GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1010918644


From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: A New Bohun Daughter Discovered
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:44:04 -0000


Paul Mackenzie wrote:
> Looking through my notes I found the following Inq. post. mort. in 1295 on
> Gilbert de Clare, Earl, of (Gloucester and Hertford)
>
> "Worchester. Inq. Wednesday after St. Hilary, 24 Edw. 1.
> Bisseley. Two parts of the manor (extent given) held jointly with Joan
his
> wife of the king in chief and enfeoffment, service unknown, the third part
> is held by Margery late the wife of John de Breuse in dower of the
> inheritance of the said heirs of the said Gilbert. Gilbert his son, aged 5
> at the feast of St. Mark last is his nxt heir."
>
> Cal. Inq. post. mortem. Vol 3:p 234.

I presume that's a different manor, in Worcestershire (the one held by the
Bohuns was in Gloucestershire), although I can't see it on the map at the
moment.

[Renia Simmonds wrote:]
> > I'm not really following this thread, but what's the difficulty with
2nd-cousin
> > consanguinity?
[Douglas Richardson replied:]
> There is no difficulty is a second cousin marriage.
[Renia replied:]
That's what I thought. I just wondered why Chris saw a difficulty.

This is a perennial question, that I think was most recently discussed when
we were debating whether Clemence de Verdun was the mother of Kign John's
illegitimate daughter Joan.

I'm sure there are others better qualified to comment, but as I understand
it there should have been a dispensation for a marriage between 2nd cousins;
I think everyone agrees that the lack of a record of such a dispensation
cannot disprove a marriage, but if we are weighing circumstantial evidence
it has to be thrown into the balance.

The question here is which Humphrey de Bohun was Margery's father.
Chronologically, it must be either Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford
(d.1275) or his son Humphrey, who died before his father, in 1265, and was
therefore never earl (though his son, another Humphrey, was).

Taken at face value, the text of the Year Book quoted by Douglas Richardson
implies that Margery's father was the father of an Earl of Hereford. So that
would select the younger Humphrey (d.1265). But the only known wife of this
Humphrey, available as the mother of Margery, is Eleanor de Briouze. That
would imply a second-cousin marriage for Margery's son Theobald.

I still don't fully understand the report from the Year Book, but to me the
most natural reading seems to be that Margery's father Humphrey gave land to
Robert de W in free marriage with Margery, and later gave it to Theobald
[who must have been a later husband of Margery, from the other evidence].
But it was argued that at the time of the second gift, Margery was seised,
and Humphrey "had nothing in those tenements" for the previous 15 years.
Does this mean that the second gift was also in free marriage, and that the
first marriage had taken 15 years before? If so, and if both gifts were made
by Humphrey (d.1265), the chronology becomes awkward, with Margery's birth
being pushed back to about 1238 at the latest - probably earlier, but with
her second son Theobald born in 1278 - I'm not sure whether there were later
children as well - maybe Cris Nash's copy of Hagger's book would tell us.

(Maybe an alternative interpretation would be that the first gift to Robert
de W was by Humphrey junior before 1265, and the second to Theobald by
Humphrey junior, between 1265 and 1275. If so, the 15 year period before the
second gift might refer to a gift by Humphrey senior to Humphrey junior.)

That's rather speculative, as the report in the Year Book is a bit cryptic.
But if we opted for Humphrey (d.1275) as the father, the potential problems
of consanguinity and chronology would disappear. That would imply an error
in the Year Book, but that's not inconceivable given its status as a highly
compressed unofficial report, rather than a legal record.

I think really we need more evidence to be sure we have the right Humphrey.
With luck, perhaps the references that Cris Nash has provided may make
things clearer.

Chris Phillips









This thread: