GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-10 > 1066818551
Subject: Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
Date: 22 Oct 2003 10:29:11 GMT
On a hunch, I had checked Paget's typescript Baronage before I had any idea
Chris would make a post. The Botetourt account is just a hand drawn pedigree
chart, which states John de Botetourt, d. 1385, m. c. 28 Nov. 1358, Maud de
Grey, daughter of John de Grey, citing "Pat. 23 Edw 3 p. 2. m. 13" and that by
her John was father of two daughters, Elizabeth, and Joyce [who Paget says m.
(1) Baldwin Freville, and (2) Adam de Peshal] Paget also states that John (d.
1385) m. (2) Joyce le Zouche, by whom he was father of John de Botetourt (d.
1369, who married Maud de Grey, daughter of John of Rothersfield), and four
other daughters, Maud, abbess of Poleswick, Agnes, a nun at Elstow, Alice, m.
John Keyriel (family account #160 and Catherine, m. Maurice de Berkeley.
[Note that each family is assigned a number. This would be the first number
referred to by Faris, the second number after the colon being the volume of the
In the section of Grey of Rothersfield, however, under the first Lord Grey,
Paget gives the daughter Maud, wife of John de Botetourt, as afterwards married
to Thomas Harcourt. No Maud is given as daughter of the 2nd Lord John.
I did not find any documentary evidence that the elder John de Botetourt
married a first wife. He definitely married Joyce by 31 May 1347 (CPR Edw. III
7:351), and she was also called his wife 28 May 1353 (CPR 9:445), 6 July 1355
(CPR 10:259) and 28 Nov. 1358.
BUT, CP WAS AWARE of the 1347 marriage date, so apparently whatever was seen by
CP did not cause a doubt in the editor's mind.
There was a Maud who was wife of John de Botetourt, father of Thomas, father of
John who married Joyce, but it is obvious - as she was heir to the running of
the dies and mint at the Tower of London, which she granted to William le
Latymer the elder in 1329, which was confirmed in 1373 (CPR Edw. III 1:391, 23
May 1329, where she is called Matilda and CPR 15:363 where she is called Maud -
that she was Maud/Matilda Fitz Otes, whose ancestry was traced in an
interesting article which appeared in TAG.
John de Botetourt was a minor in 1338, but given livery anyway, which means he
was born after 1317. It is easily believable that he married before 1347 (by
which time he was husband of Joyce). The question would be, how much earlier
than 1347 was John married to Joyce, and if not much earlier, was he married
Joyce's son John de Botetourt was father of John who was born 1362. John son
of Joyce died 1369.
On 6 Jan. 1326 (CPR 5 Edw. II, p. 207) John son of John Buttetourt received
license to celebrate masses for the soul of John, and of Maud, late the wife of
John, concerning Belchamp William, Essex, and on 8 January 1326 license to Maud
late wife of John de Botetourt to grant in fee tail land and advowson of
Belchamp Otes to John son of John de Botetourt with remainder to Robert and
Otes his brothers. The Essex lands descended to John, younger brother of
Thomas de Botetourt.
The 1358 marriage settlement of Maud de Grey, daughter of John de Grey of
Rotherfeld [sic] to John de Botetourt, son of John, obviously concerned the son
of Joyce (as his father was son of Thomas, and the youngest John was not born
until 1362). This Maud involved in 1358 was the one who then married Thomas
Harcourt after John de Botetourt's death.
CPR Edw. III 6:334 3 Aug. 1344 John son of John de Grey of Rotherfield going
beyond the seas. CP attributes this to the younger John.
CPR 8:221 5 Dec. 1348, Gerard Salvayn of Herswell, grandson and heir of Robert
de Roos of Werk had license confirming what he had recovered from Miles de
Stapleton of Cotherston and John son of John de Grey of Rothersfield, heirs of
Brian Fitz Alan and his wife Maud. He succeeded by judgement [sic] rendered on
verdict of the great assize by writ of right in court of Queen Philippa of Werk
CPR Edw. III, 1358-1361, 11:125:
28 Nov. 1358 "Licence for John Buttetourt of Weoleye, knight, and Joyce, his
wife, to grant to John son of the said John and Maud, daughter of John de Grey
of Rotherfeld and the heirs of their bodies, the manor of Little Lynnesford,
co. Buckingham, held in chief. By K."
11:127, 28 Nov. 1358: "Licence for John Buttetourt of Weeleye, knight, to grant
to his son John and Maud daughter of John de Grey of Rotherfeld, in tail the
manors of Lynneford and Wouketon, co. Buckingham, held in chief, with reversion
to the grantor and his heirs. By K. [Vacated because otherwise below.]"
11:274, 25 Sep. 1359, "Protection, for the good service done by John de Grey of
Rotherfeld, late steward of the household, for Avice late the wife of John de
Grey of Rotherfeld, Ralph Restwold and John de Ludham, executors of the will of
the said John, and for his goods, that the execution of the will be not
impeded. By K."
I checked the entries in the years earlier, and though Grey of Rothersfield was
a barony by writ, he was never styled "baron" or lord, so the lack of such a
STATEMENT means nothing.
John de Grey of Rothersfield, who became 1st Lord Grey, was a minor until 1322
(his lands were held in wardship by Hugh Despenser the elder), which means he
was born about 1301. He died 1359, and was steward of the King's household.
His son and heir John would have been born not that many years after 1322,
given the birthdate of his son's daughter by 1368. John, 1st Lord Grey,
married (1) Catherine Fitz Alan, and (2) Avice Marmion, which Avis was still
alive in 1379, having survived the son of the first wife, and that son's son,
and the lather's daughter.
John de Grey, 2nd Lord, succeeded his father in 1359, and in 1361 entailed the
manor of Somerton on his son John, and that son's intended wife Elizabeth de
Poynings. This youngest John was dead by 1368, when his widow Elizabeth was
allowed the manor with her daughter, but by 1375, Somerton was granted as dower
to Maud, wife of John 2nd Lord who died in 1375. Somerton is covered in VCH
Oxford. 6:291-2. Fringford, VCH Oxford 6:127 also comes into play, and had
been part of the dower of Joan de Valoines (d. 1312), widow of Robert de Grey
who d. 1295 (parents of John, who d. 1311, father of John, 1st Lord).
In 1358, the manor and advowson of Woughton, Bucks., was settled by John de
Botetourt and Joyce on their son John on the occasion of his marriage to Maud,
daughter of John de Grey of Rothersfield. VCH Bucks. 4:516 citing CPR, p. 127,
and "Feet of F. case 20, file 94, no. 14". CIPM Edw. III found that John de
Botetourt, jr., died in 1369 seised of the manor of Woughton, his son John was
aged seven and his heir (b. abt. 1362). But Maud survived and married Thomas
Harcourt, holding the manor in dower until her death in January 1393/4, CIPM 17
Rich. II, no. 32. It found [according to VCH Bucks.] that her son John was
already dead, her heir was her daughter Joyce, wife of Hugh Burnell, who had
already made a settlement in favor of Thomas Harcourt in 1386. "Feet of F.
Div. Co. 10 Rich. II, no. 149."
Thomas Harcourt also held an interest in the manors of Little Linford (VCH
Bucks. 4:393) and Newport Paganel (VCH Bucks. 4:415), which had been settled on
John de Botetourt and Maud in 1358.
CCR Rich. II, 1392-6, 5:197-8, 22 Feb. 1394, orders the escheator to give Hugh
Burnell, knight, and Joyce his wife livery of the manors of Neuport Paynell and
Little Lynford, as the king has learned by inquisition that Maud who was wife
of Thomas Harcourt knight at her death held the manor of Neuport Paynell by
virtue of a fine levied at Westminster the quinzaine of St. Hilary 33 Edw. III
between John Bottourt of Weoley knight and Joyce his wife plaintiffs and Thomas
Shyrref parson of Sheldesley and Henry Haukeserd chaplain deforciants,
remainder of grant to John son of the said John, and to Maud daughter of John
de Grey of Retherfylde [sic] and the heirs of their bodies, and that Maud
daughter of John de Grey is the same Maud who was wife of Thomas de Harcourt,
that she held the manor of Little Lynford by virtue of a fine levied three
weeks after Michaelmas 32 Edw. III between John son of John Bottourrt and the
said Maud plaintiffs, and the said John Bottourt and Joyce deforciants, granted
to the plaintiffs, the heirs of their bodies, that John Bottourt, Joyce [his
wife] and John the son are now dead, that with the king's licence a fine was
likewise levied on the morrow of the Ascension 9 Rich. II, the said Hugh and
Joyce deforciants, reversion after Maud's death to the deforciants and the
heirs of Joyce, wife of Hugh. Other manors and mentioned later concerning Hugh
if he should outlive her.
John de Botetourt was married to Joyce by 1347, but CP knew that. If there was
a previous marriage to Maud de Grey, that Maud/Matilda would be at least age
12, or born by 1335, if not more likely before 1325. As John de Grey was dead
in 1311, and his son and heir John de Grey, who became 1st Lord Grey, was
apparently born about 1301, and attained majority in 1322, it would make sense
based on chronological grounds that any Maud of that generation would be his
The younger John de Botetourt was son of Joyce, and died in 1369, leaving a son
John who was born in 1362, and a daughter Joyce who eventually succeeded and
was likely born between the marriage in 1358 and 1361.
But if this Maud de Grey was fairly young at the arranged marriage which did
not take place before 1358, by Doug's usual reasoning she should have been
close to age 12 (not much older), or born about 1346.
More likely she was of childbearing age, or born by about 1340-2. John de
Grey, who became 2nd Lord Grey, was the one who received letters of protection
in 1344 according to CP. His THIRD surviving son Bartholomew [this is a
correction to CP] was born about 1351, or possibly 4 years earlier according to
one out of five IPMs for his father. Bartholomew's eldest brother John was to
be married about 1361, so presumably at least age 14, or born by 1347. As I
noted above, he'd fathered a daughter by Elizabeth de Poynings before his death
which occurred by 8 Feb. 1367/8.
The Maud de Grey who was married in 1358 to the John de Botetourt who was born
in the period about 1340-44, would likely be a little younger, and thus indeed
born about 1342-6.
That would place her, by deduction, as (1) daughter of John de Grey of
Rothersfield who was 2nd Lord Grey, or (2) son of the 1st lord by his 2nd wife
Avice Marmion, as Avice's son John de Grey was aged 16 or more in 1359, or born
But note that John de Grey, 1st Lord Grey, had two sons named John, both being
heirs of each wife, so what would prevent a Maud by both wives? The 2nd John
de Grey also had a first and second son named John, presumably by the same
wife. The John who was going beyond the seas in 1344 and became 2nd Lord Grey
had a wife named Maud, so he would be expected to have a daughter named Maud.
All that being said, we turn to Blore's _History of Rutland_, 90, 167 and 209.
In the first chart of the Botetourt family (p. 90), He gives "Matilda, dau. of
John de Grey Baron Grey, of Rotherfield' as first wife of the elder John de
Bottetourt [sic], mother of two daughters, "Elizabeth, mar. 27 Edw. 3 to
Baldwin Freville, of Tamworth Castle, Knt. or perhaps was only contracted to
him.--VIDE DUGDALE'S WARWICKSHIRE, UNDER TAMWORTH [emphasis added]" and "Joyce,
married first to B[aldwin]. Freville, and aft. to A. Peshale, and was coheir in
blood of her father (Esc. [i.e., IPM] 8 Hen. 4, n. 64)-ob. 8 Hen. 5."
On page 209, the second "Bottetourt Pedigree," Blore makes reference to the
account on p. 90: "Some errors having occurred in the statement of the pedigree
of this family ... the descent of the Barony of Bottetourt is here given from
most authentic documents...."
In this account, Joyce is given as only wife of the elder John. "Matilda, dau.
of John Grey, Baron Grey, of Rotherfield" is given only as wife of the younger
John, with Elizabeth and Joyce as her daughters, with the other siblings. More
surprisingly, in the Grey account (p. 167), Blore gives Matilda, wife of John
de Botetourt, as daughter of John de Grey by HIS FIRST WIFE Catherine Fitz
Alan, not daughter of Avice Marmion. No Maud/Matilda is given in the next
generation, but the second son John is also missed.
I cannot conceive that CP had not seen Blore, but CP would also have been aware
of all of the pedigrees in Blore. I have not checked Dugdale yet to see what
I could conclude that Doug, as he has done many times in the past, followed
Paget in placing Maud as daughter of the 1st Lord Grey of Rothersfield.
However, given the errors in Paget and other sources, and taking an independent
look at original sources, at this point I'm inclined to think Maud de Grey,
wife of the younger John de Botetourt, was daughter of the 2nd Lord Grey by his
wife Maud, rather than daughter of Avice Marmion. I'd like to see evidence
Also, I could not see any source that would give the elaborate tomb of Maud (de
Grey) (de Botetourt) de Harcourt in the north wall of the church at Stanton
Harcourt. The heraldry on that tomb, as Chris rightly observed, would likely
give us the identity of her mother, and thus her parents.
|Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings by (Reedpcgen)|