, William died "upon the 18th Kalends of January
An. 1286 (14 Ed I)", which is a bit of a muddle because "18 Kal. Jan
14 Ed I" is actually 15 December 1285. His wife Joan was pregnant at
the time of his death, Dugdale says, and bore a son, John, "2 Kal.
July" next after her husband's death (i.e. 30 June 1286).
ODNB, however, says that William died in 1286, leaving a son John
(born 30 June 1286) less than a year old. If this is the case, then
presumably Dugdale mistook his source, which was referring to 15
Edward I, and assumed his death predated his son's birth.
The Lewes Annals indeed make it clear that Dugdale's regnal year is
wrong, and that John was not posthumous.
In addition to John, born 30 June 1286, William and Joan also had a
daughter, Alice, afterwards wife of Edmund, Earl of Arundel. She
could have been born after her father's death, of course, or she may
have been John's twin. If she was born before John, however, ie
before (say) November 1285, that would be pretty good additional
evidence that a June 1285 marriage date was indeed wrong (although it
seems, as Douglas has shown, the Lewes Annals already show that it
took place in 1284 - ie by 24 March 1284/5).
I suppose it would be too much to hope that there might be any known
indication of when Alice was born?
MA-R