Discussion:
Elizabeth de Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth
(too old to reply)
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-20 03:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

The book, Lives of the Berkeleys, by John Smyth, indicates that Sir
Maurice Berkeley, 4th Lord Berkeley (died 1368) and his wife,
Elizabeth Despenser, had seven children, including three daughters,
Katherine, a nun at Wherwell, Agnes, and Elizabeth.

Smyth says the following regarding the younger daughters, Agnes and
Elizabeth, in vol. 1, pg. 377:

Agnes: "his second daughter, for ought I find, dyed without issue and
unmaryed."

Elizabeth: "his third and youngest daughter, dyed also without issue
and unmaryed."

Given Smyth's statement about Agnes ("for ought I find"), it would
appear that Mr. Smyth concluded that Agnes and Elizabeth both died
without issue and unmarried, solely because he could find no record of
any marriage in the Berkeley family muniments.

Interestingly, the contemporary episcopal register of Bishop Wykeham
contains an entry dated 1372 regarding a certain Elizabeth de
Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth. This women is identified in the
text as the kinswoman of John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke.

Reviewing available Berkeley pedigrees, it seems the only available
Elizabeth de Berkeley in this time period is the unattached daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth le Despenser, which couple
were married in 1340. Checking the Hastings connection, I find that
John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, was a first cousin to Sir Maurice
de Berkeley, their mothers having been blood sisters. While they may
yet been other possibilities, given the close kinship between Sir
Maurice de Berkeley and the earl, it seems to me virtually certain
that Elizabeth de Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth, is the daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth Despenser.

For interest sake, I've transcribed below the information regarding
Elizabeth de Berkeley as it appears in the published record of Bishop
Wykeham's register. There is a short introduction in English provided
by the editor, followed by a transcript of the original Latin text:

"Letter to abbess and convent of Romsey, desiring them at the request
of William, earl of Pembroke, to receive his kinswoman, dame Elizabeth
de Berkele, during her husband's absence on service.

Willelmus, etc., dilectis in Christo filiabus, etc., s. g. et b.
Nobilis vir dominus Willelmus [recte John], comes Pembroch, suis nobis
literis supplicavit vobis nostras dirigere literas speciales pro
nobili et generosa domina, domina Elizabet de Berkele, cognata comitis
antedicti, quod infra monasterium vestrum in loco honesto perhendinare
possit pro suo racionabiliter vobis dando, dum dominus Mauricius
Wytht, maritus ipsius domine, in comitiva prefati comitis morari
contigerit in partibus transmarinis.

Nos, ipsius precibus annuentes, ut prefatam dominam ad perhendinandum
in monasterio vestro cum familia morigerata et honesta, si vobis
videritis expedire, licite possitis admittere pro tempore huiusmodi
absencie dicti mariti sui, dummodo religioni seu domui vestre per hoc
nullum dispendium generetur, licenciam vobis tenore presencium
concedimus specialem, quacunque inhibicione vobis per nos data in
contrarium non obstante; vos ad id non artantes, set super admissione
huiusmodi vos vestris discrecioni et proprie voluntatis libero
arbitrio duximus relinquendem. – Southwark, 29 May, 1372.

A similar letter was sent to the abbess and convent of Wherwell." END
OF QUOTE. [Reference: T.F. Kirby, Wykeham's Register 2 (1899):
162–163].

At my request, John Ravilious kindly provided me an abreviated
translation of the Latin text above which reads as follows:

" William, etc., ... dear daughters in Christ, etc.

The noble man Lord William [recte John], earl of Pembroke, in his
letter asked us to provide special letters for the noble
and well-born lady, Lady Elizabeth de Berkeley, kinswoman of
the aforesaid earl; that she be given as fitting place in your
monastery as you have, for his reasoning as given to you:
as long as lord Maurice Wytht, husband of the same
lady, continues to be delayed in the service of the said earl
in lands beyond the sea.

We consent to this, that the lady should come to
your monastery with her household, that you see
that this is done, admit her for
the time during the absence of her said husband
.....

As to the identity of Elizabeth de Berkeley's husband, Maurice Wyth,
so far I've determined that a Maurice Wyth, knight, was appointed a
surveyor of a tax in Somerset in 1380 [Reference: Calendar of Fine
Rolls, 9 (1926): 229]. Given the date and place, it would seem a good
bet that this individual is the husband of Elizabeth de Berkeley
mentioned in Bishop Wykeham's register.

Special thanks go to John Ravilious for his help in translating the
Latin text above.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: ***@msn.com
Brad Verity
2003-11-20 07:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
The book, Lives of the Berkeleys, by John Smyth, indicates that Sir
Maurice Berkeley, 4th Lord Berkeley (died 1368) and his wife,
Elizabeth Despenser, had seven children, including three daughters,
Katherine, a nun at Wherwell, Agnes, and Elizabeth.
Smyth says the following regarding the younger daughters, Agnes and
Agnes: "his second daughter, for ought I find, dyed without issue and
unmaryed."
Elizabeth: "his third and youngest daughter, dyed also without issue
and unmaryed."
Given Smyth's statement about Agnes ("for ought I find"), it would
appear that Mr. Smyth concluded that Agnes and Elizabeth both died
without issue and unmarried, solely because he could find no record of
any marriage in the Berkeley family muniments.
Interestingly, the contemporary episcopal register of Bishop Wykeham
contains an entry dated 1372 regarding a certain Elizabeth de
Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth. This women is identified in the
text as the kinswoman of John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke.
From what I can make out, she is identified as kinswoman of "William",
Earl of Pembroke. There is no mention of a surname. Since 'William'
was not the first name of the Earl of Pembroke in 1372, the record is
already in error.

Plus, this is a transcription from 1899 of Bishop Wykeham's 14th
century Register - it's not the original register. So we have to rely
that the Victorian T.F. Kirby copied it all properly, which often
didn't happen at that time.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Reviewing available Berkeley pedigrees, it seems the only available
Elizabeth de Berkeley in this time period is the unattached daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth le Despenser, which couple
were married in 1340.
Hardly. Elizabeth (Despenser), widow of Maurice, Lord Berkeley (d.
1368) survived her husband by many years, and did not die until 1389.
She could very well have married this "dominus Mauricius Wytht" as a
second husband.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Checking the Hastings connection, I find that
John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, was a first cousin to Sir Maurice
de Berkeley, their mothers having been blood sisters. While they may
yet been other possibilities, given the close kinship between Sir
Maurice de Berkeley and the earl, it seems to me virtually certain
that Elizabeth de Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth, is the daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth Despenser.
Or the widow of his first cousin.
Post by Douglas Richardson
For interest sake, I've transcribed below the information regarding
Elizabeth de Berkeley as it appears in the published record of Bishop
Wykeham's register. There is a short introduction in English provided
Thank you for transcribing Kirby's passage.
Post by Douglas Richardson
"Letter to abbess and convent of Romsey, desiring them at the request
of William, earl of Pembroke, to receive his kinswoman, dame Elizabeth
de Berkele, during her husband's absence on service.
Willelmus, etc., dilectis in Christo filiabus, etc., s. g. et b.
Nobilis vir dominus Willelmus [recte John], comes Pembroch,
And these 'etc.'s are frustrating omissions from (I'm assuming)
Kirby's part. Given that the first name "Willelmus" does not match
the first name of the Earl of Pembroke in 1372, it's vital to know how
this error in the Register could've occurred. One would think the
Bishop would know who the Earl of Pembroke was.

Was the "[recte John]" yours or Kirby's editorial note, Douglas?
Post by Douglas Richardson
suis nobis
literis supplicavit vobis nostras dirigere literas speciales pro
nobili et generosa domina, domina Elizabet de Berkele,
Would a daughter of the Lord Berkeley married to a knight be styled
"domina" and by her maiden name? It seems likelier to me (and I admit
I'm no expert) that the widow of the chief baron of the western county
of Gloucestershire (Lord Berkeley) would continue to be styled "de
Berkele"?
Post by Douglas Richardson
cognata comitis
What exactly is the English translation of the Latin "cognata"?
Post by Douglas Richardson
antedicti, quod infra monasterium vestrum in loco honesto perhendinare
possit pro suo racionabiliter vobis dando, dum dominus Mauricius
Wytht, maritus ipsius domine, in comitiva prefati comitis morari
contigerit in partibus transmarinis.
Nos, ipsius precibus annuentes, ut prefatam dominam ad perhendinandum
in monasterio vestro cum familia morigerata et honesta, si vobis
videritis expedire, licite possitis admittere pro tempore huiusmodi
absencie dicti mariti sui, dummodo religioni seu domui vestre per hoc
nullum dispendium generetur, licenciam vobis tenore presencium
concedimus specialem, quacunque inhibicione vobis per nos data in
contrarium non obstante; vos ad id non artantes, set super admissione
huiusmodi vos vestris discrecioni et proprie voluntatis libero
arbitrio duximus relinquendem. ? Southwark, 29 May, 1372.
Why a question mark before the place and date of this entry?
Post by Douglas Richardson
A similar letter was sent to the abbess and convent of Wherwell." END
162?163].
Wherwell Abbey in Hampshire we know was patronized by the Berkeleys,
since they placed a daughter there as a nun. I don't know about
Romsey Abbey.
Post by Douglas Richardson
At my request, John Ravilious kindly provided me an abreviated
" William, etc., ... dear daughters in Christ, etc.
The noble man Lord William [recte John], earl of Pembroke,
It's great of John to provide a translation, but too much of the
original record is omitted here. 'William' appears twice - were there
two Williams?
Post by Douglas Richardson
in his
letter asked us to provide special letters for the noble
and well-born lady, Lady Elizabeth de Berkeley, kinswoman of
the aforesaid earl;
I'm assuming 'us' above refers to the Bishop, but then this entry in
his register does not copy the letter written by the Earl but rather
references it? It's rather confusing.
Post by Douglas Richardson
that she be given as fitting place in your
as long as lord Maurice Wytht, husband of the same
lady, continues to be delayed in the service of the said earl
in lands beyond the sea.
This supports the May 1372 date - the Earl of Pembroke at that time
[the 24-year-old John Hastings] had been appointed Lieutenant of the
King's forces in Aquitaine the previous month.
Post by Douglas Richardson
We consent to this, that the lady should come to
your monastery with her household, that you see
that this is done, admit her for
the time during the absence of her said husband
.....
As to the identity of Elizabeth de Berkeley's husband, Maurice Wyth,
so far I've determined that a Maurice Wyth, knight, was appointed a
surveyor of a tax in Somerset in 1380 [Reference: Calendar of Fine
Rolls, 9 (1926): 229]. Given the date and place, it would seem a good
bet that this individual is the husband of Elizabeth de Berkeley
mentioned in Bishop Wykeham's register.
Yes.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Special thanks go to John Ravilious for his help in translating the
Latin text above.
It's an interesting entry. There were many junior branches of the
Lords Berkeley at the time (Beverstone, Weoley, Uley, etc.) - do any
of them have an Elizabeth in 1372?

If not, my guess would be that Sir Maurice Wyth married the widow
Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, who was administering a very nice jointure
from her marriage during her 21-year widowhood, rather than the
namesake daughter.

Does Smyth list any source for the existence of Agnes and Elizabeth,
daughters of the 4th Lord Berkeley? They had to have been mentioned
in some muniment for Smyth to know about them.

Cheers, -----Brad
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2003-11-20 08:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
The book, Lives of the Berkeleys, by John Smyth, indicates that Sir
Maurice Berkeley, 4th Lord Berkeley (died 1368) and his wife,
Elizabeth Despenser, had seven children, including three daughters,
Katherine, a nun at Wherwell, Agnes, and Elizabeth.
Smyth says the following regarding the younger daughters, Agnes and
Agnes: "his second daughter, for ought I find, dyed without issue and
unmaryed."
Elizabeth: "his third and youngest daughter, dyed also without issue
and unmaryed."
Given Smyth's statement about Agnes ("for ought I find"), it would
appear that Mr. Smyth concluded that Agnes and Elizabeth both died
without issue and unmarried, solely because he could find no record of
any marriage in the Berkeley family muniments.
<Snip of interesting analysis of the wife of With>
Post by Brad Verity
Does Smyth list any source for the existence of Agnes and Elizabeth,
daughters of the 4th Lord Berkeley? They had to have been mentioned
in some muniment for Smyth to know about them.
Against Agnes there is:

comp: Rec: 41. 6. E. 3. in cast de Berk.

And for Elizabeth:

Comp. prdict 41. E. 3.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Chris Phillips
2003-11-20 09:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
cognata comitis
What exactly is the English translation of the Latin "cognata"?
If I understand correctly, it usually implies a relative of some sort on the
mother's side, but is also sometimes used for a relative of a man's wife.

If the second interpretation is allowable, it would explain why in Bard's
alternative suggestion, Maurice de Berkeley's widow Elizabeth could be
referred to as a "cognata" of the Earl of Pembroke. John, Earl of Pembroke,
in 1372, was the husband of Anne, daughter of Walter de Mauny and on her
mother's side a great granddaughter of Edward I [CP x 393]. Maurice's widow,
Elizabeth Despenser, was also on her mother's side a great granddaughter of
Edward I [CP ii 130; iv 269]. So these two women were second cousins.

Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-20 20:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Dear Brad, Chris, Tim, etc.

I find the word "cognatus/cognata" employed in earlier medieval
periods for one's kinsman/kinswoman. For some reason not known to me,
this word lost popularity over time, and, by the 1300's, you seldom
see it in records. In its place, you see the ubiquitous
"consanguineus" or "consanguinea." On very rare occasion, you see a
relative called "amicus" or "amica."

In English public documents, when someone was called "kinsman" or
"kinswoman," I find 19 out of 20 instances the person is demonstrably
blood related. If a person is distantly related by marriage, they
rarely note the fact. But, if they do acknowledge it, they often
referred to the person as their "affini" or "affinis." More often
than not, when an in-law is intended, the person is closely related by
marriage, such as brother-in-law (styled "brother"), son-in-law
(styled "son"), or nephew by marriage (styled "nephew"). I also know
of one isolated example of a granddaughter styled "daughter" and her
husband atyled "son."

Inasmuch as this letter from the Earl was addressed to a bishop, who
was a public official, I assume that the Earl of Pembroke intended
this letter to be treated as public document. If so, then the odds
are 95% that Elizabeth de Berkeley was the earl's blood kinswoman when
he called her his "cognata." Had Elizabeth been his kinsman's widow,
if he acknowledged any kinship at all, he would normally have called
her his "affinis." Ditto if Elizabeth de Berkeley had been related to
the Earl's wife's cousin.

All the same, I believe the possibility should be considered that the
Elizabeth de Berkeley named as "cognata" by John de Hastings was
Elizabeth Despenser, widow of Earl John de Hastings' first cousin, Sir
Maurice de Berkeley. However, if Elizabeth Despenser is the woman
intended by the Earl, I find it odd that some record in the Berkeley
family muniments didn't mention her remarriage to Sir Maurice Wyth,
especially since she lived for so many years following her 1st
husband's death in 1368. Even so, medieval records occasionally yield
surprises, and this may be one of them. My own feeling, however, is
that the kinswoman intended by the earl was his first cousin, Sir
Maurice de Berkeley's daughter, Elizabeth.

Does anyone know anything about Sir Maurice Wyth?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
cognata comitis
What exactly is the English translation of the Latin "cognata"?
If I understand correctly, it usually implies a relative of some sort on the
mother's side, but is also sometimes used for a relative of a man's wife.
If the second interpretation is allowable, it would explain why in Bard's
alternative suggestion, Maurice de Berkeley's widow Elizabeth could be
referred to as a "cognata" of the Earl of Pembroke. John, Earl of Pembroke,
in 1372, was the husband of Anne, daughter of Walter de Mauny and on her
mother's side a great granddaughter of Edward I [CP x 393]. Maurice's widow,
Elizabeth Despenser, was also on her mother's side a great granddaughter of
Edward I [CP ii 130; iv 269]. So these two women were second cousins.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-20 11:50:41 UTC
Permalink
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
The book, Lives of the Berkeleys, by John Smyth, indicates that Sir
Maurice Berkeley, 4th Lord Berkeley (died 1368) and his wife,
Elizabeth Despenser, had seven children, including three daughters,
Katherine, a nun at Wherwell, Agnes, and Elizabeth.
Smyth says the following regarding the younger daughters, Agnes and
Agnes: "his second daughter, for ought I find, dyed without issue and
unmaryed."
Elizabeth: "his third and youngest daughter, dyed also without issue
and unmaryed."
Given Smyth's statement about Agnes ("for ought I find"), it would
appear that Mr. Smyth concluded that Agnes and Elizabeth both died
without issue and unmarried, solely because he could find no record of
any marriage in the Berkeley family muniments.
Interestingly, the contemporary episcopal register of Bishop Wykeham
contains an entry dated 1372 regarding a certain Elizabeth de
Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth. This women is identified in the
text as the kinswoman of John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke.
From what I can make out, she is identified as kinswoman of "William",
Earl of Pembroke. There is no mention of a surname. Since 'William'
was not the first name of the Earl of Pembroke in 1372, the record is
already in error.
The editor was evidently aware of the problem of the Earl being
incorrectly called William. He didn't address the problem directly.
Rather, in a footnote, he spoke of the career of Sir John Hastings,
Earl of Pembroke, making it clear that he believed that Sir John was
the earl intended.
Post by Brad Verity
Plus, this is a transcription from 1899 of Bishop Wykeham's 14th
century Register - it's not the original register. So we have to rely
that the Victorian T.F. Kirby copied it all properly, which often
didn't happen at that time.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Reviewing available Berkeley pedigrees, it seems the only available
Elizabeth de Berkeley in this time period is the unattached daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth le Despenser, which couple
were married in 1340.
Hardly. Elizabeth (Despenser), widow of Maurice, Lord Berkeley (d.
1368) survived her husband by many years, and did not die until 1389.
She could very well have married this "dominus Mauricius Wytht" as a
second husband.
I hadn't considered the possibility that Elizabeth Despenser might be
the woman who married Sir Maurice Wyth. "Dominus" means that Maurice
Wyth was a knight.
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
Checking the Hastings connection, I find that
John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, was a first cousin to Sir Maurice
de Berkeley, their mothers having been blood sisters. While they may
yet been other possibilities, given the close kinship between Sir
Maurice de Berkeley and the earl, it seems to me virtually certain
that Elizabeth de Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth, is the daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth Despenser.
Or the widow of his first cousin.
It would be unlikely for the earl to refer to his cousin's widow as
his "kinswoman." More than likely, the earl was referring to his
cousin's daughter as his "kinswoman." Both possibilities should be
considered, however. Blood relationships are usually intended in such
records; not kinships by marriage. However, this is not always the
case.

If we are lucky, we'll find sufficient informaton about Maurice Wyth
to determine if he was the age of Elizabeth Despenser, or the age of
her daughter, Elizabeth de Berkeley.
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
For interest sake, I've transcribed below the information regarding
Elizabeth de Berkeley as it appears in the published record of Bishop
Wykeham's register. There is a short introduction in English provided
Thank you for transcribing Kirby's passage.
You're welcome.
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
"Letter to abbess and convent of Romsey, desiring them at the request
of William, earl of Pembroke, to receive his kinswoman, dame Elizabeth
de Berkele, during her husband's absence on service.
Willelmus, etc., dilectis in Christo filiabus, etc., s. g. et b.
Nobilis vir dominus Willelmus [recte John], comes Pembroch,
And these 'etc.'s are frustrating omissions from (I'm assuming)
Kirby's part. Given that the first name "Willelmus" does not match
the first name of the Earl of Pembroke in 1372, it's vital to know how
this error in the Register could've occurred. One would think the
Bishop would know who the Earl of Pembroke was.
I believe the Bishop's name was Wlliam de Wykeham. He would be the
first William mentioned in the text.
Post by Brad Verity
Was the "[recte John]" yours or Kirby's editorial note, Douglas?
The "[recte John]" was added by me. As I stated above, Mr. Kirby was
evidently aware of that the earl's given name was in error.
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
suis nobis
literis supplicavit vobis nostras dirigere literas speciales pro
nobili et generosa domina, domina Elizabet de Berkele,
Would a daughter of the Lord Berkeley married to a knight be styled
"domina" and by her maiden name? It seems likelier to me (and I admit
I'm no expert) that the widow of the chief baron of the western county
of Gloucestershire (Lord Berkeley) would continue to be styled "de
Berkele"?
The term "domina" means only that the woman being addressed was the
wife or widow of a knight. In this case, we know that Maurice Wyth
was a knight ("dominus"). Given the baronial status of the Berkeley
family, it would be entirely appropriate for a female member of that
family to be addressed by her maiden name after marriage. This was
common practice among high born women.
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
cognata comitis
What exactly is the English translation of the Latin "cognata"?
I'll let John Ravilious answer this question.
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
antedicti, quod infra monasterium vestrum in loco honesto perhendinare
possit pro suo racionabiliter vobis dando, dum dominus Mauricius
Wytht, maritus ipsius domine, in comitiva prefati comitis morari
contigerit in partibus transmarinis.
Nos, ipsius precibus annuentes, ut prefatam dominam ad perhendinandum
in monasterio vestro cum familia morigerata et honesta, si vobis
videritis expedire, licite possitis admittere pro tempore huiusmodi
absencie dicti mariti sui, dummodo religioni seu domui vestre per hoc
nullum dispendium generetur, licenciam vobis tenore presencium
concedimus specialem, quacunque inhibicione vobis per nos data in
contrarium non obstante; vos ad id non artantes, set super admissione
huiusmodi vos vestris discrecioni et proprie voluntatis libero
arbitrio duximus relinquendem. ? Southwark, 29 May, 1372.
Why a question mark before the place and date of this entry?
Incredible as it seems, the question mark was created by google. I
had a dash or hyphen where the question mark appears. The dash was
interpreted as question mark by google. This happened in another
message I posted last week. I'll pay closer attention to this in the
future.
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
A similar letter was sent to the abbess and convent of Wherwell." END
162?163].
Again the question mark between 162 and 163 was inserted by google.
My post had a hyphen correctly placed between 162 and 163.
Post by Brad Verity
Wherwell Abbey in Hampshire we know was patronized by the Berkeleys,
since they placed a daughter there as a nun. I don't know about
Romsey Abbey.
Post by Douglas Richardson
At my request, John Ravilious kindly provided me an abreviated
" William, etc., ... dear daughters in Christ, etc.
The noble man Lord William [recte John], earl of Pembroke,
It's great of John to provide a translation, but too much of the
original record is omitted here. 'William' appears twice - were there
two Williams?
Post by Douglas Richardson
in his
letter asked us to provide special letters for the noble
and well-born lady, Lady Elizabeth de Berkeley, kinswoman of
the aforesaid earl;
I'm assuming 'us' above refers to the Bishop, but then this entry in
his register does not copy the letter written by the Earl but rather
references it? It's rather confusing.
Post by Douglas Richardson
that she be given as fitting place in your
as long as lord Maurice Wytht, husband of the same
lady, continues to be delayed in the service of the said earl
in lands beyond the sea.
This supports the May 1372 date - the Earl of Pembroke at that time
[the 24-year-old John Hastings] had been appointed Lieutenant of the
King's forces in Aquitaine the previous month.
Post by Douglas Richardson
We consent to this, that the lady should come to
your monastery with her household, that you see
that this is done, admit her for
the time during the absence of her said husband
.....
As to the identity of Elizabeth de Berkeley's husband, Maurice Wyth,
so far I've determined that a Maurice Wyth, knight, was appointed a
surveyor of a tax in Somerset in 1380 [Reference: Calendar of Fine
Rolls, 9 (1926): 229]. Given the date and place, it would seem a good
bet that this individual is the husband of Elizabeth de Berkeley
mentioned in Bishop Wykeham's register.
Yes.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Special thanks go to John Ravilious for his help in translating the
Latin text above.
It's an interesting entry. There were many junior branches of the
Lords Berkeley at the time (Beverstone, Weoley, Uley, etc.) - do any
of them have an Elizabeth in 1372?
I don't know of any.
Post by Brad Verity
If not, my guess would be that Sir Maurice Wyth married the widow
Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, who was administering a very nice jointure
from her marriage during her 21-year widowhood, rather than the
namesake daughter.
This is possible.
Post by Brad Verity
Does Smyth list any source for the existence of Agnes and Elizabeth,
daughters of the 4th Lord Berkeley? They had to have been mentioned
in some muniment for Smyth to know about them.
Smyth lists as his source for Elizabeth de Berkeley, daughter of
Maurice, the following record: "Comp. p'dict. 41 E. 3." I believe
this should be translated as "The aforesaid account dated 41 E. 3."
He gives the same citation for Elizabeth's sister, Agnes. I assume it
is an account roll from the Berkeley family muniments dated 1367/8
which names the children of Sir Maurice de Berkeley following his
death in 1368.
Post by Brad Verity
Cheers, -----Brad
Thanks for your comments, Brad. You've made some excellent points.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: ***@msn.com
Brad Verity
2003-11-20 19:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Thanks for the explanations, Douglas. They've cleared up several
points. I've also interspersed comments.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The editor was evidently aware of the problem of the Earl being
incorrectly called William. He didn't address the problem directly.
Rather, in a footnote, he spoke of the career of Sir John Hastings,
Earl of Pembroke, making it clear that he believed that Sir John was
the earl intended.
Very good.
Post by Douglas Richardson
I hadn't considered the possibility that Elizabeth Despenser might be
the woman who married Sir Maurice Wyth. "Dominus" means that Maurice
Wyth was a knight.
Thank you.
Post by Douglas Richardson
It would be unlikely for the earl to refer to his cousin's widow as
his "kinswoman." More than likely, the earl was referring to his
cousin's daughter as his "kinswoman." Both possibilities should be
considered, however. Blood relationships are usually intended in such
records; not kinships by marriage. However, this is not always the
case.
Chris Phillips said 'cognata' could be interpreted either way (related
thru blood or thru marriage), so I don't know how definitive it will
be in determining who this Elizabeth de Berkeley was - though it may
help rule any Elizabeths from a junior branch of the Berkeleys.
Post by Douglas Richardson
If we are lucky, we'll find sufficient informaton about Maurice Wyth
to determine if he was the age of Elizabeth Despenser, or the age of
her daughter, Elizabeth de Berkeley.
Well as to the ages of the Elizabeths in question: in 1372, the
widowed Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, was in her late forties. Her
youngest (according to Smyth) daughter would've been younger than age
18 for sure, and probably under age 12. The only date of birth we
have for the seven children of Elizabeth (Despenser), Lady Berkeley,
is that of her eldest son Thomas in January 1353. We know at least
three more sons followed him, and that two daughters preceded
Elizabeth (if Smyth was correct as to the girls' birth order). The
odds are not good that the three daughters were all born before the
four sons, so Elizabeth would have been born after 1353 - and probably
after 1360.

This makes a marriage by 1372 less likely, though not impossible.
Post by Douglas Richardson
I believe the Bishop's name was Wlliam de Wykeham. He would be the
first William mentioned in the text.
Ah, very good. This explains much, especially how the transcription
error in the register may have occurred.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The "[recte John]" was added by me. As I stated above, Mr. Kirby was
evidently aware of that the earl's given name was in error.
Curious that Kirby didn't try to explain or deduce the error.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The term "domina" means only that the woman being addressed was the
wife or widow of a knight. In this case, we know that Maurice Wyth
was a knight ("dominus").
OK.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Given the baronial status of the Berkeley
family, it would be entirely appropriate for a female member of that
family to be addressed by her maiden name after marriage. This was
common practice among high born women.
The only example that comes to my mind of a married noble woman using
her father's, rather than her married, surname is Margaret de
Brotherton, Countess Marshal. But she was an heiress to her father.
Elizabeth de Berkeley was merely the youngest daughter of her parents
and not an heiress.

Do you have examples, Douglas, of non-heiress daughters continuing to
be styled by their father's surname after their marriages?
Post by Douglas Richardson
I'll let John Ravilious answer this question.
Chris Phillips answered it in another post to this thread.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Incredible as it seems, the question mark was created by google. I
had a dash or hyphen where the question mark appears. The dash was
interpreted as question mark by google. This happened in another
message I posted last week. I'll pay closer attention to this in the
future.
This sometimes happens to me too - not a question mark exactly, but
quotations marks being replaced by computer code. I think it has
something to do with HTML transferring Word fonts, and vice versa.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Brad Verity
Wherwell Abbey in Hampshire we know was patronized by the Berkeleys,
since they placed a daughter there as a nun. I don't know about
Romsey Abbey.
Another point that occurred to me is that - given the relatively young
ages of the children of the widowed Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, in 1372
- it's quite possible her daughter Katherine professed a nun at
Wherwell as a result of the Abbey's housing of her mother [if it was
her mother] and her household in 1372, rather than Wherwell being
approached by the Bishop/Earl of Pembroke because Katherine was
already a nun there.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Brad Verity
It's an interesting entry. There were many junior branches of the
Lords Berkeley at the time (Beverstone, Weoley, Uley, etc.) - do any
of them have an Elizabeth in 1372?
I don't know of any.
Well, that certainly narrows the field.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Smyth lists as his source for Elizabeth de Berkeley, daughter of
Maurice, the following record: "Comp. p'dict. 41 E. 3." I believe
this should be translated as "The aforesaid account dated 41 E. 3."
He gives the same citation for Elizabeth's sister, Agnes. I assume it
is an account roll from the Berkeley family muniments dated 1367/8
which names the children of Sir Maurice de Berkeley following his
death in 1368.
Thank you for checking Smyth's source citation (and thanks to Tim
Powys-Libbe for the same). I wonder if this 1367/8 household account
still survives at Berkeley Castle? According to Fleming & Wood's 2003
book 'Gloucestershire's Forgotten Battle: Nibley Green 1470', many of
the records Smyth had access to for his 1619 book were destroyed when
Berkeley Castle was looted by Parliamentarian forces in 1645.

Is there a way to contact the librarian for the Berkeley Castle
muniments?

Cheers, ----Brad
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2003-11-20 21:09:47 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Brad Verity
It's an interesting entry. There were many junior branches of the
Lords Berkeley at the time (Beverstone, Weoley, Uley, etc.) - do any
of them have an Elizabeth in 1372?
I don't know of any.
Well, that certainly narrows the field.
A long while ago, I did put on the WWW an account of all the 2009
Berkeley descendants in Smyth's book. It even included a GEDCOM for
people to download and play with.

So I have had a look at the descent and come up with one doubtful
Elizabeth Berkeley, apart from the two already named. Here's her
descent, with references to Smyth's tome:

(1) Maurice FitzRobert FITZHARDING Lord of Berkeley [Vol I, pp.
63-79] (c.1120 - 1190)
& Alice de BERKELEY [Vol I, pp. 72-4] (c.1135- >1190)
m. 1153/1154, Bristol, Glos
(2) Thomas BERKELEY Lord of Berkeley [Vol I, pp. 105-124] (c.1170 - 1243)
& Joan de SOMERY [Vol I, pp. 117-9] ( - c.1275)
m. ca 1217
(3) Maurice BERKELEY Lord of Berkeley [Vol I, pp. 125-151] (c.1218 - 1281)
& Isabella FITZROY [Vol I, pp. 144-7] (c.1218 - 1277)
m. bef 12 Jul 1245
(4) Sir Robert BERKELEY [Vol I, pp. 148-9]
2nd surv. s. Of Erdingham.
& Jone [Vol I, p. 148]
(5) John BERKELEY [Vol I, p. 148] ( - c.1320)
(6) Elizabeth BERKELEY [Vol I, p. 148]
"after two discents dyed without issue" - Smyth.

From the above, this Elizabeth would be 52 or more in 1372.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Linda Scheimann
2003-11-20 16:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Berkeley as a philsopher followed Descartes and Hume and then Kant.

Linda
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The book, Lives of the Berkeleys, by John Smyth, indicates that Sir
Maurice Berkeley, 4th Lord Berkeley (died 1368) and his wife,
Elizabeth Despenser, had seven children, including three daughters,
Katherine, a nun at Wherwell, Agnes, and Elizabeth.
Smyth says the following regarding the younger daughters, Agnes and
Agnes: "his second daughter, for ought I find, dyed without issue and
unmaryed."
Elizabeth: "his third and youngest daughter, dyed also without issue
and unmaryed."
Given Smyth's statement about Agnes ("for ought I find"), it would
appear that Mr. Smyth concluded that Agnes and Elizabeth both died
without issue and unmarried, solely because he could find no record of
any marriage in the Berkeley family muniments.
Interestingly, the contemporary episcopal register of Bishop Wykeham
contains an entry dated 1372 regarding a certain Elizabeth de
Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth. This women is identified in the
text as the kinswoman of John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke.
Reviewing available Berkeley pedigrees, it seems the only available
Elizabeth de Berkeley in this time period is the unattached daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth le Despenser, which couple
were married in 1340. Checking the Hastings connection, I find that
John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, was a first cousin to Sir Maurice
de Berkeley, their mothers having been blood sisters. While they may
yet been other possibilities, given the close kinship between Sir
Maurice de Berkeley and the earl, it seems to me virtually certain
that Elizabeth de Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth, is the daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth Despenser.
For interest sake, I've transcribed below the information regarding
Elizabeth de Berkeley as it appears in the published record of Bishop
Wykeham's register. There is a short introduction in English provided
"Letter to abbess and convent of Romsey, desiring them at the request
of William, earl of Pembroke, to receive his kinswoman, dame Elizabeth
de Berkele, during her husband's absence on service.
Willelmus, etc., dilectis in Christo filiabus, etc., s. g. et b.
Nobilis vir dominus Willelmus [recte John], comes Pembroch, suis nobis
literis supplicavit vobis nostras dirigere literas speciales pro
nobili et generosa domina, domina Elizabet de Berkele, cognata comitis
antedicti, quod infra monasterium vestrum in loco honesto perhendinare
possit pro suo racionabiliter vobis dando, dum dominus Mauricius
Wytht, maritus ipsius domine, in comitiva prefati comitis morari
contigerit in partibus transmarinis.
Nos, ipsius precibus annuentes, ut prefatam dominam ad perhendinandum
in monasterio vestro cum familia morigerata et honesta, si vobis
videritis expedire, licite possitis admittere pro tempore huiusmodi
absencie dicti mariti sui, dummodo religioni seu domui vestre per hoc
nullum dispendium generetur, licenciam vobis tenore presencium
concedimus specialem, quacunque inhibicione vobis per nos data in
contrarium non obstante; vos ad id non artantes, set super admissione
huiusmodi vos vestris discrecioni et proprie voluntatis libero
arbitrio duximus relinquendem. - Southwark, 29 May, 1372.
A similar letter was sent to the abbess and convent of Wherwell." END
162-163].
At my request, John Ravilious kindly provided me an abreviated
" William, etc., ... dear daughters in Christ, etc.
The noble man Lord William [recte John], earl of Pembroke, in his
letter asked us to provide special letters for the noble
and well-born lady, Lady Elizabeth de Berkeley, kinswoman of
the aforesaid earl; that she be given as fitting place in your
as long as lord Maurice Wytht, husband of the same
lady, continues to be delayed in the service of the said earl
in lands beyond the sea.
We consent to this, that the lady should come to
your monastery with her household, that you see
that this is done, admit her for
the time during the absence of her said husband
.....
As to the identity of Elizabeth de Berkeley's husband, Maurice Wyth,
so far I've determined that a Maurice Wyth, knight, was appointed a
surveyor of a tax in Somerset in 1380 [Reference: Calendar of Fine
Rolls, 9 (1926): 229]. Given the date and place, it would seem a good
bet that this individual is the husband of Elizabeth de Berkeley
mentioned in Bishop Wykeham's register.
Special thanks go to John Ravilious for his help in translating the
Latin text above.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-21 09:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my original post on Elizabeth Berkeley, wife of Sir
Maurice Wythe, interested parties will be happy to learn that the
Calendar of Close Rolls indicates that Sir Maurice Wythe served as a
Member of Parliament in 1377, 1378, and 1382 from Somersetshire and in
1380 from Gloucestershire [Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls,
1377-1381 (1914), pp. 106, 221, 356; Calendar of Close Rolls,
1381-1385 (1920), pg. 107]. His surname is variously spelled Wyth,
Wythe, and Withe in these records.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The book, Lives of the Berkeleys, by John Smyth, indicates that Sir
Maurice Berkeley, 4th Lord Berkeley (died 1368) and his wife,
Elizabeth Despenser, had seven children, including three daughters,
Katherine, a nun at Wherwell, Agnes, and Elizabeth.
Smyth says the following regarding the younger daughters, Agnes and
Agnes: "his second daughter, for ought I find, dyed without issue and
unmaryed."
Elizabeth: "his third and youngest daughter, dyed also without issue
and unmaryed."
Given Smyth's statement about Agnes ("for ought I find"), it would
appear that Mr. Smyth concluded that Agnes and Elizabeth both died
without issue and unmarried, solely because he could find no record of
any marriage in the Berkeley family muniments.
Interestingly, the contemporary episcopal register of Bishop Wykeham
contains an entry dated 1372 regarding a certain Elizabeth de
Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth. This women is identified in the
text as the kinswoman of John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke.
Reviewing available Berkeley pedigrees, it seems the only available
Elizabeth de Berkeley in this time period is the unattached daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth le Despenser, which couple
were married in 1340. Checking the Hastings connection, I find that
John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, was a first cousin to Sir Maurice
de Berkeley, their mothers having been blood sisters. While they may
yet been other possibilities, given the close kinship between Sir
Maurice de Berkeley and the earl, it seems to me virtually certain
that Elizabeth de Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth, is the daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth Despenser.
For interest sake, I've transcribed below the information regarding
Elizabeth de Berkeley as it appears in the published record of Bishop
Wykeham's register. There is a short introduction in English provided
"Letter to abbess and convent of Romsey, desiring them at the request
of William, earl of Pembroke, to receive his kinswoman, dame Elizabeth
de Berkele, during her husband's absence on service.
Willelmus, etc., dilectis in Christo filiabus, etc., s. g. et b.
Nobilis vir dominus Willelmus [recte John], comes Pembroch, suis nobis
literis supplicavit vobis nostras dirigere literas speciales pro
nobili et generosa domina, domina Elizabet de Berkele, cognata comitis
antedicti, quod infra monasterium vestrum in loco honesto perhendinare
possit pro suo racionabiliter vobis dando, dum dominus Mauricius
Wytht, maritus ipsius domine, in comitiva prefati comitis morari
contigerit in partibus transmarinis.
Nos, ipsius precibus annuentes, ut prefatam dominam ad perhendinandum
in monasterio vestro cum familia morigerata et honesta, si vobis
videritis expedire, licite possitis admittere pro tempore huiusmodi
absencie dicti mariti sui, dummodo religioni seu domui vestre per hoc
nullum dispendium generetur, licenciam vobis tenore presencium
concedimus specialem, quacunque inhibicione vobis per nos data in
contrarium non obstante; vos ad id non artantes, set super admissione
huiusmodi vos vestris discrecioni et proprie voluntatis libero
arbitrio duximus relinquendem. ? Southwark, 29 May, 1372.
A similar letter was sent to the abbess and convent of Wherwell." END
162?163].
At my request, John Ravilious kindly provided me an abreviated
" William, etc., ... dear daughters in Christ, etc.
The noble man Lord William [recte John], earl of Pembroke, in his
letter asked us to provide special letters for the noble
and well-born lady, Lady Elizabeth de Berkeley, kinswoman of
the aforesaid earl; that she be given as fitting place in your
as long as lord Maurice Wytht, husband of the same
lady, continues to be delayed in the service of the said earl
in lands beyond the sea.
We consent to this, that the lady should come to
your monastery with her household, that you see
that this is done, admit her for
the time during the absence of her said husband
.....
As to the identity of Elizabeth de Berkeley's husband, Maurice Wyth,
so far I've determined that a Maurice Wyth, knight, was appointed a
surveyor of a tax in Somerset in 1380 [Reference: Calendar of Fine
Rolls, 9 (1926): 229]. Given the date and place, it would seem a good
bet that this individual is the husband of Elizabeth de Berkeley
mentioned in Bishop Wykeham's register.
Special thanks go to John Ravilious for his help in translating the
Latin text above.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-22 06:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is a transcript of the will of Maurice Wyth, Knt. dated and
proved in 1383. The will mentions his wife, Elizabeth, his sister,
Joan Wyth, two nephews, Robert Wyth and William Wyth, but no children.

MAURICE WYTH, Knt.
PCC, 205 Courtney

Dated July 11th 1383. Maurice Wyth, knight. My body to be buried in
the church of S. Botolph without Aldersgate, London. To the repair of
the same church £5. For my burial and to find chaplains to celebrate
in the said church, officiating clerks, and all other things necessary
for the burial at the discretion of my executor £45. To John my
chaplain 40s. To Robert Wyth my nephew 40s. To William Feror 40s.
To Robert my cook 26s. 8d. To Nicholas Baker 6s. 8d. To William
Pleystede 6s. 8d. To Elisabeth my wife all my husbandry from the
present date until the feast of S. Michael to come, now growing in
Portbury and Porteshevede with all necessaries pertaining to my
chamber, wardrobe, hall and also to buttery and kitchen. To my said
wife all my silver vessels of the better sort to the value of £40. To
Laurence Seybrook a silver cup called "bolle" with a cover. To John
Serjeant another cup with a cover. To John de Bathe a third. To Joan
Wyth my syster £5. To Katherine Banastre 13s. 4d. To William Wyth my
nephew, 40s. To Stephen Capell 26s. 8d. To Elena Brounyng to her
marriage 40s. To my poor tenants of Portbury 40s. to pay their
subsidies and other royal taxes to come. To my poor tenants of
Covelee 20s., for the same subsidy. To my tenants of Hurst 20s. for
the same. For a trentall of S. Gregory to be celebrated for my soul
where my executors shall please £10. For thirty trentals to be
celebrated within a month of my death £4 10s. that is 2s. 6d. for each
trental. To my four executors £12, that is 60s. each. The residue
to be disposed in alms for my soul.

I make my executors, Laurence Seybrooke, John Sergeant, John Bathe,
and John vicar of the church of Portbury. And it is my last wish that
my said wife hold herself contented with all bequeathed to her.
Proved August 6th, 1383. [Reference: Somerset Medieval Wills, Second
Series, 1501-1530, edited by F.W. Weaver (Somerset Record Society,
vol. 19) (1903), pp. 288-289].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post on Elizabeth Berkeley, wife of Sir
Maurice Wythe, interested parties will be happy to learn that the
Calendar of Close Rolls indicates that Sir Maurice Wythe served as a
Member of Parliament in 1377, 1378, and 1382 from Somersetshire and in
1380 from Gloucestershire [Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls,
1377-1381 (1914), pp. 106, 221, 356; Calendar of Close Rolls,
1381-1385 (1920), pg. 107]. His surname is variously spelled Wyth,
Wythe, and Withe in these records.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The book, Lives of the Berkeleys, by John Smyth, indicates that Sir
Maurice Berkeley, 4th Lord Berkeley (died 1368) and his wife,
Elizabeth Despenser, had seven children, including three daughters,
Katherine, a nun at Wherwell, Agnes, and Elizabeth.
Smyth says the following regarding the younger daughters, Agnes and
Agnes: "his second daughter, for ought I find, dyed without issue and
unmaryed."
Elizabeth: "his third and youngest daughter, dyed also without issue
and unmaryed."
Given Smyth's statement about Agnes ("for ought I find"), it would
appear that Mr. Smyth concluded that Agnes and Elizabeth both died
without issue and unmarried, solely because he could find no record of
any marriage in the Berkeley family muniments.
Interestingly, the contemporary episcopal register of Bishop Wykeham
contains an entry dated 1372 regarding a certain Elizabeth de
Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth. This women is identified in the
text as the kinswoman of John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke.
Reviewing available Berkeley pedigrees, it seems the only available
Elizabeth de Berkeley in this time period is the unattached daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth le Despenser, which couple
were married in 1340. Checking the Hastings connection, I find that
John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, was a first cousin to Sir Maurice
de Berkeley, their mothers having been blood sisters. While they may
yet been other possibilities, given the close kinship between Sir
Maurice de Berkeley and the earl, it seems to me virtually certain
that Elizabeth de Berkeley, wife of Sir Maurice Wyth, is the daughter
of Sir Maurice de Berkeley and Elizabeth Despenser.
For interest sake, I've transcribed below the information regarding
Elizabeth de Berkeley as it appears in the published record of Bishop
Wykeham's register. There is a short introduction in English provided
"Letter to abbess and convent of Romsey, desiring them at the request
of William, earl of Pembroke, to receive his kinswoman, dame Elizabeth
de Berkele, during her husband's absence on service.
Willelmus, etc., dilectis in Christo filiabus, etc., s. g. et b.
Nobilis vir dominus Willelmus [recte John], comes Pembroch, suis nobis
literis supplicavit vobis nostras dirigere literas speciales pro
nobili et generosa domina, domina Elizabet de Berkele, cognata comitis
antedicti, quod infra monasterium vestrum in loco honesto perhendinare
possit pro suo racionabiliter vobis dando, dum dominus Mauricius
Wytht, maritus ipsius domine, in comitiva prefati comitis morari
contigerit in partibus transmarinis.
Nos, ipsius precibus annuentes, ut prefatam dominam ad perhendinandum
in monasterio vestro cum familia morigerata et honesta, si vobis
videritis expedire, licite possitis admittere pro tempore huiusmodi
absencie dicti mariti sui, dummodo religioni seu domui vestre per hoc
nullum dispendium generetur, licenciam vobis tenore presencium
concedimus specialem, quacunque inhibicione vobis per nos data in
contrarium non obstante; vos ad id non artantes, set super admissione
huiusmodi vos vestris discrecioni et proprie voluntatis libero
arbitrio duximus relinquendem. ? Southwark, 29 May, 1372.
A similar letter was sent to the abbess and convent of Wherwell." END
162?163].
At my request, John Ravilious kindly provided me an abreviated
" William, etc., ... dear daughters in Christ, etc.
The noble man Lord William [recte John], earl of Pembroke, in his
letter asked us to provide special letters for the noble
and well-born lady, Lady Elizabeth de Berkeley, kinswoman of
the aforesaid earl; that she be given as fitting place in your
as long as lord Maurice Wytht, husband of the same
lady, continues to be delayed in the service of the said earl
in lands beyond the sea.
We consent to this, that the lady should come to
your monastery with her household, that you see
that this is done, admit her for
the time during the absence of her said husband
.....
As to the identity of Elizabeth de Berkeley's husband, Maurice Wyth,
so far I've determined that a Maurice Wyth, knight, was appointed a
surveyor of a tax in Somerset in 1380 [Reference: Calendar of Fine
Rolls, 9 (1926): 229]. Given the date and place, it would seem a good
bet that this individual is the husband of Elizabeth de Berkeley
mentioned in Bishop Wykeham's register.
Special thanks go to John Ravilious for his help in translating the
Latin text above.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brad Verity
2003-11-22 09:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Below is a transcript of the will of Maurice Wyth, Knt. dated and
proved in 1383. The will mentions his wife, Elizabeth, his sister,
Joan Wyth, two nephews, Robert Wyth and William Wyth, but no children.
Thank you for transcribing this will, Douglas.
Post by Douglas Richardson
MAURICE WYTH, Knt.
PCC, 205 Courtney
Dated July 11th 1383. Maurice Wyth, knight. My body to be buried in
the church of S. Botolph without Aldersgate, London. To the repair of
the same church £5. For my burial and to find chaplains to celebrate
in the said church, officiating clerks, and all other things necessary
for the burial at the discretion of my executor £45.
And Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, widow of Maurice, 4th Lord Berkeley (d.
1368), was buried, accoriding to CP, "at St. Bodolph's, London".

Strong evidence that she was also the widow of Sir Mayrice Wyth.

I'd wondered why Elizabeth was buried in London while the Berkeley
tombs were in Bristol and Gloucestershire - this explains it.

Good find, Douglas.

Cheers, -----Brad
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-22 20:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Dear Brad ~

Yes, I agree with you. Reviewing the evidence, it is clear now that
Sir Maurice Wythe's wife, lady Elizabeth de Berkeley, was Elizabeth le
Despenser, widow of Maurice de Berkeley, Knt., 4th Lord Berkeley.
Thanks for pointing out that Elizabeth le Despenser is buried in St.
Botolph's, London, as is Sir Maurice Wythe. That makes all the pieces
fit.

Elizabeth le Despenser was related to her kinsman, John de Hastings,
Earl of Pembroke, in the 5th degree of kindred by common descent from
Isabel of Angouleme, Queen of England as shown below:

King John = (1) Isabel of Angouleme (2) = Hugh de Lusignan
/ /
King Henry III of England William de Valence,
/ Earl of Pembroke
/ /
King Edward I of England Isabel de Valence
/ = John de Hastings
/ /
Joan of Acre John de Hastings
=Gilbert de Clare /
/ /
Eleanor of Clare Laurence de Hastings,
=Hugh le Despenser Earl of Pembroke
/ =Agnes de Mortimer
/ /
Elizabeth le Despenser John de Hastings,
1=Maurice de Berkeley, Knt Earl of Pembroke
2=Maurice Wythe, Knt.

John de Hastings and Elizabeth le Despenser would surely have known
they were blood related. I find John's father, Laurence de Hastings,
was formerly engaged to marry Elizabeth's sister, Eleanor le
Despenser, which proposed marriage required a dispensation. Eleanor
le Despenser subsequently became a nun, and Laurence de Hastings
married Agnes de Mortimer as indicated above.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
Below is a transcript of the will of Maurice Wyth, Knt. dated and
proved in 1383. The will mentions his wife, Elizabeth, his sister,
Joan Wyth, two nephews, Robert Wyth and William Wyth, but no children.
Thank you for transcribing this will, Douglas.
Post by Douglas Richardson
MAURICE WYTH, Knt.
PCC, 205 Courtney
Dated July 11th 1383. Maurice Wyth, knight. My body to be buried in
the church of S. Botolph without Aldersgate, London. To the repair of
the same church £5. For my burial and to find chaplains to celebrate
in the said church, officiating clerks, and all other things necessary
for the burial at the discretion of my executor £45.
And Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, widow of Maurice, 4th Lord Berkeley (d.
1368), was buried, accoriding to CP, "at St. Bodolph's, London".
Strong evidence that she was also the widow of Sir Mayrice Wyth.
I'd wondered why Elizabeth was buried in London while the Berkeley
tombs were in Bristol and Gloucestershire - this explains it.
Good find, Douglas.
Cheers, -----Brad
Chris Phillips
2003-11-22 21:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Thank you for transcribing this will, Douglas.
Post by Douglas Richardson
MAURICE WYTH, Knt.
PCC, 205 Courtney
Dated July 11th 1383. Maurice Wyth, knight. My body to be buried in
the church of S. Botolph without Aldersgate, London. To the repair of
the same church £5. For my burial and to find chaplains to celebrate
in the said church, officiating clerks, and all other things necessary
for the burial at the discretion of my executor £45.
And Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, widow of Maurice, 4th Lord Berkeley (d.
1368), was buried, accoriding to CP, "at St. Bodolph's, London".
Strong evidence that she was also the widow of Sir Mayrice Wyth.
That was well spotted. I wonder where CP got Elizabeth's date of death and
place of burial from. It sounds as though it could have been a monumental
inscription (but if so, wouldn't here second husband have been mentioned?).
I can't see any mention of a Wyth monument at St Botolph's in Stow's Survey
of London, and the medieval church was destroyed in the Great Fire.

Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
2003-11-23 07:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
That was well spotted. I wonder where CP got Elizabeth's date of death and
place of burial from. It sounds as though it could have been a monumental
inscription (but if so, wouldn't here second husband have been mentioned?).
In her IPM taken at Hyndon, Wiltshire, on 6 August 13 Richard II, "she
died on 13 July last." Her Essex IPM taken at Walden 7 August 13
Richard II, found "she died on Tuesday after the Translation of St.
Thomas the Martyr last."

She held two-thirds of the manor of Portbury, and a third part of the
manor of Porteshed, both in Somerset, which seems to be the county
where her second husband Sir Maurice Wyth was seated. Her Somerset
IPM also has her date of death as 13 July 1389.

I don't know where CP got that she was buried at St. Botolph's - maybe
from Smyth's 'Lives of the Berkeleys'?
Post by Chris Phillips
I can't see any mention of a Wyth monument at St Botolph's in Stow's Survey
of London, and the medieval church was destroyed in the Great Fire.
I take it no mention of an Elizabeth Berkeley monument either?

Cheers, ----Brad
Chris Phillips
2003-11-23 09:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Chris Phillips
I can't see any mention of a Wyth monument at St Botolph's in Stow's Survey
of London, and the medieval church was destroyed in the Great Fire.
I take it no mention of an Elizabeth Berkeley monument either?
Not as far as I could see. Unfortunately my paperback edition of Stow
doesn't have a surname index, so it may be worth checking for a mention
elsewhere than the obvious place.

Chris Phillips
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2003-11-23 11:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
I don't know where CP got that she was buried at St. Botolph's - maybe
from Smyth's 'Lives of the Berkeleys'?
Smyth has these immortal two paragraphs on Elizabeth, Vol I, p. 374:

"Shee survived her husband one and twenty years and one month and five
days, And maryed not after his death, Albeit shee was then past the
age of thirty eight yeares.

"Shee dyed the 13th of July in the 13th of Richard the second, Anno
1389. And was buried in the parish church of St Botulphes in London,
having the year before, by the name of dame Elizabeth de Berkeley, dame
de Portbury, granted for her life a son tresch et tres bien ame fitz
Thomas de Berkeley seignior de Berkeley the said manors of Portbury and
Portesehede at the rent of one hundred markes."

Believe one and you'll believe the other?

(Off the top of my head, Portbury and Portishead are on the south bank
of the River Avon near its mouth with the Severn.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-22 22:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my previous post, I erred in stating that Eleanor le Despenser
needed a dispensation to marry Laurence de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke.
Eleanor and Laurence were contracted to marry about 1325, which fact
is indicated by Complete Peerage, 10 (1945): 389, note g, citing
entries in both the Patent Rolls and Close Rolls. This couple were
related in the 4th and 5th degrees, not close enough to need a
dispensation. It was Eleanor's sister, Joan le Despenser, who
obtained a papal dispensation to marry, Joan being contracted to marry
John Fitz Thomas.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
Below is a transcript of the will of Maurice Wyth, Knt. dated and
proved in 1383. The will mentions his wife, Elizabeth, his sister,
Joan Wyth, two nephews, Robert Wyth and William Wyth, but no children.
Thank you for transcribing this will, Douglas.
Post by Douglas Richardson
MAURICE WYTH, Knt.
PCC, 205 Courtney
Dated July 11th 1383. Maurice Wyth, knight. My body to be buried in
the church of S. Botolph without Aldersgate, London. To the repair of
the same church £5. For my burial and to find chaplains to celebrate
in the said church, officiating clerks, and all other things necessary
for the burial at the discretion of my executor £45.
And Elizabeth, Lady Berkeley, widow of Maurice, 4th Lord Berkeley (d.
1368), was buried, accoriding to CP, "at St. Bodolph's, London".
Strong evidence that she was also the widow of Sir Mayrice Wyth.
I'd wondered why Elizabeth was buried in London while the Berkeley
tombs were in Bristol and Gloucestershire - this explains it.
Good find, Douglas.
Cheers, -----Brad
Reedpcgen
2003-11-23 05:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
This couple were
related in the 4th and 5th degrees, not close enough to need a
dispensation.
They didn't count the closer relationship?

Paul
Peter Stewart
2003-11-22 13:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is a transcript of the will of Maurice Wyth, Knt. dated and
proved in 1383. The will mentions his wife, Elizabeth, his sister,
Joan Wyth, two nephews, Robert Wyth and William Wyth, but no children.
MAURICE WYTH, Knt.
PCC, 205 Courtney
Dated July 11th 1383. Maurice Wyth, knight. My body to be buried in
the church of S. Botolph without Aldersgate, London. To the repair of
the same church £5.
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
I make my executors, Laurence Seybrooke, John Sergeant, John Bathe,
and John vicar of the church of Portbury. And it is my last wish that
my said wife hold herself contented with all bequeathed to her.
Proved August 6th, 1383. [Reference: Somerset Medieval Wills, Second
Series, 1501-1530, edited by F.W. Weaver (Somerset Record Society,
vol. 19) (1903), pp. 288-289].
A minor quibble: the above is a paraphrase of Sir Maurice's will
rather than properly speaking a "transcript", which ought to mean a
direct & literal copy from the original.

Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-23 04:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Quite Right....

And it's not really a minor quibble ---- but a mistake that any real
genealogical scholar would never make.

A _paraphrase_ is by no means the same as a _transcript_, quite the
contrary ---- as you make clear.

And to confuse the two words and thereby mislead the reader is ignorant,
sloppy and charlatanesque.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
| ***@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
| > Dear Newsgroup ~
| >
| > Below is a transcript of the will of Maurice Wyth, Knt. dated and
| > proved in 1383. The will mentions his wife, Elizabeth, his sister,
| > Joan Wyth, two nephews, Robert Wyth and William Wyth, but no
children.
| >
| > MAURICE WYTH, Knt.
| > PCC, 205 Courtney
| >
| > Dated July 11th 1383. Maurice Wyth, knight. My body to be buried
in
| > the church of S. Botolph without Aldersgate, London. To the repair
of
| > the same church £5.
|
| <snip>
|
| > I make my executors, Laurence Seybrooke, John Sergeant, John Bathe,
| > and John vicar of the church of Portbury. And it is my last wish
that
| > my said wife hold herself contented with all bequeathed to her.
| > Proved August 6th, 1383. [Reference: Somerset Medieval Wills,
Second
| > Series, 1501-1530, edited by F.W. Weaver (Somerset Record Society,
| > vol. 19) (1903), pp. 288-289].
|
| A minor quibble: the above is a paraphrase of Sir Maurice's will
| rather than properly speaking a "transcript", which ought to mean a
| direct & literal copy from the original.
|
| Peter Stewart
A***@aol.com
2003-11-23 12:44:46 UTC
Permalink
I have a copy of Stow in digital form and made a search under Berkeley, under
1389 (her date of death in CP) and under Wyth, but could not find her. Note
that I have not finished cleaning up the text from the OCR program, so the
text is not perfect.

I also checked the work on ancient monuments based on John Weever's work and
published in 1631. There were a couple of St Botolph's but not the one
"without Aldersgate".

I did glance at Moore's knights, and notice an earlier Sir Gefforey Wyth (als
Wight or Wiz), (p 205) assessor of the Subsidiaries in Staffs to 1319,
although his principal holdings were in Norfolk (what caught my eye was Irstead,
Norfolk, the manor of which was lost by my Honer/Honor ancestors, as a result of
gambling in around 1800 )

Adrian
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Chris Phillips
I can't see any mention of a Wyth monument at St Botolph's in Stow's
Survey
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Chris Phillips
of London, and the medieval church was destroyed in the Great Fire.
I take it no mention of an Elizabeth Berkeley monument either?
Not as far as I could see. Unfortunately my paperback edition of Stow
doesn't have a surname index, so it may be worth checking for a mention
elsewhere than the obvious place.
Chris Phillips
Al Magary
2003-11-23 20:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Did I miss which St. Botolph's people are referring to? St.
Botolph's Billingsgate, St. B Without Bishopsgate, St. B Without
Aldersgate, St. B Without Aldgate?
Post by A***@aol.com
I have a copy of Stow in digital form and made a search under
Berkeley, under
Post by A***@aol.com
1389 (her date of death in CP) and under Wyth, but could not
find her. Note
Post by A***@aol.com
that I have not finished cleaning up the text from the OCR
program, so the
Post by A***@aol.com
text is not perfect.
The 1905 Kingsford's scholarly ed. of Stow's survey is at Tufts'
Bolles London Collection:
http://nils.lib.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/perscoll?collection=Perseus:collection:Bolles&type=text
It's searchable, and the complete index is available as well.

There's also a high-rez color facsimile of the 1618 edition
onlne at Penn:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=stow&PagePosition=1

Cheers,
Al Magary


Cheers,
Al Magary

Loading...