Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1027424662

From: Cristopher Nash <>
Subject: Re: The Kindred of Hugh le Despenser (revisited)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:44:42 +0100
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Yes John, I've had this supposed connection sitting teasingly before
me for years, although I finally dumped it into a junk file when
discussion here on balance left unproven John de Grey's marriage to
Anne de Ferrers, your couple's supposed daughter.
(The sequence of links that'd led me to think about Anne de Ferrers
was thus so weak as to leave me without a taste for it -- how
unprofessional can a guy get?!)
Like you -- per your posting of 15 Oct 01 <re: Mother of Henry, 2d
baron of Groby> -- I'd never seen any proof offered for the marriage
(in spite of the several allusions to their supposed da. Anne de
Ferrers by CP, DNB, Hervey (Glanville), and others as recently as
F.N. Craig ("The Glanvilles and Roger God-Save-the-Ladies", TAG, vol
71, chart p 204).

The recurrent formula 'said to be' has haunted the more serious
accounts -- not only in CP V, 341, but in CP VI ('Grey of
Codnor/Ruthin/Wilton' etc), 173-74: John de Grey (d. 1323) "m.,
1stly (it is said), Anne, da. of Sir William Ferrers, of Groby, co.
Leicester, by his 1st wife, Anne, da. of Sir Hugh le Despenser, of
Ryhall... &c". The problem with this standard locution is that --
unless it's meticulously placed -- it's often (as here) unclear how
much of the proposition to which it's attached is 'said to be' the
case and how much is thought 'known' to be the case. I may apply too
tough a standard in places like this in regularly reading the
entirety as suspect pending further information. It may be certain
that William Ferrers of Groby m. Anne, da. of Sir Hugh le Despenser,
whatever the truth may be about his having a daughter Anne who --
(etc). I just don't know any more now than we did back in Oct 01
about what evidence shows it to be certain, and I think your idea of
a search for record of a dispensation is one good fresh way of
getting at this thing.


wrote --

> One possible avenue of confirmation (accent on possible).
> In CP under Ferrers of Groby (vol. V, p. 341), G. W. Watson tells us that
>Sir William de Ferrers of Groby (d. bef 20 Dec 1287)
> '... m., lstly, Anne, said to have been da. of
> Sir Hugh le Despenser, of Ryhall,.... by Aline,
> da. and h. of Sir Philip Basset.....'
> This identification has not been questioned elsewhere that I have seen
>(although I have not seen it proven, either; Watson provides no sources on
>the subject........)
> IF this identification is correct, and IF my identification of the wife
>of Hugh le Despenser as a daughter of Saier IV de Quincy (see below) is
>correct, then this marriage would have placed the parties in the 3rd degree
>of consanguinity, to-wit:
> Saier IV = Margaret
> de Quincy I de Beaumont
> ________________I_________________________
> I I
> Roger de Quincy Hugh le = _________
> Earl of Winchester Despenser I de Quincy
> d. 25 Apr 1264 d. 1238 I
> = 1) Elena of Galloway I
> I I
> I I
> 1) Margaret = William de Ferrers Hugh le Despenser
> de Quincy I Earl of Derby of Ryhall & c.
> Lady of Groby I d. bef 29 Mar 1254 k. at Evesham
> d bef Mar I 1265
> 1280/1 I = Aline Basset
> I d bef Apr 1280/1
> I_________ I
> I I
> Sir William de Ferrers = Anne le Despenser
> of Groby, co. Leics. I lst wife
> I
> V
> It is certain that Sir William de Ferrers and his wife Anne, called 'Lady
>of Groby' (CP p. 343 note a) were the parents of Sir William de Ferrers, b.
>30 Jan 1271/2, the future lst Lord Ferrers (of Groby).
> Should anyone have access to a record of a dispensation for the marriage
>of Sir William and his wife Anne, in 1271 or before, that would be an
>interesting (and extremely helpful) piece of substantiation, or possible
> Thanks, good luck, and good hunting.
> John *
>* John P. Ravilious


This thread: