C.P. Addition: Isabel le Despenser, 1st wife of Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel & Surrey
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 242–244 (sub Arundel) has a somewhat
flawed account of the life history of Sir Richard de Arundel, died
1376, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, and his immediate family. The
account contains several errors, one being referrring to this man as
Richard Fitz Alan. During his lifetime, he was known to his
contemporaries as Richard, son of Edmund Earl of Arundel, Richard de
Arundel, or Richard, Earl of Arundel (and Surrey), but never as
Richard Fitz Alan. For contemporary instances of him using the
surname, de Arundel (or d'Arundel), or being so styled, see Cal.
Patent Rolls, 1327–1330 (1891): 562; Cal.Fine Rolls, 4 (1913): 181,
218; Cal.Close Rolls, 1330–1333 (1898): 81, 381; Cal. Close Rolls,
1333–1337 (1898): 154; Strachey, Rotuli Parliamentorum, 2 (1777): 55–
56, 226–227; National Archives, SC 8/156/7787.
Regarding Earl Richard de Arundel's 1st marriage, it is well known
that he married in 1321 at age about seven to Isabel le Despenser,
daughter of Hugh le Despenser the younger, the hated favorite of King
Edward II. Isabel le Despenser was near kinswoman to the king, her
mother Eleanor de Clare being a granddaughter of King Edward I.
Richard and Isabel are credited by Complete Peerage with one son,
Edmund de Arundel (which is correct), but they are also assigned two
additional children, one of whom, Mary (here called Isabel!) was
actually Earl Richard's sister, and one of whom, Philippe, was
actually Earl Richard and Isabel's granddaughter. These points have
been discussed numerous times in previous posts here on the newsgroup,
which posts may be viewed in the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup
archives. They are also addressed in my books, Plantagenet Ancestry
and Magna Carta Ancestry.
In 1344 Earl Richard obtained an annulment of his marriage to Isabel
le Despenser, and subsequently married (2nd) Eleanor of Lancaster,
Isabel's cousin. Due to the near kinship between Isabel and Eleanor,
a papal dispensation was needed for Earl Richard and Eleanor's
marriage. This matter of the dispensation is discussed by Complete
Peerage.
Complete Peerage gives no particulars whatsoever regarding the
subsequent history of Isabel le Despenser, the discarded wife of Earl
Richard de Arundel. However, Isabel appears to have survived for some
time after the annulment of her marriage to Earl Richard. In the
book, For Her Good Estate: the Life of Elizabeth de Burgh, by Frances
Ann Underhill, published 1999, page 90, Underhill states that the
account books of Elizabeth de Burgh show that Isabel le Despenser
"sent a gift of fish in 1351-2" to her aunt, Elizabeth de Burgh, lady
of Clare. This item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xdJBYcSDX60C&pg=PA90
A more recent and less well documented book, The Traitor's Wife, by
Susan Higginbotham, published 2009, pages 485-486, states that Isabel
le Despenser was provided with some estates by her former husband
(here again called Richard Fitz Alan) and that Isabel was alive in
1355. Sadly no documentation is provided by the author for these
statements. Ms. Higginbotham's information may be viewed at the
following weblink:
Fortunately, there is another set of contemporary records which proves
that Isabel le Despenser was living in the period, 1349-1356, which
information is found in the book, English Law in the Age of the Black
Death 1348–1381, by Robert Palmer, published in 1993, page 397. This
material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=J83HrulLqMUC&pg=PA397
Palmer includes the abstract of a lengthy lawsuit in which Isabel
daughter of Hugh le Despenser repeatedly brought action against Prior
of St. John of Jerusalem in England, concerning a tenurial and
prescriptive duty to repair walls in a marsh in Great Wakering, Essex
against the ebb and flow and flooding of seawater; the defendant
refused to repair the walls that threatened ruin whereby the said
Isabel, by flooding, lost her profit.
Palmer doesn't date the lawsuit but he does provide exact references
for this information: CP40/356; CP40/359; CP40/367; CP40/371;
CP40/379; CP40/381; and CP40/387.
Using Robert Palmer's own website, Anglo-American Legal Tradition,
available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/EdwardIII.html, these court
references can be dated as follows:
1348, 1349, 1351, 1352, 1354, 1355, 1356
Thus it appears that Isabel le Despenser's lawsuit is dated from 1348
to 1356.
I haven't yet located a death date for Isabel le Despenser. However,
it appears that at her death, she was buried in the Chapter House of
Westminster Abbey. That information is found in the book, The Well in
the Desert, by Emily Sarah Holt, published 1872, pages 379–380, which
may be viewed at the following weblink:
A more modern edition of Holt's work (with a different pagination!)
may be viewed at the following weblink:
pg. 110: http://books.google.com/books?id=rnPwc317CGoC&pg=PA110
Holt states that "Isabel la Despenser" was named as a tenant of her
former husband, Earl Richard, on 24 June 1345, citing Patent Rolls.
She further relates that "Dame Isabel, daughter of Sir Hugh Spencer,"
is among those buried in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey. Ms.
Holt cites as her source for Isabel's place of burial as Harleian
Manuscript 544, folio 78.
Reviewing the above records, we find that Isabel le Despenser occurs
in various records following the annulment of her marriage in 1345,
1348, 1349, 1351, 1351-2, 1352, 1354, 1355, and 1356. Ms. Holt has
provided an indication of Isabel's place of burial as the Chapter
House of Westminster Abbey.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
In my previous post, I stated that Emily Sarah Holt in her book, The
Well in the Desert, indicated that Isabel daughter of Hugh le
Despenser was buried in the Chapter-House of Westminster Abbey.
However, it appears that Ms. Holt was in error.
There is an interesting article on the Austin Friars of London in
Gentleman’s Magazine, n.s. 8 (1860): 372–376. This article may be
viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2aLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA373
This article makes it clear that Isabel le Despenser and her brother,
Philip le Despenser, were actually buried in the Chapter House of the
Austin Friars, London, not in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey.
Furthermore, I've determined that following the annulment of her
marriage to Earl Richard de Arundel, Isabel le Despenser is recorded
in 1345 as holding the following manors for life [by grant] of her
former husband: High Roding, Ovesham (in Matching), Prittlewell,
Margaretting, Woolston (in Chigwell), and Little Canfield, Essex [see
Cal. Patent Rolls, 1343–1345 (1902): 487–488; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1345–
1348 (1903): 18; VCH Essex 4 (1956): 24–32; VCH Essex 8 (1983): 196–
206]. One of these manors, Prittlewell, is near Southend, Essex and
lies in the same vicinity as Great Wakering, Essex where Isabel le
Despenser sued the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem in England,
concerning a duty to repair walls.
Douglas Richardson
> This article makes it clear that Isabel le Despenser and her brother,
> Philip le Despenser, were actually buried in the Chapter House of the
> Austin Friars, London, not in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey.
I should add that this Philip le Despenser would be a new great-
grandson of King Edward I of England.
The article in Gentleman's Magazine,n.s. 8 (1860): 372–376 indicates
that Edmund Holand, the "first son" of Joan of Kent and half-brother
of King Richard II of England, is buried in the quire of of the church
of the Austin Friars, London. Edmund Holand was named for his
maternal grandfather, Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent (younger son
of King Edward I). Edmund Holand would thus be yet another great-
grandson of King Edward I buried in this place.
Here is the weblink to the article again:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2aLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA373
The statement that Edmund Holand was Joan of Kent's "first son"
corrects Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 153, footnote d (sub Kent), in
which Thomas Holand is called Joan of Kent's "eldest son." Assuming
that Edmund Holand was in fact Joan of Kent's first born son, then
Edmund's brother, Thomas Holand (died 1397), would have been Joan of
Kent's 2nd but 1st surviving son and heir.
Does anyone know a contemporary record in which Edmund Holand is
listed among the children of Joan of Kent?
Douglas Richardson
I see that Charles James Fleet, in his book, Fulham Old and New,
Volume 1 (published 1900), pages 120-121, states that Sir Thomas
Holand (died 1397) was Joan of Kent's "second son." Unfortunately Mr.
Fleet doesn't provide his documentation for this information.
Here is a weblink to that source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gnX3I_1OTxYC&pg=PA120
Mr. Fleet's statement would contradict Complete Peerage which alleges
that Sir Thomas Holand was Joan of Kent's "eldest son."
Douglas Richardson
< I see that Charles James Fleet, in his book, Fulham Old and New,
< Volume 1 (published 1900), pages 120-121, states that Sir Thomas
< Holand (died 1397) was Joan of Kent's "second son." Unfortunately
Mr.
< Fleet doesn't provide his documentation for this information.
< Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
For "Charles James Fleet," please read "Charles James Fèret."
DR
CE Wood
actually the children of Hugh and Isabella (de Beauchamp) le Despenser
rather than Hugh and Alianore (de Clare) le Despenser?
CE Wood
On Nov 5, 3:31 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
snip
Douglas Richardson
< Are not the Isabel and Philip "Spencer" mentioned in the article
< actually the children of Hugh and Isabella (de Beauchamp) le
Despenser
< rather than Hugh and Alianore (de Clare) le Despenser?
<
< CE Wood
Thank you for your post. You asked a great question.
You're correct that the elder Hugh le Despenser and his wife, Isabel,
had a son, Philip, and a daughter, Isabel.
But their son Philip was knighted (which the Philip buried in London
was not) and their daughter Isabel was buried with her 3rd husband,
Ralph de Monthermer, at the church of the Grey Friars, Salisbury,
Wiltshire.
Thus the Philip and Isabel buried in London must belong the another
generation.
Douglas Richardson
listed among the children of Joan of Kent?
When replying, please cite your sources and provide weblinks if you
have them. Thanks!