Discussion:
More Light on the marriage of Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt. [died 1294], and Robert de Brus, Knt., Earl of Carrick [died 1304]
(too old to reply)
c***@gmail.com
2018-01-02 08:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Some years ago I came across the following record of interest in the Patent Rolls:

A license was issued 19 September 1295, for Maud [Fitz Alan], late the wife of Philip Burnel, tenant in chief, to marry Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895), pg. 147]. A weblink to this record is given below:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081154;view=1up;seq=159

At the time, I checked Complete Peerage and found no mention of this marriage either under the Brus, Burnell, or Carrick accounts. Nor was there any mention of this marriage in the account of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick [died 1304] in Scots Peerage 2 (1905): 432–435 (sub Carrick).

I subsequently encountered a certain communication dated 13 October 1296 from King Edward I of England to John de Langetone in the published Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland by Bain. This specific record names Maud Fitz Alan's husband in 1296 as Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale. This record is erroneously cited by Scots Peerage as pertaining to Robert de Brus, grandson of the Competitor (afterwards King Robert I), when it actually pertains to his father, Robert de Brus, Senior, who died in 1304.

"On 13 October 1296 at Kirkham. The King to John de Langetone to his
chancellor. Empowers him to appoint some fit person to receive the
attorneys of Robert de Brus Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale,
and Matill[idis] his`wife, in a plea of dower whereof the said earl's
clerk, the bearer, will acquaint him. Privy Seals (Tower), 24 Edward
I. Bundle 5." [Reference: Joseph Bain, Calendar of Documents relating
to Scotland, 2 (1884): 223, no. 850].

In recent time I've found a Common Pleas lawsuit of similar date which conclusively proves that the marriage between Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick [father of King Robert I de Brus of Scotland], and Maud, widow of Philip Burnell, took place. Below is an abstract of this lawsuit.

In Hilary term 1298 Robert de Brus and Maud his wife sued Walter de Wilton and Isabel his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of one messuage, one water mill, 160 acres of lands, 10 acres of meadow, and 40 shillings rent in Todber, Dorset, which the said Maud claimed as her dower of the dotation of Philip Burnel her first husband [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/116, image 98f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no116/aCP40no116fronts/IMG_0098.htm)].

Robert de Brus was definitely in England at the date of this lawsuit, for he was summoned to attend the King of England at Salisbury 26 Jan. 1296/7 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 56 (sub Carrick)].

The marriage of Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan appears to have ended in divorce sometime before Easter term [6 May–1 June] 1299 when, as “Maud formerly the wife of Philip Burnell,” she sued in a plea of dower regarding a messuage and lands in Gunton, Norfolk [see Rye, Some Rough Materials for a Hist. of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 82–84]. In the same term, she likewise sued Ralph Springehose for a third of a messuage, lands, and £10 of rent in Wolverhampton, Staffordshire and various other tenants in Wolverhampton for a third of their holdings as her dower [see Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 7(1)) (1886): 51–52; Court of Common Pleas, CP40/127, image 65f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no127/aCP40no127fronts/IMG_0065.htm); Court of Common Pleas, CP40/127, image 92f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no127/aCP40no127fronts/IMG_0092.htm)].

The usual cause for divorce in this time period was consanguinity (that is, near kinship between the two parties). In this case, Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan are known to have been related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred respectively, by virtue of their common descent from Sir William Marshal (died 1219), Earl of Pembroke. Robert de Brus was subsequently remarried and was survived by a third wife, Eleanor, and, as will be seen below, Maud Fitz Alan also eventually remarried.

In 1302, as “Maud widow of Philip Burnell,” she petitioned the king and council regarding socages and burgages formerly held in various counties by her late husband, Philip Burnell (see National Archives, SC 8/313/E63; available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). In Hilary term 1309 William de Mortimer sued Maud widow of Philip Burnel in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £10 [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/175, image 85d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no175/bCP40no175dorses/IMG_0085.htm)]. In Michaelmas term 1309 Henry son of Henry de Erdington sued Maud and her son, Edward Burnell, regarding the manor of Wellington, Shropshire [see Wrottesley Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 9) (1888): 19]. She presented to the church of Great Cheverell, Wiltshire in 1314 and 1315. In Hilary term 1314 Richard, Abbot of Waltham Holy Cross, sued Edward son of Philip Burnel in the Court of Common Pleas, whom Maud widow of Philip Burnel called to warranty in a Essex plea regarding land [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 13f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0013.htm)].

Maud married (3rd) before 19 June 1316 Simon de Criketot (or Criketoft, Kirketoft) [see Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds 4 (1902): 85–86 (A. 6814); Copinger County of Suffolk 5 (1905): 231; Mélanges de Linguistique et de Litterature offerts á M. Alfred Jeanroy (1928): 204–205]. Maud died shortly before 17 Nov. 1326 [see National Archives, SC 8/52/2570, petition dated c.1330 by John de Haudlo and Maud his wife to the king and council (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk)].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
j***@gmail.com
2018-01-02 12:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Another good find DR, thank you
c***@gmail.com
2019-06-25 18:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my earlier post regarding the dating of the divorce of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick, lord of Annandale [died 1304], and Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Sir Philip Burnell, I found the following pertinent records recently:

19 May 1298, Ashley. Institution of Thomas de Acton Rayners, priest, to the church of Cound, Shropshire; patron, lady Maud Burnel [see Hughes, Episcopate of Walter Langton, Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield, 1296–1321 2 (Ph.D. thesis 1992): 424].

On 12 October 1299 Thomas [de Acton Rayners], rector of the church of Cound, Shropshire, was licensed to serve lady Maud Burnel his patron for one year [see Hughes, Episcopate of Walter Langton, Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield, 1296–1321 2 (Ph.D. thesis 1992): 351].

On 29 Nov. 1306, Thomas, rector of Cound, Shropshire, presented to the chapel of Frodesley, Cheshire, at the request, by letters supplicatory, of lady Maud Burnel, patron, and Hugh le Despenser [see Hughes, Episcopate of Walter Langton, Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield, 1296–1321 2 (Ph.D. thesis 1992): 431].

1 April 1312. Institution of Master John de Stanton to the church of Cound, Shropshire by grant of the bishop that the possession he had of the church in commendam he should have by title of institution; patron, lady Maud called (dicte) Burnell [see Hughes, Episcopate of Walter Langton, Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield, 1296–1321 2 (Ph.D. thesis 1992): 692].

Hughes may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11108/2/315105_VOL2.pdf

The above records and the two lawsuits given in my earlier post provide strong evidence that Maud Fitz Alan was no longer the wife of Robert de Brus by 19 May 1298. She is styled lady Maud Burnell or Maud, formerly the wife of Philip Burnell," in all later records, with no reference to Robert de Brus as her husband. I should note that the manors of Cound and Frodesley, Shropshire mentioned above formed part of the original maritagium of Maud Fitz Alan at her 1st marriage to Sir Philip Burnell.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hans Vogels
2019-06-26 15:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
[snip]
Post by c***@gmail.com
The usual cause for divorce in this time period was consanguinity (that is, near kinship between the two parties). In this case, Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan are known to have been related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred respectively, by virtue of their common descent from Sir William Marshal (died 1219), Earl of Pembroke.
[snip]
Post by c***@gmail.com
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
For this kind of consanguinity (3th-4th degree), a dispensation could have been granted.

Hans Vogels
c***@gmail.com
2019-06-26 16:33:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:11:47 AM UTC-6, Hans Vogels wrote:
<
< For this kind of consanguinity (3th-4th degree), a dispensation could have <been granted.
<
< Hans Vogels

Dispensations were not always obtained before marriage. Sometimes they were granted after marriage.

DR
Hans Vogels
2019-06-27 04:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
<
< For this kind of consanguinity (3th-4th degree), a dispensation could have <been granted.
<
< Hans Vogels
Dispensations were not always obtained before marriage. Sometimes they were granted after marriage.
DR
You're answering to fast.
Post by c***@gmail.com
The usual cause for divorce in this time period was consanguinity <<
For this degree of consanguinity, a dispensation could be obtained before or after the marriage.

So the reason for the divorce might have been different.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2019-06-27 06:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by c***@gmail.com
<
< For this kind of consanguinity (3th-4th degree), a dispensation could have <been granted.
<
< Hans Vogels
Dispensations were not always obtained before marriage. Sometimes they were granted after marriage.
DR
You're answering to fast.
Post by c***@gmail.com
The usual cause for divorce in this time period was consanguinity <<
For this degree of consanguinity, a dispensation could be obtained before or after the marriage.
So the reason for the divorce might have been different.
Quite so, Hans. In this case there is no record in papal registers or
letters that Robert ever either sought a dispensation for marriage or a
divorce from Maud Fitzalan.

However, it is notable that any marriage between them took place under a
royal licence dated 19 September 1295. Around then, in Michaelmas term
1295, Robert's step-mother Christian d'Ireby brought an action against
him claiming her dower from his father, who had died in March of that
year. Robert claimed against her that she and his father had never been
lawfully married, despite an indisputable record from 1273 appointing
attorneys to act for the couple in all pleas.

Christian produced incontrovertible proof of the marriage in a letter
from the bishop of Glasgow, giving the date and place of the wedding in
his diocese, so that her step-son Robert had to settle with her.

Perhaps due to this reversal he may have taken canny steps to ensure
there could be no similar proof of a canonical marriage between himself
and Maud, allowing an out from the union without recorded benefit of
clergy going in.

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2019-06-27 08:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by c***@gmail.com
<
< For this kind of consanguinity (3th-4th degree), a dispensation could have <been granted.
<
< Hans Vogels
Dispensations were not always obtained before marriage. Sometimes they were granted after marriage.
DR
You're answering to fast.
Post by c***@gmail.com
The usual cause for divorce in this time period was consanguinity <<
For this degree of consanguinity, a dispensation could be obtained before or after the marriage.
So the reason for the divorce might have been different.
Quite so, Hans. In this case there is no record in papal registers or
letters that Robert ever either sought a dispensation for marriage or a
divorce from Maud Fitzalan.
However, it is notable that any marriage between them took place under a
royal licence dated 19 September 1295. Around then, in Michaelmas term
1295, Robert's step-mother Christian d'Ireby brought an action against
him claiming her dower from his father, who had died in March of that
year. Robert claimed against her that she and his father had never been
lawfully married, despite an indisputable record from 1273 appointing
attorneys to act for the couple in all pleas.
Christian produced incontrovertible proof of the marriage in a letter
from the bishop of Glasgow, giving the date and place of the wedding in
his diocese, so that her step-son Robert had to settle with her.
Perhaps due to this reversal he may have taken canny steps to ensure
there could be no similar proof of a canonical marriage between himself
and Maud, allowing an out from the union without recorded benefit of
clergy going in.
Peter Stewart
Perhaps the most simple reason for the divorce was that they did not get along, or that the advantage he thought he would have had of the new marriage was disappointing. Marriages were like business proposals.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2019-06-27 23:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by c***@gmail.com
<
< For this kind of consanguinity (3th-4th degree), a dispensation could have <been granted.
<
< Hans Vogels
Dispensations were not always obtained before marriage. Sometimes they were granted after marriage.
DR
You're answering to fast.
Post by c***@gmail.com
The usual cause for divorce in this time period was consanguinity <<
For this degree of consanguinity, a dispensation could be obtained before or after the marriage.
So the reason for the divorce might have been different.
Quite so, Hans. In this case there is no record in papal registers or
letters that Robert ever either sought a dispensation for marriage or a
divorce from Maud Fitzalan.
However, it is notable that any marriage between them took place under a
royal licence dated 19 September 1295. Around then, in Michaelmas term
1295, Robert's step-mother Christian d'Ireby brought an action against
him claiming her dower from his father, who had died in March of that
year. Robert claimed against her that she and his father had never been
lawfully married, despite an indisputable record from 1273 appointing
attorneys to act for the couple in all pleas.
Christian produced incontrovertible proof of the marriage in a letter
from the bishop of Glasgow, giving the date and place of the wedding in
his diocese, so that her step-son Robert had to settle with her.
Perhaps due to this reversal he may have taken canny steps to ensure
there could be no similar proof of a canonical marriage between himself
and Maud, allowing an out from the union without recorded benefit of
clergy going in.
Peter Stewart
Perhaps the most simple reason for the divorce was that they did not get along, or that the advantage he thought he would have had of the new marriage was disappointing. Marriages were like business proposals.
My point is that getting out of marriages could be more tricky than
getting in, and sometimes precautions might be taken to ease the exit
process.

Just wanting to end a marriage might have come about for all sorts of
reasons unconnected to business or politics, that we usually can't know
- for example, developing personal antipathy or physical repugnance.

The aspect I wanted to emphasise is that there was a kind of "de facto"
divorce that is sometimes overlooked, on the overly-generalised
assumption that in practice every marriage must have been formalised and
every rupture or annulment of one ditto.

When two people went into a marriage with the intention of reserving a
way out of it, this was not always very difficult to manage. Clearly
Maud didn't cling to Robert any more than he to her - however,
consanguinity between them may have had no part in this. It could have
been a useful plan B in their case, but plan A of simply walking away
from each other with plausible deniability could also work sometimes.

Peter Stewart
Adrian Channing
2019-07-03 23:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081154;view=1up;seq=159
At the time, I checked Complete Peerage and found no mention of this marriage either under the Brus, Burnell, or Carrick accounts. Nor was there any mention of this marriage in the account of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick [died 1304] in Scots Peerage 2 (1905): 432–435 (sub Carrick).
I subsequently encountered a certain communication dated 13 October 1296 from King Edward I of England to John de Langetone in the published Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland by Bain. This specific record names Maud Fitz Alan's husband in 1296 as Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale. This record is erroneously cited by Scots Peerage as pertaining to Robert de Brus, grandson of the Competitor (afterwards King Robert I), when it actually pertains to his father, Robert de Brus, Senior, who died in 1304.
"On 13 October 1296 at Kirkham. The King to John de Langetone to his
chancellor. Empowers him to appoint some fit person to receive the
attorneys of Robert de Brus Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale,
and Matill[idis] his`wife, in a plea of dower whereof the said earl's
clerk, the bearer, will acquaint him. Privy Seals (Tower), 24 Edward
I. Bundle 5." [Reference: Joseph Bain, Calendar of Documents relating
to Scotland, 2 (1884): 223, no. 850].
In recent time I've found a Common Pleas lawsuit of similar date which conclusively proves that the marriage between Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick [father of King Robert I de Brus of Scotland], and Maud, widow of Philip Burnell, took place. Below is an abstract of this lawsuit.
In Hilary term 1298 Robert de Brus and Maud his wife sued Walter de Wilton and Isabel his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of one messuage, one water mill, 160 acres of lands, 10 acres of meadow, and 40 shillings rent in Todber, Dorset, which the said Maud claimed as her dower of the dotation of Philip Burnel her first husband [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/116, image 98f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no116/aCP40no116fronts/IMG_0098.htm)].
Robert de Brus was definitely in England at the date of this lawsuit, for he was summoned to attend the King of England at Salisbury 26 Jan. 1296/7 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 56 (sub Carrick)].
The marriage of Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan appears to have ended in divorce sometime before Easter term [6 May–1 June] 1299 when, as “Maud formerly the wife of Philip Burnell,” she sued in a plea of dower regarding a messuage and lands in Gunton, Norfolk [see Rye, Some Rough Materials for a Hist. of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 82–84]. In the same term, she likewise sued Ralph Springehose for a third of a messuage, lands, and £10 of rent in Wolverhampton, Staffordshire and various other tenants in Wolverhampton for a third of their holdings as her dower [see Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 7(1)) (1886): 51–52; Court of Common Pleas, CP40/127, image 65f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no127/aCP40no127fronts/IMG_0065.htm); Court of Common Pleas, CP40/127, image 92f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no127/aCP40no127fronts/IMG_0092.htm)].
The usual cause for divorce in this time period was consanguinity (that is, near kinship between the two parties). In this case, Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan are known to have been related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred respectively, by virtue of their common descent from Sir William Marshal (died 1219), Earl of Pembroke. Robert de Brus was subsequently remarried and was survived by a third wife, Eleanor, and, as will be seen below, Maud Fitz Alan also eventually remarried.
In 1302, as “Maud widow of Philip Burnell,” she petitioned the king and council regarding socages and burgages formerly held in various counties by her late husband, Philip Burnell (see National Archives, SC 8/313/E63; available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). In Hilary term 1309 William de Mortimer sued Maud widow of Philip Burnel in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £10 [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/175, image 85d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no175/bCP40no175dorses/IMG_0085.htm)]. In Michaelmas term 1309 Henry son of Henry de Erdington sued Maud and her son, Edward Burnell, regarding the manor of Wellington, Shropshire [see Wrottesley Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 9) (1888): 19]. She presented to the church of Great Cheverell, Wiltshire in 1314 and 1315. In Hilary term 1314 Richard, Abbot of Waltham Holy Cross, sued Edward son of Philip Burnel in the Court of Common Pleas, whom Maud widow of Philip Burnel called to warranty in a Essex plea regarding land [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 13f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0013.htm)].
Maud married (3rd) before 19 June 1316 Simon de Criketot (or Criketoft, Kirketoft) [see Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds 4 (1902): 85–86 (A. 6814); Copinger County of Suffolk 5 (1905): 231; Mélanges de Linguistique et de Litterature offerts á M. Alfred Jeanroy (1928): 204–205]. Maud died shortly before 17 Nov. 1326 [see National Archives, SC 8/52/2570, petition dated c.1330 by John de Haudlo and Maud his wife to the king and council (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk)].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
A little more information:

In Fosters' Knights of Edward I p 167: BURNELL, Sr Philip, Kt. ... Ric. Fitz Alan, E. of Arundel, acknowledges a debt of 2,000 m. to Robert, Bp. of Bath and Wells, for marriage of Philip Burnel, the Bp's nephew, which said Richard bought from him for use of his sis. Matilda, 5 June 1283 (Close Rolls.).

Richard Fitz Alan must have been young in 1283, about 17 years old, Matilda (Maud) probably younger.

On another point, note (d) on page 56 of C.P. Vol 3:
"Isabel, his da. by his 1st wife, m., as his 2nd wife, Eric I, King of Norway"

That is Isabel da of Robert de Bruce (d 1304) by Margaret, suo jure COUNTESS OF CARRICK. This is a little confusing as note (d) is placed against his 2nd wife.. also I think it should read Eric II that is Eric Magnusson (1268 – 15 July 1299) King of Norway from 1280 until 1299.
Loading...