GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1012251132


From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: Solution to the identity of Iseult. wife of Hugh de Audley
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:52:12 -0000


Douglas Richardson wrote:
> I've checked the chronology of the Deincourt and Mohun families. If
> Edmund Deincourt's wife Isabel was the daughter of Reynold de Mohun,
> then she almost certainly would be by his second marriage to Isabel de
> Ferrers. If doesn't seem possible for Edmund's wife to have been a
> daughter of Reynold de Mohun's lst wife, Hawise Fitz Geoffrey.
>
> However, as you note, Complete Peerage sub Derby, vol. 4, pg. 199,
> states that the issue of Isabel de Ferrers, wife of Reynold de Mohun,
> failed in 1324. This statement stands in conflict with the account of
> the Deincourt family in the same volume, which shows that the
> descendants of Isabel de Ferrers' daughter, Isabel (de Mohun)
> Deincourt, continued beyond 1324. I checked Complete Peerage, vol.
> 14, for a possible correction to this matter but found nothing under
> either Deincourt or Derby.
>
> VCH Bedford, 2 (1908): 351 sub Luton shows that Isabel de Ferrers'
> share of Luton, co. Bedford fell to her her son, William's daughter,
> Mary de Mohun, wife of John de Meriet. On John de Meriet's death in
> 1327, the Mohun share of Luton was redistributed to the heirs of
> Isabel de Ferrers' sisters, suggesting that her issue had indeed
> failed by that date. VCH Bedford cites as its source, Cal. IPM, 1
> Edward III, No. 51, which I haven't examined.
>
> If correct, then it is clear that Edmund Deincourt's wife was not
> Isabel de Ferrers' daughter, or if he did marry Isabel's daughter, her
> issue likewise failed in or before 1327. This would mean that Edmund
> Deincourt either never married Isabel de Ferrers' daughter, or that he
> had his surviving children by a different wife of whom we have no
> knowledge.

I've now looked at John de Meriet's inquisitions post mortem (Calendar of
Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol.7, no 46; pp.20-22). It does seem clear from
these that, as Complete Peerage states, the descendants of Isabel de Ferrers
were extinct by this time. John was holding lands of the inheritance of his
dead wife Mary, by the courtesy of England, in several counties, including
Bedfordshire. In these counties, the heirs are said to be Henry [fitz Piers]
and John de Beauchamp the elder of Somerset (these two being the
representatives of Maud de Kyme), John de Bohun of Sussex, John de Mohun* of
Dunster and Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh. (*John de Mohun appears here -
confusingly - in his capacity as the grandson of John de Mohun, who married
Joan de Ferrers, another of the sisters. This grandfather John thus married
his stepmother's sister.) These are exactly the heirs we should except from
the table showing the descendants of the Ferrers sisters in Complete
Peerage, vol.4, p.199.

> There is another avenue, however, which needs to be examined before we
> conclude that Isabel de Ferrers' issue failed before 1327. Sir H.C.
> Maxwell Lyte's book, History of Dunster, 1 (1909): 32-33 shows that
> Isabel de Ferrers had ten hides of land at Mildenhall, co. Wilts on
> her marriage to Reynold de Mohun. He also states that Isabel's son,
> Sir William de Mohun, inherited the manors of Mildenhall, in
> Wiltshire, and Greywell, in Hampshire "through his mother."
>
> If these statements are correct, then tracing the history of
> Mildenhall and Greywell might well be instructive. If the Deincourt
> family was later in possession of these estates, then it would appear
> that they were probably blood descendants of Isabel (de Ferrers) de
> Mohun.

This is slightly more confusing. John de Meriet's Hampshire inquisition post
mortem says that Greywell belong to a certain Reynold de Mohun, to him and
his heirs in fee, and that he gave it to William, his younger son, and the
heirs of his body. After stating that William's two daughters were dead,
leaving no issue, the inquisition adds that through the failure of William's
issue, the manor ought to revert to one John de Mohun, as kinsman and heir
of the said Reynold. John (aged 40 years and more) is said to be the son of
John, who was the son of John, who was the son of Reynold. (Again, this
agrees with the table in Complete Peerage - judging from the article on
Mohun, John must actually have been in his late 50s.)

A similar statement is made about the manor of Mildenhall in Wiltshire. (Not
realising this was the Mildenhall in Wiltshire, I looked in Copinger's
Manors of Suffolk (vol.4, p.188). Copinger made the same mistake (!), and
refers to an associated order to the escheator (Close Rolls 1 Edward III, pt
ii 24). Copinger was puzzled by which of the Mildenhall manors this was -
not surprising, as it was a manor in a different Mildenhall, in a different
county!)

Were it not for Maxwell Lyte's statement that Mildenhall came to the Mohuns
on Reynold's marriage with Isabel de Ferrers, those records would read as
implying that it was originally Mohun property that was settled on a younger
son, and when his issue became extinct reverted back to the head of the
family.

At any rate, it does seem clear that the Deincourts, and John de Willoughby,
could not be descendants of Isabel de Ferrers. This means that the proposal
that Iseult, the wife of Hugh Audley, was the daughter of Hugh de Mortimer
and Agatha de Ferrers doesn't account for James Audley's stated relationship
to John de Willoughby. (In fact - if we assume that Iseult had _some_ sort
of relationship with the Mortimers - it accounts for the relationship with
only one of the four men mentioned - Ralph de Ferrers.)

Chris Phillips


This thread: