GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-04 > 1019212616


From: "leo van de pas" <>
Subject: Re: Did Isabel le Despenser marry Richard de Arundel and Maurice de Berkeley?
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:40:19 +1000
References: <5cf47a19.0204181246.f9cd424@posting.google.com>, <28bf3c9dc27572c294fa19f61361da99.66051@mygate.mailgate.org> <5cf47a19.0204182352.64cdd4e1@posting.google.com>


Dear Douglas,
How could you possibly EVER have thought that Isabel and Elizabeth were one
and the same person? How can you possibly say that Mary Fitzalan (married to
John Le Strange) was the sister and not the daughter of Richard Earl of
Arundel, who died 24 January 1375/6?

I understand, perhaps I am wrong, that Douglas Richardson assisted David
Faris with "Plantagenet Ancestry". I do not know how many editions there
have been, I can rely only on the first edition.

On page 55 Isabel Le Despenser was born about 1312. She was married on 9
February 1320/1 about 8 years old, to Richard FitzAlan (copped Hat) Earl of
Arundel. Their marriage was annulled 4 December 1344.
Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel, died 24 January 1375/6.
Children of Richard FitzAlan by Isabel Le Despencer :
1.Edmund FitzAlan
2.Mary FitzAlan, died 29 August 1363, married John Le Strange, 4th Lord
Strange. Of course, she the sister of a Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel,
but not the one who died in 1375/6, that one was her father according to
David Faris.

How well do you know the work you are involved with?
Page 61, gives us Alianore de Clare, who married Hugh Le Despencer and, on
page 62, we find a few of their children.
1.Edward Le Despencer, see next
2.Isabel Le Despencer, married Richard FitzAlan (see Cergeaux)
3.Elizabeth Le Despencer, married Maurice de Berkeley , (see Deighton)

Under Cerjeaux, page 55, we found Isabel Le Despencer born about 1312,
married 1320/1, annulled marriage 1344.

Under Deighton, page 82, Elizabeth La (sic) Despenser, was born no later
than 1327 (father hanged 24 November 1326). She was married in August 1338
to Maurice de Berkeley.

If Isabel's marriage was annulled in 1344, she could not possibly have
married in 1338.

Isabel was born about 1312, and Maurice de Berkeley about 1330. I have
pointed this out before, but Douglas Richardson has not replied to this.

To answer Douglas Richardson's request we only have to steer him to the work
he is involved with----it seems to give all the needed answers. Or is
Plantagenet Ancestry full with "Manifest Blunders"?

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Did Isabel le Despenser marry Richard de Arundel and Maurice de
Berkeley?


> "Peter Stewart" <> wrote in message
news:<>...
> > "Douglas Richardson" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >
> > > <chom>
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any records which would conclusively show that Isabel
> > > le Despenser did not marry secondly Maurice de Berkeley? As best as I
> > > see, the chronology permits the first Isabel's marriage to both
> > > Richard de Arundel and Maurice de Berkeley. Or did Hugh le Despenser
> > > have two daughters both named Isabel?
> >
> > I thought Maurice "the Valiant" de Berkeley was supposed to have married
> > his Elizabeth Despenser (or Isabel - these are versions of the same
> > name) in August 1338, rather than in or after 1344. Is that another
> > "manifest blunder"?
> >
> > Have you looked into the records of the Strange of Blackmere family?
> > Mary (died 29 August 1396), daughter of Richard "Copped-Hat" Fitz Alan
> > [sic] and Isabel Despenser, and putative half-sister under your theory
> > of Thomas "the Magnificent" Berkeley, married John Lestrange (died 12
> > May 1361).
> >
> > Peter Stewart
>
> Dear Peter ~
>
> Mary, wife of John le Strange, was the sister of Richard de Arundel,
> Earl of Arundel and Surrey (died 1376), not his daughter. For a full
> discussion of this matter, please consult the archives or Chris
> Phillips' interesting website which features corrections/additions to
> Complete Peerage. By the way, Mary's identification as Earl Richard's
> daughter is yet another "manifest blunder" in Complete Peerage. Only
> there she is called Isabel, which was her daughter-in-law's name.
> That just compounds the error! From this I conclude only that human
> beings are fallible. We all make manifest blunders.
>
> DR
>
>

This thread: