Another C. P. Correction: Death date of Iseult Pantolf

[Douglas Richardson]

REVISED POST

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal)
states that the much-married Iseult Pantolf, wife successively of Hugh
de Munpincun, Walter de Tateshale, Walter de Baskerville, Henry Biset,
and Amaury de Saint Amand, died about 1222, citing as its source, Book
of Fees, pg. 341.

I haven't seen the record cited in Book of Fees. However, it is
doubtful that Complete Peerage's interpretation of this record is
correct, as in Hilary Term, 1223, Iseult Pantolf and her 5th husband,
Amaury de Saint Amand, were involved in a legal action concerning
Kidderminster, Worcestershire against her former daughter-in-law,
Sarah de Huntingfield, widow of Iseult's son, William Biset, and then
wife of Richard de Keynes [Reference: F.W. Maitland, ed., Bracton's
Note Book, 3 (1887):458-459].

The above cited reference to Bracton's Note Book may be found at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7AQKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=isolde+biset&source=web&ots=33Dt_-KcH9&sig=6yEUs3tW_DXueLsO38nZJ6jdGAM

In the abstract of the 1223 lawsuit provided by Bracton, Iseult, wife
of Amaury de Saint Amand, is incorrectly identified as the widow of
William Biset. Actually it was Sarah, wife of Richard de Keynes, who
was William Biset's widow. Iseult Pantolf was William Biset's
mother. For further particulars regarding Sarah de Huntingfield, see
Stenton, Rolls of Justices in Eyre (Selden Soc. 59) (1940): 105-106,
and Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).

In an exchange with Iseult's younger son, John Biset, Iseult's
husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, held the entire manor of
Kidderminster, Worcestershire, instead of the third which would have
been his wife's normal dower. On 16 January1228, Amaury de Saint
Amand had a grant of free warren and a yearly fair at Kidderminster,
Worcestershire [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1225-1232, pg.
175]. The grant of fair was subsequently confirmed to Iseult
Pantolf's son, John Biset, on 4 March 1238 [Reference: Calendar of
Charter Rolls, 1226-1257, pg. 235].

Taken together, these records prove that Iseult Pantolf was living in
Hilary Term 1223. She was evidently still alive on 16 January 1228,
when her last husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, had the grant of free
warren and a fair at Kidderminster, Worcestershire. As stated above,
Amaury held this property in right of his wife's dower, rather than by
her inheritance, this being Biset family property. Iseult Pantolf
must have died sometime before 4 March 1238, when her younger son,
John Biset, was confirmed in the fair at Kidderminster. This would be
the normal train of event on the death of John Biset's mother. Amaury
de Saint Amand was still living in 1238, but his rights in
Kidderminster would automatically have been extinguished on the death
of his wife, Iseult. John Biset certainly had full possession of the
manor by 1240, when he came to an agreement with the Prior and Convent
of Worcester as to the bounds of their respective lands on the heath
between Wolverley and Kidderminster [Reference: Annales Monastici.
(Rolls Ser.), vol. 4, pg. 431].

So, it would appear that Iseult Pantolf died 1228/1238, not c. 1222 as
stated by Complete Peerage.

Best always, Douglas Richardon, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

There appears to have been two women who were called Iseult de
Tateshale (or Tattershall). The first person so named was Iseult
Pantulf, who was married early in her life as her second husband
Walter de Tateshale. As I explained in my earlier post, Iseult
Pantolf appears to have died sometime in the period, 1228/1238, she
then being the wife of Amaury de Saint Amand her fifth husband.

The source, Liber Albus, pg. 89, however, indicates that there was a
certain Iseult (or Isabel) de Tateshale, presumably a separate and
distinct person, who was living in London in 24 Henry III
[1239-1240]. For the reference to this lady, please see the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HRQjAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=Isolda+Tateshale#PPA89,M1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[WJhonson]

Or it could be that just as her son had livery of some of her lands during her life...

That just maybe this is a bad interpretation of what occurred.

[Douglas Richardson]

[tallbloke]

Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote in
news:***@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As indicated in an earlier post, Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296,
> footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953):
> 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal), states that Iseult Pantolf (died
> 1228/1238) was married five times:
>
> (1) Hugh de Munpincun, of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex, who may
> have been dead in 1186.
> (2) Walter de Tateshale (or Tattershall), died 1199 or 1200.
> (3) Walter de Baskerville.
> (4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died before 4 April
> 1211.
> (5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
>
> The Saint Amand article cited above in Complete Peerage, however,
> reverses the order of the 3rd and 4th husbands; otherwise it stands in
> agreement with the Tateshal article.
>
> It appears that the original Saint Amand article had the correct order
> of Iseult Pantolf's husbands after all, and that the revised order of
> husbands given in the Tateshal article is in error. Henry Biset was
> actually Iseult's 3rd husband and Walter de Baskerville was her 4th
> husband, not the other way around.
>
> Here is the exact train of events:
>
> In 1199 Roger Pantolf was plaintiff against Walter de Tateshale and
> Iseult his wife and Eustache, Iseult's sister, for a knight's fee in
> Abkettleby and Holwell, Leicestershire [Reference: Early Yorkshire
> Charters, 7 (1952): 27, citing Rot. Cur. Regis, i, 432]. ....In the
> period, 1211-1213, Walter de Baskerville and Iseult Pantolf his wife
> demised to Thomas de Neville all their land in Braidon [place uncertain]

This could well be Breedon, where Iseult inherited Land from her Father
William

>
> Horrox & Ormrod, eds., A Social History of England (2006): 197-198
> states Iseult Pantolf "outlived all five of her husbands between 1180
> and 1223." At the present time, I have no particulars as to when
> Iseult's 1st husband, Hugh de Munpincun, died, only that he "may have
> been dead" in 1186.

Which would push Iseults birth date back further than the 1177 mentioned
on some websites. If correct, it would sertainly make the likelihood of
The same Iseult suing Walters grandson for dower in 1265-7? very unlikely.

However, the question raised by Michael concerning the fact that Iseult
states in the 1267 lawsuit that she was the wife of Walter de Tateshal is
still unanswered.

When was Hugh de Munpincun born?


--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

[Tony Ingham]

Douglas,

Many thanks for providing us with such a clear concise and collegial
answer to my earlier mail under the subject line ' Husbands of
Iseult/Isolde Pantolf '

I hope to comment more fully after examining the wealth of information
and source material provided.

Tony Ingham


Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As indicated in an earlier post, Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296,
> footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953):
> 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal), states that Iseult Pantolf (died
> 1228/1238) was married five times:
>
> (1) Hugh de Munpincun, of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex, who may
> have been dead in 1186.
> (2) Walter de Tateshale (or Tattershall), died 1199 or 1200.
> (3) Walter de Baskerville.
> (4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died before 4 April
> 1211.
> (5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
>
> snip , snip, snipsnip.
>
> Further Corrections:
>
> John Biset is called "filius Isolde" (that is, son of Iseult) in the
> lawsuit cited above dated 1220. John Biset can only have been
> Iseult's step-son. John Biset was of age in or before Michaelmas
> 1220, when he was granted the lands of his older brother, William
> Biset, whose heir he was [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe,
> Michaelmas 1220 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 47 (1987): 191]. Thus, John
> Biset was born in or before 1199. Iseult Pantolf, on the other hand,
> was still married to her 2nd husband, Walter de Tateshale, as late as
> 1199, and did not marry John Biset's father, Henry Biset, as her 3rd
> husband until about Trinity term 1200. The chronology does not permit
> Iseult Pantolf to be the mother of any of Henry Biset's known
> children, either William or John, or his probable daughter, Margaret
> (wife of Roger la Zouche).
>
> VCH Rutland 2 (1935): 54, footnote 7, states that William Pantulf,
> acting for Walter de Baskerville and Isolda his wife, brought an
> action in 1202 against the prior of Launde to recover the advowson of
> Wardley church, citing Assize R. 613, m. 13. This lawsuit has
> clearly been misdated, as Iseult Pantolf did not marry Walter de
> Baskerville until after 1211, as stated above.
>
> Horrox & Ormrod, eds., A Social History of England (2006): 197-198
> states Iseult Pantolf "outlived all five of her husbands between 1180
> and 1223." At the present time, I have no particulars as to when
> Iseult's 1st husband, Hugh de Munpincun, died, only that he "may have
> been dead" in 1186. Iseult certainly survived her first four
> husbands. However, as shown above, Iseult Pantolf must have died in
> 1228-1229. Thus, she clearly predeceased her final husband, Amaury de
> Saint Amand, who survived until 1241 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 11
> (1949): 296].
>
> Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296, footnote b (sub Saint Amand) states
> that Iseult Pantolf was still living in 1267, when she was prosecuting
> her rights of dower against her grandson, Robert de Tateshale.
> Complete Peerage, Vol. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal)
> correctly states that Iseult Pantolf "can not be the Iseult living in
> 1265 [recte 1267]." The evidence cited above confirms the correction
> provided in the Tateshal account in Complete Peerage.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>