Discussion:
Lucy le Bret, wife of Hugh de Vautort/Valletort and Richard de Champernoun
Add Reply
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-14 08:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

William Pole in his book, Collections towards a Description of Devon (1791), reports that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon [died 1338] married Elizabeth de Vautort, daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Vautourt, by his wife, Lucy, daughter of Adam le Bret.

On pages 309–310, he writes:

“Modbiry … Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard, wch had twoe wiefes, 1, Alis, daughter of Thomas Lo. Astelegh, by whom hee had issue Alexander, of Beer Ferrers; his 2 wief was Katerin, daughter of Sr Giles Dawbeney, by whom hee had issue Richard, of Modbiry, & John, of Inswerke, thancestor of Trevilian, Fortescue, of Woode, & Munke, of Poderige." END OF QUOTE.

On page 426, he gives additional information:

"Hugh de Valletort, by Lucia, daughter of Adam le Bret, had issue Egelina, wife of Oliver Champernon, Lucia, wief of Geffrey Lyff, Katherine wief, 1, of William Lucy, &, 2, of Sr Henry, Frances, Beatrix, wife of Simon Bradeney, Elisabeth, wief of Sir Richard Champernon, of Modbiry, & Jone." END OF QUOTE.

Recently I encountered an assize record dated 1317 which concerns these families. Below is a brief abstract of the beginning of the lawsuit:

In 1317 an assize was held to determine of Richard de Champernoun and Lucy his wife and Ralph Thurston unjustly disseised James Tryvet of his free tenement in Baggedrip [Bawdrip], Somerset.

Reference: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1371, image 2910d,
available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1371/bJUST1no1371dorses/IMG_2910.htm
In the ensuing testimony, it is stated that Hugh Tryvet father of the said James had previously leased the property in question to Adam le Bret for the term of his life. Portions of the remaining text are illegible. The text appears to say that Adam le Bret granted the reversion of the property to Hugh de Vautort [then [tunc] husband of the said Lucy] and to Lucy his wife and the heirs of Hugh, and that after the death of Adam le Bret, Richard de Champernoun and his wife Lucy took possession.

The implication is that Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun, is the same person as Lucy, wife of Hugh de Vautort, although this is not directly stated. If correct, it would appear that Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautout/Valletort, married (2nd) before 1317 Richard de Champernoun the elder, father of Sir Richard de Champernoun who married Lucy's daughter, Elizabeth de Vautort.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2018-10-14 23:18:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
The implication is that Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun, is the
same person as Lucy, wife of Hugh de Vautort, although this is not
directly stated. If correct, it would appear that Lucy le Bret, widow
of Hugh de Vautout/Valletort, married (2nd) before 1317 Richard de
Champernoun the elder, father of Sir Richard de Champernoun who married
Lucy's daughter, Elizabeth de Vautort.
For context, Hugh was still alive 10 February 1309/10, when "Hugh de Valla Torta" acknowledged a debt (CCR), but dead "in a month of Easter" that year, when Lucy, "who had been the wife of Hugh de Valle Torta", was granting a manor and an advowson by her father (Som. Fines). Curiously, the king was slow on the uptake here - he issued a writ for Hugh's lands to be taken into the king's hand, but not until April 1315 (CFR - assuming this is the same Hugh, as there was at least one other at this time).

If Lucy did marry as suggested, it seemingly came after Christmas, 1312, when James de Mertone was installed at Highampton under patronage of "Lucy, relict of Hugh de Valletort". Under the supposition that the marriage of the elder Richard to Lucy put him in a position to control her daughters' marriages, and thus that of the younger Richard to Elizabeth soon followed (as well as that of Egeline to Oliver Champernoun) this fits well with the chronology I laid out a few weeks ago, in which I put the birth of Thomas Champernoun in the 1310-1320 range - this would place Thomas's birth in the later part of that range (and possibly as early as 1314 if they married shortly after the 1312 notice and Thomas was their first-born).

taf
taf
2018-10-15 15:22:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
If Lucy did marry as suggested, it seemingly came after Christmas,
1312, when James de Mertone was installed at Highampton under
patronage of "Lucy, relict of Hugh de Valletort".
Notable to this, Domini Ric. de Campo Arnulphi was at Highampton on 30 November 1319.

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 00:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my previous post, due to the damaged condition of the original document, I was a bit tentative in my analysis of the 1317 assize which involved Richard de Champernoun and his wife, Lucy.

I stated that it was indirectly implied that Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun, was the same person as Lucy, wife of Hugh de Vautort. Actually the assize spells it out in very clear terms. First, the assize record starts by reference to Richard de Champernoun and Lucy his wife. Then as the record progresses, reference is made to Hugh de Vautort who is called the previous husband of "the said Lucy." Since there is only one Lucy mentioned in this document, "the said Lucy" wife of Hugh de Vautort can only be the same person as Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun. As such, we can be certain that Lucy le Bret married (1st) Hugh de Vautourt, died 1310, and (2nd) before 1317 (date of assize) Richard de Champernoun.

Back in 1999 Ronny Bodine posted a long discussion on the newsgroup regarding the Champernoun of Modbury, Devon family. He assigned Richard de Champernoun, living 1286, as the husband of Joan, half-sister of James de Okeston, of Modbury, Devon. He presumed that Richard de Champernoun's wife, Joan, survived him and married before 1300 Peter de Fishacre. Joan was still living in 1316. Bodine assigned Richard de Champernoun (living 1286) and his wife, Joan, as the parents of Richard de Champernoun, died 1338, husband of Elizabeth de Vautourt.

However, given the evidence of the 1317 assize, there must have been another Richard de Champernoun in between Richard, living 1286, and Richard, died 1338. Otherwise Joan, sister of James de Okeston, living 1316, can not be the widow of Richard de Champernoun, living 1286, as indicated by Bodine.

Indeed the newsgroup archives reveal that Vivian, the Devonshire historian, claimed that there were in fact three Richard de Champernoun's in a row in this family, not two. Benson, who is someone I hold in extremely low esteem, stated there wasn't room for three Richard's, but he didn't support his conclusion with dates (typical for him).

Given the new evidence of the 1317 Assize, the Champernoun descent must include three Richard's in a row. Below is a revised reconstruction of this family line with speculative dates:

1. Richard de Champernoun, occurs 1280-1 through 1286. He married before 1280-1, Joan, half-sister of James de Okeston, of Modbury, Devon. She married (2nd) before 1300 Peter de Fishacre. She was living in 1316.

2. Richard de Champernoun, born say 1265-70, living 1317. He married 1st, an unknown wife. They had one son, Richard. He married (2nd) before 1317 Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort (died 1310), and daughter and heiress of Adam le Bret. According to Bodine, in 1285, by commandment of Edward I, James de Okeston conveyed Modbury, Devon to him.

3. Richard de Champernoun, born say 1295, died 1338. He is presumably the man who was Knight of the Shire for Devon in 1324 and 1331 (Parliaments, pp. 71, 94). He married Elizabeth de Vautort, widow of Richard Tremenet, and daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Vautort (died 1310), by his wife, Lucy le Bret (living 1317).

4. Thomas de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, son and heir, born say 1320/5, living 1387, Sheriff of Devonshire, 1362, 1367, Escheator of Devonshire, 1369–71. He married Eleanor Lovel.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2018-10-15 01:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
1. Richard de Champernoun, occurs 1280-1 through 1286. He married before 1280-1, Joan, half-sister of James de Okeston, of Modbury, Devon. She married (2nd) before 1300 Peter de Fishacre. She was living in 1316.
2. Richard de Champernoun, born say 1265-70, living 1317.
Clearly something fishy here, but given what we think we know about the elder Joan's chronology with prince Richard, this chronology you propose is impossible.

taf
taf
2018-10-15 01:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by c***@gmail.com
1. Richard de Champernoun, occurs 1280-1 through 1286. He married before 1280-1, Joan, half-sister of James de Okeston, of Modbury, Devon. She married (2nd) before 1300 Peter de Fishacre. She was living in 1316.
2. Richard de Champernoun, born say 1265-70, living 1317.
Clearly something fishy here, but given what we think we know about the elder Joan's chronology with prince Richard, this chronology you propose is impossible.
Just to amplify this, the bar you see to the previous reconstruction comes down to one thing - in your words, Joan is 'presumed' to have survived Richard and remarried to Peter Fishacre, perhaps that presumption should be evaluated as well.

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 01:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 7:05:35 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
< Clearly something fishy here, but given what we think we know about the elder < Joan's chronology with prince Richard, this chronology you propose is
< impossible.

< taf

My reconstructed Champernoun pedigree attempts to harmonize what is known about the early generations about the Champernoun family of Modbury. It is subject to revision.

As you know, with most medieval problems, one record such as the 1317 assize can change an entire pedigree.

DR
taf
2018-10-15 01:28:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
My reconstructed Champernoun pedigree attempts to harmonize what is known about the early generations about the Champernoun family of Modbury. It is subject to revision.
Yet apparently no attempt was made to harmonize with what we think we know of the Joans.
Post by c***@gmail.com
As you know, with most medieval problems, one record such as the 1317 assize can change an entire pedigree.
Yes, it can, but when that happens it is best to look again at EVERYTHING and not just try to fudge it with a chronology that 'breaks' other things we think we know.

It has been two decades since I looked at it, so I could be misremembering, but I think the Fishacre connection is a supposition based on a fine that does not make any relationships explicit. That seems a weak basis on which to take a wrecking ball to better-supported aspects of the reconstruction, doncha think?

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 05:05:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 7:28:33 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
< It has been two decades since I looked at it, so I could be misremembering,
< but I think the Fishacre connection is a supposition based on a fine that does < not make any relationships explicit. That seems a weak basis on which to take < a wrecking ball to better-supported aspects of the reconstruction, doncha
< think?
<
< taf

No wrecking ball, taf. Just hard core evidence.

DR
taf
2018-10-15 06:53:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wrecking ball, taf. Just hard core evidence.
You still haven't looked at the Joan chronology then - you are obliterating it even if you haven't realized it yet.

taf
taf
2018-10-15 07:21:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wrecking ball, taf. Just hard core evidence.
You still haven't looked at the Joan chronology then - you are obliterating it even if you haven't realized it yet.
Just to be clear, I am talking about Joan the elder, Champernoun's mother-in-law, and hence the timing of Joan the younger's birth. As it is currently understood, your timing would place your extra Richard's birth when the younger Joan was no older than 13, and perhaps as young as 8. To make your chronology work, you have to take a wrecking ball to the elder Joan's timing with Earl Richard.

I realize you just threw your new chronology together without looking at the bigger picture - that is obvious. As much as your gut instinct is to dig in and insist the problem is with everybody else, now would be a good time to actually think about the big picture, to go beyond your simplistic first approach of just tossing in another Richard and fudging the dates.

And for heaven's sake, look into the Fishacre presumption - if that connection isn't supported, there isn't even anything that needs fixing in the Champernoun line.

taf
taf
2018-10-18 16:42:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
And for heaven's sake, look into the Fishacre presumption - if that
connection isn't supported, there isn't even anything that needs
fixing in the Champernoun line.
The Fisshacre marriage was based on speculation by Frances Rose-Troop, published in 1935, and as best I can tell is primarily based on three documents involving two properties that passed from the Valletorts to the Oxtons to the Champernouns, but the Fisshacres developed some claim in between. In her article, she mischaracterizes the manner by which Joan, as wife of Alexander de Oxton, held the lands in question, but perhaps not a fatal mischaracterization.

First the background. Jane as widow of Ralph de Valletort resided at Inceworth, with her lands, guardianship of her minor son, and permission for her to remarry being vested in the queen. Her son, Reginald, died by January 1269/70, at which point the Valletort lands went to her brother-in-law Roger de Valletort. No sooner than 1257, and as has been argued, perhaps as late as 1262, she had a short-lived liaison with Richard, Earl of Cornwall and titular King of Germany, before remarrying by 1264 to Alexander de Oxton (who was long known to her, being her former husband's tennant and witness of a donation she made to Buckfast Abbey - the first two witnesses were de Alneto - could this be a clue to her origin?).

No sooner had the childless, and soon to be found non compos sui sensus, Roger de Valletort received his nephew's lands in 1269/70, and he began alienating it, including making grants or enfeoffments to both Earl Richard and to Alexander and Joan de Oxton. For our purposes, the properties of interest are Modbury, Devon and Inceworth, in Maker, Cornwall. First, in January 1269/70, he sold Modbury to Alexander and Joan, in exchange for 100 pounds, settling it on Alexander and Joan and the heirs of their body, followed by a second grant a year later in which for 10 marks, Roger transferred further Modbury lands and the advowson of Modbury priory to Alexander, Joan and the heirs of their body.

Inceworth came to them in a more convoluted manner. It had been held by Joan as part of her dower rights by direct grant of her first husband, and had been her residence throughout this period; their son James seems to have been born in Inceworth in the second half of 1264. In February 1269/70, Roger transferred Tremeton and Calstock to Earl Richard for L300, with the stipulation that he in turn enfeoff some Calstock woodlands as well as Inceworth to Alexander and Joan. Roger also separately executed a fine directly enfeoffing Inceworth and the Calstock woods to the Oxtons and the heirs of their body, with remainder to the right heirs of Alexander. In both of these Peter Corbet and Henry de Pomerai put in a claim, respectively son and grandson of the two sisters of Ralph and Roger and hence the rightful Valletort heirs.

Next we enter a period of obscurity with regard to both properties, with the scant surviving documentation showing that Peter de Fisshace became vested in at least a claim to both. Modbury was seized by the crown following the death of Alexander de Oxton but in March 1275/6 Joan challenged this with regard to Modbury, along with Bridford, 1/3 of Brixham and lands in Hurberton, and it was determined she held them in her own right as joint grantee and not simply as widow of Alexander. In 1286, James de Oxton gained seizin of his mother's lands, although these are not specified, and the same year was recognized as having custody (the advowson) of Modbury priory. In 1299, Modbury belonged to Hawise, widow of Joan's son Reginald de Valletort, held of James de Oxton, to whom it was to revert. We next see Modbury in 1315, when James received royal licence to transfer it, as he would later do in a January 1315/6 fine, wherein James de Oxton gave manor and priory advowson to Henry de Lappelode, and in turn Henry gave it back to James and his wife Ida for life, with remainder to Richard de Champernoun. Claims were put in by Robert de Oxton, son of Alexander (and, apparently, Joan), as well as by Peter de Fisshace, and by Joan, wife of Peter de Fisshacre. The nature of their claim is obscure. The path we have mapped out is Valletort to Alexander and Joan, to James to Hawise de Valletort and back to James, for him to transfer in 1315/6. The only transfer not documented is the undated enfeoffment to Hawise that nonetheless left James as residual heir. It would seem that there was a secondary reversion attached to this transaction, that it was a grant to Hawise for life, with reversion to James de Oxton and the heirs of his body, and failing heirs, to Joan (whom we see in 1315 as wife of Peter de Fisshacre).

Inceworth is more obscure, in part because the forms the toponym take vary so widely. Perhaps notably, perhaps not as the complaint dealt exclusively with Devon lands, it was not part of Joan's 1276 complaint to the crown. In a survey into those holding lands of the Valletort inheritance, apparently compiled at some point between 1275 and 1282, it was the property of Richard de Champernoun. I think we have to conclude it is the Meyswerk (sic, for which I would suggest recte Ineyswerk) in the 1280/1 Patent Roll entry Mr. Richardson has just drawn attention to, again showing 'a tenement' there held by Richard de Campo Arnulphi. Then in 1300 when Edmund, Earl of Cornwall died, as 'Inheswork' it was in possession of 'Peter de Fissake', before returning to the Champernouns for the remainder of the 14th century and being given by Sir Richard (d. 1418) to John, his second son by Alice de Astley.

It is perhaps also relevant, perhaps not, that in 1303, Sir Andrew de Trelosk and Sir Peter de Fishacre appear as sequential witnesses to a quitclaim.

So, what do we take from this? There is no direct testimony of a Fisshacre remarriage for Joan. Were such associations present for just one of the properties, it could be a life lease or other transaction that need not represent a genealogical relationship. However, seeing a Fisshacre connection with two distinct properties that were to pass from the Oxtons to the Champernouns, and that seem not to have passed together but independently, would definitely make most likely the scenario that Joan de Cornwall remarried to Peter de Fisshacre after the death of Richard de Champernown, and thereby that the Richard de Champernown who married Joan was not the same as the one who later married Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort.

Revised chronology:

1. Joan (surname unknown) m.1 Ralph de Valletort, d. 1256. Relationship with Richard, Earl of Cornwall, perhaps 1262; m.2 by 1264, Alexander de Oxton, d. 1274/5- March 1275/6. m.3 by 1278, Sir Andrew de Trellock (Treloosk, etc). Joan d. 1286 when James gained seizen of her lands.

i. Reginald de Valletort, d. 1269/70
ii. Joan de Cornwall, b. 1257-1263, perhaps 1262-1263 (2)
iii. James de Oxton, b. 2nd half 1264 at Inceworth
iv. Robert de Oxton, claimant in 1315

2. Joan de Cornwall, b. 1257-1263 (perhaps 1262-1263) must have been born more than 9 months after the death of Ralph de Valletort, else she would have been legal daughter of Ralph and heir to brother Reginald. As I mentioned in my chronology a month ago, Earl Richard was known as a devoted husband, and John Carmi Parsons suggested many years ago in this group that that it may have been after the death of his wife Sancia in November 1261 that he began his relationship with Joan. If so, their daughter Joan was b. 1262/3, but she was born no earlier than 1257. She was married by 1278 to Richard (I) de Champernoun, son of Henry de Champernoun, and received Inceworth, as well as some sort of right or reversion to Modbury. He was living 1285, dead by 1300, when Inceworth was in the hands of Peter de Fisshacre. She was still living in 1315/6 when she put in a claim against the transfer of Modbury to Richard de Champernoun (II): Rose-Troop portrays this as a preemptive claim against that or Robert de Oxton, son of Alexander.

i. Richard de Champernoun (II), b. say 1280 (3)

3. Richard de Champernoun (II), b. say 1280, received Modbury in 1315/6. m.1 (?), m.2 Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort. Richard was still living in 1319.

i. Richard de Champernoun (III), b. say 1302 (4)
ii. (specul.) Oliver de Champernoun, b. say 1304

4. Richard de Champernoun (III), b. say 1302, married, Elizabeth de Vautort

i. Thomas, b. say 1322 (5)
ii. Richard (IV), on whom small reversion settled by parents, 1336/7

5. Thomas de Champernoun, b. say 1322, m. Eleanor de Rohaut

i. (Sir) Richard (V), b. 1244, shown by proof of age, d, 1418 - see last month's discussion for his marriages, children and death.

This chronology involves shorter than typical male generations, but has the benefit of not requiring Joan (II) to give birth as a preteen. Each of the birth guestimates in the Champernoun line has about a 2-year plus-minus. (While I have numbered the Richard's here for clarity, I do not encourage such usage: any change in understanding, as has happened here, and the same number ends up being applied to a different man).

taf
taf
2018-10-18 20:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
She was married by 1278 to Richard (I) de Champernoun, . . .
He was living 1285, dead by 1300
This is an overly-broad bracket. As Sir Richard de Chambernon, he was received Devon rents as security for a loan in 1287, the agreement extended in 1288. He also witnessed Cornwall gifts in 1289 and 1290.

Note that the first of these indicates that the first Richard, Joan's husband, was indeed a knight.

And while we are sorting out Richards, this was the name of a Sheriff of Devon in 1355. With Richard, Elizabeth's husband already dead, and their grandson, the son of Thomas, only born in 1344, this leaves only two possibilities. There was a little-known Richard who was younger son of Richard and Elizabeth, but given that his elder brother Thomas only served as sheriff only a decade later, this seems unlikely. That leaves the Richard of North Tawton who was son of Oliver and father of Otho/Otes. His birth I had tentatively placed about 1325, and he died 1377.

taf
taf
2018-10-18 23:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
There was a little-known Richard who was younger son of Richard
and Elizabeth,
This Richard is perhaps the Richard de Campo Arnulphi, "domicello Exoniensi" appearing in the Registrum collegii exoniensis in 1349.

taf
taf
2018-10-18 23:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
3. Richard de Champernoun (II), b. say 1280, received Modbury in 1315/6. m.1 (?), m.2 Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautort. Richard was still living in 1319.
i. Richard de Champernoun (III), b. say 1302 (4)
ii. (specul.) Oliver de Champernoun, b. say 1304
If this speculated relationship is correct then there is likely a third brother. The fine rolls report that in 1322 Richard, Hugh and Oliver de Chaumbernoun were traveling to court in the retinue of the Bishop of Exeter (with Hugh and Oliver being named consecutively).

taf
taf
2018-10-19 03:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
It is perhaps also relevant, perhaps not, that in 1303, Sir
Andrew de Trelosk and Sir Peter de Fishacre appear as sequential
witnesses to a quitclaim.
Two other such coincident appearances:

1. In December 1292, Henry de Raleigh, Peter de Fisshacre and Andrew de Treylurk received a commission of oyer and terminer regarding a poacher on the park of Simon de Monte Acuto (Montague).

2. In 1303 in a second transaction relating to the one witnessed by Trelosk and Fishacre, we find among successive witness the brothers-in-law, Sir Peter de Fishacre and Sir James de Oston (i.e. Oxton).

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 05:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 7:28:33 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:

< It has been two decades since I looked at it, so I could be misremembering,
< but I think the Fishacre connection is a supposition based on a fine that
< does not make any relationships explicit. That seems a weak basis on which
< to take a wrecking ball to better-supported aspects of the reconstruction,
< doncha think?

By all means, cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them. Otherwise you're no better than John Schmeeckle.

DR
taf
2018-10-15 06:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
< It has been two decades since I looked at it, so I could be misremembering,
< but I think the Fishacre connection is a supposition based on a fine that
< does not make any relationships explicit. That seems a weak basis on which
< to take a wrecking ball to better-supported aspects of the reconstruction,
< doncha think?
By all means, cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them. Otherwise you're no better than John Schmeeckle.
That makes no sense whatsoever. You are the one using the Fishacre relationship to draw a conclusion. How is it then my responsibility?

taf
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
2018-10-15 11:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
4. Thomas de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, son and heir, born say
1320/5, living 1387, Sheriff of Devonshire, 1362, 1367, Escheator of
Devonshire, 1369–71. He married Eleanor Lovel.
Wait, I thought Thomas Champernoun's wife was Eleanor Rohaut. Eleanor
Lovel was his mother-in-law.

CP on Sir Richard Lovel d. 1351 says that his "daughter, Eleanor, was
wife of Roger Rouhaut (of Aston Rowant) in 1326". VCH Oxfordshire,
volume 8 ("Parishes: Aston Rowant") says "Henry [Fitz Alan's] son
Roger, known as Sir Roger Rohant, married Eleanor the daughter of
Richard Lovel of Wincanton (Som.), and in 1326 entailed Aston manor on
his heirs male. He was still alive in 1340 when he again put the manor
in trust. In 1360 a Lady Eleanor Rohant, presumably his widow, was
administering the estate. Rohant's property passed to his daughter
Eleanor and her husband Thomas Champernowne. Eleanor also had died by
1369, when Thomas Champernowne, lord of Modbury (Devon), quitclaimed
his rights in certain of Eleanor's estates to Richard Champernowne
their son, described elsewhere as great-grandson of Richard Lovel."
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
http://nielsenhayden.com
http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/
taf
2018-10-15 14:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Post by c***@gmail.com
4. Thomas de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, son and heir, born say
1320/5, living 1387, Sheriff of Devonshire, 1362, 1367, Escheator of
Devonshire, 1369–71. He married Eleanor Lovel.
Wait, I thought Thomas Champernoun's wife was Eleanor Rohaut. Eleanor
Lovel was his mother-in-law.
Yeah, I assume that was just a slip, since his own book has it as you describe.

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 21:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Wait, I thought Thomas Champernoun's wife was Eleanor Rohaut. Eleanor
Lovel was his mother-in-law.
You're entirely correct Patrick. My mistake. Thank you for your comment.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 01:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

In his account of the Champernoun family in the newsgroup archives, Ronny Bodine stated that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, died 1338, married Elizabeth de Vautort, widow of Richard Tremenet. He provided no further particulars or dates for Elizabeth.

The record below indicates that Elizabeth survived her husband and was living in 1342.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Reference: C 241/117/277
Description:
Debtor: John de Trejage {Treiagu}, knight, [held fee in Fentongollen, Powder Hundred, and half a fee in Trevorder, Pyder Hundred] Stephen de Treiagu, and Stephen de Trewythynek, of Cornwall.

Creditor: Elizabeth, who was the wife of Richard de Champernon {Chambernoun}, knight [family held several fees in Powder Hundred, Cornwall]

Amount: £40.

First term: 29/09/1342

Last term: 29/09/1342

Writ to: Sheriff of Cornwall

Sent by: Serlo Queynte, Keeper of the Mayor's Seal at Lostwithiel; Thomas de Dingley, Clerk.

Endorsement: Cornub' Coram Justic' de Banco.

Date: 1343 Apr 30
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Language: Latin
taf
2018-10-15 01:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
In his account of the Champernoun family in the newsgroup archives, Ronny Bodine stated that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon, died 1338, married Elizabeth de Vautort, widow of Richard Tremenet. He provided no further particulars or dates for Elizabeth.
Yeah, that came from the DCNQ article on the Vautorts, but has to be wrong, since Tremenet was still living in 1246. It seems the order of the marriages got reversed. Elizabeth is seen as late as 1362 as widow of William de Willoughby.

taf
taf
2018-10-20 22:17:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
In his account of the Champernoun family in the newsgroup archives,
Ronny Bodine stated that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury,
Devon, died 1338, married Elizabeth de Vautort, widow of Richard
Tremenet. He provided no further particulars or dates for Elizabeth.
Yeah, that came from the DCNQ article on the Vautorts, but has to be
wrong, since Tremenet was still living in 1246. It seems the order
of the marriages got reversed. Elizabeth is seen as late as 1362 as
widow of William de Willoughby.
I need to revisit this. First a correction. In one document it is erroneously recorded that Elizabeth married William, but the actual name of her husband was Richard de Willoughby (d. 1362, often Wylughby in primary documents). His previous wife died in 1342, while Elizabeth was a widow at least in October 1342 (and perhaps the following April). I have first found Richard and Elizabeth together on 19 October 1344 when they received a quitclaim. At Richard's death he held via Elizabeth 1/3 of Modbury and 1/3 of 'Enyswork' / 'Eniswork' (Inceworth) and 'Ludvoyn' (Ludgvan), her dower of the inheritance of Thomas de Chaumpernoun, as assigned by said Thomas. Elizabeth was still living 2 September 1263, when her step-son Richard de Wilughby made a grant "to John le Webster de Thulston and Alice his wife, for the life of Elizabeth widow of Richard de Wilughby the elder, and in perpetuity if John and Alice survive Elizabeth". Elizabeth is mentioned 1 October 1363, but the reference is to a historical grant and not a contemporary event. There is no mention of her holding a dower in the 1369 ipm of the step-son, Richard de Willoughby the younger.

Now, this is inconsistent with the chronology I suggested earlier, with a marriage to Richard Tremenet fl. 1246. It means two things with regard to the claimed marriage of Elizabeth to Richard Tremenet: first, the husband cannot be the same Richard Tremenet who fl. 1246; second, there appears not to have been time between when she last appears as Richard Champernoun's widow and as Richard de Wylughby's wife for an intervening marriage. It would seem, then, that the Tremenet marriage must either have come before that to Champernoun, or after that to Willoughby. It will take more digging to sort this out.


Additional notes:

Elizabeth was not the only widow occupying dower property in 1362. Ida de Raleigh held Bridford in dower in that year, it having belonged to the Champernouns both before and after. This could, I guess, be an otherwise unknown third wife of the RIchard who married Lucy. Otherwise, either Bridford had been given to a Champernoun younger son who d.s.p., of whom she was widow, or there had been a gift, enfeoffment, etc. for life, and she was widow of the recipient.

The holding of Ludgvan by Elizabeth appears to reveal an error in its accepted history. Lyson would say it was transferred by Richard, Earl of Cornwall, to Ferrers, then by heiresses to Champernown and Willoughby, Lord Brook. This seems to be relating to Alexander Champernowne's marriage to the heiress of Beer Ferres, and then that of his granddaughter to Willoughby, and Alexander did hold Ludgvan in 1428, but it was in the hands of the Champernoun family much earlier. Richard de Champernoun held it 1235/6, Thomas held it in 1255/6 and Richard's widow and son Thomas held it in 1362. Before that, in 1303, it appears to have been in the hands of William de Campo Arnulphi. So, however the Champernouns got it, it wasn't via the marriage of Alexander, and the Modbury branch seems to have gotten it through a transfer from Champernoun kin and not via marriage.

taf
taf
2018-10-21 03:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have been thinking about the Tremenet marriage, and have come to the conclusion that the evidence that Elizabeth married Richard Tremenet is wanting. It seems to derive from Westcote's summary of a suit:

"Symon de Bradney, Ricardus de Tremenet, et Godefridus de Lieffe, Heredes propinquiores Hugonis de Vautort, recuperant versus Oliverum Camponulphum, et Egelinam uxorem ejus, certa messuagia et carucatas terrae in Bikeberri et Sutton Vautort.”

Simon de Bradney is known to have married Beatrix, daughter of Hugh de Vautort, and Geoffrey de Lyf is known to have married Juniana, another daughter, while Egelina, wife of Oliver de Champernoun was another daughter. On its face, it would then seem reasonable that Richard de Tremenet was the husband of Elizabeth de Vautort, better documented as wife of Richard de Champernoun. Here is the problem though. There were at least two other daughters, Cecily and Katherine. The above document clearly dates from the life of Oliver de Champernoun, yet there is a fine from 1344 involving Katherine de Lucy and Egelina de Cambernon, without either of their husbands being named, which suggests that both Katherine and Egelina outlived Oliver. We also know that Elizabeth outlived the date of this fine, so both Katherine and Elizabeth were alive at the time of Westcote's suit, which has just one male without a known Vautort wife. He could have been husband of either, or of the poorly-documented Cecilia, or he could even have been serving as representative / proxy / guardian for the unmarried daughters. I don't currently have access to the article that sets out this first Tremenet marriage for Elizabeth, so there may be other evidence brought to bear I am unaware of, but Westcote's lawsuit alone is insufficient to conclude there was a marriage, let alone which daughter was involved.

As an aside, he earliest I have yet found Oliver married to Egelina is in Michaelmas term 1328, when they were sued by Richard de Campo Arnulphi (unfortunately the Common Pleas case is very short, completely devoid of genealogical detail).

taf
taf
2018-10-21 21:11:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In an earlier post I indicated that there were other daughters and so we could not assume that Richard de Tremenet was husband of Elizabeth. One of those other daughters, Cecilia, was only known not to have had issue. I can now add that she married. The source is a little odd - an index to an AALT series was placed on the AALT Wiki, which is now reporting a 404 error and with no cached copy, so the best I can do is string together some text from the inaccessible index page. Still it is revealing. What it reports is:

"H1334 B, Certiorari. Justices Itinerant. 5 Edward III, Novel Disseisin, Richard de Trevynor; Simon de Bradeneye & Beatrice his wife; John de Trenaga & Cecilia his iwfe; Godfrey le Lyff & Juliana his wife; and John de Lucy & Katherine his wife. Link [94]."

With Beatrice, Katherine and Juliana all known to be Vautort daughters with a known sibling named Cecilia, there can be little doubt that in the "John de Trenaga and Celicia" here we have the husband of that sister. They are certainly the John de Trevaga and wife Cecily involved in a Cornwall fine in 1331. I have to think the Richard de Trevynor of this document is the same as Richard de Tremenet (sic) of Westcote. Note: the date of this is noteworthy. Any widow of the Richard de Trevynor in this document could not be the mother of Thomas de Champernoun, whose son was born in 1344. As before, though, particularly in the absence of a named wife, we cannot be sure he was acting as husband of a Vautort daughter. And for that matter, we don't have an IPM or other declaration of heirs, so we may have an incomplete listing of the daughters.


Some more dates.

Simon de Bradeneye was born ca. 1299 per his father's ipm. In 1323, Simon held Currypool, "Hescombe, Saunford, etc.", in Somerset, held of John de Beauchamp at his death. In 1330, Simon de Bradeneye and Beatrix, his wife sold Currypool, Somerset. Godfrey le Lyf and his wife Juliana put in a claim. In 1342, he made presentation to Charlinch, and in 1347/8 to Thornefagon. In 1351 he was named in a guardianship dispute.

In 1374, John Fidleton and wife Joan (born de Gothurste) sued Beatrice, late wife of Simon de Bradeneye over old Bradeneye lands claimed too have been alienated temp. Edw I.

In 1360, Richard Lyf, son of Godfrey Lyf, was pardoned due to his long service at Calais, for the killing of John Lyf in 1359.

taf
Matt A
2018-10-22 00:33:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
"H1334 B, Certiorari. Justices Itinerant. 5 Edward III, Novel Disseisin, Richard de Trevynor; Simon de Bradeneye & Beatrice his wife; John de Trenaga & Cecilia his iwfe; Godfrey le Lyff & Juliana his wife; and John de Lucy & Katherine his wife. Link [94]."
With Beatrice, Katherine and Juliana all known to be Vautort daughters with a known sibling named Cecilia, there can be little doubt that in the "John de Trenaga and Celicia" here we have the husband of that sister. They are certainly the John de Trevaga and wife Cecily involved in a Cornwall fine in 1331. I have to think the Richard de Trevynor of this document is the same as Richard de Tremenet (sic) of Westcote. Note: the date of this is noteworthy. Any widow of the Richard de Trevynor in this document could not be the mother of Thomas de Champernoun, whose son was born in 1344. As before, though, particularly in the absence of a named wife, we cannot be sure he was acting as husband of a Vautort daughter. And for that matter, we don't have an IPM or other declaration of heirs, so we may have an incomplete listing of the daughters.
Some more dates.
Simon de Bradeneye was born ca. 1299 per his father's ipm. In 1323, Simon held Currypool, "Hescombe, Saunford, etc.", in Somerset, held of John de Beauchamp at his death. In 1330, Simon de Bradeneye and Beatrix, his wife sold Currypool, Somerset. Godfrey le Lyf and his wife Juliana put in a claim. In 1342, he made presentation to Charlinch, and in 1347/8 to Thornefagon. In 1351 he was named in a guardianship dispute.
In 1374, John Fidleton and wife Joan (born de Gothurste) sued Beatrice, late wife of Simon de Bradeneye over old Bradeneye lands claimed too have been alienated temp. Edw I.
In 1360, Richard Lyf, son of Godfrey Lyf, was pardoned due to his long service at Calais, for the killing of John Lyf in 1359.
taf
A fine analysis.

I believe the index can be found here:

http://www.uh.edu/waalt/index.php/RevPro_1330s

and the original case can be found here:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/KB27no295/bKB27no295dorses/IMG_0049.htm

Hope this helps,

-Matt Ahlgren
taf
2018-10-22 00:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
http://www.uh.edu/waalt/index.php/RevPro_1330s
Still giving me a page-unavailable error.
Post by Matt A
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/KB27no295/bKB27no295dorses/IMG_0049.htm
Thanks. I had been working my way through but was still on the frontes.

taf
taf
2018-10-22 01:55:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/KB27no295/bKB27no295dorses/IMG_0049.htm
Hope this helps,
It does, indeed. But what a mess it makes,

It is a claim of Richard de Trevynor, Simon de Bradeneye & Beatrice his wife,
John de Trenaga & Cecilia his wife, Godfrey le Lyff & Juliana his wife, and John de Lucy & Katherine his wife, against Oliver de Champo Arnulphi & Egelina his wife, to lands in Bikebyry and Sutton Vautort, which had belonged to Hugonis de Vautorot, who had assigned them to the said Egelina, Beatrice, Cecilia, Juliana, Katherine, and Elizabeth wife of petitioner Richard de Trevynor.

[Note: I would appreciate another set of eyes to confirm this reading, as I am out of practice.]

The implications of this are rather striking.

1. This seems to be the same Bikeberry lawsuit to which Westcote refers, confirming my suspicion that Westcote's Tremenet is this document's Trevynor,

2. If I am reading it right, the non-participation of Elizabeth tells me that Richard is her widower. That means that, by definition, Elizabeth could not have been widow of Richard Trevynor/Tremenet.

3. In turn, this means that the Elizabeth married to Richard de Champernoun at the time of his death and subsequently to Richard de Wylughby was not Elizabeth Vautort.

4. Even if I am reading it wrong and Elizabeth was not dead at this time, and hence she could have later been the wife of Richard de Champernoun and Richard de Wylughby, the fact that Richard de Trevynor was still living at this time means that Elizabeth Vautort was not the mother of Thomas de Champernoun. This in spite of the fact that Thomas de Champernoun ended up in possession of Vautort lands. It is possible that there was another daughter who was Thomas' mother, but one might have expected her to be involved in this suit; otherwise, it would seem that either Richard de Champernoun and his wife, the former Lucy (le Bret) Vautort, or else Oliver and Egelina transferred some family land to Thomas by grant or adjusted reversion.

At the start of this thread, Mr. Richardson intimated that the discovery of a new document can completely change our understanding of things. I think here we have another example. It is also an example why it is worth tracking down the 'other husband' and similar peripheral relationships, because things may not be as they have been portrayed.

taf
Matt A
2018-10-22 05:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Matt A
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/KB27no295/bKB27no295dorses/IMG_0049.htm
Hope this helps,
It does, indeed. But what a mess it makes,
It is a claim of Richard de Trevynor, Simon de Bradeneye & Beatrice his wife,
John de Trenaga & Cecilia his wife, Godfrey le Lyff & Juliana his wife, and John de Lucy & Katherine his wife, against Oliver de Champo Arnulphi & Egelina his wife, to lands in Bikebyry and Sutton Vautort, which had belonged to Hugonis de Vautorot, who had assigned them to the said Egelina, Beatrice, Cecilia, Juliana, Katherine, and Elizabeth wife of petitioner Richard de Trevynor.
[Note: I would appreciate another set of eyes to confirm this reading, as I am out of practice.]
The implications of this are rather striking.
1. This seems to be the same Bikeberry lawsuit to which Westcote refers, confirming my suspicion that Westcote's Tremenet is this document's Trevynor,
2. If I am reading it right, the non-participation of Elizabeth tells me that Richard is her widower. That means that, by definition, Elizabeth could not have been widow of Richard Trevynor/Tremenet.
3. In turn, this means that the Elizabeth married to Richard de Champernoun at the time of his death and subsequently to Richard de Wylughby was not Elizabeth Vautort.
4. Even if I am reading it wrong and Elizabeth was not dead at this time, and hence she could have later been the wife of Richard de Champernoun and Richard de Wylughby, the fact that Richard de Trevynor was still living at this time means that Elizabeth Vautort was not the mother of Thomas de Champernoun. This in spite of the fact that Thomas de Champernoun ended up in possession of Vautort lands. It is possible that there was another daughter who was Thomas' mother, but one might have expected her to be involved in this suit; otherwise, it would seem that either Richard de Champernoun and his wife, the former Lucy (le Bret) Vautort, or else Oliver and Egelina transferred some family land to Thomas by grant or adjusted reversion.
At the start of this thread, Mr. Richardson intimated that the discovery of a new document can completely change our understanding of things. I think here we have another example. It is also an example why it is worth tracking down the 'other husband' and similar peripheral relationships, because things may not be as they have been portrayed.
taf
A few more miscellaneous notes:

On Nov. 5, 1330, Simon de Bradeny received a license of alienation of land to a chaplain in exchange for prayers for the soul of himself, his wife Beatrice, Master Anthony de Bradeny, Joachim de Bradeny and Joan his wife (Cal. Pat. EIII v2, 17).

Collinson appears to have read the foundation charter for that same chantry, which only mentions prayers for the souls of himself and his father Joachim de Bradeny. He cites as his source "Except. e Regist. Wellen. Inq. ad Damn. necnon ap. Cart. Antiq." If the first source is as I suspected the Register of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, I could find no reference to this document in the published register (Hist. & Ant. Som., v3, 93). Perhaps the second source Collinson cited is identical to C 143/210/16? (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7572923)

The only reference I can find to the effigy of Simon de Bradeny besides Collinson, providing any more detail, including a supposed death date of 1375 (perhaps from the inscription?) is the Historic England listing, citing a printed guide to the Church of St. Michael and All Angels, Bawdrip (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1060158). Does anyone know if there are any church notes, perhaps visitation-era, available for Somerset that can be consulted?

Apparently as early as 1332, the right to present a clerk to the parish church of Bawdrip had already passed to one John de Durreburgh by reason of the dower of his wife Joan (Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, 141), but perhaps this right and the right to establish a chantry are distinct and no connection can be inferred.

Hope this helps,

-Matt Ahlgren
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-22 06:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The lawsuit in question includes a record of an assize dated 1331, which assize was held to determine if Oliver de Champernoun and Egeline his wife unjustly disseised Richard de Trenynor [?Trevynor/?Trevyvor], Simon de Bradeneye & Beatrice his wife, John de Trevaga & Cecily his wife, Godfrey le Lyff & Juliana his wife, and John de Lucy & Katherine his wife regarding a tenement in Bigbury and Sutton Vautort, Devon. The subsequent testimony mentions Hugh de Vautort, father of the said Egeline, Beatrice, Cecily, Juliana, Katherine, and Elizabeth, former [quondam] wife of the said Richard de Trenynor [Trevynor]; and Joan, widow of John de Vautort father of the said Hugh de Vautort.

Elizabeth de Vautort, daughter of Hugh, was clearly deceased. She is called the late [quondam] wife of Richard de Trenynor/Trevynor/Trevyvor. His name is clearly not Tremenet, as stated by Westcote. Richard was included in the lawsuit presumably because he held an interest in his late wife's inherited lands by courtesy of England. This would suggest that Elizabeth and Richard had lawful issue during their marriage (not necessarily living in 1331).

The 1331 assize appears to disprove the alleged marriage of Elizabeth de Vautort and Richard de Champernoun.

Although it is tight, the chronology could possibly permit the mother of Thomas Champernoun to be Richard de Champernoun's newly discovered wife, Lucy le Bret (living 1317), who was the widow of Hugh de Vautort (died 1310). Lucy le Bret was the mother of Eizabeth de Vautort, wife of Richard de Trenynor/Trevynor/Trevyvor. If Lucy le Bret was say 35 years old when Richard de Champernoun married her, it would allow her to be the mother of Thomas de Champernoun who was presumably born no later than c.1322/5, and possibly earlier. My files indicate that Thomas presented to Modbury Priory in 1345, and was Sheriff of Devon in 1362.

This solution would remove the need for a third Richard de Champernoun, and bring us back to a two Richard de Champernoun solution.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2018-10-22 07:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
This solution would remove the need for a third Richard de Champernoun,
and bring us back to a two Richard de Champernoun solution.
I was thinking the same. It is sort of in between - having three Richards was a bit tight for comfort, having two is a bit longer than average:

* Richard (I), d. by 1299, m. by 1281, Joan de Cornwall b. say 1262 (m.2 Peter Fisshacre and still living 1315)

*** Richard (II), b. say 1285, d. 1338, m.1 ca 1315 Lucy le Bret, m.2 Elizabeth, his widow (who remarried to Richard De Wylughby and still living in 1363)

***** Thomas b. say 1317, d. aft. 1384, m. Eleanor Rohaut

******* Richard (V), b. 1344 m. Alice Astley, m.2 Katherine Daubney

***** Richard (III) (son of Richard (II) & Elizabeth)


***** Egelina de Vautort (dau of Lucy by Hugh, step-daughter of Richard (II)) m. Oliver de Champernoun
******* Richard (IV) b. say 1330


Having already had Egelina, Beatrix, Cecilia, Juliana, Katherine, Elizabeth, and John by Hugh de Vautort, Lucy would definitely have been getting up there, and that makes us want to move Thomas' birth as early as possible, but he was also still living in 1384.


I will have to go back over the old material. I said in the last post that Thomas received Vautort land, but on second thought, I am not sure if this was truly the case - he may have received le Bret land, assumed to have entered the Champernoun family via Vautort but perhaps did so directly.

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-22 08:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is the weblink to the original 1331 assize record involving the Vautort heirs:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1407/bJUST1no1407dorses/IMG_0425.htm

One slight difference is that Elizabeth de Vautort's husband is named here as Richard Trevynor, not Richard de Trevynor. No "de."

Also the testimony included in 1334 is not included in the original record.

Question: Is it possible that Richard Trevynor/de Trevynor is the same person as Richard de Champernoun? I ask because Pole seems quite definite that Richard de Champernoun married Elizabeth de Vautort.

DR
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-22 17:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Below appears to be another earlier lawsuit involving the Vautort heirs.

In 1329 Juliana wife of Godfrey de Lyf appointed Godfrey de Lyf in her place versus Oliver de Chambernon and Edith [sic] his wife in a plea of novel disseisin in Devon.

Reference: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1401, image 6395f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1401/aJUST1no1401fronts/IMG_6395.htm).

Note: Juliana, wife of Godfrey le Lyf, and Egeline, wife of Oliver de Champernoun [here called Edith], were daughters and co-heirs of Hugh de Vautort and his wife, Lucy le Bret.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

Here are some additional lawsuits for Richard de Champernoun and one for Richard de Trevenor.

1. In Trinity and Michaelmas terms 1328 Richard de Champernoun sued Matthew de Bodrygan and Henry de Anesteys in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a reasonable account of the time they were his bailiffs in North Tawton, Devon.

References:

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 332f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/aCP40no274fronts/IMG_0332.htm).

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/275, image 674f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no275/aCP40no275fronts/IMG_0674.htm).

Note: Richard de Champernoun's lawsuit above was probably in right of his wife, Lucy le Bret's dower rights at North Tawton, Devon. North Tawton was a Vautort family manor.

2. In Michaelmas 1328 Richard de Champernoun sued Oliver de Champernoun and Egeline his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding an agreement regarding the [6th] part of manor of Buklond Dyneham and one carucate of land in Morteho [Mortehoe], Devon.

Reference:

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/275, image 462f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no275/aCP40no275fronts/IMG_0462.htm).

Note: Egeline, wife of Oliver de Champernoun, was one of the daughters and co-heirs of Hugh de Vautort and his wife, Lucy le Bret.

3. In Michaelmas 1328 Richard de Champernoun gave 10s. to have license of concord with John de Trevaga and Cecily his wife in a plea of convent regarding the 6th part of the manor of Bokland Dyngham [Buckland Dinham] and one carucate of land in Morteho [Mortehoe], Devon.

Reference:

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/275, image 395f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no275/aCP40no275fronts/IMG_0395.htm).

Note: Cecily, wife of John de Trevaga, was one of the daughters and co-heirs of Hugh de Vautort and his wife, Lucy le Bret.

4. In Easter and Michaelmas terms 1328 Richard de Trevenor sued Walter de Churlebrok of Lost Wythiel, Cornwall in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a toft in Lost Wythiel, Cornwall.

References:

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/273, image 49d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no273/bCP40no273dorses/IMG_0049.htm).

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/275, image 65d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no275/bCP40no275dorses/IMG_0065.htm).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-22 19:30:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here are two more Champernoun-Vautort related lawsuit:

In 1327-28 Richard de Chabernon [sic] sued Oliver de Chambernon and Egline his wife and others in Devon regarding a writ for a plea of morte d'ancestor.

Reference:
Justices Itinerant: JUST1, no. 1397, Image 5243d, Year: 1327-28 (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.e1du/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1397/bJUST1no1397dorses/IMG_5243.htm)


In 1329-30 Richard de Trevynor and others arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Oliver de Campo Arnulphi [Champernoun] and Egeline his wife regarding a tenement in Bigbury and Sutton Vautourt, Devon.

Reference:
Justices Itinerant: JUST1, no. 1401, Image 6403f, Year: 1329-30 (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1401/aJUST1no1401fronts/IMG_6403.htm

+ + + + + + + +
Source: Audrey M. Erskine, The Devonshire Lay Subsidy of 1332 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc. n.s. 14) (1969).

pg. 12 Brixton: Richard Chambernon 3s.

pg. 15 Compton & Egg Buckland: Richard de Chambernon 40d.

pg. 65 Highampton: Richard de Chambernoun 5s.

pg. 81 Bokland Dynham [North Buckland] Richard de Chambernoun 3s.

pg. 90 Talaton: Richard Chambernon 3s.

pg. 100 Modbury: Richard Chambernoun 4s.

+ + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Stapledon Reg. of Walter de Stapeldon, Bishop of Exeter (1892):

pg. 221
Lucy, relict of Hugh de Valletort, presented James de Mertone, priest, to the church of Highampton, Devon 25 Dec. 1312.

pg. 526
On 30 Nov. 1319 David de Servyngtone received first tonsure at Highampton, Devon in the chamber of the manor of Sir Richard de Champernoun.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2018-10-22 22:06:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lucy, relict of Hugh de Valletort, presented James de Mertone, priest, to the church of Highampton, Devon 25 Dec. 1312.
Mentioned in this thread already, on 14 October.
Post by c***@gmail.com
On 30 Nov. 1319 David de Servyngtone received first tonsure at Highampton, Devon in the chamber of the manor of Sir Richard de Champernoun.
and on 15 October.

Some things I haven't seen here before:

1331: Richard de Trevenor purchased by fine (CornFF) from Roger, son of Richard de Londonia, lands and rights in Appeldoreford, Corn.

1332: Richard de Trevenor issued commission of oyer & terminer (CPR)

1334: (same)



I can't find a snippet of this online, but Hathi is reporting mention of Richard de Trevenor in Lists & Indexes, vol 32, pt. 1, p. 71.

taf
taf
2018-10-23 02:52:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I suspect that the primary reason that Richard de Champernoun was seen as marrying a daughter of Hugh de Vautort and Lucy le Bret is the following record, from Feudal Aids.

1303
"Hugo de Valletorta tenet in Bocland DYNEHAM quartam partem j. f."


[there is no record for 1316]


1346
"De Thoma Chambernoun pro quarta parte un. f. m. in Bokelond Deneham, tenta de eodem honore i. c. quam Hugo de Valletorta et Lucia uxor ejus quondam tenuerunt"


Also of note:

1316:
Hundredum de Northtauton
Et est dominus ejusdem dominus Hugo de Cortenay, ratione minoris etatis heredum Hugonis de Valletorta, . . .


taf
Matt A
2018-10-24 04:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
I suspect that the primary reason that Richard de Champernoun was seen as marrying a daughter of Hugh de Vautort and Lucy le Bret is the following record, from Feudal Aids.
1303
"Hugo de Valletorta tenet in Bocland DYNEHAM quartam partem j. f."
[there is no record for 1316]
1346
"De Thoma Chambernoun pro quarta parte un. f. m. in Bokelond Deneham, tenta de eodem honore i. c. quam Hugo de Valletorta et Lucia uxor ejus quondam tenuerunt"
Hundredum de Northtauton
Et est dominus ejusdem dominus Hugo de Cortenay, ratione minoris etatis heredum Hugonis de Valletorta, . . .
taf
Here's another entry from Feudal Aids, also from 1346:

"De Johanne de Trevaga pro un. parvo f. in (scil. in Trevaga), quod Ricardus pater suus prius tenuit. xl s."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t06w9ch85;view=1up;seq=252
Matt A
2018-10-24 04:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lucy, relict of Hugh de Valletort, presented James de Mertone, priest, to the church of Highampton, Devon 25 Dec. 1312.
Mentioned in this thread already, on 14 October.
Post by c***@gmail.com
On 30 Nov. 1319 David de Servyngtone received first tonsure at Highampton, Devon in the chamber of the manor of Sir Richard de Champernoun.
and on 15 October.
1331: Richard de Trevenor purchased by fine (CornFF) from Roger, son of Richard de Londonia, lands and rights in Appeldoreford, Corn.
1332: Richard de Trevenor issued commission of oyer & terminer (CPR)
1334: (same)
I can't find a snippet of this online, but Hathi is reporting mention of Richard de Trevenor in Lists & Indexes, vol 32, pt. 1, p. 71.
taf
I couldn't figure out how to translate this index entry into its original entry on the Common Pleas Rolls on AALT, despite my best efforts, but it should be able to be traced.

https://archive.org/details/indexofplacitade01newy/page/70
taf
2018-10-24 06:18:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
I couldn't figure out how to translate this index entry into its original
entry on the Common Pleas Rolls on AALT, despite my best efforts, but it
should be able to be traced.
https://archive.org/details/indexofplacitade01newy/page/70
Thanks for finding it. It gives two references. The first is to E 2 25d, which converts as Easter term, 2 Edward III (CP 40/273) fol. 25 dorses

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no273/bCP40no273dorses/IMG_0049.htm

then M 2 33d should be Michaelmas of 2 Edw III (CP 40/275) fol. 33 dorses

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no275/bCP40no275dorses/IMG_0066.htm

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-23 10:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 11:11:54 AM UTC-6, ***@gmail.com wrote:
< Below appears to be another earlier lawsuit involving the Vautort heirs.
<
< In 1329 Juliana wife of Godfrey de Lyf appointed Godfrey de Lyf in her place < versus Oliver de Chambernon and Edith [sic] his wife in a plea of novel
< disseisin in Devon.
<
< Reference: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1401, image 6395f (available at
< http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1401/aJUST1no1401fronts/IMG_6395.htm).
<
< Note: Juliana, wife of Godfrey le Lyf, and Egeline, wife of Oliver de
< Champernoun [here called Edith], were daughters and co-heirs of Hugh de
< Vautort and his wife, Lucy le Bret.

The above lawsuit appears to have been started in 1325, as indicated by the following record:

In 1325 Juliana wife of Godfrey le Lyf sued Oliver de Champernoun and Egeline his wife, William Coleprest, Robert Cok, and many others [named] in a plea of novel disseisin in Devon.

The entire entry for this record has been scratched out.

Reference: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/189, image 3312f, Year: 1325 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no189/aJUST1no189fronts/IMG_3312.htm).

A second entry for this same suit appears a few images later, which entry has not been scratched out.

Reference: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/189, image 3315f, Year: 1325 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no189/aJUST1no189fronts/IMG_3315.htm).

In the second entry, Godfrey le Lyf is the plaintiff and his wife Juliana's name has been scratched out.

In a note that follows, the following individuals are named: Juliana wife of the said Godfrey, Simon de Bradeneye and Beatrice his wife, John de Trevaga and Cecily his wife, John de Luci and Katherine his wife, and Richard Trevanor who I believe are called participants. Perhaps a better rendering would be interested parties.

+ + + + + + + + +

It appears that Hugh de Vautort (died 1310), of North Tawton and Buckland Dinham, Devon and his wife, Lucy le Bret (living 1317), had six surviving daughters and co-heirs, all of whom were married by 1325 (as shown by the lawsuit above). As such, it seems a slim chance that Lucy le Bret had any children by her 2nd marriage in or after 1312 to Richard de Champernoun, although it is still a possibility. If Richard de Champernoun's mother, Joan of Cornwall, was born c.1260 (as is thought to be the case), then presumably Richard could have been born as early as say c.1377. This would make Richard de Champernoun approximately 35 years old in 1312. Presumably Lucy le Bret was presumably about the same age.

Previously there was evidence that Richard de Champernoun's son and heir, Thomas de Champernoun, had the Vautort manor of Buckland Dinham [North Buckland], Devon. My research shows that Richard de Champernoun acquired the interests of at least two of the Vautourt co-heirs in this manor and there is no reason to suppose that he didn't acquire the interest of the other four co-heirs by 1332 (date of the Devon lay subsidy). As such, it seems clear that Thomas de Champernoun did not inherit his interest in this property, as previously was thought to be the case, but rather by his father's acquisition of this manor from the six Vautort co-heirs. The evidence is now clear that Thomas de Champernoun's mother was not Elizabeth de Vautort, daughter of Hugh de Vautourt and Lucy le Bret. Rather Elizabeth de Vautort married Richard de Trevanor and died in or before 1325. Thomas de Champernoun's father, Richard de Champernoun, was, however, married to Elizabeth de Vautort's widowed mother, Lucy le Bret.

If it can be shown that Thomas de Champernoun inherited Bret family property, then I think the case can be made that Lucy le Bret (who is thought to have been an heiress) was his mother. At present, however, I don't know what lands Lucy le Bret's father, Adam le Bret, held.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-23 11:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hugh de Valletort was still living about 25 Feb. 1309/10.

Source: Cal. of the Reg. of John de Drokensford, Bishop of Bath & Wells (A.D. 1309-1329) (Somerset Rec. Soc.) (1887): 30.

"Bishop admits William de Valletort to Rectory of Charlynch [Somerset], and gives him a year's leave [to study]. Patron, Hugh de Valletort. Bp. to Archdeacon of Taunton to induct. W. de V. is admitted, not instituted. London, Feb. 25 [1309/10]." END OF QUOTE.

The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3f-zvO13ga0C&pg=PA30

Richard de Champernoun subsequently presented to the same church:

"William de Crauthorn inst. Rectory of Charlynch. Patron, Ric. de Chambernon (illa vice). Froxfield, July 9 [1318]." END OF QUOTE.

Source: Cal. of the Reg. of John de Drokensford, Bishop of Bath & Wells (A.D. 1309-1329) (Somerset Rec. Soc.) (1887): 14.

The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3f-zvO13ga0C&pg=PA14

The above two presentations to Charlich, Somerset are also included in Weaver, Somerset Incumbents (1889): 328, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034571185;view=1up;seq=340

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2018-10-23 17:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
It appears that Hugh de Vautort (died 1310), of North Tawton
and Buckland Dinham, Devon and his wife, Lucy le Bret (living
1317), had six surviving daughters and co-heirs, all of whom
were married by 1325 (as shown by the lawsuit above). As such,
it seems a slim chance that Lucy le Bret had any children by
her 2nd marriage in or after 1312 to Richard de Champernoun,
although it is still a possibility.
You are leaving out an important step. Hugh and Lucy's heir was their son John de Vautort. He then left 6 sisters and co-heiresses. This would have cut out Thomas, but there might have been some form of transfer or reversion set up. Even were we to find le Bret land that later ended up in Thomas' hands, there would be a level of uncertainty how he came to possess it.

And yes, as I pointed out yesterday, SEVEN children, then a remarriage, then another child is possible, but at the edge of what one might expect. It would certainly open things up were one to posit an earlier marriage for Richard, son of Sir Richard and Joan, that would have given rise to Thomas.
Post by c***@gmail.com
The evidence is now clear that Thomas de Champernoun's mother
was not Elizabeth de Vautort, daughter of Hugh de Vautourt and
Lucy le Bret. Rather Elizabeth de Vautort married Richard de
Trevanor and died in or before 1325. Thomas de Champernoun's
father, Richard de Champernoun, was, however, married to
Elizabeth de Vautort's widowed mother, Lucy le Bret.
To the first part, yes, that was clear from the first of the documents that I found with Matt's help. As to the second part, probably, but there is still the possibility of short-generation three-Richard scenario in which Lucy could be wife of the second Richard and Thomas son of the third. I likewise favor the two-Richard scenario.
Post by c***@gmail.com
If it can be shown that Thomas de Champernoun inherited Bret
family property, then I think the case can be made that Lucy le
Bret (who is thought to have been an heiress) was his mother.
At present, however, I don't know what lands Lucy le Bret's
father, Adam le Bret, held.
At least briefly he held Currypool and the advowson of Charlynch. Unfortunately the Somerset fine reporting this seems incomplete - fines typically involve some sort of action by both parties, and this only has an action by Adam. He granted the manor and advowson to Lucy, formerly wife of Hugh de Valletort, for life, with remainder to John, son of Hugh de Valletort and the heirs of his body, in default then to his sister Beatrice and the heirs of her body, in default then to her sister Juliana and the heirs of her body, and finally the right heirs of Juliana. Normally such a settling of reversion would begin with 'Lucy acknowledged the manor and advowson to belong to Adam by her gift', and only then would it explain how Adam gave it back to Lucy. We know that Lucy (or at least Hugh) was holding the advowson earlier, so such a gift is necessary to explain how Hugh would have it to give.

taf
taf
2018-10-24 01:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by c***@gmail.com
If it can be shown that Thomas de Champernoun inherited Bret
family property, then I think the case can be made that Lucy le
Bret (who is thought to have been an heiress) was his mother.
At present, however, I don't know what lands Lucy le Bret's
father, Adam le Bret, held.
At least briefly he held Currypool and the advowson of Charlynch.
Not much luck so far in identifying anything else Adam le Bret held. I am finding scattered references to an Adam le Bret, but usually in the context of being among a group of commissioners and the like, or among a group of defendants. There was an Adam who had sons William and Adam that were contemporaries of Lucy. I am beginning to wonder if maybe Lucy wasn't an heiress in the traditional sense, but a daughter of this elder Adam, simply remembered as a heiress because he had given her a sizable marriage settlement (Huuuuuge tracts of land).

I do find one mention that is clearly the right Adam. In 25 Edward I, there is a plea against a long list of people, but the first two names are Adam le Bret and Hugonem de Wantort (i.e. Vautort).

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?q1=%22adam%20le%20bret%22;id=iau.31858002396244;view=1up;seq=154;start=1;sz=10;page=search;num=118

taf
taf
2018-10-22 21:37:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1407/bJUST1no1407dorses/IMG_0425.htm
One slight difference is that Elizabeth de Vautort's husband is named
here as Richard Trevynor, not Richard de Trevynor. No "de."
Also John Trevaga, again no 'de' (but you still get 'le Lyff', 'de Lucy', and 'de Campo Arnulphi').
Post by c***@gmail.com
Question: Is it possible that Richard Trevynor/de Trevynor is the
same person as Richard de Champernoun?
Unlikely. Richard de Trevenor and Ralph Gifforde were co-patrons for the institution of Sir John Kaer at Lammoran on 3 July 1349 died. This is after Richard de Champernoun, husband of Elizabeth, died, so unless you want to go down a rabbit-hole of doppelgangers, it doesn't work to make them the same.
Post by c***@gmail.com
I ask because Pole seems quite definite that Richard de Champernoun
married Elizabeth de Vautort.
My guess would be that this comes from a combination of the knowledge that Hugh had a daughter Elizabeth, that Richard had a wife Elizabeth, that some of the le Bret lands ended up held by the Champernouns, and no knowledge of the Champernoun Lucy le Bret marriage, plus some confusion of Richard/Elizabeth with Oliver/Egelina which I find repeatedly.

taf
taf
2018-10-22 21:53:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by c***@gmail.com
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1407/bJUST1no1407dorses/IMG_0425.htm
One slight difference is that Elizabeth de Vautort's husband is named
here as Richard Trevynor, not Richard de Trevynor. No "de."
Also John Trevaga, again no 'de' (but you still get 'le Lyff', 'de Lucy', and 'de Campo Arnulphi').
Post by c***@gmail.com
Question: Is it possible that Richard Trevynor/de Trevynor is the
same person as Richard de Champernoun?
Unlikely. Richard de Trevenor and Ralph Gifforde were co-patrons for the institution of Sir John Kaer at Lammoran on 3 July 1349 died. This is after Richard de Champernoun, husband of Elizabeth, died, so unless you want to go down a rabbit-hole of doppelgangers, it doesn't work to make them the same.
I see Lamoran was still held by the Trevenors in the 16th century when another Richard Trevenor left a son who dsp and two daughters and eventual heiresses.

taf
taf
2018-10-22 21:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Unlikely. Richard de Trevenor and Ralph Gifforde were co-patrons for
the institution of Sir John Kaer at Lammoran on 3 July 1349 died.
Not sure how that extra word got in there. Shoudl read simply:

Unlikely. Richard de Trevenor and Ralph Gifforde were co-patrons for the institution of Sir John Kaer at Lammoran on 3 July 1349.

taf
Matt A
2018-10-24 05:11:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by c***@gmail.com
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1407/bJUST1no1407dorses/IMG_0425.htm
One slight difference is that Elizabeth de Vautort's husband is named
here as Richard Trevynor, not Richard de Trevynor. No "de."
Also John Trevaga, again no 'de' (but you still get 'le Lyff', 'de Lucy', and 'de Campo Arnulphi').
Post by c***@gmail.com
Question: Is it possible that Richard Trevynor/de Trevynor is the
same person as Richard de Champernoun?
Unlikely. Richard de Trevenor and Ralph Gifforde were co-patrons for the institution of Sir John Kaer at Lammoran on 3 July 1349 died. This is after Richard de Champernoun, husband of Elizabeth, died, so unless you want to go down a rabbit-hole of doppelgangers, it doesn't work to make them the same.
Post by c***@gmail.com
I ask because Pole seems quite definite that Richard de Champernoun
married Elizabeth de Vautort.
My guess would be that this comes from a combination of the knowledge that Hugh had a daughter Elizabeth, that Richard had a wife Elizabeth, that some of the le Bret lands ended up held by the Champernouns, and no knowledge of the Champernoun Lucy le Bret marriage, plus some confusion of Richard/Elizabeth with Oliver/Egelina which I find repeatedly.
taf
One wonders if Trevaga is interchangeable with Treuger. At the proof of age of William Botreaux, Sept. 18, 1359, there is a "John de Treuger, aged 56 years and more"

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol10/pp427-439

There are several records on AALT for a Treuger family, including an Oyer et Terminer from Trinity 1351 involving "Thomas Treuger, Robert Treuger, Walter Treuger, Robert son of Thomas Treuger... John son of Thomas Treuger" and the principal defendant, one Ralph le Bret.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no364/aKB27no364fronts/IMG_6524.htm
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no364/bKB27no364dorses/IMG_6766.htm
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no365/aKB27no365fronts/IMG_6986.htm
taf
2018-10-24 07:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
One wonders if Trevaga is interchangeable with Treuger. At the
proof of age of William Botreaux, Sept. 18, 1359, there is a
"John de Treuger, aged 56 years and more"
I was skeptical of this, but then I followed back your Feudal Aids reference. You had provided that John held Trevaga, which Richard had held. In 1303, we find Richard:

De Ricardo Trevag pro un. f. Mortonie ibidem (scil. in Trevag, in the margin
" Botreaus '')

and in 1306:

Ricardus Trevaga tenet un. f. in Trevaga de Willelmo de Botreaus.


The Trevaga family held their land of the Botreaux family, so it might make sense that John de Trevaga would testify regarding the proof of age of the latest William de Botreaux. If this is the case it gives us strong chronology for at least this one Vautort son-in-law.

Feudal Aids gives other forms of the toponym, Treveeg and Trevag. Following on, by 1428 this seems to have been split up.

Robertus Haye, Thomas Uppeton, Johannes Talkarn, Johannes Bante et
Johannes Warlegan simul cum aliis tenent separatim inter se tres partes un.
f. m. in Trevage, quod Ricardus Trevage quondam tenuit, ita quod nullus
eorum tenet quartam partem predicti feodi, et sic subsidium inde, quia minus
quarta parte -------- [niehil].

Willelmus Hay tenet quartam partem un. f. ni. in Trevage, quod idem
Ricardus Trevage quondam tenuit. Inde subsidium - - . xx. d.



I will add that it had been assumed that Cecilia died s.p., because there was no evidence of her share being represented. However, given that John de Trevaga seems to have transferred her 1/6 of Bokelund to the Richard de Champernoun, it is not a given that whatever other rights she might have inherited weren't likewise dispersed - later Trevagas might be her issue.

taf
Matt A
2018-10-25 03:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Matt A
One wonders if Trevaga is interchangeable with Treuger. At the
proof of age of William Botreaux, Sept. 18, 1359, there is a
"John de Treuger, aged 56 years and more"
De Ricardo Trevag pro un. f. Mortonie ibidem (scil. in Trevag, in the margin
" Botreaus '')
Ricardus Trevaga tenet un. f. in Trevaga de Willelmo de Botreaus.
The Trevaga family held their land of the Botreaux family, so it might make sense that John de Trevaga would testify regarding the proof of age of the latest William de Botreaux. If this is the case it gives us strong chronology for at least this one Vautort son-in-law.
Feudal Aids gives other forms of the toponym, Treveeg and Trevag. Following on, by 1428 this seems to have been split up.
Robertus Haye, Thomas Uppeton, Johannes Talkarn, Johannes Bante et
Johannes Warlegan simul cum aliis tenent separatim inter se tres partes un.
f. m. in Trevage, quod Ricardus Trevage quondam tenuit, ita quod nullus
eorum tenet quartam partem predicti feodi, et sic subsidium inde, quia minus
quarta parte -------- [niehil].
Willelmus Hay tenet quartam partem un. f. ni. in Trevage, quod idem
Ricardus Trevage quondam tenuit. Inde subsidium - - . xx. d.
I will add that it had been assumed that Cecilia died s.p., because there was no evidence of her share being represented. However, given that John de Trevaga seems to have transferred her 1/6 of Bokelund to the Richard de Champernoun, it is not a given that whatever other rights she might have inherited weren't likewise dispersed - later Trevagas might be her issue.
taf
This Bret family is of Sandford-Bret, with a clear connection to the earlier de Brito family, according to Collinson's Somerset, v.3, 543-4. The Simon and Adam le Bret of this Sandford Bret family are later found in a series of deeds (see N&Q, Somerset & Dorset v.6, p.159-162). These transactions involved, and the records were collected by, the Ralegh family (recall you mentioned in 1361 Ida de Ralegh held Bridford in dower before it later ended up in the possession of the Champernowns, and the same Henry de Ralegh was involved in the 1292 legal action involving Peter de Fisshacre and Andrew de Treylurk). A Ralph de Ralegh and Ralph de Furneaux/Furneys, mentioned in the deeds, were involved in a dispute with Simon and Adam le Bret referenced in CPR E2, 1313-17, p.414. Also appearing several times is John de Durreburgh, who as I mentioned before held the right to present to parish church of Bawdrip (where Simon de Bradeny was buried) by reason of the dower of his wife Joan.

As for the surname de Travaga and its possible variants, it seems to me at least as likely if not more so that de Travaga represents the family of Treage or Treyage (though these equivalencies are perhaps not mutually exclusive). The Treage family, the HOP Bio of Robert Treage tells me, held the manor of Treago in Crantock, Cornwall, since the time of William Treage under Edward I, according to a lawsuit cited therein that I hope can be traced on AALT (the reference appears to be JUST 1/1540 m. 115d). This suit appears to be related to one summarized in Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls, p.244, with the reference De Banco, Easter 7 Henry IV, m. 108. According to Williams, Ancient Westcountry families v.1 p.107-8, the Cranstock family includes variant spellings Treiago, Trejagu, and Trejago.
taf
2018-10-25 14:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
This Bret family is of Sandford-Bret, with a clear connection to
the earlier de Brito family, according to Collinson's Somerset,
v.3, 543-4.
So you are identifying the Adam in question with the Adam, son of William and brother of Simon that Collinson dates to 28 Edward I and names as marrying Alice de Roisley? That is the Adam I had in mind (the father of the William son of Adam who settled a reversion on his brother Adam). This would mean that Lucy was not an heiress in the traditional sense.
Post by Matt A
As for the surname de Travaga and its possible variants, it seems
to me at least as likely if not more so that de Travaga represents
the family of Treage or Treyage (though these equivalencies are
perhaps not mutually exclusive). The Treage family, the HOP Bio
of Robert Treage tells me, held the manor of Treago in Crantock,
Cornwall, since the time of William Treage under Edward I,
The problem with this is that sources put these two toponyms at different places. The editors of the Episcopal Register of Bishop Edmund Stafford places Trevaga as 'Trevage in Alternon' (Altarnun). I can't vouch for either of these assignments, but if the names are truly the same (as opposed to simply often-confused) they need to represent the same manor. To add to the confusion, Patronymica Cornu-Britannica: Or, The Etymology of Cornish Surnames, a 19th century publication, identifies Trevaga as a Domesday Book variant of Trevalga, which is yet a different place.

taf
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-26 09:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Matt A
This Bret family is of Sandford-Bret, with a clear connection to
the earlier de Brito family, according to Collinson's Somerset,
v.3, 543-4.
So you are identifying the Adam in question with the Adam, son of William and brother of Simon that Collinson dates to 28 Edward I and names as marrying Alice de Roisley? That is the Adam I had in mind (the father of the William son of Adam who settled a reversion on his brother Adam). This would mean that Lucy was not an heiress in the traditional sense.
Would this Adam not be too recent. If Collinsons' dating is correct i.e. marrying around 1300, then he would surely be more Lucys' contemporary rather than her fathers age unless this was a second and considerably later marriage. If Hugh Valletort was dead by 1310 then he wouldn't have had a wife born after a 1300 marriage.

Guy Vincent
taf
2018-10-26 15:55:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by taf
So you are identifying the Adam in question with the Adam, son of
William and brother of Simon that Collinson dates to 28 Edward I
and names as marrying Alice de Roisley? That is the Adam I had in
mind (the father of the William son of Adam who settled a reversion
on his brother Adam). This would mean that Lucy was not an heiress
in the traditional sense.
Would this Adam not be too recent. If Collinsons' dating is correct
i.e. marrying around 1300, then he would surely be more Lucys'
contemporary rather than her fathers age unless this was a second and
considerably later marriage. If Hugh Valletort was dead by 1310 then
he wouldn't have had a wife born after a 1300 marriage.
Guy, thanks for weighing in as this is worth commenting on since I also read it that way initially. I actually had a much longer post in the works before I sent the one you saw, reaching much the same conclusion as you, but then decided that I was perhaps misinterpreting Collinson's intent.

What Collinson says is:
"Of which sons, Adam le Bret, 28 Edw. I. married Alice daughter of John de Roisley, by whom he had issue . . . ."

The immediate understanding I got from this was that he was reporting the marriage of Adam in 28 Edward I. However, as I thought about it, I decided he might just as well have intended it simply as a dating for Adam - i.e. Adam le Bret, fl. 1299/1300, married Alice de Roisley. While your reading, and my initial reading, is the most natural one, particularly without a comma following the date, the 18th century antiquarian prose is not always as straightforward as it appears on the page. Anyhow, without more information, I decided that this phrasing would permit either interpretation, and so the chronology need not be seen as a deal-breaker. Except for the scattered appearances of this Adam that I know absolutely nothing about the chronological framework here that would enable me to decide which interpretation is right.

Were the two the same, it would mean that 'our' Adam, living was (not surprisingly given that his daughter had to be married by about 1300, was dead by 1348, when William, son of Adam, redirected remainders to his brother Adam, then sister Maud wife of John de St. Quintin, who would likewise be siblings of our Lucy.

taf
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-26 17:22:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by taf
So you are identifying the Adam in question with the Adam, son of
William and brother of Simon that Collinson dates to 28 Edward I
and names as marrying Alice de Roisley? That is the Adam I had in
mind (the father of the William son of Adam who settled a reversion
on his brother Adam). This would mean that Lucy was not an heiress
in the traditional sense.
Would this Adam not be too recent. If Collinsons' dating is correct
i.e. marrying around 1300, then he would surely be more Lucys'
contemporary rather than her fathers age unless this was a second and
considerably later marriage. If Hugh Valletort was dead by 1310 then
he wouldn't have had a wife born after a 1300 marriage.
Guy, thanks for weighing in as this is worth commenting on since I also read it that way initially. I actually had a much longer post in the works before I sent the one you saw, reaching much the same conclusion as you, but then decided that I was perhaps misinterpreting Collinson's intent.
"Of which sons, Adam le Bret, 28 Edw. I. married Alice daughter of John de Roisley, by whom he had issue . . . ."
The immediate understanding I got from this was that he was reporting the marriage of Adam in 28 Edward I. However, as I thought about it, I decided he might just as well have intended it simply as a dating for Adam - i.e. Adam le Bret, fl. 1299/1300, married Alice de Roisley. While your reading, and my initial reading, is the most natural one, particularly without a comma following the date, the 18th century antiquarian prose is not always as straightforward as it appears on the page. Anyhow, without more information, I decided that this phrasing would permit either interpretation, and so the chronology need not be seen as a deal-breaker. Except for the scattered appearances of this Adam that I know absolutely nothing about the chronological framework here that would enable me to decide which interpretation is right.
Were the two the same, it would mean that 'our' Adam, living was (not surprisingly given that his daughter had to be married by about 1300, was dead by 1348, when William, son of Adam, redirected remainders to his brother Adam, then sister Maud wife of John de St. Quintin, who would likewise be siblings of our Lucy.
taf
Todd, I think you are right. Bearing in mind the time that Collinson was writing it seems more likely that there is an implied fl. rather than an exact year for a marriage which isn't specufically detailed. I guess the only dates we mostly know anything about for anyone of this period are the death dates due to the inevitable ipm.

Guy
taf
2018-10-26 17:36:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
I guess the only dates we mostly know anything about for anyone of this
period are the death dates due to the inevitable ipm.
If only it were inevitable. An ipm for Adam le Bret would be just the ticket.

taf
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-26 18:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by g***@gmail.com
I guess the only dates we mostly know anything about for anyone of this
period are the death dates due to the inevitable ipm.
If only it were inevitable. An ipm for Adam le Bret would be just the ticket.
taf
Henry III fine rolls shows a William le Bret in Clarendon Somerset in September 1258 giving half a mark for a writ ad terminum. Another entry for William in Somerset but no specific location given in April 1262 for giving half a mark for another writ ad terminum. I'm not sure exactly where Clarendon is/was but there are Clarendon streets in Weston-super-Mare not that far from Sampford-Brett so I presume that this is William the father of Adam.
taf
2018-10-27 15:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Henry III fine rolls shows a William le Bret in Clarendon Somerset in
September 1258 giving half a mark for a writ ad terminum. Another entry
for William in Somerset but no specific location given in April 1262 for
giving half a mark for another writ ad terminum. I'm not sure exactly where
Clarendon is/was but there are Clarendon streets in Weston-super-Mare not
that far from Sampford-Brett so I presume that this is William the father
of Adam.
I am not finding Roisley anywhere, outside of Collinson's account and sources that seem to be based on Collinson's.

Here are two sons of Adam, taken from Google Books snippets.

Members of Parliament for the County of Somerset

" Adam le Brut, miles. Sir Adam le Brut, or le Bret, third son of Adam le Bret of Torweston and Sandford Bret, by Alice, daughter of John Roisley. He was M.P. for Taunton, 1325 ; commissioner of Oyer and Terminer, 1338, 1346, 1347, 1348 ; to enquire into the rights of Barnstaple, 1344 ; of Sewers, 1348. Le Bret o.s.p. between 1348-1359. References : S.R.S. (e.s.), 146; P.R. 12 E. III, (1), 36d ; 18 E. III, (1)' 21d ; 20 E. III, (1), 32d ; 21 E. III, (2), 7d ; 22 E. III, (1), 21d ; (2), 26d."

"John le Bret. John le Bret of Torweston ; eldest son of Adam le Bret, by Alice, daughter of John Roisley, and brother of Adam le Bret, M.P. Mainpernor for the Abbot of Glastonbury, 1326 ; o.s.p., 1337. Arms of Bret : or, a lion rampant between five crosses crosslet fitchy gules. Reference : S.R.S. e.s. 146."

I have to say, with the earliest given record of John, eldest son, being almost a decade after the last known record of Lucy, and a quarter-century after her marriage, it does look like there is a chronological issue.

This has me wondering. Is there explicit testimony that Adam le Bret is father of Lucy? Many of the sources reporting this base it on the fine that is not explicit about the relationship. Could it be that centuries of antiquarians have gotten the wrong end of the stick - could Adam have been her brother rather than her father? Or is this the wrong Adam.

VCH Somerset has the following in its Sampford Brett account:

" By 1280 Sir William Brett held both Sampford and Torweston, and he was still alive in 1294. (fn. 38) His heir was his son Adam, but in 1303 his widow Emme held Sampford and a younger son, Lawrence, was in temporary possession of Torweston. (fn. 39) In 1306 Adam Brett received the grant of a market and fair in his manor of Sampford and of free warren in his demesnes of Torweston. (fn. 40) He was succeeded before 1327 by John Brett, (fn. 41) presumably his son, who held Torweston in 1331. (fn. 42) William Brett, John's brother, held both manors by 1337, but part of Torweston was still held in dower by Adam Brett's widow, Alice, and her second husband Edmund of Sampford. (fn. 43) William and Alice continued in possession until 1359, when they sold the two manors and the dower lands to Hugh Courtenay, earl of Devon, and his wife Margaret. (fn. 44)"

William, son of Adam, fl, 1259, while Lucy was married by about 1300. Not impossible for siblings, but certainly atypical. The fn. 43 given is to an oft-cited fine dated 11 Edward III:

"At York in three weeks of Easter; between William son of Adam le Bret, querent; and William Moyoun, chaplain, and John Moyoun, deforciants; for the manors of Torueston and Sandford Bret and for five mares rent in Wechet. William son of Adam acknowledged the said manors and rent to be the right of John, of which John and William de Moyoun had the manor of Torueston except twenty acres of land and eight acres of pasture by the gift of William son of Adam. For this John and William Moyoun granted the same to William son of Adam and the heirs of his body begotten. And besides William Moyoun and John granted that twenty acres of land and eight acres of pasture in the same manor of Torueston above excepted and the manor of Sandford Bret and the rent in Wechet which Edmund de Saunford and Alice his wife held in dower of Alice the heritage of John, and which ought to revert to John and William shall remain to William son of Adam and his heirs to hold like the manor of Torucston; and if William son of Adam die without heirs of his body all then to remain to Adam le Bret his brother and the heirs of his body ; and if Adam die without such heirs then to Matilda de Seynt Quyntyn sister of William son of Adam and her issue; and if Matilda die without issue then to Edmund son of Edmund de Saunford brother of William son of Adam; and if Edmund die without heirs of his body then to remain to John son of John de Seynt Quynton brother of William son of Adam; and if John son of John shall die without such heirs then to remain to the right heirs of William son of Adam."

There is a second fine executed at the same time:

"At York in three weeks of Easter; between Adam le Bret, querent; and William, son of Adam le Bret, deforciant; for a messuage, a carucate and nine acres of land, six acres of meadow and six acres of moor in Stokegommer and Wyliton which Edmund de Saunford and Alice his wife held in dower of Alice. William granted that the said tenement, his heritage, and which after the decease of Alice ought to revert to him, shall remain to Adam and the heirs of his body to hold of the said William, rendering per annum a rose at Midsummer; and if Adam die without such heirs then to revert to the aforesaid William and his heirs. For this Adam gave William one hundred marcs of silver."

Note in particular that if Edmund son of Edmund was 'brother of said William son of Adam' as in the first fine, then Alice, when she remarried, was still of child-bearing age, which would not have been the case for the mother of Lucy were she the wife of the Adam in question. At a minimum this would necessitate a previous marriage for Adam, with Lucy being half-sister of John, William and Adam, but again, I don't recall seeing actual evidence that she was daughter of Adam at all. The St Quentin marriage is usually portrayed with the 'John, son of John de Seynt Quynton, brother of William son of Adam' as brother-in-law of William, and husband of Matilda de St Quentin, there is another possible interpretation of this as well, that Alice remarried John St Quentin the elder before she married Edmund Sampford, and Matilda is a St Quentin by blood and not marriage, a full sister of John son of John and half-sister of William.

Once again, we may here have a complex pattern of 'established' relationships derived from nothing but guesswork by the antiquarians of earlier centuries based on ambiguous evidence.

taf
taf
2018-10-27 15:59:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
William, son of Adam, fl, 1259, while Lucy was married by about
1300. Not impossible for siblings, but certainly atypical.
Just to add to this, the same fine in which William son of Adam le Bryt is acting in 33 Edward III (1359) is also joined by Edmund de Sampford and Alice his wife. Unless two successive Edmunds de Sampford married two successive Alices, this shows that Alice, widow of Adam le Bret was still living in 1359 - she was not Lucy's mother.

taf
taf
2018-10-27 15:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by taf
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by taf
So you are identifying the Adam in question with the Adam, son of
William and brother of Simon that Collinson dates to 28 Edward I
and names as marrying Alice de Roisley? That is the Adam I had in
mind (the father of the William son of Adam who settled a reversion
on his brother Adam). This would mean that Lucy was not an heiress
in the traditional sense.
Would this Adam not be too recent. If Collinsons' dating is correct
i.e. marrying around 1300, then he would surely be more Lucys'
contemporary rather than her fathers age unless this was a second and
considerably later marriage. If Hugh Valletort was dead by 1310 then
he wouldn't have had a wife born after a 1300 marriage.
Guy, thanks for weighing in as this is worth commenting on since I also read it that way initially. I actually had a much longer post in the works before I sent the one you saw, reaching much the same conclusion as you, but then decided that I was perhaps misinterpreting Collinson's intent.
"Of which sons, Adam le Bret, 28 Edw. I. married Alice daughter of John de Roisley, by whom he had issue . . . ."
The immediate understanding I got from this was that he was reporting the marriage of Adam in 28 Edward I. However, as I thought about it, I decided he might just as well have intended it simply as a dating for Adam - i.e. Adam le Bret, fl. 1299/1300, married Alice de Roisley. While your reading, and my initial reading, is the most natural one, particularly without a comma following the date, the 18th century antiquarian prose is not always as straightforward as it appears on the page. Anyhow, without more information, I decided that this phrasing would permit either interpretation, and so the chronology need not be seen as a deal-breaker. Except for the scattered appearances of this Adam that I know absolutely nothing about the chronological framework here that would enable me to decide which interpretation is right.
Were the two the same, it would mean that 'our' Adam, living was (not surprisingly given that his daughter had to be married by about 1300, was dead by 1348, when William, son of Adam, redirected remainders to his brother Adam, then sister Maud wife of John de St. Quintin, who would likewise be siblings of our Lucy.
taf
Todd, I think you are right. Bearing in mind the time that Collinson was writing it seems more likely that there is an implied fl. rather than an exact year for a marriage which isn't specufically detailed. I guess the only dates we mostly know anything about for anyone of this period are the death dates due to the inevitable ipm.
Guy
For what it's worth, Maxwell-Lyte, writing in 1931 in 'Historical notes on some Somerset manors formerly connected with the honour of Dunster' (again from Google Books snippets), said,

"Although Collinson's account of the Bret family, abridged from Palmer's MS., is not at all satisfactory, there may have been some documentary evidence for his statement that Adam le Bret, who was living in the 28th year of Edward I, married, married Alice daughter of John de Roisley."

So he is likewise taking Collinson's 28 E. I date after Adam's name as fl. and not m. He goes on to say:

"Alice was at any rate the name of his relict, who, in 1327, presented a parson to the church of Sampford.(8) Her dower consisted of the manor and advowson of Sampford, 20 acres of land and 8 of pasture at Torweston, some rent from Watchet, and lands at Stogumber and Williton.(9) She married secondly a neighbor called Edmund de Sampford.(10)"

taf
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-28 01:11:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by taf
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by taf
So you are identifying the Adam in question with the Adam, son of
William and brother of Simon that Collinson dates to 28 Edward I
and names as marrying Alice de Roisley? That is the Adam I had in
mind (the father of the William son of Adam who settled a reversion
on his brother Adam). This would mean that Lucy was not an heiress
in the traditional sense.
Would this Adam not be too recent. If Collinsons' dating is correct
i.e. marrying around 1300, then he would surely be more Lucys'
contemporary rather than her fathers age unless this was a second and
considerably later marriage. If Hugh Valletort was dead by 1310 then
he wouldn't have had a wife born after a 1300 marriage.
Guy, thanks for weighing in as this is worth commenting on since I also read it that way initially. I actually had a much longer post in the works before I sent the one you saw, reaching much the same conclusion as you, but then decided that I was perhaps misinterpreting Collinson's intent.
"Of which sons, Adam le Bret, 28 Edw. I. married Alice daughter of John de Roisley, by whom he had issue . . . ."
The immediate understanding I got from this was that he was reporting the marriage of Adam in 28 Edward I. However, as I thought about it, I decided he might just as well have intended it simply as a dating for Adam - i.e. Adam le Bret, fl. 1299/1300, married Alice de Roisley. While your reading, and my initial reading, is the most natural one, particularly without a comma following the date, the 18th century antiquarian prose is not always as straightforward as it appears on the page. Anyhow, without more information, I decided that this phrasing would permit either interpretation, and so the chronology need not be seen as a deal-breaker. Except for the scattered appearances of this Adam that I know absolutely nothing about the chronological framework here that would enable me to decide which interpretation is right.
Were the two the same, it would mean that 'our' Adam, living was (not surprisingly given that his daughter had to be married by about 1300, was dead by 1348, when William, son of Adam, redirected remainders to his brother Adam, then sister Maud wife of John de St. Quintin, who would likewise be siblings of our Lucy.
taf
Todd, I think you are right. Bearing in mind the time that Collinson was writing it seems more likely that there is an implied fl. rather than an exact year for a marriage which isn't specufically detailed. I guess the only dates we mostly know anything about for anyone of this period are the death dates due to the inevitable ipm.
Guy
For what it's worth, Maxwell-Lyte, writing in 1931 in 'Historical notes on some Somerset manors formerly connected with the honour of Dunster' (again from Google Books snippets), said,
"Although Collinson's account of the Bret family, abridged from Palmer's MS., is not at all satisfactory, there may have been some documentary evidence for his statement that Adam le Bret, who was living in the 28th year of Edward I, married, married Alice daughter of John de Roisley."
"Alice was at any rate the name of his relict, who, in 1327, presented a parson to the church of Sampford.(8) Her dower consisted of the manor and advowson of Sampford, 20 acres of land and 8 of pasture at Torweston, some rent from Watchet, and lands at Stogumber and Williton.(9) She married secondly a neighbor called Edmund de Sampford.(10)"
taf
Maybe Maxwell-Lyte had seen Palmers' manuscripts and the context had been somewhat clearer but if he had, you would think that he would quote directly from them rather than from Collinsons' abbreviated, and what he (Maxwell-Lyte) considered inferior account.
It does appear from what has so far been discussed above that Lucy must be from a generation earlier than previously thought. This could be the wrong branch of Le Bret but this doesn't seem likely given the location with respect to the Chapernownes. It would be nice to know the names of Adams' mother and grandmother - a Thurloe? (i.e. was there a Lucy).

Guy
taf
2018-10-27 15:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
The holding of Ludgvan by Elizabeth appears to reveal an error in its
accepted history. . . . Richard de Champernoun held it 1235/6, Thomas
held it in 1255/6 and Richard's widow and son Thomas held it in 1362.
Before that, in 1303, it appears to have been in the hands of William de
Campo Arnulphi. So, however the Champernouns got it, it wasn't via the
marriage of Alexander, and the Modbury branch seems to have gotten it
through a transfer from Champernoun kin and not via marriage.
As was probably obvious from the context, I incorrectly gave the dates. The timeline runs: William 1303; Richard 1335/6; Thomas 1355/6; Elizabeth 1362.

taf
Mark
2018-10-28 05:23:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 09:17:41 UTC+11, taf wrote:
Ida de Raleigh held Bridford in dower in that year, it having belonged to the Champernouns both before and after. This could, I guess, be an otherwise unknown third wife of the RIchard who married Lucy. Otherwise, either Bridford had been given to a Champernoun younger son who d.s.p., of whom she was widow, or there had been a gift, enfeoffment, etc. for life, and she was widow of the recipient.
taf
Given that the property in question is Bridford I believe that this is probably Ida, widow of James de Oxton, presumably remarried after his death to a de Ralegh (perhaps the Henry de Ralegh of 1292 that Matt mentioned).

Mark
taf
2018-10-28 10:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Ida de Raleigh held Bridford in dower in that year, it having belonged to the Champernouns both before and after. This could, I guess, be an otherwise unknown third wife of the RIchard who married Lucy. Otherwise, either Bridford had been given to a Champernoun younger son who d.s.p., of whom she was widow, or there had been a gift, enfeoffment, etc. for life, and she was widow of the recipient.
Given that the property in question is Bridford I believe that this is
probably Ida, widow of James de Oxton, presumably remarried after his
death to a de Ralegh (perhaps the Henry de Ralegh of 1292 that Matt
mentioned).
I thought about this at the time, but I last have her in 1316 and this is 1361, so she would have had to have been awfully old, unless James married her late in life and she was a good bit younger than him (both of which have been known to happen).

taf
taf
2018-10-31 00:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark
Given that the property in question is Bridford I believe that this is
probably Ida, widow of James de Oxton, presumably remarried after his
death to a de Ralegh (perhaps the Henry de Ralegh of 1292 that Matt
mentioned).
I thought about this at the time, but I last have her in 1316 and this
is 1361, so she would have had to have been awfully old, unless James
married her late in life and she was a good bit younger than him (both
of which have been known to happen).
I remain ambivalent about identifying these Idas as the same woman. There were two Oxton/Champenroun transfers in which Ida might have a claim, and they seem to be giving different results.

Bridford passed to the Champernouns via a fine date April 1315. In it James recognized it to be Richard's by gift. and then Richard enfeoffed it back to James for life. Of note, there is no mention of Ida here. Thus, at James' death, she would have held dower rights to the enfeoffment (a third). This is entirely consistent with the language of the 1362 presentation, which suggests it was Ida's right, it being the third presentation. Previous ones were made in 1349 (Walter atte Wode, perhaps a kinsman of Oliver de Champernoun's son-in-law.) and 1358/9 (Edmund de Champernoun), both made by by Thomas de Champernoun. At a minimum we can trace Ida's widowhood claim to Bridford at least as early as 1349. The next earlier presentation I find is in 1818, of Walter de Lappeslod, by James de Oxton.

Modbury proves more illuminating. It's reversion was granted to Richard de Champernoun by fine, January 1315/6, James de Oxton and Ida granting (with royal licence) the manor and priory advowson to Henry de Lappeslode (clearly connected with Walter), who then granted it back to James and Ida for life, with remainder to Richard de Champernoun. Note that Ida thus would have held a full right to Modbury until she died, yet in 1328/9 Sir Richard de Champernoun, lord of Modbury, exercised his rights as patron of the priory. This at least implies that not only James was dead by this time, but so was Ida.

If we go from Bridford, it does indeed look like Ida de Raleghe of 1362 was a (very old) widow of James de Oxton. However, if we go from Modbury (and barring some intermediate transfer that has escaped our notice), it looks like Ida and James were both dead by 1228/9.

And for what it's worth, an article in Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Assn in 1935 or so claimed that Ida had married John de Ralegh de Beaudeport. It gives a citation but I only have snippet access so I can't see it.

Tooling around, I find that in 1348, Sir John de Ralegh and his wife Ida were involved in a fine regarding Beadeport. In 1349, John de Ralegh of Beaudeport witnessed a trust for Martin de Fyssacre. Pole in his Collectanea is said to report in 1345 a John de Beadeport, likely the same man. His heir is said to have married Thomas de St Aubin. (I find an online biographical sketch of him of dubious quality that marries him to Margaret le Bret, daughter of Richard le Bret, representing another possible interconnection.) I see record of him presenting un 1348/9, and in 1349/50 accompanying Sir Theobald Walter de Mertone to confess and submit to the Bishop at Chudleigh.

There is also a suit between Anastasia Otery and Ida widow of John de Ralegh of Beaudeport dated 1362 on AALT:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no408/aCP40no408fronts/IMG_0181.htm

taf
taf
2018-10-31 18:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
The next earlier presentation I find is in 1818, of Walter de Lappeslod, by
James de Oxton.
Obviously, that should have been 1318.
Post by taf
And for what it's worth, an article in Report and Transactions of the
Devonshire Assn in 1935 or so claimed that Ida had married John de
Ralegh de Beaudeport. It gives a citation but I only have snippet
access so I can't see it.
Looking around a little more, it is not clear that John de Ralegh de Beaudeport was closely related to the Henry de Ralegh who appears earlier in association with Oxton. Pole shows five distinct Ralegh families in Devon (based on arms) and places the Beaudeport and Comb Raleigh line along with that of Street Raleigh and separate from Raleigh of Raleigh, Raleigh of Charnes, Raleigh of Smallbridge and Nettlecomb, and Raleigh of Warkley (though from the arms given, I could see these last two both being differenced from a common ancestral arms). Of course, Vivian has a pedigree that unites most of these, but I give it little credence.

This all makes placing any particular Ralegh into their appropriate family group nearly impossible unless they can be directly linked by geographic designator or connection to a Ralegh of known placement. As such, I can't tell into which family the above Henry fits and it seems unwise to assume a connection.

Pole gives the succession of the Street Raleigh line to which John de Ralegh of Beaudeport belonged as follows: Sir Henry (I) temp H 3, Sir Henry (II), Sir Henry (III), Sir John (I), Sir John (II), daughter and heiress Alice m. Thomas de St Aubin, parents of John de St. Aubin who married the stepdaughter of Joan de Champernoun, daughter of Richard, son of Thomas, son of Richard, apparently nephew of James and Ida. This would seemingly make the John in question John (I), yet again we are spanning quite a stretch, given that a John de Raleigh of Beaudeport was active in the first decade of the 1300s, then we have silence until the 1330s, which suggests to me an earlier John - maybe Pole has left out a generation.

One possible clue to Ida's origin. The John de Ralegh of Beaudeport active in the 1340s and at the time husband of Ida makes a grant to his "sister", Margaret de Uvedale (Devon Archives/SWHT 2065M/T3/18). She is reported to have been sole daughter and heiress of Richard de Hydon and to have married successively Josce de Dinham and Piers de Uvedale (Pole related a grant of Luttokeshele from Sir John de Ralegh of Beaudeport to Lady Margaret de Uvedale and her son Sir John de Dinham, and their subsequent 22 E 3 grant of same to John de Hidon the younger). It is thus possible, assuming this is not all a grand confusion, for Ida to have been sister of either Dinham or Uvedale (or perhaps even Hydon, if Margaret is remembered as sole heiress because Ida d.s.p.).

taf
taf
2018-10-31 19:03:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
One possible clue to Ida's origin. The John de Ralegh of Beaudeport
active in the 1340s and at the time husband of Ida makes a grant to
his "sister", Margaret de Uvedale (Devon Archives/SWHT 2065M/T3/18).
She is reported to have been sole daughter and heiress of Richard de
Hydon and to have married successively Josce de Dinham and Piers de
Uvedale (Pole related a grant of Luttokeshele from Sir John de Ralegh
of Beaudeport to Lady Margaret de Uvedale and her son Sir John de
Dinham, and their subsequent 22 E 3 grant of same to John de Hidon
the younger). It is thus possible, assuming this is not all a grand
confusion, for Ida to have been sister of either Dinham or Uvedale
(or perhaps even Hydon, if Margaret is remembered as sole heiress
because Ida d.s.p.).
I no sooner hit return when this occurred to me. John de Raleigh of Beaudeport occurs multiple times with members of the Dinham family, the two children of Margaret and Josce:

1337, John de Ralegh and Oliver de Dynham, knts are successive witnesses to a charter of John de Granddison, Bishop of Exeter (CPR E3 11:45)

1340, debt, William de Gorges owed to Oliver de Dinham and John de Raleigh of Beaudeport, C 241/121/218

1346, quitclaim, Sir John de Dynham, Sir John de Ralegh de Beaudeport and many others to Thomas Dauid. CRO AR/1/604 (apparently taken from Oliver's Monasticon)

Of course, such a pattern has to be taken with a grain of salt, given how thick Raleghs were on the ground, but this seems to be a definite association. That would make it much more likely for an -in-law connection to occur through the Dinhams rather than the Uvedales, with whom I am unaware of John de Ralegh appearing with (other than Margaret).

Also of note:

1339/40: Margaret de Douuedale (sic) who was wife of Joce de Dynham enfeoffed two knights fees to Walter de Sutton, naming tenant John de Hydon, and among the witnesses is John de Ralegh de Beaudeport, CRO AR/1/1038

1342: Margaret, widow of Peter de Unedale (sic) and Walter Sutton grant to John de Ralegh of Beaudeport lands in Strot (Strete Raleigh) and Beaudeport. This is before the 1348 grant in which John named Margaret de Uvedale as his sister. (Devon Arch 2065M/T3/2)

Margaret's heraldic seal survives, showing a bar of four lozenges/fusils (perhaps simply representing a bar fusily).

taf
taf
2018-10-31 20:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
One possible clue to Ida's origin. The John de Ralegh of Beaudeport
active in the 1340s and at the time husband of Ida makes a grant to
his "sister", Margaret de Uvedale (Devon Archives/SWHT 2065M/T3/18).
She is reported to have been sole daughter and heiress of Richard de
Hydon and to have married successively Josce de Dinham and Piers de
Uvedale (Pole related a grant of Luttokeshele from Sir John de Ralegh
of Beaudeport to Lady Margaret de Uvedale and her son Sir John de
Dinham, and their subsequent 22 E 3 grant of same to John de Hidon
the younger).
Adding to the connections here, I see an old post to this group showing that Margaret de Hydon, wife of Josce de Dinham, was daughter of the sister of our old friend, Sir Peter de Fissacre (brother-in-law of James de Oxton via James' half-sister, Joan de Cornwall). I can't swear to the accuracy of this connection, but the Fissacre inheritance of Morleigh, as tracked through episcopal registers, went from Sir Peter to Isabel de Fyssacre to Margaret de Uvedale to Oliver de Dinham, so this would be reasonable. The elder Oliver de Dinham, Josce's father, had purchased from Hugh de Courtenay the right to marry off Margaret, daughter and heiress of Richard Hydon.
Post by taf
Of course, such a pattern has to be taken with a grain of salt, given
how thick Raleghs were on the ground, but this seems to be a definite
association. That would make it much more likely for an -in-law
connection to occur through the Dinhams rather than the Uvedales, with
whom I am unaware of John de Ralegh appearing with (other than Margaret).
To follow this through to its logical conclusion, there are a lot of 'ifs' here in sequence, but there is a noteworthy consequence. IF Ida, wife of James de Oxton was likewise the Ida married to John de Ralegh of Beaudeport, and IF said John was brother-in-law and not brother of Margaret de Uvedale, and IF this relationship was through his wife Ida, and IF it involved Margaret's first husband, Josce de Dinham, then James de Oxton married Ida daughter of Oliver de Dinham. The Dinhams were James Oxton's feudal overlords at Modbury.

taf
taf
2018-10-31 21:35:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
I can't swear to the accuracy of this connection, but the Fissacre
inheritance of Morleigh, as tracked through episcopal registers, went
from Sir Peter to Isabel de Fyssacre to Margaret de Uvedale to Oliver
de Dinham, so this would be reasonable.
It occurred to be that this could be misinterpreted (and, it seems, has been on numerous online pedigrees.) This is not a lineal descent. The Isabel here is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret. It would be unusual for someone from such a relatively obscure family to retain or revert to her birth surname after her husband's death: she should be Isabella de Hydon in 1328 when she held Morleigh were this Margaret's mother. Isabel de Fissacre is much more likely to be a widow of either Sir Peter or his brother and immediate successor, Sir Martin. I see several online pedigrees citing this record as evidence that Margaret's mother was named Isabel, but that interpretation of this record is in all likelihood incorrect. (This doesn't mean that Margaret's mother was not named Isabel, simply that the several occurrences of an Isabel de Fissacre in the 1320s are likely referring to someone else.)

taf
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-18 06:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

This current thread is basically a continuation in a long series of posts made over many years by numerous newsgroup members concerning the Champernoun family of Modbury, Devon, chief among them Ronny Bodine and taf.

Buried behind the Champernoun family has been an alleged descent from Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, who died in 1272. This connection is based on statement by the venerable Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole, who mentioned he saw a grant dated 1280-1 in which Edmund of Almain, Earl of Cornwall, died 1300, legitimate son of Earl/King Richard, referred to Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, as his "sister." Pole's comments are as follows:

pages 309-310: “Modbiry was thancient land of the Valletorts, Barons of Hurberton. Roger de Valletort conveyed it, amongst other lands, unto Sr Alexander Okeston, wch had married Jone, the widow of Raph de Valletort, wch woman (as it is probable) was the concubine of Richard Erle of Cornwall, & Kinge of Almayne, or of ye Romans; they had issue Sr James de Okeston, wch died wthout issue; wthth commandement of Kinge Edw. 2, [hee] conveyed Modbiry, & all other lands, formerly granted unto his father by Roger de Valletort unto Sr Richard Chambernon, wch was sonne of Richard Chambernon, & Jone, daughter of Jone before mentioned, whom Edmund Erle of Cornwall, calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by hym unto the said Richard and Jone, of thassise of breade & ale, dated anno 12 Edward I. The said Richard the father was younger sonne of Sr Henry Chambernon, of Clist Chambernon. Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard ...” [Reference: Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 309].

The original comments of Pole may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=WF4OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA309

We see above that Vivian proposed that Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, was the illegitimate daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans [died 1272], by his mistress, Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort [he died 1256], and subsequently wife of Sir Alexander de Okeston [Oxton].

As far as I know, I don't think anyone has seriously questioned Pole's account of this family. Certainly his arrangement displayed an excellent working knowledge of the people of this time period. All the people he mentions in his account certainly lived in the time period in question and the chronology behind his statements appears to be sound. Vivian was a sober historian and, if he says he saw a grant by Earl Edmund in which Joan de Champernoun was called his sister, I'm sure he was telling the truth.

Even so, until now there has been no independant confirmation of the grant of Earl Edmund to his sister, Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun. Nor, to my knowledge, has there been any record located which links Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, to her reputed mother, Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort.

Recently I recently found a reference to an Exchequer of Pleas action which purportedly involves Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans. I decided to search for the record and this past week I was able to find it on the Anglo-American Legal Tradition (AALT) website.

Below is a brief abstract of the record. The information in brackets has been added by me for clarity:

In 1278 Andrew de Treslok and Joan de Valletort his wife, tenants of part of the lands of Ralph de Valletort [died 1256] and Reynold de Valletourt [died 1270], sued Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, Richard de Chambernon, and the Bishop of Exeter, tenants of the other part of the said lands in Exchequer of Pleas.

Reference: Exchequer of Pleas, E13no6, image 14, Date: 1278 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E1/E13no6/IMG_0014.htm).

Elsewhere I found another legal action involving these same parties:

In 1280–1 Andrew Trellok and Joan his wife arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Richard de Campo Arnulfi [Champernoun] and Joan his wife regarding a tenement in Meyswerk, Cornwall. Reference: Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 50 (1889): 155, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rv4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA155

We see two records above involving Joan de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, and her third husband, Andrew de Trelosk, a royal justice. In the first record, the defendants include Edmund, Earl of Cornwall [son of King Richard], and Richard de Champernoun. In the second record, the defendants are Richard de Champernoun and Joan his wife.

Both of these two records associated Joan de Valletort with her reputed son-in-law, Richard de Champernoun. While it doesn't conclusively prove the connections between these people, it certainly offers good evidence that these people were closely associated with one another.

I've copied below my current file account of Joan de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, Earl of Cornwall.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

Joan _____ married (1st) Ralph de Valletort/Vautort, Knt. (died 1256), of Trematon, Cornwall, Harberton, Devon, etc. They had one son, Reynold (died 1270). In 1257 Lady Joan, widow of Sir Ralph de Valletort, reached agreement with W., Abbot of Buckfast, regarding the land which Joan held in her dower in the manor of Holne, Devon; this agreement was witnessed by “Alexander de Hokkeston” (later her husband). Joan married (2nd) before 16 Jan. 1270 (date of inquisition post mortem) Alexander de Oxton (or Okeston), Knt., of Bridford and Modbury, Devon. They had one son, James, Knt. He witnessed a charter of Richard, Prior of Bodmin in 1269. In 1269 and 1270, at the request of Roger de Valletort, Richard, King of Romans granted Alexander the manor of Insworke (in Millbrook) and 200 acres of wood in the manor of Calstock, Cornwall, which property was formerly held by Joan, wife of Alexander, in dower by the gift of her 1st husband, Ralph de Valletort. In 1270 Roger granted the same property by fine to Alexander and Joan his wife and their heirs. In 1270 Roger de Valletort granted Alexander and Joan his wife the manor of Modbury and one-half knight’s fee in Sheepham (in Modbury) and West, Devon, together with the advowson of Modbury Priory. In 1274 he had the assize of bread and ale in Modbury, Devon. In 1274–5 he had a commission of goal delivery. Sir Alexander de Oxton died before 1275–6 (date of lawsuit). In 1275–6 Margery de Sackville ("Sicca Villa") arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Joan de Valletort and others touching a tenement in Tamerton, Devon. His widow, Joan, married (2nd) before 1278 (date of lawsuit) Andrew de Treslok (or Trelosk, Trellosk, Trellok, Trellek, Trelluk, Trilosk, Trolosk), Knt., of Dunterton, Devon, Knight of the Shire for Devon, 1290, 1302, Justice of Oyer and Terminer for Devon, 1300. He witnessed a charter of Richard, Prior of Bodmin, in 1269. In 1278 Andrew de Treslok and Joan de Valletort his wife, tenants of part of the lands of Ralph de Valletort [died 1256] and Reynold de Valletourt [died 1246], sued Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, Richard de Chambernon, and the Bishop of Exeter, tenants of the other part of the said lands in Exchequer of Pleas. In 1280–1 Andrew Trellok and Joan his wife arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Richard de Campo Arnulfi [Champernoun] and Joan his wife regarding a tenement in Meyswerk, Cornwall. In 1283 he was appointed an assessor and collector for Cornwall. In 1292 Roger de Nonaunt, Knt., of Devon, owed him a debt of 100s., because of a loan. In 1293 Roger de Lincoln and Robert de Malston, of Devon, owed him a debt of £20, on account of a loan. The same year John de Boyville, of Devon, owed him a debt of £8 3s. 2d., because of a loan. In 1294 he was appointed an assessor and collector for Devon. In 1295 Stephen de Beaupré, Knt., of Cornwall, owed him a debt of 16 marks, for one horse bought from him. In 1297 Luke _____ owed him a debt of £16. In 1297 John de Beaumond [Beaumont], of Devon, owed him a debt of 50s., on account of a loan. The same year Thomas de Shillingford and Walter Taundefer, of Devon, owed him a debt of 200 marks. In 1300 Geoffrey de la Pomeray, of Devon, owed him a debt of 2 marks. In 1302 he and Sir Peter de Fishacre were among the witnesses to a quiclaim by Robert de Stokheye to John de Benstede regarding the hundred of Ermington, Devon. He married (2nd) Isabel _____. SIR ANDREW DE TRESLOK died in or before 1305, in which year William Boyville, of Devon, owed his widow, Isabel, a debt of £10, on account of a loan. Willis Notitia Parliamentaria (1715): 249. Pole Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 51, 309–310 (“Modbiry was thancient land of the Valletorts, Barons of Hurberton. Roger de Valletort conveyed it, amongst other lands, unto Sr Alexander Okeston, wch had married Jone, the widow of Raph de Valletort, wch woman (as it is probable) was the concubine of Richard Erle of Cornwall, & Kinge of Almayne, or of ye Romans; they had issue Sr James de Okeston, wch died wthout issue; wthth commandement of Kinge Edw. 2, [hee] conveyed Modbiry, & all other lands, formerly granted unto his father by Roger de Valletort unto Sr Richard Chambernon, wch was sonne of Richard Chambernon, & Jone, daughter of Jone before mentioned, whom Edmund Erle of Cornwall, calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by hym unto the said Richard and Jone, of thassise of breade & ale, dated anno 12 Edward I. The said Richard the father was younger sonne of Sr Henry Chambernon, of Clist Chambernon. Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard ...”). Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (Record Commission) (1812): 56 (sub Hundred of East Wivelshire: “It dnt qd Rogs de Valle Torta dedit com’ Ric’o castrū de Trematon cum s’vic & feod ... It dcs Rog’s dedit dco com’ Ric’o man’iū de Calistec scilt x libr’ annui redd un’ com’ Ric’s dedit illud man’iu Alex’o de Oxton & Johe ux’ sue ad t’minū vita amoz eozdē ... It Alex’ de Oxton habet man’iū de Mobirs [Modbury] de dono Rog’i de Valle Torta & est in Devon sz nesciut quid valet & fuit de baronia de Trematon.”), 96 (sub Modbury: “Jur’ illius dnt q’d Rog’s de Valle Torta dedit castellū de Tremeton Ric’o com’ Cornub’ & burgū de Modbye Alex’o de Okeston qui nūc tenet de p’dco com’ in sogagiū & habet assis’ pan’ & c’visie in eadē set nefciut quo war’.").. Palgrave Parliamentary Writs & Writs of Military Summons 1 (1827): 870. Concanen Rpt. of the Trial at Bar, Rowe v. Brenton (1830): Appendix, 11–12. Oliver Monasticon Diocesis Exonienses (1846): 18, 297n, 327. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 44 (1883): 99; 45 (1885): 327; 50 (1889): 155. Hingeston-Randolph Regs. of Walter Bronescombe & Peter Quivil (1889): 212. C.P.R. 1301–1307 (1898): 126, 151, 233. Hingeston-Randolph Reg. of John de Grandisson Bishop of Exeter 3 (1899): 1574, 1579–1580, 1580–1581 (charter of Ralph de Valletort), 1586–1590 (charters of Ralph de Valletort), 1591–1592, 1601–1603 (undated charters of Ralph de Valletort), 1627. Cal. IPM 1 (1904): 231–232. C.Ch.R. 3 (1908): 36. Reade House of Cornewall (1908): 31 (“By Beatrix de Fauquemont [Richard] the Earl-King had no issue, but by Joan, daughter of Sir Reginald de Valletort, he had an illegitimate family, consisting of at least two sons, Richard and Sir Walter, with apparently Sir Lawrence, and as is affirmed two daughters, Isabella and Joan. The date of this prolonged liaison cannot be determined ... It seems, for example, uncertain as to whether Joan de Valletort was widow of Sir Alexander, or Sir Andrew, Okeston when she is said to have been mistress of Earl Richard, or whether after the Earl tired of her, she married Sir Alexander, to whom she bore a son and successor.”). Reichel Devon Feet of Fines 1 (1912): 352, 372–373. Rowe Cornwall Feet of Fines 1 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc.) (1914): 116–117, 121–122. Exchequer of Pleas, E13no6, image 14, Date: 1278 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E1/E13no6/IMG_0014.htm). National Archives, C 241/24/2; C 241/25/210; C 241/27/115; C 241/31/44; C 241/35/227; C 241/36/115; C 241/42/43; C 241/45/116 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
c***@gmail.com
2018-10-18 06:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

This current thread is basically a continuation in a long series of posts made over many years by numerous newsgroup members concerning the Champernoun family of Modbury, Devon, chief among them Ronny Bodine and taf.

Buried behind the Champernoun family has been an alleged descent from Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, who died in 1272. This connection is based on a statement by the venerable Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole, who indicated that he saw a grant dated 1280-1 in which Edmund of Almain, Earl of Cornwall, died 1300, legitimate son of Earl/King Richard, referred to Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, as his "sister." Pole's comments are as follows:

pages 309-310: “Modbiry was thancient land of the Valletorts, Barons of Hurberton. Roger de Valletort conveyed it, amongst other lands, unto Sr Alexander Okeston, wch had married Jone, the widow of Raph de Valletort, wch woman (as it is probable) was the concubine of Richard Erle of Cornwall, & Kinge of Almayne, or of ye Romans; they had issue Sr James de Okeston, wch died wthout issue; wthth commandement of Kinge Edw. 2, [hee] conveyed Modbiry, & all other lands, formerly granted unto his father by Roger de Valletort unto Sr Richard Chambernon, wch was sonne of Richard Chambernon, & Jone, daughter of Jone before mentioned, whom Edmund Erle of Cornwall, calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by hym unto the said Richard and Jone, of thassise of breade & ale, dated anno 12 Edward I. The said Richard the father was younger sonne of Sr Henry Chambernon, of Clist Chambernon. Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard ...” [Reference: Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 309].

The original comments of Pole may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=WF4OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA309

We see above that Vivian proposed that Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, was the illegitimate daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans [died 1272], by his mistress, Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort [he died 1256], and subsequently wife of Sir Alexander de Okeston [Oxton].

As far as I know, I don't think anyone has seriously questioned Pole's account of this family. Certainly his arrangement displayed an excellent working knowledge of the people of this time period. All the people he mentions in his account certainly lived in the time period in question and the chronology behind his statements appears to be sound. Vivian was a sober historian and, if he says he saw a grant by Earl Edmund in which Joan de Champernoun was called his sister, I'm sure he was telling the truth.

Even so, until now there has been no independant confirmation of the grant of Earl Edmund to his sister, Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun. Nor, to my knowledge, has there been any record located which links Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, to her reputed mother, Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort.

Recently I recently found a reference to an Exchequer of Pleas action which involves Joan, widow of Ralph de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans. I decided to search for the record and this past week I was able to find it on the Anglo-American Legal Tradition (AALT) website.

Below is a brief abstract of the record. The information in brackets has been added by me for clarity:

In 1278 Andrew de Treslok and Joan de Valletort his wife, tenants of part of the lands of Ralph de Valletort [died 1256] and Reynold de Valletourt [died 1270], sued Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, Richard de Chambernon, and the Bishop of Exeter, tenants of the other part of the said lands in Exchequer of Pleas.

Reference: Exchequer of Pleas, E13no6, image 14, Date: 1278 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E1/E13no6/IMG_0014.htm).

Elsewhere I found another legal action involving these same parties:

In 1280–1 Andrew Trellok and Joan his wife arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Richard de Campo Arnulfi [Champernoun] and Joan his wife regarding a tenement in Meyswerk, Cornwall. Reference: Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 50 (1889): 155, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rv4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA155

We see two records above involving Joan de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, and her third husband, Andrew de Trelosk, a royal justice. In the first record, the defendants include Edmund, Earl of Cornwall [son of King Richard], and Richard de Champernoun. In the second record, the defendants are Richard de Champernoun and Joan his wife.

Both of these two records associated Joan de Valletort with her reputed son-in-law, Richard de Champernoun. While it doesn't conclusively prove the connections between these people, it certainly offers excellent evidence that these people were closely associated with one another. The eventual passage of Joan de Valletort's lands in Cornwall and Devon to the Champernoun family adds additional support that she was indeed the mother of Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun.

For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of Joan de Valletort, the reputed mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, Earl of Cornwall.

Comments are invited. When replying, please cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

JOAN _____ married (1st) RALPH DE VALLETORT (or VAUTORT), Knt., of Trematon, Cornwall, Harberton, Devon, etc. They had one son, Reynold (died without issue in 1270). SIR RALPH DE VALLETORT died in 1256. In 1257 Lady Joan, widow of Sir Ralph de Valletort, reached agreement with W., Abbot of Buckfast, regarding the land which Joan held in her dower in the manor of Holne, Devon; this agreement was witnessed by “Alexander de Hokkeston” (later her husband). During her 1st widowhood, Joan is alleged to have been the mistress of Richard, King of the Romans, Earl of Cornwall [died 1272], by which liaison she had one daughter, Joan (wife of Richard de Champernoun and Sir Peter de Fishacre). Joan married (2nd) before 16 Jan. 1270 (date of inquisition post mortem) ALEXANDER DE OXTON (or OKESTON), Knt., of Bridford and Modbury, Devon. They had one son, James, Knt. He witnessed a charter of Richard, Prior of Bodmin in 1269. In 1269 and 1270, at the request of Roger de Valletort, Richard, King of Romans granted Alexander the manor of Insworke (in Millbrook) and 200 acres of wood in the manor of Calstock, Cornwall, which property was formerly held by Joan, wife of Alexander, in dower by the gift of her 1st husband, Ralph de Valletort. In 1270 Roger granted the same property by fine to Alexander and Joan his wife and their heirs. In 1270 Roger de Valletort granted Alexander and Joan his wife the manor of Modbury and one-half knight’s fee in Sheepham (in Modbury) and West, Devon, together with the advowson of Modbury Priory. In 1274 he had the assize of bread and ale in Modbury, Devon. In 1274–5 he had a commission of goal delivery. SIR ALEXANDER DE OXTON died before 1275–6 (date of lawsuit). In 1275–6 Margery de Sackville ("Sicca Villa") arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Joan de Valletort and others touching a tenement in Tamerton, Devon. His widow, Joan, married (2nd) before 1278 (date of lawsuit) ANDREW DE TRESLOK (or Trelosk, Trellosk, Trellok, Trellek, Trelluk, Trilosk, Trolosk), Knt., of Dunterton, Devon, Knight of the Shire for Devon, 1290, 1302, Justice of Oyer and Terminer for Devon, 1300. He witnessed a charter of Richard, Prior of Bodmin, in 1269. In 1278 Andrew de Treslok and Joan de Valletort his wife, tenants of part of the lands of Ralph de Valletort [died 1256] and Reynold de Valletourt [died 1246], sued Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, Richard de Chambernon, and the Bishop of Exeter, tenants of the other part of the said lands in Exchequer of Pleas. In 1280–1 Andrew Trellok and Joan his wife arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Richard de Campo Arnulfi [Champernoun] and Joan his wife regarding a tenement in Meyswerk, Cornwall. In 1283 he was appointed an assessor and collector for Cornwall. In 1292 Roger de Nonaunt, Knt., of Devon, owed him a debt of 100s., because of a loan. In 1293 Roger de Lincoln and Robert de Malston, of Devon, owed him a debt of £20, on account of a loan. The same year John de Boyville, of Devon, owed him a debt of £8 3s. 2d., because of a loan. In 1294 he was appointed an assessor and collector for Devon. In 1295 Stephen de Beaupré, Knt., of Cornwall, owed him a debt of 16 marks, for one horse bought from him. In 1297 Luke _____ owed him a debt of £16. In 1297 John de Beaumond [Beaumont], of Devon, owed him a debt of 50s., on account of a loan. The same year Thomas de Shillingford and Walter Taundefer, of Devon, owed him a debt of 200 marks. In 1300 Geoffrey de la Pomeray, of Devon, owed him a debt of 2 marks. In 1302 he and Sir Peter de Fishacre were among the witnesses to a quiclaim by Robert de Stokheye to John de Benstede regarding the hundred of Ermington, Devon. He married (2nd) ISABEL _____. SIR ANDREW DE TRESLOK died in or before 1305, in which year William Boyville, of Devon, owed his widow, Isabel, a debt of £10, on account of a loan.

References:

Willis, Notitia Parliamentaria (1715): 249. Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 51, 309–310 (“Modbiry was thancient land of the Valletorts, Barons of Hurberton. Roger de Valletort conveyed it, amongst other lands, unto Sr Alexander Okeston, wch had married Jone, the widow of Raph de Valletort, wch woman (as it is probable) was the concubine of Richard Erle of Cornwall, & Kinge of Almayne, or of ye Romans; they had issue Sr James de Okeston, wch died wthout issue; wthth commandement of Kinge Edw. 2, [hee] conveyed Modbiry, & all other lands, formerly granted unto his father by Roger de Valletort unto Sr Richard Chambernon, wch was sonne of Richard Chambernon, & Jone, daughter of Jone before mentioned, whom Edmund Erle of Cornwall, calleth by the name of his sister, in a grant made by hym unto the said Richard and Jone, of thassise of breade & ale, dated anno 12 Edward I. The said Richard the father was younger sonne of Sr Henry Chambernon, of Clist Chambernon. Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard ...”). Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (Record Commission) (1812): 56 (sub Hundred of East Wivelshire: “It dnt qd Rogs de Valle Torta dedit com’ Ric’o castrū de Trematon cum s’vic & feod ... It dcs Rog’s dedit dco com’ Ric’o man’iū de Calistec scilt x libr’ annui redd un’ com’ Ric’s dedit illud man’iu Alex’o de Oxton & Johe ux’ sue ad t’minū vita amoz eozdē ... It Alex’ de Oxton habet man’iū de Mobirs [Modbury] de dono Rog’i de Valle Torta & est in Devon sz nesciut quid valet & fuit de baronia de Trematon.”), 96 (sub Modbury: “Jur’ illius dnt q’d Rog’s de Valle Torta dedit castellū de Tremeton Ric’o com’ Cornub’ & burgū de Modbye Alex’o de Okeston qui nūc tenet de p’dco com’ in sogagiū & habet assis’ pan’ & c’visie in eadē set nefciut quo war’.").. Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs & Writs of Military Summons 1 (1827): 870. Concanen, Rpt. of the Trial at Bar, Rowe v. Brenton (1830): Appendix, 11–12. Oliver, Monasticon Diocesis Exonienses (1846): 18, 297n, 327. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 44 (1883): 99; 45 (1885): 327; 50 (1889): 155. Hingeston-Randolph, Regs. of Walter Bronescombe & Peter Quivil (1889): 212. C.P.R. 1301–1307 (1898): 126, 151, 233. Hingeston-Randolph, Reg. of John de Grandisson Bishop of Exeter 3 (1899): 1574, 1579–1580, 1580–1581 (charter of Ralph de Valletort), 1586–1590 (charters of Ralph de Valletort), 1591–1592, 1601–1603 (undated charters of Ralph de Valletort), 1627. Cal. IPM 1 (1904): 231–232. C.Ch.R. 3 (1908): 36. Reade, House of Cornewall (1908): 31 (“By Beatrix de Fauquemont [Richard] the Earl-King had no issue, but by Joan, daughter of Sir Reginald de Valletort, he had an illegitimate family, consisting of at least two sons, Richard and Sir Walter, with apparently Sir Lawrence, and as is affirmed two daughters, Isabella and Joan. The date of this prolonged liaison cannot be determined ... It seems, for example, uncertain as to whether Joan de Valletort was widow of Sir Alexander, or Sir Andrew, Okeston when she is said to have been mistress of Earl Richard, or whether after the Earl tired of her, she married Sir Alexander, to whom she bore a son and successor.”). Reichel, Devon Feet of Fines 1 (1912): 352, 372–373. Rowe, Cornwall Feet of Fines 1 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc.) (1914): 116–117, 121–122. Exchequer of Pleas, E13no6, image 14, Date: 1278 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E1/E13no6/IMG_0014.htm). National Archives, C 241/24/2; C 241/25/210; C 241/27/115; C 241/31/44; C 241/35/227; C 241/36/115; C 241/42/43; C 241/45/116 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
d***@aol.com
2018-10-21 14:06:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
This current thread is basically a continuation in a long series of posts made over many years by numerous newsgroup members concerning the Champernoun family of Modbury, Devon, chief among them Ronny Bodine and taf.
Buried behind the Champernoun family has been an alleged descent from Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, who died in 1272. This connection is based on a statement by the venerable Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole, who indicated that he saw a grant dated 1280-1 in which Edmund of Almain, Earl of Cornwall, died 1300, legitimate son of Earl/King Richard, referred to Joan, wife of Richard de Champernoun, as his "sister."
So what does this all mean? That Douglas Richardson now concurs with the statement the "VENERABlE" Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole, made about 414 years ago?! Finally, after all of these years, it's refreshing to see Richardson take Pole's words for what they were, historical fact. At least in this instance, until another statement by Pole contradicts a long-held theory of Richardson's on another matter.
taf
2018-10-21 16:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
So what does this all mean? That Douglas Richardson now concurs with
the statement the "VENERABlE" Devonshire antiquarian, William Pole,
made about 414 years ago?! Finally, after all of these years, it's
refreshing to see Richardson take Pole's words for what they were,
historical fact. At least in this instance, until another statement
by Pole contradicts a long-held theory of Richardson's on another
matter.
Yes, back in the day, Mr. Richardson vehemently refused to accept Pole's statement that he had seen a (since-lost) grant containing this direct characterization of the relationship, insisting that Pole was (generically) unreliable by modern standards and thus nothing he said could not be trusted.

One can only presume that Mr. Richardson has now accepted the argument others made at the time (and have been making since the 1940s, at least), that Pole's statement on the Cornwall-Champernoun connection is not just your typical Pole relationship claim. It is a direct attestation of having seen a document that reported the relationship, and thus its acceptance depends on Pole's reliability as a witness alone, that he is accurately relating what he had seen with his own eyes, and not his reliability as an antiquarian, his ability to correctly synthesize uncited information to produce his accounts of manorial descent. It is really a classic example of how a single source can have differential levels of reliability for different facts reported. It likewise means, though, that anyone is free to accept this Pole statement while still denying the accuracy of other statements by the same author that aren't similarly backed up.

Anyhow, better late than never.

taf
Mark
2018-10-25 11:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have been reading this thread with interest because of my own past research into the Champernowne family. I have also posted comments to the newsgroup about the family on a number of occasions in past years.

Given that it now appears that Elizabeth Valletort, daughter of Hugh and Lucy, was not the mother of Thomas Champernowne, do we have any indications as to the identity of the Elizabeth, wife of Richard Champernowne, who together with her husband appears in Cornwall Fine number 544, dated 1336/7? My understanding is that this Elizabeth subsequently married Richard Willoughby.

How would this couple be related to Thomas?

Mark
taf
2018-10-25 13:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Given that it now appears that Elizabeth Valletort, daughter of Hugh
and Lucy, was not the mother of Thomas Champernowne, do we have any
indications as to the identity of the Elizabeth, wife of Richard
Champernowne, who together with her husband appears in Cornwall Fine
number 544, dated 1336/7?
None whatsoever.
Post by Mark
My understanding is that this Elizabeth subsequently married Richard
Willoughby.
Yes. That is well documented. In Richard Willoughby's ipm she is seen holding dower rights to Champernoun lands, as assigned her by Thomas.
Post by Mark
How would this couple be related to Thomas?
Based on the 2-Richard model that both Mr. Richardson and I favor, she would be his step-mother, a subsequent wife of the same Richard who married the widow Lucy le Bret. Under a 3-Richard model, she could potentially be his mother, but she would have had to have passed a dozen years of marriage to her Richard without leaving a trace (thought given that her husband would have been living under still-extant father who wold be carrying out the transactions of the family, this is not completely unreasonable. Either way she was not a Vautort. She was mother of another son, Richard, who is relatively obscure but may be the student at Exeter College, Oxford, of this name.

It hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but the name Thomas shows up in this family completely out of the blue, which always puzzled me - yes families introduced a novel name on occasion, mirroring their feudal lord's, for example, and Thomas was a common name among the gentry as a whole, but more commonly families used names from the child's kin group, and I often wondered what gave rise to its use here. Well, if Thomas is son of Lucy, we still don't have a good explanation for it (though her ancestry is not filled out). Were Thomas only her step-son, the family of the hypothetical first wife of Richard could be the source.

taf
taf
2018-10-25 14:08:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Is anyone out there familiar with the compilation of the Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem sive Escaetarum?

This was a calendar of ipms from Chancery records then in the Tower of London produced in the 1810s and 1820s. It is arranged by regnal year and lists the subject of the inquisition, and the lands named. My question regards what specific documents were included - is it just these inquisitions, or does it include other documents as well? The description at the front of the volumes is more interested in documenting their official bona fides for the publication than describing what they are actually doing.

Why I ask is that it includes (vol. III, p. 16) an ipm (or whatever) for a Ric'us de Chaumbernon in 2 Richard II (1378/9), holding Cotes, Northants. No such ipm appears in the more recent published editions of ipms during Richard's reign, nor is it listed in the Discovery catalogue.

In the Modbury line, one Richard died in 1338, the next Richard, his grandson, was born in 1344 and died in 1418. He was already established in his mother's lands by an inquisition to determine his age from a decade earlier, and there would be no reason for a proof of age of a 34-year-old. On the other hand, Richard of the North Tawton line seems to have died in 1377, when an inquisition refers to the heir of Richard.

There is a relevant Chancery suit:

Parties: Rex v Chaumbernon Subject: Manor of Cotes County: Northants
C 44/10/3

I guess what I am wondering, without actually seeing the Chancery suit in question, is, could such a suit have been included in the Calendarium, or is there a lost ipm out there (and perhaps others)?

As and aside, this Chancery suit is dated in the Discovery catalogue as also falling in 1378/9, which would be after Richard of North Tawton was dead. It could be a continuing action, or it could be that this does not refer to the same Richard. For example, it is possible that Otho had a short-lived older brother. Alternatively, we have that Richard, half-brother of Thomas who could instead be the subject.

taf
taf
2018-11-08 04:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Is anyone out there familiar with the compilation of the Calendarium
Inquisitionum Post Mortem sive Escaetarum?
Why I ask is that it includes (vol. III, p. 16) an ipm (or whatever)
for a Ric'us de Chaumbernon in 2 Richard II (1378/9), holding Cotes,
Northants. No such ipm appears in the more recent published editions
of ipms during Richard's reign, nor is it listed in the Discovery
catalogue.
Parties: Rex v Chaumbernon Subject: Manor of Cotes County: Northants
C 44/10/3
In the process of divining the Moeles entry from the Calendarium, I figured out what the trick is to relating these Calendarium entries to the modern catalog numbers, so I can return to this entry now. The entry is 2 Ric II #62. Looking at the table at the start of the Richard II ipm volume we find that this is not an ipm, but a Miscellaneous Inquisition, Chancery, new number C 148/218 (7). This was published in the Misc. Inq. volumes (reconstructed from snippets):

"The like writ to John Carnell, escheator in co. Northampton, concerning the manor of Cotes. Westminster. 4 July 2 Richard II [1378.]

Certificate that the said manor, which is worth 6l, 13s, 4d. net, was taken into the late king's hand by John de Tyndale, escheator, because Richard Chaumbernon. who held it of the king in chief by knight service, alienated it without licence to William Mercher and Hugh his steward, as appears by an inquisition taken before the said John de Tyndale.
Writ of dedimus potestatem to Gilbert Wacce, knight, to receive the attorneys of the said Richard. Westminster. 14 July.
Endorsement stating that the said Richard has appointed as his attorneys for the prosecution of the said manor out of the king's hand John Reede of Bledlowe and Hugh Croftes of Wympton. Cf. Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1377-1383, p. 134; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1377-1381, pp. 374, 485.
C. Inq. Misc. File 218 (7)"

So, this was not an ipm and did not reflect the death of anyone (other than Edward III), and really provides no help with the overall chronology of the family, seemingly referring to the Richard (later Sir Richard) son of Thomas and father of Alexander, who is known already to have been an adult by this time.

taf

g***@gmail.com
2018-10-26 16:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
William Pole in his book, Collections towards a Description of Devon (1791), reports that Sir Richard de Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon [died 1338] married Elizabeth de Vautort, daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Vautourt, by his wife, Lucy, daughter of Adam le Bret.
“Modbiry … Sr Richard Chambernon, called alsoe de Campo Ernulphi, had issue Sr Richard, of Modbiry, wch by Elisabeth, da. & on [of] the heires of Hugh de Valletort, of Tawton, had issue Thomas, wch by Elinor, daughter of Sr Roger Rohant, & his heire, had issue Sr Richard, wch had twoe wiefes, 1, Alis, daughter of Thomas Lo. Astelegh, by whom hee had issue Alexander, of Beer Ferrers; his 2 wief was Katerin, daughter of Sr Giles Dawbeney, by whom hee had issue Richard, of Modbiry, & John, of Inswerke, thancestor of Trevilian, Fortescue, of Woode, & Munke, of Poderige." END OF QUOTE.
"Hugh de Valletort, by Lucia, daughter of Adam le Bret, had issue Egelina, wife of Oliver Champernon, Lucia, wief of Geffrey Lyff, Katherine wief, 1, of William Lucy, &, 2, of Sr Henry, Frances, Beatrix, wife of Simon Bradeney, Elisabeth, wief of Sir Richard Champernon, of Modbiry, & Jone." END OF QUOTE.
In 1317 an assize was held to determine of Richard de Champernoun and Lucy his wife and Ralph Thurston unjustly disseised James Tryvet of his free tenement in Baggedrip [Bawdrip], Somerset.
Reference: Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1371, image 2910d,
available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1371/bJUST1no1371dorses/IMG_2910.htm
In the ensuing testimony, it is stated that Hugh Tryvet father of the said James had previously leased the property in question to Adam le Bret for the term of his life. Portions of the remaining text are illegible. The text appears to say that Adam le Bret granted the reversion of the property to Hugh de Vautort [then [tunc] husband of the said Lucy] and to Lucy his wife and the heirs of Hugh, and that after the death of Adam le Bret, Richard de Champernoun and his wife Lucy took possession.
The implication is that Lucy, wife of Richard de Champernoun, is the same person as Lucy, wife of Hugh de Vautort, although this is not directly stated. If correct, it would appear that Lucy le Bret, widow of Hugh de Vautout/Valletort, married (2nd) before 1317 Richard de Champernoun the elder, father of Sir Richard de Champernoun who married Lucy's daughter, Elizabeth de Vautort.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Todd, I think you are right. Bearing in mind the time that Collinson was writing it seems more likely that there is an implied fl. rather than an exact year for a marriage which isn't specufically detailed. I guess the only dates we mostly know anything about for anyone of this period are the death dates due to the inevitable ipm.

Guy
Loading...