GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-09 > 1031766714


From: (Bryant Smith)
Subject: Re: Stuteville of Cottingham
Date: 11 Sep 2002 10:51:54 -0700
References: <019301c25159$246c1f00$de00a8c0@mshome.net> <a9b2ce02.0209050549.13561cfa@posting.google.com> <08be01c25653$7cf069c0$de00a8c0@mshome.net> <a9b2ce02.0209100845.160313a4@posting.google.com> <015501c25918$bad36ae0$de00a8c0@mshome.net>


Dear Rosie,

("Rosie Bevan") wrote in message news:<015501c25918$bad36ae0$>...

I join you in hoping that someone can come up with
Clay's paper, and I can't imagine how creating another
Devorgilla would solve the chronological problem which, as
I see it, is made worse not better by making Roland not Alan
the father of Devorgilla.

Before I need get to the child bearing history of Joan, I see
Clay's "unlikely" chronology in Devorgilla's own biography:

If Joan was already married when her father died in 1233,
she must have been married before 1234. If her maternal
grandfather married her maternal grandmother in 1209,
her mother Devorgilla must have been born after 1208.
Even allowing Devorgila dau of Alan to give birth at
age 15 to Joan, Joan would have to have been born
after 1223,and cannot have been older than 11 when
she married Hugh Wake. Even allowing for a posthumous
child of Hugh, his last child be Joan would have to have
been born by 1243, when Joan cannot have been older than
20.

1209
Alan of Galloway=====Margaret of Huntingdon
d 1234 |
ca 1233 |
John Baliol === Devorgilla === Nicholas de S
| d 1290 | d 1233
/ |
_______/ bef 1234 |
| Hugh Wake ===== Joan === Hugh Bigod
John d bef 1242
(youngest son)
born 1249 or 1255

But if we take John Baliol ygr's birthdate as 1249
we can compress Devorgilla's childbearing years down
to a paltry 25 (say 1224 - 1249) ending at an age of
say 40-ish, and the chronology might work.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica

<SNIP>
>
> Charles Clay believed the placement of Dervorguilla, wife of Nicholas de
> Stuteville, as daughter of Alan of Galloway is chronologically unlikely, but
> does not expound upon it in EYC. He wrote a paper on this - "Two
> Dervorguillas" in Eng. Hist. Review, lxv (1950), pp. 89-91 which I have not
> read.
>
> Examining this issue, at the death of Nicholas de Stuteville in 1233, he and
> Dervorguilla had a daughter, Joan, already married, who produced her first
> born son around 1238 (38 in 1276). That would make Joan born before 1223 and
> thus Devorguilla, her mother born before 1208. In all probability earlier
> than this - before 1204. Roland de Galloway died in 1200, so if her father,
> she would have to had been born before 1201. At the inquisitions taken
> after death of Dervorguilla in 1290, John Baliol her youngest son and heir
> is stated, to be "aged 40 at the Feast of St Michael last" and "aged 35".
> [CIPM ii no. 771].(CP I 385 appears to be in error in an unsourced statement
> saying he was born in 1240). The first date puts his birth in 1249, the
> second in 1255. This does not take into consideration the fact that she also
> had five daughters, as well as the three sons, who may have been born after
> her third son. For this to be the same Dervorguilla who produced Nicholas
> Stuteville's daughters in the early 1220s and John Balliol's children in the
> late 1230-50s, and died in 1290, it would mean a period of childbearing
> spanning over 30 years and a death in her late 80s. While not impossible, it
> would be unusual for the time.
>
> The Chronicle of Melrose has Dervorguilla married to Baliol in 1223 (Alan
> was married to Margaret of Huntingdon in 1209), which would conflict with
> the marriage of Dervorguilla and Nicholas de Stuteville. However such
> chronicles should be judged in the context in which they were written.
>
> If anyone has access to the above mentioned paper, I would be interested in
> Clay's analysis.
>
<SNIP>


This thread: