GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-01 > 1074031844


From: "Clagett, Brice" <>
Subject: Wahull to Osbaldeston; the manor of Chadlington
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:10:44 -0500


The Visitations of Oxfordshire, 1566, 1574 and 1634, Harl. Soc.
5:202, recites the following remarkable descent of the manor
of Chadlington Wahull, Oxfordshire, through six female lines.
(The first five generations have been supplemented and con-
firmed from Col. Hanseon's "The Barons of Wodhull," The Genealogist
7-8:14-15, 83 n.ll2.)

1. Michael de Wahull, d. by 1215; held Chadlington; m. Andrea ____.

2. Simon de Wahull, fl. 1230, d. by 1233; held Chadlington;
m. Joan ____.

3. Walter FitzSimon de Wahull, b. by 1279; held Chadlington.

4. Margaret de Wahull, heiress; m. Reginald de Watham, who held
Chadlington.

5. Isabel de Watham, heiress; m. Sir John FitzNigel (wrongly
called Sir John Lee in the Visitation account), of Boarstall, Bucks.

6. Jane FitzNigel, heiress; d. by 1325; m. Sir John de Haudlo, lst
Lord Haudlo. (CP 6:400.)

7. Sir Richard de Haudlo, d.v.p., 1343; m. Isabel, dau. of Sir
Amauri de St. Amand, 2d Lord St. Amand, and great-granddau. of Hugh
Le Despenser, Earl of Winchester. (CP 6:400-01, 11:299.)

8. Margaret de Haudlo, fl. 1358-66; said to have d. c. 1394;
coheiress of her brother, Edmund de Haudlo; m. (1) Gilbert de
Chastelleyn; (2) John de Appleby. (CP 6:401.)

9. Joan de Appleby, heiress; m. Roger Coghull.

10. Joan Coghull, heiress; m. John Osbaldeston, jure uxoris of
Chadlington.

11. John Osbaldeston, d. 1503; of Chadlington; m. Ann.

______________________________

There seem to be two problems with this descent:

1. While the manor of Chadlington purportedly passed straight
down, there is no reference to it among the FitzNigel or
Haudlo properties at CP 6:400-01.

2. According to CP 6:401, while Margaret de Haudlo (no. 8
above) was coheiress of her brother, her sister Elizabeth,
wife of Sir Edmund de la Pole, became in her issue sole heir
to that brother. See also CP 2:356. This of course implies
that Margaret's line failed and that the Osbaldestons must
have obtained Chadlington by some other means.

Help, any one? The answer may be in the Chancery ipm on
Edmund de Haudlo, Ed. III, file 140 no. 36, which I have not
seen.


This thread: