Complete Peerage Addition: Joan de Vivonne, wife of Reynold Fitz Peter, Knt.

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-23 14:55:42 UTC

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 465 (sub FitzReynold) includes a brief
account of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter (died 4 or 5 May 1286), of Blaen
Llyfni (in Cathedine), Bwlch y Dinas (in Talgarth), and Talgarth,
Breconshire, Wales, Joint Guardian of the Welsh Marches, Sheriff of
Hampshire, 1261–4, Constable of Winchester Castle. This material
shows that Sir Reynold Fitz Peter was married twice: (1st) Alice
_____, who occurs 28 Oct. 1263 and 24 Aug. 1265, and (2nd) Joan de
Vivonne, 1st daughter and co-heiress of "William le Fort de Vivonne,"
of Chewton, Somerset.

The name of Joan de Vivonne's father as reported by Complete Peerage
is slightly askew. His name was actually Sir William de Forz, not
William le Fort de Vivonne. He died shortly before 22 May 1259. Sir
William's wife and mother of his children was Maud de Ferrers, widow
of Simon de Kyme, and daughter of William de Ferrers, Knt., 5th Earl
of Derby. Sir William de Forz in turn was the son and heir of Sir
Hugh (or Hugues) de Vivonne, of Chewton, Somerset, by Mabel, the
daughter and heiress of William Malet, the Magna Carta baron.

By his 1st wife, Sir Reynold Fitz Peter had one son, John, Knt. [Lord
Fitz Reynold] and at least two daughters, Alice (wife of John de Saint
John) and Katherine (wife of John Pichard). By his 2nd wife, Joan de
Vivonne, he had four sons, Peter, Knt., Reynold, Matthew, and William
(clerk), and two daughters, Isabel and Beatrice.

Complete Peerage tells us nothing regarding Joan de Vivonne's marital
history before becoming the wife of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. Research
indicates that Joan de Vivonne married (1st) after 10 March 1262
Ingram de Percy, Knt., of Dalton, co. Durham and Kirkby Overblow,
Yorkshire, King’s yeoman, younger son of William de Percy, of
Topcliffe, Yorkshire, by his 2nd wife, Ellen, daughter of Ingram de
Balliol. In March 1262 the king granted Ingram £50 yearly of rent
from the fixed and perpetual rents of the Jews of England. In July
1262 he was granted protection with clause, he then going with the
king to France. Sir Ingram de Percy died testate shortly before 10
Oct. 1262. They had no issue.

It has been commonly assumed that following the death of Sir Ingram de
Percy in 1262, Joan de Vivonne next married Sir Reynold Fitz Peter.
However, new evidence has come to light which proves that Joan de
Vivonne had another marriage between these two husbands. The evidence
is presented in a recent article published in Roccafortis, Bulletin de
la Société de Géographie de Rochefort, 3e série, tome IV, n° 25,
janvier 2000, p. 149-153, which source may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://seucaj.ifrance.com/rochechouart.htm

This article shows that Joan de Vivonne, married (2nd) by contract
dated 28 April 1264 her step-brother, Aimery de Rochechouart, son and
heir apparent of Aimery de Rochechouart, Knt., Vicomte of Rochechouart
(in Haute Vienne) in Poitou, seigneur of La Cossière-en-Périgord,
Brigueil-l’Aine, Mas-de-Gegelar, Pérusse, etc., by his 1st wife,
Jeanne, daughter and heiress of Geoffroy de Tonnay, seigneur of Tonnay-
Charente. Joan and Aimery had two children, Aimery [Vicomte of
Rochechouart] and Jeanne. Aimery de Rochechouart died sometime before
25 June 1283 (date of his father’s will).

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of Joan de Vivonne's final
marriage to Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. However, at his death in 1286,
they had at least four children named in his will. There was
certainly a fifth child, William, possibly born posthumously, and
evidently a sixth child, Beatrice (who adopted her mother's surname,
Vivonne). This would fix Joan's approximate date of marriage to Sir
Reynold Fitz Peter as circa 1272. As such, this would preclude Joan
de Vivonne from being the mother of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter's known
daughter, Katherine, who married in or before 1277 John Pichard, of
Stradewy [present day Llanfihangel-Ystrad], Cardiganshire, Wales.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the New World
immigrants that descend from Joan de Vivonne, by her 3rd marriage to
Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. The list includes the immigrant, Rose
(Stoughton) Otis, whose connection to Joan de Vivonne was recently
proved through the combined research efforts of myself, Martin
Hollick, and James L. and Loretta-Marie Dimond.

Barbara Aubrey, John Baynard, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen,
Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Francis Dade, Mary Gye, Anne
Humphrey, Mary Launce, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, John Oxenbridge,
Herbert Pelham, George Reade, Richard Saltonstall, Mary Johanna
Somerset, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, Olive Welby, John West.

Further details regarding all of these people can be found in the
forthcoming 2nd edition of my book, Magna Carta Ancestry.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-23 15:19:46 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding Joan de Vivonne's paternal ancestry, the book, Feudalism and
Liberty, by Painter, published in 1961, pages 41–72 suggests that the
Vivonne family of Poitou descends from Joscelin de Vivonne, an uncle
of Hugh IV de Lusignan (died 1025–1032). However, Joan de Vivonne's
grandfather, Sir Hugh de Vivonne, was perhaps more nearly related to
Hugh X de Lusignan, Count of La Marche (died 1249), the well known 2nd
husband of Isabel of Angouleme, Queen of England. I find that Joan de
Vivonne's nephew, Foucard d’Archiac, a great-grandson of Sir Hugh de
Vivonne , was styled “kinsman” [consanguin] by Yolande de Lusignan,
Countess of La Marche, which Yolande was great-granddaughter of Hugh X
de Lusignan [see Audiat, Saint-Pierre de Saintes (1871): 94].

For further particulars on the Vivonne family (who were also known as
de Forz), see Louis Rédet, ed., Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-
Cyprien de Poitiers (Archives Historiques du Poitou 3) (1874); Louis
Rédet, Docs. pour l’Hist. de l’Église Saint-Hilaire de Poitiers (768–
1300) (Méms. de la Soc. des Antiqs. de l’Ouest, années 1847 and
1852)]; Archives Hists. du Poitou 16 (1886): 165–166 (charter of
Boson, son of Joscelin de Vivonne dated 1076), 325 (recognizance given
by Hugues de Vivonne dated 1107–1134); Speculum 32 (1957): 27–47].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-23 17:13:03 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

For those who don't read French, I've located another article online
in English which also discusses Joan de Vivonne's three marriages.
This second article is entitled: Three generations of the Anglo-Poitou
family of Vivonne, from 13th century “Poitevin mercenary captain” to
14th century “recalcitrant lady.” The author is only named as
Margaret. It may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.histoirepassion.eu/spip.php?article1241

The author makes no reference to the other article I found online
earlier by Jacques Duguet originally published in Roccafortis,
Bulletin de la Société de Géographie de Rochefort, 3e série, tome IV, n
° 25, janvier 2000, p. 149-153. I mentioned the Duguet article in my
first post. Margaret's article and the one by Diguet cover many of
the same points.

On the whole, Margaret's article hits all the right notes. However,
there are a few comments I might make. First, I note that Margaret
uses the Latin form "de Fortibus" as the surname of Joan de Vivonne's
father, William de Forz. She likewise refers to Joan de Vivonne's
mother under the Latin form Matilda, rather than Maud.

Following William de Forz's death in 1259, Margaret correctly notes
that his widow, Maud de Ferrers, married as her 3rd husband, Aimery de
Rochechouart, Vicomte of Rochechouart. Margaret states that "there
is no evidence that Matilda and Aimery had any children together." Be
that as it may, if memory serves me correctly, Schwennicke,
Europäische Stammtafeln 3(4) (1984): 777 (sub Rouchechouart) assigns
no less than seven children to Maud de Ferrers' marriage to Aimery de
Rochechouart:, namely Guillaume [Canon of Limoges and Bourges],
Marguerite (wife of Arnaud Bochard), Agnès (wife of Pierre d’Analhac),
Isabelle, Jeanne (wife of Pons de Mortagne, Vicomte of Aunay),
Anelide, and Marquise. I haven't seen the documentation for these
children, however.

Margaret cites a lawsuit from the published Somersetshire Pleas which
makes it clear that Joan de Vivonne's 2nd husband, Aimery de
Rochechouart the younger, was dead by July 1269, as Joan's young son,
Aimery, was named in the 1269 lawsuit, not Joan's husband. Thus, Joan
de Vivonne was widowed and free to have married (3rd) c.1272 Sir
Reynold Fitz Peter, as stated in my first post.

Margaret seems not to be aware that Joan de Vivonne's nephew, Simon de
Archiac, was an important churchman, he being Archbishop of Vienne,
Cardinal of Sainte-Prisque. For further particulars on the Archiac
family, one may consult Audiat, Saint-Pierre de Saintes (1871): 94–97
(biog. of Cardinal Simon d'Archiac); Beauchet-Filleau, Dict. Hist. et
Généalogique des Fam. du Poitou 1 (1891): 83.

Margaret cites a contemporary French record in which Joan de Vivonne's
father is specifically styled "messire Guillaume de Vivonne, seigneur
de Fors." In English records, he never appears with the Vivonne
surname. As such, it is good to see at least one reference to him
(albeit a French one) which uses the surname, Vivonne.

Margaret correctly states that Joan de Vivonne had two children by her
2nd marriage to Aimery de Rochechouart, namely Aimery and Jeanne, both
of whom died without issue. Margaret doesn't seem to be concerned,
however, with Joan de Vivonne's children by her third husband, Sir
Reynold Fitz Peter. As I stated in my first post, there were
apparently six children born to this marriage, namely Peter, Knt.,
Reynold, Matthew, William (clerk), Isabel, and Beatrice. Likewise,
Margaret assigns only two children to Joan de Vivonne's sister, Cecily
de Vivonne, whereas Cecily and her husband, John de Beauchamp,
actually had four children: John, Knt. [1st Lord Beauchamp of
Somerset], Robert, Eleanor, and Beatrice.

My criticisms of Margaret's article are basically minor points. On
the whole, her article is interesting and well done.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Margaret

2010-04-26 15:15:37 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 23, 7:13 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> For those who don't read French, I've located another article online
> in English which also discusses Joan de Vivonne's three marriages.
> This second article is entitled: Three generations of the Anglo-Poitou
> family of Vivonne, from 13th century “Poitevin mercenary captain” to
> 14th century “recalcitrant lady.” The author is only named as
> Margaret. It may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.histoirepassion.eu/spip.php?article1241
>
> The author makes no reference to the other article I found online
> earlier by Jacques Duguet originally published in Roccafortis,
> Bulletin de la Société de Géographie de Rochefort, 3e série, tome IV, n
> ° 25, janvier 2000, p. 149-153. I mentioned the Duguet article in my
> first post. Margaret's article and the one by Diguet cover many of
> the same points.
>
> On the whole, Margaret's article hits all the right notes. However,
> there are a few comments I might make. First, I note that Margaret
> uses the Latin form "de Fortibus" as the surname of Joan de Vivonne's
> father, William de Forz. She likewise refers to Joan de Vivonne's
> mother under the Latin form Matilda, rather than Maud.
>
> Following William de Forz's death in 1259, Margaret correctly notes
> that his widow, Maud de Ferrers, married as her 3rd husband, Aimery de
> Rochechouart, Vicomte of Rochechouart. Margaret states that "there
> is no evidence that Matilda and Aimery had any children together." Be
> that as it may, if memory serves me correctly, Schwennicke,
> Europäische Stammtafeln 3(4) (1984): 777 (sub Rouchechouart) assigns
> no less than seven children to Maud de Ferrers' marriage to Aimery de
> Rochechouart:, namely Guillaume [Canon of Limoges and Bourges],
> Marguerite (wife of Arnaud Bochard), Agnès (wife of Pierre d’Analhac),
> Isabelle, Jeanne (wife of Pons de Mortagne, Vicomte of Aunay),
> Anelide, and Marquise. I haven't seen the documentation for these
> children, however.
>
> Margaret cites a lawsuit from the published Somersetshire Pleas which
> makes it clear that Joan de Vivonne's 2nd husband, Aimery de
> Rochechouart the younger, was dead by July 1269, as Joan's young son,
> Aimery, was named in the 1269 lawsuit, not Joan's husband. Thus, Joan
> de Vivonne was widowed and free to have married (3rd) c.1272 Sir
> Reynold Fitz Peter, as stated in my first post.
>
> Margaret seems not to be aware that Joan de Vivonne's nephew, Simon de
> Archiac, was an important churchman, he being Archbishop of Vienne,
> Cardinal of Sainte-Prisque. For further particulars on the Archiac
> family, one may consult Audiat, Saint-Pierre de Saintes (1871): 94–97
> (biog. of Cardinal Simon d'Archiac); Beauchet-Filleau, Dict. Hist. et
> Généalogique des Fam. du Poitou 1 (1891): 83.
>
> Margaret cites a contemporary French record in which Joan de Vivonne's
> father is specifically styled "messire Guillaume de Vivonne, seigneur
> de Fors." In English records, he never appears with the Vivonne
> surname. As such, it is good to see at least one reference to him
> (albeit a French one) which uses the surname, Vivonne.
>
> Margaret correctly states that Joan de Vivonne had two children by her
> 2nd marriage to Aimery de Rochechouart, namely Aimery and Jeanne, both
> of whom died without issue. Margaret doesn't seem to be concerned,
> however, with Joan de Vivonne's children by her third husband, Sir
> Reynold Fitz Peter. As I stated in my first post, there were
> apparently six children born to this marriage, namely Peter, Knt.,
> Reynold, Matthew, William (clerk), Isabel, and Beatrice. Likewise,
> Margaret assigns only two children to Joan de Vivonne's sister, Cecily
> de Vivonne, whereas Cecily and her husband, John de Beauchamp,
> actually had four children: John, Knt. [1st Lord Beauchamp of
> Somerset], Robert, Eleanor, and Beatrice.
>
> My criticisms of Margaret's article are basically minor points. On
> the whole, her article is interesting and well done.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed my article Douglas.

I used to contribute to the group, then for some reason I never
understood, when I changed my computer and/or my server, I could no
longer post. I tried several times and thought I'd try again today and
seem to have made it - we'll see when I hit the Send button.

I hadn't thought about my full name not appearing on the Histoire
Passion site. I'll see if I can do something about it.
Margaret

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-26 16:29:11 UTC

Permalink

Dear Margaret ~

Thank you for your good post and also for your good article. I
enjoyed reading your article very much, especially since I descend
from Joan de Vivonne, wife of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. I'm also
related to John de Beauchamp, husband of her sister, Cecily de
Vivonne.

When I have a moment later today, I'll forward onto you my file notes
on the Vivonne and Malet families.

One point that I'd like to clear up is exactly what land holdings the
Vivonne family held in France. Following his death, William de Forz
was styled "seigneur of Forz" in one record you cited. That is good
evidence. But it also appears that William de Forz' daughters had
rights to the châtelenie [lordship] of Vivonne. Did the family own
both Forz and Vivonne?

I see that Archives historiques du Poitou, 19 (1888): 288 states that
a later Aimery de Rochechouart (died 1397) held the "land of Vivonne"
in right of his first wife, Jeanne, eldest daughter of Jean II
d'Archiac, seigneur of Saint-Germain-sur-Vienne The author states
that Jean II d'Archiac obtained Vivonne is right of his mother, Marie
Chasteignier, which Marie was previously the wife of Savary IV de
Vivonne. This might be true, but Jean II d'Archiac might also have
obtained his right to Vivonne by way of his lineal descent from
William de Forz' daughter, Mabel de Vivonne, which Mabel was the wife
of Fulk (or Foucard) d'Archiac.

Next, do you know if Savary de Vivonne was the son of Hugh de Vivonne
and Mabel Malet? As you pointed out, Savary de Vivonne was guardian
of William de Forz' children. So I assume he was near related to
William de Forz.

Next, I noted previously that William de Forz' grandson, Foucard
d’Archiac, was styled "kinsman” [consanguin] by Yolande de Lusignan,
Countess of La Marche. I suspect Foucard d'Archiac was related to
Yolande de Lusignan through his great-grandfather, Hugh de Vivonne
(husband of Mabel Malet). Perhaps Hugh de Vivonne's mother was a
Lusignan. The Vivonne family bore a different set of arms than the
Lusignan family.

Lastly, I assume you know that Hugh de Vivonne's nephew was Peter
Chaceporc, king’s clerk, who was Keeper of the King’s Wardrobe, 1241–
1254, Warden of the Forest of Dean and Constable of St. Briavels
Castle, 1248–1254. For the connection between Hugh de Vivonne and
Peter Chaceporc, see Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 498
(Hugh de Vivonne styled “uncle” [avunculi] of Peter Chaceporc, late
Keeper of the King’s Wardrobe, in charter of King Henry III of England
dated 1255).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Margaret

2010-04-26 18:35:47 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 26, 6:29 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Margaret ~
>
> Thank you for your good post and also for your good article. I
> enjoyed reading your article very much, especially since I descend
> from Joan de Vivonne, wife of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. I'm also
> related to John de Beauchamp, husband of her sister, Cecily de
> Vivonne.
>
> When I have a moment later today, I'll forward onto you my file notes
> on the Vivonne and Malet families.
>
> One point that I'd like to clear up is exactly what land holdings the
> Vivonne family held in France. Following his death, William de Forz
> was styled "seigneur of Forz" in one record you cited. That is good
> evidence. But it also appears that William de Forz' daughters had
> rights to the châtelenie [lordship] of Vivonne. Did the family own
> both Forz and Vivonne?
>
> I see that Archives historiques du Poitou, 19 (1888): 288 states that
> a later Aimery de Rochechouart (died 1397) held the "land of Vivonne"
> in right of his first wife, Jeanne, eldest daughter of Jean II
> d'Archiac, seigneur of Saint-Germain-sur-Vienne The author states
> that Jean II d'Archiac obtained Vivonne is right of his mother, Marie
> Chasteignier, which Marie was previously the wife of Savary IV de
> Vivonne. This might be true, but Jean II d'Archiac might also have
> obtained his right to Vivonne by way of his lineal descent from
> William de Forz' daughter, Mabel de Vivonne, which Mabel was the wife
> of Fulk (or Foucard) d'Archiac.
>
> Next, do you know if Savary de Vivonne was the son of Hugh de Vivonne
> and Mabel Malet? As you pointed out, Savary de Vivonne was guardian
> of William de Forz' children. So I assume he was near related to
> William de Forz.
>
> Next, I noted previously that William de Forz' grandson, Foucard
> d’Archiac, was styled "kinsman” [consanguin] by Yolande de Lusignan,
> Countess of La Marche. I suspect Foucard d'Archiac was related to
> Yolande de Lusignan through his great-grandfather, Hugh de Vivonne
> (husband of Mabel Malet). Perhaps Hugh de Vivonne's mother was a
> Lusignan. The Vivonne family bore a different set of arms than the
> Lusignan family.
>
> Lastly, I assume you know that Hugh de Vivonne's nephew was Peter
> Chaceporc, king’s clerk, who was Keeper of the King’s Wardrobe, 1241–
> 1254, Warden of the Forest of Dean and Constable of St. Briavels
> Castle, 1248–1254. For the connection between Hugh de Vivonne and
> Peter Chaceporc, see Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 498
> (Hugh de Vivonne styled “uncle” [avunculi] of Peter Chaceporc, late
> Keeper of the King’s Wardrobe, in charter of King Henry III of England
> dated 1255).
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Douglas
Thank you, and thank you for your interesting reply above. I can't
answer any of your questions in detail, beyond recognising who you're
talking about as I haven't managed to move on from the 12th century
yet. I haven't followed through the Vivonne lands beyond what I did
for the article. I will, though, see how far I can trace them through
the "Histoire". I can't remember seeing a mention of Fors in the
documents as such, but it isn't far from Vivonne so could well have
been part of the domaines.

I'm still in the 12thC because I'm still looking into various
Rochechouart men and their marriages (or not). There's also a de
Mauleon connection I'm trying to pin down and, as you say, there are
apparently links with the Lusignans. The Rochechouarts certainly had a
lot of dealings with the Lusignans as well as many other families, of
course, like the Thouars.

Charles Cawley has a Savary de Vivonne, son of Hugh and Mable Malet.
He is presumably the Savary who was guardian of William's daughters,
but I've seen no evidence to confirm it.

I've not done nearly as much as I'd expected because I was ill for
most of last year. Fortunately I've just about fully recovered now and
fitter than for a long time but have so much work to catch up on. The
documents in the "Histoire" mention many interesting links but
figuring them out and following them up is, as you know, a very long
job.

Anyway if I can find or come across more details around the
information you already have, I'll be happy to send it.
yours
Margaret

Margaret

2010-04-26 17:45:43 UTC

Permalink

In his comments on my article, Douglas says:

"Following William de Forz's death in 1259, Margaret correctly notes
that his widow, Maud de Ferrers, married as her 3rd husband, Aimery
de
Rochechouart, Vicomte of Rochechouart. Margaret states that "there
is no evidence that Matilda and Aimery had any children together."
Be
that as it may, if memory serves me correctly, Schwennicke,
Europäische Stammtafeln 3(4) (1984): 777 (sub Rouchechouart) assigns
no less than seven children to Maud de Ferrers' marriage to Aimery de
Rochechouart:, namely Guillaume [Canon of Limoges and Bourges],
Marguerite (wife of Arnaud Bochard), Agnès (wife of Pierre
d’Analhac),
Isabelle, Jeanne (wife of Pons de Mortagne, Vicomte of Aunay),
Anelide, and Marquise. I haven't seen the documentation for these
children, however."

The archives of the Rochechouart family were republished in facsimile
form in 2008: Histoire de la Maison de Rochechouart by Général le
comte de Rochechouart, Editions Lacour.

Aimery [IX]'s will, 1283 is on pp 284/5 Vol.2. He mentions the
following children in the context of his estates and those of his late
wife Jeanne:
1. his late son Aimery [X],
2. Guy, chevalier
3. Agnès, wife of P. D'Analhac, chevalier
4. Aliénor, wife of Geoffroy de Maurienne de Mauritonie
5. Marguerite, wife of Arnaud Bochart
6. Isabelle,
7. Simon, later Simon I de Rochechouart
8. Foucaud, later archbishop of Bourges

He then names his second wife, Mathilde, as guardian of their
grandchildren, Aimery [XI] and Jeanne.

There is no mention of any children called Guillaume, Jeanne, Anelide
or Marquise.

On page 287, Simon, son of Aimery [IX] made a declaration (probably in
1306) about his birth, saying his mother, Jeanne d'Angles, dame de
Tonnay-Charente, had died giving birth to Foucaud when Simon was one,
and that he was alive when his father attacked Châlus in 1264.

In Marguerite de Limoges' will of 1259 (p. 279) she lists her heirs as
her sons Aimery, Guillaume, (m. Marguerite de Marval) Guy, Adhémar,
Simon and Foucaud. (Marguerite de Limoges names none of her daughters,
only "Guy de la Roche"(foucauld) as her son-in-law.) There is also a
deed of 1269 (p. 282) where Aimery [IX] names two of his brothers as
Guillaume and Guy, archdeacon of Limoges.

The documents used by the General in this book were copies of the
archives made by Don Villvevielle before the Revolution. It was
published in 1859 and covers the years 1018-1502. Some are in Latin,
some in Occitan and most are in French.

Does anyone know what evidence the ES used for the version cited by
Douglas about the children of Aimery [IX].

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-26 19:22:42 UTC

Permalink

Dear Margaret ~

Thank you again for your good post.

I think the abstract of the will you posted for Aimery IX de
Rochechouart, Vicomte of Rochechouart, is rather conclusive. As
such, I have deleted the "extra" children which have been assigned to
him and his second wife, Maud de Ferrers, widow of Sir William de
Forz.

Regarding my suggestion that the seigneurie of Vivonne may have been
inherited by Sir William de Forz' daughter, Mabel de Vivonne, wife of
Fulk (or Foucaud) d'Archaic, I've found the following brief statement
regarding the history of the ownership of Vivonne in the book,
Lusignan-Vivonne, Couhé, Château-Larcher: mystères de leur histoire,
by Jacques Pineau, published in 1977, page 11:

"Le château est connu dès 1077. Il était habité par Jousselin, oncle
d'Hugues de Lusignan. Le château passa à un seigneur, Fort de
Vivonne. Pierre Fort mourut à Jerusalem lors d'une croisade. En
1297, par mariage, la famille d'Archiac prit possession de Vivonne.
En 1365, Jeanne d'Archiac épousa Aimeri II de Rochechouart ..." END
OF QUOTE.

The above material may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=UMDVS5L6H4ycswPWzr3qCQ&ct=result&id=7iIKAQAAIAAJ&dq=archiac+seigneur+vivonne&q=Archiac+%C3%A9pousa+Aimeri+II+de#search_anchor

According to M. Pineau, the castle of Vivonne was obtained in marriage
in 1297 by the Archiac family. If so, then it would seem that it was
part of the Vivonne inheritance assigned to Mabel de Vivonne, wife of
Fulk (or Foucaud) d'Archiac. Mabel was born about 1255, and was
married to her husband by 1279. She died before 1299.

I don't know anything about Pierre de Forz who M. Pineau states died
on crusade in Jerusalem.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-26 21:09:02 UTC

Permalink

Dear Margaret ~

There is a discussion of the Vivonne family in Archives Historiques du
Poitou, 9 (1880): 65–70. This may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TMQXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69&dq=Hugues+seigneur+Vivonne+1246&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Hugues%20seigneur%20Vivonne%201246&f=false

This article mentions that a Guillaume de Fors, seigneur of Vivonne,
witnessed an act of Pierre Bertin, Seneschal of Poitou and La Marche,
in 1199. Given the name, date, and locality, I would imagine that
this Guillaume de Fors would have to be the father of Sir Hugh de
Vivonne who went to England and married Mabel Malet.

The article next refers to a Hugh de Vivonne who was named an arbiter
in 1249 in a dispute between Hugues le Brun VIII, seigneur of
Lusignan, and the canons of Saint Hilaire. This could be Sir Hugh de
Vivonne who married Mabel Malet, but since Sir Hugh died in that year,
I think a better candidate would perhaps be his son, Hugh de Vivonne
the younger, who was killed in Wales in 1257.

The next record is possibly the most important. Mention is made of
Guillaume de Fors chevalier who occurs as seigneur of Vivonne and
Chastelacher in 1256. This would surely be Sir William de Forz who
married Maud de Ferrers. I say that because he was definitely a
knight. Also following his death, reference is made in 1264 to his
daughters' interest in the lordship of Vivonne. Vivonne appears to
have descended to Sir William de Forz' daughter, Mabel d'Archaic, and
thence onto the Rochechouart family in the mid-1300's.

Taken together with the other records we have, it appears that Sir
William de Forz (husband of Maud de Ferrers) was seigneur of Vivonne,
Chastelacher, and Forz.

This is first reference I have seen to Chastelacher being one of the
possessions of this family. Do you know anything about this
property?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-27 15:15:25 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Pere Anselme includes an interesting account of the Vivonne family in
his monumental work, Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 8 (1733):
762, et seq. This material is available on the gallica website at
the following weblink:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k76084q.image.r=Histoire+de+la+Maison+Royale+de+France.f790.langEN

Anselme commences his account with a certain Hugues de Vivonne, whom
he states was living in 1246-1249. Hugues de Vivonne's record is
followed by an account of "one of his children," namely Savary de
Vivonne I, who was seigneur of Bougouin (in in Chavagné). The
descendants of Savary de Vivonne in France are traced at some length
by Anselme. The name of Hugues de Vivonne's wife is not given, nor
are the names of the other children of Hugues de Vivonne provided by
Anselme.

I've always assumed that the Hugues de Vivonne who heads up Anselme's
pedigree is the same person as Sir Hugh de Vivonne who went to England
and married Mabel Malet, daughter and co-heiress of William Malet, the
Magna Carta baron. However, Anselme provides such limited information
regarding Hugues de Vivonne that it has been impossible to say with
any assurance that he is the same man as Sir Hugh de Vivonne in
England.

Margaret's good article on the Vivonne family provides good
circumstantial evidence that Sir Hugh de Vivonne in England was
closely related to Savary de Vivonne. She quotes a contemporary
record dated 1264 which shows that Sir Savary de Vivonne was serving
in that year as guardian for Sir Hugh de Vivonne's granddaughters in
France. That's a good start.

I've searched through a variety of records and after considerable
effort, I've finally found evidence which proves that Sir Hugh de
Vivonne in England did indeed have a son named Savary de Vivonne. The
evidence is found in the book, Rôles Gascons, by Francisque-Michel,
volume 1, published in 1885. This is a logical place to find
information on the Vivonne family, as Sir Hugh de Vivonne in England
was Seneschal of Gascony in 1221, 1231–4. This work may be found at
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CXkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA568&dq=Roles+gascons&hl=en&ei=PfXWS57_FYrStAOHgYWGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=savaric&f=false

There are many references to Sir Hugh de Vivonne found in this book,
as well as references to his two known sons, Sir William de Forz
(otherwise William de Vivonne) (died 1259) and Hugh de Vivonne (killed
1257). There are also references to Sir Hugh de Vivonne's nephews,
Peter and Hugh Chaceporc.

Interestingly, there are also three references to Savary de Vivonne
found in this work.

On page 310 and again on page 345 mention is made of a grant of 30
marks for life granted in 1254 by the king to Savary de Vivonne.
These grants are elsewhere found in Cal. Patent Rolls, 1247–1258
(1908): 270, 295. Indication is made of two grants in 1254, one of
which was voided.

On page 385 the king further mandated that his treasurer, Peter
Chaceporc, pay Hugh de Vivonne and his brother, Savary, thirty marks
for two horses in 1254.

Peter Chaceporc was, of course, the nephew of Sir Hugh de Vivonne
(husband of Mabel Malet). The two brothers, Hugh and Savary de
Vivonne, named in this record would surely be Sir Hugh's sons. As far
as I know, the only Hugh de Vivonne associated with the king in 1254
would be Hugh de Vivonne the younger who was subsequently killed in
Wales in 1257.

So it would appear that Pere Anselme was correct that Sir Hugh de
Vivonne had a son named Savary de Vivonne. This discovery opens up a
whole new wing of Vivonne descendants for the family of William Malet,
the Magna Carta baron.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

2010-04-28 03:53:33 UTC

Permalink

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e897f971-bcd5-43e4-9097-***@k36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

> I've searched through a variety of records and after considerable
> effort, I've finally found evidence which proves that Sir Hugh de
> Vivonne in England did indeed have a son named Savary de
> Vivonne. The evidence is found in the book, Rôles Gascons, by
> Francisque-Michel, volume 1, published in 1885. This is a logical
> place to find information on the Vivonne family, as Sir Hugh de
> Vivonne in England was Seneschal of Gascony in 1221, 1231–4.

I wouldn't call this ironclad "proof", but another logical place to look
will yield explicit evidence that Hugh's son William had a younger brother
Savary - see _Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, A.D. 1254-1256_ (1931)
p. 305 (1256): "Willelmus de Fortibus supplicavit regi quod xl libras quas
regi debet de debitis patris sui ei allocari faciat in xl libris in quibus
rex tenetur Savarico de Vivon', fratri suo juniori..."

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2010-04-28 02:53:50 UTC

Permalink

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4d460a24-af0e-4885-8774-***@x18g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

> Regarding my suggestion that the seigneurie of Vivonne may have
> been inherited by Sir William de Forz' daughter, Mabel de Vivonne,
> wife of Fulk (or Foucaud) d'Archaic, I've found the following brief
> statement regarding the history of the ownership of Vivonne in the
> book, Lusignan-Vivonne, Couhé, Château-Larcher: mystères de
> leur histoire, by Jacques Pineau, published in 1977, page 11:
>
> "Le château est connu dès 1077. Il était habité par Jousselin, oncle
> d'Hugues de Lusignan. Le château passa à un seigneur, Fort de
> Vivonne. Pierre Fort mourut à Jerusalem lors d'une croisade. En
> 1297, par mariage, la famille d'Archiac prit possession de Vivonne.
> En 1365, Jeanne d'Archiac épousa Aimeri II de Rochechouart ..."
> END OF QUOTE.

<snip>

> According to M. Pineau, the castle of Vivonne was obtained in
> marriage in 1297 by the Archiac family. If so, then it would seem that
> it was part of the Vivonne inheritance assigned to Mabel de Vivonne,
> wife of Fulk (or Foucaud) d'Archiac. Mabel was born about 1255,
> and was married to her husband by 1279. She died before 1299.
>
> I don't know anything about Pierre de Forz who M. Pineau states
> died on crusade in Jerusalem.

I haven't studied Vivonne or the various families connected with it, but may
be able to save some time in pursuing information on these points.

"Pierre de Forz" who died in Jerusalem was called "Petrus cognomento
Fortis"; he was brother of Herveus, archdeacon of Poitiers, his wife was
named Bigueria and they had sons William and Aimery, see an undated charter
of Saint-Cyprien de Poitiers, written 1087/1108 probably ca 1095, in
_Archives historiques du Poitou_ 3 (1874) p. 270 no. 429, "Herveus Sancte
Pictaviensis ecclesie archidiaconus et Petrus cognomento Fortis, frater
ejus...S. Hervei archidiaconi et Petroni fratris ejus. S. Biguerie uxoris
Petri, et filiorum ipsorum, Willelmi et Aimerici.Regnante Philippo". His
death on crusade in Jerusalem is stated in an undated charter of his brother
and son for Saint-Cyprien, probably written ca 1105, ibid p. 68 no. 75,
"Petrus Fortis frater archidiaconi et pater Willelmi, moriturus in bello
Hierosolimitano".

As for the descent of Vivonne and a connected genealogy of the seigneurs
before and after their time, the subject is bedevilled by multiplicity - it
was divided into two parts, one held from the bishops of Poitiers and the
other from the counts of Poitou.

Joscelin in 1018 and a Boso son of Joscelin (maybe not the same one) in 1076
held a moiety from the bishops, but how long this may have been carried down
in their lineage is unknown as far as I'm aware. The seigneurs surnamed "de
Fors" were successors to their fief held from the bishops of Poitiers.

A Helyas of Vivonne was involved in a bitter dispute with the chapter of
Saint-Hilaire de Poitiers in July 1128 - he had been excommunicated by Pope
Calixtus II for refusing to give back property of theirs, see the cartulary
edited in _Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de l'Ouest_ 14 (1848) p.
128 no. 115. Since he was almost contemporary with the first William de
Fors, son of Pierre, he presumably held the other part of Vivonne, from the
counts of Poitou, simultaneously.

As you know, Hugo the seneschal (died 1249) married Mabel Malet and was
brother of Aimery, seigneur of Vivonne who had died before 16 March 1247. On
that date Alphonse of France, the count, and Jean de Melun, the bishop,
agreed to coordinate the granting of their separate parts of Vivonne, see
the bishop's cartulary in _Archives historiques du Poitou_ 10 (1881) p. 33
no. 23 (dated 1246, Annunciation style). Hugo's son William obtained Vivonne
before 3 February 1256 (when he called hiumself "Guillelmus Fortis, miles,
dominus de Viveonia"), and it was inherited not by his daughter Mabel, as
suggested above, but by her sister Sibille who married Guido de
Rochechouart, see the bishop's grant to them recorded ibid p. 364, "Littera
de donacione facta episcopo Pictavensi de jurisdictione et homagio de
Vivonia a domino Guydone de Rupe Choardi et Sibilla, ejus uxore".

The descent from them to the Archiac family is vague & patchy in the few
secondary sources I've checked - according to Père Anselme (third edition),
vol. 4 p. 651, Guido was son of Foucault de Rochechouart, seigneur of
Saint-Germain, and father of Guillaume. According to Beauchet-Filleau
(second edition) vol. 1 pp. 94-95, Sibille alias Alix, dame of Vivonne, was
most probably daughter of Aimery de Montcocul, seigneur of Vivonne (living
ca 1300), perhaps by Alix de Vivonne (who I suppose _may_ have been daughter
& heiress of Guido's son Guillaume de Rochechouart); Sibille alias Alix
married Aimery d'Archiac (living 1322), and their son was Jean d'Archiac,
seigneur of Saint-Germain & Vivonne, whose daughter Jeanne married Aimery de
Rochechouart, seigneur of Mortemar, ca 1355.

I don't have access to the history of the Rochechouart family cited by
Margaret - perhaps the link from Guido and Sibille to Alix de Vivonne and
her presumed daughter Sibille alias Alix is clarified there.

Peter Stewart

Margaret

2010-04-28 16:56:56 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 28, 4:53 am, "Peter Stewart" <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
<snip>.
>
> I don't have access to the history of the Rochechouart family cited by
> Margaret - perhaps the link from Guido and Sibille to Alix de Vivonne and
> her presumed daughter Sibille alias Alix is clarified there.
>
> Peter Stewart

I don't remember seeing any mention of an Alix de Vivonne in the
texts, but will look out for the name.
yours
Margaret

Peter Stewart

2010-04-28 02:53:50 UTC

Permalink

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-28 04:19:54 UTC

Permalink

Thank you for your helpful comments, Peter. The mutiple ownership of
Vivonne explains why I've found more than one family being called
lords of Vivonne in the same time period. As you know, this sort of
thing happened occasionally in medieval England (that is, multiple
ownerships of the same locality). It invariably causes a good deal of
confusion to later day historians and genealogists who attempt to
reconstruct an accurate history of such a locality.

The "bishop's cartulary" you cite in your post was published by M.
Rédet under the title, Cartulaire de l’Évêché de Poitiers or Grand-
Gauthier (Archives Hist. du Poitou 10) (1881). It is available for
viewing on the gallica website. On page 364 you cite a reference
which I have seen previously which indicates that Sibyl de Vivonne,
wife of Guy de Rochechouart, was the heiress of Vivonne following the
death of her father, Sir Guillaume de Forz (or de Vivonne). The
citation reads as you give it:

"Littera de donacione facta episcopo Pictavensi de jurisdictione et
homagio de Vivonia a domino Guydone de Rupe Choardi et Sibilla, ejus
uxore".

For those interested in seeing the actual record, it may be viewed at
the following weblink:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2094775.image.r=Cartulaire+de+l%E2%80%99%C3%89v%C3%AAch%C3%A9+de+Poitiers.f394.langEN

I assume from this record that Sibyl and her husband, Guy, obtained
the entire lordship of Vivonne, and that her sister, Mabel de Vivonne,
had no share in it. It is implied in other materials I have seen
this week that Sibyl and Guy's two sons, Guyard and Guillaume
Rochechouart, both died without issue. If so, it may be that the
lordship of Vivonne passed to the issue of Sibyl's sister, Mabel, wife
of Fulk (or Foucaud) d'Archiac, at a later date. If so, it would
explain how the Archiac family later came to possess the lordship of
Vivonne.

In the same publication by M. Rédet on pages 32-34, there is an
agreement which you have noted dated 16 March 1247 between Alphonse,
Count of Poitou, and Jean, Bishop of Poitiers, regarding the lands of
Aimery de Vivonne, Chivalier, deceased, held in fief of the Bishop of
Poitiers. Mention is made in this record of Hugues de Vivonne,
Chivalier, and his sons. We know from a record in England that this
Hugues de Vivonne is the same person as Sir Hugh de Vivonne (died
1249), Seneschal of Gascony, and that he was brother of the said
Aimery de Vivonne.

The document on pages 32-34 may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2094775.image.r=Cartulaire+de+l%E2%80%99%C3%89v%C3%AAch%C3%A9+de+Poitiers.f62.langEN

As I noted in an earlier post, there is supposed to be a reference in
1199 to Guillaume de Forz, seigneur of Vivonne. I haven't yet found
the original source of this record. If this information is correct
(and I have no reason to doubt it), I assume this Guillaume de Forz
was the father of Sir Hugh de Vivonne (died 1249) who went to England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

2010-04-28 06:09:48 UTC

Permalink

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:04bfd0ec-5d3b-43b5-8e02-***@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

> As I noted in an earlier post, there is supposed to be a reference in
> 1199 to Guillaume de Forz, seigneur of Vivonne. I haven't yet found
> the original source of this record. If this information is correct
> (and I have no reason to doubt it), I assume this Guillaume de Forz
> was the father of Sir Hugh de Vivonne (died 1249) who went to England.

This charter of Pierre Bertin, seneschal of Poitou and La Marche, dated 1199
that Besly referred to in his letter was printed in _Documents pour l’histoire
de l’église de Saint-Hilaire de Poitiers_, edited by Louis Rédet in
_Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de l’Ouest_ 14 (Poitiers, 1848) pp.
212-213 no. 183. The witnesses include "Willelmus Fortis de Vicovoone".

NB A further complication in tracing his family is the existence of another,
not far away, with the same surname and using some of the same given names -
there was at least one other Guillaume de Forz at the same time, recorded
between 1190 and 1213. According to Janet Gardiner in _‘Miles’ and ‘Milites’:
a Study of the Composition of the Aristocracy in the Diocese of Saintes,
980-1300_ (doctoral thesis, UCB 1984), he belonged to a noncastral family.

Gardiner, ibid 207, has Fulco d'Archiac recorded in 1280. She indicates one
son, Ademar, with his wife Mabel. Ademar was named as a co-heir of his
maternal grandmother along with his aunts Cecily, Joanna and Sibilla (who
like him was 24+ years old at the time, apparently in 1303/04), see
_Calendarium genealogicum: Henry III and Edward I_, edited by Charles
Roberts, 2 vols (London, 1865) ii 567, "Adomarus fuit filius 'et haeres'
cujusdam Mabillae quae fuit quarta filia praedictae Matildis...Sibilla et
Adomarus sunt aetatis viginti quatuor annorum et amplius". I have no other
information to hand on that family.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2010-04-28 06:30:01 UTC

Permalink

I keep removing the cross-posts and they keep coming back...

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:04bfd0ec-5d3b-43b5-8e02-***@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> It is implied in other materials I have seen this week that Sibyl
> and Guy's two sons, Guyard and Guillaume Rochechouart, both
> died without issue. If so, it may be that the lordship of Vivonne
> passed to the issue of Sibyl's sister, Mabel, wife of Fulk (or
> Foucaud) d'Archiac, at a later date. If so, it would explain how
> the Archiac family later came to possess the lordship of
> Vivonne.

Perhaps, but are you sure this Sibyl married to Guy de Rochechouart with two
sons (Guyard and Guillaume) was the same lady as the sister of Mabel?

ES (new edition) III/4 table 776 shows a Guy de Rochechouart (son of
Foucaud, seigneur of Saint-Germain) married to Sibille de Vivonne (Mabel's
sister) with one son, Guillaume.

However, Table 786 shows his first cousin once removed, another Guy de
Rochechouart (son of Guillaume, seigneur of Mortemart) married to Sibille
d'Archiac, dame of Vivonne with two sons, Guyard (1295) and another unnamed.

Rabbits can be easier to keep track of than medieval nobility, even without
names - at least their ears may be different sizes.

Peter Stewart

Margaret

2010-04-28 16:52:52 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 28, 8:30 am, "Peter Stewart" <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I keep removing the cross-posts and they keep coming back...
>
> "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:04bfd0ec-5d3b-43b5-8e02-***@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It is implied in other materials I have seen this week that Sibyl
> > and Guy's two sons, Guyard and Guillaume Rochechouart, both
> > died without issue. If so, it may be that the lordship of Vivonne
> > passed to the issue of Sibyl's sister, Mabel, wife of Fulk (or
> > Foucaud) d'Archiac, at a later date. If so, it would explain how
> > the Archiac family later came to possess the lordship of
> > Vivonne.
>
> Perhaps, but are you sure this Sibyl married to Guy de Rochechouart with two
> sons (Guyard and Guillaume) was the same lady as the sister of Mabel?
>
> ES (new edition) III/4 table 776 shows a Guy de Rochechouart (son of
> Foucaud, seigneur of Saint-Germain) married to Sibille de Vivonne (Mabel's
> sister) with one son, Guillaume.
>
> However, Table 786 shows his first cousin once removed, another Guy de
> Rochechouart (son of Guillaume, seigneur of Mortemart) married to Sibille
> d'Archiac, dame of Vivonne with two sons, Guyard (1295) and another unnamed.
>
> Rabbits can be easier to keep track of than medieval nobility, even without
> names - at least their ears may be different sizes.
>
> Peter Stewart

You've given a lot of information that is going to take some working
through so I'm taking what seems an easier bit first.

There is no trace in the Dom Villevielle copies of any children of
Guyard and Guillaume, the two sons of Guy and Sybil, Guyard and
Guillaume.

The supposed marriage between Guy son of Aimery VIII and Sybil is also
mentioned in the commentary in the Histoire de la Maison de
Rochechouart, p. 77 Vol 1. The General writes: "Guy, d'abord
archidiacre à Limoges, quitta l'Eglise pour les armes et prit le titre
de seigneur de Saint-Laurent. Il se marie avec une personne désignée
seulement par le nom d'Agnez, dont il n'eut point d'enfants, du moins
aucune chronique n'en parle. Voici ce qu'on lit dans le Receuil de D.
Villevieille concernant ce Guy de Rochechouart, et qui change
complètement le nom que les généalogistes donnent à sa femme (voir le
P. Anselme, Moréri et Castelanau): "Guy de Rochechouart, chevalier, et
Sybille, sa femme, cédèrent par échange à Jean de Beauchamps,
chevalier, et à Cécile, sa femme, les droits qu'ils avoient du chef de
ladite Sybille, à Dresslingh, comté de Cambridge, et à Walleneton,
comté de Dorset, pour et en contre-échange des droits que les dits
Jean et Cécile avoient en la châtellerie de Vivonne et autres lieux,
au diocèse de Poitiers, le vendredi jour de Saint-Michel 1279."

The trouble with this is we know from the 1264 marriage contract that
the two older Vivonne daughters, Joan and Sybil, (sisters of Cecily)
married Aimery IX's two older boys, Aimery X and Guy - not Guy son of
Aimery VIII.

I've started transcribing the documents in the Histoire but I think
I'm going to have to get all of them on the computer to make searching
easier.
yours
Margaret

Peter Stewart

2010-04-29 00:08:00 UTC

Permalink

"Margaret" <***@neuf.fr> wrote in message
news:5c9527a6-4410-4d0f-9af1-***@y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

> There is no trace in the Dom Villevielle copies of any children of
> Guyard and Guillaume, the two sons of Guy and Sybil, Guyard
> and Guillaume.
>
> The supposed marriage between Guy son of Aimery VIII and
> Sybil is also mentioned in the commentary in the Histoire de la
> Maison de Rochechouart, p. 77 Vol 1. The General writes: "Guy,
> d'abord archidiacre à Limoges, quitta l'Eglise pour les armes et
> prit le titre de seigneur de Saint-Laurent. Il se marie avec une
> personne désignée seulement par le nom d'Agnez, dont il n'eut
> point d'enfants, du moins aucune chronique n'en parle. Voici ce
> qu'on lit dans le Receuil de D. Villevieille concernant ce Guy de
> Rochechouart, et qui change complètement le nom que les
> généalogistes donnent à sa femme (voir le P. Anselme, Moréri et
> Castelanau): "Guy de Rochechouart, chevalier, et Sybille, sa
> femme, cédèrent par échange à Jean de Beauchamps, chevalier,
> et à Cécile, sa femme, les droits qu'ils avoient du chef de ladite
> Sybille, à Dresslingh, comté de Cambridge, et à Walleneton,
> comté de Dorset, pour et en contre-échange des droits que les
> dits Jean et Cécile avoient en la châtellerie de Vivonne et autres
> lieux, au diocèse de Poitiers, le vendredi jour de Saint-Michel
> 1279."
>
> The trouble with this is we know from the 1264 marriage contract
> that the two older Vivonne daughters, Joan and Sybil, (sisters of
> Cecily) married Aimery IX's two older boys, Aimery X and Guy
> - not Guy son of Aimery VIII.

This is the presumption made by Duguet, but is it certain?

According to the article cited earlier,
http://seucaj.ifrance.com/rochechouart.htm:

"Aimeri s'était remarié sans tarder avec une veuve, Mathilde, qui avait
elle-même au moins trois filles mineures d'un mariage avec Guillaume de
Fors. Le contrat, en date du 28 avril 1264, prévoyait le mariage d'Aimeri,
fils aîné du vicomte, avec Jeanne, fille aînée de Mathilde, et celui de Guy,
second fils du vicomte, avec Sibille, seconde fille de Mathilde...Nous
n'avons aucun renseignement sur cette famille nombreuse pendant la minorité
des enfants. Nous pouvons cependant constater que les deux mariages prévus
ont été réalisés".

However, the basis for the last statement is not explained. In any event,
the marriage of Sibille might not have taken place until some while after
1264. In the IPM of her mother her elder sisters Joan and Cecily were said
to be aged 50 and 40 respectively, see _Calendarium genealogicum_ (1865) ii.
567 - taking this to mean more broadly in their 50s and 40s by 1299, Cecily
and Sibille could have been born in the late 1250s.

It seems a bit strange that Duguet cites only General de Rochechouart's
book, perhaps following his identifications, while not only Anselme had the
marriage of Sibille to a different Guy, but also La Chesnaye des Bois in
_Dictionnaire de la noblesse_. I don't have access to the relevant volume of
Beauchet-Filleau, who had also used the work of Dom Villevielle.

Duguet went on to say of Aimery IX's son Guy: "Dans un testament daté du 26
juin 1313, se qualifiant seigneur de Tonnay-Charente et de Cercigny, il
apparaît remarié avec une Agnès" and noted that in 1328 his son Guillaume
sold "son hébergement de Cercigny, près de Vivonne, venant du chef de sa
mère".

If this last point is the only evidence connecting Guillaume to Sibille,
it's not all that strong. Possession of property near Vivonne could have
come to him without his mother being dame in the episcopal fief, possibly
even as son of his father's (second?) wife Agnès whose family appears not to
be known. For instance, in 1247 the tenants named in the comital fief did
not include anyone who can be definitely linked more closely to Sibille's
family than Hugo Chaceporc, see Registres des comptes d'Alfonse comte de
Poitiers, edited by A. Bardonnet in _Archives historiques du Poitou_ 4
(1875) 20-21:

"Hii sunt plegii pro deliberatione terre de Vivona: Dominus Hugo Chace-porc
pro deliberatione terre de Vivona, M. et V. libr. turon. solvendas per tales
terminos...Dominus Hugo Chace-porc tenetur pro III. libris per litteras; -
comes Engolisme pro II. libris per litteras; - Gaufridus de Lezegniaco,
filius comitis Marchie, pro II. libris per litteras; - Guillelmus de
Valencia, filius comitis Marchie, pro C. libris per litteras; - Guillelmus
de Curseio, miles, pro L. libris, per litteras; - dominus Guillelmus de
Araone, pro C. libris per litteras; - dominus Helias de Lavergnia, pro II.
libris per litteras; - dominus Giullelmus Chenin, pro II. libris per
litteras; - Guillelmus Gorjaudi, miles, pro L. libris per litteras; -
dominus Joscelinus de Lazaio, pro C. libris per litteras."

Peter Stewart

wjhonson

2010-04-30 02:36:03 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 28, 5:08 pm, "Peter Stewart" <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> However, the basis for the last statement is not explained. In any event,
> the marriage of Sibille might not have taken place until some while after
> 1264. In the IPM of her mother her elder sisters Joan and Cecily were said
> to be aged 50 and 40 respectively, see _Calendarium genealogicum_ (1865) ii.
> 567 - taking this to mean more broadly in their 50s and 40s by 1299, Cecily
> and Sibille could have been born in the late 1250s.
>
> Peter Stewart

Regarding just the point of the relative ages of the four co-heiresses
we do have a source a little closer to the bone as William de Fortibus
their father, has an IPM in 1259.

Joan was then "age 8", Sibyl "age 6", Mabel "age 4" and Cecily "age
2".

Will Johnson

w***@aol.com

2010-04-24 05:45:05 UTC

Permalink

Ingram's heir-male was his next brother William Canon of York who was "aged 26" at the York IPM taken 24 Oct 1262

In March 1262 the king granted Ingram £50 yearly of rent
from the fixed and perpetual rents of the Jews of England. In July
1262 he was granted protection with clause, he then going with the
king to France. Sir Ingram de Percy died testate shortly before 10
Oct. 1262. They had no issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 23, 2010 7:55 am
Subject: Complete Peerage Addition: Joan de Vivonne, wife of Reynold Fitz Peter, Knt.

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 465 (sub FitzReynold) includes a brief
account of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter (died 4 or 5 May 1286), of Blaen
Llyfni (in Cathedine), Bwlch y Dinas (in Talgarth), and Talgarth,
Breconshire, Wales, Joint Guardian of the Welsh Marches, Sheriff of
Hampshire, 1261–4, Constable of Winchester Castle. This material
shows that Sir Reynold Fitz Peter was married twice: (1st) Alice
_____, who occurs 28 Oct. 1263 and 24 Aug. 1265, and (2nd) Joan de
Vivonne, 1st daughter and co-heiress of "William le Fort de Vivonne,"
of Chewton, Somerset.

The name of Joan de Vivonne's father as reported by Complete Peerage
is slightly askew. His name was actually Sir William de Forz, not
William le Fort de Vivonne. He died shortly before 22 May 1259. Sir
William's wife and mother of his children was Maud de Ferrers, widow
of Simon de Kyme, and daughter of William de Ferrers, Knt., 5th Earl
of Derby. Sir William de Forz in turn was the son and heir of Sir
Hugh (or Hugues) de Vivonne, of Chewton, Somerset, by Mabel, the
daughter and heiress of William Malet, the Magna Carta baron.

By his 1st wife, Sir Reynold Fitz Peter had one son, John, Knt. [Lord
Fitz Reynold] and at least two daughters, Alice (wife of John de Saint
John) and Katherine (wife of John Pichard). By his 2nd wife, Joan de
Vivonne, he had four sons, Peter, Knt., Reynold, Matthew, and William
(clerk), and two daughters, Isabel and Beatrice.

Complete Peerage tells us nothing regarding Joan de Vivonne's marital
history before becoming the wife of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. Research
indicates that Joan de Vivonne married (1st) after 10 March 1262
Ingram de Percy, Knt., of Dalton, co. Durham and Kirkby Overblow,
Yorkshire, King’s yeoman, younger son of William de Percy, of
Topcliffe, Yorkshire, by his 2nd wife, Ellen, daughter of Ingram de
Balliol. In March 1262 the king granted Ingram £50 yearly of rent
from the fixed and perpetual rents of the Jews of England. In July
1262 he was granted protection with clause, he then going with the
king to France. Sir Ingram de Percy died testate shortly before 10
Oct. 1262. They had no issue.

It has been commonly assumed that following the death of Sir Ingram de
Percy in 1262, Joan de Vivonne next married Sir Reynold Fitz Peter.
However, new evidence has come to light which proves that Joan de
Vivonne had another marriage between these two husbands. The evidence
is presented in a recent article published in Roccafortis, Bulletin de
la Société de Géographie de Rochefort, 3e série, tome IV, n° 25,
janvier 2000, p. 149-153, which source may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://seucaj.ifrance.com/rochechouart.htm

This article shows that Joan de Vivonne, married (2nd) by contract
dated 28 April 1264 her step-brother, Aimery de Rochechouart, son and
heir apparent of Aimery de Rochechouart, Knt., Vicomte of Rochechouart
(in Haute Vienne) in Poitou, seigneur of La Cossière-en-Périgord,
Brigueil-l’Aine, Mas-de-Gegelar, Pérusse, etc., by his 1st wife,
Jeanne, daughter and heiress of Geoffroy de Tonnay, seigneur of Tonnay-
Charente. Joan and Aimery had two children, Aimery [Vicomte of
Rochechouart] and Jeanne. Aimery de Rochechouart died sometime before
25 June 1283 (date of his father’s will).

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of Joan de Vivonne's final
marriage to Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. However, at his death in 1286,
they had at least four children named in his will. There was
certainly a fifth child, William, possibly born posthumously, and
evidently a sixth child, Beatrice (who adopted her mother's surname,
Vivonne). This would fix Joan's approximate date of marriage to Sir
Reynold Fitz Peter as circa 1272. As such, this would preclude Joan
de Vivonne from being the mother of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter's known
daughter, Katherine, who married in or before 1277 John Pichard, of
Stradewy [present day Llanfihangel-Ystrad], Cardiganshire, Wales.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the New World
immigrants that descend from Joan de Vivonne, by her 3rd marriage to
Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. The list includes the immigrant, Rose
(Stoughton) Otis, whose connection to Joan de Vivonne was recently
proved through the combined research efforts of myself, Martin
Hollick, and James L. and Loretta-Marie Dimond.

Barbara Aubrey, John Baynard, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen,
Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Francis Dade, Mary Gye, Anne
Humphrey, Mary Launce, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, John Oxenbridge,
Herbert Pelham, George Reade, Richard Saltonstall, Mary Johanna
Somerset, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, Olive Welby, John West.

Further details regarding all of these people can be found in the
forthcoming 2nd edition of my book, Magna Carta Ancestry.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

Mike Welch

2010-04-24 06:53:09 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 23, 7:55 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 465 (sub FitzReynold) includes a brief
> account of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter (died 4 or 5 May 1286), of Blaen
> Llyfni (in Cathedine), Bwlch y Dinas (in Talgarth), and Talgarth,
> Breconshire, Wales, Joint Guardian of the Welsh Marches, Sheriff of
> Hampshire, 1261–4, Constable of Winchester Castle. This material
> shows that Sir Reynold Fitz Peter was married twice: (1st) Alice
> _____, who occurs 28 Oct. 1263 and 24 Aug. 1265, and (2nd) Joan de
> Vivonne, 1st daughter and co-heiress of "William le Fort de Vivonne,"
> of Chewton, Somerset.
>
> The name of Joan de Vivonne's father as reported by Complete Peerage
> is slightly askew. His name was actually Sir William de Forz, not
> William le Fort de Vivonne. He died shortly before 22 May 1259. Sir
> William's wife and mother of his children was Maud de Ferrers, widow
> of Simon de Kyme, and daughter of William de Ferrers, Knt., 5th Earl
> of Derby. Sir William de Forz in turn was the son and heir of Sir
> Hugh (or Hugues) de Vivonne, of Chewton, Somerset, by Mabel, the
> daughter and heiress of William Malet, the Magna Carta baron.
>
> By his 1st wife, Sir Reynold Fitz Peter had one son, John, Knt. [Lord
> Fitz Reynold] and at least two daughters, Alice (wife of John de Saint
> John) and Katherine (wife of John Pichard). By his 2nd wife, Joan de
> Vivonne, he had four sons, Peter, Knt., Reynold, Matthew, and William
> (clerk), and two daughters, Isabel and Beatrice.
>
> Complete Peerage tells us nothing regarding Joan de Vivonne's marital
> history before becoming the wife of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. Research
> indicates that Joan de Vivonne married (1st) after 10 March 1262
> Ingram de Percy, Knt., of Dalton, co. Durham and Kirkby Overblow,
> Yorkshire, King’s yeoman, younger son of William de Percy, of
> Topcliffe, Yorkshire, by his 2nd wife, Ellen, daughter of Ingram de
> Balliol. In March 1262 the king granted Ingram £50 yearly of rent
> from the fixed and perpetual rents of the Jews of England. In July
> 1262 he was granted protection with clause, he then going with the
> king to France. Sir Ingram de Percy died testate shortly before 10
> Oct. 1262. They had no issue.
>
> It has been commonly assumed that following the death of Sir Ingram de
> Percy in 1262, Joan de Vivonne next married Sir Reynold Fitz Peter.
> However, new evidence has come to light which proves that Joan de
> Vivonne had another marriage between these two husbands. The evidence
> is presented in a recent article published in Roccafortis, Bulletin de
> la Société de Géographie de Rochefort, 3e série, tome IV, n° 25,
> janvier 2000, p. 149-153, which source may be viewed at the following
> weblink:
>
> http://seucaj.ifrance.com/rochechouart.htm
>
> This article shows that Joan de Vivonne, married (2nd) by contract
> dated 28 April 1264 her step-brother, Aimery de Rochechouart, son and
> heir apparent of Aimery de Rochechouart, Knt., Vicomte of Rochechouart
> (in Haute Vienne) in Poitou, seigneur of La Cossière-en-Périgord,
> Brigueil-l’Aine, Mas-de-Gegelar, Pérusse, etc., by his 1st wife,
> Jeanne, daughter and heiress of Geoffroy de Tonnay, seigneur of Tonnay-
> Charente. Joan and Aimery had two children, Aimery [Vicomte of
> Rochechouart] and Jeanne. Aimery de Rochechouart died sometime before
> 25 June 1283 (date of his father’s will).
>
> It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of Joan de Vivonne's final
> marriage to Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. However, at his death in 1286,
> they had at least four children named in his will. There was
> certainly a fifth child, William, possibly born posthumously, and
> evidently a sixth child, Beatrice (who adopted her mother's surname,
> Vivonne). This would fix Joan's approximate date of marriage to Sir
> Reynold Fitz Peter as circa 1272. As such, this would preclude Joan
> de Vivonne from being the mother of Sir Reynold Fitz Peter's known
> daughter, Katherine, who married in or before 1277 John Pichard, of
> Stradewy [present day Llanfihangel-Ystrad], Cardiganshire, Wales.
>
> For interest's sake, the following is a list of the New World
> immigrants that descend from Joan de Vivonne, by her 3rd marriage to
> Sir Reynold Fitz Peter. The list includes the immigrant, Rose
> (Stoughton) Otis, whose connection to Joan de Vivonne was recently
> proved through the combined research efforts of myself, Martin
> Hollick, and James L. and Loretta-Marie Dimond.
>
> Barbara Aubrey, John Baynard, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen,
> Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Francis Dade, Mary Gye, Anne
> Humphrey, Mary Launce, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, John Oxenbridge,
> Herbert Pelham, George Reade, Richard Saltonstall, Mary Johanna
> Somerset, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, Olive Welby, John West.
>
> Further details regarding all of these people can be found in the
> forthcoming 2nd edition of my book, Magna Carta Ancestry.
>
> Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Doug

Thank you for the interesting post.

Mike

Margaret

2010-04-29 15:36:24 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 29, 2:08 am, "Peter Stewart" <***@bigpond.com> wrote
>
> This is the presumption made by Duguet, but is it certain?
>
> According to the article cited earlier,http://seucaj.ifrance.com/rochechouart.htm:
>
> "Aimeri s'était remarié sans tarder avec une veuve, Mathilde, qui avait
> elle-même au moins trois filles mineures d'un mariage avec Guillaume de
> Fors. Le contrat, en date du 28 avril 1264, prévoyait le mariage d'Aimeri,
> fils aîné du vicomte, avec Jeanne, fille aînée de Mathilde, et celui de Guy,
> second fils du vicomte, avec Sibille, seconde fille de Mathilde...Nous
> n'avons aucun renseignement sur cette famille nombreuse pendant la minorité
> des enfants. Nous pouvons cependant constater que les deux mariages prévus
> ont été réalisés".
>
> However, the basis for the last statement is not explained. In any event,
> the marriage of Sibille might not have taken place until some while after
> 1264. In the IPM of her mother her elder sisters Joan and Cecily were said
> to be aged 50 and 40 respectively, see _Calendarium genealogicum_ (1865) ii.
> 567 - taking this to mean more broadly in their 50s and 40s by 1299, Cecily
> and Sibille could have been born in the late 1250s.
>
> It seems a bit strange that Duguet cites only General de Rochechouart's
> book, perhaps following his identifications, while not only Anselme had the
> marriage of Sibille to a different Guy, but also La Chesnaye des Bois in
> _Dictionnaire de la noblesse_. I don't have access to the relevant volume of
> Beauchet-Filleau, who had also used the work of Dom Villevielle.
>
> Duguet went on to say of Aimery IX's son Guy: "Dans un testament daté du 26
> juin 1313, se qualifiant seigneur de Tonnay-Charente et de Cercigny, il
> apparaît remarié avec une Agnès" and noted that in 1328 his son Guillaume
> sold "son hébergement de Cercigny, près de Vivonne, venant du chef de sa
> mère".
>
> If this last point is the only evidence connecting Guillaume to Sibille,
> it's not all that strong. Possession of property near Vivonne could have
> come to him without his mother being dame in the episcopal fief, possibly
> even as son of his father's (second?) wife Agnès whose family appears not to
> be known. For instance, in 1247 the tenants named in the comital fief did
> not include anyone who can be definitely linked more closely to Sibille's
> family than Hugo Chaceporc, see Registres des comptes d'Alfonse comte de
> Poitiers, edited by A. Bardonnet in _Archives historiques du Poitou_ 4
> (1875) 20-21:
>
> "Hii sunt plegii pro deliberatione terre de Vivona: Dominus Hugo Chace-porc
> pro deliberatione terre de Vivona, M. et V. libr. turon. solvendas per tales
> terminos...Dominus Hugo Chace-porc tenetur pro III. libris per litteras; -
> comes Engolisme pro II. libris per litteras; - Gaufridus de Lezegniaco,
> filius comitis Marchie, pro II. libris per litteras; - Guillelmus de
> Valencia, filius comitis Marchie, pro C. libris per litteras; - Guillelmus
> de Curseio, miles, pro L. libris, per litteras; - dominus Guillelmus de
> Araone, pro C. libris per litteras; - dominus Helias de Lavergnia, pro II.
> libris per litteras; - dominus Giullelmus Chenin, pro II. libris per
> litteras; - Guillelmus Gorjaudi, miles, pro L. libris per litteras; -
> dominus Joscelinus de Lazaio, pro C. libris per litteras."
>
> Peter Stewart

It's true the Guy Sybil married is not precisely identified, but given
the 1264 contract marrying her to Aimery IX's second son, doesn't it
seem reasonable to assume she'd marry him and not the uncle.

In 1269 Guy son of Aimery VIII was still archdeacon (p. 282 Vol.2
"Rochechouart (Aimery, vicomte de), tant pour luy que pour messire
Guillaume de Rochechouart et messire Guy, archidiacre de Limoges, ses
frères, étant en litige avec vénérable homme Gerard de Maumont etc."
Although as you say the marriage probably took place some time after
the contract given Sybil's young age, but would Guy still be
archdeacon if he was planning to marry.

I can't help feeling the odds are Sybil married Guy son of Aimery IX
but do accept there are questions needing to be answered given the
accounts of Anselm, etc. Then again that's true of virtually
everything to do with the 13th/14th century Rochechouart family and
there are some serious anomalies. Do you know what the evidence was
that genealogists like Moréri and Anselm used?

It was, for instance, the General who claims in the Histoire to have
established that Aimery IX's son, Aimery X died before his father, and
that Aimery XI was his son, not the son of Aimery IX, as had been
thought till then.

Yet another correction concerns Simon archbishop of Bordeaux who's
usually said to be a son of Aimery VIII and Marguerite de Limoges. Yet
several texts (including the 1264 marriage contract) show he was the
uncle, not the brother of Aimery IX. For instance on p. 282 Vol 2
there's an entry for 1266, "Rochechouart (Aimery, vicomte de), donna à
messire Simon de Rochechouart, son oncle, doyen de Bourges, en échange
de 1,500 sols de rente, sur le péage de Saint-Cyr et de 100 sols de
rente, sur la chatellerie de Mortemar, plusieurs cens et rentes en
grains, en la paroisse d’Oradour, etc. Par acte passé le septième des
ides d’août de l’an 1266."

And yet on p.84 Vol 1, the General writes: "Les détails historiques
que l'on va lire sont en partie tirés de l'article que lui consacre
Moréri, et mis à la suite de la généalogie de notre maison (1. T.IX, p.
200 de l'édition de 1759), il commence ainsi: "Simon de Rochehcouart,
quatrième fils d'Aimery VIII, vicomte de Rochechouart et de Marguerite
de Limoges, archevêque de Bordeaux dans le XIIIe siècle, a été
confondu, par quelques auteurs, avec Simon de Rochechouart, son oncle,
seigneur d'Availles et fils d'Aimery VII; il fut d'abord doyen de
Bourges ...."
yours
Margaret

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-29 16:58:39 UTC

Permalink

Dear Margaret ~

I also have some unresolved questions about the Guy de Rochechouart
who married Sibyl de Vivonne. Not many, fortunately.

We know that Sibyl de Vivonne was contracted to married the "second
son" of Aimery IX de Rochechouart in 1264. The second son's name is
not given in this record. But we know that Sibyl de Vivonne's
husband is named in later records as Guy de Rochechouart. So we may
presume that he was the second son of Aimery IX. Guy de Rochechouart
clearly had the lordship of Vivonne in right of his wife, Sibyl.

I note that under the terms of the 1283 will of Aimery IX de
Rochechouart, he bequeathed his second son, Guy, then a knight, the
lordship of Tonnay-Charente. So far, so good. Everything matches up
just fine. Guy is the second son in the will of Aimery IX, and is
evidently the second son named in the marriage contract dated 1264.

Duguet states that Guy de Rochechouart, seigneur of Tonnay-Charente,
married Sibyl de Vivonne, by whom he had two sons, Guyard and
Guillaume. Duguet states that Guy de Rochechouart died testate c.
1313, leaving a will naming a second wife, Agnes, and two daughters by
Agnes, namely Plautine and Agnes. Yet we know that Sibyl de Vivonne
was living as late as 1306. While it is possible that Sibyl died soon
enough for Guy to remarry, this may be pushing the chronology a
little.

For those so interested, Duguet's materal on the Rochechousart family
may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://seucaj.ifrance.com/rochechouart.htm

If Guy de Rochechouart (died c.1313) was really was Aimery IX's second
son, I ask why was he (or his sons) not the heir of his older
brother's son and heir, Aimery XI de Rochechouart. Rather, the heir
of Aimery XI was his uncle, Simon de Rochechouart (younger brother of
Guy). Is it possible that the Guy de Rochechouart who died c.1313 was
actually another member of this family, perhaps a younger son of Simon
de Rochechouart?.

By the way, there are two manors which are named in the 1264 marriage
contract of Guy de Rochechouart and Sibyl de Vivonne. They are
"Dusselinghe, au comté de Cambridge" and "Walneton, au comté de
Dorset." I believe the two manors in question are Dullingham,
Cambridgeshire and Wolveton, Dorset. The latter property was
subsequently held by Joan de Vivonne's younger son, Reynold Fitz
Reynold.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-29 17:24:58 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 29, 10:58 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

> By the way, there are two manors which are named in the 1264 marriage
> contract of Guy de Rochechouart and Sibyl de Vivonne. They are
> "Dusselinghe, au comté de Cambridge" and "Walneton, au comté de
> Dorset." I believe the two manors in question are Dullingham,
> Cambridgeshire and Wolveton, Dorset. The latter property was
> subsequently held by Joan de Vivonne's younger son, Reynold Fitz
> Reynold.

The editor of the Close Rolls indicates that the modern name of
Wolveton, Dorset is Wolfeton, Dorset. The property was owned by Sir
William de Forz (husband of Maud de Ferrers) [see Cal.Close Rolls,
1256–1259 (1932): 409–410].

DR

John Briggs

2010-04-29 19:54:28 UTC

Permalink

On 29/04/2010 18:24, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Apr 29, 10:58 am, Douglas Richardson<***@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, there are two manors which are named in the 1264 marriage
>> contract of Guy de Rochechouart and Sibyl de Vivonne. They are
>> "Dusselinghe, au comté de Cambridge" and "Walneton, au comté de
>> Dorset." I believe the two manors in question are Dullingham,
>> Cambridgeshire and Wolveton, Dorset. The latter property was
>> subsequently held by Joan de Vivonne's younger son, Reynold Fitz
>> Reynold.
>
> The editor of the Close Rolls indicates that the modern name of
> Wolveton, Dorset is Wolfeton, Dorset. The property was owned by Sir
> William de Forz (husband of Maud de Ferrers) [see Cal.Close Rolls,
> 1256–1259 (1932): 409–410].

Yes, the "f" and "v" forms alternated in the 13th century. "Walneton"
would be a mistranscription, whether in the 13th century or later.

"Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

2010-04-29 20:00:12 UTC

Permalink

On 29/04/2010 20:54, John Briggs wrote:
> On 29/04/2010 18:24, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 10:58 am, Douglas Richardson<***@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, there are two manors which are named in the 1264 marriage
>>> contract of Guy de Rochechouart and Sibyl de Vivonne. They are
>>> "Dusselinghe, au comté de Cambridge" and "Walneton, au comté de
>>> Dorset." I believe the two manors in question are Dullingham,
>>> Cambridgeshire and Wolveton, Dorset. The latter property was
>>> subsequently held by Joan de Vivonne's younger son, Reynold Fitz
>>> Reynold.
>>
>> The editor of the Close Rolls indicates that the modern name of
>> Wolveton, Dorset is Wolfeton, Dorset. The property was owned by Sir
>> William de Forz (husband of Maud de Ferrers) [see Cal.Close Rolls,
>> 1256–1259 (1932): 409–410].
>
> Yes, the "f" and "v" forms alternated in the 13th century. "Walneton"
> would be a mistranscription, whether in the 13th century or later.
>
> "Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
> has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
> different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
> first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".

I've posted it as a query on the English Place-Name List.
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-29 21:09:40 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 29, 1:54 pm, John Briggs <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
> has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
> different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
> first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".
> --
> John Briggs

While you may have your doubts, I'm certain that "Dusselinghe" is a
badly mispelled or misread form of Dullingham. Sir William de Fors
(or de Vivonne) owned a half interest in this manor. It eventually
passed to his daughter, Cecily de Beauchamp.

Corrupted forms such as this often exist in transcripts of medieval
records. Such errors makes things interesting for modern genealogists
and historians.

DR

John Briggs

2010-04-30 00:39:10 UTC

Permalink

On 29/04/2010 22:09, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:54 pm, John Briggs<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
>> has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
>> different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
>> first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".
>
> While you may have your doubts, I'm certain that "Dusselinghe" is a
> badly mispelled or misread form of Dullingham. Sir William de Fors
> (or de Vivonne) owned a half interest in this manor. It eventually
> passed to his daughter, Cecily de Beauchamp.

Actually half the manor, as far as I can tell. It seems to have been
divided into two moieties [William Malet had two daughters], later
reunited by purchase. (VCH Cambs, vol. 6, p.157 [1978])

> Corrupted forms such as this often exist in transcripts of medieval
> records. Such errors makes things interesting for modern genealogists
> and historians.

Yes, OK. Have you checked Duguet's source (apparently Général comte de
Rochechouart, Histoire de la maison de Rochechouart, tome II, 1859,
"Documents divers", p. 274 et suivantes)? It would be interesting to
know the documentary basis for these spellings.
--
John Briggs

Margaret

2010-04-30 08:35:59 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 29, 11:09 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:54 pm, John Briggs <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
> > has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
> > different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
> > first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".
> > --
> > John Briggs
>
> While you may have your doubts, I'm certain that "Dusselinghe" is a
> badly mispelled or misread form of Dullingham. Sir William de Fors
> (or de Vivonne) owned a half interest in this manor. It eventually
> passed to his daughter, Cecily de Beauchamp.
>
> Corrupted forms such as this often exist in transcripts of medieval
> records. Such errors makes things interesting for modern genealogists
> and historians.
>
> DR

Also Dom Villevieille must have had trouble transcribing the names,
then the General later on - he resorts to "Dresslingh" in his
comments, p. 77 Vol.1. Even these days, I have to ask the French not
to write my name "Margareth" (when I can be bothered) and friends I've
had for years will suddenly call me "Elisabeth" - promotion at last!

I've made a note that Walneton could be Wolveton - very useful.
yours
Margaret

John Briggs

2010-04-30 14:44:32 UTC

Permalink

On 30/04/2010 09:35, Margaret wrote:
> On Apr 29, 11:09 pm, Douglas Richardson<***@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 1:54 pm, John Briggs<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
>>> has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
>>> different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
>>> first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".
>>> --
>>> John Briggs
>>
>> While you may have your doubts, I'm certain that "Dusselinghe" is a
>> badly mispelled or misread form of Dullingham. Sir William de Fors
>> (or de Vivonne) owned a half interest in this manor. It eventually
>> passed to his daughter, Cecily de Beauchamp.
>>
>> Corrupted forms such as this often exist in transcripts of medieval
>> records. Such errors makes things interesting for modern genealogists
>> and historians.
>>
>> DR
>
> Also Dom Villevieille must have had trouble transcribing the names,
> then the General later on - he resorts to "Dresslingh" in his
> comments, p. 77 Vol.1. Even these days, I have to ask the French not
> to write my name "Margareth" (when I can be bothered) and friends I've
> had for years will suddenly call me "Elisabeth" - promotion at last!

Do either these transcriptions or the original documents still exist?
--
John Briggs

Margaret

2010-04-30 16:12:15 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 30, 4:44 pm, John Briggs <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 30/04/2010 09:35, Margaret wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 11:09 pm, Douglas Richardson<***@msn.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 29, 1:54 pm, John Briggs<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
> >>> has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
> >>> different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
> >>> first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".
> >>> --
> >>> John Briggs
>
> >> While you may have your doubts, I'm certain that "Dusselinghe" is a
> >> badly mispelled or misread form of Dullingham. Sir William de Fors
> >> (or de Vivonne) owned a half interest in this manor. It eventually
> >> passed to his daughter, Cecily de Beauchamp.
>
> >> Corrupted forms such as this often exist in transcripts of medieval
> >> records. Such errors makes things interesting for modern genealogists
> >> and historians.
>
> >> DR
>
> > Also Dom Villevieille must have had trouble transcribing the names,
> > then the General later on - he resorts to "Dresslingh" in his
> > comments, p. 77 Vol.1. Even these days, I have to ask the French not
> > to write my name "Margareth" (when I can be bothered) and friends I've
> > had for years will suddenly call me "Elisabeth" - promotion at last!
>
> Do either these transcriptions or the original documents still exist?
> --
> John Briggs

It would have been nice if the General had listed his sources, but
they're only mentioned after each document and/or mentioned here and
there in both volumes. Putting a list together is another thing I
should do. The General wrote somewhere (I didn't note the page) the
original transcripts were in the "Bibliothèque de la rue de Richelieu,
salle des Titres, partie des Manuscrits". I've no idea where they are
now or how to get hold of copies.

Some of the sources given are:
Archives de la vicomté de Rochechouart, liasse C.
ditto carton Quittances
ditto liasse 2e.
ditto carton 2e Partages
and so on.
yours
Margaret

John Briggs

2010-04-30 16:50:14 UTC

Permalink

On 30/04/2010 17:12, Margaret wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:44 pm, John Briggs<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 30/04/2010 09:35, Margaret wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 11:09 pm, Douglas Richardson<***@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 29, 1:54 pm, John Briggs<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dusselinghe", on the other hand, probably can't be Dullingham, as that
>>>>> has been consistently so spelt since the 11th century. "-ing" places are
>>>>> different from "-ingham" places (e.g. Woking and Wokingham), and the
>>>>> first element is probably a personal name "Dulla".
>>>>
>>>> While you may have your doubts, I'm certain that "Dusselinghe" is a
>>>> badly mispelled or misread form of Dullingham. Sir William de Fors
>>>> (or de Vivonne) owned a half interest in this manor. It eventually
>>>> passed to his daughter, Cecily de Beauchamp.
>>>>
>>>> Corrupted forms such as this often exist in transcripts of medieval
>>>> records. Such errors makes things interesting for modern genealogists
>>>> and historians.
>>>
>>> Also Dom Villevieille must have had trouble transcribing the names,
>>> then the General later on - he resorts to "Dresslingh" in his
>>> comments, p. 77 Vol.1. Even these days, I have to ask the French not
>>> to write my name "Margareth" (when I can be bothered) and friends I've
>>> had for years will suddenly call me "Elisabeth" - promotion at last!
>>
>> Do either these transcriptions or the original documents still exist?
>
> It would have been nice if the General had listed his sources, but
> they're only mentioned after each document and/or mentioned here and
> there in both volumes. Putting a list together is another thing I
> should do. The General wrote somewhere (I didn't note the page) the
> original transcripts were in the "Bibliothèque de la rue de Richelieu,
> salle des Titres, partie des Manuscrits". I've no idea where they are
> now or how to get hold of copies.

The "Bibliothèque de la rue de Richelieu" was, of course, the
Bibliothèque Nationale - now called the BnF. At the time it would have
been called the Imperial Library, which name the General may not have
wished to use! Would these transcripts be the same as Villevielle's
"Trésors généalogiques" BnF Ms Fr 31965 ?
--
John Briggs

Denis Beauregard

2010-04-30 17:19:11 UTC

Permalink

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:50:14 +0100, John Briggs
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>The "Bibliothèque de la rue de Richelieu" was, of course, the
>Bibliothèque Nationale - now called the BnF. At the time it would have

Keep in mind that "Bibliothèque Nationale", actually "Bibliothèque
Nationale de France", www.bnf.fr, has many buildings. So, this is
one building among them. Reviews for instances are in another
building.

Also, I visited the building in 2002. At that time, the Archives were
closed and a part of the collection was on rue de Richelieu. So, if
the reference is old, it can lead to the wrong place. If you plan to
go there, you should contact them before to be sure it is the right
place. And if you write them, be sure to include a description with
enough details (but not sure if you will receive an answer).

Anyway, a part of the collections is scanned and available on their
web site at http://gallica.bnf.fr

Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775

Peter Stewart

2010-05-01 00:16:53 UTC

Permalink

"John Briggs" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bTDCn.1141$***@newsfe06.ams2...

<snip>

> On 30/04/2010 17:12, Margaret wrote:
>> It would have been nice if the General had listed his sources, but
>> they're only mentioned after each document and/or mentioned here and
>> there in both volumes. Putting a list together is another thing I
>> should do. The General wrote somewhere (I didn't note the page) the
>> original transcripts were in the "Bibliothèque de la rue de Richelieu,
>> salle des Titres, partie des Manuscrits". I've no idea where they are
>> now or how to get hold of copies.
>
> The "Bibliothèque de la rue de Richelieu" was, of course, the Bibliothèque
> Nationale - now called the BnF. At the time it would have been called the
> Imperial Library, which name the General may not have wished to use! Would
> these transcripts be the same as Villevielle's "Trésors généalogiques" BnF
> Ms Fr 31965 ?

Not the same - Dom Joseph Villevielle sold this collection (in I think 196
manuscript volumes) to the national library in 1811, with information on a
great many families and individuals from all over France, whereas the
various Rochechouart documents were acquired at different times and have
different indexation.

The print version of Villevielle that I mentioned before, starting in 1875,
was intended to be in 12 volumes, but only about a sixth of this ever
appeared - after issuing the first fascicule (around half) of volume 3 the
publisher gave up on it.

A check of the BnF Département des manuscrits catalogue shows the following
three items, and one of which may be the memoir cited by Anselme without
specifying more:

(1) Duchesne 8 - Recueil de généalogies et de pièces généalogiques
De Rochechouart.
Fol. 49 (foliotation)

(2) NAF 12989 (cote) - P. Gaucher, dit Scévole de Sainte-Marthe, Notes
autographes sur la généalogie des familles de Lévis, La
Rochefoucault-Montendre, Rochechouart, La Ferté-Seneterre, Sainte-Maure,
Gorrenod.
XVIIe siècle
Papier. 183 f. Montés 260 × 170 mm. Demi-rel.
Manuscrit en français"

(3) Ms 4139-5129 - Manuscrits de la bibliothèque de l'Arsenal - 4956 - 735
H. F « Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de la maison de Rochechouart »
XVIIe siècle
Fol. 127 - Notes pour la généalogie de Rochechouart, écrites sur une
enveloppe adressée au duc de Chevreuse
Fol. 129 - Autres notes ou extraits sur la même maison.

The only collection of Rochechouart documents listed in the Archives
nationales catalogue is the following:

(4) Fonds Rochechouart - 431 AP 1-3. Arbres généalogiques, notes sur divers
Rochechouart. Manuscrits et feuilles imprimées de l'Histoire de la maison de
Rochechouart par le général comte de Rochechouart. Papiers personnels et de
fonctions concernant divers Rochechouart. 1353-XVIIIe s." (see
http://www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/chan/AP-pdf/AP-thematique-avant-1789.pdf
at p. 16).

I'm not sure when these papers were acquired, but it seems they were the
general's own transcripts placed, presumably, by himself. Given the date
range from 1353 the questions raised here about various Rochechouarts in the
previous century are not all that likely to be answered.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-30 16:02:51 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage and various secondary sources indicate that Sir
William de Forz's fourth daughter, Cecily de Vivonne and her husband,
Sir John de Beauchamp, Knt., of Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset had four
children in all, namely John, Knt. [1st Lord Beauchamp of Somerset]
and Robert, King's valet, and two daughters, Eleanor (wife of Fulk
Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz Warin) and Beatrice (wife of Peter
Corbet, 2nd Lord Corbet, and John de Leybourne, Knt., Lord Leybourne).

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 497–499 (sub FitzWarin) has a good account
of Cecily de Vivonne's son-in-law, Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord
Fitz Warin. Regarding Fulk Fitz Warin's marriage to Eleanor de
Beauchamp, the following information is provided:

"He married Alieanore, daughter of Sir John de Beauchamp of Somerset
[Lord Beauchamp], by Cecily, 4th daughter and coheir of Sir William de
Vivonne, le Fort, of Chewton, Somerset ... On 31 May [1330] his wife,
Alienore,had a temporary grant of 40 marks a year and his house at
Wantage [Berkshire] as a residence, for the support of herself and her
children: his sons, Fulk and Ioun, were detained in prison at
Shrewsbury ... [Fulk Fitz Warin] died shortly before 6 June 1336. His
widow, Alianore, who held one-third of the manors of Alveston and
Earthcote [in Alveston] in dower, was living 18 Nov. 1341." END OF
QUOTE.

No documentation whatsoever is provided for the marriage of Sir Fulk
Fitz Warin and his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp. However, we are
informed that this couple had two sons, Fulk and Ioun. We are given
no death date for Eleanor. And, no mention is made of a son, Sir
William Fitz Warin, who has been traditionally assigned as a child to
this couple.

Checking various sources, I've managed to locate the long forgotten
will of Eleanor, widow of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. This will confirms
that Eleanor Fitz Warin was indeed the daughter of Sir John de
Beauchamp, of Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset. We can be certain of this,
as in her will, Eleanor names her sister, Beatrice Corbet, lady of
Caus, [Shropshire], which lady is a proven daughter of Sir John de
Beauchamp. I've copied below the transcript of this will which can
be found in Notes and Queries, 4th Series 3 (1869): 230. It may be
viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nWoJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA230&dq=sister+Beatrix+Corbett&hl=en&ei=wXnaS8zaN4HosQO8rt1v&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sister%20Beatrix%20Corbett&f=false

The source for the will is Sloane MS. 1301, fo. 117. The transcript
reads as follows:

"Elanor garyn wylleth to her sister beatrix Corbett lady of Caux - to
Fulco my son, dame M'g'tt his wyff. It'. to M'g'tt my daught'r to
Cicelly my daughter, to John my son. It'. to Payn Fitz-warren. It'.
to Fulco my son's eldest son. It'. to Phil' his third son. To Elanor
daughter to Payne pd'. To Elanor da: to John my son & Ele her
sister. ffouke my son & M'g'tt his wyffe. John my son ex'r. my
sister pd'. & Sr W. Fitzwaryn overseers.

The will is dated by the contributor, A.S. Ellis, as being made in
1348. However, inasmuch as Eleanor Fitz Warin's sister, Beatrice
Corbet, was living at the date of the will and it is known that
Beatrice died 28 August 1347, the will must pre-date the death of
Beatrice. However, the will can not be far off 1346, as the testatrix
names her eldest grandson, Fulk, and his younger brother, Philip. We
know that the grandson, Fulk Fitz Warin, was born in 1341. Thus the
will would necessarily date sometime between 1341 and 1347, and
probably toward the latter end of that time period. I imagine the
date c.1346 would work for this will.

The will affords us several new genealogical details. It reveals that
the testatrix's son, Fulk Fitz Wain, had a wife named Margaret,
whereas Complete Peerage states only that "it is said" she was Joan de
Beaumont. Clearly Joan is an error.

We learn that the testatrix had two daughters, Margaret and Cecily,
whose existence has been overlooked.

We also learn that the testatrix had a son, John, who had two
daughters, Eleanor and Ela. However, John is doubtless a misreading
of the given name, Ives (or Ioun), which given name ran in this
family. As noted above, Complete Peerage calls this son Ioun.

Lastly, it would appear that Sir William Fitz Warin (died 1361) is
definitely not a son of Fulk Fitz Warin and Eleanor de Beauchamp. He
is simply appointed an overseer of the will.

So we have confirmation that Eleanor, wife of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, was
definitely a daughter of Sir John de Beauchamp and his wife, Cecily de
Vivonne. And we have a new arrangement of Eleanor's immediate family
of children and grandchildren.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-30 17:15:28 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 512–513 (sub FitzWarin) has a brief
account of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. (died 1361), of Whittington,
Shropshire, Brians (in Wantage), Berkshire, Winterbourne Houghton,
Dorset, etc., and, in right of his wife, of Caundle Haddon, Lidlinch,
and Up Cerne, Dorset, and Pitney and Wearne, and Isle-Brewers,
Somerset. This man had an illustrious career, he being Knight of the
Body to Queen Philippe and eventually made a Knight of the Garter.

Regarding Sir William Fitz Warin's parentage, the following statement
is made:

“He was, no doubt, a yr. br. of that Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington
who died in 1349, but there is no actual proof. His arms were:
Quarterly, per pale and per fesse indented, Ermine and Gules, i.e.,
those of FitzWarin of Whittington, with a difference.” END OF QUOTE.

If Complete Peerage is correct, then Sir William Fitz Warin should be
placed as a younger son of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz
Warin (died 1349), by his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp.

However, from the long forgotten will of Eleanor de Beauchamp, widow
of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, we find that Eleanor de Beauchamp had but two
sons, Fulk and Ioun (or Ives) [see Notes & Queries, 4th Series 3
(1869): 230]. As for Sir William Fitz Warin, Eleanor de Beauchamp
merely appointed him an overseer of his will.

So then who are the parents of Sir William Fitz Warin? The evidence
indicates that he must have been near related to Eleanor de
Beauchamp's husband, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. In his lifetime, he was
styled William Fitz Warin "le frere" [i.e., the brother] [see, for
example, his petition dated c.1331 in National Archives, 8/181/9020].
This usually means he was a brother of one of the high born barons.
He was styled in his life time William Fitz Warin “of Whittington, co.
Salop,” evidently to distinguish him from his contemporary kinsman,
William Fitz Warin “of Penleigh” in Westbury, Wiltshire [see
Elrington, Abs. of Feet of Fines Rel. Wiltshire (Wiltshire Rec. Soc.
29) (1974): 120]. It may be pointed out that Whittington, Shropshire
was the seat of the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family. As for
other evidence of a connection to the senior branch, I find that his
son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414) served as guardian in 1394–1404
for minor cousin, Fulk Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire.
Lastly, there is the transcript of an ancient pedigree of the Fitz
Warin family found in the A2A Catalogue. This pedigree commences with
Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin, and it identifies
Sir Ives as "sone of the lorde Fytzwaryn." [see Cornwall Rec. Office:
Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice, AR/39/2]. While this information is
incorrect, it certainly implies that Sir Ives Fitz Warin was near
related to the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family.

A clue to Sir William Fitz Warin's exact place in the Fitz Warin
family tree is afforded us by the will of his son, Sir Ives Fitz
Warin, dated 6 Nov. 1412, proved 5 Feb. 1414/5. A transcript of this
will has appeared in two sources, namely Register of Henry Chichele,
volume 2 (Canterbury & York Soc. 42) (1937): xlii, 18–21 (will of Sir
Ives Fitz Warin), 32, 653, and Gibbons & Davey, Wantage Past & Present
(1901): 44–46. The second source may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wKYLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Ivo+fitz+Waryn&hl=en&ei=AALbS7ygJYuCswPahZmHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ivo%20fitz%20Waryn&f=false

In his will, Sir Ives Fitz Warin requests that a daily mass be said in
the parish church of Wantage, Berkshire for various family members,
including "Margaret, mother of Sir William Fitz Waryn, knight." There
can be little doubt that Margaret Fitz Warin was Sir Ives' paternal
grandmother.

If so, it would appear that Sir William Fitz Warin should be moved
back one generation in the Fitz Warin family tree, and identified as a
younger son of Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 1st Lord Fitz Warin (died 1315),
of Whittington, Shropshire, Alveston, Gloucestershire, Wantage,
Berkshire, etc., by Margaret, daughter of Gruffyd ap Wennonwen. This
would make Sir William Fitz Warin a brother-in-law (not son) to
Eleanor de Beauchamp, which lady appointed Sir William Fitz Warin as
an overseer of her will c.1346.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Briggs

2010-04-30 17:40:03 UTC

Permalink

On 30/04/2010 18:15, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 512–513 (sub FitzWarin) has a brief
> account of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. (died 1361), of Whittington,
> Shropshire, Brians (in Wantage), Berkshire, Winterbourne Houghton,
> Dorset, etc., and, in right of his wife, of Caundle Haddon, Lidlinch,
> and Up Cerne, Dorset, and Pitney and Wearne, and Isle-Brewers,
> Somerset. This man had an illustrious career, he being Knight of the
> Body to Queen Philippe and eventually made a Knight of the Garter.
>
> Regarding Sir William Fitz Warin's parentage, the following statement
> is made:
>
> “He was, no doubt, a yr. br. of that Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington
> who died in 1349, but there is no actual proof. His arms were:
> Quarterly, per pale and per fesse indented, Ermine and Gules, i.e.,
> those of FitzWarin of Whittington, with a difference.” END OF QUOTE.
>
> If Complete Peerage is correct, then Sir William Fitz Warin should be
> placed as a younger son of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz
> Warin (died 1349), by his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp.
>
> However, from the long forgotten will of Eleanor de Beauchamp, widow
> of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, we find that Eleanor de Beauchamp had but two
> sons, Fulk and Ioun (or Ives) [see Notes& Queries, 4th Series 3
> (1869): 230]. As for Sir William Fitz Warin, Eleanor de Beauchamp
> merely appointed him an overseer of his will.
>
> So then who are the parents of Sir William Fitz Warin? The evidence
> indicates that he must have been near related to Eleanor de
> Beauchamp's husband, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. In his lifetime, he was
> styled William Fitz Warin "le frere" [i.e., the brother] [see, for
> example, his petition dated c.1331 in National Archives, 8/181/9020].
> This usually means he was a brother of one of the high born barons.
> He was styled in his life time William Fitz Warin “of Whittington, co.
> Salop,” evidently to distinguish him from his contemporary kinsman,
> William Fitz Warin “of Penleigh” in Westbury, Wiltshire [see
> Elrington, Abs. of Feet of Fines Rel. Wiltshire (Wiltshire Rec. Soc.
> 29) (1974): 120]. It may be pointed out that Whittington, Shropshire
> was the seat of the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family. As for
> other evidence of a connection to the senior branch, I find that his
> son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414) served as guardian in 1394–1404
> for minor cousin, Fulk Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire.
> Lastly, there is the transcript of an ancient pedigree of the Fitz
> Warin family found in the A2A Catalogue. This pedigree commences with
> Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin, and it identifies
> Sir Ives as "sone of the lorde Fytzwaryn." [see Cornwall Rec. Office:
> Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice, AR/39/2]. While this information is
> incorrect, it certainly implies that Sir Ives Fitz Warin was near
> related to the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family.
>
> A clue to Sir William Fitz Warin's exact place in the Fitz Warin
> family tree is afforded us by the will of his son, Sir Ives Fitz
> Warin, dated 6 Nov. 1412, proved 5 Feb. 1414/5. A transcript of this
> will has appeared in two sources, namely Register of Henry Chichele,
> volume 2 (Canterbury& York Soc. 42) (1937): xlii, 18–21 (will of Sir
> Ives Fitz Warin), 32, 653, and Gibbons& Davey, Wantage Past& Present
> (1901): 44–46. The second source may be viewed at the following
> weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=wKYLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Ivo+fitz+Waryn&hl=en&ei=AALbS7ygJYuCswPahZmHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ivo%20fitz%20Waryn&f=false
>
> In his will, Sir Ives Fitz Warin requests that a daily mass be said in
> the parish church of Wantage, Berkshire for various family members,
> including "Margaret, mother of Sir William Fitz Waryn, knight." There
> can be little doubt that Margaret Fitz Warin was Sir Ives' paternal
> grandmother.

In what may or may not be a coincidence, Sir Ives' daughter Alice
married Dick Whittington.
--
John Briggs

Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski

2010-04-30 18:03:56 UTC

Permalink

> On 30/04/2010 18:15, Douglas Richardson wrote:

>> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 512–513 (sub FitzWarin) has a brief
>> account of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. (died 1361), of Whittington,
>> Shropshire, Brians (in Wantage), Berkshire, Winterbourne Houghton,
>> Dorset, etc., and, in right of his wife, of Caundle Haddon, Lidlinch,
>> and Up Cerne, Dorset, and Pitney and Wearne, and Isle-Brewers,
>> Somerset. This man had an illustrious career, he being Knight of the
>> Body to Queen Philippe and eventually made a Knight of the Garter.
>>
>> Regarding Sir William Fitz Warin's parentage, the following statement
>> is made:
>>
>> “He was, no doubt, a yr. br. of that Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington
>> who died in 1349, but there is no actual proof. His arms were:
>> Quarterly, per pale and per fesse indented, Ermine and Gules, i.e.,
>> those of FitzWarin of Whittington, with a difference.” END OF QUOTE.
>>
>> If Complete Peerage is correct, then Sir William Fitz Warin should be
>> placed as a younger son of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz
>> Warin (died 1349), by his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp.
>>
>> However, from the long forgotten will of Eleanor de Beauchamp, widow
>> of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, we find that Eleanor de Beauchamp had but two
>> sons, Fulk and Ioun (or Ives) [see Notes& Queries, 4th Series 3
>> (1869): 230]. As for Sir William Fitz Warin, Eleanor de Beauchamp
>> merely appointed him an overseer of his will.
>>
>> So then who are the parents of Sir William Fitz Warin? The evidence
>> indicates that he must have been near related to Eleanor de
>> Beauchamp's husband, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. In his lifetime, he was
>> styled William Fitz Warin "le frere" [i.e., the brother] [see, for
>> example, his petition dated c.1331 in National Archives, 8/181/9020].
>> This usually means he was a brother of one of the high born barons.
>> He was styled in his life time William Fitz Warin “of Whittington, co.
>> Salop,” evidently to distinguish him from his contemporary kinsman,
>> William Fitz Warin “of Penleigh” in Westbury, Wiltshire [see
>> Elrington, Abs. of Feet of Fines Rel. Wiltshire (Wiltshire Rec. Soc.
>> 29) (1974): 120]. It may be pointed out that Whittington, Shropshire
>> was the seat of the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family. As for
>> other evidence of a connection to the senior branch, I find that his
>> son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414) served as guardian in 1394–1404
>> for minor cousin, Fulk Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire.
>> Lastly, there is the transcript of an ancient pedigree of the Fitz
>> Warin family found in the A2A Catalogue. This pedigree commences with
>> Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin, and it identifies
>> Sir Ives as "sone of the lorde Fytzwaryn." [see Cornwall Rec. Office:
>> Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice, AR/39/2]. While this information is
>> incorrect, it certainly implies that Sir Ives Fitz Warin was near
>> related to the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family.
>>
>> A clue to Sir William Fitz Warin's exact place in the Fitz Warin
>> family tree is afforded us by the will of his son, Sir Ives Fitz
>> Warin, dated 6 Nov. 1412, proved 5 Feb. 1414/5. A transcript of this
>> will has appeared in two sources, namely Register of Henry Chichele,
>> volume 2 (Canterbury& York Soc. 42) (1937): xlii, 18–21 (will of Sir
>> Ives Fitz Warin), 32, 653, and Gibbons& Davey, Wantage Past& Present
>> (1901): 44–46. The second source may be viewed at the following
>> weblink:
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=wKYLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Ivo+fitz+Waryn&hl=en&ei=AALbS7ygJYuCswPahZmHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ivo%20fitz%20Waryn&f=false
>>
>> In his will, Sir Ives Fitz Warin requests that a daily mass be said in
>> the parish church of Wantage, Berkshire for various family members,
>> including "Margaret, mother of Sir William Fitz Waryn, knight." There
>> can be little doubt that Margaret Fitz Warin was Sir Ives' paternal
>> grandmother.

Mightn't Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G., be a son of Eleanor de Beauchamp's husband Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, 2nd Lord Fitz Warin, by an earlier wife? Thus he might merit mention in Eleanor's will not as her son, but as a step-son, and thereby indicating no conflict with our knowledge that she had only two Fitz Warin sons, neither of whom was named Fulk?

Richard

Richard Carruthers, M.A. (Oxon.)

_________________________________________________________________
Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD!
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724465

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-30 22:03:08 UTC

Permalink

Dear Richard ~

Good question. But this won't work. Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, 2nd Lord
Fitz Warin, and his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp, were married before 28
Feb. 1310 (date of license for a settlement of lands) [see C.P.R. 1307–
1313 (1894): 213]. They were married from 1310 until the time Fulk
Fitz Warin died in 1336. The 1310 Patent Rolls item may be viewed at
the following weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v1/body/Edward2vol1page0213.pdf

If William Fitz Warin was a child of Fulk Fitz Warin before he married
Eleanor de Beauchamp as you theorized, it would mean that William
would have been his father's heir, which he was not.

As best I can tell in a cursory search, Sir William Fitz Warin (died
1361) was first styled William "the brother" [le frere] in 1330 [see
Cal. Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, pg. 31]. Under typical situations,
William should then be the brother to the current head of the family.
In 1330 the senior head of the Fitz Warin family seated at
Whittington, Shropshire was Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, husband of Eleanor de
Beauchamp. Since we know that that Sir Fulk's mother was named
Margaret, that would be in agreement with what we know about the
immediate family of William Fitz Warin "le frere."

I might add that it is clear that the person styled William Fitz Warin
"the brother" was a separate and distinct person from his contemporary
kinsman, William Fitz Warin, of Penleigh (in Westbury, Wiltshire).
We can be certain of this as Cal. Patent Rolls, 1327-1330, pg. 75,
mentions William Fitz Warin of Penleigh and his mother, Joan. Since
the Penleigh man had a mother named Joan, not Margaret, the two
Williams were obviously different people.

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski

2010-05-01 00:59:11 UTC

Permalink

----------------------------------------
> From: ***@msn.com
> Subject: Re: Anoither C.P. Correction: Parentage of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. (died 1361)
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:03:08 -0700
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
>
> Dear Richard ~
>
> Good question. But this won't work. Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, 2nd Lord
> Fitz Warin, and his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp, were married before 28
> Feb. 1310 (date of license for a settlement of lands) [see C.P.R. 1307–
> 1313 (1894): 213]. They were married from 1310 until the time Fulk
> Fitz Warin died in 1336. The 1310 Patent Rolls item may be viewed at
> the following weblink:
>
> http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v1/body/Edward2vol1page0213.pdf
>
> If William Fitz Warin was a child of Fulk Fitz Warin before he married
> Eleanor de Beauchamp as you theorized, it would mean that William
> would have been his father's heir, which he was not.
>
> As best I can tell in a cursory search, Sir William Fitz Warin (died
> 1361) was first styled William "the brother" [le frere] in 1330 [see
> Cal. Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, pg. 31]. Under typical situations,
> William should then be the brother to the current head of the family.
> In 1330 the senior head of the Fitz Warin family seated at
> Whittington, Shropshire was Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, husband of Eleanor de
> Beauchamp. Since we know that that Sir Fulk's mother was named
> Margaret, that would be in agreement with what we know about the
> immediate family of William Fitz Warin "le frere."
>
> I might add that it is clear that the person styled William Fitz Warin
> "the brother" was a separate and distinct person from his contemporary
> kinsman, William Fitz Warin, of Penleigh (in Westbury, Wiltshire).
> We can be certain of this as Cal. Patent Rolls, 1327-1330, pg. 75,
> mentions William Fitz Warin of Penleigh and his mother, Joan. Since
> the Penleigh man had a mother named Joan, not Margaret, the two
> Williams were obviously different people.
>
> I trust this answers your question.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Douglas,

Just another errant thought that Sir William might have been born to Sir
Fulk out of wedlock by an unknown woman. Does his coat of arms indicate
any possible sign of bastardy? If not, it might still bear a mark of
cadency that could prove helpful in the search for his true parentage.

Best,

Richard

Richard Carruthers, M.A. (Oxon.)

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail & Messenger. Get them on your phone now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724463

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-01 02:24:25 UTC

Permalink

Dear Richard ~

As I indicated in an earlier post, the style "le frere" or "the
brother" tells us Sir William Fitz Warin's place in the senior branch
of the Fitz Warin family at the date it first occurs (i.e., 1330).
Similar modifiers were also used for members of the Darcy and Ufford
families (le oncle, le cousin, etc.).

The arms of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G., were Quarterly per fess
indented ermine and gules [Reference: Harvey et al., Vis. of the
North, 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 159].

Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O. 2 (1981): 43 lists the seal
of William Fitz Warin, Knt. dated 1352: — On a diapered background, a
shield of arms, couché: quarterly, per fesse indented (or dancetty);
helm above with mantling and crest: a swan, to left of helm a bird, to
right a lion rampant. Legend lost.

The arms of Sir William Fitz Warin also occur in a psalter dated in
the 1340's, which artifact is discussed in Antiquaries Journal, 69
(1989): 257–258.

There is no hint or suggestion in any contemporary record that I have
seen that Sir William Fitz Warin was a bastard.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Apr 30, 6:59 pm, "Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Just another errant thought that Sir William might have been born to Sir
> Fulk out of wedlock by an unknown woman. Does his coat of arms indicate
> any possible sign of bastardy? If not, it might still bear a mark of
> cadency that could prove helpful in the search for his true parentage.
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Carruthers, M.A. (Oxon.)

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-01 03:33:06 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

I note that Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G (died 1361)., is styled "of
Whitynton" [i.e., Whittington, Shropshire] following his death in a
record in Cal. Close Rolls, 1364–1368 (1910): 5-6. This record may be
viewed at the following weblink:

pg. 5: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval2&CISOPTR=61682&REC=1

pg. 6: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval2&CISOPTR=61682&REC=1

Whittington, Shropshire was the seat of the senior branch of the Fitz
Warin family.

Best always, Douglas Richardon, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-02 17:42:52 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

In a previous post, I cited the seal of Sir William Fitz Warin dated
1352 which is found in Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the Public Record
Office, volume 2. The description of the seal again is:

On a diapered background, a shield of arms, couché: quarterly, per
fesse indented (or dancetty); helm above with mantling and crest: a
swan, to left of helm a bird, to
> right a lion rampant. Legend lost. [Reference: Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O. 2 (1981): 43].

In another volume of Ellis, I find the seal of Sir William Fitz
Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin dated 1404:

Hanging from a twin bush, which grows from a mount, a shield of arms:
quarterly, per fesse indented, ermine and (plain) [FITZ WARIN];
supported on the backs of two swans which turn their beaks to the
shield’s upper points. [Reference: Ellis Cat. Seals in the P.R.O. 1
(1978): 25].

As we can see, there are swans on both men's seals. I suspect the
placement of the swans on these seals is connected to the tradition of
the "knight of the swan." This tradition involves their cousin, Sir
Robert de Tony, Lord Tony (died 1307), who is thought to have been a
"Knight of the Swan." The swan tradition has to do with an alleged
descent from the early Counts of Boulogne.

The matter of "knights of the swan" is discussed in the book, Siege of
Carlaverock, pp. 369-370, which can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SB0NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA369&dq=Robert+Tony+Carlaverock&hl=en&ei=KLHdS9uTOoaSsgPRuom7Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Tony&f=false

The kinship between Sir William Fitz Wain and Sir Robert de Tony
would come through Sir William Fitz Warin's paternal grandmother,
Constance de Tony. Constance de Tony was the sister of Sir Robert de
Tony's grandfather, Sir Roger de Tony (died 1264).

The swan knight tradition is also discussed in a book by Sir Anthony
Wagner.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

F***@aol.com

2010-05-02 17:46:55 UTC

Permalink

On May 2, 1:42 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In a previous post, I cited the seal of Sir William Fitz Warin dated
> 1352 which is found in Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the Public Record
> Office, volume 2. The description of the seal again is:
>
> On a diapered background, a shield of arms, couché: quarterly, per
> fesse indented (or dancetty); helm above with mantling and crest: a
> swan, to left of helm a bird, to
>
> > right a lion rampant. Legend lost. [Reference: Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O. 2 (1981): 43].
>
> In another volume of Ellis, I find the seal of Sir William Fitz
> Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin dated 1404:
>
> Hanging from a twin bush, which grows from a mount, a shield of arms:
> quarterly, per fesse indented, ermine and (plain) [FITZ WARIN];
> supported on the backs of two swans which turn their beaks to the
> shield’s upper points. [Reference: Ellis Cat. Seals in the P.R.O. 1
> (1978): 25].
>
> As we can see, there are swans on both men's seals. I suspect the
> placement of the swans on these seals is connected to the tradition of
> the "knight of the swan." This tradition involves their cousin, Sir
> Robert de Tony, Lord Tony (died 1307), who is thought to have been a
> "Knight of the Swan." The swan tradition has to do with an alleged
> descent from the early Counts of Boulogne.
>
> The matter of "knights of the swan" is discussed in the book, Siege of
> Carlaverock, pp. 369-370, which can be found at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=SB0NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA369&dq=Robert+Tony...
>
> The kinship between Sir William Fitz Wain and Sir Robert de Tony
> would come through Sir William Fitz Warin's paternal grandmother,
> Constance de Tony. Constance de Tony was the sister of Sir Robert de
> Tony's grandfather, Sir Roger de Tony (died 1264).
>
> The swan knight tradition is also discussed in a book by Sir Anthony
> Wagner.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Douglas:
I merely wish to point out that a Fulk FitzWarin III flourished in
1198 at Whittington having brothers Alan, William, Phillip and John
(identical with Ivo [perhaps Ives]). Without trying to get involved in
this long thread, I would suggest them of being the start of descents
that may ultimately address your problem in the mid 1300s. John P.
Ravilious presented a brief discussion of the ancient line, and the
line is better discussed in "Antiquities of Shropshire, Volume 7 By
Robert William Eyton" beginning on page 71at the Google url below..
http://books.google.com/books?id=yAMVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=Preston%2BFitzWarin&source=bl&ots=LFIOShfddB&sig=fZRPyj4PptQVL2Un-E90e7oW_y0&hl=en&ei=wZ_dS_e8GZCa8ATi84nMBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Antiquities of Shropshire - Google Books Result1858 - Shropshire
(England)
books.google.com/books?id=yAMVAAAAQAAJ...
You wrote "If so, it would appear that Sir William Fitz Warin should
be moved back one generation in the Fitz Warin family tree, and
identified as a younger son of Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 1st Lord Fitz
Warin (died 1315), of Whittington, Shropshire, Alveston,
Gloucestershire, Wantage, Berkshire, etc., by Margaret, daughter of
Gruffyd ap Wennonwen. This would make Sir William Fitz Warin a
brother-in-law (not son) to Eleanor de Beauchamp, which lady appointed
Sir William Fitz Warin as an overseer of her will c.1346."
Something is odd here since Fulk III occurs in 1198 per the above
article. A lot of lines missing over a hundred years leading to your
mid 1300s concern.
Warm Regards,
Dix Preston

John Briggs

2010-05-02 17:59:40 UTC

Permalink

On 02/05/2010 18:46, ***@aol.com wrote:
> On May 2, 1:42 pm, Douglas Richardson<***@msn.com> wrote:
>> Dear Newsgroup ~
>>
>> In a previous post, I cited the seal of Sir William Fitz Warin dated
>> 1352 which is found in Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the Public Record
>> Office, volume 2. The description of the seal again is:
>>
>> On a diapered background, a shield of arms, couché: quarterly, per
>> fesse indented (or dancetty); helm above with mantling and crest: a
>> swan, to left of helm a bird, to
>>
>>> right a lion rampant. Legend lost. [Reference: Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O. 2 (1981): 43].
>>
>> In another volume of Ellis, I find the seal of Sir William Fitz
>> Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin dated 1404:
>>
>> Hanging from a twin bush, which grows from a mount, a shield of arms:
>> quarterly, per fesse indented, ermine and (plain) [FITZ WARIN];
>> supported on the backs of two swans which turn their beaks to the
>> shield’s upper points. [Reference: Ellis Cat. Seals in the P.R.O. 1
>> (1978): 25].
>>
>> As we can see, there are swans on both men's seals. I suspect the
>> placement of the swans on these seals is connected to the tradition of
>> the "knight of the swan." This tradition involves their cousin, Sir
>> Robert de Tony, Lord Tony (died 1307), who is thought to have been a
>> "Knight of the Swan." The swan tradition has to do with an alleged
>> descent from the early Counts of Boulogne.
>>
>> The matter of "knights of the swan" is discussed in the book, Siege of
>> Carlaverock, pp. 369-370, which can be found at the following weblink:
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=SB0NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA369&dq=Robert+Tony...
>>
>> The kinship between Sir William Fitz Wain and Sir Robert de Tony
>> would come through Sir William Fitz Warin's paternal grandmother,
>> Constance de Tony. Constance de Tony was the sister of Sir Robert de
>> Tony's grandfather, Sir Roger de Tony (died 1264).
>>
>> The swan knight tradition is also discussed in a book by Sir Anthony
>> Wagner.
>>
>> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Dear Douglas:
> I merely wish to point out that a Fulk FitzWarin III flourished in
> 1198 at Whittington having brothers Alan, William, Phillip and John
> (identical with Ivo [perhaps Ives]). Without trying to get involved in
> this long thread, I would suggest them of being the start of descents
> that may ultimately address your problem in the mid 1300s. John P.
> Ravilious presented a brief discussion of the ancient line, and the
> line is better discussed in "Antiquities of Shropshire, Volume 7 By
> Robert William Eyton" beginning on page 71at the Google url below..
> http://books.google.com/books?id=yAMVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=Preston%2BFitzWarin&source=bl&ots=LFIOShfddB&sig=fZRPyj4PptQVL2Un-E90e7oW_y0&hl=en&ei=wZ_dS_e8GZCa8ATi84nMBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
> Antiquities of Shropshire - Google Books Result1858 - Shropshire
> (England)
> books.google.com/books?id=yAMVAAAAQAAJ...
> You wrote "If so, it would appear that Sir William Fitz Warin should
> be moved back one generation in the Fitz Warin family tree, and
> identified as a younger son of Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 1st Lord Fitz
> Warin (died 1315), of Whittington, Shropshire, Alveston,
> Gloucestershire, Wantage, Berkshire, etc., by Margaret, daughter of
> Gruffyd ap Wennonwen. This would make Sir William Fitz Warin a
> brother-in-law (not son) to Eleanor de Beauchamp, which lady appointed
> Sir William Fitz Warin as an overseer of her will c.1346."
> Something is odd here since Fulk III occurs in 1198 per the above
> article. A lot of lines missing over a hundred years leading to your
> mid 1300s concern.
> Warm Regards,
> Dix Preston

Douglas is talking about Fulk FitzWarin V, 1st Baron FitzWarin
(1251-1315), and Fulk FitzWarin VI, 2nd Baron FitzWarin (c.1285-1337).
You are talking about Fulk FitzWarin III (d.1258?)
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-02 19:19:11 UTC

Permalink

Dear Dix ~

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the style "le frere" which
was applied to Sir William Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire,
starting in 1330.

I will quote the comment in Complete Peerage again:

"The description Le Frere may warrant the conjecture that he was
brother to the chief of the family."

I've elsewhere provided another contemporary example in the Ufford
family where Edmund de Ufford styled "le frere" is known to have been
the younger brother of Robert de Ufford, Earl of Suffolk, who was head
of that family. There was also a contemporary Edmund de Ufford "le
cousin," who was a first cousin to Earl Robert.

If you want further examples to support Complete Peerage's statement,
perhaps you might do some research in the records of this time period
to satisfy your curiosity.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Briggs

2010-05-02 21:30:13 UTC

Permalink

On 02/05/2010 20:19, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the style "le frere" which
> was applied to Sir William Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire,
> starting in 1330.

No, he's just confused by the long sequence of Fulk FitzWarins.
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-02 19:10:35 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

I've already posted evidence that Sir William Fitz Warin was an adult
before 1317, when he served in the retinue of his brother, Fulk Fitz
Warin, in an expedition to Ireland.

For further evidence that Sir William Fitz Warin was older than
indicated by some writers, I find that just before he married his
known wife, Amice de Haddon, c.1337, he had been granted the marriage
of Elizabeth Botetourt, widow of William le Latimer, 3rd Lord
Latimer. The marriage between William Fitz Warin and Elizabeth
Botetourt never took place, as each of them eventually married other
parties.

The grant of the marriage of Elizabeth Botetourt to Sir William Fitz
Warin is dated 16 Nov. 1335 [Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls,
1334–1338 (1895): pg. 179]. It may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v3/body/Edward3vol3page0179.pdf

I don't know when Elizabeth Botetourt was born, but William le Latimer
was born about 1301, he being aged 26 in 1327.

My file notes show that Sir William Fitz Warin's parents, Fulk and
Margaret Fitz Warin, were married before 25 Feb. 1276/7, whereas
Elizabeth Botetourt's parents were married married before June 1282.
In other words, their respective parents were of the same generation.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-02 23:32:02 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Interested parties who would like to see a representation of the arms
of Sir William Fitz Warin may do so at the following weblink:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blason_Guillaume_FitzWarin_%28selon_Gelre%29.svg

The arms are taken from Folio 57r of the "Armorial de Gelre." This
armorial is probably the best known collection of medieval arms and is
among the oldest preserved in the original. It was compiled between
1370 and 1414 by Claes Heynenszoon Gelre to whom he owes its name.

As noted in this source, the crest of Sir William Fitz Warin was a
swan. The swan crest can actually be taken as genealogical evidence
as it implies Sir William Fitz Warin was descended from one of several
high born families which used the swan in connection their family
heraldry, namely Tony, Bohun, Mandeville, and Beauchamp (Earls of
Warwick).

Next, a description of the seal of Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Sir
Ives Fitz Warin, may be viewed at this weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA807&dq=swans+fitz+warin&hl=en&ei=09HdS46XF42StgPf79WzBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBzge#v=onepage&q=swans%20fitz%20warin&f=false

This source indicate that Sir Ives Fitz Warin had two swans as
supporters on his seal. Again we see the swans.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-03 04:49:21 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is an interesting biography of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G.
(died 1361), found in the book, Memorials of the Order of the Garter,
by G.F. Beltz (1841): 96-98, which may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4xwNAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA96&dq=Beltz+commemorate+sir+William+fitzwaryne&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Unfortunately Mr. Beltz made no attempt to identify the parentage of
Sir William Fitz Warin.

On page 98, he observes that Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Ives Fitz
Warin, "appears to have adopted for his crest, probably out of respect
for his commander, the duke of Lancaster, a swan naïant between two
ostrich feathers."

This comment regarding the swan crest was made without Mr. Beltz
knowing that Sir William Fitz Warin also had a swan for his crest, as
indicated by the Armorial de Gelre. The swan crest was almost
certainly adopted due to Sir William Fitz Warin's lineal descent from
the Tony family. It had nothing to do with the Duke of Lancaster.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-03 05:26:08 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following ancient pedigree was found in the A2A Catalogue (http://
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/). It traces the descendants of Sir
Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414), son and heir of Sir William Fitz Warin.
It includes the families of Chidiock and Stourton.

One Fitz Warin descendant mentioned in the pedigree below is Katherine
Stourton, wife successively of William Berkeley, Knt., of Beverstone,
Gloucestershire (died 1485); Henry (or Harry) Grey, Knt., 7th Lord
Grey of Codnor (died 1496), and William de la Pole, Knt., of
Wingfield, Suffolk. The latter individual was the nephew of Kings
Edward IV and Richard III of England. Katherine Stourton died in
London 25 Nov. 1521.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

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

Cornwall Rec. Office: Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice, AR/39/2
[15th-16th century?]

Administrative history:

Contents:
Family tree
Fitzwaryn family
Family tree on a crumpled sheet of paper, with as backing a leaf from
a breviary [14th-15th century?] with decorated initials.

Family tree reads:

John sone of the lorde Fytzwaryn = [blank]
[Parents of:] Dowghter of John Fytz waryne = Chediok
[Parents of:] Sir John Chedioke knyght = Dame Kateryne [see below]
Sr John Nevyll Lord of Reby = Dame Mawde doghter of Henry thelder Lord
Percy
[Parents of:] Alynor Ladye Lumnay = Lorde Lomnay
[Parents of:] Dame Kateryne doghter of the Lorde Lumnay [who married
Sr John Chedioke, above]
[Parents of: both] Dame Kateryne = Sr John Arundell knight;
[And] Margarett Ladye Stortton = Wyllm Lorde Stortton
Sir Raynold [brother of Wyllm Lorde Stortton]
[All the following from a central line descending from Wyllm and
Margaret:]
Edyth; [blank];
Kateryn weddyd to Sr Wyllm Barkly; [blank];
John Lorde Stortton his vssues fayled = Kateryne doghter of Sr Morys
Barkley;
Elyzabeth = [blank]; Alianor;
Margarett wedded Jamys Chydly; Edward maryd with Agnes the doghter of
Sr John Fount la roye;
Raffe; Alys; John ...llpoll;
John; Rychard Storton.

The backing is a folio from a breviary, and contains the services for
the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr (7th Jul), St Felicity and her
7 sons (10th Jul) and the Translation of St Benedict the Abbot (11th
Jul); the book from which it was taken probably belonged to a
Benedictine monastery (letter of S. C. Ratcliff to John Arundell of
Wardour, May 1938; cf. AR/49/6).

taf

2010-05-03 10:25:18 UTC

Permalink

On May 2, 10:26 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

> The following ancient pedigree was found in the A2A Catalogue (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/). It traces the descendants of Sir
> Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414), son and heir of Sir William Fitz Warin.
> It includes the families of Chidiock and Stourton.
>
> One Fitz Warin descendant mentioned in the pedigree below is Katherine
> Stourton, wife successively of William Berkeley, Knt., of Beverstone,
> Gloucestershire (died 1485); Henry (or Harry) Grey, Knt., 7th Lord
> Grey of Codnor (died 1496), and William de la Pole, Knt., of
> Wingfield, Suffolk.

Another is Margaret Stourton, perhaps mother of Petronell Chudleigh,
wife of Anthony Pollard and progenitrix of immigrant Oliver Manwaring.
Vivian's Chudleigh pedigree is severely botched at this point, but he
shows Petronell as daughter of an earlier James 'grandfather' of
Margaret's husband. A correlation of chronologies would seem to place
Petronell as daughter of this younger James rather than the elder, but
I have found no direct attestation, and Margaret was not his only
wife.

> Margarett wedded Jamys Chydly;

James was not actually grandson of the earlier James either. As I
said, one of Vivian's gems.

taf

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-03 15:18:09 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Getting back to the Vivonne family, I find there is a record dated
1220 involving "Aimeri Fort de Vivonne, chivalier" published in
Fonteneau, Tables des Manuscrits 1 (Mémoires de la Société des
Antiquaries de l'Ouest 4) (1839): 193. This individual was the
brother of Sir Hugh de Vivonne, Knt. (died 1249), Seneschal of Gascony
(husband of Mabel Malet). This record may be viewed at the following
weblink:

pg. 193:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EQlNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=%22entre+Aimeri+Fort%22&source=bl&ots=je_6rnZfQ9&sig=ZddS1F19pJFWxmuiKDsXE-jKsz8&hl=en&ei=ruPeS4y-BIPMsgOho-nYBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22entre%20Aimeri%20Fort%22&f=false

In the same volume, pages 217-218, I find there is a confirmation
charter dated 13 June 1237 of Hugues de Lusignan, Count of La Marche
and Angoulême, and his wife, Isabel, Queen of England, which mentions
a previous grant of Hugues de Vivonne [i.e., Hugh de Vivonne] to the
Abbaye io Montierneuf of Poitiers. This record may be viewed at the
following weblink:

pp. 217-218:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4WoDAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&dq=%22Melle,+Hugues+de%22&hl=en&ei=gebeS5GbOJLUtgPnjoS5Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Melle%2C%20Hugues%20de%22&f=false

The same record is also published in Mémoires de la Société des
Antiquaries de l'Ouest, 11 (1845): 264, which item may be viewed at
the following weblink:

pg. 264:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bANKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA264&dq=%22Melle,+Hugues+de%22&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Melle%2C%20Hugues%20de%22&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

2010-05-04 00:55:36 UTC

Permalink

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a3ceccd4-521c-42c6-b337-***@r21g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Getting back to the Vivonne family, I find there is a record dated
> 1220 involving "Aimeri Fort de Vivonne, chivalier" published in
> Fonteneau, Tables des Manuscrits 1 (Mémoires de la Société des
> Antiquaries de l'Ouest 4) (1839): 193.

If anyone should feel like pursuing this beyond the comfort zone of Google
Books, the cartularies from which the cited documents were copied by Dom
Fonteneau have been published, but are still under copyright restriction -
see _Recueil des documents relatifs à l'abbaye de Montierneuf de Poitiers
(1076-1319)_, edited by François Villard, Archives historiques du Poitou LIX
(Poitiers, 1973).

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-03 15:47:55 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

For those interested in learning more about the history of swan crests
and swan badges used by medieval English families, there is an
interesting article on the subject by Henry Gough entitled "The Swan
of Buckingham" published in 1870 in Records of Buckinghamshire, Volume
3, pages 249-270. The article mentions Sir Robert de Tony, Lord
Tony, who was cousin to Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. The article may
be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sDgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=%22As+to+the+origin+of+the+Swan+of+Buckingham%22&source=bl&ots=CotD6qGj1m&sig=kYZGiGp8yZTDsmcg8tte7fgmu6A&hl=en&ei=Le7eS5ztMI-EtgP0ppXbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22As%20to%20the%20origin%20of%20the%20Swan%20of%20Buckingham%22&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski

2010-05-03 17:41:45 UTC

Permalink

Douglas Richardson wrote~

> For those interested in learning more about the history of swan crests
> and swan badges used by medieval English families, there is an
> interesting article on the subject by Henry Gough entitled "The Swan
> of Buckingham" published in 1870 in Records of Buckinghamshire, Volume
> 3, pages 249-270. The article mentions Sir Robert de Tony, Lord
> Tony, who was cousin to Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. The article may
> be viewed at the following weblink:

> http://books.google.com/books?id=sDgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=%22As+to+the+origin+of+the+Swan+of+Buckingham%22&source=bl&ots=CotD6qGj1m&sig=kYZGiGp8yZTDsmcg8tte7fgmu6A&hl=en&ei=Le7eS5ztMI-EtgP0ppXbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22As%20to%20the%20origin%20of%20the%20Swan%20of%20Buckingham%22&f=false

Sir Anthony Wagner, Garter Principal King of Arms, included a number of tables and narrative on the genealogical descent of the Swan badge in his book, "Pedigree and Progress."

Anthony Wagner, Pedigree and Progress,
Essays in the Genealogical Interpretation of History, London, Phillimore,
1975.

Richard Carruthers, M.A. (Oxon.)

_________________________________________________________________
Got a phone? Get Hotmail & Messenger for mobile!
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724464

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-04 06:31:06 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 10 (1945): 554-555 (sub Plugenet) has a good account
of the life of Sir Alan de Plugenet, Knt., 2nd Lord Plugenet, who died
in 1325.

Regarding Sir Alan's marriage, the following information is provided:

"He married, in or before 1295, Sibyl (_____), and [he] died without
issue before 3 Sept. 1325; [and was] buried in Dore Abbey, co.
Hereford. His widow married, 2ndly, before 20 Sept. 1327 Henry de
Pembridge, who died before Michaelmas 1341. She died 14 Feb. 1352/3."

A clue to Sibyl de Plugenet's parentage is afforded us by the abstract
of a lease dated 1328 published in Himsworth, Winchester College
Muniments, 2 (1984): 615.

The brief abstract of the lease reads as follows:

13213 (1328 March 25) Shulbrede [Sussex]. Lease: Richard de Bohun to
Richard Wyot, clerk, of all the lands and tenements in Meonstoke
[Hampshire], which I had from Sibil de Plukenet , my sister, for the
life of the said Sibil. At a rose at Nativity of St John Baptist.
Witness: John de Bohun." END OF QUOTE.

The editor adds a note that Sibil was Alan de Plokenet's widow; and
she had granted her dower or a third to her brother. VCH Hampshire, 3
(1908): 254-257 confirms this identification.

We learn from the above record that Sibyl, wife successively of Alan
de Plugenet and Henry de Pembridge, was the sister of Richard de
Bohun. I assume Sibyl de Plugenet and Richard de Bohun were members
of the Bohun family of Midhurst, Sussex. Gauging from the chronology,
I assume Sibyl and Richard were grandchildren of Frank de Bohun, of
Midhurst, Sussex (died 1273), and his wife, Sibyl, 4th daughter of
William de Ferrers, 4th Earl of Derby.

If so, it would place Sibyl de Plugenet and her brother, Richard de
Bohun, as a great-niece and great-nephew respectively of Maud de
Ferrers, wife of Sir William de Forz (or de Vivonne) and Aimery IX de
Rochechouart, Vicomte of Rochechouart.

If anyone had additional particulars on Richard de Bohun, I'd
appreciate hearing from them here on the newsgroup.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-04 06:54:42 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

Good news.

Richard de Bohun and his sister, Sibyl de Plugenet, are listed in
Paget's Baronage, 74:3 as the children of John de Bohun, of Midhurst,
Sussex (died 1284), by his wife, Joan de la Chapelle. This John de
Bohun was in turn the son of Frank de Bohun, of Midhurst, Sussex, by
his wife, Sibyl de Ferrers.

Paget indicates that Richard de Bohun was living June 1332, and cites
Ped. Fin. Case. 237 file 56 No.8. As for Sibyl, he gives no
particulars (or her marriages), but he offers this source: Esch. ?8
Edward 2, No. 45.

Thus, Sibyl de Bohun, wife successively of Alan de Plugenet, 2nd Lord
Plugenet, and Henry de Pembridge, may now be added to the family tree
of her great-aunt, Maud de Ferrrers, wife of Sir William de Forz and
Aimery de Rochechouart, Vicomte of Rochechouart.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-04 14:16:29 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

More good news. I find that Richard and Sibyl de Bohun are listed as
children of John de Bohun, of Midhurst, Sussex, and his wife, Joan de
la Chapelle, in the book, Les Seigneurs de Bohon, illustre Famille
Anglo-normande, originaire du Cotentin, by Jean Le Melletier,
published in 1978. They are mentioned on page 78 of this work, which
page may be viewed in snippet view at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=1L_fS_LmGYKisgOe6L2ABQ&ct=result&id=ZacWAQAAIAAJ&dq=frank+Bohun+Midhurst+Richard&q=James#search_anchor

Sibyl de Bohun's husbands are not named in this source.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John

2010-05-04 15:58:48 UTC

Permalink

On May 4, 7:16 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> More good news. I find that Richard and Sibyl de Bohun are listed as
> children of John de Bohun, of Midhurst, Sussex, and his wife, Joan de
> la Chapelle, in the book, Les Seigneurs de Bohon, illustre Famille
> Anglo-normande, originaire du Cotentin, by Jean Le Melletier,
> published in 1978. They are mentioned on page 78 of this work, which
> page may be viewed in snippet view at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?ei=1L_fS_LmGYKisgOe6L2ABQ&ct=result&id=...
>
> Sibyl de Bohun's husbands are not named in this source.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

See also the article on the Bohuns of Midhurst by G. W. Watson in vol.
28 of "The Genealogist" [new series]. Like the other Bohun sources so
far cited, it does not name the husbands of Sybil de Bohun.

taf

2010-05-04 14:35:00 UTC

Permalink

On May 3, 11:31 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> "He married, in or before 1295, Sibyl (_____), and [he] died without
> issue before 3 Sept. 1325; [and was] buried in Dore Abbey, co.
> Hereford. His widow married, 2ndly, before 20 Sept. 1327 Henry de
> Pembridge, who died before Michaelmas 1341. She died 14 Feb. 1352/3."

> The brief abstract of the lease reads as follows:
>
> 13213 (1328 March 25) Shulbrede [Sussex]. Lease: Richard de Bohun to
> Richard Wyot, clerk, of all the lands and tenements in Meonstoke
> [Hampshire], which I had from Sibil de Plukenet , my sister, for the
> life of the said Sibil. At a rose at Nativity of St John Baptist.
> Witness: John de Bohun." END OF QUOTE.
>
> The editor adds a note that Sibil was Alan de Plokenet's widow; and
> she had granted her dower or a third to her brother. VCH Hampshire, 3
> (1908): 254-257 confirms this identification.

FWIW, in 1329, Sibyl and Henry de Pembrigg were claiming her dower
third of 'Pydyngton' against John de Handlo. CCR 24:505

taf

taf

2010-05-03 03:09:28 UTC

Permalink

On May 2, 10:42 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

> The swan knight tradition is also discussed in a book by Sir Anthony
> Wagner.

Don't know about that, but he had an article:

Anthony R. Wagner, 'The swan badge and the Swan Knight', Archaeologia,
97 (1959), 127-38

taf

Peter Stewart

2010-05-03 03:52:18 UTC

Permalink

Cross-post to SHM removed.

"taf" <***@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:a8e0fe54-764b-4318-bb0a-***@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 10:42 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The swan knight tradition is also discussed in a book by Sir Anthony
> > Wagner.
>
> Don't know about that, but he had an article:
>
> Anthony R. Wagner, 'The swan badge and the Swan Knight', Archaeologia,
> 97 (1959), 127-38

This is one of his essays revised and reprinted, with annotations, in
_Pedigree and Progress: Essays in the Genealogical Interpretation of
History_ (London, 1975).

Peter Stewart

John Briggs

2010-04-30 18:42:31 UTC

Permalink

On 30/04/2010 18:40, John Briggs wrote:
> On 30/04/2010 18:15, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>> Dear Newsgroup ~
>>
>> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 512–513 (sub FitzWarin) has a brief
>> account of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. (died 1361), of Whittington,
>> Shropshire, Brians (in Wantage), Berkshire, Winterbourne Houghton,
>> Dorset, etc., and, in right of his wife, of Caundle Haddon, Lidlinch,
>> and Up Cerne, Dorset, and Pitney and Wearne, and Isle-Brewers,
>> Somerset. This man had an illustrious career, he being Knight of the
>> Body to Queen Philippe and eventually made a Knight of the Garter.
>>
>> Regarding Sir William Fitz Warin's parentage, the following statement
>> is made:
>>
>> “He was, no doubt, a yr. br. of that Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington
>> who died in 1349, but there is no actual proof. His arms were:
>> Quarterly, per pale and per fesse indented, Ermine and Gules, i.e.,
>> those of FitzWarin of Whittington, with a difference.” END OF QUOTE.
>>
>> If Complete Peerage is correct, then Sir William Fitz Warin should be
>> placed as a younger son of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz
>> Warin (died 1349), by his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp.
>>
>> However, from the long forgotten will of Eleanor de Beauchamp, widow
>> of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, we find that Eleanor de Beauchamp had but two
>> sons, Fulk and Ioun (or Ives) [see Notes& Queries, 4th Series 3
>> (1869): 230]. As for Sir William Fitz Warin, Eleanor de Beauchamp
>> merely appointed him an overseer of his will.
>>
>> So then who are the parents of Sir William Fitz Warin? The evidence
>> indicates that he must have been near related to Eleanor de
>> Beauchamp's husband, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. In his lifetime, he was
>> styled William Fitz Warin "le frere" [i.e., the brother] [see, for
>> example, his petition dated c.1331 in National Archives, 8/181/9020].
>> This usually means he was a brother of one of the high born barons.
>> He was styled in his life time William Fitz Warin “of Whittington, co.
>> Salop,” evidently to distinguish him from his contemporary kinsman,
>> William Fitz Warin “of Penleigh” in Westbury, Wiltshire [see
>> Elrington, Abs. of Feet of Fines Rel. Wiltshire (Wiltshire Rec. Soc.
>> 29) (1974): 120]. It may be pointed out that Whittington, Shropshire
>> was the seat of the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family. As for
>> other evidence of a connection to the senior branch, I find that his
>> son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414) served as guardian in 1394–1404
>> for minor cousin, Fulk Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire.
>> Lastly, there is the transcript of an ancient pedigree of the Fitz
>> Warin family found in the A2A Catalogue. This pedigree commences with
>> Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin, and it identifies
>> Sir Ives as "sone of the lorde Fytzwaryn." [see Cornwall Rec. Office:
>> Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice, AR/39/2]. While this information is
>> incorrect, it certainly implies that Sir Ives Fitz Warin was near
>> related to the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family.
>>
>> A clue to Sir William Fitz Warin's exact place in the Fitz Warin
>> family tree is afforded us by the will of his son, Sir Ives Fitz
>> Warin, dated 6 Nov. 1412, proved 5 Feb. 1414/5. A transcript of this
>> will has appeared in two sources, namely Register of Henry Chichele,
>> volume 2 (Canterbury& York Soc. 42) (1937): xlii, 18–21 (will of Sir
>> Ives Fitz Warin), 32, 653, and Gibbons& Davey, Wantage Past& Present
>> (1901): 44–46. The second source may be viewed at the following
>> weblink:
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=wKYLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Ivo+fitz+Waryn&hl=en&ei=AALbS7ygJYuCswPahZmHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ivo%20fitz%20Waryn&f=false
>>
>>
>> In his will, Sir Ives Fitz Warin requests that a daily mass be said in
>> the parish church of Wantage, Berkshire for various family members,
>> including "Margaret, mother of Sir William Fitz Waryn, knight." There
>> can be little doubt that Margaret Fitz Warin was Sir Ives' paternal
>> grandmother.
>
> In what may or may not be a coincidence, Sir Ives' daughter Alice
> married Dick Whittington.

It is difficult to work out who exactly was buried at Wantage: Sir
William and his wife Amice have an alabaster monument there, and his son
Ives has a brass. Sir William purchsed a minor manor at Wantage -
presumably while sorting out the affairs of Eleanor, her husband, and
children.

Incidentally, VCH Berks 4 pp.319-322 says that Eleanor's husband died in
1349 and gives the ref Chan. Inq. p.m. 23 Edw. III, pt. i, no. 39 -
presumably it was actually her son Fulk. (Either the author or G.E.C.
has become confused by the long sequence of Fulks!)
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

2010-04-30 20:30:38 UTC

Permalink

On 30/04/2010 19:03, Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/2010 18:15, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
>>> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 512–513 (sub FitzWarin) has a brief
>>> account of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. (died 1361), of Whittington,
>>> Shropshire, Brians (in Wantage), Berkshire, Winterbourne Houghton,
>>> Dorset, etc., and, in right of his wife, of Caundle Haddon, Lidlinch,
>>> and Up Cerne, Dorset, and Pitney and Wearne, and Isle-Brewers,
>>> Somerset. This man had an illustrious career, he being Knight of the
>>> Body to Queen Philippe and eventually made a Knight of the Garter.
>>>
>>> Regarding Sir William Fitz Warin's parentage, the following statement
>>> is made:
>>>
>>> “He was, no doubt, a yr. br. of that Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington
>>> who died in 1349, but there is no actual proof. His arms were:
>>> Quarterly, per pale and per fesse indented, Ermine and Gules, i.e.,
>>> those of FitzWarin of Whittington, with a difference.” END OF QUOTE.
>>>
>>> If Complete Peerage is correct, then Sir William Fitz Warin should be
>>> placed as a younger son of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz
>>> Warin (died 1349), by his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp.
>>>
>>> However, from the long forgotten will of Eleanor de Beauchamp, widow
>>> of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, we find that Eleanor de Beauchamp had but two
>>> sons, Fulk and Ioun (or Ives) [see Notes& Queries, 4th Series 3
>>> (1869): 230]. As for Sir William Fitz Warin, Eleanor de Beauchamp
>>> merely appointed him an overseer of his will.
>>>
>>> So then who are the parents of Sir William Fitz Warin? The evidence
>>> indicates that he must have been near related to Eleanor de
>>> Beauchamp's husband, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. In his lifetime, he was
>>> styled William Fitz Warin "le frere" [i.e., the brother] [see, for
>>> example, his petition dated c.1331 in National Archives, 8/181/9020].
>>> This usually means he was a brother of one of the high born barons.
>>> He was styled in his life time William Fitz Warin “of Whittington, co.
>>> Salop,” evidently to distinguish him from his contemporary kinsman,
>>> William Fitz Warin “of Penleigh” in Westbury, Wiltshire [see
>>> Elrington, Abs. of Feet of Fines Rel. Wiltshire (Wiltshire Rec. Soc.
>>> 29) (1974): 120]. It may be pointed out that Whittington, Shropshire
>>> was the seat of the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family. As for
>>> other evidence of a connection to the senior branch, I find that his
>>> son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414) served as guardian in 1394–1404
>>> for minor cousin, Fulk Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire.
>>> Lastly, there is the transcript of an ancient pedigree of the Fitz
>>> Warin family found in the A2A Catalogue. This pedigree commences with
>>> Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin, and it identifies
>>> Sir Ives as "sone of the lorde Fytzwaryn." [see Cornwall Rec. Office:
>>> Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice, AR/39/2]. While this information is
>>> incorrect, it certainly implies that Sir Ives Fitz Warin was near
>>> related to the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family.
>>>
>>> A clue to Sir William Fitz Warin's exact place in the Fitz Warin
>>> family tree is afforded us by the will of his son, Sir Ives Fitz
>>> Warin, dated 6 Nov. 1412, proved 5 Feb. 1414/5. A transcript of this
>>> will has appeared in two sources, namely Register of Henry Chichele,
>>> volume 2 (Canterbury& York Soc. 42) (1937): xlii, 18–21 (will of Sir
>>> Ives Fitz Warin), 32, 653, and Gibbons& Davey, Wantage Past& Present
>>> (1901): 44–46. The second source may be viewed at the following
>>> weblink:
>>>
>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=wKYLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Ivo+fitz+Waryn&hl=en&ei=AALbS7ygJYuCswPahZmHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ivo%20fitz%20Waryn&f=false
>>>
>>> In his will, Sir Ives Fitz Warin requests that a daily mass be said in
>>> the parish church of Wantage, Berkshire for various family members,
>>> including "Margaret, mother of Sir William Fitz Waryn, knight." There
>>> can be little doubt that Margaret Fitz Warin was Sir Ives' paternal
>>> grandmother.
>
> Mightn't Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G., be a son of Eleanor de Beauchamp's husband Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, 2nd Lord Fitz Warin, by an earlier wife? Thus he might merit mention in Eleanor's will not as her son, but as a step-son, and thereby indicating no conflict with our knowledge that she had only two Fitz Warin sons, neither of whom was named Fulk?

It's possible, but a bit tight - it would help if we knew when Sir
William was born.

John Briggs

Patricia A. Junkin

2010-05-01 22:50:28 UTC

Permalink

Dear Douglas and All,

Have been interested in the Fitz Warins of Devon because of their
connection to Sir William la Zouche of Black Torrington. This William
by his wife Alice had a son, Almeric who married a Thomasina.
FITZWARREN OF TOTELEY (par. in, p. 144). The armes of Fitzwarren of
Toteley are given by Pole as Gules ten bezants and a quarter argent.
This is really Zouch, but Pole, 358, says Sir Almarick le Zouch's
daughter and heir (married Walter Fitzwarren. The canton or quarter
would show most likely a junior branch, but, of course, he bore it as
an escutcheon of pretence, which his descendants would quarter. I
think Matilda, the wife of Sir Ivo Fitzwarren, was the third daughter
of John Argenton. F.W. 2 see petrochestou
(Wardour Castle Muniments: William Stapeldon was a witness to a
transfer of a tenement in the vill of Black Torrington from Walter
Fitzwarren to Benedict Beare and as a witness to a grant of Isabella
de Fortibus to the monastery of Buckland in 1291.p. 121
Fyzwaryn, Thomasia, relict of Walter; also, to Almeric Fyztwaryn and
Margaret his wife, in the Chapel of St. Katherine within their mansion
of Totele (Hodie Totley) in Black-torrington (8 July 1401)1
Almerick Fitz-Warren, dwelt likewise at Totleigh; and his son Walter
left this manor to Isabel, his daughter, married unto Thomas Dorrells;
the heir general of which family, who enjoyed this land since king
Henry the fourths reign...Wampford, Whitalegh and Northcott, the said
Joel de Main granted unto the aforesaid Richard, son of Esbus, whose
prospertiy took the name Wampford, being the principal place of their
dwelling. p. 254-552
1The register of Edmund Stafford, (A.D. 1395-1419); an index and
abstract of its contents,
by F C Hingeston; Catholic Church. Diocese of Exeter (England). Bishop
(1395-1419 : Edmund de Stafford)London, G. Bell & Sons; Exeter, H.S.
Eland, 1886. p. 275
2The Chorographical Description Or Survey of the County of Devon
1Politics, finance, and the church in the reign of Edward II : Walter
Stapeldon, Treasurer of England by Mark Buck
Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York : Cambridge University Press,
1983.

Perhaps, there is something useful here.

Best,
Pat

On Apr 30, 2010, at 3:30 PM, John Briggs wrote:

> On 30/04/2010 19:03, Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/04/2010 18:15, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 512–513 (sub FitzWarin) has a brief
>>>> account of Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G. (died 1361), of
>>>> Whittington,
>>>> Shropshire, Brians (in Wantage), Berkshire, Winterbourne Houghton,
>>>> Dorset, etc., and, in right of his wife, of Caundle Haddon,
>>>> Lidlinch,
>>>> and Up Cerne, Dorset, and Pitney and Wearne, and Isle-Brewers,
>>>> Somerset. This man had an illustrious career, he being Knight of
>>>> the
>>>> Body to Queen Philippe and eventually made a Knight of the Garter.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding Sir William Fitz Warin's parentage, the following
>>>> statement
>>>> is made:
>>>>
>>>> “He was, no doubt, a yr. br. of that Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington
>>>> who died in 1349, but there is no actual proof. His arms were:
>>>> Quarterly, per pale and per fesse indented, Ermine and Gules, i.e.,
>>>> those of FitzWarin of Whittington, with a difference.” END OF
>>>> QUOTE.
>>>>
>>>> If Complete Peerage is correct, then Sir William Fitz Warin
>>>> should be
>>>> placed as a younger son of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz
>>>> Warin (died 1349), by his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp.
>>>>
>>>> However, from the long forgotten will of Eleanor de Beauchamp,
>>>> widow
>>>> of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, we find that Eleanor de Beauchamp had but
>>>> two
>>>> sons, Fulk and Ioun (or Ives) [see Notes& Queries, 4th Series 3
>>>> (1869): 230]. As for Sir William Fitz Warin, Eleanor de Beauchamp
>>>> merely appointed him an overseer of his will.
>>>>
>>>> So then who are the parents of Sir William Fitz Warin? The evidence
>>>> indicates that he must have been near related to Eleanor de
>>>> Beauchamp's husband, Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. In his lifetime, he was
>>>> styled William Fitz Warin "le frere" [i.e., the brother] [see, for
>>>> example, his petition dated c.1331 in National Archives,
>>>> 8/181/9020].
>>>> This usually means he was a brother of one of the high born barons.
>>>> He was styled in his life time William Fitz Warin “of
>>>> Whittington, co.
>>>> Salop,” evidently to distinguish him from his contemporary kinsman,
>>>> William Fitz Warin “of Penleigh” in Westbury, Wiltshire [see
>>>> Elrington, Abs. of Feet of Fines Rel. Wiltshire (Wiltshire Rec.
>>>> Soc.
>>>> 29) (1974): 120]. It may be pointed out that Whittington,
>>>> Shropshire
>>>> was the seat of the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family. As for
>>>> other evidence of a connection to the senior branch, I find that
>>>> his
>>>> son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin (died 1414) served as guardian in 1394–
>>>> 1404
>>>> for minor cousin, Fulk Fitz Warin, of Whittington, Shropshire.
>>>> Lastly, there is the transcript of an ancient pedigree of the Fitz
>>>> Warin family found in the A2A Catalogue. This pedigree commences
>>>> with
>>>> Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Sir Ives Fitz Warin, and it
>>>> identifies
>>>> Sir Ives as "sone of the lorde Fytzwaryn." [see Cornwall Rec.
>>>> Office:
>>>> Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice, AR/39/2]. While this
>>>> information is
>>>> incorrect, it certainly implies that Sir Ives Fitz Warin was near
>>>> related to the senior branch of the Fitz Warin family.
>>>>
>>>> A clue to Sir William Fitz Warin's exact place in the Fitz Warin
>>>> family tree is afforded us by the will of his son, Sir Ives Fitz
>>>> Warin, dated 6 Nov. 1412, proved 5 Feb. 1414/5. A transcript of
>>>> this
>>>> will has appeared in two sources, namely Register of Henry
>>>> Chichele,
>>>> volume 2 (Canterbury& York Soc. 42) (1937): xlii, 18–21 (will of
>>>> Sir
>>>> Ives Fitz Warin), 32, 653, and Gibbons& Davey, Wantage Past&
>>>> Present
>>>> (1901): 44–46. The second source may be viewed at the following
>>>> weblink:
>>>>
>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=wKYLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Ivo+fitz+Waryn&hl=en&ei=AALbS7ygJYuCswPahZmHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v
>>>> =onepage&q=Ivo%20fitz%20Waryn&f=false
>>>>
>>>> In his will, Sir Ives Fitz Warin requests that a daily mass be
>>>> said in
>>>> the parish church of Wantage, Berkshire for various family members,
>>>> including "Margaret, mother of Sir William Fitz Waryn, knight."
>>>> There
>>>> can be little doubt that Margaret Fitz Warin was Sir Ives' paternal
>>>> grandmother.
>>
>> Mightn't Sir William Fitz Warin, K.G., be a son of Eleanor de
>> Beauchamp's husband Sir Fulk Fitz Warin, 2nd Lord Fitz Warin, by an
>> earlier wife? Thus he might merit mention in Eleanor's will not as
>> her son, but as a step-son, and thereby indicating no conflict with
>> our knowledge that she had only two Fitz Warin sons, neither of
>> whom was named Fulk?
>
> It's possible, but a bit tight - it would help if we knew when Sir
> William was born.
>
> John Briggs
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message

John Briggs

2010-04-30 19:55:01 UTC

Permalink

On 30/04/2010 17:02, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage and various secondary sources indicate that Sir
> William de Forz's fourth daughter, Cecily de Vivonne and her husband,
> Sir John de Beauchamp, Knt., of Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset had four
> children in all, namely John, Knt. [1st Lord Beauchamp of Somerset]
> and Robert, King's valet, and two daughters, Eleanor (wife of Fulk
> Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord Fitz Warin) and Beatrice (wife of Peter
> Corbet, 2nd Lord Corbet, and John de Leybourne, Knt., Lord Leybourne).
>
> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 497–499 (sub FitzWarin) has a good account
> of Cecily de Vivonne's son-in-law, Fulk Fitz Warin, Knt., 2nd Lord
> Fitz Warin. Regarding Fulk Fitz Warin's marriage to Eleanor de
> Beauchamp, the following information is provided:
>
> "He married Alieanore, daughter of Sir John de Beauchamp of Somerset
> [Lord Beauchamp], by Cecily, 4th daughter and coheir of Sir William de
> Vivonne, le Fort, of Chewton, Somerset ... On 31 May [1330] his wife,
> Alienore,had a temporary grant of 40 marks a year and his house at
> Wantage [Berkshire] as a residence, for the support of herself and her
> children: his sons, Fulk and Ioun, were detained in prison at
> Shrewsbury ... [Fulk Fitz Warin] died shortly before 6 June 1336. His
> widow, Alianore, who held one-third of the manors of Alveston and
> Earthcote [in Alveston] in dower, was living 18 Nov. 1341." END OF
> QUOTE.
>
> No documentation whatsoever is provided for the marriage of Sir Fulk
> Fitz Warin and his wife, Eleanor de Beauchamp. However, we are
> informed that this couple had two sons, Fulk and Ioun. We are given
> no death date for Eleanor. And, no mention is made of a son, Sir
> William Fitz Warin, who has been traditionally assigned as a child to
> this couple.
>
> Checking various sources, I've managed to locate the long forgotten
> will of Eleanor, widow of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. This will confirms
> that Eleanor Fitz Warin was indeed the daughter of Sir John de
> Beauchamp, of Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset. We can be certain of this,
> as in her will, Eleanor names her sister, Beatrice Corbet, lady of
> Caus, [Shropshire], which lady is a proven daughter of Sir John de
> Beauchamp. I've copied below the transcript of this will which can
> be found in Notes and Queries, 4th Series 3 (1869): 230. It may be
> viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=nWoJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA230&dq=sister+Beatrix+Corbett&hl=en&ei=wXnaS8zaN4HosQO8rt1v&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sister%20Beatrix%20Corbett&f=false
>
> The source for the will is Sloane MS. 1301, fo. 117. The transcript
> reads as follows:
>
> "Elanor garyn wylleth to her sister beatrix Corbett lady of Caux - to
> Fulco my son, dame M'g'tt his wyff. It'. to M'g'tt my daught'r to
> Cicelly my daughter, to John my son. It'. to Payn Fitz-warren. It'.
> to Fulco my son's eldest son. It'. to Phil' his third son. To Elanor
> daughter to Payne pd'. To Elanor da: to John my son& Ele her
> sister. ffouke my son& M'g'tt his wyffe. John my son ex'r. my
> sister pd'.& Sr W. Fitzwaryn overseers.
>
> The will is dated by the contributor, A.S. Ellis, as being made in
> 1348. However, inasmuch as Eleanor Fitz Warin's sister, Beatrice
> Corbet, was living at the date of the will and it is known that
> Beatrice died 28 August 1347, the will must pre-date the death of
> Beatrice. However, the will can not be far off 1346, as the testatrix
> names her eldest grandson, Fulk, and his younger brother, Philip. We
> know that the grandson, Fulk Fitz Warin, was born in 1341. Thus the
> will would necessarily date sometime between 1341 and 1347, and
> probably toward the latter end of that time period. I imagine the
> date c.1346 would work for this will.
>
> The will affords us several new genealogical details. It reveals that
> the testatrix's son, Fulk Fitz Wain, had a wife named Margaret,
> whereas Complete Peerage states only that "it is said" she was Joan de
> Beaumont. Clearly Joan is an error.

But wasn't she married to *some* Filk FitzWarin?
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-30 22:04:32 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 30, 1:55 pm, John Briggs <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

< But wasn't she married to *some* Filk FitzWarin?
< --
< John Briggs

I don't understand your question. Can you please clarify what you
mean?

DR

John Briggs

2010-04-30 22:12:00 UTC

Permalink

On 30/04/2010 23:04, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:55 pm, John Briggs<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> < But wasn't she married to *some* Filk FitzWarin?
>
> I don't understand your question. Can you please clarify what you
> mean?

Isn't there some evidence that someone called Joan de Beaumont actually
existed, and was married to someone called Fulk FitzWarin?
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-30 22:43:51 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 30, 4:12 pm, John Briggs <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

< Isn't there some evidence that someone called Joan de Beaumont
actually
< existed, and was married to someone called Fulk FitzWarin?
< --
< John Briggs

Not necessarily. Her name was clearly Margaret. She was probably a
Beaumont as claimed, although I don't presently know of any evidence
that supports her being a member of that family. If you look for it,
you'll probably find some evidence.

DR

Chairpotato

2010-05-01 01:15:33 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 30, 9:02 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> However, the will can not be far off 1346, as the testatrix
> names her eldest grandson, Fulk, and his younger brother, Philip. We
> know that the grandson, Fulk Fitz Warin, was born in 1341. Thus the
> will would necessarily date sometime between 1341 and 1347, and
> probably toward the latter end of that time period. I imagine the
> date c.1346 would work for this will.
>
>

I think it's more likely the "Ioun" is following the form "Ioannes"
for "John", rather than the form "Ives" which to me seem very
different.

As far as the "error" of the name "Joan", we have not established that
this Fulk could only have a single wife, so I can see the possibility
of a Joan and a Margaret.

As far as the dating of Eleanor's will, we can be just a tiny bit more
specific when we see that "Philip" is the "third son". To be third he
couldn't have been born earlier than 1343 (provided he was not a twin
to the second!), so I think we can say 1343 / 1347.

By the way Douglas, what source is telling you that Beatrice died in
1347?

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-01 02:07:57 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 30, 7:15 pm, Chairpotato <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it's more likely the "Ioun" is following the form "Ioannes"
> for "John", rather than the form "Ives" which to me seem very
> different.

Earlier members of this family named Ioun (or Ives) appear
periodically as John in records. For example, the following weblink
indicates that Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Ives, is styled Ives in
1392, but John in 1404. This is in connection with Ives Fitz Warin's
manor of Blunsdon Saint Andrew, Wiltshire.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P68UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&dq=Blunsdon+Andrew+Fitz&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Blunsdon%20Andrew%20Fitz&f=false

I suspect John (Iohannis) may simply be a transcription error for Ives
(Iuonis).

> As far as the "error" of the name "Joan", we have not established that
> this Fulk could only have a single wife, so I can see the possibility
> of a Joan and a Margaret.

That's doubtful. Complete Peerage gives no documentation whatsoever
for the name, Joan. Her name is given twice as Margaret in the will
of her mother-in-law, Eleanor de Beauchamp.

> By the way Douglas, what source is telling you that Beatrice died in 1347?

The death date of Beatrice (de Beachamp) Corbet is given in two places
in Complete Peerage, namely volume 3 (1913): 417 (sub Corbet) and
volume 7 (1929): 641–642 (sub Leyburn). Her inquisition post mortem
states that he heir was her great-nephew, John de Beauchamp.

DR

John P. Ravilious

2010-05-01 13:22:30 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 30, 10:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 7:15 pm, Chairpotato <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it's more likely the "Ioun" is following the form "Ioannes"
> > for "John", rather than the form "Ives" which to me seem very
> > different.
>
> Earlier members of this family named Ioun (or Ives) appear
> periodically as John in records. For example, the following weblink
> indicates that Sir William Fitz Warin's son, Ives, is styled Ives in
> 1392, but John in 1404. This is in connection with Ives Fitz Warin's
> manor of Blunsdon Saint Andrew, Wiltshire.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=P68UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&dq=Blunsdon+An...
>
> I suspect John (Iohannis) may simply be a transcription error for Ives
> (Iuonis).
>
> > As far as the "error" of the name "Joan", we have not established that
> > this Fulk could only have a single wife, so I can see the possibility
> > of a Joan and a Margaret.
>
> That's doubtful. Complete Peerage gives no documentation whatsoever
> for the name, Joan. Her name is given twice as Margaret in the will
> of her mother-in-law, Eleanor de Beauchamp.
>
> > By the way Douglas, what source is telling you that Beatrice died in 1347?
>
> The death date of Beatrice (de Beachamp) Corbet is given in two places
> in Complete Peerage, namely volume 3 (1913): 417 (sub Corbet) and
> volume 7 (1929): 641–642 (sub Leyburn). Her inquisition post mortem
> states that he heir was her great-nephew, John de Beauchamp.
>
> DR

=========================

Dear Doug (and Peter, John, Margaret, Richard, &c)

Sir William FitzWarin of Wantage (14th century) may have been a
younger son of FitzWarin of Whittington, etc. but there was an older
cadet line of FitzWarin of Wantage, possibly to which this Sir William
belonged.

1. Fulk fitz Warin, d. aft 6 Nov 1194
= Hawise de Dinan
2. Fulk fitz Warin of Whittington &c., d aft 8 Oct 1250
= (1) Maud le Vavasour
= (2) Clarice d'Auberville
2. William fitz Warin of Odell (Wahull), co. Beds.
= Agnes
2. Eudo fitz Warin, of Westbury
2. Eugenia 'filia Warini'
= William Mauduit
2. Eve 'filia Warini'
= (1) Oliver de Tracy
= (2) Thomas de Londres (London)
2. Alan fitz Warin of Wantage,
of Wantage, co. Berks.
- held a moiety (£ 10 of land) in Wantage,
according to suits against Fulk
fitz Warin, 1239-1241 (Meisel, p. 99)
- 'Richard brother of Fulk and Alan his brother',
witness to confirmation by William fitz Alan of
grant by brother Fulk FitzWarin, ca. 1195-6
- held a market at Wantage, co. Berks. 1217 under
an existing grant to his father:
' In a letter dated 28 Jul 1217, K Hen III informed the
sh of Berkshire that he had conceded to Alan fitz Warin a fair at
Wantage, just as it had previously been granted to Alan’s father by W.
Marshall, ‘our keeper and the keeper of our kingdom’. The sheriff was
ordered to cause Alan to have the fair without delay (RLC, i, p.
317b).'

3. William fitz Warin of Wantage, co. Berks.
- record of a release dated 5 Aug 1258:
' release by Fulk Fitz Warin (filius Warini) of
Wytinhon, to William Fitz Warin, in tail, of his right in the land and
rent which William's father, Alan, had of the gift of his father Fulk
Fitz Warin, in the manor of Waneting...' , dated 5 Aug 42 Hen. III
[Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds IV:9, no. 6195]

4. William fitz Warin of Wantage, co. Berks.
d. aft 25 Nov 1298
- cf. CPR 27 Edw I, p. 458, mem. 42d.
4. Peter fitz Warin [cf. ditto]

Possibly the heraldic evidence might tie into one of the relevant
records....?

Cheers,

John

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-01 14:33:51 UTC

Permalink

On May 1, 7:22 am, "John P. Ravilious" <***@aol.com> wrote:

< Sir William FitzWarin of Wantage (14th century) may have been a
< younger son of FitzWarin of Whittington, etc. but there was an older
< cadet line of FitzWarin of Wantage, possibly to which this Sir
William
< belonged.

I seriously doubt it. Sir William Fitz Warin was styled "le frere,"
he was "of Whittington, Shropshire," and was also a knight of the
Garter. To be K.G. meant you were top drawer.

To follow the use of modifiers such as "le frere," I recommend you
research the Darcy and Ufford families where you will find such
modifiers employed in this same time period. Edmund de Ufford "le
frere," for example, was the brother of Robert de Ufford, Earl of
Suffolk, who was head of the family. Edmund de Ufford "le cousin"
was the first cousin of Robert de Ufford, Earl of Suffolk. I descend
from Edmund de Ufford le cousin.

The following weblink relating to the Ufford family might prove
helpful to you:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LSrfVSLKTlQC&pg=PA180&dq=Edmund+Ufford+cousin&hl=en&ei=DjncS9_IPIqIswPMz_y_Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Edmund%20Ufford%20cousin&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-05-02 02:46:45 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

In an earlier post, I reported that Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 512
(sub FitzWarin) stated that Sir William Fitz Warin le frere (died
1361) ".... was no doubt, a younger brother of that Fulk Fitz Warin of
Whittington who died in 1349, but there is no actual proof." END OF
QUOTE

However, in an earlier edition of Complete Peerage, a slightly
different but more accurate statement was made. In Complete Peerage,
3 (1890): 379, the following information is given:

" 'William Fitz-Waryne le Frere' so called in 1330, when he was made
Governor of Montgomery Castle, .... The description Le Frere may
warrant the conjecture that he was brother to the chief of the family,
Fulk, Lord Fitz-Waryne, a person of great distinction at that
period." END OF QUOTE.

The 1890 Complete Peerage material may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=k7IKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA379&dq=William+fitz+warin+frere&hl=en&ei=Z77cS7PDNZOwswOB_Om4Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I take it that the comments in the earlier edition of Complete Peerage
mean that Sir William Fitz Warin who styled "the brother" was brother
to Fulk Fitz Warin, 2nd Lord Fitz Warin, who was the chief of the Fitz
Warin family in 1330. This would be the Fulk Fitz Warin who died in
1336, not his son, Fulk, who died in 1349.

What caused the reason for the change in statements? I assume it was
because the editor of the 1926 edition was unable to determine exactly
when Sir William Fitz Warin "le frere" was born.

In point of fact, references to William Fitz Warin appear to commence
in 1317 when it is reported in the Patent Roills that he was going on
the king's service to Ireland with Fulk Fitz Warin [see Calendar of
Patent Rolls, 1313-1317 (1898): 618. The Fulk Fitz Warin in whose
retinue William then was would be the Fulk Fitz Warin who died in
1336. This is the Fulk Fitz Warin who would have been William's
brother.

See the weblink below for the Patent Rolls item:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v2/body/Edward2vol2page0618.pdf

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-29 17:40:01 UTC

Permalink

Dear Newsgroup ~

For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Hugh de Vivonne,
Seneschal of Gascony (died 1249), who was the husband of Mabel Malet.

William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Baynard, Marmaduke Beckwith,
Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas
Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Brent, Stephen Bull,
Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth and Thomas Butler, George & Robert
Brent, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Grace Chetwode, William
Clopton, Anna Cordray, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane &
Katherine Deighton, Anne Derehaugh, George Elkington, William Farrer,
Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Mary Gye, Katherine Hamby, Elizabeth &
John Harleston, Anne Humphrey, Corderoy, Francis, Martha, & William
Iremonger, Henry Isham, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard &
Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah
Ludlow, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, John and Margaret Nelson,
Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert
Pelham, Robert Peyton, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William
Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Richard Saltonstall, William
Skepper, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, Samuel
& William Torrey, Jemima Waldegrave, Olive Welby, John West.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
.

Douglas Richardson

2010-04-29 22:28:45 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 29, 10:58 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

> Duguet states that Guy deRochechouart, seigneur of Tonnay-Charente,
> married Sibyl de Vivonne, by whom he had two sons, Guyard and
> Guillaume. Duguet states that Guy deRochechouartdied testate c.
> 1313, leaving a will naming a second wife, Agnes, and two daughters by
> Agnes, namelyPlautineand Agnes.

In my post above, I misquoted the comments made by Duguet in his
article. Duguet states that Guy de Rochechouart left a will dated
1313 naming his wife, Agnes, and Agnes' two daughters, Plautine and
Agnes. Plautine and Agnes would be Guy's step-daughters, not his own
daughters.

DR

Margaret

2010-04-30 08:22:49 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 29, 6:58 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Margaret ~
>
> I also have some unresolved questions about the Guy de Rochechouart
> who married Sibyl de Vivonne. Not many, fortunately.
>
> We know that Sibyl de Vivonne was contracted to married the "second
> son" of Aimery IX de Rochechouart in 1264. The second son's name is
> not given in this record. But we know that Sibyl de Vivonne's
> husband is named in later records as Guy de Rochechouart. So we may
> presume that he was the second son of Aimery IX. Guy de Rochechouart
> clearly had the lordship of Vivonne in right of his wife, Sibyl.
>
> I note that under the terms of the 1283 will of Aimery IX de
> Rochechouart, he bequeathed his second son, Guy, then a knight, the
> lordship of Tonnay-Charente. So far, so good. Everything matches up
> just fine. Guy is the second son in the will of Aimery IX, and is
> evidently the second son named in the marriage contract dated 1264.
>
> Duguet states that Guy de Rochechouart, seigneur of Tonnay-Charente,
> married Sibyl de Vivonne, by whom he had two sons, Guyard and
> Guillaume. Duguet states that Guy de Rochechouart died testate c.
> 1313, leaving a will naming a second wife, Agnes, and two daughters by
> Agnes, namely Plautine and Agnes. Yet we know that Sibyl de Vivonne
> was living as late as 1306. While it is possible that Sibyl died soon
> enough for Guy to remarry, this may be pushing the chronology a
> little.
>
> For those so interested, Duguet's materal on the Rochechousart family
> may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://seucaj.ifrance.com/rochechouart.htm
>
> If Guy de Rochechouart (died c.1313) was really was Aimery IX's second
> son, I ask why was he (or his sons) not the heir of his older
> brother's son and heir, Aimery XI de Rochechouart. Rather, the heir
> of Aimery XI was his uncle, Simon de Rochechouart (younger brother of
> Guy). Is it possible that the Guy de Rochechouart who died c.1313 was
> actually another member of this family, perhaps a younger son of Simon
> de Rochechouart?.
>
> By the way, there are two manors which are named in the 1264 marriage
> contract of Guy de Rochechouart and Sibyl de Vivonne. They are
> "Dusselinghe, au comté de Cambridge" and "Walneton, au comté de
> Dorset." I believe the two manors in question are Dullingham,
> Cambridgeshire and Wolveton, Dorset. The latter property was
> subsequently held by Joan de Vivonne's younger son, Reynold Fitz
> Reynold.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

What a relief it is for me to be back on this list and to be able to
discuss these questions. I agree with Peter, the number of
Rochechouart men with the same names living at the same time makes
trying to unentangle them a real brain teaser. Taken individually the
documents transcribed by Dom Villevieille then copied by the General
can be misleading, we can't make assumptions and we have to allow for
errors, so tracing coherences and identifying inconsistencies in the
documents as a whole is necessary.

Taken together the two volumes have about 800 pages, of which only 163
are the transcriptions in the middle of Vol 2. As Peter points out,
the Guy who married a Sybil de Vivonne is identified in the General's
discussion both as the son of Foucaud p. 74 Vol.1, then as Guy the son
of Aimery VIII p. 77, Vol.1. However, the documents do, I think, show
he was the son of Aimery IX and would suggest that by tracing the
seigneur of Tonnay-Charente it looks as if the answer to Douglas'
question: "Is it possible that the Guy de Rochechouart who died c.1313
was actually another member of this family, perhaps a younger son of
Simon de Rochechouart?" is no.

First, Guy is named as the second son of Aimery IX in the 1264
marriage contract: p.282 Vol.2
"Rochechouart (messire Simon de), doyen de Saint-Antregil du château
de Bourges, notifie par ses lettres du lundi après la Saint-Georges,
1264, que par le contact de mariage de noble homme Aimery, vicomte de
Rochechouart, son neveu, avec noble dame Matilde, veuve de noble homme
messire Guillaume le Fort, il avoit été conclu un mariage des deux
fils du dit vicomte avec les deux filles de la dite dame veuve, et
qu’il avoit été réglé qu’Aimery, fils aîné, épousant la fille ainée de
la dite dame, auroit la vicomté de Rochechouart et que Guy, autre fils
du dit vicomte, épousant la seconde fille, auroit la terre de
Mortemar, et que la dite dame donneroit son manoir de Carlion de
préciput à sa fille aîné, et enfin, que les dits deux fils du vicomte
auroient les deux tiers de l’héridité d’iceluy vicomte; l’autre tiers
demeurant pour le partage de ses autres filles et fils."

Note that "Guy" is given Mortemar whereas in 1260 an agreement (below)
between Aimery IX and his brother Guillaume divide it between them -
possibly Guy received the parts that Guillaume had ceded: p.281 Vol.2
"Rochechouart (Guillaume de) cedda à noble Aymeri, vicomte de
Rochechouart, tout le château de Pérusse avec les chatel et
chatellerie de Salanhac, etc., avec tout ce qui en dépendoit, même les
chevaliers, damoiseaux, varlets et paysans, sauf les biens dotaux de
dame Marguerite, sa femme, fille de noble homme, Philippe, seigneur de
Mareval, en la terre seigneurie de Mareval, et luy cedda en outre
cinquante livres de rente, que luy devoit le comte de Poictiers;
moyennant laquelle cession, le dit vicomte, son frère, luy cedda les
chatel et chatellerie de Mortemar, sauf les hommages des chevalier,
damoiseaux et varlets, avec le péage de Saint-Victurnien, à la charge
de luy en faire l'hommage, et promit luy assigner cinq mille sols de
rente au plus près des dits Mortemar et Saint-Victurnien, au dire du
doyen de Bourges et de Guy, archidiacre, leurs frères; à la charge
aussi par le dit Guillaume de payer la rente de dix livres, que
Joubert de Peyrusse, chevalier, avoit au péage de Saint-Victurnien.
Par acte des calendes d'avril 1260

Another "problem" with this document is the reference to the "doyen de
Bourges" as a brother, whereas as I've mentioned, other documents
refer to him as an uncle.

Aimery IX's will, p.285 Vol 2 is worth sending in full, I think:
"Rochechouart (Aimery [IX], vicomte de), étant sur le point de passer
la mer, avec le Roy de France, disposa de ses biens et de ceux
provenus de sa mère, en faveur de ses enfants et petits-enfants,
ordonna l’exécution de ses feux père et mère et de feue dame Joanne,
sa femme. Il donne à Aimery [XI], son petit-fils, fils de feu Aimery
[X], son fils aîné, les chatels, terre et chatelleries de
Rochechouart, Brigueuil, le repaire de la Cossière avec les hommages
du château de Montbrun et de toute la chatellerie de Rochechouart,
sauf Saint-Laurent et Saint-Auvent; donna à Guy de Rochechouart, son
fils, chevalier, les châteaux de Perusse et de Salanhac, sauf 50
livres de rente sur la chatellerie de Salanhac, laquelle rente il
avoit donnée à P. d’Analhac, chevalier, pour la dot d’Agnès, sa fille,
femme du dit chevalier; il lui donne en outre tout le territoire
d’Arconac avec les hommages, une partie en la chatellerie de Vivonne,
à l’encontre de la part que le dit Aimery et Jeanne, ses petits-
enfants, y ont, ou équivalent en la chatellerie de Rochechouart, en
cas de refus des dits Aimery et Jeanne; il lui donna encore les chatel
et chatellerie de Tonnay-Charents avec les hommages, sauf 150 livres
de rente qui y prend aussi Aliénor, sa fille, femme de Geoffroy de
Maurienne de Mauritonie, toutes les dites rentes reversibles au dit
Guy, son fils, en cas de mort sans hoirs de ses dites filles; il luy
donna de plus, partie de Montchain et de Verdrines, avec l’échente
[maison] de messire Savary de Mauléon-Maries, provenant de la dite
feue dame Joanne, sa femme, mère dudit Guy, et le substitue audit
Aimery, son petit-fils et héritier, en cas de mort sans enfants.
Ordonne que les 50 livres restant des 200 livres promis en dot à
Marguerite, sa fille, femme d’Arnaud Bochart, soient assignés sur le
mas de Montilion, le péage de Brigueuil, et le territoire d’Arconac.
Ordonne qu’Isabelle, sa fille, fût mariée et luy donna 200 livres de
rente à assigner sur la baillie de Saint-Laurent, reversible à son
héritier de Saint-Laurent qu’il nomme Simon de Rochechouart, son fils,
qu’il destine à demeurer dans le monde, avec reversibilité à son
héritier de Rochechouart. Confirma la donation faite de Saint-Auvent à
Foucaud, son fils, par feu messire Simon de Rochechouart, archevêque
de Bordeaux, son oncle, sauf 50 livres de rente sur la baillie de
Saint Auvent, qu’il donne à la dite Marguerite, sa fille, et, en
dédommagement, il luy donna ce qu’il tenoit par indivis en la vicomté
de Limoges, avec son frère Foucaud; confirma le testament de Mathilde,
sa second femme, qu’il nomma tutrice de ses petits-enfants, et à son
refus, il nomma ledit Guy, sous le conseil de messire Jourdain de
Monscuculli, de messire Bernard Guillen. Élut sépulture en l'église
des Franciscains de Saint Junien, et en habit du dit ordre, où il
ordonna que son corps fût rapporté en cas de mort en pays étranger, et
nomma ses exécuteurs (testamentaires): Son frère, seigneur de
Mortemar, Bernard Guillen et Jourdain de Monscuculli, chevaliers, ou
messire Ancelin, fils du dit Jourdain, et Arnault Boschart-Baudrante,
chevalier. Par testament du vendredi après la Saint-Jean-Baptiste,
1283" [25 June 1283]

It looks as though Aimery IX considered that on his death, his son Guy
would be the head of the family and there's no explanation why didn't
he succeed on the death of Aimery XI. However, reading the documents
over and over again, I get the impression there was serious family
discord after Aimery IX died that it continued into the next century.
The documents are littered with property transactions whereby after
his father's death Simon went on a spree of buying up property and
rights. It's as if his siblings, apart from Foucaud, were debt ridden.
A possible partial explanation may be difficulties they had acquiring
their rights in the succession of Marguerite de Limoges they are still
waiting for as late as 1292, for instance - p. 287 Vol.2
"Aimery de Rochechouart, fit un accord avec noble écuyer, Guillaume de
Rochechouart, seigneur de Mortemart, son frère, par lequel le dit
Guillaume cedda la terre de Clunhac, au dit Aimery, en toute
propriété, au lieu de la jouissance qui luy en avoit été donné à vie,
en attendant que la terre de la vicomté de Limoges à eux appartenant
et à leurs autres frères, à cause de feue noble dame Marguerite, mère
de feu noble homme messire Guillaume de Rochechouart, leur père,
seigneur de Mortemar, leur fût restituée, et sur laquelle il luy avoit
assigné 60 livres de rente viagère. Par acte du jeudi après la
Nativité de la VIerge, 1292"

Then the 1328 document mentioned by Duguet: p.299 Vol.2
"Guillaume de Rochechouart, chevalier, seigneur de Tonnay-Charente,
notifie que noble homme messire Foucaud de Rochechouart, évêque de
Noyan, et feu Simon, vicomte de Rochechouart, frère du dit Foucaud,
ses oncles, ont payé pour luy et pour feu Guy de Rochechouart, son
père, chevalier, seigneur de Tonnay-Charente, en gérant ses affaires
et celles de son dit père, la somme de 7,000 livres, due par messire
Aimery [IX] vicomte de Rochechouart, son ayeul, père de son dit père,
et par ses autres prédécesseurs, vicomtes de Rochechouart; et que,
pour s'acquitter envers eux de la dite somme, il avoit cédé et
transporté au dit messire Foucaud, son oncle, tant pour luy que pour
Jean de Rochechouart, fils et héritier du dit feu Simon, son
hébergement de Cersigny, près de Vivonne, venant du chef de sa mère
pour la somme de 5,000 livres, et leur avoit engagé sa terre de Tonnay-
Charente pour 2,000 livres restant. Par acte passé le jour de Saint-
Georges, 1328, en présence de dame Agathe de Bauçay, sa femme. Vidamé
le mercredi après Oculi, 1333.

The 7,000 livres referred to was, I believe, the fine of 8,000 livres,
reduced to 7,000, levied on Aimery IX in 1271 by the king on behalf of
Marguerite de Bourgogne, widow of Guy VI de Limoges, punishing Aimery
for his part in the "guerre des comtés" (the Limoges bourgeois also
had a crippling fine for appealing against the their punishment after
their uprising).

Well, it's just a tentative theory I'm going to work on one day, that
Simon succeeded because he was richer, chose his allies carefully and
had a more determined character than Guy - but there's a long way to
go.
yours,
Margaret

Peter Stewart

2010-04-29 23:43:31 UTC

Permalink

"Margaret" <***@neuf.fr> wrote in message
news:f3cd8a2b-5d48-4b70-9bb9-***@t21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> It's true the Guy Sybil married is not precisely identified, but given
> the 1264 contract marrying her to Aimery IX's second son, doesn't
> it seem reasonable to assume she'd marry him and not the uncle.

Well, yes - but there could be many a slip 'twixt cup & lip with contracted
marriages, and these are by no means always obvious especially where closely
namesakes were thick on the ground.

> In 1269 Guy son of Aimery VIII was still archdeacon (p. 282 Vol.2
> "Rochechouart (Aimery, vicomte de), tant pour luy que pour messire
> Guillaume de Rochechouart et messire Guy, archidiacre de Limoges,
> ses frères, étant en litige avec vénérable homme Gerard de Maumont
> etc." Although as you say the marriage probably took place some
> time after the contract given Sybil's young age, but would Guy still
> be archdeacon if he was planning to marry.

It wasn't this uncle/archdeacon who married William de Fors of Vivonne's
daughter Sibilla according to Anselme, but rather his first cousin who was
the son of Foucault, seigneur of Saint-Germain (in turn a son of Aimery VII
of Rochechouart).

> I can't help feeling the odds are Sybil married Guy son of Aimery IX
> but do accept there are questions needing to be answered given the
> accounts of Anselm, etc. Then again that's true of virtually
> everything to do with the 13th/14th century Rochechouart family
> and there are some serious anomalies. Do you know what the
> evidence was that genealogists like Moréri and Anselm used?

Anselme in his original edition gave only "suivant un memoire" as authority
for this point about Guy, and Moréri copied him; the editors of the third
edition of Anselme did too.

Dom Villevielle was working later in the 18th century, so none of these had
access to his findings. However, his analyses of the masses of material he
copied are by no means infallible - the main value of his collection is in
preserving the texts of many documents that were lost in the Revolution. A
small part was published in the 1870s (not including the bit we are
interested in here), but lack of interest put a stop to the project after
just three volumes.

> It was, for instance, the General who claims in the Histoire to have
> established that Aimery IX's son, Aimery X died before his father,
> and that Aimery XI was his son, not the son of Aimery IX, as had
> been thought till then.

I'm not clear on this - Anselme had Aimery XI (died ca 1306) as son of
Aimery X (died before 1292) as well, though he gave the latter as viscount
of Rochechouart in succession to his father Aimery IX (whose death is not
dated, except that he was living in 1271).

> Yet another correction concerns Simon archbishop of Bordeaux
> who's usually said to be a son of Aimery VIII and Marguerite de
> Limoges. Yet several texts (including the 1264 marriage contract)
> show he was the uncle, not the brother of Aimery IX. For instance
> on p. 282 Vol 2 there's an entry for 1266, "Rochechouart (Aimery,
> vicomte de), donna à messire Simon de Rochechouart, son oncle,
> doyen de Bourges, en échange de 1,500 sols de rente, sur le péage
> de Saint-Cyr et de 100 sols de rente, sur la chatellerie de
> Mortemar, plusieurs cens et rentes en grains, en la paroisse
> d’Oradour, etc. Par acte passé le septième des ides d’août de l’an
> 1266."
>
> And yet on p.84 Vol 1, the General writes: "Les détails historiques
> que l'on va lire sont en partie tirés de l'article que lui consacre
> Moréri, et mis à la suite de la généalogie de notre maison (1. T.IX,
> p. 200 de l'édition de 1759), il commence ainsi: "Simon de
> Rochehcouart, quatrième fils d'Aimery VIII, vicomte de
> Rochechouart et de Marguerite de Limoges, archevêque de
> Bordeaux dans le XIIIe siècle, a été confondu, par quelques
> auteurs, avec Simon de Rochechouart, son oncle, seigneur
> d'Availles et fils d'Aimery VII; il fut d'abord doyen de
> Bourges ...."

Ach, several Simons too, as if the Guys weren't bad enough...

One trouble with following such families is that more than one man might be
calling himself viscount (of Rochechouart or whatever) within the same
timeframe, alternately or simultaneously - brothers, cousins, even possibly
father and son. I wonder if Dom Villevielle and the author of Anselme's
memoir perhaps reached different conclusions from the same evidence.

Peter Stewart

Margaret

2010-04-30 08:55:21 UTC

Permalink

On Apr 30, 1:43 am, "Peter Stewart" <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Margaret" <***@neuf.fr> wrote in message
>
> news:f3cd8a2b-5d48-4b70-9bb9-***@t21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's true the Guy Sybil married is not precisely identified, but given
> > the 1264 contract marrying her to Aimery IX's second son, doesn't
> > it seem reasonable to assume she'd marry him and not the uncle.
>
> Well, yes - but there could be many a slip 'twixt cup & lip with contracted
> marriages, and these are by no means always obvious especially where closely
> namesakes were thick on the ground.
>
> > In 1269 Guy son of Aimery VIII was still archdeacon (p. 282 Vol.2
> > "Rochechouart (Aimery, vicomte de), tant pour luy que pour messire
> > Guillaume de Rochechouart et messire Guy, archidiacre de Limoges,
> > ses frères, étant en litige avec vénérable homme Gerard de Maumont
> > etc." Although as you say the marriage probably took place some
> > time after the contract given Sybil's young age, but would Guy still
> > be archdeacon if he was planning to marry.
>
> It wasn't this uncle/archdeacon who married William de Fors of Vivonne's
> daughter Sibilla according to Anselme, but rather his first cousin who was
> the son of Foucault, seigneur of Saint-Germain (in turn a son of Aimery VII
> of Rochechouart).
>
> > I can't help feeling the odds are Sybil married Guy son of Aimery IX
> > but do accept there are questions needing to be answered given the
> > accounts of Anselm, etc. Then again that's true of virtually
> > everything to do with the 13th/14th century Rochechouart family
> > and there are some serious anomalies. Do you know what the
> > evidence was that genealogists like Moréri and Anselm used?
>
> Anselme in his original edition gave only "suivant un memoire" as authority
> for this point about Guy, and Moréri copied him; the editors of the third
> edition of Anselme did too.
>
> Dom Villevielle was working later in the 18th century, so none of these had
> access to his findings. However, his analyses of the masses of material he
> copied are by no means infallible - the main value of his collection is in
> preserving the texts of many documents that were lost in the Revolution. A
> small part was published in the 1870s (not including the bit we are
> interested in here), but lack of interest put a stop to the project after
> just three volumes.
>
> > It was, for instance, the General who claims in the Histoire to have
> > established that Aimery IX's son, Aimery X died before his father,
> > and that Aimery XI was his son, not the son of Aimery IX, as had
> > been thought till then.
>
> I'm not clear on this - Anselme had Aimery XI (died ca 1306) as son of
> Aimery X (died before 1292) as well, though he gave the latter as viscount
> of Rochechouart in succession to his father Aimery IX (whose death is not
> dated, except that he was living in 1271).
>
>
>
> > Yet another correction concerns Simon archbishop of Bordeaux
> > who's usually said to be a son of Aimery VIII and Marguerite de
> > Limoges. Yet several texts (including the 1264 marriage contract)
> > show he was the uncle, not the brother of Aimery IX. For instance
> > on p. 282 Vol 2 there's an entry for 1266, "Rochechouart (Aimery,
> > vicomte de), donna à messire Simon de Rochechouart, son oncle,
> > doyen de Bourges, en échange de 1,500 sols de rente, sur le péage
> > de Saint-Cyr et de 100 sols de rente, sur la chatellerie de
> > Mortemar, plusieurs cens et rentes en grains, en la paroisse
> > d’Oradour, etc. Par acte passé le septième des ides d’août de l’an
> > 1266."
>
> > And yet on p.84 Vol 1, the General writes: "Les détails historiques
> > que l'on va lire sont en partie tirés de l'article que lui consacre
> > Moréri, et mis à la suite de la généalogie de notre maison (1. T.IX,
> > p. 200 de l'édition de 1759), il commence ainsi: "Simon de
> > Rochehcouart, quatrième fils d'Aimery VIII, vicomte de
> > Rochechouart et de Marguerite de Limoges, archevêque de
> > Bordeaux dans le XIIIe siècle, a été confondu, par quelques
> > auteurs, avec Simon de Rochechouart, son oncle, seigneur
> > d'Availles et fils d'Aimery VII; il fut d'abord doyen de
> > Bourges ...."
>
> Ach, several Simons too, as if the Guys weren't bad enough...
>
> One trouble with following such families is that more than one man might be
> calling himself viscount (of Rochechouart or whatever) within the same
> timeframe, alternately or simultaneously - brothers, cousins, even possibly
> father and son. I wonder if Dom Villevielle and the author of Anselme's
> memoir perhaps reached different conclusions from the same evidence.
>
> Peter Stewart

Thanks for these details, Peter. I find it really hard enough keeping
track of the Aimerys, Guillaumes, Guys, and Simons, - what's more
there are others floating about with the same names but they're
cousins, second cousins, etc. Even with a computer I never feel at
ease questioning the conclusions reached by these genealogists. What's
very helpful, though, is the close relationship the Rochechouarts had
with the English crown at this time, and the apparently accurate
knowledge of family relationships contained in the English archives -
when they're mentioned ....
yours
Margaret