Discussion:
Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir James de Audley
(too old to reply)
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-16 02:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).

Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
of Eve's family found in the records of Sibton Abbey as stated below:

Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
Abbaciæ de Sybeton:

"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.

The marriage of Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is similarly
attested in the another pedigree of Eve's family found in the records
of Horsham Priory [Reference: Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51-
52].

Complete Peerage gives the following explanation for Eve's alleged
failure to marry Sir James de Audley:

".... possibly owing to some difficulty in obtaining a dispensation,
or to avoid the fine which she would have had to pay on marriage" END
OF QUOTE.

This statement is possibly derived from the belief that Eve de
Clavering's first marriage to Thomas de Audley was consumated, which
marriage presented a bar to Eve later marrying Thomas de Audley's
first cousin, Sir James de Audley. Although I haven't studied the
matter of Eve's first marriage to Thomas de Audley in depth, the
marriage of Eve and Thomas was certainly childless and was presumably
contracted when Eve was a very young child. Thomas de Audley died
shortly before 21 November 1307. Eve is stated to have been aged 40
and more at her mother's death in 1345, which would place her birth at
sometime in the period, 1295-1305. If correct, Eve would have been at
best 12 years old when her first husband died, and possibly even
younger. If the marriage was unconsumated (as I suspect was the
case), Eve's marriage to Thomas de Audley would obviously not have
barred her from later marrying Thomas' first cousin, Sir James de
Audley. Whether consumated or not, Eve de Clavering was certainly
awarded dower by virtue of her first marriage to Thomas de Audley
[see, for example, Collectanea Top. & Gen. 7 (1841): 51-52].

Eve de Clavering's first marriage withstanding, it appears that she
and Sir James de Audley actually were man and wife. This is indicated
by more than one contemporary record which I have seen. In one record
provided below dated 1335, Eve de Clavering is specifically called the
widow of Sir James de Audley in a record generated by her own
steward, Richard de Venables. Eve is likewise called the widow of
James de Audley in another contemporary record found in the Calendar
of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58, which item records the issuance of a writ
for an inquisition following Eve's own death in 1369.

Record #1:

Source: A2A Catalogue (www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Shropshire Archives: Phillipps Collection, Reference: 52/32

Date: Friday of Michaelmas, 9 Edward III (29 September 1335)
Language: French

Scope and Content

Richard de Venables steward of Eva who was the wife of James de
Audeley has received from Richard prior of St Thomas a coffyn to keep
on behalf of his said lady, sealed with his seal. Witnesses:- Adam
de Swyneshed, William Jorden of Hildriston and Richard de Mere ----
priory of St Thomas near Stafford. END OF QUOTE.

Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale) and Complete
Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) both allege that Eve de
Clavering was survived by her fourth husband, Sir Robert de Benhale,
Lord Benhale, who reportedly died "in or about, and not later than,
1404." Both Complete Peerage accounts are dead wrong in that respect
(pun intended).

Contemporary records clearly indicate that Sir Robert de Benhale
actually predeceased his wife, Eve, by some four years, he dying
shortly before 28 February 1365, as indicated by the following two
records drawn from the published Patent Rolls:

Record #2:

"And, on 28 February [1365], because Robert de Benhale, late a justice
of the peace in the county of Norfolk, is dead, John Harsyk is
appointed in his place." [Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls,
1364-1367 (1912): 141]. END OF QUOTE.

Record #3:

Date: 18 Feb. 1369. "Pardon to William de Upgate of the king's suit
for the death of Walter Halleman, whereof he is indicted or appealed,
and of any consequent outlawry; at the request of Eve Daudele late the
wife of Robert de Benhale, and because the king is informed that he
killed him in self-defense." [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1367-1370 (1913): 223]. END OF QUOTE.

We see above that Eve de Clavering is called Eve de Audley in 1369,
which appears to have been the name she used after the death of Sir
James de Audley in 1332.

Interestingly, there are two surviving heraldic seals used by Eve de
Clavering, one attached to a document dated 1334, and the other
attached to a document dated 1346. In both instances, Eve de
Clavering's seal bears a shield of arms bearing Ufford impaling by
dimidiation Audley. The arms of Ufford would presumably represent
Eve's 2nd marriage to Sir Thomas de Ufford, the arms of Audley would
presumably represent Eve's 3rd marriage to Sir James de Audley. Eve
had children by both her 2nd marriage to Ufford and by her 3rd
marriage to Audley.

Seal of Eve de Clavering dated 1334-A shield of arms: per pale, dex.,
a cross lezengy, dimidiated, over all a bend [UFFORD]; sin., fretty of
six pieces [AUDLEY]. Within a carved gothic panel of three points and
five semicircular cusps, ornamented with ball-flowers along the inner
edge. Outside this the carving and tracery, which is very elaborate,
contains three susped countersunk panels in triangle, in each of which
is a lozenge-shaped shield of arms: quarterly a bendlet [CLAVERING]).
[Reference: Birch, Cat. of Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 645].

Seal of Eve de Clavering dated 1346-A shield of arms: cross lozengy,
over all a bendlet [UFFORD] impaling by dimidiation fretty [AUDLEY],
on a shield set in a richly cusped circular panel, between three
lozenges with the arms of CLAVERING, quarterly a bendlet, in smaller
panels. [Reference: Hedley, Northumberland Fams. (1968): 160-183].

Lastly, I've seen references in print to a contemporary deed in which
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley are reportedly called husband
and wife. To date, I've been unable to find the deed itself. Should
I find the source of the deed in question, I'll be sure to post a
followup message at a future date.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 06:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
Dear Douglas

How trustworthy is this record, given that, according to your details,
it gets the name of her second husband wrong (Ralph instead of Thomas
Ufford), and names her daughters by her third as "Avice and
Hawise" (rather than Katherine, Anne and Hawise)? Dugdale used the
same document in his Peerage (London, 1675, vol 1, p 109) to conclude
that Eve's husband by whom she had issue was Thomas Audley (NB the
document does not give a Christian name to the Audley husband).
Perhaps - assuming that the author of the CP entries was aware of this
document - it was not 'surpressed' by CP, but merely considered
unreliable?

Kind regards, Michael
Peter Stewart
2007-04-16 09:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
Dear Douglas
How trustworthy is this record, given that, according to your details,
it gets the name of her second husband wrong (Ralph instead of Thomas
Ufford), and names her daughters by her third as "Avice and
Hawise" (rather than Katherine, Anne and Hawise)? Dugdale used the
same document in his Peerage (London, 1675, vol 1, p 109) to conclude
that Eve's husband by whom she had issue was Thomas Audley (NB the
document does not give a Christian name to the Audley husband).
Perhaps - assuming that the author of the CP entries was aware of this
document - it was not 'surpressed' by CP, but merely considered
unreliable?
The unreliability of this document is flagged by an editorial note in
_Monasticon_, pointing out that it starts with a gross error about the
family of a founder - which, as the title quoted in Richardson's post shows,
is precisely the subject matter offered by the writer: William de Chednay's
daughter Sara is said to have died without issue, whereas in fact she was
married to Richard Engaine and had descendants, through their son Vitalis,
flourishing until the mid-17th century. This text appears to be a late
concoction, of no authority.

Peter Stewart
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 12:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 275-276 (sub Clavering) gives an
incomplete and rather inaccurate account of the life of Lady Eve de
Clavering (died 1369), daughter and sole heiress of Sir John de
Clavering, Lord Clavering. This woman is the ancestress of good many
people, among them H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales and his late wife,
Princess Diana, as well as the present writer. Among other
statements, Complete Peerage alleges that following the death of her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford, in 1314, Eve de Clavering lived
with but did not marry Sir James Audley, Knt. (died 1332), of Stratton
(in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire. This same allegation is made
elsewhere in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 115-116 (sub Benhale).
Curiously, no documentation is offered to support the statement that
Eve de Clavering and Sir James Audley lived together without benefit
of marriage. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary records
found elsewhere (and known to the author of Complete Peerage) indicate
that their "union" was blessed with five children, among them two
sons, James, K.G. (the hero of the Battle of Poitiers), and Peter,
Knt., and three daughters, Katherine, Anne, and Hawise. Complete
Peerage likewise suppressed the fact that the marriage ["nupsit'] of
Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley is mentioned in the pedigree
Source: Sibton Abbey - Linea Consanguinitatis, de Stirpe Fundatorum
"...quæ quidem Eva [de Clavering] nupsit cuidam nomine .... qui mortuus
est sine prole de se. Item nupsit cuidam militi nomine Radulfus de
Ufford, qui genuit ex ea tres filios, videlicet dominos Johannem,
Robertum, et Edmundum milites. Prædicto Radulfo mortuo nupsit ... de
Audle, qui genuit ex ea duos filios et duas filias, videlicet Jacobum
et Petrum, Aviciam, et Hawisiam." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (London, 1825): 559-560]. END OF QUOTE.
Dear Douglas
How trustworthy is this record, given that, according to your details,
it gets the name of her second husband wrong (Ralph instead of Thomas
Ufford), and names her daughters by her third as "Avice and
Hawise" (rather than Katherine, Anne and Hawise)? Dugdale used the
same document in his Peerage (London, 1675, vol 1, p 109) to conclude
that Eve's husband by whom she had issue was Thomas Audley (NB the
document does not give a Christian name to the Audley husband).
Perhaps - assuming that the author of the CP entries was aware of this
document - it was not 'surpressed' by CP, but merely considered
unreliable?
VCH Oxfordshire, Vol 6, p324 et seq provides details of the descent of
the manor of Stratton Audley. It notes (p 326):

"Stratton Audley was restored to James, son of Hugh Audley, in 1327.
In 1330 James with Eva, described as his wife, made a settlement of
the manor by fine [CP 25(1)/189/17/41]. Eva was the mistress of James
Audley, having been already twice married, firstly to Thomas Audley,
James' first cousin, and secondly to Sir Thomas de Ufford [citing
Complete Peerage]. The settlement... of 1330 mentions James and Peter
their sons and Katherine, Anne and Hawise their daughters [i.e. here
we have contemporary evidence of James & Eve's children]. James
Audley died without legitimate issue in 1334 [again citing Complete
Peerage] and Stratton did not descend to either of his sons but passed
to his younger brother and legal heir, Hugh Audley [afterwards Earl of
Gloucester], who certainly held the manor in 1335 [Cal. Patent Rolls,
1334-8, 214 - the actual date of the entry is 16 November 1335] when
various persons were accused of breaking into his house (sic;
"houses", CPR) at Stratton Audley... [The manor] was the security for
a debt of one thousand marks which Hugh owed a London vintner [in
1339] [Cal. Close Rolls, 1339-41, 241]."

The text and import of the 1330 settlement would certainly be
interesting, but the descent of Stratton Audley to James' brother
rather than his son(s) is surely indicative of their having been
illegitimate?

MA-R
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-17 01:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Dear Michael ~

The passage of lands in the medieval time period in England can be a
bit confusing, especially if one's ancestor was attainted or if
properties were held by trustees or if they were held in dower for a
long period by a surviving widow.

In the case of the Audley family, Sir Hugh de Audley, Lord Audley
(father of Sir James de Audley who married Eve de Clavering) joined
Thomas of Lancaster's rebellion in 1322, but surrendered before the
Battle of Boroughbridge. He died while a prisoner in Wallingford
castle shortly before 1 April 1325. Complete Peerage states there is
no trace found of any pardon; thus all of his estates were forfeited
by attainder at his death. I find that his widow, Iseult, petitioned
for the restitution of the estates which belonged to her in her first
widowhood in 1325; she incurred a penalty of £10 for taking possession
of the manor of Upper Arley, Staffordshire without obtaining a royal
licence for such resumption. She subsequently had restoration of the
manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire in 1326.

Iseult's son and heir, Sir James de Audley (husband of Eve de
Clavering) died in her lifetime in 1334. On Iseult's death in 1338,
the manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire passed to her grandson, James
de Audley, son and heir of her deceased son, James. The grandson was
in possession of Eastington in 1357 and 1368. Had the younger James
de Audley been illegitimate, he would have been barred from inheriting
from his grandmother. Obviously this was not the case. On the
younger James de Audley's death without issue in 1369, Eastington
passed by inheritance to his cousin, Sir Hugh de Stafford, K.G., 2nd
Earl of Stafford. For further particulars of the history of the manor
of Eastington, please see VCH Gloucester, 10 (1972): 127-128, which
can be found at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=15783&strquery=Eastington

As for evidence that Sir James de Audley and Eve de Clavering were
husband and wife, I earlier cited a notification by Eve's own steward
dated 29 September 1335 in which Eve was styled widow of James de
Audley (or, in the vernacular of the time, "Eva who was the wife of
James de Audeley").

Eve is likewise styled "Eve late the wife of James de Audeleye, the
elder" in 1369, when an inquisiition was ordered following her death
in that year [Reference: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58].

Eve was likewise called wife of James de Audley in a settlement they
made in 1330 of the manor of Stratton (in Stratton Audley),
Oxfordshire [Reference: C.P. 25(1)/189/17/41, cited by VCH Oxford, 6
(1959): 326]. Inasmuch as this settement was made by James and Eve
before justices, I believe we can accept the fact that James and Eve
were man and wife.

I've already pointed out the existence of two genealogical pedigrees
of Eve's family recorded in Sibton Abbey and Horsham Abbey, both of
which affirm that Eve de Clavering married James de Audley.

In the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must
conclude that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering were in fact
married as stated in the contemporary records and that their issue was
considered lawful. Complete Peerage's repeated assertions in four
different accounts that Eve was merely Sir James de Audley's mistress
represents one of the most serious gaffes I have found to date in that
source, especially since at least one of the accounts suppressed
evidence which ran counter to that assertion. Likewise, no evidence
is provided in any of these accounts to support that claim that Eve
was merely James de Audley's mistress.

Lastly, in an post I made earlier today, I stated that there is an
early article which discusses Eve de Clavering and her marriages which
appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277; 8 (1843):
159. I checked that source today and found it primarily concerns the
Ufford family. Eve de Clavering is shown in a pedigree on page 272
with all four of her marriages, including her third marriage to Sir
James de Audley. There is no indication made in the chart that Eve
was James de Audley's mistress. Rather, the author appears to have
considered Eve's union with James de Audley a lawful marriage.
Likewise, there is no indication whatsoever in the older DNB biography
of Eve's son, Sir James de Audley, K.G., that he was considered by any
contemporary to be of illegitimate birth [Reference: DNB, 1 (1908):
722-723].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-17 01:46:10 UTC
Permalink
It is Horsham Priory, not Horsham Abbey.

DR
wjhonson
2007-04-17 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Is the IPM of James Audley, KG who d 1369 extant? Did his cousin
inherit the Manor of Eastington because all of James' own siblings
were dead and had died s.p. ?

Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-17 17:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Dear Michael ~

In response to your question about the account of the manor of
Stratton (in Stratton Audley), Oxfordshire as found in VCH Oxford, 6
(1959): 325-326, I suspect that this account may be slightly
defective.

VCH Oxford makes it appear that the manor of Stratton, Oxfordshire was
held continuously by Hugh de Audley from 1334 until his death in
1347. However, it only documents his ownership in 1335 and 1339. It
likewise alleges that the children of Sir Hugh's older brother, Sir
James de Audley, by Eve de Clavering were illegitimate (including
their son, James the younger), which we now know was not the case.

My personal research indicates that when Sir Hugh de Audley's nephew,
Sir James de Audley the younger, died in 1369, the king ordered that
an inquisition be taken of Sir James' land holdings in Oxfordshire and
other counties [Reference: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58].
Without seeing the actual inquisition, it is difficult to know exactly
what property the younger Sir James held in Oxfordshire. But a good
bet is that it was the manor of Stratton (in Stratton Audley) and that
James the younger somehow acquired the manor from his uncle, Sir Hugh,
before the uncle's death in 1347.

In suppprt of this, I find that Sir Hugh de Audley elsewhere conveyed
the manor of Great Marcle, Herefordshire to his nephew, Sir James de
Audley the younger, in 1342 [Reference: Duncumb et al. Colls. Towards
the Hist. & Antiqs. of Hereford 3 (1882): 7-10]. Possibly Sir Hugh
conveyed the manor of Stratton, Oxfordshire to his nephew, Sir James
de Audley the younger, at the same time. If so, it would explain how
Sir James de Audley the younger was holding lands in Oxfordshire at
the time of his death in 1369.

Whatever the case, VCH Oxford indicates that Stratton, Oxfordshire
eventually fell to Sir James de Audley's cousin, Sir Hugh de Stafford,
2nd Earl of Stafford, whose trustees were dealing with the manor in
1387. If so, the manor of Stratton would follow the same descent as
the manor of Eastington, Gloucestershire, which similarly passed to
the Stafford family following the death of Sir James de Audley the
younger in 1369.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-16 13:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Dear Michael ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

To my knowledge, there has never been any factual evidence, then or
now, which directly states that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering
were not married. As best I can tell, it was only a modern author's
"opinion" that this couple were never married. In any event, I don't
believe that medieval documents pertinent to the facts should be
suppressed simply because parts of them are deemed to be unreliable;
all the more so if the document gives a contrary picture of the events
than what is commonly thought to have happened.

In this instance, Complete Peerage suppressed the fact that Eve de
Clavering was stated in two ancient family pedigrees to have married
Sir James de Audley, by whom she had known issue. I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly that Eve and James had never married. This is all the more
surprising when one considers that the earlier printed literature
contained a reference to a contemporary deed in which James and Eve
are specifically called husband and wife. The deed was dismissed out
of hand, as were both family pedigrees. Now additional evidence has
surfaced which indicates that James and Eve were married after all.

In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has been found to be
untrustworthy and unreliable, not the contemporary evidence. This
highlights once again the need to rely on original records whenever
possible, not on secondary sources.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 13:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Michael ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
To my knowledge, there has never been any factual evidence, then or
now, which directly states that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering
were not married. As best I can tell, it was only a modern author's
"opinion" that this couple were never married. In any event, I don't
believe that medieval documents pertinent to the facts should be
suppressed simply because parts of them are deemed to be unreliable;
all the more so if the document gives a contrary picture of the events
than what is commonly thought to have happened.
In this instance, Complete Peerage suppressed the fact that Eve de
Clavering was stated in two ancient family pedigrees to have married
Sir James de Audley, by whom she had known issue. I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly that Eve and James had never married. This is all the more
surprising when one considers that the earlier printed literature
contained a reference to a contemporary deed in which James and Eve
are specifically called husband and wife. The deed was dismissed out
of hand, as were both family pedigrees. Now additional evidence has
surfaced which indicates that James and Eve were married after all.
In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has been found to be
untrustworthy and unreliable, not the contemporary evidence. This
highlights once again the need to rely on original records whenever
possible, not on secondary sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thanks Douglas - but isn't it rather a problematic argument? If we
are not to reject the Monasticon document, should we also conclude
that Eve married Ralph de Ufford, and that she had two daughters by
her Audley husband, both with the same name? If that document is
manifestly inaccurate in several respects, how can we still pick and
chose those bits which we wish to treat as reliable? I think many of
us here could cite instances where a marriage was asserted after the
fact, to avoid the embarrassment of illegitimacy.

I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)? And is
Collectanea the "earlier printed literature" referring to the 1330
deed? It is not VCH Oxon, as that post-dates CP (indeed, it refers to
CP in its footnotes); I thought the Collectanea entry had been taken
into account by CP, according to a post here by Cris Nash some time
ago on the subject. By the way, what is the date of the Monasticon
item, do you know? Is it "contemporary"?

Additionally, Collectanea Top. & Gen. is not itself a primary source -
do we have details of the Horsham document? When was it produced, and
what is its text?

Leaving aside the Horsham document whose contents I am unaware of, are
not the two reliable "facts" in this case prima facie contradictory -
viz, the 1330 deed allegedly says Eve was James' wife, while the
Stratton Audley property descent in 1334-5 is a strong counter-
argument? On the basis of this evidence, it seems to me difficult (if
not impossible) for a definitive position to be taken.

Best wishes, Michael
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2007-04-16 14:20:29 UTC
Permalink
<cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted>

In message of 16 Apr, ***@btinternet.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by m***@btinternet.com
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 14:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted>
<snip>
Post by m***@btinternet.com
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Many thanks, Tim - it is:

Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52

Cheers, Michael
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2007-04-16 15:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted>
<snip>
Post by m***@btinternet.com
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
It is at:

www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscripts/Clavering.pdf

I've included the two previous pages as they looked relevant.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2007-04-16 15:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted>
<snip>
Post by m***@btinternet.com
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
I have added the CT&G 8, 159 article there as:

http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscripts/Clavering_2.pdf

Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853), 271-277 is, of course, a
different series.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 15:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<cross-post to soc.med.hist deleted>
<snip>
Post by m***@btinternet.com
I would be interested to know the basis for your belief that CP
"suppressed" the Monasticon document - how do we know that the author
of the CP entry was simply unaware of it (presumably it is mentioned
in the Collectanea article, which I have not yet seen)?
I have the complete Collectanea set here and if you can give me the
reference will put the page(s) on my site.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Collectanea Top. & Gen., 7 (1841): 51 - 52
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscripts/Clavering_2.pdf
Topographer and Genealogist, 2 (1853), 271-277 is, of course, a
different series.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Many thanks, Tim - the second link gives us the text of the IPM, which
mentions James Audley the heir of her first husband, but not the James
Audley by whom she had issue. Perhaps the writ as referred to in the
Fine Rolls adds something.

MA-R
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-16 15:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Dear Michael ~

The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
can be access at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqxUGJS8K_C-9ZG2&id=tL1nsjpJkj8C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Collectanea+Audley+Clavering

The author in Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica specifically
states that the Horsham Priory pedigree assigns Eve de Clavering four
husbands, including James de Audley. This information was known to
the author of Complete Peerage, as it is cited as a source in C.P., 3
(1913): 276, footnote a. That is why I say that Complete Peerage
suppressed this evidence.

I believe the Horsham Priory pedigree is similar if not the same as
the Sibton Abbey pedigree which I quoted in my post. The Sibton Abbey
pedgree was early published in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum,
5 (London, 1825): 559-560, which source can be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail&id=2659

Complete Peerage should have been aware of this pedigree as well.

There is also another early article which discusses Eve de Clavering
and her marriages which appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2
(1853): 271-277; 8 (1843): 159. I believe this article mentions the
deed in which Eve de Clavering and James de Audley are called husband
and wife. However, the evidence of the deed was discounted by the
author.

Finally, I note that Complete Peerage once again makes the claim that
Eve de Clavering "lived with, but did not marry" Sir James Audley in
C.P., 1 (1910): 339 (sub Audley). Elsewhere, Eve is likewise termed
the "mistress" of Sir James Audley in Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 348,
footnote a. No evidence is cited in either account to support these
statements.

Inexplicably, I find no evidence then or now that directly indicates
that Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were not married. Thus, I'm
puzzled that the earlier known evidence of the deed and the pedigrees
should have been dismissed out of hand by the authors of Topographer
and Genealogist and Complete Peerage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 15:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Michael ~
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqxUGJS8K_C-9ZG2&id=tL1nsjpJkj8C&...
The author in Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica specifically
states that the Horsham Priory pedigree assigns Eve de Clavering four
husbands, including James de Audley. This information was known to
the author of Complete Peerage, as it is cited as a source in C.P., 3
(1913): 276, footnote a. That is why I say that Complete Peerage
suppressed this evidence.
I believe the Horsham Priory pedigree is similar if not the same as
the Sibton Abbey pedigree which I quoted in my post. The Sibton Abbey
pedgree was early published in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum,
5 (London, 1825): 559-560, which source can be viewed at the following
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail...
Complete Peerage should have been aware of this pedigree as well.
There is also another early article which discusses Eve de Clavering
and her marriages which appeared in Topographer and Genealogist, 2
(1853): 271-277; 8 (1843): 159. I believe this article mentions the
deed in which Eve de Clavering and James de Audley are called husband
and wife. However, the evidence of the deed was discounted by the
author.
Finally, I note that Complete Peerage once again makes the claim that
Eve de Clavering "lived with, but did not marry" Sir James Audley in
C.P., 1 (1910): 339 (sub Audley). Elsewhere, Eve is likewise termed
the "mistress" of Sir James Audley in Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 348,
footnote a. No evidence is cited in either account to support these
statements.
Inexplicably, I find no evidence then or now that directly indicates
that Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were not married. Thus, I'm
puzzled that the earlier known evidence of the deed and the pedigrees
should have been dismissed out of hand by the authors of Topographer
and Genealogist and Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas

Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.

What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?

Best wishes, Michael
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 22:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
I have been contacted off-list with advice that the property of James
Audley's mother passed on her death to James, the son of James (who
died vita matris), indicating that he was her heir and was thus
legitimate. As this is at odds with the descent of Stratton Audley
itself, we must conclude that one or other transfers operated by means
of a special remainder, or represented a family settlement or even an
intra-family sale, and is not truly indicative of heirship. The
problem is: we don't know which property this was the case for, or
both, or...

MA-R
Peter Stewart
2007-04-16 22:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
I have been contacted off-list with advice that the property of James
Audley's mother passed on her death to James, the son of James (who
died vita matris), indicating that he was her heir and was thus
legitimate. As this is at odds with the descent of Stratton Audley
itself, we must conclude that one or other transfers operated by means
of a special remainder, or represented a family settlement or even an
intra-family sale, and is not truly indicative of heirship. The
problem is: we don't know which property this was the case for, or
both, or...
Or the grandmother made arrangements for her property that allowed this to
pass to a gransdon by her son's common-law wife, who with his siblings was
cut off from any legitimate Audley inheritance....

In this question, why assume first that some such arrangement to redirect a
normal inheritance was made on one side rather than the other?

Peter Stewart
wjhonson
2007-04-16 22:42:37 UTC
Permalink
MA-R it would be helpful if you posted tbe exact quotation since this
is a sticky area and the idea that Eve de Clavering might be the
mother to an heir of Thomas de Audley is controversial and conflicts
with other sources. I speak in particular of the IPM of her mother to
which DR alluded which calls Eve "40 and more" at that time in 1345.

Thanks
Will Johnson
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-17 06:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
MA-R it would be helpful if you posted tbe exact quotation since this
is a sticky area and the idea that Eve de Clavering might be the
mother to an heir of Thomas de Audley is controversial and conflicts
with other sources. I speak in particular of the IPM of her mother to
which DR alluded which calls Eve "40 and more" at that time in 1345.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Sorry, Will - which quotation are you referring to? I am not sure
that anyone really think Eve was mother to an heir of Thomas de
Audley, other than slips (eg Dugdale) based on a misreading of the
garbled Monasticon document.

MA-R
f***@gmail.com
2018-06-29 11:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
I have been contacted off-list with advice that the property of James
Audley's mother passed on her death to James, the son of James (who
died vita matris), indicating that he was her heir and was thus
legitimate. As this is at odds with the descent of Stratton Audley
itself, we must conclude that one or other transfers operated by means
of a special remainder, or represented a family settlement or even an
intra-family sale, and is not truly indicative of heirship. The
problem is: we don't know which property this was the case for, or
both, or...
MA-R
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Dear Douglas
Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.
What do you make of the descent of the Stratton Audley estate?
Best wishes, Michael
I have been contacted off-list with advice that the property of James
Audley's mother passed on her death to James, the son of James (who
died vita matris), indicating that he was her heir and was thus
legitimate. As this is at odds with the descent of Stratton Audley
itself, we must conclude that one or other transfers operated by means
of a special remainder, or represented a family settlement or even an
intra-family sale, and is not truly indicative of heirship. The
problem is: we don't know which property this was the case for, or
both, or...
MA-R
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-16 15:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Michael ~
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqxUGJS8K_C-9ZG2&id=tL1nsjpJkj8C&...
It appears the Horsham item is also defective, since it assigns Eve as
a wife of "Ralph" de Ufford; the author of the Collectanea piece
himself rejects it sufficiently so as to conclude that she was not
married to Ralph de Ufford, and also that she was not wife to James
Audley.

It would, of course, be interesting to see the article of 1853, which
you say you believe also concludes Eve and James were not married.

I have to add that the 1335 Phillips Collection document, which I have
not addressed, adds strength to your argument. Do you have the text
of the IPM writ from 1369 to hand?

Best wishes, Michael
Peter Stewart
2007-04-16 22:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Michael ~
The reference to the Horsham Priory pedigree can be found in
Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52, which source
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqxUGJS8K_C-9ZG2&id=tL1nsjpJkj8C&...
It appears the Horsham item is also defective, since it assigns Eve as
a wife of "Ralph" de Ufford; the author of the Collectanea piece
himself rejects it sufficiently so as to conclude that she was not
married to Ralph de Ufford, and also that she was not wife to James
Audley.
The Horsham priory version of the genealogy is also defective because it is
simply as rehash (or prehash) of the one for Sibton abbey. These are not
separate evidence, and we don't know how "ancient" the writing was except to
say that the errors suggest it was probably late and maybe post-medieval -
although the Horsham version gives "Anna and Hawise" as the names of James
Audley's daughters by Eve, the Sibton version calls them "Avice and Hawise",
the writer who made this error having been apparently unaware that these
were two forms of the same name, suggesting he was perhaps not contemporary
with its frequent occurrence in the 14th century.

The pedigrees both start identically, "Domina Sibilla soror Johannis de
Cayneto, filia Radulfi de Cayneto, qui venit ad conquestum Angliae....",
that ought to have provided enough of a hint to Richardson that he is not
dealing with two independent sources but rather with two versions of one &
the same source, and a highly unreliable one at that.

A link and citation for the Sibton version has been given already, the
Horsham version is in volume 3 of the online _Monasticon_ on pp. 636-637.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-17 16:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

A fellow newsgroup poster has alleged that the pedigree of the
Clavering family recorded in the cartulary of Horsham Priory is
"defective." This statement bears closer examination.

The Horsham Priory pedigree as published by William Dugdale records
many genealogical and historical events in the Clavering family, chief
among them being:

1. Name of Eve de Clavering's parents: John and Hawise.

2. Names of Eve de Clavering's four husbands, Thomas de Audley, Thomas
de Ufford (there called Ralph), Knt., James de Audley, Knt., and
Robert de Benhale, Knt.

3. The names of Eve de Clavering's seven children, all correctly
assigned to the proper marriages.

4. That Eve de Clavering had no issue by her 1st and 4th marriages.

4. The place of Eve de Clavering's burial at Langley Priory.

Other than the given name of one of Eve's husbands and the omission of
an additional eighth child who presumably died young, the account is
entirely accurate.

That this reliable pedigree should have been ignored and suppressed by
Complete Peerage in no less than four different accounts is
regrettable indeed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-17 19:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
A fellow newsgroup poster has alleged that the pedigree of the
Clavering family recorded in the cartulary of Horsham Priory is
"defective." This statement bears closer examination.
The Horsham Priory pedigree as published by William Dugdale records
many genealogical and historical events in the Clavering family, chief
1. Name of Eve de Clavering's parents: John and Hawise.
2. Names of Eve de Clavering's four husbands, Thomas de Audley, Thomas
de Ufford (there called Ralph), Knt., James de Audley, Knt., and
Robert de Benhale, Knt.
3. The names of Eve de Clavering's seven children, all correctly
assigned to the proper marriages.
4. That Eve de Clavering had no issue by her 1st and 4th marriages.
4. The place of Eve de Clavering's burial at Langley Priory.
Other than the given name of one of Eve's husbands and the omission of
an additional eighth child who presumably died young, the account is
entirely accurate.
That this reliable pedigree should have been ignored and suppressed by
Complete Peerage in no less than four different accounts is
regrettable indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas

On the basis that 3 out of 4 is "not defective", would you like to buy
a used car which is only missing one of its wheels?

Joking aside, while admitting that the Horsham document is imperfect
(which you yourself acknowledge), I think the 1335 document alone that
you present makes a good case in relation to Eve and James' marriage.
It would be interesting to know when the earliest print reference to
their not being married appears. The apparent absence of a known
dispensation is a shame (Eve's marriage with Thomas Audley certainly
gave her a long entitlement to dower). I wonder whether another clue
might be found in examing the arms used by the younger James - as a
founder KG I presume these will be recorded. I wonder if they reveal
any differencing which could suggest a mediaeval mark of
illegitimacy? If not, your case would be strengthened.

Best wishes, Michael
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2007-04-17 20:53:44 UTC
Permalink
In message of 17 Apr, ***@btinternet.com wrote:

<snip>
I wonder whether another clue might be found in examing the arms used
by the younger James - as a founder KG I presume these will be
recorded. I wonder if they reveal any differencing which could
suggest a mediaeval mark of illegitimacy?
As a KG he would have had a plate in his stall in St George's Chapel
Windsor but the DNB (edn I) records that, though this was in existence
in 1569, it has long since disappeared. He is not in the initial two
volumes of the "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary". But his
arms may well be in Beltz' "Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter" pp. 75-84.

(The remarkable thing is that of the 227 KGs 'elected' before 1485, as
many as 87 of their stall plates do in fact survive, or at least did
in 1901 when pictures were made of all those Plantagenet stall plates.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-17 21:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
I wonder whether another clue might be found in examing the arms used
by the younger James - as a founder KG I presume these will be
recorded. I wonder if they reveal any differencing which could
suggest a mediaeval mark of illegitimacy?
As a KG he would have had a plate in his stall in St George's Chapel
Windsor but the DNB (edn I) records that, though this was in existence
in 1569, it has long since disappeared. He is not in the initial two
volumes of the "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary". But his
arms may well be in Beltz' "Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter" pp. 75-84.
(The remarkable thing is that of the 227 KGs 'elected' before 1485, as
many as 87 of their stall plates do in fact survive, or at least did
in 1901 when pictures were made of all those Plantagenet stall plates.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Thanks, Tim - if nowhere else, they should be on the ceiling in St
George's Hall at Windsor Castle, which displays all the Garter
Knights' arms [except those who were degraded, which remain blank].
I'll try to remember to have a look when I am there next month.

Regards, Michael
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2007-04-17 23:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
I wonder whether another clue might be found in examing the arms
used by the younger James - as a founder KG I presume these will
be recorded. I wonder if they reveal any differencing which could
suggest a mediaeval mark of illegitimacy?
As a KG he would have had a plate in his stall in St George's Chapel
Windsor but the DNB (edn I) records that, though this was in
existence in 1569, it has long since disappeared. He is not in the
initial two volumes of the "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval
Ordinary". But his arms may well be in Beltz' "Memorials of the
Most Noble Order of the Garter" pp. 75-84.
(The remarkable thing is that of the 227 KGs 'elected' before 1485,
as many as 87 of their stall plates do in fact survive, or at least
did in 1901 when pictures were made of all those Plantagenet stall
plates.)
Thanks, Tim - if nowhere else, they should be on the ceiling in St
George's Hall at Windsor Castle, which displays all the Garter
Knights' arms [except those who were degraded, which remain blank].
I'll try to remember to have a look when I am there next month.
When I first saw those I was very taken with them. But I later found
that (a) they had of course been completely re-painted after the fire
had burnt the place down and (b) they had not consulted the College of
Arms at all about what should be there.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-18 15:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Dear Michael ~

My review of the Horsham Priory pedigree indicates that it got 15 out
of 16 genealogical facts correct. Also, the order of Eve de
Clavering's four marriages was correctly given. The one error was
that given name of one husband was wrongly stated, but his surname was
given correctly. So I'd give it a 19.5 rating out of 20. When
compared against other similar pedigrees of the time period, I'd say
it is very accurate. I believe it goes without saying that this
evidence should not have been suppressed by Complete Peerage. I'm
sure you agree.

In response to your query about the coat of arms borne by Sir James de
Audley the younger (son of Sir James the elder and his wife, Eve de
Clavering), his arms are discussed in a good article written on him
which appeared in the Herald & Genealogist, 5 (1870): 63-68.
According to this source, the arms of Sir James the younger were:

Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.

This agrees with Beltz who says that he bore the Audley arms [Gules
fretty or] with a label, on the authority of a seal in the Royal
library at Paris, which seal is engraved in Beltz's book, Memorials of
the Garter, pg. 395.

The actual engraving of Sir James the younger's seal can be found at
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=075D_EUWjaLVjPGl&id=IjhCodr5f_AC&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=Beltz+Memorials+Garter#PRA2-PA395,M1

Sir James de Audley the younger's arms give no indication whatsoever
of bastardy or illegitimacy.

The Herald & Genealogist article further states that Sir James de
Audley the younger's uncle, Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester,
bore these arms:

Gules, une fret or, une border d'argent.

The same difference of a bordure argent is assigned to Sir Hugh in
Brooke's Catalogue of Nobility. A later difference of Sir Hugh is
said to have been a bordure argent semée de fleurs de lis sable "for
the wife, as supposed, of John Broke 1417. (Collectanea Topogr. et
Geneal. iv. 43.)."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Dear Douglas
On the basis that 3 out of 4 is "not defective", would you like to buy
a used car which is only missing one of its wheels?
Joking aside, while admitting that the Horsham document is imperfect
(which you yourself acknowledge), I think the 1335 document alone that
you present makes a good case in relation to Eve and James' marriage.
It would be interesting to know when the earliest print reference to
their not being married appears. The apparent absence of a known
dispensation is a shame (Eve's marriage with Thomas Audley certainly
gave her a long entitlement to dower). I wonder whether another clue
might be found in examing the arms used by the younger James - as a
founder KG I presume these will be recorded. I wonder if they reveal
any differencing which could suggest a mediaeval mark of
illegitimacy? If not, your case would be strengthened.
Best wishes, Michael
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-18 16:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Michael ~
My review of the Horsham Priory pedigree indicates that it got 15 out
of 16 genealogical facts correct. Also, the order of Eve de
Clavering's four marriages was correctly given. The one error was
that given name of one husband was wrongly stated, but his surname was
given correctly. So I'd give it a 19.5 rating out of 20. When
compared against other similar pedigrees of the time period, I'd say
it is very accurate. I believe it goes without saying that this
evidence should not have been suppressed by Complete Peerage. I'm
sure you agree.
Thanks Douglas. I do agree that it is reasonable to place some
credence on the Horsham Priory document, while acknowledging that it
is still defective in parts. I don't agree with your
characterisations about the Editor of CP having "supressed" the
document, but only because of the apparent strength of your language -
I see no reason why CP would be ruthlessly determined to present Eve
as James's mistress, given their many other instances of admitting
doubt; it seems more likely to me to be an omission on their part.
Post by Douglas Richardson
In response to your query about the coat of arms borne by Sir James de
Audley the younger (son of Sir James the elder and his wife, Eve de
Clavering), his arms are discussed in a good article written on him
which appeared in the Herald & Genealogist, 5 (1870): 63-68.
Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.
That is interesting. I know that early heraldry had numerous ways of
exhibiting marks of bastardy on arms (not just the "bar sinister" so
beloved by fiction); if I remember these include batons and bordures,
and rearranging features of the shield (eg inverting charges). I am
not aware of a label having been so used - it is normally employed to
denote the eldest son during his father's lifetime, but seems to have
been a permanent feature of various coats where its significance is no
longer evident. Perhaps it was just a general mark to distiguish
junior members of houses. I am not aware of the label having been
used as a mark of bastardy but I will check my sources and revert.

Best wishes, Michael
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-18 17:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the issue of whether or not Complete Peerage suppressed
evidence that ran counter to its interpretation of Eve de Clavering's
marriages, my review to date of the literature indicates that several
sources which pre-date Complete Peerage ALL stated that Eve de
Clavering married (3rd) Sir James de Audley. These sources are:

1. William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 3 (1821): 636-637; 5 (1825):
559-560.
2. Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 11-12
(sub Benhale).
3. Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52.
4. George Frederick Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter (1841): 75-84.
5. Topographer & Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277.
6. Norfolk Archaeology, 15 (1904): 267-292.
6. Dictionary of National Biography, 1 (1908): 722-723 (biog. of Sir
James de Audley).

Complete Peerage definitely saw the third source above. The other
sources cited above should have been readily available to the author
of Complete Peerage. Most if not not of these sources should have
been checked if a researcher was doing his job back in 1910, when the
first of Complete Peerage's four accounts dealing with Eve de
Clavering's marriages was published.

We should also add to the above list the evidence of Eve de
Clavering's own heraldic seal published in Birch, Catalogue of Seals
in the British Museum, 2 (1892): 645, which shows the arms of Ufford
impaling by dimidiation the arms of Audley. The inclusion of the
Audley arms can only be attributed to Eve de Clavering's third
marriage to Sir James de Audley, as her first marriage to his cousin
Thomas de Audley was childless and almost certainly unconsumated.

And, we should also add the extensive testimony of the chronicler
Froissart who commented on many men who were bastards, but made no
mention of either of Eve de Clavering's sons, James and Peter, being
illegitimate.

Likewise, we should also add the evidence of the 1330 fine generated
by Eve de Clavering and James de Audley themselves, in which Eve was
styled James' wife. I believe this document should have been
available to Complete Peerage.

Lastly, I find that Duncumb et al., Colls. Towards the Hist. & Antiqs.
of Hereford, 3 (1882): 9 published an abstract of a charter of Sir
Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester, in which Sir Hugh referred to Eve
de Clavering's son, James de Audley, as his "nephew" [nepoti]. Again,
there is no hint of James being illegitimate.

Following the publication of Complete Peerage, additional evidence
supporting the marriage of Eve de Clavering and Sir James de Audley
was published in Calendar of Fine Rolls, 8 (1924): 58 and VCH
Gloucester 10 (1972): 127-128. Also, most recently, a notification
dated 1335 was posted to the online A2A Catalogue in which Eve is
specifically called the widow of James de Audley by her own steward.

So how did Complete Peerage blow it? I'll post the answer to that
question in the second part of this post later this week. The answer
may be a bit of a surprise.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
2007-04-18 22:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Regarding the issue of whether or not Complete Peerage suppressed
evidence that ran counter to its interpretation of Eve de Clavering's
marriages, my review to date of the literature indicates that several
sources which pre-date Complete Peerage ALL stated that Eve de
559-560.
2. Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 11-12
(sub Benhale).
3. Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, 7 (1841): 49-52.
4. George Frederick Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter (1841): 75-84.
5. Topographer & Genealogist, 2 (1853): 271-277.
6. Norfolk Archaeology, 15 (1904): 267-292.
6. Dictionary of National Biography, 1 (1908): 722-723 (biog. of Sir
James de Audley).
Complete Peerage definitely saw the third source above. The other
sources cited above should have been readily available to the author
of Complete Peerage. Most if not not of these sources should have
been checked if a researcher was doing his job back in 1910, when the
first of Complete Peerage's four accounts dealing with Eve de
Clavering's marriages was published.
More to the point, the CP author had the fundamental nous to realise that
these works were available for readers to consult independently, so that it
was out of the question to "suppress" anything in them.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-19 03:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

That Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were in fact married is
indicated by several pieces of evidence which I've already presented.
One additional one piece of evidence that I haven't yet posted is
found in the interesting work by Waters entitled Chester of Chicheley,
1 (1878): 337-338. This work was in print for many years prior to the
publication of Complete Peerage.

Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.

The following weblink is for the Waters book:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2TKGW9XneD_m&id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=Eve+Audley

Sir James de Audley is last known to have been living on 21 April
1331, when he had letters nominating attorneys in England for two
years, he then going on a pilgrimage to Santiago in Spain [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334 (1893): 102]. Thus, he died
sometime between this date and 1332. Needless to say, this is yet
another correction for Complete Peerage.

I might note that a parallel case of the twin Audley marriages of Eve
de Clavering is surely Anne of Gloucester, daughter of Thomas of
Woodstock, Earl of Gloucester, who married (1st) Thomas de Stafford,
Knt., 3rd Earl of Stafford. He was born in or before 1368, and died
at Westminster 4 July 1392. Anne herself was born shortly before 8
May 1383 [Reference: Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004): 139,
673]. Thus, she was only nine year old at the time her first husband
died; although he was at least 24. Anne eventually married (2nd)
Edmund Stafford, K.B., K.G., 5th Earl of Stafford, her first husband's
younger brother. Complete Peerage makes no mention of a dispensation
for Anne and Edmund's marriage, but I believe I have seen one in the
Papal Registers. This would be a dispensation for a marriage in the
1st and 1st degrees of kindred, which is even closer than what would
been the case with Eve de Clavering's two Audley marriages.

I've already presented evidence which indicates that Eve de Clavering
can at best have been 12 years old at the time of her first husband,
Thomas de Audley's death in 1307. She was possibly much younger than
12. As with Anne of Gloucester, the marriage while contracted in
childhood. However, it probably not yet consumated at the time of
Thomas de Audley's death due to Eve's tender age.

Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
then be awarded dower. The assignment of her dower is recorded in
Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52, which record can be viewed
at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqxUGJS8K_C-9ZG2&id=tL1nsjpJkj8C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Collectanea+Audley+Clavering

It is correct to say that many dispensations were granted, but not
recorded. As such, Eve de Clavering and her husband, Sir James de
Audley, might well have obtained a dispensation, and there be no
record of it. One such case that I know of is John de Warenne, Knt.
(died 1347), 8th Earl of Surrey, who married his cousin, Joan of Bar.
They were related in 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. We know from
their messy divorce proceedings that the Pope granted a dispensation
for this marriage at the time the couple were married. However, I
haven't noticed a dispensation for this marriage in the published
Papal Registers. Thus, it would appear that this dispensation was
handled in a private manner.

In conclusion, the evidence continues to pile up that Eve de Clavering
and Sir James de Audley were man and wife. Clearly they were treated
as a married couple by the king, the church officials, the justices,
and Eve's own steward. The failure to acknowledge Eve and James'
marriage is one of the worst gaffes that I've found to date in
Complete Peerage. The fact that this error is found in four different
accounts in Complete Peerage simply compounds the mistake.

I'll post on the matter of the legitimacy of Eve de Clavering's son,
Sir James de Audley the younger, sometime later this week.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 06:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2TKGW9XneD_m&id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?

The problem with the presentation is that if she was unmarried she
would be presenting in her own right anyway, so this is not
necessarily evidence unless the register specifically says she was
widow of James de Audley, and this was the reason for her
presentation. What we need is evidence of James de Audley presenting
as husband of Eve. That would be convincing.
Post by Douglas Richardson
I might note that a parallel case of the twin Audley marriages of Eve
de Clavering is surely Anne of Gloucester, daughter of Thomas of
Woodstock, Earl of Gloucester, who married (1st) Thomas de Stafford,
Knt., 3rd Earl of Stafford. He was born in or before 1368, and died
at Westminster 4 July 1392. Anne herself was born shortly before 8
May 1383 [Reference: Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004): 139,
673]. Thus, she was only nine year old at the time her first husband
died; although he was at least 24. Anne eventually married (2nd)
Edmund Stafford, K.B., K.G., 5th Earl of Stafford, her first husband's
younger brother. Complete Peerage makes no mention of a dispensation
for Anne and Edmund's marriage, but I believe I have seen one in the
Papal Registers. This would be a dispensation for a marriage in the
1st and 1st degrees of kindred, which is even closer than what would
been the case with Eve de Clavering's two Audley marriages.
This is not a parallel case at all. Here we have proof of dispensation
for betrothed partners, not married ones.
Post by Douglas Richardson
I've already presented evidence which indicates that Eve de Clavering
can at best have been 12 years old at the time of her first husband,
Thomas de Audley's death in 1307.
You have only presented a theory for her minority based on your say
so, which is not proof.



She was possibly much younger than
Post by Douglas Richardson
12. As with Anne of Gloucester, the marriage while contracted in
childhood. However, it probably not yet consumated at the time of
Thomas de Audley's death due to Eve's tender age.
This is only your assumption, not proven fact.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
then be awarded dower.
This is blatantly false. The king ordered her dower to be directly
given to her on March 24 1308 [Patent Rolls, 1307-1313, p.27]. It was
the challenge by Bertrand de Cayllon which caused it to be delayed -
not the need for her to be married in order to receive it. Later, on
May 22 1308 the patent rolls record the, "Grant to Thomas de Ufford of
the marriage of Eva, late the wife of Thomas de Aldithelegh, tenant in
chief, or of any fine incurred by her marrying without licence".
Clearly she would have been old enough to contract her own marriage,
with or without the king's licence, which means she was in her
majority.

The assignment of her dower is recorded in
Post by Douglas Richardson
Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52, which record can be viewed
This is not a record of her assignment of dower, it is a memorandum
outlining the nature of the agreement with Bertrand de Cayllon. Why do
you give secondary sources as evidence when you can quote the original
source more accurately from the Close Rolls? Don't you have a set at
SLC? Pages 51 and 52 of C.T & G. not only do not give full details
about her dower, but say she was never married to Thomas de Ufford in
the first place!
Post by Douglas Richardson
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lJqxUGJS8K_C-9ZG2&id=tL1nsjpJkj8C&...
It is correct to say that many dispensations were granted, but not
recorded. As such, Eve de Clavering and her husband, Sir James de
Audley, might well have obtained a dispensation, and there be no
record of it. One such case that I know of is John de Warenne, Knt.
(died 1347), 8th Earl of Surrey, who married his cousin, Joan of Bar.
They were related in 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. We know from
their messy divorce proceedings that the Pope granted a dispensation
for this marriage at the time the couple were married. However, I
haven't noticed a dispensation for this marriage in the published
Papal Registers. Thus, it would appear that this dispensation was
handled in a private manner.
However, in this case we know they were married from other sources. In
the case of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley there is room for
doubt.



Rosie Bevan
Peter Stewart
2007-04-19 08:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2TKGW9XneD_m&id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
It says:

"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, amrried thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."

Clearly this does NOT mean as claimed by Richardson that Eve was "styled"
the widow of James Audley in an episcopal register, but only that Chester
Waters said the man was dead in 1332. In a footnote on the same page he
wrote "It is also certain that Eve's third husband, James de Audley, was
dead in 1333".

Unfortunately page 342 of the book, containing the single reference given
for both these statements, is missing from the Google digitisation - sadly
typical of the carelessness of technicians and their supervisors. So unless
someone else has access to a copy, we will have to rely on Richardson, who
hasn't interpreted the straightforward text competently, to report the
citation.

Peter Stewart
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-19 09:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2TKGW9XneD_m&id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, married thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
A good example of the danger of relying on non-primary sources.
Waters errs in stating that Sir James (the elder) was second cousin of
Eve's first husband, Thomas Audley: he was his first cousin. How
reliable are the rest of Waters's glosses on the Audleys?

MA-R
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 09:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Peter

Your elucidation is as I suspected,

Cheers

Rosie
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2TKGW9XneD_m&id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg...
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, amrried thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
Clearly this does NOT mean as claimed by Richardson that Eve was "styled"
the widow of James Audley in an episcopal register, but only that Chester
Waters said the man was dead in 1332. In a footnote on the same page he
wrote "It is also certain that Eve's third husband, James de Audley, was
dead in 1333".
Unfortunately page 342 of the book, containing the single reference given
for both these statements, is missing from the Google digitisation - sadly
typical of the carelessness of technicians and their supervisors. So unless
someone else has access to a copy, we will have to rely on Richardson, who
hasn't interpreted the straightforward text competently, to report the
citation.
Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
John Higgins
2007-04-21 21:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Since Douglas apparently has had no luck finding the Chester-Waters book in
his "mass of books and papers", here's the information from the elusive
page 342 of that volume.

The paragraph quoted below by Peter Stewart from p. 337 of Chester-Waters,
as well as the foonote on the same page also quoted by Peter below, are both
indicated to be from the same source. On page 342, that source is noted as
Suckling's Suffolk, vol. ii p. 161. This item, which apparently is
available at the FHL, is clearly yet another secondary source. Whether or
not it indicates how Eve de Clavering was "styled" in a supposed bishop's
register is yet to be seen.

Which is the worse sin: "suppressing" information, or not accurately
reporting information?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audley
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332. This means
that Sir James de Audley was deceased in or before 1332, not 1334 as
claimed by Complete Peerage. This also means that the local bishop
recognized Eve as Sir James' widow, otherwise she would never have
been so styled in his register.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HrP2TKGW9XneD_m&id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg...
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
It would be good to see some original sources, not some second hand
account which may or may not have been interpreted correctly. I cannot
see the text from Waters. What does it say specifically?
"Eve, the widow of Sir Thomas de Ufford, amrried thirdly Sir James de Audley
Kt.,, of Stratton Audley, Oxon, who was the second cousin of her first
husband. She survived her third husband, and was his widow in 1332, when she
presented to the rectory of Blythburgh."
Clearly this does NOT mean as claimed by Richardson that Eve was "styled"
the widow of James Audley in an episcopal register, but only that Chester
Waters said the man was dead in 1332. In a footnote on the same page he
wrote "It is also certain that Eve's third husband, James de Audley, was
dead in 1333".
Unfortunately page 342 of the book, containing the single reference given
for both these statements, is missing from the Google digitisation - sadly
typical of the carelessness of technicians and their supervisors. So unless
someone else has access to a copy, we will have to rely on Richardson, who
hasn't interpreted the straightforward text competently, to report the
citation.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-22 01:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Dear John ~

Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.

I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:

1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.

2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.

3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.

4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.

5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.

6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.

7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.

8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.

The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John Higgins
2007-04-22 02:20:55 UTC
Permalink
It's helpful that you were able to look up the reference in Suckling so
quickly (one of the benefits of being in SLC, I guess). But, unless it
specifies further sources, it doesn't really add much to the discussion.

There's never been any question that Eve presented to Blythburgh in 1332 -
the issue is whether she was married to James Audley and whether he was dead
by then. In particular no mention is made of any husband of Eve de
Clavering, so no assumption can be made from this that she was actually
married to James Audley (particularly since she had previously married
another Audley). Nor can we assume from this mention that James was dead by
this date (as Waters apparently did), since (as was previously mentioned in
this thread) Eve was presenting to Blythburgh in her own right (inherited
from her father), and thus there is no reason for her husband to be
mentioned - dead or alive. See for example no. 6 and 7 in the list below,
where Sir Thomas Hoo is said to be presenting in right of his wife Eleanor.
The absence of mention of James Audley in the earlier presenting could
indicate either that he was dead or that he was not the legitimate husband
of Eve - you can draw a conclusion either way.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering,wife of Sir James de
Audley
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear John ~
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
Best always, 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
Peter Stewart
2007-04-22 04:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear John ~
Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.
2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.
3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.
4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.
5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.
6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.
8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.
The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.
It confirms only that Suckling asserted this in 1848 - NB not "1868" as
misstated above. For Richardson, who so often sneers at others about his
alleged vast experience in medieval records, misreading a date in Roman
numerals (in this case "M.DCCC.XLVIII" on the title page) is a very loud
howler indeed, once again.

Suckling cited no medieval (or other) source for any of the presentations he
listed, including the one ascribed to Eve apparently acting in her own
right.

Why all the irrelevant entries in the same list are quoted above is a
mystery - surely not even Richardson can think the readers of this newsgroup
are impressed, much less befogged, by superfluous details.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-22 01:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Dear John ~

Thanks for supplying the reference to Suckling's Suffolk which Waters
cited as his source for Eve de Audley's presentation to Blythburgh,
Suffolk in 1332. Much appreciated.

I had the opportunity this afternoon to check Suckling's work today.
The full title of this work is The History and Antiquities of the
County of Suffolk, by the Rev. Alfred Suckling, LL.B., Vollume II,
published in 1868. He lists the following presentations to
Blythborough [sic], Suffolk on page 161:

1. Alexander de Donewico presented in 1310 by John Claveryng, Knt., et
Abbas, et Conv. St. Osyth.

2. Nicholas de Daggeworth presented in 1332 by Eve de Audley et Conv.

3. Walter de Hausted presented in 1371 by Sir Ed. Ufford, Knt., et
Conv.

4. John de Alneley presented in 1374 by William, Earl of Suffolk, et
Conv.

5. William Wykham presented in 1382 by Robt. de Ufford, Knt., et Conv.

6. Laurence de Brysete presented in 1935 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in
right of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.

7. John Hidyngham presented in 1396 by Thomas de Hoo, Knt., in right
of Eleanor his wife, et Conv.

8. John Lacy presented in 1418 by William Bowet, Knt. et Conv.

The above information confirms that Eve de Audley presented to
Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-19 14:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

One of our fellow posters has stated that Eve de Clavering was married
to her 4th husband, Sir Robert de Benhale, sometime before November
1340, as indicated by Cal. Inquisitions Post Mortem, VIII, no. 265.

I can provide further improvement on this date. We know that Eve de
Clavering was still unmarried as late as 29 September 1335, when her
steward Richard de Venables referred to her as "Eva who was the wife
of James de Audeley" (or, in modern parlance, Eve the widow of James
de Audley) [Reference: Shropshire Archives: Phillipps Collection,
Reference: 52/32, available online at www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp].

Elsewhere, in the interesting article entitled "Some Account of the
Manor or Castle of Horsford," published in Norfolk Archaeology, 15
(1904): 267-292, I find the following statement on page 275:

"I am unable to fix the date of Eva's last marriage, which was to Sir
Robert Benhall, but it must have been in or previous to the year 1335,
as there is an entry in the Account Rolls of the Priory of Carhow for
that year which refers to her as then being Lady 'Benhale.'" END OF
QUOTE.

If correct, then Eve de Clavering must have married (4th) in 1335,
sometime after 29 September, to Sir Robert de Benhale.

Following their marriage, Eve and Robert subsequently conveyed
property in 11 Edward III [1337-1338] in Ilketshall and Spexhall,
Suffolk to Elizabeth de Burgh [Reference: Walter Rye, Calender of Feet
of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 184, which reference is available online
at http://books.google.com/books?vid=00W5z9d5QQCsN8EHdj&id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&pg=PA12-IA3&lpg=PA12-IA3&dq=Suffolk+Feet+Fines#PPA184,M1].

Elizabeth de Burgh is, of course, one of the better known noble ladies
of medieval times, she being Elizabeth de Burgh, lady of Clare, niece
of King Edward II, and a woman known for her great charity. In 1338
she refounded University Hall at Cambridge University under the name
of Clare Hall. Lady de Burgh was the sister of Margarat de Clare,
wife of Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester. Sir Hugh de Audley in
turn was the brother of Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de
Audley.

And, yes, this information is yet another new addition to several
accounts in Complete Peerage. Needless to say, both the Suffolk Feet
of Fnes and the Horsford article were in print previous to the
publication of Complete Peerage. Sadly, both were ignored by Complete
Peerage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-19 15:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Correction: Margaret de Clare, not Margarat de Clare.

DR
Peter Stewart
2007-04-19 23:16:22 UTC
Permalink
"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
Following their marriage, Eve and Robert subsequently conveyed
property in 11 Edward III [1337-1338] in Ilketshall and Spexhall,
Suffolk to Elizabeth de Burgh [Reference: Walter Rye, Calender of Feet
of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 184, which reference is available online
at
http://books.google.com/books?vid=00W5z9d5QQCsN8EHdj&id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&pg=PA12-IA3&lpg=PA12-IA3&dq=Suffolk+Feet+Fines#PPA184,M1].
Elizabeth de Burgh is, of course, one of the better known noble ladies
of medieval times, she being Elizabeth de Burgh, lady of Clare, niece
of King Edward II, and a woman known for her great charity. In 1338
she refounded University Hall at Cambridge University under the name
of Clare Hall. Lady de Burgh was the sister of Margarat de Clare,
wife of Sir Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester. Sir Hugh de Audley in
turn was the brother of Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de
Audley.
And, yes, this information is yet another new addition to several
accounts in Complete Peerage. Needless to say, both the Suffolk Feet
of Fnes and the Horsford article were in print previous to the
publication of Complete Peerage. Sadly, both were ignored by Complete
Peerage.
Why is this an "addition", when CP is not a property register, but a history
of the peerage and all the individuals who belonged to it? Every last detail
about everyone covered in the work does not automatically fall into its
purview, and this one adds or proves nothing worthwhile to that - or to the
present discussion, unless you can make out something more substantial from
it than above.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
wjhonson
2007-04-20 00:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Here are the three CPR entries in question on the nature of whether
Thomas Audley was married and to whom, and when.

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e1v3/body/Edward1vol3page0451.pdf
CPR E1V3 page 451 Membrane 5
1299 Oct 23 - Westminster
"Grant to Hugh le Despencer of the marriage of Thomas son of Nicholas
de Aldithelegh, tenant in chief, a king's ward, to the use of his
daughter, and in case of the death of the said Thomas before
matrimony, that of the next heir, until matrimony be effected. A
marriage between the parties had been treated of, and was left
unfinished by the death of the said Nicholas; and the king being
favourably disposed to the wishes of the deceased and of the said
Hugh, has made the above grant."

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v1/body/Edward2vol1page0026.pdf
CPR E2V1 page 26-27 Membrane 5
1307 Dec 14 - Westminster
"Grant to Hugh le Despencer, for the benefit of his daughter, of the
marriage of Nicholas, brother and heir of Thomas de Aldithelegh' son
and heir of Nicholas de Aldithelegh', deceased, tenant in chief, whose
marriage does not belong to him under the late king's grant, for the
like purpose, of the marriage of the above-named Thomas de
Aldithelegh', who since the king's accession died a minor and
unmarried."

CPR E2V1 page 72 - Membrane 9
1308 May 22 - Westminster
"Grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her
by marrying without license."

Rosie stated that this implies that Eva was already of age. Can
someone explain why? I'm not sure I understand that point.

Also what is the nature of the proof that *that* Thomas Aldithlegh
"tenant in chief" is identical to that Thomas Aldithlegh, heir of
Nicholas who was supposed to have married "the daughter of Hugh
Despencer".

And why would Hugh marry his prize catch to some other girl?

Will Johnson
wjhonson
2007-04-20 00:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Okay I have a followup question.

Let's say for argument that Hugh despencer *did* marry one of his
daughter to Thomas Audley and then that daughter died, could not Hugh
then marry that same Thomas Audley to another one of Hugh's
daughters? Since Thomas Audley was still a minor, was he still under
the control of Hugh as to whom he married next ?

And since Hugh comes begging for another heir, the king states that
the first grant is not effective now (why?) and then regrants that
Hugh's daughter (perhaps the same one or a different one) can now
marry Nicholas the next heir.

Perhaps there was another son between Thomas and Nicholas? Or perhaps
since E1 granted the first time, everything he did is voided once E2
comes to the throne?

The other issue would be that Hugh Despencer is lying by stating that
the marriage was not effected, because he wants another marriage of
Nicholas to another daughter, sort of a double-tie in the family.

It's a bit confusing to see that Thomas died as a minor and unmarried
and Hugh getting another marriage grant and then seeing within a year
that Eve is called the widow of Thomas.

Will Johnson
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-18 23:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Douglas Richardson
Gules une fret or, une labell gobonnie d'azur et argent.
That is interesting. I know that early heraldry had numerous ways of
exhibiting marks of bastardy on arms (not just the "bar sinister" so
beloved by fiction); if I remember these include batons and bordures,
and rearranging features of the shield (eg inverting charges). I am
not aware of a label having been so used - it is normally employed to
denote the eldest son during his father's lifetime, but seems to have
been a permanent feature of various coats where its significance is no
longer evident. Perhaps it was just a general mark to distiguish
junior members of houses.
According to Fox-Davies, illegitimate sons differenced their arms by a
wide variety of means, including (he implies) the use of a label e.g.
"except for the label, the earliest marks of either cadency or
illegitimacy for which accepted use can be made are the bend and the
bordure" and "until a comparatively recent period it is absolutely
unsafe to use these marks as signifying or proving either legitimate
cadency or illegitimacy" (Complete Guide to Heraldry, chapter 32
entitled Marks of Bastardy).

Rothery in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Heraldry" (1994 reprint)
states that Sir James Audley, whose mother was a Longspee, bore a
label azure on his paternal arms, charged with a lion rampant or on
each of the points, in recognition of his maternal descent (p 137); he
was clearly legitimate.

So it seems the jury is still out on the heraldic evidence.

MA-R
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-18 23:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Rothery in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Heraldry" (1994 reprint)
states that Sir James Audley, whose mother was a Longspee,
recte: it was his paternal *grandmother* who was a Longspee.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
bore a
label azure on his paternal arms, charged with a lion rampant or on
each of the points, in recognition of his maternal descent (p 137); he
was clearly legitimate.
John P. Ravilious
2007-04-19 00:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Peter Stewart
2007-04-18 22:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Michael ~
My review of the Horsham Priory pedigree indicates that it got 15 out
of 16 genealogical facts correct. Also, the order of Eve de
Clavering's four marriages was correctly given. The one error was
that given name of one husband was wrongly stated, but his surname was
given correctly. So I'd give it a 19.5 rating out of 20. When
compared against other similar pedigrees of the time period, I'd say
it is very accurate. I believe it goes without saying that this
evidence should not have been suppressed by Complete Peerage. I'm
sure you agree.
How can he agree with such a preposterous statement?

Richardson says "the one error" as to genealogical facts in the Horsham
priory version of this document is in the name of one of Eve de Claverings
"four" husbands, when it is not yet established that she was canonically
married four time including to James Audley.

More egregiously, Richardson is deliberately "suppressing" the gross error,
already pointed out to him after he missed the editor's note about it,
concerning the genealogy of the founder's family, where it falsely asserts
that Sara de Chesney died without issue.

Just how stupid does he imagine the newsgroup readers to be?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2007-04-17 22:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
A fellow newsgroup poster has alleged that the pedigree of the
Clavering family recorded in the cartulary of Horsham Priory is
"defective." This statement bears closer examination.
The Horsham Priory pedigree as published by William Dugdale records
many genealogical and historical events in the Clavering family, chief
1. Name of Eve de Clavering's parents: John and Hawise.
2. Names of Eve de Clavering's four husbands, Thomas de Audley, Thomas
de Ufford (there called Ralph), Knt., James de Audley, Knt., and
Robert de Benhale, Knt.
3. The names of Eve de Clavering's seven children, all correctly
assigned to the proper marriages.
4. That Eve de Clavering had no issue by her 1st and 4th marriages.
4. The place of Eve de Clavering's burial at Langley Priory.
Other than the given name of one of Eve's husbands and the omission of
an additional eighth child who presumably died young, the account is
entirely accurate.
That this reliable pedigree should have been ignored and suppressed by
Complete Peerage in no less than four different accounts is
regrettable indeed.
So CP and now VCH are "defective" because they don't agree with you, whereas
this document is not "defective" because it only disagrees with facts.

Apparently you live in an alternative world where scholars aim to "suppress"
information in works that they are actually citing. Can you explain how this
trick is done? CP and VCH have obviously failed, since you have come along
at this late stage to save the reputation of Eve de Clavering that they set
out to blacken for eternity, in the hope that no-one would ever look up
material they were "suppressing" by the devious means of citing.

Then you might explain how it was that you claimed two genealogies supported
your view, while "suppressing" the fact that these are two versions of one
document and that this contains gross errors in other important matters. It
took less than a day for you to come a cropper with this, so CP and VCH have
at least managed to beat you by some decades.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2007-04-16 13:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Michael ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
To my knowledge, there has never been any factual evidence, then or
now, which directly states that James de Audley and Eve de Clavering
were not married. As best I can tell, it was only a modern author's
"opinion" that this couple were never married. In any event, I don't
believe that medieval documents pertinent to the facts should be
suppressed simply because parts of them are deemed to be unreliable;
all the more so if the document gives a contrary picture of the events
than what is commonly thought to have happened.
In this instance, Complete Peerage suppressed the fact that Eve de
Clavering was stated in two ancient family pedigrees to have married
Sir James de Audley, by whom she had known issue. I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly that Eve and James had never married. This is all the more
surprising when one considers that the earlier printed literature
contained a reference to a contemporary deed in which James and Eve
are specifically called husband and wife. The deed was dismissed out
of hand, as were both family pedigrees. Now additional evidence has
surfaced which indicates that James and Eve were married after all.
In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has been found to be
untrustworthy and unreliable, not the contemporary evidence. This
highlights once again the need to rely on original records whenever
possible, not on secondary sources.
Hello - "As best I can tell...", "To my knowledge...", "I presume Complete
Peerage did this because it had reached the conclusion rightly or
wrongly..." but then "In this instance, it is Complete Peerage which has
been found to be untrustworthy and unreliable".

Do you think it might be better to consider the meaning of words before you
use them? If CP's conclusion could be right then it might be trustworthy on
this point, no?

Peter Stewart
W***@aol.com
2007-04-18 17:05:38 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 4/18/2007 9:16:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
***@btinternet.com writes:

I see no reason why CP would be ruthlessly determined to present Eve
as James's mistress, given their many other instances of admitting
doubt; it seems more likely to me to be an omission on their part.


One would think that one possibility for the line being marked illegitimate
or "presumably" illegitimate would be the way the various properties passed or
didn't. That would be one thing to investigate.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2007-04-18 18:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 4/18/2007 9:16:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
<Correct quote marks inserted for intelligibility:>
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by W***@aol.com
I see no reason why CP would be ruthlessly determined to present
Eve as James's mistress, given their many other instances of
admitting doubt; it seems more likely to me to be an omission on
their part.
One would think that one possibility for the line being marked
illegitimate or "presumably" illegitimate would be the way the various
properties passed or didn't. That would be one thing to investigate.
The thing about the Claverings or FitzRogers or FitzRoberts is that
there was considerable shenanigans that went on with the family estates.
Normally they would have gone to Eve who was without doubt the heir of
John Fitz Robert lord Clavering, but he alienated them to his sister's
husband even though he had a brother whose line continued. John's
sister was Euphemia and she married Randolf Neville (1262-1331) and in
the Neville records she is regularly listed as the heiress of the
Clavering estates. The College of Arms was even following that same
account as late as 1926, even though CP had unscrambled Euphemia's
position in 1913, and Burke in his XP had the right account too.

So there would not have been much property of Eve's to follow through.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
M***@aol.com
2007-04-18 19:18:54 UTC
Permalink
I found a potentially valuable secondary (or tertiary) source:-
"Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chster of Chichely" by
R.E.Chester-Waters, London, Robson & Sons, 1878.
Eve Clavering and her husbands are dealt with on pages 337-8, with
authorities cited on page 342. Unfortunately I have not been able to read pages 338
and 342 on line.
But I was able to read from page 337 that Thomas Ufford, Eve's second
husband, was slain at Bannockburn in 1314, and to see that he is credited with
three named sons of hers, and that her third husband was James Audley, second
cousin of her first husband Thomas, and that she had five children by him, who
are not named on page 337, but who I think will be named on page 338. All
these statements are referred to footnotes which will I think be found on page
342.
In general, Chester-Waters' work seems to me to to have been meticulous.

According to a google library search for his book, there are 23 libraries in
the USA which hold it, and several in London, including the London Library,
the PRO at Kew and the Inner Temple.

I am beginning to think that Eve may have been the mother, by her third
marriage, of the celebrated Sir James Audley, hero of the battle of Poitiers, as
to whom the Oxford DNB has this to say:-
"Audley, Sir James (c.1318–1369), soldier, was an outstanding exemplar of
chivalry, and one of the heroes of the chronicler Froissart. He was the
illegitimate son of Sir James Audley (d. 1334) of Stratton Audley, Oxfordshire , and
Eva, daughter of Sir John Clavering."
As to his suggested illegitimacy, Douglas Richardson has provided evidence
in the group that his father James was in truth married to his mother Eve.
Here is my current draft effort at reconstructing the family tree of the
Audleys, to which I plan to add more copious refernces as time permits:-

1. Liulph (DNB)
1.1 Adam, d.1203
1.1.1.Adam d.1211
1.1.2 Henry, d.1246, heir to brother Adam
+Bertrada, d. of Ralph Mainwaring
1.1.2.1. James, d.1272 (DNB)
+Ela, d. of William II de Longespee
1.1.2.1.1.James, did homage 1272, dsp
1.1.2.1.2.Henry, d.c.1276 sp
1.1.2.1.3.William, dsp 1282
1.1.2.1.4.Nicholas, 1st Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1299 (DNB). Also CPR
+Katherine, d. of Giffard of Brimsfield
1.1.2.1.4.1. Thomas, dsp.1307
+Eve Clavering (1st husband)
she m.(2) Thomas Ufford and (3) James Audley, v. inf
(Thomas Ufford d. Bannockburn 1214, with 3 sons by Eve)
1.1.2.1.4.2. Nicholas, d.1316 (DNB)
+Joan, d. of William Martyn
1.1.2.1.4.2.1 James, 3rd Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1386 (DNB)
+(1)Joan Mortimer
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Nicholas 4th Lord of Helegh, dsp.1391
+Elizabeth Beaumont (IPM C137/26/56)
1.1.2.1,4.2,1.2.Joan = Tuchet, ancestor of the later Lords Audley
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.3. Margaret = Hillary
+(2) Isabella (?Malbank/?Le Strange)
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.4,5,6,7 (sons dspm)
(They were Oliver, Roland, James and Thomas)
1.1 2.1.4.1.4.8 Blanche = Sir Fulk Fitz Warin
1.1.2.1.5. Hugh of Stratton Audley
+ Isolde d. of Mortimer, who=(1) Sir Walter de Balun
1.1.2.1.5.1. James
+Eve Clavering (her 3rd husband)
1.1.2.1.5.1.1. Sir James Audley KG, hero of Poitiers (DNB)
(dsp Fontenay le Conte 1369- Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.2. Peter (also at Poitiers- see Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.3,4,5. Other children
1.1.2.1.5.2. Hugh, Earl of Gloucester (DNB), heir of nephew James
+ Margaret de Clare, widow of Gaveston
1.1.2.1.5.2.1. Margaret,+ Ralph, Ist Earl of Stafford (DNB)
1.1.2.2.Ralph, d.<1240
1.1.2.3. Alice, w. of Peter de Montfort
1.1.3. Emma, w. of Griffin ap Madoc, Lord of Bromfield

All corrections and criticisms, as ever, welcome
MM
John P. Ravilious
2007-04-19 03:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Wednesday, 18 April, 2007


Dear Michael,

Thanks for that draft chart of the Audley family.

Following are some comments and additions:


' 1.1 Adam, d. 1203 '

His one known wife was Emma, daughter and heiress of Ralf fitz
Orm of Horton, Staffs. It is assumed she was the mother of the
eldest son Adam (see below), but she was certainly the mother of
Sir Henry de Audley.

We have the record of a suit concerning Horton, co. Staffs. in
1227. From Wrottesley, Pedigees from the Plea Rolls:

' Staffordshire Assize Roll. 12. Hen. 3. m. 2.

Staff. - Henry de Aldithelegh (Audley) sued Hervey Bagot for
the manor of Horton.

Ralph, son of Orme,
seised temp. H. 2.
I
Emma
______I_______________________________________
I I
Adam, Henry de Aldithelegh,
ob. s.p. the plaintiff. ' [1]


Emma the daughter of Ralf was clearly the namesake of the
later Emmas in the Audley family (Sir Henry's daughter, the wife
of Gruffydd of Powys Fadog, being the one of which I know).


' 1.1.2.2. Ralph, d. <1240 '

A younger son of Sir Henry de Audley and Bertrade de Mainwaring,
re: whom I had no prior notation. The name provides further
onomastic evidence for the descent from Ralph fitz Orm. Thanks
for that!


Additional issue in re: Sir Henry de Audley and Bertrade:

' 1.1.2.4 Emma, w. of Gruffydd ap Madog of Powys Fadog (als,
of Iale and Bromfield)

She is shown in error as a sister of Sir Henry. See Genealogics
#I00287612. Also, the dispensation for the marriage of their
descendant Ralph de Greystoke to Alice de Audley, recorded in a
letter dated 25 Nov. 1317 as noted in CP and elsewhere:

' Request, by the King, for a papal dispensation that Ralph
Craystoke, of the diocese of York, and Alice de Audele the
King's kinswoman, of the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield,
might intermarry, although the said Ralph and Alice are
related in the 4th-3rd degrees of consanguinity ' [2]


' 1.1.2.5 Amicia, w. of William de Blancminster (his 2nd wife) '

' 1.1.2.6 Nicholas de Audley, rector of Woolstaston, co. Salop. '


Any further notes concerning the issue of Sir Henry de Audley,
or of other members of the family, are certainly welcome.

Cheers,

John





NOTES

[1] The Genealogist (1904 - N.S.), XX:223-4.

concerning this suit, ' In 1227 Henry successfully held the
manor against Hervey de Stafford. After a judicial duel Hervey
acknowledged Henry's right to Horton in return for a payment
of 50 marks and land in Norton-in-the-Moors.' [VCH Staffs.,
VII:65-77]


[2] CP VI:190, note (f), cites Roman Roll, 11-14 Edw. II, m. 14d.
This relationship has been resolved as noted in the SGM
post <CP 'Addition': Elizabeth de Nevill, mother of Ralph, Lord
Greystoke (d. 1323)> in November 2006.


* John P. Ravilious
Post by M***@aol.com
I found a potentially valuable secondary (or tertiary) source:-
"Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chster of Chichely" by
R.E.Chester-Waters, London, Robson & Sons, 1878.
Eve Clavering and her husbands are dealt with on pages 337-8, with
authorities cited on page 342. Unfortunately I have not been able to read pages 338
and 342 on line.
But I was able to read from page 337 that Thomas Ufford, Eve's second
husband, was slain at Bannockburn in 1314, and to see that he is credited with
three named sons of hers, and that her third husband was James Audley, second
cousin of her first husband Thomas, and that she had five children by him, who
are not named on page 337, but who I think will be named on page 338. All
these statements are referred to footnotes which will I think be found on page
342.
In general, Chester-Waters' work seems to me to to have been meticulous.
According to a google library search for his book, there are 23 libraries in
the USA which hold it, and several in London, including the London Library,
the PRO at Kew and the Inner Temple.
I am beginning to think that Eve may have been the mother, by her third
marriage, of the celebrated Sir James Audley, hero of the battle of Poitiers, as
to whom the Oxford DNB has this to say:-
"Audley, Sir James (c.1318-1369), soldier, was an outstanding exemplar of
chivalry, and one of the heroes of the chronicler Froissart. He was the
illegitimate son of Sir James Audley (d. 1334) of Stratton Audley, Oxfordshire , and
Eva, daughter of Sir John Clavering."
As to his suggested illegitimacy, Douglas Richardson has provided evidence
in the group that his father James was in truth married to his mother Eve.
Here is my current draft effort at reconstructing the family tree of the
Audleys, to which I plan to add more copious refernces as time permits:-
1. Liulph (DNB)
1.1 Adam, d.1203
1.1.1.Adam d.1211
1.1.2 Henry, d.1246, heir to brother Adam
+Bertrada, d. of Ralph Mainwaring
1.1.2.1. James, d.1272 (DNB)
+Ela, d. of William II de Longespee
1.1.2.1.1.James, did homage 1272, dsp
1.1.2.1.2.Henry, d.c.1276 sp
1.1.2.1.3.William, dsp 1282
1.1.2.1.4.Nicholas, 1st Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1299 (DNB). Also CPR
+Katherine, d. of Giffard of Brimsfield
1.1.2.1.4.1. Thomas, dsp.1307
+Eve Clavering (1st husband)
she m.(2) Thomas Ufford and (3) James Audley, v. inf
(Thomas Ufford d. Bannockburn 1214, with 3 sons by Eve)
1.1.2.1.4.2. Nicholas, d.1316 (DNB)
+Joan, d. of William Martyn
1.1.2.1.4.2.1 James, 3rd Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1386 (DNB)
+(1)Joan Mortimer
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Nicholas 4th Lord of Helegh, dsp.1391
+Elizabeth Beaumont (IPM C137/26/56)
1.1.2.1,4.2,1.2.Joan = Tuchet, ancestor of the later Lords Audley
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.3. Margaret = Hillary
+(2) Isabella (?Malbank/?Le Strange)
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.4,5,6,7 (sons dspm)
(They were Oliver, Roland, James and Thomas)
1.1 2.1.4.1.4.8 Blanche = Sir Fulk Fitz Warin
1.1.2.1.5. Hugh of Stratton Audley
+ Isolde d. of Mortimer, who=(1) Sir Walter de Balun
1.1.2.1.5.1. James
+Eve Clavering (her 3rd husband)
1.1.2.1.5.1.1. Sir James Audley KG, hero of Poitiers (DNB)
(dsp Fontenay le Conte 1369- Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.2. Peter (also at Poitiers- see Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.3,4,5. Other children
1.1.2.1.5.2. Hugh, Earl of Gloucester (DNB), heir of nephew James
+ Margaret de Clare, widow of Gaveston
1.1.2.1.5.2.1. Margaret,+ Ralph, Ist Earl of Stafford (DNB)
1.1.2.2.Ralph, d.<1240
1.1.2.3. Alice, w. of Peter de Montfort
1.1.3. Emma, w. of Griffin ap Madoc, Lord of Bromfield
All corrections and criticisms, as ever, welcome
MM
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-19 04:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Dear Michael ~

Yes, the Chester-Waters work is quite good. In fact, I used the
online copy today myself. I've detected a few errors in the
material. Needless to say, we all make mistakes. I have a copy of
Waters in my personal library. When I locate my copy, I'll be happy
to check list the citations for you on page 142 which is unavailable
in the copy online.

Regarding your helpful draft of the Audley family, I have a few minor
corrections and additions to make.

Henry de Audley, d.1246 (your 1.1.2), and his wife, Bertrade de
Mainwaring, had a daughter, Amice de Audley, who married William de
Blanchminster. Amice has no living descendants.

Nicholas de Audley, died 1299 (your 1.1.2.1.4.) and his wife,
Katherine Giffard, had a daughter, Ela de Audley, who married (1st)
Gruffydd ab Owain, (2nd) James de Perrers, and (3rd) Peter Giffard,
Knt. Ela had issue, but I haven't yet traced any living descendants.

Nicholas de Audley, d.1316 (your 1.1.2.1.4.2) and his wife, Joan
Martin, had a daughter, Alice de Audley, who married (1st) Ralph
Basset, of Drayton, Staffordshire, and (2nd) Hugh de Meynell, Knt.
Alice has living descendants by her Meynell marriage; none by her
Basset marriage.

Hugh de Audley of Stratton Audley (your 1.1.2.1.5. ) and his wife,
Iseult de Mortimer, had a daughter, Alice de Audley, who married
(1st) Ralph de Greystoke, Knt., 1st Lord Greystoke, and (2nd) Ralph
de Neville, Knt., 2nd Lord Neville of Raby. Alice has living
descendants by both of her marriages.

Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester (your 1.1.2.1.5.2.) was not the
heir of his nephew, James de Audley. Hugh died many years before his
nephew, James. Hugh was, however, the "heir" of his older brother,
James de Audley, which matter I will explain later this week.

It is William II Longespée, not William II de Longespee.
It is Eve de Clavering, not Eve Clavering.
It is James de Audley, not James Audley.
It is Thomas de Ufford, not Thomas Ufford.
The surname Martyn is usually spelled Martin by modern historians.
I recommend where possible that you avoid Latin forms such as
Bertrada. Bertrade is satisfactory.

I trust this helps you a little.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by M***@aol.com
I found a potentially valuable secondary (or tertiary) source:-
"Genealogical Memoirs of the extinct family of Chster of Chichely" by
R.E.Chester-Waters, London, Robson & Sons, 1878.
Eve Clavering and her husbands are dealt with on pages 337-8, with
authorities cited on page 342. Unfortunately I have not been able to read pages 338
and 342 on line.
But I was able to read from page 337 that Thomas Ufford, Eve's second
husband, was slain at Bannockburn in 1314, and to see that he is credited with
three named sons of hers, and that her third husband was James Audley, second
cousin of her first husband Thomas, and that she had five children by him, who
are not named on page 337, but who I think will be named on page 338. All
these statements are referred to footnotes which will I think be found on page
342.
In general, Chester-Waters' work seems to me to to have been meticulous.
According to a google library search for his book, there are 23 libraries in
the USA which hold it, and several in London, including the London Library,
the PRO at Kew and the Inner Temple.
1. Liulph (DNB)
1.1 Adam, d.1203
1.1.1.Adam d.1211
1.1.2 Henry, d.1246, heir to brother Adam
+Bertrada, d. of Ralph Mainwaring
1.1.2.1. James, d.1272 (DNB)
+Ela, d. of William II de Longespee
1.1.2.1.1.James, did homage 1272, dsp
1.1.2.1.2.Henry, d.c.1276 sp
1.1.2.1.3.William, dsp 1282
1.1.2.1.4.Nicholas, 1st Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1299 (DNB). Also CPR
+Katherine, d. of Giffard of Brimsfield
1.1.2.1.4.1. Thomas, dsp.1307
+Eve Clavering (1st husband)
she m.(2) Thomas Ufford and (3) James Audley, v. inf
(Thomas Ufford d. Bannockburn 1214, with 3 sons by Eve)
1.1.2.1.4.2. Nicholas, d.1316 (DNB)
+Joan, d. of William Martyn
1.1.2.1.4.2.1 James, 3rd Ld Audley of Helegh, d.1386 (DNB)
+(1)Joan Mortimer
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Nicholas 4th Lord of Helegh, dsp.1391
+Elizabeth Beaumont (IPM C137/26/56)
1.1.2.1,4.2,1.2.Joan = Tuchet, ancestor of the later Lords Audley
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.3. Margaret = Hillary
+(2) Isabella (?Malbank/?Le Strange)
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.4,5,6,7 (sons dspm)
(They were Oliver, Roland, James and Thomas)
1.1 2.1.4.1.4.8 Blanche = Sir Fulk Fitz Warin
1.1.2.1.5. Hugh of Stratton Audley
+ Isolde d. of Mortimer, who=(1) Sir Walter de Balun
1.1.2.1.5.1. James
+Eve Clavering (her 3rd husband)
1.1.2.1.5.1.1. Sir James Audley KG, hero of Poitiers (DNB)
(dsp Fontenay le Conte 1369- Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.2. Peter (also at Poitiers- see Froissart)
1.2.2.1.5.1.3,4,5. Other children
1.1.2.1.5.2. Hugh, Earl of Gloucester (DNB), heir of nephew James
+ Margaret de Clare, widow of Gaveston
1.1.2.1.5.2.1. Margaret,+ Ralph, Ist Earl of Stafford (DNB)
1.1.2.2.Ralph, d.<1240
1.1.2.3. Alice, w. of Peter de Montfort
1.1.3. Emma, w. of Griffin ap Madoc, Lord of Bromfield
All corrections and criticisms, as ever, welcome
MM
Alan R Grey
2007-04-19 21:19:06 UTC
Permalink
It has been most interesting following this discussion, but I'm not
fully convinced either way as to Eve's marriage with James de Audley.
Obviously they were together and she is the mother of his children.
While it seems convincing that they were married, there are contemporary
documents that, while not discounting a marriage, seem somewhat
inconsistent with it. In particular, the following:

In a deed dated 1 November 1319 (i.e., at a time when it seems that Eve
and James were together), Eve leased her third part of the manor of Cold
Norton (which she must have had as dower from her first husband's
estate) to Sir Peter Giffard, "c'est a savoir qe, come Sire James
Daudeleye a lese la tierce partie du maner a Sire Pieris advie de la vie
la dame Eve,. ..La dite dame Eve par cest escrit graunte que si ensi
aveigne (qui Deux defent) qe le dit Sire James devie vivaunte la dite
dame Eve, qe le dit Sire Pieris teigne..." (NCHS, Vol. 9 (1906), p.254,
but the deed is also quoted in part in NCHS, Vol. 5, pp. 224-5).

It is notable that Eve is referred to in the deed as "Eve Doufford"
(d'Ufford), but not as the wife of James de Audley, despite the fact
that James is a party to the deed and they clearly have an interest in
each others' lives. If they were married, why was she going by the name
acquired through a previous marriage from which she was widowed 5 years
earlier?

Of even more interest is a plea (De Banco, Michaelmas Term, 7 Edward
III, 1333) that Eva brought against Peter de Ty and Richard de Lyng for
the Manor of Burgh in Fleg (Norfolk). She was making the claim as the
daughter of John, brother of Alexander de Claveryng to whom the manor
had been granted in the reign of Edward I. This was a Clavering case
(and so had nothing whatsoever to do with any husband), so it is
especially interesting that Eve referred to herself as "formerly wife of
Thomas de Ufford" [CHS, Vol. 11 (1890), p.49]. I would think it strange
that she referenced herself to a husband dead for nearly 20 years, if a
husband to whom she had been legally and lawfully married for nearly
that whole time had recently died.

Having said that, there are the undoubted references to James and Eve as
husband and wife, such as the fine made 4 Edward III between "James de
Audeleye and Eva his wife, complainants, and Richard de Delves and
Richard de Boghay, deforciants of four acres of land and twelve acres of
turbary in Mere, by Assheleye, and the fourth part of the manor of Mere,
and a fourth part of the same manor" (CHS Vol. 11 (1890), p.131). The
land was granted back to James and Eva for their lives, with remainder
successively to James's children Peter, James, Katherine, Anne and
Hawise, and in default of male heirs by any children, to remain to the
"right heirs of James de Audeleye for ever". (This record is, of
course, a translation, so I have not seen the original and cannot say
what word was used (Latin? French?) in describing Eve's relationship to
James.)

In any case, we have apparent inconsistencies in the way in which Eve is
referred, which implies a level of uncertainly regarding her marriage to
James. Either she was or was not married to James, or they were married
but it was not countenanced by church authorities.

Under a scenario that she was not married to him, then after the passage
of over 15 years and with at least 5 children under their belt, so to
speak, then she was his wife in any practical sense of the word, and she
and others (e.g., her steward) would be justified in calling her the
wife (common-law) of James (i.e., she was the only one he had and was
the mother of all his children).

If she was lawfully married to him, then all the little issues discussed
in this thread and above (e.g., being referenced to a deceased husband
while and after a supposed marriage to another man) have to be explained.

One thing which seems to explain these is if they managed to get married
by a priest, but the church (authorities) later said that they were not
married in their (official) eyes because of the dispensation issue
regarding her first husband and James's relationship. This explanation
makes both CP and DR correct, i.e., we could say that Eve and James both
were and were not married, hence the appearance of somewhat equivocal
records.

As to CP's suppression or otherwise: I'm not sure about willful
suppression of the information; neglect, yes, poor scholarship, even,
but suppression? This requires motivation, and I have yet to see such
motivation ascribed. I do notice that a significant amount of the
evidence said to have been suppressed is secondary [e.g., Beltz, DNB,
Collectania, Banks, pedigrees (ancient or otherwise)]. Perhaps the CP
editor(s) did review those, but also the contemporary documents where
the marriage is both indicated and equivocal, and came to the
conclusion, "Well, I think there is sufficient uncertainty to have
grounds for doubt ... they might have been married, but they might not"
and they decided on the latter.

Alan R Grey

CHS = Collections for a History of Staffordshire, William Salt Archaeol.
Soc.
NCHS = New Collections for a History of Staffordshire, William Salt
Archaeol. Soc.
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-20 13:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the dower of Eve de Clavering from her marriage to Thomas de
Audley, in my previous post, I stated that Eve de Clavering was
assigned property in Audley and Endon, Staffordshire, as indicated by
her inquisition post mortem taken after her death in 1359. The three
lawsuits cited below, however, give a much fuller picture of her
dower. They indicate that Eve de Clavering actually held dower in a
messuage in the vill of Newcastle-under-Lyme, as well as in the manors
of Chesterton and Audley, and in the third part of the manors of
Endon, Over Longdon, Cold Norton, and Balterley, all in
Staffordshire.

In the first suit below dated 1313, Eve de Clavering is sued with her
second husband, Sir Thomas de Ufford. Sir Thomas de Ufford died at
the Battle of Bannockburn the following year. In the actions dated
1315 and Michaelmas term 1319, she is simply styled the widow of
Thomas de Audley [her first husband].

In Easter term, 6 Edward II [1313], Nicholas de Aldithelegh [Audley],
by James de Podemor his custos, appeared against Thomas de Offard and
Eva his wife, for causing waste and destruction in the woods, lands,
and iron mines which they held as dower of Eva in Alditheleye
[Audley], Enedon, and Chesterton, Staffordshire. The defendants did
not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain and produce them
on the morrow of St. Martin [Reference: Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Volume 9 (1888), pg. 44].

In Trinity term, 8 Edward II [1315], the Sheriff had been ordered to
summon Eva formerly wife of Thomas de Audeleye to acknowledge what
rights she claimed in the vill of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and in the
manors of Chesterton and Audeleye, and in the third part of the manors
of Endon, Overlongesdon, Coldenorton, and Balterdeleye, which John de
Kynardesle had conceded in Court by a fine to Nicholas de Audeleye and
Joan his wife. Eva did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to
distrain and produce her at the Quindene of St. Michael. [Reference:
Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Volume 9 (1888), pg.
52].

In Michaelmas term, 13 Edward II [1319], the Sheriff had been
commanded to produce Eva formerly wife of Thomas de Audele to
acknowledge what right she claimed in a messuage in Newcastle-under-
Lyme, and in the manors of Chesterton and Audeleye [Audley], and in
the third part of the manors of Endon, Ovre Longedon, Coldenorton, and
Balterdeleye, which John de Kynardeslye had condeded by fine to
William de Audeley, who is now dead, and to Joan his wife; and the
Sheriff had done nothing, and returned the writ reached him too late.
He was therefore ordered as before to distrain and produce her at the
Quindene of Easter [Reference: Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Volume 9 (1888), pg. 78].

Confirmation of the above records as well as the marriage of Eve de
Clavering to James de Audley is found in the published subsidy roll
for 1327 where James de Audley [3rd husband of Eve] is assessed at
Cold Norton [iij s.], Chesterton [vij s.], and Audley, Staffordshire
[vj. s. vj. d.] [Reference: Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Volume 7 (1886), pp. 202, 205, and 206]. Eve was
assigned dower from her first marriage in all three places.

Likewise, in the following subsidy roll for 6 Edward III [1332-1333],
Eva de Offord is listed for Chesterton [viij s., iiij d.], whereas
James de Audley is listed for Audley [v.s. iiij d.] and for Mere and
Aston [ix. s.] [Reference: Collections for a History of Staffordshire,
Volume 10 (1889), pp. 94, 100, and 101]. The last named property,
Mere, was held by James de Audley by inheritance from his father, Hugh
de Audley the elder. The former property, Audley, was part of Eve de
Clavering's dower from her first marriage to Thomas de Audley. The
year 1332 appears to be the year that James de Audley died, if we are
to trust Waters' statement that his widow, Eve, presented to the
church of Blythburgh, Suffolk in that year. Thus, James de Audley was
evidently living early in 1332, but presumably dead sometime within
the year.

I concur with Alan Grey that Eve de Clavering and James de Audley were
likely living together before 1 November 1319, when James leased the
third part of the manor of Cold Norton, Staffordshire to Sir Peter
Giffard, with Eve's permission. This property was part of Eve's dower
from her first marriage to Thomas de Audley as proven by the last two
lawsuits quoted above. Had James and Eve not been married, James
would have had no right to lease her land to anyone.

In my post tomorrow, I'll comment on the evidence concerning the
legitimacy of the marriage of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley.
Get ready: I'm about to throw a spanner in the works.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
2007-04-21 03:14:43 UTC
Permalink
"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
In my post tomorrow, I'll comment on the evidence concerning the
legitimacy of the marriage of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley.
Get ready: I'm about to throw a spanner in the works.
Apart from the unnecessary melodrama of this announcement, and the delay for
several days since you first insinuated that you are withholding something
important to the question, it is not at all likely to be delivered as
advertised: mere "comment" from you on the existing evidence cannot very
well be a "spanner in the works" at hand.

In this instance the work in process is a search for proof as to whether or
not the couple were canonically married. Either they were or they were not,
and if resolved either way the "works" of the issue are not disrupted by a
contribution.

Comment from you is not the same as proof for the rest of us. A "spanner" in
these works would have to produce some third alternative, and if there could
be such an outcome only evidence can subtantiate it, not comment.

Can you at least _try_ to think about what you write before you post
tomorrow?

Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-27 03:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's
relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.

In my opinion the biggest stumbling block is the question of affinity
- and
this must explain the circumspection of the author, Josiah Wedgwood of
the
Audley of Helegh section in 'The Complete Peerage'. Politically their
marriage was not important enough for them to be granted a
dispensation at such a high level of
consanguineous affinity. At two degrees this would have meant a papal
dispensation, not one by a bishop, who only had discretion over fourth
degree dispensations at this period in time. Eve's father had
alienated most of his patrimony in 1311, so that there was precious
little for her to inherit, and James came from a minor cadet branch
with a small estate. It seems doubtful that they would have even
considered applying for one, in the knowledge that they had neither
the resources or political influence to carry through the process,
which had no guarantee of success anyway.

The 1319 deed bears closer examination. While Mr Richardson has
glossed over
it, saying it is indication that they had married by that time, the
evidence shows otherwise.

There were actually two deeds - one dated 1 November 1319 and the
other
dated 11 November 1319.

The one dated 1 November was a deed of James de Audley leasing the
third
part of the manor of Cold Norton, Eve's dower, to Peter de Giffard for
an
annual rent of £23 6s 8d.,

"...covent entre Sir James Daudeleye de une parte et Sir Piers Giffard
de
autre part, cest-a-savoir que le dit Sir James par cest escrit ad
grante et
a ferme lesse au dit Sir Piers la tierce partie du maner de
Coldenorton ove
tous les appurtenaunces saunt rein retenir en le Countee de Estafford
le
quel le dite Sir James ad du donn dame Eve Doufford a terme de la vie
la
dite dame Eve a avoir le tenir la tierce partie du maner susdit ove
les
appurtenaunces a le avaunt dit Sir Piers, ses heirs et ses assignes
del dit
Sir James a terme de la vie la dite dame Eve. Rendaunt pures chescun
an a
dit Sir James vint trois livres siz soutz vyt deners desterlings a
deux
termes etc E si aveigne qe le dit Sir James devie. (No witnesses.)
(1st
November, 1319)" [NCHS, Vol. 5, p. 224]

With the kind help of Peter Stewart the above translates to,

...agreement between Sir James de Audley on one part and Sir Peter
Giffard
onthe other part, notice that the said Sir James by this writing has
granted
thefee farm to the said Sir Peter of the third part of the manor of
Cold Norton
including all its appurtenances without withholding anything in the
County
of Stafford, which the said Sir James acquired by the gift of lady
Eve
Doufford for the term of life of the said lady Eve, to have and to
hold, the
third part of themanor aforesaid and its appurtenances to the
aforesaid Sir Peter, his heirsand assigns, of the said Sir James for
the term of the life of lady Eve.

Here we see that James held the third part manor by the GIFT of lady
Eve,
not by right as her husband - "le quel le dite Sir James ad du donn
dame Eve
Doufford". The nature of the tenure is reinforced by the fact that
lady Eve
made a separate charter on 11 November 1319 confirming James' lease to
Peter
de Giffard. Had James de Audley been married to Eve at this time there
would
have been one deed in which both their names appeared as granting the
lease.
James would have had automatic right de jure uxoris, and a
confirmation
charter by Eve would have been superfluous.

The article in which the second charter is mentioned is by Josiah
Wedgwood
himself - Parentage of Sir James de Audley, K.G., in Coll. Hist.
Staff. N.S.
vol. IX, pp.246-268. This is a fairly detailed and competent study of
Sir
James de Audley and worth reading. The author included an illustration
of
the seal of Eve at the end of the article, and from the description
in
Hedley, it is exactly the same one as was used in 1334, with the arms
of
Ufford impaling Audley. They are of Audley of Heighley, those of her
first
husband, not Audley of Stratton.

The author gives another potentially important piece of evidence
showing
that a James de Audley was alive on 23 Sept 1333 when Hugh de Audley,
brother of James de Audley, appointed him his attorney while he was on
a
pilgrimage overseas. This pilgrimage is given in the account of his
life in
CP V p.717.

Patent Rolls, 1333, p.467
"Simple protection, until a fortnight after Easter, for Hugh Daudele
going
on
pilgrimage beyond the seas.

The said Hugh has letters nominating James Daudele and John de Sancto
Paulo,
clerk, his attorneys in England until the same date."

Although the entry does not specify that James is Hugh's brother,
there is
no other known candidate of the same name within Hugh's trusted
family
circle at that time. It could not have been James de Audley of
Heleigh, who
was still a minor and not able to legally conduct affairs on Hugh's
behalf,
even though he had been given early seisin of his lands. It is my
belief
that James de Audley was still living at that date and died between
then and
1334, as is stated by CP I p.339.

Cheers

Rosie
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
In my post tomorrow, I'll comment on the evidence concerning the
legitimacy of the marriage of Eve de Clavering and James de Audley.
Get ready: I'm about to throw a spanner in the works.
Apart from the unnecessary melodrama of this announcement, and the delay for
several days since you first insinuated that you are withholding something
important to the question, it is not at all likely to be delivered as
advertised: mere "comment" from you on the existing evidence cannot very
well be a "spanner in the works" at hand.
In this instance the work in process is a search for proof as to whether or
not the couple were canonically married. Either they were or they were not,
and if resolved either way the "works" of the issue are not disrupted by a
contribution.
Comment from you is not the same as proof for the rest of us. A "spanner" in
these works would have to produce some third alternative, and if there could
be such an outcome only evidence can subtantiate it, not comment.
Can you at least _try_ to think about what you write before you post
tomorrow?
Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-27 03:49:56 UTC
Permalink
My apologies about the last post, which seems to have had problems
with the font I used. I'm reposting in the hope this will be easier to
read.


Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.

In my opinion the biggest stumbling block is the question of affinity
- and this must explain the circumspection of the author, Josiah
Wedgwood of the Audley of Helegh section in 'The Complete Peerage'.
Politically their marriage was not important enough for them to be
granted a dispensation at such a high level of consanguineous
affinity. At two degrees this would have meant a papal dispensation,
not one by a bishop, who only had discretion over fourth degree
dispensations at this period in time. Eve's father had alienated most
of his patrimony in 1311, so that there was precious little for her to
inherit, and James came from a minor cadet branch with a small estate.
It seems doubtful that they would have even considered applying for
one, in the knowledge that they had neither the resources or political
influence to carry through the process, which had no guarantee of
success anyway.

The 1319 deed bears closer examination. While Mr Richardson has
glossed over
it, saying it is indication that they had married by that time, the
evidence shows otherwise.

There were actually two deeds - one dated 1 November 1319 and the
other dated 11 November 1319.

The one dated 1 November was a deed of James de Audley leasing the
third part of the manor of Cold Norton, Eve's dower, to Peter de
Giffard for an annual rent of £23 6s 8d.,

"...covent entre Sir James Daudeleye de une parte et Sir Piers
Giffard
de autre part, cest-a-savoir que le dit Sir James par cest escrit ad
grante et a ferme Coldenorton ove tous les appurtenaunces saunt rein
retenir en le Countee de Estafford le quel le dite Sir James ad du
donn dame Eve Doufford a terme de la vie la dite dame Eve a avoir le
tenir la tierce partie du maner susdit ove les appurtenaunces a le
avaunt dit Sir Piers, ses heirs et ses assignes del dit Sir James a
terme de la vie la dite dame Eve. Rendaunt pures chescun an a dit Sir
James vint trois livres siz soutz vyt deners desterlings a deux termes
etc E si aveigne qe le dit Sir James devie. (No witnesses.) (1st
November, 1319)" [NCHS, Vol. 5, p. 224]

With the kind help of Peter Stewart the above translates to,

...agreement between Sir James de Audley on one part and Sir Peter
Giffard on the other part, notice that the said Sir James by this
writing has granted the fee farm to the said Sir Peter of the third
part of the manor of Cold Norton including all its appurtenances
without withholding anything in the County of Stafford, which the said
Sir James acquired by the gift of lady Eve Doufford for the term of
life of the said lady Eve, to have and to hold, the third part of
themanor aforesaid and its appurtenances to the aforesaid Sir Peter,
his heirsand assigns, of the said Sir James for the term of the life
of lady Eve.

Here we see that James held the third part manor by the GIFT of lady
Eve, not by right as her husband - "le quel le dite Sir James ad du
donn dame Eve Doufford". The nature of the tenure is reinforced by the
fact that lady Eve made a separate charter on 11 November 1319
confirming James' lease to Peter de Giffard. Had James de Audley been
married to Eve at this time there would have been one deed in which
both their names appeared as granting the lease. James would have had
automatic right de jure uxoris, and a confirmation charter by Eve
would have been superfluous.

The article in which the second charter is mentioned is by Josiah
Wedgwood himself - Parentage of Sir James de Audley, K.G., in Coll.
Hist. Staff. N.S. vol. IX, pp.246-268. This is a fairly detailed and
competent study of Sir James de Audley and worthreading. The author
included an illustration of the seal of Eve at the end of the article,
and from the description in Hedley, it is exactly the same one as was
used in 1334, with the arms of Ufford impaling Audley. They are of
Audley of Heighley, those of her first husband, not Audley of
Stratton.

The author gives another potentially important piece of evidence
showing that a James de Audley was alive on 23 Sept 1333 when Hugh de
Audley, brother of James de Audley, appointed him his attorney while
he was on a pilgrimage overseas. This pilgrimage is given in the
account of his life in CP V p.717.

Patent Rolls, 1333, p.467
"Simple protection, until a fortnight after Easter, for Hugh Daudele
going on pilgrimage beyond the seas.

The said Hugh has letters nominating James Daudele and John de Sancto
Paulo, clerk, his attorneys in England until the same date."

Although the entry does not specify that James is Hugh's brother,
there is no other known candidate of the same name within Hugh's
trusted family circle at that time. It could not have been James de
Audley of Heleigh, who was still a minor and not able to legally
conduct affairs on Hugh's behalf, even though he had been given early
seisin of his lands. It is my belief that James de Audley was still
living at that date and died between then and 1334, as is stated by CP
I p.339.

Cheers

Rosie
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-27 05:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rosie Bevan
My apologies about the last post, which seems to have had problems
with the font I used. I'm reposting in the hope this will be easier to
read.
Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.
Rosie

Excellent post! A good example of the use of logic, knowledge of
one's field and reliance on primary sources, rather than secondary
ones whose import (we have seen) can be seriously mis-interpreted.

In the absence of Douglas's "spanner", it seems we must conclude that
CP got it right - and is owed an apology.

MA-R
Peter Stewart
2007-04-27 07:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Rosie Bevan
My apologies about the last post, which seems to have had problems
with the font I used. I'm reposting in the hope this will be easier to
read.
Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's relationship
need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
marriage.
Rosie
Excellent post! A good example of the use of logic, knowledge of
one's field and reliance on primary sources, rather than secondary
ones whose import (we have seen) can be seriously mis-interpreted.
In the absence of Douglas's "spanner", it seems we must conclude that
CP got it right - and is owed an apology.
On this score, but don't forget that CP still has to answer for the death of
Phar Lap and for suppression of the truth about his private life.

We were told on 21 April to "Get ready" for Richardson's post, the very next
day, inserting a spanner into the works - but he has made himself scarce
since then. I wonder why....

Peter Stewart
T***@aol.com
2007-04-18 23:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Wednesday, 18 April, 2007


Dear Douglas, Peter, Tim, Michael, Will, et al.,

From the detailed discussion on this point, it at present
appears quite possible that Sir James de Audley ['the elder']
was the brother of Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester dju) in
fact married Eve de Clavering, widow at that time of (among
others) his cousin Thomas de Audley. However, the occurrence of
a marriage, and the acceptance of this marriage in the eyes of
the church, are two different things.

There is no record noted at present of a dispensation for
this marriage: while I have noted dispensations at this time for
marriages (pre- and post-nuptial) of individuals related in the
2nd and 3rd degree (most typically stated as being related
"in the third degree of kindred"), no dispensation is to be
found for individuals related in the 2nd and 2nd degree in
Britain until somewhat later. We do have the exception of a
number of royal marriages in Spain (e.g. Alfonso XI of Castile
and Maria of Portugal in 1328), but the church is known to have
applied different levels of strictness concerning consanguinity
to those Christian populations living at the fringes of the
'civilized world' (western Scotland also typically being viewed
as such).

I would suggest with the documentation now in hand, both
evident and as interpreted, that the following is a fair
representation:

1. Sir James de Audley and Eva de Audley were married,
and recognized as such by many lay individuals.

2. The marriage was uncanonical, as there was no
dispensation (and none forthcoming) due to the
consanguinity of the individuals. Therefore, the
issue of the marriage were in fact bastards in the
eyes of the church.

That no dispensation was in fact granted at some point is not
absolutely certain: many dispensations were likely granted, but
not recorded [1]. Many records exist for dispensations, and many
also for requests made for dispensations (whether or not such
dispensations were eventually granted or not). As there is
no evidence that such a dispensation was ever requested or
granted, it appears that the categorization of the marriage as
uncanonical remains.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] See as one example the following grant by Pope John XXII
to cardinals Gaucelin and Luke dated at Avignon,
16 Kal. April 1317:
" Faculty to grant dispensations to persons who, being
related in the fourth degree of kindred, have
intermarried, to remain in the marriages so
contracted." [Bliss, Cal. Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain, CPL II:130]


* John P. Ravilious







<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.</HTML>
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 02:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Dear John

The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.

The religious houses of Sibton and Horsham were founded by William de
Chesney, which is why the life of Eve de Clavering, who represented
the senior line of his three daughters, was recorded by the monastic
annalist. She inherited the advowsons of Sibton, Langley (where Eve
and her spouses were buried), St. Faith Horsham and Blythburgh in
1332. In an attempt to avoid offending his patrons, the clerical
scribe may have tacitly glossed over the nature of the relationship of
Eve and James de Audley in his fifteenth century annal of Horsham, in
much the same way as the mother of Joan, illegitimate daughter of King
John and wife of Llewelyn the Great, was called Queen Clemence in the
Tewksbury annals.

Thomas de Audley was 19 when he died in 1307 (the wardship of his
lands having been in the hands of Piers de Gaveston, who gave them to
Bertrand de Cayllon), and considering her parents were married in
1278, this is good reason to suppose that Eve was of age (approx 15 +)
herself, and she and Thomas were living as married couple at that
time. The direct conveyance of lands of her dower to her in 1308
indicates maturity. Her age of 40 and more given at her mother's death
in 1345, is no more than a vague approximation commonly given at such
inquisitions. Indeed, she had borne 3 sons to Thomas de Ufford by
1314. In 1319 she appears as "dame Eve Doufford" when Sir James de
Audley settled a third part of the manor of Cold Norton on her for her
life by using Sir Peter Giffard to stand in as an intermediary
[Wrottesley. The Giffards. Wm. Salt Society, 1902]. The arrangement is
very unusual to say the least. Eve's known seals clearly represent the
heraldry of her first two husbands Thomas de Audley from whose lands
she received a dower worth £138 p.a. and Thomas de Ufford.

We can improve further on dates. Eve was married to Robert de Benhale,
formerly the king's yeoman, by November 1340 according to the
inquisition for Sir John de Thorpe who held the manor of Ashwell
Thorpe of "Robert de Benhale and Eva his wife"[CIPM VIII, no. 265].
Robert died in late May/ early June 1364 when orders were given for
his lands in Norfolk, Suffolk and Eassex to be taken by the escheator
[Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, p.301].

It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.

Cheers

Rosie
Post by T***@aol.com
Wednesday, 18 April, 2007
Dear Douglas, Peter, Tim, Michael, Will, et al.,
From the detailed discussion on this point, it at present
appears quite possible that Sir James de Audley ['the elder']
was the brother of Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester dju) in
fact married Eve de Clavering, widow at that time of (among
others) his cousin Thomas de Audley. However, the occurrence of
a marriage, and the acceptance of this marriage in the eyes of
the church, are two different things.
There is no record noted at present of a dispensation for
this marriage: while I have noted dispensations at this time for
marriages (pre- and post-nuptial) of individuals related in the
2nd and 3rd degree (most typically stated as being related
"in the third degree of kindred"), no dispensation is to be
found for individuals related in the 2nd and 2nd degree in
Britain until somewhat later. We do have the exception of a
number of royal marriages in Spain (e.g. Alfonso XI of Castile
and Maria of Portugal in 1328), but the church is known to have
applied different levels of strictness concerning consanguinity
to those Christian populations living at the fringes of the
'civilized world' (western Scotland also typically being viewed
as such).
I would suggest with the documentation now in hand, both
evident and as interpreted, that the following is a fair
1. Sir James de Audley and Eva de Audley were married,
and recognized as such by many lay individuals.
2. The marriage was uncanonical, as there was no
dispensation (and none forthcoming) due to the
consanguinity of the individuals. Therefore, the
issue of the marriage were in fact bastards in the
eyes of the church.
That no dispensation was in fact granted at some point is not
absolutely certain: many dispensations were likely granted, but
not recorded [1]. Many records exist for dispensations, and many
also for requests made for dispensations (whether or not such
dispensations were eventually granted or not). As there is
no evidence that such a dispensation was ever requested or
granted, it appears that the categorization of the marriage as
uncanonical remains.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] See as one example the following grant by Pope John XXII
to cardinals Gaucelin and Luke dated at Avignon,
" Faculty to grant dispensations to persons who, being
related in the fourth degree of kindred, have
intermarried, to remain in the marriages so
contracted." [Bliss, Cal. Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain, CPL II:130]
* John P. Ravilious
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free athttp://www.aol.com.</HTML>
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 02:51:55 UTC
Permalink
I note in Rye's 'Suffolk Fines' p.184 that Robert and Benhale were
married by 11 Edward III (25 January 1337-24 January 1338) when they
made a fine with Elizabeth de Burgh over Ilketshall and Spexhall. They
were probably married not long after James de Audley's death, as her
dower and inheritance were considerable, and a woman of property in
the king's gift was never single for long.

Rosie
Post by Rosie Bevan
We can improve further on dates. Eve was married to Robert de Benhale,
formerly the king's yeoman, by November 1340 according to the
inquisition for Sir John de Thorpe who held the manor of Ashwell
Thorpe of "Robert de Benhale and Eva his wife"[CIPM VIII, no. 265].
Robert died in late May/ early June 1364 when orders were given for
his lands in Norfolk, Suffolk and Eassex to be taken by the escheator
[Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, p.301].
Peter Stewart
2007-04-19 03:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rosie Bevan
Dear John
The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.
<snip>
Post by Rosie Bevan
It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.
In this case of Eve and James Audley the revised edition of CP was
contradicting the original edition, so there could be no question of
"suppression" - Vicary Gibbs must have been convinced for some reason
that Cokayne had been wrong.

No less than four times in the original CP Cokayne described Eve as
the wife or widow of James - in volume I on pages 198 n (e) and 203 n
(b) under Audley, and on page 319 nuder Benhale; and in volume II on
page 281 under Clavering.

It would appear to be a sloppy omission if the revised edition offers
no rationale for the change of mind, or cites no discussion of this
point elsewhere, but it must have been considered and thought
sustainable. The affinity might provide a good enough reason, but
comment to that effect would have been preferable in the absence (I
suppose) of proof either way.

Langley would seem as promising a place as any to check for a record
of James as the husband or otherwise of Eve - since he was buried
there, maybe the canonical status of their relationship was noted.

Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 04:46:48 UTC
Permalink
The Langley cartulary is largely unpublished but can be found in the
BL Add. 5948

In Blomefield's Norfolk, vol 10 (1809) p.149, comes a list of gentry
who were buried at Langley. They include a substantial number of those
known to be associated with Eve de Clavering,

"Sir John de Clavering, patron of the abbey, died in 1332, on the
octaves of the Epiphany, and buried in the presbytery, on the north
side. Also Sir John Lodnes, Sir Peter Egfend, Sir John Dunham, Sir
Charles Carleton, Sir Ely Norfolk, Sir Charles de Jernemutha, Sir
Robert le Grys, Sir Philip Weston, Sir William reedham, Sir Robert de
Vaux, Sir Robert Helington, Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir John, Sir
Robert, Sir Edmund and Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir Simon le Grys, Sir
William de la Pole, Sir James de Audley, and Thomas Audley, esq, Sir
John de Mutford, before the altar of the Holy Cross; Sir Robert de
Benhale, Sir William Bowet.

Nicholas Castell, esq by his will dated June 10, 1490, buried by the
tomb of Elizabeth his wife.

Here were also buried Lady Joan de Burgh, died in 1332, : Dame Mary le
Zouche mother of Sir Robert, son of Sir Roger; Dame Joan, wife of Sir
Robert de Benhale ; Dame Agnes wife of Sir Fulke------; Dame Joan,
wife of Sir John Dunham; Dame Agnes de Clavering; Dame Margaret
Benhale; Dame Eve Audley; Dame Agnes, wife of Sir Simon Grys; Dame
Jane, wife of Sir William Bowet, daughter of Sir Robert Ufford, Dame
Dionysia Inglos, wife of Sir Henry Inglose, Dame Alice, wife of Sir
Thomas Charles"

Cheers

Rosie
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by Rosie Bevan
Dear John
The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.
<snip>
Post by Rosie Bevan
It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.
In this case of Eve and James Audley the revised edition of CP was
contradicting the original edition, so there could be no question of
"suppression" - Vicary Gibbs must have been convinced for some reason
that Cokayne had been wrong.
No less than four times in the original CP Cokayne described Eve as
the wife or widow of James - in volume I on pages 198 n (e) and 203 n
(b) under Audley, and on page 319 nuder Benhale; and in volume II on
page 281 under Clavering.
It would appear to be a sloppy omission if the revised edition offers
no rationale for the change of mind, or cites no discussion of this
point elsewhere, but it must have been considered and thought
sustainable. The affinity might provide a good enough reason, but
comment to that effect would have been preferable in the absence (I
suppose) of proof either way.
Langley would seem as promising a place as any to check for a record
of James as the husband or otherwise of Eve - since he was buried
there, maybe the canonical status of their relationship was noted.
Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Peter Stewart
2007-04-19 04:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rosie Bevan
The Langley cartulary is largely unpublished but can be found in the
BL Add. 5948
In Blomefield's Norfolk, vol 10 (1809) p.149, comes a list of gentry
who were buried at Langley. They include a substantial number of those
known to be associated with Eve de Clavering,
"Sir John de Clavering, patron of the abbey, died in 1332, on the
octaves of the Epiphany, and buried in the presbytery, on the north
side. Also Sir John Lodnes, Sir Peter Egfend, Sir John Dunham, Sir
Charles Carleton, Sir Ely Norfolk, Sir Charles de Jernemutha, Sir
Robert le Grys, Sir Philip Weston, Sir William reedham, Sir Robert de
Vaux, Sir Robert Helington, Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir John, Sir
Robert, Sir Edmund and Sir Thomas de Ufford, Sir Simon le Grys, Sir
William de la Pole, Sir James de Audley, and Thomas Audley, esq, Sir
John de Mutford, before the altar of the Holy Cross; Sir Robert de
Benhale, Sir William Bowet.
Thanks, Rosie - if there is an obituary amongst the Langley muniments
it is possible but unlikely that this will shed some light on James
Audley's personal affairs: assuming he died "shriven", the honour of
the spot chosen for his burial amongst Eve's husbands would not be
affected by irregularity in their marital status - as it might not be
anyway if she exerted her influence with the house.

Peter Stewart
John P. Ravilious
2007-04-19 03:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Dear Rosie,

Many thanks for that.

And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?

As we both agree, the bottom line does appear to be that (1)
there was no valid marriage between Sir James and Eve, and (2) their
issue were illegitimate.

Cheers,

John
Post by Rosie Bevan
Dear John
The problem with this idea is that there was no half way point between
religious and civil marriage as there is today. In those days one was
married by the church or not at all. Degrees of affinity and
consanguinity in marriage were treated alike and, as you rightly point
out, a marriage within two degrees was unheard of in this period of
time. If Eve and Peter de Audley married without a dispensation, it
would inevitably result in excommunication for them both, because it
would be impossible for them to claim they married in ignorance of the
relationship. The excommunication of Thomas de Morley and Ann
Despenser for marrying knowing they were related in the fourth degree
of affinity, is a case in point - even after excommunication was
lifted they were instructed not to marry again in the event of the
spouse's death. The lack of any dispensation for Eve and James de
Audley is a serious stumbling block to the supposition that they were
married, and this is probably the reason for the cautious tone of the
author of the Audley section.
The religious houses of Sibton and Horsham were founded by William de
Chesney, which is why the life of Eve de Clavering, who represented
the senior line of his three daughters, was recorded by the monastic
annalist. She inherited the advowsons of Sibton, Langley (where Eve
and her spouses were buried), St. Faith Horsham and Blythburgh in
1332. In an attempt to avoid offending his patrons, the clerical
scribe may have tacitly glossed over the nature of the relationship of
Eve and James de Audley in his fifteenth century annal of Horsham, in
much the same way as the mother of Joan, illegitimate daughter of King
John and wife of Llewelyn the Great, was called Queen Clemence in the
Tewksbury annals.
Thomas de Audley was 19 when he died in 1307 (the wardship of his
lands having been in the hands of Piers de Gaveston, who gave them to
Bertrand de Cayllon), and considering her parents were married in
1278, this is good reason to suppose that Eve was of age (approx 15 +)
herself, and she and Thomas were living as married couple at that
time. The direct conveyance of lands of her dower to her in 1308
indicates maturity. Her age of 40 and more given at her mother's death
in 1345, is no more than a vague approximation commonly given at such
inquisitions. Indeed, she had borne 3 sons to Thomas de Ufford by
1314. In 1319 she appears as "dame Eve Doufford" when Sir James de
Audley settled a third part of the manor of Cold Norton on her for her
life by using Sir Peter Giffard to stand in as an intermediary
[Wrottesley. The Giffards. Wm. Salt Society, 1902]. The arrangement is
very unusual to say the least. Eve's known seals clearly represent the
heraldry of her first two husbands Thomas de Audley from whose lands
she received a dower worth £138 p.a. and Thomas de Ufford.
We can improve further on dates. Eve was married to Robert de Benhale,
formerly the king's yeoman, by November 1340 according to the
inquisition for Sir John de Thorpe who held the manor of Ashwell
Thorpe of "Robert de Benhale and Eva his wife"[CIPM VIII, no. 265].
Robert died in late May/ early June 1364 when orders were given for
his lands in Norfolk, Suffolk and Eassex to be taken by the escheator
[Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, p.301].
It is well known, and has been pointed out frequently on this forum,
that the early volumes of CP lack the academic qualities of the later
ones. There are many innaccuracies and omissions in this body of
work, which are more easily pinpointed as sources become more readily
accessible, but that does not detract from the huge usefulness or
value of the work as a whole.
Cheers
Rosie
Post by T***@aol.com
Wednesday, 18 April, 2007
Dear Douglas, Peter, Tim, Michael, Will, et al.,
From the detailed discussion on this point, it at present
appears quite possible that Sir James de Audley ['the elder']
was the brother of Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester dju) in
fact married Eve de Clavering, widow at that time of (among
others) his cousin Thomas de Audley. However, the occurrence of
a marriage, and the acceptance of this marriage in the eyes of
the church, are two different things.
There is no record noted at present of a dispensation for
this marriage: while I have noted dispensations at this time for
marriages (pre- and post-nuptial) of individuals related in the
2nd and 3rd degree (most typically stated as being related
"in the third degree of kindred"), no dispensation is to be
found for individuals related in the 2nd and 2nd degree in
Britain until somewhat later. We do have the exception of a
number of royal marriages in Spain (e.g. Alfonso XI of Castile
and Maria of Portugal in 1328), but the church is known to have
applied different levels of strictness concerning consanguinity
to those Christian populations living at the fringes of the
'civilized world' (western Scotland also typically being viewed
as such).
I would suggest with the documentation now in hand, both
evident and as interpreted, that the following is a fair
1. Sir James de Audley and Eva de Audley were married,
and recognized as such by many lay individuals.
2. The marriage was uncanonical, as there was no
dispensation (and none forthcoming) due to the
consanguinity of the individuals. Therefore, the
issue of the marriage were in fact bastards in the
eyes of the church.
That no dispensation was in fact granted at some point is not
absolutely certain: many dispensations were likely granted, but
not recorded [1]. Many records exist for dispensations, and many
also for requests made for dispensations (whether or not such
dispensations were eventually granted or not). As there is
no evidence that such a dispensation was ever requested or
granted, it appears that the categorization of the marriage as
uncanonical remains.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] See as one example the following grant by Pope John XXII
to cardinals Gaucelin and Luke dated at Avignon,
" Faculty to grant dispensations to persons who, being
related in the fourth degree of kindred, have
intermarried, to remain in the marriages so
contracted." [Bliss, Cal. Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain, CPL II:130]
* John P. Ravilious
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free athttp://www.aol.com.</HTML>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Peter Stewart
2007-04-19 03:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Rosie,
Many thanks for that.
And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?
In the circumstances as revealed by this thread so far it would appear
to be a long shot, but there might be something about it in an
episcopal register if a dispensation had been sought and refused, or
if the irregularity had come to notice by some other means. However, a
documented process of this kind is unlikely to have been overlooked by
many researchers.

Peter Stewart
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-19 09:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Rosie,
Many thanks for that.
And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?
As we both agree, the bottom line does appear to be that (1)
there was no valid marriage between Sir James and Eve, and (2) their
issue were illegitimate.
Dear All

4 points

1) According to Beltz, there is no surviving IPM for the younger Sir
James Audley. It is worth noting, however, that property descents
alone are not necessarily cast-iron indications of familial
relationships or heirships. Often property passed according to
settlements and entails; even statements as to heirs in IPMs may not
indicate the closest heir - for instance, the 1417 IPM of Elizabeth
Wolverston, which I posted about recently, lists her heir as Thomas
Wolverston (apparently her brother-in-law), even though she had three
legitimate daughters; we must therefore conclude that an entail
existed, although we know nothing of it. The fact that after the death
of the elder Sir James Audley, his property was divided between his
son, James, and his brother, Hugh, does not enable us to draw any
final concusions about that son's legitimacy or otherwise.

2) Eve Clavering's seal shows the Audley arms, presumably in relation
to her having married an Audley. However, as Rosie points out, these
are likely to relate to her first husband, Thomas Audley, as they are
the undifferenced arms indicating headship of the Audley family. From
the evidence presented to date, James Audley the elder bore different
arms, bearing a label. Thus her seal appears to omit a reference to
any marriage to the elder James. Is this not significant?

3) Continuing to examine the heraldic evidence, we see what may be an
important distinction. As noted above, the headship of the Audley
family rested with that branch of whom Eve's first husband was a
member; they bore the Audley arms without any difference. Beltz tells
us that the elder Sir James, whose father (Hugh the elder) appears to
have been a fifth son, albeit the only known son from his own father's
second, Longspee marriage, bore the Audley arms with this difference:
a label azure displaying a lion or on each of the points. His brother,
Hugh the younger, differenced his arms by displaying them within a
bordure argent. Normally the eldest son would inherit his father's
arms, so we would expect Sir James the younger to have used (after his
father's death) the same arms as the elder Sir James - but apparently
he did not. Instead he differenced the Audley arms thus: a label
gobonny azure and argent. Why would he have differenced his arms from
his father's, if he was the legitimate heir? Illegitimacy as an
answer cannot be ruled out, and indeed would make good sense.

4) I am not sure that an unconsumated marriage was no marriage, and
that no impediments requiring dispensation therefor existed as a
consequence. Certainly Eve used her first husband's arms and received
dower from him. I thought that dispensation was still required despite
non-consumation: the non-consumation just made it easier to get the
dispensation (see the case of Henry VIII's first marriage where his
sister-in-law alleged her first marriage was not consumated but a
dispensation was still thought essential; Henry's side argued that it
was consumated and hence the Pope could not dispense). I would welcome
elucidation on this point.

Lastly, I would like to say how much I have enjoyed this thread. We
have been treated to much robust and intelligent discussion, based on
an interesting original idea; there has been no mudslinging or ad
hominem abuse (even in respect of CP!), and I have learned a great
deal from those who have generously contributed to date. Thanks you -
this is why I come to SGM.

Kind regards, Michael
m***@btinternet.com
2007-04-19 11:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
3) Continuing to examine the heraldic evidence, we see what may be an
important distinction. As noted above, the headship of the Audley
family rested with that branch of whom Eve's first husband was a
member; they bore the Audley arms without any difference. Beltz tells
a label azure displaying a lion or on each of the points.
Recte: *Rothery*, not Beltz
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 12:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Rosie,
Many thanks for that.
And of course, you are correct. At the same time, however,
wouldn't the non-marital relationship between Sir James and Eve de
Clavering have likewise merited canonical censure?
As we both agree, the bottom line does appear to be that (1)
there was no valid marriage between Sir James and Eve, and (2) their
issue were illegitimate.
Dear All
4 points
1) According to Beltz, there is no surviving IPM for the younger Sir
James Audley. It is worth noting, however, that property descents
alone are not necessarily cast-iron indications of familial
relationships or heirships. Often property passed according to
settlements and entails; even statements as to heirs in IPMs may not
indicate the closest heir - for instance, the 1417 IPM of Elizabeth
Wolverston, which I posted about recently, lists her heir as Thomas
Wolverston (apparently her brother-in-law), even though she had three
legitimate daughters; we must therefore conclude that an entail
existed, although we know nothing of it. The fact that after the death
of the elder Sir James Audley, his property was divided between his
son, James, and his brother, Hugh, does not enable us to draw any
final concusions about that son's legitimacy or otherwise.
2) Eve Clavering's seal shows the Audley arms, presumably in relation
to her having married an Audley. However, as Rosie points out, these
are likely to relate to her first husband, Thomas Audley, as they are
the undifferenced arms indicating headship of the Audley family. From
the evidence presented to date, James Audley the elder bore different
arms, bearing a label. Thus her seal appears to omit a reference to
any marriage to the elder James. Is this not significant?
3) Continuing to examine the heraldic evidence, we see what may be an
important distinction. As noted above, the headship of the Audley
family rested with that branch of whom Eve's first husband was a
member; they bore the Audley arms without any difference. Beltz tells
us that the elder Sir James, whose father (Hugh the elder) appears to
have been a fifth son, albeit the only known son from his own father's
a label azure displaying a lion or on each of the points. His brother,
Hugh the younger, differenced his arms by displaying them within a
bordure argent. Normally the eldest son would inherit his father's
arms, so we would expect Sir James the younger to have used (after his
father's death) the same arms as the elder Sir James - but apparently
he did not. Instead he differenced the Audley arms thus: a label
gobonny azure and argent. Why would he have differenced his arms from
his father's, if he was the legitimate heir? Illegitimacy as an
answer cannot be ruled out, and indeed would make good sense.
4) I am not sure that an unconsumated marriage was no marriage, and
that no impediments requiring dispensation therefor existed as a
consequence. Certainly Eve used her first husband's arms and received
dower from him. I thought that dispensation was still required despite
non-consumation: the non-consumation just made it easier to get the
dispensation (see the case of Henry VIII's first marriage where his
sister-in-law alleged her first marriage was not consumated but a
dispensation was still thought essential; Henry's side argued that it
was consumated and hence the Pope could not dispense). I would welcome
elucidation on this point.
My understanding is that as soon as a betrothal or marriage contract
was in place after the age of seven years, the marriage existed
whether it was consummated or not. At this point a dispensation was
required either to not go ahead with the marriage, or to marry anyone
within four degrees of consanguinity or affinity after the death of
the spouse, otherwise any future issue would be considered
illegitimate. Here are a few early cases which define the problems,

Cal. Papal Registers. Papal Letters, vol. 1 1198-1304, p. 254 5 Kal
May 1248
"To the bishop of Norwich, in answer to his question about Thomas de
Raveningham, whom the pope decides is his father's son and heir. It
appears that Thomas de Raveningham married Cassandra, and having had
by her a son and heir, Thomas died. Hugh, a layman, Thomas' paternal
uncle, endeavoured to shut him out of his inheritance, asserting that
Thomas could not be Cassandra's husband, inasmuch as Thomas's brother
William had espoused her, though the marriage was not consummated, and
that therefore Thomas the heir could not be his legitimate son. But
the said Thomas alleged that Cassandra was under seven years of age
when espoused to William, and as he was born of a marriage contracted
in the face of the church, and no doubt was thrown on his legitimacy
during his father's life, he ought to be judged legitimate. The uncle
alleged in reply that Cassandra when espoused to William, must be
presumed to be of age, unless the contrary is proved; witnesses on
either side unable to prove the point. The pope says that to deprive
Thomas of his inheritance, not only ought it to be proved that
Cassandra when William espoused her was of the age of seven years, or
that espousals were continued after that age by the will of the
parties, but also that Thomas knew this when he married her, of which
Hugh brought no proof."

Also
p. 367 5 Kal Nov 1259
"Mandate to the bishop of Cloyne not to molest Maurice son of Maurice,
of his diocese (who has appealed to the pope) on the grounds that he
married Matilda daughter of Gerald de Prendergast, she having been
espoused to his late brother David, who died before she was seven
years old."
p. 369 $ Non Jan 1260
" Dispensation of Maurice son of Maurice Gerold, of the diocese of
Cloyne, to remain in the marriage contracted with Matilda, who whom,
when seven years old, his brother David, since deceased, had been
espoused."

Cheers

Rosie
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Lastly, I would like to say how much I have enjoyed this thread. We
have been treated to much robust and intelligent discussion, based on
an interesting original idea; there has been no mudslinging or ad
hominem abuse (even in respect of CP!), and I have learned a great
deal from those who have generously contributed to date. Thanks you -
this is why I come to SGM.
Kind regards, Michael
M***@aol.com
2007-04-19 16:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Douglas Richardson writes:

<Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
<Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
<her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
<that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
<then be awarded dower. The assignment of her dower is recorded in
<Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52

In fact the assignment of Eve's dower is not recorded in the article cited
by Mr Richardson, the article does not mention her marriage to Thomas Ufford,
and the article concludes, contrary to Mr Richardson's belief- and also to
mine-, that Eve had only two husbands, namely Thomas Audley and Robert de
Benhale.

If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment of Eve's
dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any other
marriage) I hope he will post it. I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she be given her
dower- instead it is a grant of Thomas' brother Nicholas' marriage to
Despencer, and specifically records that Thomas had died a minor and unmarried!
I would also be grateful to Douglas, were he to be able to post the text
from pages 338 and 342 of the Chester-Waters book, pages which I still cannot
access on google books.

Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.

Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the death of
James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and his
subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince. Froissart was an
exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company of the
Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and burial in 1373,
according to the Oxford DNB.
Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated that this
James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.

With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
< Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
< the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have presented to
the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible. Blythburgh
belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in 1331: see the
lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in that year
in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her own right,
her husband being already dead, and her father having died very recently.


Finally (for the moment) I would like to thank Douglas Richardson, John
Ravilious, Rosie Bevan, Peter Stewart and Will Johnson for their contributions to
this discussion. both on and off list
MM
Douglas Richardson
2007-04-19 17:42:12 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 19, 10:31 am, ***@aol.com wrote:
< If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment
of Eve's
< dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any
other
< marriage) I hope he will post it.

In answer to Michael's request, I find that Eve de Clavering at her
death had the manor of Audley and a tthid part of the manor of Endon,
Staffordshire which she held "for life in dower" ... "by endowment of
Thomas de Audelegh, her late husband, the reversion after her death
belonging to the said James [de Audley, lord of Heleigh] as kinsman
and heir of Thomas." [Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post
Mortem, 13 (1954): 126 (IPM of Eve late the wife of Robert de
Benhale)].

Elsewhere, I find that property in Audley, Staffordshire was held in
1327 by Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, as
indicated by the subsidy roll of that year [Reference: Collections for
a History of Staffordshire, 7 (1886): 206]. James de Audley surely
held this property in right of his wife, Eve's dower from her first
marriage to his cousin, Thomas de Audley.

I also find that In 1354 Richard le Cooper, parson of Audley,
Staffordshire, was attached at the suit of Robert de Benhale [4th
husband of Eve de Clavering] for forcibly breaking into his park at
Audley, Staffordshire in 1351, chasing his game, cutting down his
trees, and taking his goods and chattels to the value of £10, and
likewise three hares, six rabbits, forty partridges, and ten pheasants
worth 100s., and for which he claimed £100 as damages [Reference:
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 14)
(1893): 82].

It is clear from these various records that Eve de Clavering held
dower in Audley, Staffordshire from her first marriage to Thomas de
Audley.

I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
< says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she
be given her
< dower- instead it is a grant of Thomas' brother Nicholas' marriage
to
< Despencer, and specifically records that Thomas had died a minor
and unmarried!

This is an interesting record, but flawed. Thomas de Audley was a
minor at the time of his death, but he was not unmarried. At the
very least, he was contracted to marry Eve de Clavering at the time of
his death. Eve was at best 12 years old when Thomas died, possibly
even younger. In this time period, a couple usually consumated a
marriage when the woman was 13 or 14. Even if the marriage was
unconsumated, a contract for marriage was treated as a de facto
marriage in this time period. On the whole, I'd say this record
suggests that the marriage of Thomas and Eve had not been consumated
when Thomas died, which would explain why the statement is made that
Thomas was unmarried. The assignment of dower to Eve in the event of
Thomas' death before the consumation of their marriage was probably
covered by their contract for marriage. Such clauses in marriage
contracts were common in this period.

< I would also be grateful to Douglas, were he to be able to post
the text
< from pages 338 and 342 of the Chester-Waters book, pages which I
still cannot
< access on google books.

I'll look for my copy of Waters today in my mass of books and papers.
Wish me luck.
Post by M***@aol.com
Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.
Actually there was "Heleigh" to pay for marrying a widow in the king's
gift without the king's license (pun intended). Usually the devil was
happy to take money from the couple for their egregious sin.

< Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the
death of
< James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and
his
< subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince.
Froissart was an
< exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company
of the
< Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and
burial in 1373,
< according to the Oxford DNB.
< Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated
that this
< James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.

Yes, agreed.

< With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
< < Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley,
presented to
< < the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
< Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have
presented to
< the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible.
Blythburgh
< belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in
1331: see the
< lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in
that year
< in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her
own right,
< her husband being already dead, and her father having died very
recently.

Yes, agreed. Since there was no inquistion at the time Eve de
Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, died, the only way for
Waters to know that James de Audley was dead in 1332 would be if the
record he saw stated that Eve, as his widow, presented to the church
of Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332. At least this is the way I have
interpreted Waters and I believe it is the correct interpretation.

< Finally (for the moment) I would like to thank Douglas Richardson,
John
< Ravilious, Rosie Bevan, Peter Stewart and Will Johnson for their
contributions to
< this discussion. both on and off list

You're quite welcome, Michael.

< MM

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 20:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
< If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment
of Eve's
< dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any
other
< marriage) I hope he will post it.
In answer to Michael's request, I find that Eve de Clavering at her
death had the manor of Audley and a tthid part of the manor of Endon,
Staffordshire which she held "for life in dower" ... "by endowment of
Thomas de Audelegh, her late husband, the reversion after her death
belonging to the said James [de Audley, lord of Heleigh] as kinsman
and heir of Thomas." [Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post
Mortem, 13 (1954): 126 (IPM of Eve late the wife of Robert de
Benhale)].
Elsewhere, I find that property in Audley, Staffordshire was held in
1327 by Eve de Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, as
indicated by the subsidy roll of that year [Reference: Collections for
a History of Staffordshire, 7 (1886): 206]. James de Audley surely
held this property in right of his wife, Eve's dower from her first
marriage to his cousin, Thomas de Audley.
Not necessarily. It is quite usual to find cadet branches as tenants
on family estates
Post by Douglas Richardson
I also find that In 1354 Richard le Cooper, parson of Audley,
Staffordshire, was attached at the suit of Robert de Benhale [4th
husband of Eve de Clavering] for forcibly breaking into his park at
Audley, Staffordshire in 1351, chasing his game, cutting down his
trees, and taking his goods and chattels to the value of £10, and
likewise three hares, six rabbits, forty partridges, and ten pheasants
Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 14)
(1893): 82].
It is clear from these various records that Eve de Clavering held
dower in Audley, Staffordshire from her first marriage to Thomas de
Audley.
The first place to look for any dower allocation of a widow of a
tenant in chief is in the Close Rolls.
Post by Douglas Richardson
I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
< says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she
be given her
< dower- instead it is a grant of Thomas' brother Nicholas' marriage
to
< Despencer, and specifically records that Thomas had died a minor
and unmarried!
This is an interesting record, but flawed. Thomas de Audley was a
minor at the time of his death, but he was not unmarried. At the
very least, he was contracted to marry Eve de Clavering at the time of
his death. Eve was at best 12 years old when Thomas died, possibly
even younger. In this time period, a couple usually consumated a
marriage when the woman was 13 or 14. Even if the marriage was
unconsumated, a contract for marriage was treated as a de facto
marriage in this time period. On the whole, I'd say this record
suggests that the marriage of Thomas and Eve had not been consumated
when Thomas died, which would explain why the statement is made that
Thomas was unmarried. The assignment of dower to Eve in the event of
Thomas' death before the consumation of their marriage was probably
covered by their contract for marriage. Such clauses in marriage
contracts were common in this period.
This is incorrect. A widow was entitled to full dower from the age of
nine. Paul Reed gave some very interesting posts on this which can be
found in the sgm archives. A reading of Pollock and Maitland's,
'History of English law' would improve your knowledge if you are hazy
in this area. As a widow of a tenant in chief, it was up to the king
to allocate her dower. In this case it was at least very substantial
138 pounds worth per annum of property and assets.
Post by Douglas Richardson
< I would also be grateful to Douglas, were he to be able to post
the text
< from pages 338 and 342 of the Chester-Waters book, pages which I
still cannot
< access on google books.
I'll look for my copy of Waters today in my mass of books and papers.
Wish me luck.
If you don't find it, no doubt there is a copy in the FHL which you
frequent.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by M***@aol.com
Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.
Actually there was "Heleigh" to pay for marrying a widow in the king's
gift without the king's license (pun intended). Usually the devil was
happy to take money from the couple for their egregious sin.
< Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the
death of
< James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and
his
< subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince.
Froissart was an
< exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company
of the
< Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and
burial in 1373,
< according to the Oxford DNB.
< Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated
that this
< James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.
Yes, agreed.
< With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
< < Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley,
presented to
< < the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
< Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have
presented to
< the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible.
Blythburgh
< belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in
1331: see the
< lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in
that year
< in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her
own right,
< her husband being already dead, and her father having died very
recently.
Yes, agreed. Since there was no inquistion at the time Eve de
Clavering's third husband, Sir James de Audley, died, the only way for
Waters to know that James de Audley was dead in 1332 would be if the
record he saw stated that Eve, as his widow, presented to the church
of Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332. At least this is the way I have
interpreted Waters and I believe it is the correct interpretation.
< Finally (for the moment) I would like to thank Douglas Richardson,
John
< Ravilious, Rosie Bevan, Peter Stewart and Will Johnson for their
contributions to
< this discussion. both on and off list
You're quite welcome, Michael.
Cheers

Rosie
Peter Stewart
2007-04-19 22:57:11 UTC
Permalink
"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

<snip>
Since there was no inquistion at the time Eve de Clavering's third
husband, Sir James de Audley, died, the only way for Waters to
know that James de Audley was dead in 1332 would be if the
record he saw stated that Eve, as his widow, presented to the
church of Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1332. At least this is the way
I have interpreted Waters and I believe it is the correct
interpretation.
But Waters says on the same page that Eve was the widow of James in 1332 and
that it is certain he was dead in 1333 - these are not necessarily
incompatible, but in the context the second statement is redundant if the
first os correct. Have you not considered that one or other was a misprint?
And unless the authority given by Waters on one of the missing pages can
justify a conclusion that he saw Eve descibed as the "widow" of James in an
original document of their time, a mere belief about what he meant is
wishful thinking, not evidence.

Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
2007-04-19 19:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@aol.com
<Eve de Clavering married (2nd) before 2 December 1308 Sir Thomas de
<Ufford. Her dower from her first Audley marriage was not assigned to
<her until after she had married Sir Thomas de Ufford, which indicates
<that she was too immature at the time of her first husband's death to
<then be awarded dower. The assignment of her dower is recorded in
<Collectanea Top. et Gen., 7 (1841): 51-52
In fact the assignment of Eve's dower is not recorded in the article cited
by Mr Richardson, the article does not mention her marriage to Thomas Ufford,
and the article concludes, contrary to Mr Richardson's belief- and also to
mine-, that Eve had only two husbands, namely Thomas Audley and Robert de
Benhale.
If Douglas Richardson knows of some other source for the assignment of Eve's
dower from her marriage to Thomas Audley, (or indeed from any other
marriage) I hope he will post it. I do not think that Rosie Bevan is right when she
says that CPR v.1, p 27 is a record of the king ordering that she be given her
dower-
The reference for the allocation of Eve's dower is CR, 1308-1313, p.
27
Post by M***@aol.com
Meanwhile, the PRO reference to Thomas' IPM, dated 1 Edw II, is C134/5/1.
Then there is an interesting record in CPR Edw II v.1, p. 72, dated 22nd May
1208, of a grant to Thomas de Ufford of the marriage of Eva, late the wife of
Thomas de Aldithlegh, tenant in chief, or of any fine incurred by her by
marrying without licence.
Was there "hell to pay in the House of Lords
when he went and married one of his wards"? - apologies to W.S.Gilbert.
This was usual practice in medieval times.
Post by M***@aol.com
Another useful source is Froissart, who specifically records the death of
James Audley, hero of Poitiers, at Fontenay le Comte in 1369, and his
subsequent burial at Poitiers in the presence of the Black Prince. Froissart was an
exact contemporary of James Audley, and was regularly in the company of the
Black Prince: he wrote his account of James Audley's death and burial in 1373,
according to the Oxford DNB.
Sundry writers, including Dugdale and many others who have stated that this
James was of the Helegh branch of the family, are plain wrong.
With regard to a separate point made by Rosie Bevan:-
< Waters clearly states that Eve, wife of James de Audley, presented to
< the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk as his "widow" in 1332
Rosie goes on to discuss the possibility that James might have presented to
the living of Blythburgh. But this is not in fact possible. Blythburgh
belonged to Eve's father Sir John Clavering, who was still alive in 1331: see the
lurid accounts of his persecution of the inhabitants of Dunwich in that year
in the National Archives. Eve was presenting to the living in her own right,
her husband being already dead, and her father having died very recently.
Eve also had advowsons as dower from her first marriage. If James de
Audley presented to any of tbese it would be good indication of a
marriage.


Cheers

Rosie
M***@aol.com
2007-04-29 19:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Will Johnson has helpfully posted some documentation on
_www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Eve_de_Clavering#Primary_documenta
tion_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Eve_de_Clavering#Primary_documentation)

I have ventured to add a translation of the Close Roll record to Will's page.
Hope that is ok, Will?
If I have got the translation right, it seems to show that Eve did indeed
marry Thomas Audley as her first husband, and Thomas de Ufford as her second.
Also that Thomas Audley apparently had a child and heir (not necessarily by
Eve), whose inheritance was in the custody first of Piers Gaveston and then
(by assignment) of Bertrand de Cayllou.
MM
wjhonson
2007-05-02 02:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Another factor that speaks toward Eve de Clavering's first husband
Thomas de Audley *not* being that minor heir in the custody of Hugh le
Despencer is the following

CPR E2V1 page 144 - Membrane 19
1308 Nov 10 - Westminster
"License for Katherine, late the wife of Nicholas de Aldithelegh, to
grant all lands which she holds in dower of the inheritence of
Nicholas de Aldithelegh, her son, to her said son, charged with a
yearly payment to herself of 100L for her sustenance."

CP identifies the above Katherine as Katherine Gifford who was living
in 1322 as a nun at Ledbury. Possibly here she is entering the
nunnery and so grant her lands. But on 10 Nov 1308 to whom does she
grant? To her rightful heir, the presumably only child of her eldest
son Thomas who we know by the Close Rolls was still LIVING as late as
9 Mar 1309 (the year called "second year [of my reign]" cannot mean
1308).

No, she grants to Nicholas her second son, who by the way is also not
the custodian of the body of his alledged nephew. Possibly because
Nicholas himself is still a minor *at this time*, which is odd.

She grants to a minor, not his guardian Hugh le Despencer and she
grants all her lands to her second son, instead of her grandson then
living, who by the way, also isn't in her custody.

And who the heck is Bertrand de Cayllou that he should have custody of
the body of the grandson anyway?

Of course, that Thomas d'Audley first husband of Eve de Clavering
isn't in fact a member of this family, would wipe all these problems
away.

Will Johnson
m***@btinternet.com
2007-05-02 10:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@aol.com
Will Johnson has helpfully posted some documentation on
_www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Eve_de_Clavering#Primary_d...
tion_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Eve_de_Clavering#Pr...)
I have ventured to add a translation of the Close Roll record to Will's page.
Hope that is ok, Will?
If I have got the translation right, it seems to show that Eve did indeed
marry Thomas Audley as her first husband, and Thomas de Ufford as her second.
Also that Thomas Audley apparently had a child and heir (not necessarily by
Eve), whose inheritance was in the custody first of Piers Gaveston and then
(by assignment) of Bertrand de Cayllou.
MM
See my note elsewhere - should we not consider that the appropriate
translation of "q.f. ejusdem Thomas h'uit" is "which the brother
[frater] of the said Thomas held" - i.e. there was no such son? The
apparently conflicting evidence that Thomas's heir is otherwise known
to have been his minor brother, Nicholas, would therefore remain
undisturbed.

MAR
M***@aol.com
2007-05-03 14:58:56 UTC
Permalink
mjcar writes:

<It seems as logical to me from the context of the document, and more
<logical given what else is known of the genealogy, if "f" is taken to
<stand for "frater" rather than "filius"

The very same thought had belatedly occurred to me, Michael: I think you
must be right, as usual.
MM
Loading...