Discussion:
Mary Hussey, wife of John Teye, Esq.(died 1440), Henry Howard, Esq. (died 1446), and William Allington, Esq. (died 1459).
(too old to reply)
Douglas Richardson
2021-04-16 23:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

The illustrious baronial and noble family of Howard has several younger cadet branches, among them one headed by Henry Howard, Esquire, of Boxted, Suffolk, who was murdered in 1446, apparently by retainers of John le Scrope, Lord Scrope of Masham. The parentage and maiden name of Henry Howard’s wife, Mary Hussey, are covered by several published sources, among them:

1. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 1 (1812): 56 (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of the County of Sussex, Knight;” citing Ex stemmate Fam. de Howard, MS.
p. 49 in Bibl Joh. Anstis, Arm. Gart.").

2. Tierney, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Castle & Town of Arundel 2 (1834): 340–350 (Howard ped.: “Henry Howard, to whom his father, by his will dated 1435, assigned lands in Norfolk. Collins, I.56. = Mary, daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of Sussex. Collins, I.56.”).

3. Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages (1883): 284 (sub Howard) (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “dau. of Sir Henry Hussey”).

4. On 12 July 1447 John le Scrope, king’s esquire, son and heir apparent of John le Scrope, Lord Scrope of Masham, John Chesshire, and many others were pardoned by the king, they having been impeached of malice before the king and many magnates and lieges of England by Mary, widow of Henry Howard, Esq., late of Boxted, Suffolk, of having murdered her said husband. Reference: Cal. of Patent Rolls 1446–1452 (1909): 62.

As it turns out, research indicates Mary Hussey actually had three husbands, namely John Teye, Esq., of Layer de la Haye, Essex (died testate 10 Nov. 1440), Henry Howard, Esq. (died 1446), and William Allington, Esq., of Horseheath, Cambridgeshire (died 5 July 1459). The pieces of evidence which prove these various marriages are given below:

1. Hawley et al. Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 1 (H.S.P. 13) (1878): 15 (Tey ped.: “Joh’es Tey ar’ obiit Ao 19 H. 6. = [left blank]”), 108–110 (Tey ped.: “John Teye. = Mary Hussey.”), 297 (Tey ped.: “John Tey of Layer de la haye in com. Essex, Gentleman lived the 4th of H. 6, 1425. = Mary, daugh. to Hussey.”).

Available at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hqwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA109

2. On 26 Nov. 1446 various feoffees of John Teye, Esq. [deceased], including William, Abbot of Colchester, granted Mary Howard the manor and advowson of the church of Peldon, Essex (a Teye family manor) for life, with successive remainders to the children of John Teye, Esq., namely John Teye, Robert Teye, and Grace and Constance Teye (these last two together), and their respective heirs.

References:

Madox Formulare Anglicanum (1702): 409–410, available at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=jBBJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA409

Harvard Law Review 30 (1917): 229–230, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=lKkxAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA229

3. In 1452–54 William Alyngton, Esq., and Mary his wife, late the wife of John Teye, Esq., sued William, Abbot of St. John, Colchester, and others, feoffees and executors of the said John Teye, in Chancery regarding profits of the manor of Picotes in Ardleigh, Essex, various goods; together with the manors, etc of Peldon, New Hall, Badcockes, Dorewardes, and Botynghams, and the advowson of Peldon Church.

Reference: National Archives, C 1/19/296, available at the following weblink:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7440749

Mary Hussey had four children by her marriage to John Teye, Esq., namely two sons, John and Robert Teye, and two daughters, Grace and Constance Teye. By her 2nd husband, Henry Howard, Esq., Mary Hussey had one daughter, Elizabeth Howard, wife of Henry Wentworth, Esq.

Insofar as Mary Hussey’s extended ancestry is concerned, the pertinent chronology places Mary as a daughter of Henry Hussey, Knt. (died 1450), of Harting, Sussex, South Moreton and South Standen (in Hungerford), Berkshire, Great Risindon and Saperton, Gloucestershire, Hascombe, Surrey, etc., by Constance his wife (died 1461). In this regard, it may be noted that Mary Hussey named a daughter, Constance Teye, by her 1st marriage, in honor of her mother, Constance Hussey. For the Hussey fam. of Sussex, see Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 10–11 (sub Husee); VCH Surrey 4 (1953): 10–21; Roskell ,House of Commons 1386–1421 3 (1992): 462–463 (biog. of Sir Henry Hussey (c.1362–1409), of Harting, Sussex).

Elsewhere I find that Banks, Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 221–223 (sub Ghisnes) states that Ralph Brooke and Milles mention that a certain Enguerrand de Coucy had a natural daughter Maud, who married _____ Lord Strange, by which marriage Maud had a daughter, Ankaret, the wife of Sir Henry Husee, knight. — Vincent on Brooke’s notes, viz., Prebetur quasi”). The Ankaret Husee/Hussey intended here is surely Mary Hussey’s great-grandmother, Ankaret (died 1389), 2nd wife of Henry Hussey, Knt. (married by 1377, he died 1383), of Harting, Sussex, and later wife of Andrew Hake, Esq. (married in 1385), for whom see Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1381–1385 (1897): 555; Cal. of Close Rolls 1389–1392 (1922): 37–38; VCH Surrey 4 (1953): 10–21; Court of Common Pleas, CP40/466, image 243; Year: 1377 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no466/466_0243.htm). The Lord Strange intended is surely Roger le Strange, 4th Lord Strange of Knockin (died 1349), whose wife was in fact named Maud.

Banks was of the impression that the Enguerrand de Coucy mentioned by Brooke and Milles was Sir Enguerrand de Coucy, the well known son-in-law of King Edward III of England. However, the chronology simply does not permit such an identification. Rather, it appears that the Enguerrand de Coucy named by Brooke and Milles is Sir Enguerrand de Coucy’s male line great-grandfather, Sir Enguerrand (or Ingram) de Guines, 1st Lord Gynes, of Lancashire and Westmorland, who died in 1323. The elder Sir Enguerrand was heir in 1311 to his maternal uncle, Enguerrand de Coucy, seigneur of Coucy, Marle, la Fere, Oisy, Crévecœur, Montmirel, Condé en Brie, Boissy, etc., Châtelain of Château-Thierry and Cambray, Vicomte of Meaux, after which Enguerrand’s descendants adopted the surname Coucy. The elder Sir Enguerrand was a 1st cousin of Alexander III, King of Scots, and a near kinsman of Queen Eleanor of Castile, wife of King Edward I of England. For the Hussey fam. of Sussex, see Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 10–11 (sub Husee); VCH Surrey 4 (1953): 10–21; Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 3 (1992): 462–463 (biog. of Sir Henry Hussey (c.1362–1409), of Harting, Sussex). This matter deserves further study.

The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Mary Hussey and her 1st husband, Henry Howard, Esq.:

Marmaduke Beckwith, Thomas Booth, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, William Clopton, Anne Derehaugh, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Mary Johanna Somerset, Jemima Waldegrave.

Do you descend from Mary Hussey? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.

For interest’s sake, I’ve copied further below my current file copy concerning Mary Hussey and her three husbands.

Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
+ + + + + + + + + + +

HENRY HOWARD, Esq., of Boxted, Suffolk, East Walton and Terrington Howards, Norfolk, etc., younger son. He was a legatee in the 1426 will of his mother, Alice Howard. He was a legatee in the 1435 will of his father, Sir John Howard, who bequeathed him the manors of Buckenham, East Walton, Terrington Howards, and Wiggenhall, Norfolk. He married MARY HUSSEY (or HUSEE), widow of John Teye, Esq. (died testate 10 Nov. 1440), of Layer de la Haye, Aldham, Ardleigh Hall, Birch Holt, Bockingham Hall, Marks Tey, Mose Hall, and Peldon, Essex, and daughter of Henry Hussey, Knt. (died 1450), of Harting, Sussex, South Moreton and South Standen (in Hungerford), Berkshire, Great Risindon and Saperton, Gloucestershire, Hascombe, Surrey, etc., by Constance his wife (died 1461). HENRY HOWARD was killed in June 1446, while visiting his brother, Robert's widow, Margaret Mowbray. His killers appear to have been retainers of John le Scrope, Lord Scrope of Masham. On 18 June 1446 John Mowbray oversaw the presentment of an Ipswich jury to examine the murder, but the case stalled. Scrope petitioned the king on the basis that Mowbray’s proceedings were “inaccurate and inherently malicious.” On 26 Nov. 1446 various feoffees of John Teye, Esq. [deceased], including William, Abbot of Colchester, granted Mary Howard the manor and advowson of the church of Peldon, Essex (a Teye family manor) for life, with successive remainders to the children of John Teye, Esq., namely John Teye, Robert Teye, and Grace and Constance Teye (these last two together), and their respective heirs. In 1447 John le Scrope and others were pardoned by the king, they having been impeached of malice of the king’s suit by Mary, widow of Henry Howard, they having accused her of having murdered her husband. Mary married (3rd) before 1452–54 (date of lawsuit) (as his 2nd wife) WILLIAM ALLINGTON (or ALYNGTON), Esq., of Horseheath and Bottisham, Cambridgeshire, Knight of the Shire for Cambridgeshire, 1433, 1436, Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshiure, 1437–8, 1451, son and heir of William Allington [died 1446], of Horseheath, Cambridgeshire, Treasurer of Calais, 1398–99, Treasurer of the Exchequer of Ireland, 1403–4, 1406–13, Knight of the Shire for Cambridgeshire, 1410, 1416, 1429, Sheriff of Cambridegshire and Huntingdonshire, 1414–15, 1423, 1427–28, Speaker of the House of Commons, 1429, by Joan, daughter and heiress of William Burgh. They had no issue. In 1450 William Foster, Citizen and tailor of London, sued William Alyngton, Esq., of Horseheath, Cambridgeshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 40s. In 1452–54 William and Mary his wife, late the wife of John Teye, Esq., sued William, Abbot of St. John, Colchester, and others, feoffees and executors of the said John Teye, in Chancery regarding profits of the manor of Picotes in Ardleigh, Essex; various goods; together with the manors, etc of Peldon, New Hall, Badcockes, Dorewardes, and Botynghams, and the advowson of Peldon Church. In 1453 he and John Eyre sued Edmund Bendyssh, Gent., of Barrington, Cambridgeshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 40s. In 1455 he sued Thomas Archer, of Upton, Norfolk, and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Upton, Norfolk. In 1458 he sued Thomas Buntte, the elder, of Bottisham, Cambridgeshire, husbandman, and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass in Bottisham, Cambridgeshire. WILLIAM ALLINGTON, Esq., died 5 July 1459. In 1463–67 John Breton, administrator of John Teye, Esq., sued John, Abbot of St. John of Colchester, in Chancery regarding bonds for debts due to the said John Teye, which were in the hands of William, late abbot, petitioner’s co-administrator.

References:

Madox, Formulare Anglicanum (1702): 409–410. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 1 (1805): 80; 3 (1769): 155–171; 4 (1775): 740; 5 (1806): 235–259; 9 (1808): 87, 145. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 1 (1812): 50–143 (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of the County of Sussex, Knight”). Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 211 (will of Alice Lady Howard). Burke, Dict. of the Peerages… Extinct, Dormant & in Abeyance 2 (1832): 231–235 (sub Howard). Tierney, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Castle & Town of Arundel 2 (1834): 340–350 (Howard ped.: “Henry Howard, to whom his father, by his will dated 1435, assigned lands in Norfolk. Collins, I.56. = Mary, daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of Sussex. Collins, I.56. ”). Hawley et al., Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 1 (H.S.P. 13) (1878): 15 (Tey ped.: “Joh’es Tey ar’ obiit Ao 19 H. 6. = [left blank]”), 108–110 (Tey ped.: “John Teye. = Mary Hussey.”), 297 (Tey ped.: “John Tey of Layer de la haye in com. Essex, Gentleman lived the 4th of H. 6, 1425. = Mary, daugh. to Hussey.”). Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages (1883): 284 (sub Howard) (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “dau. of Sir Henry Hussey”). Harvey et al., Vis. of Norfolk 1563 & 1613 (H.S.P. 32) (1891): 162–164 (Howard ped.: “Henry Howard, 2 son.”). Rutton, Three Branches of the Family of Wentworth (1891): 145–146. Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Cambridge 1575 & 1619 (H.S.P. 41) (1897): 14–17 (Allington ped.: “Sr William Allington knight = Elizebeth d. & heire of Sr John Argentyne, knight.”). List of Sheriffs for England & Wales (PRO Lists and Indexes 9) (1898): 13. Crisp, Vis. of England & Wales: Notes 7 (1907): 14–24 (Alington ped.). Brenan & Statham, House of Howard 1 (1908): 13. C.P.R. 1446–1452 (1909): 62. Harvard Law Review 30 (1917): 229–230. VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 183–200. VCH Gloucester 6 (1965): 98–106. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 27–29 (biog. of William Allington). VCH Cambridge 10 (2002): 196–205 Court of Common Pleas, CP40/758, image 1177d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no758/bCP40no758dorses/IMG_1177.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/768, image 93f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no768/aCP40no768fronts/IMG_0093.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/776, image 1639d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no776/bCP40no776dorses/IMG_1639.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/788, image 1456d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no788/bCP40no788dorses/IMG_1456.htm). Essex Rec. Office: Western Fam. of Rivenhall, Kelvedon, Aldham, and Mundon, D/DWe (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). National Archives, C 1/18/118; C 1/19/296; C 1/30/56; E 327/741; WARD 2/25A/84/42 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). For the Hussey fam. of Sussex, see C.P. 7 (1929): 10–11 (sub Husee); Roskell House of Commons 1386–1421 3 (1992): 462–463 (biog. of Sir Henry Hussey (c.1362–1409), of Harting, Sussex).

Child of Henry Howard, Esq., by Mary Hussey:

a. ELIZABETH HOWARD, married HENRY WENTWORTH, Esq., of Codham Hall (in Wethersfield), Essex [see JENNINGS 16].
Douglas Richardson
2021-04-17 16:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

The illustrious baronial and noble family of Howard has several younger cadet branches, among them one headed by Henry Howard, Esquire, of Boxted, Suffolk, who was murdered in 1446, apparently by retainers of John le Scrope, Lord Scrope of Masham. The parentage and maiden name of Henry Howard’s wife, Mary Hussey, are covered by several published sources, among them:

1. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 1 (1812): 56 (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of the County of Sussex, Knight;” citing Ex stemmate Fam. de Howard, MS.
p. 49 in Bibl Joh. Anstis, Arm. Gart.").

2. Tierney, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Castle & Town of Arundel 2 (1834): 340–350 (Howard ped.: “Henry Howard, to whom his father, by his will dated 1435, assigned lands in Norfolk. Collins, I.56. = Mary, daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of Sussex. Collins, I.56.”).

3. Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages (1883): 284 (sub Howard) (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “dau. of Sir Henry Hussey”).

4. On 12 July 1447 John le Scrope, king’s esquire, son and heir apparent of John le Scrope, Lord Scrope of Masham, John Chesshire, and many others were pardoned by the king, they having been impeached of malice before the king and many magnates and lieges of England by Mary, widow of Henry Howard, Esq., late of Boxted, Suffolk, of having murdered her said husband. Reference: Cal. of Patent Rolls 1446–1452 (1909): 62.

As it turns out, research indicates Mary Hussey actually had three husbands, namely John Teye, Esq., of Layer de la Haye, Essex (died testate 10 Nov. 1440), Henry Howard, Esq. (died 1446), and William Allington, Esq., of Horseheath, Cambridgeshire (died 5 July 1459). The pieces of evidence which prove these various marriages are given below:

1. Hawley et al. Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 1 (H.S.P. 13) (1878): 15 (Tey ped.: “Joh’es Tey ar’ obiit Ao 19 H. 6. = [left blank]”), 108–110 (Tey ped.: “John Teye. = Mary Hussey.”), 297 (Tey ped.: “John Tey of Layer de la haye in com. Essex, Gentleman lived the 4th of H. 6, 1425. = Mary, daugh. to Hussey.”).

Available at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hqwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA109

2. On 26 Nov. 1446 various feoffees of John Teye, Esq. [deceased], including William, Abbot of Colchester, granted Mary Howard the manor and advowson of the church of Peldon, Essex (a Teye family manor) for life, with successive remainders to the children of John Teye, Esq., namely John Teye, Robert Teye, and Grace and Constance Teye (these last two together), and their respective heirs.

References:

Madox Formulare Anglicanum (1702): 409–410, available at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=jBBJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA409

Harvard Law Review 30 (1917): 229–230, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=lKkxAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA229

3. The following items are found in the Cole Manuscripts in the British Library, courtesy of Chris Phillips:

[September 1447]
Pateat &c me Will’m Webbe Cleric’ & Rectorem de Wulfurston remisisse
Will’o Allyngton Arm’o & Marie ux’i ejus nup’ Ux’i Henrici Haward Arm’i
de Boxstede in Essex o’es Acco’es p’sonales quas versus eundem Will’m &
Mariam & Henricu’ h’ui &c
Dat Mercurij p’x’a ante f’m S’c’i Mathe’ Ap’l’i 26 Hen 6 [Wednesday next
before St Matthias the Apostle; St Matthias=21 Sept 1447]. [Cole Add
5823, fo 226a]
[William Webbe clerk & rector of Wulfurston has released to William
Allyngton armiger and Mary hw formerly the wife of Henry Haward armiger
of Boxsted in Essex all personal [?receipts] which he had regarding
William and Mary and Henry]

Cole (Add 5823, fo 127) has (18 March 26 Hen 6 [1447/8]):
Sciant &c q’d Nos Thomas Prior S’c’i [?Bothi’] Colcestr Joh’es Leycestre
Cl’icus Robtus Donne & Ric’us Symond dimisimus & confirmavimus Will’o
Alyngton Armig’o & Marie ux’i ejus Man’iu’ de Horseth vocat Horseth
Halle, man’iu’ de West Wykham vocat le Hayes, Man’iu’ de Stretle vocat
Stretle Halle cu’ O’ib’s p’tin &c que nup’ h’uimus ex dono & feoff
p’d’c’i Willi Alyngton &c
Hiis testibs Will’o Buckeworth cl’ico, Thoma Grene Capell’o, Will’o Eyr,
Hugone Jacob, Joh’e Person & aliis.
Dat apd Horseth 18 March 26 Hen 6 [1447/8].

William Alington was buying arable land in Hallgate field (in
Horseheath) in 1449, and had lately annexed various crofts to his park
[VCH Cambs iv 75, citing Add 5823, ff 219v,247v].
Cole (Add 5823, fo 221b) gives the text (12 April 1449):
Nov’int &c Nos Will’m Bukworth & Thomam Grene Cl’icos ordinasse Joh’em
Levedale & Joh’em Gacche n’ros Attornatos ad deliverand’ seysina’ Will’o
Alyngton Arm’o & Marie ux’i ejus in una pecia t’re arab’ in Horseth in
Campo voc’ Hallegatefeld, quam peciam t’re cu’ bosco pd’c’o de
Goodredes Wode h’uimus cu’ Will’o Cotton Arm’o, Joh’e Gotobedde Cl’ico
& Hugone Jacob ex Dimisso’e Thome Tudenham militis, Thome Shuldham
Arm’r, Joh’is ffyncham, Rad’i Geyton & Joh’is [?]Tras H’end & tenend’ &c
Data apud Horsethe 12 Apr 27 Hen: 6 1449
2 seals [described]

Also another (same date):
Sciant &c nos Will’i Bukworth & Thos Grene Cl’ici dimisimus &c Will’o &
Marie Alyngton ‘as in the preceeding’
Test: Tho: ffynderne Milite, Joh’e Scarlett, Henrico Calbeck Armigeris,
Will’o Eyr, Joh’e Levedale & aliis.
Data apud Horseth 12 Apr 27 Hen 6 1449.
The same deed seems to be referred to in Add 5823, fo 251b, where the
land in Hallegatefeld ‘continent’ quinq’ Acras & dimidiam int’ t’ram
p’d’c’i Will’i Alyngton voc’ le Sixe acres, ac ecia’ unu’ Boscu’ voc’
Goodredes wode octo acraru’ ...’ 2 seals are described, one of Richard
de Grensford.

Another deed of the same date by the same grantors [Add 5823, fo 248b]
concerns 2 crofts lying in the park of William Alyngton armiger.

[1 Dec 1449]
Sciant &c q’d Ego Will’s Alyngton Arm’r dedi &c Nich’o Huse Arm’o,
Will’o Bukworth, Joh’i Leycestre Cl’icis & Joh’i Eyr Revercionem o’ium
Manorior’, ter’ ten’ & Boscor’, Redd’ & Servic’ cu’ p’tin’ in Horseth,
Wyka’, Stretle & Balsham post Mortem Marie ux’is mee &c
Test’ Thoma Grene Capell’o, Hugone Jacobbe, Joh’e Person, Will’o
Pluckerose, Will’ Jeynour & aliis
Dat ap’d Horseth 1 Dec 28 Hen 6 [Cole has 1450, but recte 1449].
[Cole, Add 5823, fo 228b]

4. In 1452–54 William Alyngton, Esq., and Mary his wife, late the wife of John Teye, Esq., sued William, Abbot of St. John, Colchester, and others, feoffees and executors of the said John Teye, in Chancery regarding profits of the manor of Picotes in Ardleigh, Essex, various goods; together with the manors, etc of Peldon, New Hall, Badcockes, Dorewardes, and Botynghams, and the advowson of Peldon Church.

Reference: National Archives, C 1/19/296, available at the following weblink:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7440749

5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alingon of Horseheah, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxed, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife"). The above is available at the following weblink:

https://archive.org/details/LincolnshirePedigreesV50/page/n21/mode/2up

6. Crisp, Visitation of England and Wales 7 (1907): 14-24 (Allingon ped.: "William Alington of Horseheath, esquire ... died 5 July 1459 ... He marr. 2ndly Mary, widow of Henry Haward of Boxted, co. Essex, esquire."). The above is available at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=w-kKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14


+ + + + + + + +

From the record cited above dated 1446, we learned Mary Hussey had four children by her marriage to John Teye, Esq., namely two sons, John and Robert Teye, and two daughters, Grace and Constance Teye. Mary Hussey has modern descendants by way of her 1st marriage to John Teye, Esq., for which see Hawley et al., Visitations of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 1 (H.S.P. 13) (1878): 15 (Tey ped.), 108–110 (Tey ped.), and 297. Elsewhere we learn that Mary Hussey and her 2nd husband, Henry Howard, Esq., had one daughter, Elizabeth Howard, wife of Henry Wentworth, Esq., which couple has many modern descendants.

Insofar as Mary Hussey’s extended ancestry is concerned, the pertinent chronology places Mary as a daughter of Henry Hussey, Knt. (died 1450), of Harting, Sussex, South Moreton and South Standen (in Hungerford), Berkshire, Great Risindon and Saperton, Gloucestershire, Hascombe, Surrey, etc., by Constance his wife (died 1461). In this regard, it may be noted that Mary Hussey named a daughter, Constance Teye, by her 1st marriage, in honor of her mother, Constance Hussey. From a record in the Cole Manuscripts cited above, we see that Mary Hussey's brother, Nicholas Huse [Hussey], Esq., served as a feoffee in 1449 for a property settlement on Mary Hussey and her 3rd husband, Sir William Allington. Nicholas Hussey's place in the Hussey family tree can be found in VCH Surrey 4 (1953): 10–21. For further particulars of the Hussey family of Sussex, see Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 10–11 (sub Husee); VCH Surrey 4 (1953): 10–21; Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 3 (1992): 462–463 (biog. of Sir Henry Hussey (c.1362–1409), of Harting, Sussex).

Elsewhere I find that Banks, Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 221–223 (sub Ghisnes) states that Ralph Brooke and Milles mention that a certain Enguerrand de Coucy had a natural daughter Maud, who married _____ Lord Strange, by which marriage Maud had a daughter, Ankaret, the wife of Sir Henry Husee, knight. — Vincent on Brooke’s notes, viz., Prebetur quasi”). The Ankaret Husee/Hussey intended here is surely Mary Hussey’s great-grandmother, Ankaret (died 1389), 2nd wife of Henry Hussey, Knt. (married by 1377, he died 1383), of Harting, Sussex, and later wife of Andrew Hake, Esq. (married in 1385), for whom see Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1381–1385 (1897): 555; Cal. of Close Rolls 1389–1392 (1922): 37–38; VCH Surrey 4 (1953): 10–21; Court of Common Pleas, CP40/466, image 243; Year: 1377 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no466/466_0243.htm). The Lord Strange intended is surely Roger le Strange, 4th Lord Strange of Knockin (died 1349), whose wife was in fact named Maud.

Banks was of the impression that the Enguerrand de Coucy mentioned by Brooke and Milles was Sir Enguerrand de Coucy, the well known son-in-law of King Edward III of England. However, the chronology simply does not permit such an identification. Rather, it appears that the Enguerrand de Coucy named by Brooke and Milles is Sir Enguerrand de Coucy’s male line great-grandfather, Sir Enguerrand (or Ingram) de Guines, 1st Lord Gynes, of Lancashire and Westmorland, who died in 1323. Sir Enguerrand (or Ingram) de Guines [died 1323] was heir in 1311 to his maternal uncle, Enguerrand de Coucy, seigneur of Coucy, Marle, la Fere, Oisy, Crévecœur, Montmirel, Condé en Brie, Boissy, etc., Châtelain of Château-Thierry and Cambray, Vicomte of Meaux, after which Enguerrand’s descendants adopted the surname Coucy. My research indicates Sir Enguerrand de Guines [died 1323] was a 1st cousin of Alexander III, King of Scots, and a near kinsman of Queen Eleanor of Castile, wife of King Edward I of England.

The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Mary Hussey and her 2nd husband, Henry Howard, Esq.:

Marmaduke Beckwith, Thomas Booth, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, William Clopton, Anne Derehaugh, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Mary Johanna Somerset, Jemima Waldegrave.

Do you descend from Mary Hussey? If so, I’d very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.

For interest’s sake, I’ve copied further below my current file copy concerning Mary Hussey and her three husbands.

Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
+ + + + + + + + + + +

HENRY HOWARD, Esq., of Boxted, Essex, East Walton and Terrington Howards, Norfolk, etc., younger son. He was a legatee in the 1426 will of his mother, Alice Howard. He was a legatee in the 1435 will of his father, Sir John Howard, who bequeathed him the manors of Buckenham, East Walton, Terrington Howards, and Wiggenhall, Norfolk. He married MARY HUSSEY (or HUSEE), widow of John Teye, Esq. (died testate 10 Nov. 1440), of Layer de la Haye, Aldham, Ardleigh Hall, Birch Holt, Bockingham Hall, Marks Tey, Mose Hall, and Peldon, Essex, and daughter of Henry Hussey, Knt. (died 1450), of Harting, Sussex, South Moreton and South Standen (in Hungerford), Berkshire, Great Risindon and Saperton, Gloucestershire, Hascombe, Surrey, etc., by Constance his wife (died 1461). HENRY HOWARD was killed in June 1446, while visiting his brother, Robert Howard's widow, Margaret Mowbray. His killers appear to have been retainers of John le Scrope, Lord Scrope of Masham. On 18 June 1446 John Mowbray oversaw the presentment of an Ipswich jury to examine the murder, but the case stalled. Scrope petitioned the king on the basis that Mowbray’s proceedings were “inaccurate and inherently malicious.” On 26 Nov. 1446 various feoffees of John Teye, Esq. [deceased], including William, Abbot of Colchester, granted Mary Howard the manor and advowson of the church of Peldon, Essex (a Teye family manor) for life, with successive remainders to the children of John Teye, Esq., namely John Teye, Robert Teye, and Grace and Constance Teye (these last two together), and their respective heirs. On 12 July 1447 John le Scrope, king’s esquire, son and heir apparent of John le Scrope, Lord Scrope of Masham, John Chesshire, and many others were pardoned by the king, they having been impeached of malice before the king and many magnates and lieges of England by Mary, widow of Henry Howard, Esq., late of Boxted, Essex, of having murdered her said husband. Mary married (3rd) before 21 Sept. 1447 (date of release) (as his 2nd wife) WILLIAM ALLINGTON (or ALYNGTON), Esq., of Horseheath and Bottisham, Cambridgeshire, Knight of the Shire for Cambridgeshire, 1433, 1436, Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshiure, 1437–8, 1451, son and heir of William Allington [died 1446], of Horseheath, Cambridgeshire, Treasurer of Calais, 1398–99, Treasurer of the Exchequer of Ireland, 1403–4, 1406–13, Knight of the Shire for Cambridgeshire, 1410, 1416, 1429, Sheriff of Cambridegshire and Huntingdonshire, 1414–15, 1423, 1427–28, Speaker of the House of Commons, 1429, by Joan, daughter and heiress of William Burgh, Knt. They had no issue. On 21 Sept. 1447 William Webbe, clerk and rector of Wulfurston, released to William and Mary his wife, formerly the wife of Henry Haward, Esq., of Boxted, Essex all personal [?receipts] which he had regarding William, Mary, and Henry. In 1450 William Foster, Citizen and tailor of London, sued William Alyngton, Esq., of Horseheath, Cambridgeshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 40s. In 1452–54 William and Mary his wife, late the wife of John Teye, Esq., sued William, Abbot of St. John, Colchester, and others, feoffees and executors of the said John Teye, in Chancery regarding profits of the manor of Picotes in Ardleigh, Essex; various goods; together with the manors, etc of Peldon, New Hall, Badcockes, Dorewardes, and Botynghams, and the advowson of Peldon Church. In 1453 he and John Eyre sued Edmund Bendyssh, Gent., of Barrington, Cambridgeshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 40s. In 1455 he sued Thomas Archer, of Upton, Norfolk, and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Upton, Norfolk. In 1458 he sued Thomas Buntte, the elder, of Bottisham, Cambridgeshire, husbandman, and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass in Bottisham, Cambridgeshire. WILLIAM ALLINGTON, Esq., died 5 July 1459. In 1463–67 John Breton, administrator of John Teye, Esq., sued John, Abbot of St. John of Colchester, in Chancery regarding bonds for debts due to the said John Teye, which were in the hands of William, late abbot, petitioner’s co-administrator.

References:

Madox, Formulare Anglicanum (1702): 409–410. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 1 (1805): 80; 3 (1769): 155–171; 4 (1775): 740; 5 (1806): 235–259; 9 (1808): 87, 145. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 1 (1812): 50–143 (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of the County of Sussex, Knight”). Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 211 (will of Alice Lady Howard). Burke, Dict. of the Peerages… Extinct, Dormant & in Abeyance 2 (1832): 231–235 (sub Howard). Tierney, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Castle & Town of Arundel 2 (1834): 340–350 (Howard ped.: “Henry Howard, to whom his father, by his will dated 1435, assigned lands in Norfolk. Collins, I.56. = Mary, daughter of Sir Henry Hussey, of Sussex. Collins, I.56. ”). Hawley et al., Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 1 (H.S.P. 13) (1878): 15 (Tey ped.: “Joh’es Tey ar’ obiit Ao 19 H. 6. = [left blank]”), 108–110 (Tey ped.: “John Teye. = Mary Hussey.”), 297 (Tey ped.: “John Tey of Layer de la haye in com. Essex, Gentleman lived the 4th of H. 6, 1425. = Mary, daugh. to Hussey.”). Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages (1883): 284 (sub Howard) (author identifies Mary, wife of Henry Howard, as “dau. of Sir Henry Hussey”). Harvey et al., Vis. of Norfolk 1563 & 1613 (H.S.P. 32) (1891): 162–164 (Howard ped.: “Henry Howard, 2 son.”). Rutton, Three Branches of the Family of Wentworth (1891): 145–146. Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Cambridge 1575 & 1619 (H.S.P. 41) (1897): 14–17 (Allington ped.: “Sr William Allington knight = Elizebeth d. & heire of Sr John Argentyne, knight.”). List of Sheriffs for England & Wales (PRO Lists and Indexes 9) (1898): 13. Crisp, Vis. of England & Wales: Notes 7 (1907): 14–24 (Alington ped.: "William Alington of Horseheath, esquire ... died 5 July 1459 ... He marr. 2ndly Mary, widow of Henry Haward of Boxted, co. Essex, esquire."). Brenan & Statham, House of Howard 1 (1908): 13. C.P.R. 1446–1452 (1909): 62. Harvard Law Review 30 (1917): 229–230. VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 183–200. VCH Gloucester 6 (1965): 98–106. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 27–29 (biog. of William Allington). VCH Cambridge 10 (2002): 196–205 Court of Common Pleas, CP40/758, image 1177d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no758/bCP40no758dorses/IMG_1177.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/768, image 93f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no768/aCP40no768fronts/IMG_0093.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/776, image 1639d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no776/bCP40no776dorses/IMG_1639.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/788, image 1456d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no788/bCP40no788dorses/IMG_1456.htm). Essex Rec. Office: Western Fam. of Rivenhall, Kelvedon, Aldham, and Mundon, D/DWe (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). National Archives, C 1/18/118; C 1/19/296; C 1/30/56; E 327/741; WARD 2/25A/84/42 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

Child of Henry Howard, Esq., by Mary Hussey:

a. ELIZABETH HOWARD, married HENRY WENTWORTH, Esq., of Codham Hall (in Wethersfield), Essex [see JENNINGS 16].
Douglas Richardson
2021-04-17 16:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Correction of my previous post:

For "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alingon of Horseheah, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxed, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."

Read "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alington of Horseheath, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxted, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."

DR
Douglas Richardson
2021-04-17 17:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Correction of my previous post:

For "Boxted, Suffolk," read "Boxted, Essex"

For "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alingon of Horseheah, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxed, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."

Read "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alington of Horseheath, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxted, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."

DR
John Higgins
2021-04-18 21:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
For "Boxted, Suffolk," read "Boxted, Essex"
For "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alingon of Horseheah, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxed, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."
Read "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alington of Horseheath, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxted, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."
DR
(This is actually a reply to DR's longer message at the beginning of this thread. For come reason, I can't reply to that meassge.)

It appears that you haven’t actually read the works by either Brooke or Milles. You can perhaps be excused for not reading Thomas Milles, because his 1600 work “The catalogue of honour or Tresury of true nobility. peculiar and proper to the isle of Great Britaine” does not appear to be available on the Internet on any publicly accessible website. However, Ralph Brooke’s 1619 work “A catalogue and succession of the kings, princes, dukes, marquesses, earles, and viscounts of this realme of England” is available via the Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo#reviews. His biography of “Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and it’s obvious that this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III. The account ends with this statement: “This Ingelram de Coucy had a base daughter named Mauld [sic], married unto the Lord Strange, by whom she had issue Ancaret, wife to Sir Henry Husee, knight”. So you are incorrect in saying that “it appears that the Enguerrand de Coucy named by Brooke and Milles is Sir Enguerrand de Coucy’s male line great-grandfather, Sir Enguerrand (or Ingram) de Guines, 1st Lord Gynes, of Lancashire and Westmorland, who died in 1323.”

Banks, in the preface to volume 1 of Baronies in Fee, has some choice comments in regard to Milles and Brooke. On page iii of the preface, he mentions, among other things, “Vincent’s bitter exposition of Brooke’s errors” and that “even Milles’s Catalogue of Honour…is not without errors”. Not exactly confidence-inspiring…

Vincent here is Augustine Vincent, whose 1622 work “A discouerie of errours in the first edition of the catalogue of nobility, published by Raphe Brooke, Yorke Herald”, as the title suggests, is a total republication of the Brooke work with many corrections to the original work. His work is available via the Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc. His biography of “Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and again it’s obvious that this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III. Vincent’s account also repeats the final statement regarding the “base daughter named Mauld”, and he adds the Latin phrase “Prebetur quasi” mentioned earlier in this thread, which appears to be an editorial comment of some type. My Latin is very rusty – perhaps a Latinist in this group can tell us what this means.

(Vincent makes many other corrections to Brooke’s account of Enguerrand de Coucy, but they’re not relevant to the current discussion in this thread - although they certainly confirm the unreliability of Brooke.)
Peter Stewart
2021-04-18 23:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Douglas Richardson
For "Boxted, Suffolk," read "Boxted, Essex"
For "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alingon of Horseheah, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxed, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."
Read "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8 (Alington ped.: "Sir William Alington of Horseheath, Cambridge ... died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxted, Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."
DR
(This is actually a reply to DR's longer message at the beginning of this thread. For come reason, I can't reply to that meassge.)
It appears that you haven’t actually read the works by either Brooke or Milles. You can perhaps be excused for not reading Thomas Milles, because his 1600 work “The catalogue of honour or Tresury of true nobility. peculiar and proper to the isle of Great Britaine” does not appear to be available on the Internet on any publicly accessible website. However, Ralph Brooke’s 1619 work “A catalogue and succession of the kings, princes, dukes, marquesses, earles, and viscounts of this realme of England” is available via the Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo#reviews. His biography of “Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and it’s obvious that this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III. The account ends with this statement: “This Ingelram de Coucy had a base daughter named Mauld [sic], married unto the Lord Strange, by whom she had issue Ancaret, wife to Sir Henry Husee, knight”. So you are incorrect in saying that “it appears that the Enguerrand de Coucy named by Brooke and Milles is Sir Enguerrand de Coucy’s male line great-grandfather, Sir Enguerrand (or Ingram) de Guines, 1st Lord Gynes, of Lancashire and Westmorland, who died in 1323.”
Banks, in the preface to volume 1 of Baronies in Fee, has some choice comments in regard to Milles and Brooke. On page iii of the preface, he mentions, among other things, “Vincent’s bitter exposition of Brooke’s errors” and that “even Milles’s Catalogue of Honour…is not without errors”. Not exactly confidence-inspiring…
Vincent here is Augustine Vincent, whose 1622 work “A discouerie of errours in the first edition of the catalogue of nobility, published by Raphe Brooke, Yorke Herald”, as the title suggests, is a total republication of the Brooke work with many corrections to the original work. His work is available via the Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc. His biography of “Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and again it’s obvious that this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III. Vincent’s account also repeats the final statement regarding the “base daughter named Mauld”, and he adds the Latin phrase “Prebetur quasi” mentioned earlier in this thread, which appears to be an editorial comment of some type. My Latin is very rusty – perhaps a Latinist in this group can tell us what this means.
This is an example of English condescension, and of using Latin as a
kind of telegraphese for an "élite" readership to flatter themselves
that they knew the scoop, somewhat like crossword puzzle aficianados
today - literally "presented as if ..." or "offered so to speak", he
meant effectively "don't impute this to me ...".

It is derived from the nativity story, or commentaries on it, where
myrrh was said to have been "offered as if" it was a cure for mortal
ills, i.e. as a metaphor for Christ himself t
Peter Stewart
2021-04-19 00:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by John Higgins
Post by Douglas Richardson
For "Boxted, Suffolk," read "Boxted, Essex"
For "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8
(Alington ped.: "Sir William Alingon of Horseheah, Cambridge ... died
38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxed, Essex,
Esq., 2nd wife")."
Read "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8
(Alington ped.: "Sir William Alington of Horseheath, Cambridge ...
died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxted,
Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."
DR
(This is actually a reply to DR's longer message at the beginning of
this thread.  For come reason, I can't reply to that meassge.)
It appears that you haven’t actually read the works by either Brooke
or Milles.  You can perhaps be excused for not reading Thomas Milles,
because his 1600 work “The catalogue of honour or Tresury of true
nobility. peculiar and proper to the isle of Great Britaine” does not
appear to be available on the Internet on any publicly accessible
website.  However, Ralph Brooke’s 1619 work “A catalogue and
succession of the kings, princes, dukes, marquesses, earles, and
viscounts of this realme of England” is available via the Internet
https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo#reviews.  His
biography of “Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and it’s obvious
that this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III.  The
account ends with this statement:  “This Ingelram de Coucy had a base
daughter named Mauld [sic], married unto the Lord Strange, by whom she
had issue Ancaret, wife to Sir Henry Husee, knight”.  So you are
incorrect in saying that “it appears that the Enguerrand de Coucy
named by Brooke and Milles is Sir Enguerrand de Coucy’s male line
great-grandfather, Sir Enguerrand (or Ingram) de Guines, 1st Lord
Gynes, of Lancashire and Westmorland, who died in 1323.”
Banks, in the preface to volume 1 of Baronies in Fee, has some choice
comments in regard to Milles and Brooke.  On page iii of the preface,
he mentions, among other things, “Vincent’s bitter exposition of
Brooke’s errors” and that “even Milles’s Catalogue of Honour…is not
without errors”.  Not exactly confidence-inspiring…
Vincent here is Augustine Vincent, whose 1622 work “A discouerie of
errours in the first edition of the catalogue of nobility, published
by Raphe Brooke, Yorke Herald”, as the title suggests, is a total
republication of the Brooke work with many corrections to the original
https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc.   His biography of
“Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and again it’s obvious that
this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III. Vincent’s
account also repeats the final statement regarding the “base daughter
named Mauld”, and he adds the Latin phrase “Prebetur quasi” mentioned
earlier in this thread, which appears to be an editorial comment of
some type.  My Latin is very rusty – perhaps a Latinist in this group
can tell us what this means.
This is an example of English condescension, and of using Latin as a
kind of telegraphese for an "élite" readership to flatter themselves
that they knew the scoop, somewhat like crossword puzzle aficianados
today - literally "presented as if ..." or "offered so to speak", he
meant effectively "don't impute this to me ...".
It is derived from the nativity story, or commentaries on it, where
myrrh was said to have been "offered as if" it was a cure for mortal
ills, i.e. as a metaphor for Christ himself though not really efficacious.
Having checked the book by Vincent, Banks has misquoted him anyway - the
marginal comment in question is on page 45, not 21, and it refers
specifically to the illegitimacy of Coucy's daughter. It says not
"prebetur quasi" but rather "probetur quaso" [sic, presumably a misprint
for "probetur quasi"] and means "may be proved as such" as if it is not
fully certain.

There is no allusion in "probetur" to the purported value of myrrh,
though Banks may have misread it as "prebetur" and supposed so. In this
case he was like the mother in *Monty Python's Life of Brian*, who was
pleased by gold and frankincense but turned up her nose at myrrh.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2021-04-19 02:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by John Higgins
Post by Douglas Richardson
For "Boxted, Suffolk," read "Boxted, Essex"
For "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8
(Alington ped.: "Sir William Alingon of Horseheah, Cambridge ... died
38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxed, Essex,
Esq., 2nd wife")."
Read "5. Maddison, Lincolnshire Pedigrees 1 (H.S.P. 50) (1902): 4–8
(Alington ped.: "Sir William Alington of Horseheath, Cambridge ...
died 38 Henry VI., 1459-60 = Mary, widow of Henry Hayward of Boxted,
Essex, Esq., 2nd wife")."
DR
(This is actually a reply to DR's longer message at the beginning of
this thread. For come reason, I can't reply to that meassge.)
It appears that you haven’t actually read the works by either Brooke
or Milles. You can perhaps be excused for not reading Thomas Milles,
because his 1600 work “The catalogue of honour or Tresury of true
nobility. peculiar and proper to the isle of Great Britaine” does not
appear to be available on the Internet on any publicly accessible
website. However, Ralph Brooke’s 1619 work “A catalogue and
succession of the kings, princes, dukes, marquesses, earles, and
viscounts of this realme of England” is available via the Internet
https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo#reviews. His
biography of “Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and it’s obvious
that this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III. The
account ends with this statement: “This Ingelram de Coucy had a base
daughter named Mauld [sic], married unto the Lord Strange, by whom she
had issue Ancaret, wife to Sir Henry Husee, knight”. So you are
incorrect in saying that “it appears that the Enguerrand de Coucy
named by Brooke and Milles is Sir Enguerrand de Coucy’s male line
great-grandfather, Sir Enguerrand (or Ingram) de Guines, 1st Lord
Gynes, of Lancashire and Westmorland, who died in 1323.”
Banks, in the preface to volume 1 of Baronies in Fee, has some choice
comments in regard to Milles and Brooke. On page iii of the preface,
he mentions, among other things, “Vincent’s bitter exposition of
Brooke’s errors” and that “even Milles’s Catalogue of Honour…is not
without errors”. Not exactly confidence-inspiring…
Vincent here is Augustine Vincent, whose 1622 work “A discouerie of
errours in the first edition of the catalogue of nobility, published
by Raphe Brooke, Yorke Herald”, as the title suggests, is a total
republication of the Brooke work with many corrections to the original
https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc. His biography of
“Ingelram de Coucy” appears on page 21, and again it’s obvious that
this is Enguerrand de Coucy, the son-in-law of Edward III. Vincent’s
account also repeats the final statement regarding the “base daughter
named Mauld”, and he adds the Latin phrase “Prebetur quasi” mentioned
earlier in this thread, which appears to be an editorial comment of
some type. My Latin is very rusty – perhaps a Latinist in this group
can tell us what this means.
This is an example of English condescension, and of using Latin as a
kind of telegraphese for an "élite" readership to flatter themselves
that they knew the scoop, somewhat like crossword puzzle aficianados
today - literally "presented as if ..." or "offered so to speak", he
meant effectively "don't impute this to me ...".
It is derived from the nativity story, or commentaries on it, where
myrrh was said to have been "offered as if" it was a cure for mortal
ills, i.e. as a metaphor for Christ himself though not really efficacious.
Having checked the book by Vincent, Banks has misquoted him anyway - the
marginal comment in question is on page 45, not 21, and it refers
specifically to the illegitimacy of Coucy's daughter. It says not
"prebetur quasi" but rather "probetur quaso" [sic, presumably a misprint
for "probetur quasi"] and means "may be proved as such" as if it is not
fully certain.
There is no allusion in "probetur" to the purported value of myrrh,
though Banks may have misread it as "prebetur" and supposed so. In this
case he was like the mother in *Monty Python's Life of Brian*, who was
pleased by gold and frankincense but turned up her nose at myrrh.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter, for catching my error on the page number in Vincent, which be 45, not 21. And I see that I also mistyped the page number in Banks - it should be 223, not 21.

So, can it be determined from the phraseology whether Vincent is saying that it is uncertain whether the daughter was illegitimate, or instead that it is uncertain whether the daughter actually existed? I suspect it's the latter in the context, because Vincent separately discussed all the legitimate daughters of Enguerrand de Coucy.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-19 03:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Thanks, Peter, for catching my error on the page number in Vincent, which be 45, not 21. And I see that I also mistyped the page number in Banks - it should be 223, not 21.
The claim appeared on page 21 in the 1619 book by Ralph Brooke, here:

https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo/page/21/mode/1up
Post by John Higgins
So, can it be determined from the phraseology whether Vincent is saying that it is uncertain whether the daughter was illegitimate, or instead that it is uncertain whether the daughter actually existed? I suspect it's the latter in the context, because Vincent separately discussed all the legitimate daughters of Enguerrand de Coucy.
The placement of the note immediately before "base" suggests that it
refers to the alleged daughter's illegitimacy, see here

https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc/page/45/mode/1up

I suppose Vincent meant that there was certainly no such legitimate
daughter, but possibly some proof existed for an illegitimate one.

As for the proposal that this might have been a daughter of Enguerrand V
of Coucy, from the Guînes family, the likelihood that such a continental
byblow would have been married off to an English Lord Strange is ...
strange, to say the least, without showing the elusive proof.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2021-04-19 03:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter, for catching my error on the page number in Vincent, which be 45, not 21. And I see that I also mistyped the page number in Banks - it should be 223, not 21.
https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo/page/21/mode/1up
So, can it be determined from the phraseology whether Vincent is saying that it is uncertain whether the daughter was illegitimate, or instead that it is uncertain whether the daughter actually existed? I suspect it's the latter in the context, because Vincent separately discussed all the legitimate daughters of Enguerrand de Coucy.
The placement of the note immediately before "base" suggests that it
refers to the alleged daughter's illegitimacy, see here
https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc/page/45/mode/1up
I suppose Vincent meant that there was certainly no such legitimate
daughter, but possibly some proof existed for an illegitimate one.
As for the proposal that this might have been a daughter of Enguerrand V
of Coucy, from the Guînes family, the likelihood that such a continental
byblow would have been married off to an English Lord Strange is ...
strange, to say the least, without showing the elusive proof.
Peter Stewart
You may want to check this again. As I read it, the Latin phrase is at the end of the line AFTER the discussion of "a base daughter named Mauld" and definitely not BEFORE the word "base". That's why I felt that it was referring to the existence of the daughter herself, not just to whether she was illegitimate.

I agree with you that it may be "strange" to see an illegitimate daughter of a continental nobleman married off to an English Lord Strange, but we certainly have seen "stranger" things in medieval genealogy. :-) But in this case, the proof for such a connection seems pretty weak.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-19 03:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter, for catching my error on the page number in Vincent, which be 45, not 21. And I see that I also mistyped the page number in Banks - it should be 223, not 21.
https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo/page/21/mode/1up
So, can it be determined from the phraseology whether Vincent is saying that it is uncertain whether the daughter was illegitimate, or instead that it is uncertain whether the daughter actually existed? I suspect it's the latter in the context, because Vincent separately discussed all the legitimate daughters of Enguerrand de Coucy.
The placement of the note immediately before "base" suggests that it
refers to the alleged daughter's illegitimacy, see here
https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc/page/45/mode/1up
I suppose Vincent meant that there was certainly no such legitimate
daughter, but possibly some proof existed for an illegitimate one.
As for the proposal that this might have been a daughter of Enguerrand V
of Coucy, from the Guînes family, the likelihood that such a continental
byblow would have been married off to an English Lord Strange is ...
strange, to say the least, without showing the elusive proof.
Peter Stewart
You may want to check this again. As I read it, the Latin phrase is at the end of the line AFTER the discussion of "a base daughter named Mauld" and definitely not BEFORE the word "base". That's why I felt that it was referring to the existence of the daughter herself, not just to whether she was illegitimate.
You may want to check again - the note is indicated by superscript a in
the line (placed as the asterisk here: "This Ingelram de Coucy had a *
base daughter ..."), repeated before the marginal note at the end of the
line. These things are not random.
Post by John Higgins
I agree with you that it may be "strange" to see an illegitimate daughter of a continental nobleman married off to an English Lord Strange, but we certainly have seen "stranger" things in medieval genealogy. :-) But in this case, the proof for such a connection seems pretty weak.
The say-so of Brooke in the 17th century is very feeble evidence for an
otherwise unrecorded Coucy daughter in the 14th century. Du Chesne noted
a bastard son of Enguerrand VII named Perceval, but no daughter.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2021-04-19 04:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter, for catching my error on the page number in Vincent, which be 45, not 21. And I see that I also mistyped the page number in Banks - it should be 223, not 21.
https://archive.org/details/cataloguesuccess00broo/page/21/mode/1up
So, can it be determined from the phraseology whether Vincent is saying that it is uncertain whether the daughter was illegitimate, or instead that it is uncertain whether the daughter actually existed? I suspect it's the latter in the context, because Vincent separately discussed all the legitimate daughters of Enguerrand de Coucy.
The placement of the note immediately before "base" suggests that it
refers to the alleged daughter's illegitimacy, see here
https://archive.org/details/discouerieoferro00vinc/page/45/mode/1up
I suppose Vincent meant that there was certainly no such legitimate
daughter, but possibly some proof existed for an illegitimate one.
As for the proposal that this might have been a daughter of Enguerrand V
of Coucy, from the Guînes family, the likelihood that such a continental
byblow would have been married off to an English Lord Strange is ...
strange, to say the least, without showing the elusive proof.
Peter Stewart
You may want to check this again. As I read it, the Latin phrase is at the end of the line AFTER the discussion of "a base daughter named Mauld" and definitely not BEFORE the word "base". That's why I felt that it was referring to the existence of the daughter herself, not just to whether she was illegitimate.
You may want to check again - the note is indicated by superscript a in
the line (placed as the asterisk here: "This Ingelram de Coucy had a *
base daughter ..."), repeated before the marginal note at the end of the
line. These things are not random.
I agree with you that it may be "strange" to see an illegitimate daughter of a continental nobleman married off to an English Lord Strange, but we certainly have seen "stranger" things in medieval genealogy. :-) But in this case, the proof for such a connection seems pretty weak.
The say-so of Brooke in the 17th century is very feeble evidence for an
otherwise unrecorded Coucy daughter in the 14th century. Du Chesne noted
a bastard son of Enguerrand VII named Perceval, but no daughter.
Peter Stewart
You're right - I missed the superscript "a". And I agree that Brooke is insufficient evidence for an otherwise unrecorded daughter of Enguerrand de Coucy.

And, yes, I have seen the Coucy pedigree in Du Chesne and also in Père Anselme - neither of which shows this supposed illegitimate daughter for Enguerrand de Coucy.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-19 06:44:37 UTC
Permalink
On 19-Apr-21 1:37 PM, John Higgins wrote:

<snip>
Post by John Higgins
I agree with you that it may be "strange" to see an illegitimate daughter of a continental nobleman married off to an English Lord Strange, but we certainly have seen "stranger" things in medieval genealogy. :-) But in this case, the proof for such a connection seems pretty weak.
Enguerrand VII of Coucy (died 1397) had a paternal uncle William who is
omitted from most genealogies following Du Chesne and Père Anselme - he
was granted the Lindsay estates of his grandmother Christian in 1334 and
seems to have been resident in England from then until he died in 1342.

He had no legitimate offspring, as his brother Enguerrand VI of Coucy
was his heir, but possibly he left an illegitimate daughter who was
subsequently married off in England by her uncle rather than father
named Enguerrand.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2021-04-19 17:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
I agree with you that it may be "strange" to see an illegitimate daughter of a continental nobleman married off to an English Lord Strange, but we certainly have seen "stranger" things in medieval genealogy. :-) But in this case, the proof for such a connection seems pretty weak.
Enguerrand VII of Coucy (died 1397) had a paternal uncle William who is
omitted from most genealogies following Du Chesne and Père Anselme - he
was granted the Lindsay estates of his grandmother Christian in 1334 and
seems to have been resident in England from then until he died in 1342.
He had no legitimate offspring, as his brother Enguerrand VI of Coucy
was his heir, but possibly he left an illegitimate daughter who was
subsequently married off in England by her uncle rather than father
named Enguerrand.
Peter Stewart
Interesting... What is the source for this uncle William?
Peter Stewart
2021-04-19 23:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
I agree with you that it may be "strange" to see an illegitimate daughter of a continental nobleman married off to an English Lord Strange, but we certainly have seen "stranger" things in medieval genealogy. :-) But in this case, the proof for such a connection seems pretty weak.
Enguerrand VII of Coucy (died 1397) had a paternal uncle William who is
omitted from most genealogies following Du Chesne and Père Anselme - he
was granted the Lindsay estates of his grandmother Christian in 1334 and
seems to have been resident in England from then until he died in 1342.
He had no legitimate offspring, as his brother Enguerrand VI of Coucy
was his heir, but possibly he left an illegitimate daughter who was
subsequently married off in England by her uncle rather than father
named Enguerrand.
Peter Stewart
Interesting... What is the source for this uncle William?
For his residing in England:

4 July 1334 (when he had rendered homage for lands of his grandmother
granted to him by his father William):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023267001&view=1up&seq=650

11 June 1335:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=158

11 November 1335:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=228

8 May 1336:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=302,
repeated
6 June 1336:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=306
and
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=308

22 August 1337 (when he held lands of his paternal uncle Robert):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=506

20 February 1339:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406&view=1up&seq=280

12 May 1339 (when he was abroad with the king and called a minor):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406&view=1up&seq=318

8 June 1340 (going abroad with the king and again called a minor):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406&view=1up&seq=673

14 December 1340 (when he had rendered homage for lands held in chief,
repeating the records for 4 July 1334 and 22 August 1337 above):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079299&view=1up&seq=85

For his death on 6 February 1342 and having his brother Enguerrand VI as
heir, John Bain in *The Genealogist*, new series 4 (1887) p. 90: "There
is also, in the Inquisitions post mortem, one of 21 Richard II., which
gives the exact date of the death of William de Coucy, junior, viz.,
Wednesday after Candlemas, 16 Edw. III. (6 Feb. 1341-42). It is there
found that Ingelram de Coucy, no doubt his elder brother (who was then
living and died c. 1347) was his next heir in one half of the manor of
Ulverston, held by knight’s service of the Abbot of Furness." However,
their names do not occur in the index to the IPMs of this time here:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol17 - I haven't
searched further for the record mentioned by Bain.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-19 23:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
For his death on 6 February 1342 and having his brother Enguerrand VI as
heir, John Bain in *The Genealogist*, new series 4 (1887) p. 90
Joseph Bain, to give him his correct name in case his ghost should
rattle the cage of John Schmeeckle.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2021-04-20 01:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
I agree with you that it may be "strange" to see an illegitimate daughter of a continental nobleman married off to an English Lord Strange, but we certainly have seen "stranger" things in medieval genealogy. :-) But in this case, the proof for such a connection seems pretty weak.
Enguerrand VII of Coucy (died 1397) had a paternal uncle William who is
omitted from most genealogies following Du Chesne and Père Anselme - he
was granted the Lindsay estates of his grandmother Christian in 1334 and
seems to have been resident in England from then until he died in 1342.
He had no legitimate offspring, as his brother Enguerrand VI of Coucy
was his heir, but possibly he left an illegitimate daughter who was
subsequently married off in England by her uncle rather than father
named Enguerrand.
Peter Stewart
Interesting... What is the source for this uncle William?
4 July 1334 (when he had rendered homage for lands of his grandmother
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023267001&view=1up&seq=650
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=158
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=228
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=302,
repeated
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=306
and
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=308
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275826&view=1up&seq=506
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406&view=1up&seq=280
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406&view=1up&seq=318
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079406&view=1up&seq=673
14 December 1340 (when he had rendered homage for lands held in chief,
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079299&view=1up&seq=85
For his death on 6 February 1342 and having his brother Enguerrand VI as
heir, John Bain in *The Genealogist*, new series 4 (1887) p. 90: "There
is also, in the Inquisitions post mortem, one of 21 Richard II., which
gives the exact date of the death of William de Coucy, junior, viz.,
Wednesday after Candlemas, 16 Edw. III. (6 Feb. 1341-42). It is there
found that Ingelram de Coucy, no doubt his elder brother (who was then
living and died c. 1347) was his next heir in one half of the manor of
Ulverston, held by knight’s service of the Abbot of Furness." However,
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol17 - I haven't
searched further for the record mentioned by Bain.
Peter Stewart
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing this, Peter.
Charlene
2021-04-22 01:35:46 UTC
Permalink
The IPM's for William de Coucy are in Vol 8 and Vol 14 Edward III.

William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308

It seems he did have a son.
William son of William de Coucy
Writ of precipimus, Rokyngham, 20 August, 49 Edward III.
He was a man of the realm of France and died without heir in the year 19 Edward III
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol14/pp89-99

William de Coucy
Writ of precipimus, 10 December, 49 Edward III.
This one gives William de Coucy's full death date.
He died on Wednesday after the Purification, 16 Edward III. Ingelram de Coucy, earl of Bedford, son and heir of Ingelram de Coucy his brother and heir, is his kinsman and next heir and of full age, and has married the lady Isabel, the king’s daughter.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol14/pp237-251
Peter Stewart
2021-04-22 02:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlene
The IPM's for William de Coucy are in Vol 8 and Vol 14 Edward III.
William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308
It seems he did have a son.
William son of William de Coucy
Writ of precipimus, Rokyngham, 20 August, 49 Edward III.
He was a man of the realm of France and died without heir in the year 19 Edward III
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol14/pp89-99
William de Coucy
Writ of precipimus, 10 December, 49 Edward III.
This one gives William de Coucy's full death date.
He died on Wednesday after the Purification, 16 Edward III. Ingelram de Coucy, earl of Bedford, son and heir of Ingelram de Coucy his brother and heir, is his kinsman and next heir and of full age, and has married the lady Isabel, the king’s daughter.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol14/pp237-251
Thanks for finding these - the first and third are clearly records for
the William de Coucy I posted about, though it's a mystery why Joseph
Bain thought the date was given in an IPM from 21 Richard II rather than
49 Edward III.

The second one, for William son of William, is apparently a record for
the same man, not a son of his, but mistaken in the year of his death,
giving 19 instead of 16 Edward III. Ingelram de Coucy would not have
been called the next heir if his brother William had left a namesake son
- their father was William de Coucy, so that the William son of William
allegedly without an heir as described 30+ years later was also the man
I posted about.

Peter Stewart
Charlene
2021-04-22 03:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for the correction with the 2nd IPM.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-22 03:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlene
The IPM's for William de Coucy are in Vol 8 and Vol 14 Edward III.
William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308
The date of William's death is given here in no. 462, in the last
inquest, held at Lancaster on 22 November 1344 (Monday after St Edmund
the King, 18 Edward III), p. 308: "He died without heir on Wednesday
next after the Purification, 16 Edward III."

Interestingly the age of his elder brother Enguerrand VI of Coucy is
stated as 26 in the inquest held at York on 20 August 1343 (Wednesday
after the Annunciation, 17 Edward III), also on p. 308: "Heir as above,
aged 26 years, and he is of the power and dominion of France." If fully
accurate this places Enguerrand's birth within the year before 20 August
1317.

Peter Stewart
Charlene
2021-04-22 04:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308
The date of William's death is given here in no. 462, in the last
inquest, held at Lancaster on 22 November 1344 (Monday after St Edmund
the King, 18 Edward III), p. 308: "He died without heir on Wednesday
next after the Purification, 16 Edward III."
I missed that as it was higher up in the body of the text in that IPM.
Thanks, again.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-22 05:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlene
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308
The date of William's death is given here in no. 462, in the last
inquest, held at Lancaster on 22 November 1344 (Monday after St Edmund
the King, 18 Edward III), p. 308: "He died without heir on Wednesday
next after the Purification, 16 Edward III."
I missed that as it was higher up in the body of the text in that IPM.
Thanks, again.
The IPMs you found are very useful for pegging some chronology in
William's generation of the Coucy family.

Their parents were married by a contract dated in May 1311. Their mother
was not the eldest daughter of parents who married in 1292, perhaps born
ca 1295/98 and so ca 13/16 when married.

Enguerrand VI, the eldest son, was apparently born in 1316/17 and Marie,
the elder of two daughters, was born by mid-1322 since she was sought as
a potential bride for Edward III's brother John of Eltham, earl of
Cornwall, in July 1334.

William was probably the next brother after Enguerrand, and apparently
born after 8 June 1319 since he was described as a minor on that date in
1340. He had been granted Lindsay estates in 1334, when presumably 15,
and his homage was accepted then as if on behalf of his father who was
stated to be of full age at the time. It was also said to be a favour to
Edward III's father-in-law that the grant was confirmed to the
(underage) son rendering homage, and guardians were appointed to act for
him. Presumably the earlier grants of 1334 from his father William and
of 1337 from the king were repeated in the patent roll in December 1340
because he had attained his majority by Anglo-Norman custom in the
second half of that year, and he died in February 1342 probably aged 22.

If he did leave an illegitimate daughter, the Coucy who may have married
her off to a Le Strange was probably not William's brother Enguerrand VI
(killed in 1346) but rather his nephew Enguerrand VII, later earl of
Bedford. In that event, Brooke may not have been very far wrong in
making this lady into a base daughter of Enguerrand VII, assuming he
really had seen some evidence that the latter was a prime mover in her
marriage.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2021-04-23 01:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Charlene
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308
The date of William's death is given here in no. 462, in the last
inquest, held at Lancaster on 22 November 1344 (Monday after St Edmund
the King, 18 Edward III), p. 308: "He died without heir on Wednesday
next after the Purification, 16 Edward III."
I missed that as it was higher up in the body of the text in that IPM.
Thanks, again.
The IPMs you found are very useful for pegging some chronology in
William's generation of the Coucy family.
Their parents were married by a contract dated in May 1311. Their mother
was not the eldest daughter of parents who married in 1292, perhaps born
ca 1295/98 and so ca 13/16 when married.
Enguerrand VI, the eldest son, was apparently born in 1316/17 and Marie,
the elder of two daughters, was born by mid-1322 since she was sought as
a potential bride for Edward III's brother John of Eltham, earl of
Cornwall, in July 1334.
William was probably the next brother after Enguerrand, and apparently
born after 8 June 1319 since he was described as a minor on that date in
1340. He had been granted Lindsay estates in 1334, when presumably 15,
and his homage was accepted then as if on behalf of his father who was
stated to be of full age at the time. It was also said to be a favour to
Edward III's father-in-law that the grant was confirmed to the
(underage) son rendering homage, and guardians were appointed to act for
him. Presumably the earlier grants of 1334 from his father William and
of 1337 from the king were repeated in the patent roll in December 1340
because he had attained his majority by Anglo-Norman custom in the
second half of that year, and he died in February 1342 probably aged 22.
If he did leave an illegitimate daughter, the Coucy who may have married
her off to a Le Strange was probably not William's brother Enguerrand VI
(killed in 1346) but rather his nephew Enguerrand VII, later earl of
Bedford. In that event, Brooke may not have been very far wrong in
making this lady into a base daughter of Enguerrand VII, assuming he
really had seen some evidence that the latter was a prime mover in her
marriage.
Peter Stewart
If I understand your last paragraph, you're suggesting that William, the little-known brother of Enguerrand VI, was the father of the illegitimate daughter Maud who was married to "Lord Strange" and that his nephew Enguerrand VII arranged the marriage. But if the "Lord Strange" was indeed Roger Le Strange, 4th Lord Strange of Knockyn, as suggested by DR in the opening post in this thread, that doesn't work chronologically, because the 4th Lord Strange and his wife Maud already had children by 1326. So it's impossible for William to have been the father of this Maud.

It's basically the same problem that caused DR to decide that Brooke was wrong in saying that Enguerrand VII was the father of Maud. And, In particular, William has a VERY narrow in which he could have been the father of any daughter, since he died at the age of roughly 22.

So we're still left with the conclusion that Brooke was probably wrong in saying the Enguerrand VII was the father of the Maud who married "Lord Strange". And there still doesn't seems to be any candidate in the Coucy family that will fit chronologically.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-23 02:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Charlene
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308
The date of William's death is given here in no. 462, in the last
inquest, held at Lancaster on 22 November 1344 (Monday after St Edmund
the King, 18 Edward III), p. 308: "He died without heir on Wednesday
next after the Purification, 16 Edward III."
I missed that as it was higher up in the body of the text in that IPM.
Thanks, again.
The IPMs you found are very useful for pegging some chronology in
William's generation of the Coucy family.
Their parents were married by a contract dated in May 1311. Their mother
was not the eldest daughter of parents who married in 1292, perhaps born
ca 1295/98 and so ca 13/16 when married.
Enguerrand VI, the eldest son, was apparently born in 1316/17 and Marie,
the elder of two daughters, was born by mid-1322 since she was sought as
a potential bride for Edward III's brother John of Eltham, earl of
Cornwall, in July 1334.
William was probably the next brother after Enguerrand, and apparently
born after 8 June 1319 since he was described as a minor on that date in
1340. He had been granted Lindsay estates in 1334, when presumably 15,
and his homage was accepted then as if on behalf of his father who was
stated to be of full age at the time. It was also said to be a favour to
Edward III's father-in-law that the grant was confirmed to the
(underage) son rendering homage, and guardians were appointed to act for
him. Presumably the earlier grants of 1334 from his father William and
of 1337 from the king were repeated in the patent roll in December 1340
because he had attained his majority by Anglo-Norman custom in the
second half of that year, and he died in February 1342 probably aged 22.
If he did leave an illegitimate daughter, the Coucy who may have married
her off to a Le Strange was probably not William's brother Enguerrand VI
(killed in 1346) but rather his nephew Enguerrand VII, later earl of
Bedford. In that event, Brooke may not have been very far wrong in
making this lady into a base daughter of Enguerrand VII, assuming he
really had seen some evidence that the latter was a prime mover in her
marriage.
Peter Stewart
If I understand your last paragraph, you're suggesting that William, the little-known brother of Enguerrand VI, was the father of the illegitimate daughter Maud who was married to "Lord Strange" and that his nephew Enguerrand VII arranged the marriage. But if the "Lord Strange" was indeed Roger Le Strange, 4th Lord Strange of Knockyn, as suggested by DR in the opening post in this thread, that doesn't work chronologically, because the 4th Lord Strange and his wife Maud already had children by 1326. So it's impossible for William to have been the father of this Maud.
It's basically the same problem that caused DR to decide that Brooke was wrong in saying that Enguerrand VII was the father of Maud. And, In particular, William has a VERY narrow in which he could have been the father of any daughter, since he died at the age of roughly 22.
So we're still left with the conclusion that Brooke was probably wrong in saying the Enguerrand VII was the father of the Maud who married "Lord Strange". And there still doesn't seems to be any candidate in the Coucy family that will fit chronologically.
From puberty to the age of 22 is not in my view a "VERY narrow"
(window?) for fathering offspring, but in any case the likelihood that a
foreign cousin would take charge of arranging a marriage for any such
byblow of youthful energies more than a decade after the swain's death
is not strong.

But nor is the identification of Roger Lestrange's first wife Maud of
unknown parentage as the possible Coucy bastard daughter. Another Lord
Strange could have had a wife of this name who is not included in CP,
that is so frequently found wanting in Douglas Richardson's opinion.

I don't find Brooke's assertion compelling enough to go attaching his
"Mauld" to any particular Strange husband or Coucy father, but if there
was such a "base daughter" then a comparatively ordinary father resident
in England around the time of Enguerrand VII (which in the Coucy family
practically limits the search to William) is more plausible than an
ancestor living almost entirely across the Channel two generations
before him.

Peter Stewart
Will Johnson
2021-04-23 02:35:17 UTC
Permalink
http://www.archive.org/stream/lincolnshirepedi01madd#page/n40/mode/1up

Henry Hayward of Boxsted, co Essex; esq
John Higgins
2021-04-23 03:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Charlene
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
William de Coucy
Writ, 24 February, 17 Edward III.
Death date not given.
Ingelram de Coucy his brother, is his next heir and of full age. (York IPM has him aged 26 years)
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308
The date of William's death is given here in no. 462, in the last
inquest, held at Lancaster on 22 November 1344 (Monday after St Edmund
the King, 18 Edward III), p. 308: "He died without heir on Wednesday
next after the Purification, 16 Edward III."
I missed that as it was higher up in the body of the text in that IPM.
Thanks, again.
The IPMs you found are very useful for pegging some chronology in
William's generation of the Coucy family.
Their parents were married by a contract dated in May 1311. Their mother
was not the eldest daughter of parents who married in 1292, perhaps born
ca 1295/98 and so ca 13/16 when married.
Enguerrand VI, the eldest son, was apparently born in 1316/17 and Marie,
the elder of two daughters, was born by mid-1322 since she was sought as
a potential bride for Edward III's brother John of Eltham, earl of
Cornwall, in July 1334.
William was probably the next brother after Enguerrand, and apparently
born after 8 June 1319 since he was described as a minor on that date in
1340. He had been granted Lindsay estates in 1334, when presumably 15,
and his homage was accepted then as if on behalf of his father who was
stated to be of full age at the time. It was also said to be a favour to
Edward III's father-in-law that the grant was confirmed to the
(underage) son rendering homage, and guardians were appointed to act for
him. Presumably the earlier grants of 1334 from his father William and
of 1337 from the king were repeated in the patent roll in December 1340
because he had attained his majority by Anglo-Norman custom in the
second half of that year, and he died in February 1342 probably aged 22.
If he did leave an illegitimate daughter, the Coucy who may have married
her off to a Le Strange was probably not William's brother Enguerrand VI
(killed in 1346) but rather his nephew Enguerrand VII, later earl of
Bedford. In that event, Brooke may not have been very far wrong in
making this lady into a base daughter of Enguerrand VII, assuming he
really had seen some evidence that the latter was a prime mover in her
marriage.
Peter Stewart
If I understand your last paragraph, you're suggesting that William, the little-known brother of Enguerrand VI, was the father of the illegitimate daughter Maud who was married to "Lord Strange" and that his nephew Enguerrand VII arranged the marriage. But if the "Lord Strange" was indeed Roger Le Strange, 4th Lord Strange of Knockyn, as suggested by DR in the opening post in this thread, that doesn't work chronologically, because the 4th Lord Strange and his wife Maud already had children by 1326. So it's impossible for William to have been the father of this Maud.
It's basically the same problem that caused DR to decide that Brooke was wrong in saying that Enguerrand VII was the father of Maud. And, In particular, William has a VERY narrow in which he could have been the father of any daughter, since he died at the age of roughly 22.
So we're still left with the conclusion that Brooke was probably wrong in saying the Enguerrand VII was the father of the Maud who married "Lord Strange". And there still doesn't seems to be any candidate in the Coucy family that will fit chronologically.
From puberty to the age of 22 is not in my view a "VERY narrow"
(window?) for fathering offspring, but in any case the likelihood that a
foreign cousin would take charge of arranging a marriage for any such
byblow of youthful energies more than a decade after the swain's death
is not strong.
But nor is the identification of Roger Lestrange's first wife Maud of
unknown parentage as the possible Coucy bastard daughter. Another Lord
Strange could have had a wife of this name who is not included in CP,
that is so frequently found wanting in Douglas Richardson's opinion.
I don't find Brooke's assertion compelling enough to go attaching his
"Mauld" to any particular Strange husband or Coucy father, but if there
was such a "base daughter" then a comparatively ordinary father resident
in England around the time of Enguerrand VII (which in the Coucy family
practically limits the search to William) is more plausible than an
ancestor living almost entirely across the Channel two generations
before him.
Peter Stewart
I agree entirely with your last paragraph, particularly the conclusion that Brooke's assertion is not compelling enough to support the connection between the Coucy and Hussey families.

And, yes, I did omit the word "window" - I'm a poor typist and even poorer proofreader of my own typing... Getting old....
Peter Stewart
2021-04-23 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by John Higgins
Post by Peter Stewart
I don't find Brooke's assertion compelling enough to go attaching his
"Mauld" to any particular Strange husband or Coucy father, but if there
was such a "base daughter" then a comparatively ordinary father resident
in England around the time of Enguerrand VII (which in the Coucy family
practically limits the search to William) is more plausible than an
ancestor living almost entirely across the Channel two generations
before him.
Peter Stewart
I agree entirely with your last paragraph, particularly the conclusion that Brooke's assertion is not compelling enough to support the connection between the Coucy and Hussey families.
And, yes, I did omit the word "window" - I'm a poor typist and even poorer proofreader of my own typing... Getting old....
My fingers are getting more willful and contrary as I get older, and I
would swear (pace John Schmeeckle) that I can hear them laughing at me
sometimes.

I think English antiquarians like Brooke thought of Enguerrand VII just
from his brief career as a knight of the Garter and earl of Bedford, so
that he may seem a likely candidate to claim as a prestigious ancestor.
Quite possibly Brooke knew of some family that preened themselves with
Lestrange and Coucy quarterings, and had not actually seen medieval
evidence for his assertion.

But Enguerrand was highly celebrated in life and in death. The Nicopolis
campaign in which he was taken prisoner was a resounding trauma, and his
death from plague in captivity afterwards was famously mourned in verse
by his relative Eustache Deschamps. The notion that he had left behind a
virtually unknown bastard daughter in England, married to a baron there,
is rather absurd.

By the way, in Medieval Lands it says that he was buried at Villeneuve
abbey, Soissons - this is misleading as only his heart was placed there:
his body was brought back from Bursa and buried in the Coucy tomb at Nogent.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-23 04:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
By the way, in Medieval Lands it says that he was buried at Villeneuve
his body was brought back from Bursa and buried in the Coucy tomb at Nogent.
This evidently came from an inaccurate account in CP vol. II p. 70: "He
was taken prisoner at the defeat of the Christian army at Nicopolis by
the Turks, on 28 Sep. 1396, and d. of the plague, s.p.m., 18 Feb.
1396/7, at Bursa in Natolia, aged about 56, being bur. in the Abbey of
Villeneuve near Soissons. M.I. Codicil to will dat. Bursa, 18 Feb. 1396/7."

The battle of Nicopolis during which Enguerrand was captured took place
on 25 (not 28) September 1396. The date of his death is right, 18
February 1397 new style (oddly misstated as 18 November 1397 in Medieval
Lands), but the date of the codicil to his will was 16 (not 18) February
with the year given as 1397, not Annunciation style.

The date of his death was given in a collection of epitaphs compiled by
Pierre Bureteau in the early-16th century, this one from Villeneuve
abbey near Soissons where Enguerrand's heart was buried as stated in the
fourth line of verse ("Cor iussi moriens hic subhumare meum"). I don't
know how CP managed to get both correct and incorrect details from the
same source. His burial at Nogent was recorded by Froissart ("le corps,
lequel estoit enbausmé, et fut apporté en France et recueillié en
l'abbaye de Nogent emprès Coucy ... Et là fut et est le gentil
chevallier ensevely") and by Eustache Deschamps writing in 1397 ("Ses os
en l'abbaye / De Nogent sont en tombel riche et bon / Dessoubz Coucy o
son anceserie").

Peter Stewart
pj.ev...@gmail.com
2021-04-23 18:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
By the way, in Medieval Lands it says that he was buried at Villeneuve
his body was brought back from Bursa and buried in the Coucy tomb at Nogent.
This evidently came from an inaccurate account in CP vol. II p. 70: "He
was taken prisoner at the defeat of the Christian army at Nicopolis by
the Turks, on 28 Sep. 1396, and d. of the plague, s.p.m., 18 Feb.
1396/7, at Bursa in Natolia, aged about 56, being bur. in the Abbey of
Villeneuve near Soissons. M.I. Codicil to will dat. Bursa, 18 Feb. 1396/7."
The battle of Nicopolis during which Enguerrand was captured took place
on 25 (not 28) September 1396. The date of his death is right, 18
February 1397 new style (oddly misstated as 18 November 1397 in Medieval
Lands), but the date of the codicil to his will was 16 (not 18) February
with the year given as 1397, not Annunciation style.
The date of his death was given in a collection of epitaphs compiled by
Pierre Bureteau in the early-16th century, this one from Villeneuve
abbey near Soissons where Enguerrand's heart was buried as stated in the
fourth line of verse ("Cor iussi moriens hic subhumare meum"). I don't
know how CP managed to get both correct and incorrect details from the
same source. His burial at Nogent was recorded by Froissart ("le corps,
lequel estoit enbausmé, et fut apporté en France et recueillié en
l'abbaye de Nogent emprès Coucy ... Et là fut et est le gentil
chevallier ensevely") and by Eustache Deschamps writing in 1397 ("Ses os
en l'abbaye / De Nogent sont en tombel riche et bon / Dessoubz Coucy o
son anceserie").
Peter Stewart
The death date might have been written as being in the 11th month of 1396.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-23 23:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
By the way, in Medieval Lands it says that he was buried at Villeneuve
his body was brought back from Bursa and buried in the Coucy tomb at Nogent.
This evidently came from an inaccurate account in CP vol. II p. 70: "He
was taken prisoner at the defeat of the Christian army at Nicopolis by
the Turks, on 28 Sep. 1396, and d. of the plague, s.p.m., 18 Feb.
1396/7, at Bursa in Natolia, aged about 56, being bur. in the Abbey of
Villeneuve near Soissons. M.I. Codicil to will dat. Bursa, 18 Feb. 1396/7."
The battle of Nicopolis during which Enguerrand was captured took place
on 25 (not 28) September 1396. The date of his death is right, 18
February 1397 new style (oddly misstated as 18 November 1397 in Medieval
Lands), but the date of the codicil to his will was 16 (not 18) February
with the year given as 1397, not Annunciation style.
The date of his death was given in a collection of epitaphs compiled by
Pierre Bureteau in the early-16th century, this one from Villeneuve
abbey near Soissons where Enguerrand's heart was buried as stated in the
fourth line of verse ("Cor iussi moriens hic subhumare meum"). I don't
know how CP managed to get both correct and incorrect details from the
same source. His burial at Nogent was recorded by Froissart ("le corps,
lequel estoit enbausmé, et fut apporté en France et recueillié en
l'abbaye de Nogent emprès Coucy ... Et là fut et est le gentil
chevallier ensevely") and by Eustache Deschamps writing in 1397 ("Ses os
en l'abbaye / De Nogent sont en tombel riche et bon / Dessoubz Coucy o
son anceserie").
Peter Stewart
The death date might have been written as being in the 11th month of 1396.
It would be interesting to know where you have come across medieval
dates expressed in this peculiar way, but in any event I don't know of a
source for Enguerrand's death that was - and none was cited.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2021-04-25 22:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgoup ~

Checking my files, it appear that the New World immigrants, John Harleston, of South Carolina, and his sister, Elizabeth Harleston (wife of Elias Ball, Gent.), also of South Carolina, are lineal descendants of the subject of this thread, Mary Hussey (living 1452–54), wife of John Teye, Esq. (he died 1440), by way of their ancestress, Margaret Tey, wife of Sir Clement Harleston, Knt. (he died 1544).

Douglas Richardson
John Higgins
2021-04-26 21:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgoup ~
Checking my files, it appear that the New World immigrants, John Harleston, of South Carolina, and his sister, Elizabeth Harleston (wife of Elias Ball, Gent.), also of South Carolina, are lineal descendants of the subject of this thread, Mary Hussey (living 1452–54), wife of John Teye, Esq. (he died 1440), by way of their ancestress, Margaret Tey, wife of Sir Clement Harleston, Knt. (he died 1544).
Douglas Richardson
Aside from the Harleston siblings, some readers of this group will no doubt be interested to know that Mary Hussey is ancestral to Princes William and Harry by both her 1st and 2nd husbands Henry Howard and John Teye. And her 3rd husband William Alington is ancestral to the princes by his 1st wife Elizabeth Argentine.
Loading...