GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-06 > 1086127252


From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: CP Addition: Henry le Scrope's widow, Margaret
Date: 1 Jun 2004 15:00:52 -0700
References: <5cf47a19.0405151013.12e670ef@posting.google.com> <8ed1b63.0405311630.27db455c@posting.google.com>


My comments are interspersed below. DR

(Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<>...
> (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:
>
> > Complete Peerage 11 (1949): 535-538 (sub Scrope) has a good account of
> > the history of Sir Henry le Scrope (died 1336), Chief Justice of the
> > King's Bench, and of the Common Pleas, Chief Baron of the Exchequer.
> > Regarding his marriage, Complete Peerage merely states that he
> > "m[arried] Margaret." In footnote d on the same page, the author adds
> > the following information regarding Margaret:
> >
> > "There is no record of any assignment of dower, but Margaret appears
> > to survived him and to have m[arried] 2ndly, Hugh de Mortimer."
>
> There is no record of any assignment of dower because Henry le Scrope
> was not a tenant-in-chief of the king:

<SNIP>

> > In the account of Henry and Margaret le Scrope's son, William le
> > Scrope, which follows in Complete Peerage, the author further notes in
> > footnote g on the same page:
> >
> > "In Sept. 1336 his [William's] age was given as 16 at his father's
> > inquisition post mortem. In a formedon, however, in which he was the
> > demandant against Hugh de Mortimer and Margaret his wife, William's
> > mother, they alleged he was not then (1343) of age [Year Books 17 and
> > 18 Edw. III, Rolls Ser., p. 360].
> >
> > While this record appears to be rather specific as to details, it
> > appears not to have totally convinced the author of Complete Peerage
> > that Margaret, widow of Henry le Scrope, married (2nd) Hugh de
> > Mortimer.
>
> It didn't? The author of the Complete Peerage article specifically
> states, per your quote above, "In which he was the demandant against
> Hugh de Mortimer and Margaret his wife, William's mother." How more
> convincing could the author be that Henry le Scrope's wife Margaret
> survived and remarried?
>

You should read the first part of the text again that I quoted from
Complete Peerage, not just the second part. The first part reads as
follows:

"There is no record of any assignment of dower, but Margaret appears
to survived him and to have m[arried] 2ndly, Hugh de Mortimer."

The operative words "appears to have survived him" suggests that the
author was not entirely convinced of Margaret's survival. Quoting
only one part of the text, and not the other, is being deceptive.
Clearly, the author of C.P. thought it was unusual that he found no
assignment of dower for Margaret, yet he elsewhere found evidence that
she had survived and remarried. His comments reflect a definite
cautionary tone.

<SNIP>

> This is the difference, Douglas, between compiling information from
> secondary sources (in this case, CP), and actually researching in
> primary sources (in this case, the published abstracts of the Fine
> Rolls and the Calendar of IPMs) for the reason why there may be a
> discrepancy (in this case, no record of dower for a widow), which the
> CP author found worthy enough to note.

I find it queer that you would be upset that I presented an abstract
of a primary contemporary document relevant to the le Scrope family,
then say I'm "compiling from secondary sources." I wasn't "compiling"
anything. I was simply making a post on the newsgroup which was a
helpful addition to Complete Peerage. Your tirade seems to have
overlooked this fact.

You either don't read posts well, or have an axe to grind. Which is
it?

> Cheers, -----Brad

Hastily, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail:

This thread: