Discussion:
C.P. Addition: Death date of Amice of Gloucester, Countess of Clare, widow of Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford
Add Reply
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-22 15:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 503 (sub Hertford) says Amice de Clare, Countess of Hertford “is stated to have died 1 January 1224/5, before which date she appears to have been recognized as Countess of Gloucester.” This statement regarding her being acknowledged Countess of Gloucester appears to be without foundation. In Amice’s own charters which have survived and in contemporary records, she is styled solely as Countess of Clare (i.e., Hertford), and never as Countess of Gloucester [see, for instance, Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(3) (1830): 1658–1659 (charters of Amice, Countess of Clare, daughter of William Earl of Gloucester); Clark, Cartæ et Alia Munimenta de Glamorgancia 2 (1910): 358 (charter of Amice, Countess of Clare, widow); Harper-Bill, Stoke by Clare Cartulary 1 (Suffolk Charters 4) (1982): 41-48 (charters of Amice, Countess of Clare); Mortimer, Charters of St. Bartholomew’s Priory (Suffolk Charters 15) (1996): 25–26 (charter of Amice, Countess of Clare)]. Rather, Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 1 (1817): 33 correctly states that Amice’s son and heir, Gilbert de Clare, took up the twin earldoms of Gloucester and Hertford in 1217, which occurred during his mother’s lifetime. In Nov. 1217, shortly after the death of his aunt, Isabel, Countess of Gloucester, Gilbert confirmed several benefactions as Earl of Gloucester and Hertford [see Stevenson, Durford Cartulary (Sussex Rec. Soc. 90) (2006): 81]. In the same month there was a plea between Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, and William de Cauntelo and his wife, Milicent, widow of Amaury, Count of Evreux. Livery of various lands was also ordered [see Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 694 (sub Gloucester)]. Gilbert certainly had possession of the Gloucester inheritance before 1220/1, when the Pipe Rolls sub Norfolk and Suffolk state that “Isti habunt quietancias per brevia … Comes de Clara de 131 f etc.” [see Great Roll of the Pipe Michaelmas 1221, cited in Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 503, footnote c]. Presumably Amice was excluded from the Gloucester inheritance by the terms of her father’s agreement with King Henry II in 1176, by which King Henry’s son, John (later King John) was acknowledged as heir to William Earl of Gloucester (as future husband of his youngest daughter, Isabel); in return for this grant, the king agreed to give £100 yearly rental to Earl William’s older daughters, Mabel and Amice [see Lambert, Bletchingley: A Parish Hist. 1 (1921): 53–54, 59, footnote 2].

As to Amice’s exact date of death, John Gough Nichols, published a well researched article entitled “Descent of the Earldom of Gloucester” in Memoirs illus. of the Hist. & Antiqs. of Bristol (1853): 65–79. He mentions Countess Amice in passing but does not comment on her date of death. Elsewhere another competent historian, G.T. Clark, in his article, “The Land of Morgan. Part III. The Earls of Gloucester,” published in Archaeological Journal 35 (1878): 313–338, simply states “Countess Amice seems to have died before 1226, the date of the death of her nephew Aymaric d’Evreux.” Whatever the case, Amice was certainly living as late as 9 Henry III [i.e., 1224–25], in which regnal year Hugh de Gundevill quitclaimed to Amice, Countess of Clare, one knight’s fee in Pimperne, Dorset; in return for which Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, son of the Countess, granted Hugh 100s. of land in Upton, Dorset [see Fry & Fry Abs. of Feet of Fines rel. Dorset 1 (Dorset Rec. Soc. 5) (1896): 26].

Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
Peter Stewart
2019-07-23 01:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 503 (sub Hertford) says Amice de Clare, Countess of Hertford “is stated to have died 1 January 1224/5, before which date she appears to have been recognized as Countess of Gloucester.” This statement regarding her being acknowledged Countess of Gloucester appears to be without foundation. In Amice’s own charters which have survived and in contemporary records, she is styled solely as Countess of Clare (i.e., Hertford), and never as Countess of Gloucester [see, for instance, Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(3) (1830): 1658–1659 (charters of Amice, Countess of Clare, daughter of William Earl of Gloucester); Clark, Cartæ et Alia Munimenta de Glamorgancia 2 (1910): 358 (charter of Amice, Countess of Clare, widow); Harper-Bill, Stoke by Clare Cartulary 1 (Suffolk Charters 4) (1982): 41-48 (charters of Amice, Countess of Clare); Mortimer, Charters of St. Bartholomew’s Priory (Suffolk Charters 15) (1996): 25–26 (charter of Amice, Countess of Clare)]. Rather, Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 1 (1817): 33 correctly states that Amice’s son and heir, Gilbert de Clare, took up the twin earldoms of Gloucester and Hertford in 1217, which occurred during his mother’s lifetime. In Nov. 1217, shortly after the death of his aunt, Isabel, Countess of Gloucester, Gilbert confirmed several benefactions as Earl of Gloucester and Hertford [see Stevenson, Durford Cartulary (Sussex Rec. Soc. 90) (2006): 81]. In the same month there was a plea between Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, and William de Cauntelo and his wife, Milicent, widow of Amaury, Count of Evreux. Livery of various lands was also ordered [see Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 694 (sub Gloucester)]. Gilbert certainly had possession of the Gloucester inheritance before 1220/1, when the Pipe Rolls sub Norfolk and Suffolk state that “Isti habunt quietancias per brevia … Comes de Clara de 131 f etc.” [see Great Roll of the Pipe Michaelmas 1221, cited in Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 503, footnote c]. Presumably Amice was excluded from the Gloucester inheritance by the terms of her father’s agreement with King Henry II in 1176, by which King Henry’s son, John (later King John) was acknowledged as heir to William Earl of Gloucester (as future husband of his youngest daughter, Isabel); in return for this grant, the king agreed to give £100 yearly rental to Earl William’s older daughters, Mabel and Amice [see Lambert, Bletchingley: A Parish Hist. 1 (1921): 53–54, 59, footnote 2].
As to Amice’s exact date of death, John Gough Nichols, published a well researched article entitled “Descent of the Earldom of Gloucester” in Memoirs illus. of the Hist. & Antiqs. of Bristol (1853): 65–79. He mentions Countess Amice in passing but does not comment on her date of death. Elsewhere another competent historian, G.T. Clark, in his article, “The Land of Morgan. Part III. The Earls of Gloucester,” published in Archaeological Journal 35 (1878): 313–338, simply states “Countess Amice seems to have died before 1226, the date of the death of her nephew Aymaric d’Evreux.” Whatever the case, Amice was certainly living as late as 9 Henry III [i.e., 1224–25], in which regnal year Hugh de Gundevill quitclaimed to Amice, Countess of Clare, one knight’s fee in Pimperne, Dorset; in return for which Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, son of the Countess, granted Hugh 100s. of land in Upton, Dorset [see Fry & Fry Abs. of Feet of Fines rel. Dorset 1 (Dorset Rec. Soc. 5) (1896): 26].
Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
The first thing a sensible historian & genealogist might do in this case
is to follow up the references given by Robert Patterson in *Earldom of
Gloucester Charters* (1973) for the following statement (p. 9): "Amicia,
daughter of Earl William, was recognized as Countess until her death in
1223; her son Gilbert, as heir of both the Earldom of Hertford and the
Earldom of Gloucester, paid reliefs in 1218 and won the heritage of the
first Gloucester comital family for the Clares for the next ninety
years." If Patterson should be found in error, then a worthwhile
argument can be proposed - but the post above isn't it.

If Amicia had not been effectively recognised as countess then there
would have been a new creation of the earldom for her son - but of
course this was not necessary, and since she had no husband to act as
earl in her right this authority was de
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-31 17:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:07:32 PM UTC-6, Peter Stewart wrote:

< The first thing a sensible historian & genealogist might do in this case
< is to follow up the references given by Robert Patterson in *Earldom of
< Gloucester Charters* (1973) for the following statement (p. 9): "Amicia,
< daughter of Earl William, was recognized as Countess until her death in
< 1223; her son Gilbert, as heir of both the Earldom of Hertford and the
< Earldom of Gloucester, paid reliefs in 1218 and won the heritage of the
< first Gloucester comital family for the Clares for the next ninety
< years." If Patterson should be found in error, then a worthwhile
< argument can be proposed - but the post above isn't it.

If you check out Patterson's sources (and not repeat his unwarranted conclusions), you will find he is very much in error.

On page 9, for example, he says that Amice of Gloucester died in 1223, yet on page 192, he says she died in 1224/5. Which date is correct? He gives no source for either date! Grrr!

< If Amicia had not been effectively recognised as countess then there
< would have been a new creation of the earldom for her son - but of
< course this was not necessary, and since she had no husband to act as
< earl in her right this authority was deferred instead to her son.

On the death of her nephew, Amaury de Montfort, circa Nov. 1213, Countess Amice appears to have renounced her claims to the earldom of Gloucester in favor of her son, Gilbert de Clare. After her husband's death in 1217, Amice occurs in multiple charters simply as Countess of Clare, never as Countess of Gloucester. That is ample proof that she was never recognized as Countess of Gloucester.

Patterson, pg. 7, states that in 1200 "the king gave fifteen knights' fees to Gilbert de Clare, heir of his mother's share of the agreement of 1176."

Yet the source he cites regarding these fees refers to Gilbert's father not Gilbert. In any event, Gilbert de Clare wasn't his mother's heir in 1200, nor was he in 1223, as claimed by Patterson.
Post by Peter Stewart
An adequate foundation for this statement is actually given on pp.
502-503 in note (l): '"Comitissa ... venit apud Sudberi et curiam suam
convocavit ..." ... Sudbury was a Gloucester fee'.
Wrong again Peter. Sudbury was actually Amice's maritagium.

My overall impression of Patterson's book is that he studiously avoided any serious discussion of Amice of Gloucester or her son, Gilbert de Clare, both of whom were important people in their day. Amice and Gilbert were simply outside the scope of his work which only covers the period down to the year 1217.

One good thing: Patterson, pg. 5, found evidence that Amice of Gloucester and her husband, Richard de Clare, were married before 1174.

See Stubbs, Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London 1 (Rolls Ser.) (1876): 385 (sub A.D. 1174: “Willelmus comes Glocestriae et Ricardus comes de Clare gener ejus, de quibus habebatur suspicio, quod in partem adversam declinare proponerent, occurrerent regi, suo per omnia parituri mandato.”).

This is an addition to Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 501–503 (sub Hertford).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
2019-07-31 23:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
My comments are interspersed below. DR
< The first thing a sensible historian & genealogist might do in this case
< is to follow up the references given by Robert Patterson in *Earldom of
< Gloucester Charters* (1973) for the following statement (p. 9): "Amicia,
< daughter of Earl William, was recognized as Countess until her death in
< 1223; her son Gilbert, as heir of both the Earldom of Hertford and the
< Earldom of Gloucester, paid reliefs in 1218 and won the heritage of the
< first Gloucester comital family for the Clares for the next ninety
< years." If Patterson should be found in error, then a worthwhile
< argument can be proposed - but the post above isn't it.
If you check out Patterson's sources (and not repeat his unwarranted conclusions), you will find he is very much in error.
On page 9, for example, he says that Amice of Gloucester died in 1223, yet on page 192, he says she died in 1224/5. Which date is correct? He gives no source for either date! Grrr!
1223 is probably a misprint - hardly an atrocity, these happen to the best.
Post by c***@gmail.com
< If Amicia had not been effectively recognised as countess then there
< would have been a new creation of the earldom for her son - but of
< course this was not necessary, and since she had no husband to act as
< earl in her right this authority was deferred instead to her son.
On the death of her nephew, Amaury de Montfort, circa Nov. 1213, Countess Amice appears to have renounced her claims to the earldom of Gloucester in favor of her son, Gilbert de Clare. After her husband's death in 1217, Amice occurs in multiple charters simply as Countess of Clare, never as Countess of Gloucester. That is ample proof that she was never recognized as Countess of Gloucester.
Patterson, pg. 7, states that in 1200 "the king gave fifteen knights' fees to Gilbert de Clare, heir of his mother's share of the agreement of 1176."
Yet the source he cites regarding these fees refers to Gilbert's father not Gilbert. In any event, Gilbert de Clare wasn't his mother's heir in 1200, nor was he in 1223, as claimed by Patterson.
Why not, since he was her eldest son?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
An adequate foundation for this statement is actually given on pp.
502-503 in note (l): '"Comitissa ... venit apud Sudberi et curiam suam
convocavit ..." ... Sudbury was a Gloucester fee'.
Wrong again Peter. Sudbury was actually Amice's maritagium.
That is beside the point - she convened her court to exercise comital
authority within the earldom of Gloucester in 1200, and you would need
to explain how she have done this unless as the deputy (and recognised
heiress) of her sister.
Post by c***@gmail.com
My overall impression of Patterson's book is that he studiously avoided any serious discussion of Amice of Gloucester or her son, Gilbert de Clare, both of whom were important people in their day. Amice and Gilbert were simply outside the scope of his work which only covers the period down to the year 1217.
So why would Patterson need to be studious about not discussing them
further? His work is the obvious starting place for rights to the
earldom down to 1217, hence for who may have inherited these on the
death of Isabel in that year. CP vol. 5 p. 694 corectly states: "After
the death of Isabel, Countess of Gloucester, the Earldom
descended to the s. and h. of Amice, the 2nd da. and coh. of Earl
William". Amice's son and heir could only have inherited rights that
came to him through her, and that would have stayed with her for her
lifetime if she had been married, capable and willing to hold onto them.
There was no attainder, and no legal means for the rights to skip a
generation and fall to Gilbert without implicit recognition of his
mother as countess.
Post by c***@gmail.com
One good thing: Patterson, pg. 5, found evidence that Amice of Gloucester and her husband, Richard de Clare, were married before 1174.
See Stubbs, Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London 1 (Rolls Ser.) (1876): 385 (sub A.D. 1174: “Willelmus comes Glocestriae et Ricardus comes de Clare gener ejus, de quibus habebatur suspicio, quod in partem adversam declinare proponerent, occurrerent regi, suo per omnia parituri mandato.”).
This is an addition to Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 501–503 (sub Hertford).
The point I was making is that a sensible historian would start from a
recent authority on the subject - that produces even an incidental "good
thing" on a subject that it somehow "studiously avoided" - rather than
aimlessly Googling for the opinions of 19th-century antiquarians.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
2019-07-23 01:19:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 503 (sub Hertford) says Amice de Clare, Countess of Hertford “is stated to have died 1 January 1224/5, before which date she appears to have been recognized as Countess of Gloucester.” This statement regarding her being acknowledged Countess of Gloucester appears to be without foundation.
An adequate foundation for this statement is actually given on pp.
502-503 in note (l): '"Comitissa ... venit apud Sudberi et curiam suam
convocavit ..." ... Sudbury was a Gloucester fee'.

Peter Stewart
Loading...