GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1060769776


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Date: 13 Aug 2003 10:16:16 GMT
References: <bhculb$ccr$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>


Thanks for the observations, Chris.

The VCH Sussex was not able to directly trace the manor of Wykes/Wikes, alias
Rumboldswyke, earlier than what I presented, aside from the Domesday account.

As soon as we have an account of this manor, it is held of the main line of the
Toeni family. The way Godehuet seemed to be engaged in these dealings made me
think it was held in her right, such as by a marriage portion, rather than it
was held only for dower of a dead husband (she technically could not have
granted anything held solely as dower, as it was only a life interest, held
until her death).

If Wikes/Wykes was Godeheut's marriage portion, granted by the Toeni family,
they would typically keep the overlordship, which is exactly what we see here.


We cannot tell if there was at some point a private transaction which settled
the manor on Godeheut, to remain to her daughter Eustache (other lands being
settled on her other daughter). Eustache was called HER eldest daughter, and
was definitely daughter of William de Planch'/Planches, but I guess the wording
would not preclude a younger daughter being born (to Geoffrey Peverel).

Geoffrey held land in the vill of Stiuelye/Estieulye, which is apparently
Styuicle mentioned in a later account of the rent given by Geoffrey to the
Priory of Fontevrault. This would apparently be Stewkley, Bucks., near
Leighton Buzzard. Amesbry [Wilts.] was a house of nuns of Fontevrault. The
priory of Grave/Grove/ Grovebury or Leighton Buzzard [Beds.] was a dependancy
of Fontevrault.

We therefore still have Godeheut [de Toeni] having a daughter, Eustache, by
WIlliam de Plaunch' before 1201, a son [surname not specified, who died without
issue] and a younger daughter [not specified].

The law concerning tenancy by curtesy held that "so soon as a child is born of
the marriage, which child would, if it lived long enough, be its mother's heir,
the husband gains the right to hold the wife's land during his whole life.
This right endures even though the wife died leaving no issue and the
inheritance falls to one of her collateral kinsmen; it endures even though the
husband married a second time." [Maitland 2:414] "of this marriage portion the
husband on the birth of issue becomes tenant by the law of England." In
Normandy the husband lost the right if he married again.

But the husband held he land as guardian, instigated by the birth of the heir.
"Here in England the husband keeps out the feudal lord even though the infant
heir is not the husband's child. The lawyers can not explain this, and, to be
frank, we can not explain it." [Maitland 2:417]

If no child was born, the husband loses the right to his dead wife's lands at
her death.

Clearly Geofrey and Godeheut had some holding in Somerset by 1201 and in years
following. Robert de Almary/Amauri/Ameri was involved in 1201 and 1212, and a
suit in 1212 of Geoffrey Peverel versus Robert de Ameri concerning lands in
Sussex and Somerset mentions a cirographum [final concord] "per Willelmum de
Wikes" [?William de Plaunches?]. Three knights fees in Sussex were apparently
involved [my notes are sketchy].

It is also curious that a charter of WIlliam de St. John and his wife, the
younger Godeheut, dated December 1222, is witnessed by William de Godiuode (in
another place Godiwoude) [Round states this is an early form of Goodwood], and
Geoffrey de Godiuewod and his wife Sarah were tenants of John de Wykes listed
in his grant to Hubert de Warham.

Paul

This thread: