Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-01 > 1074541761

From: "Clagett, Brice" <>
Subject: Wahull to Osbaldeston: the manor of Chadlington
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:49:21 -0500

Douglas Richardson's post of January 15 calls Isabel,
wife of Sir Richard de Haudlo, the sister of Amaury
de St. Amand, 2d Lord St. Amand. CP 6:400 calls Isabel
the DAUGHTER of Aumarie de St. Amand. I think Douglas
is right, and though he didn't mention it this involves
another error in CP. If Isabel and Richard were married
by Dec. 16, 1330 (CP 6:400), she could not be the
daughter of Amauri de St. Amand if, as asserted at CP
11:299, he ws aged 15 at his father's death in 1329/30.
Sister works fine.

Douglas, I'd be curious to know whether you arrived at
your view on the basis of the chronology, or whether
you found a source that has it right. Burke's _Extinct
Peerage_ p. 32 does have it right.

Chris Phillips asks how Thomas Griffin got to be a
claimant to Braybrook lands. The only Griffin-Braybrook
connection I can find is extremely remote and apparently
not by blood, but it does seem to involve property.
Thomas Griffin, who was de jure 11th Lord Latimer (CP 7:459),
was 9th in descent from Thomas Le Latimer, 1st Lord
Latimer, of Braybrook, Northants, whose mother was Christian
Ledet, widow of Henry de Braybrook. CP 7:450-51. The
Latimers owned Braybrook for at least several generations;
the descent of the lordship is said to be treated in W.P.
Baildon, _Braybrook_ (1923) (not seen). But how this made
Thomas Griffin an heir to the Braybrooks who were de jure
Lords St. Amand (CP 11:301-02) is unclear to me. Perhaps
it was simply an unfounded claim based on the historic
association summarized above.

This thread: