GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1010972004


From: Cristopher Nash <c@windsong.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: A New Bohun Daughter Discovered
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:36:41 +0000
References: <001d01c19c1f$3a81f840$840586d9@oemcomputer>
In-Reply-To: <001d01c19c1f$3a81f840$840586d9@oemcomputer>


Chris Phillips <> wrote --

>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.

Given the obvious confusion as to the very name of Theobald I's Bohun
wife, for a start -- perhaps Hagger's confusion alone although, if
so, I'm still at a loss as to how to explain it -- I'll simply give
without comment Hagger's list of their children in the order in which
he reports them to be named in Theobald's will: John, d. 1297 in
Ireland; Theobald (II); Milo; Bertram; Nicholas; Walter;
William; Roesia. "A case of 1304 names a Bartholomew as being one
of Theobald's sons, while another son, Robert, was active in Ireland
and pre-eminent in the 'Riot of Louth' of 1312". Robert's Irish
activities are in fact the subject of considerable discussion, and
there is more about the others, except for Walter, William and
Roesia, about "nothing is known" [pp. 251-2; anyone using Hagger's
opening Verdun genealogical chart (p. 16) will need to note that it
gives some but not all the children in each generation].
Incidentally, Hagger's index yields no Robert who would appear to
coincide with 'Robert de W'; an executor of Nicholas de Verdun (d.
1231) is a Robert de Wootton, but evidently too early for
consideration here.

I really do think that so long as matters regarding the
'Margery/Matilda de Bohun' case remain as fluid as they appear at
present, it would be unwise to ignore that Theobald I de Verdun's
mother is an Alianor de Bohun, about whom Hagger says (all too
elliptically, for my money) she "also seems to have produced a son,
called Humphrey after the bride's father" [p. 251].

>(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.

My instinctive impulse has been simply to suggest Hagger be asked
some of our recent questions, but I've 'sat on it'. In past years
I've expressed considerable embarrassment, not to mention venting
some rant, re our hesitation on this forum - sometimes as if to cut
off a nose to spite a face - to take up the potentially rich
possibility of openly inviting the occasional participation of
historians actively working among precisely the documents where
answers to our questions may lie before them on their desks. Not all
would be equally responsive (or - since we may sometimes aim to
question their statements - wish to hang around). But I for one am
happy to respond when people come to me with questions from other
fields - I make a point of it, they've no reason to hesitate - and we
know well how much has been gained from the commentary of a few
who've voluntarily joined us when they could (Nat Taylor and John
Parsons come readily to mind). Still, I won't go on about this,
since in my area I've nothing to lose, as some professionals here may
feel they have, where genealogical research is concerned; I'm an
out-and-out amateur here and there's much more to be said for the
preservation of the informal, amateur (in the best, 'British' sense
of the word) tone we manage to keep here. We may make our gains at a
slower pace, that's all. I'd just be sorry if anyone thought it's
'friendlier' for all that; historians ain't all that bad!

So, meantime, as above, when it seems helpful, with others here I'll
keep plugging away at reciting 2d/3dhand what they say on paper,
leaving to good old conjecture what looks problematic. I just hope
friends here won't mind if sometimes I mention that a writer
provoking questions happens to be a real person, alive and well and
working in --- .

Cheers!

Cris
--

This thread: