GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-11 > 1100620060


From: "Patricia Junkin" <>
Subject: Re: Errata
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:47:40 -0500


Dear Brad, Douglas, James, Gordon and All,

Given the evidence presented, William la Zouche Mortimer, Glastonbury monk,
would certainly be the son of William la Zouche Mortimer and Eleanor de
Clare.
William's son Alan, his heir, had a son Hugh who died in 1368/69, naming his
uncle, Robert, aged, as his heir. If this William la Zouche Mortimer had a
son, Hugh, I would think he would have been of Alice, not Eleanor. I have in
my notes somewhere that Robert and Joyce had a son Hugh who did not use the
name Zouche,
In 2001 there was an in depth discussion of Steeple Lavington and the
Verdons with no mention of the la Zouches. As I have mentioned, Alan la
Zouche who died in 1313, left much to the Mortimer line. His IPM cites
Wilts. Hundred of Rughebergh. Inq. 24 April 7 E II [1314]
Stupellavyntone. A moiety of a messuage, 1 carucate land and 71s rent were
sometime given by the said Alan to John la Zouch for life and in 1329 at
Donhead St. Andrew [Wilts], by Roger de Pleystowe to Walter de Ferne and
Agnes his wife of all his yearly rent of 2s issuing from a tenement which
John Souche, Edith his wife and William, their son, hold for the term of
their lives.
Since this IPM also includes names in both the Mortimer and Haringworth
lines, in which does this John and son Willliam belong?
It also remains of question to me that Joyce's father whom Douglas has
identified as William of Essex was the son of Margaret Biset and Roger la
Zouche, d. ca. 1238. Alan d. c. 1190 and Adeliza de Belmis la Zouche had a
son, William styled as de Belmis. A William la Zouche who died in
1199,³confirmed to the monks at Swavsey, Cambr.² grants made by his
ancestors to the Abbey of St. Segue and Bachus in Anjou (Swavesey a cell);
this William called Roger his father and Alan Zouch, Earl of Britanny, son
of Geoffrey, his grandfather." The source for this is the History of
Leicestershire citing Dugdale's MA. As I read this, Roger and Margaret Biset
la Zouche's son, William died in 1199 which is inconsistent with William of
Essex being their son.
And, a last thought, since the office of sheriff was hereditary, is it
appropriate to assume that this William is also the William of
Essex:"Hundred of Bullingfield XXIII William la Zouche (Suche) the Sheriff,
took , by Exchequer summons 40 s. from the vill of Cuckfield (Cokkefeld) and
did not aquit the debtors...William la Zouche was Sheriff of Sussex
1262-63."

Thank you for your observations,
Pat

----------
>From: (Brad Verity)
>To:
>Subject: Re: Errata
>Date: Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 9:25 PM
>

> ("Patricia Junkin") wrote in message news:
>
>> Thank you very much for this further elaboration. May I recap for general
>> agreement.
> [snip]
>
> Pat, I don't know about the other generations of Zouches, but the
> summary info on William la Zouche, Eleanor de Clare, and their son the
> monk all looks accurate.
>
> Rosie Bevan pointed out evidence that Alice, the wife of John de
> Multon, baron of Egremont (d. 1334), was a daughter of William la
> Zouche of Mortimer by his first wife Alice, countess of Warwick.
>
>> Can we assume that there may have been other children of Elizabeth de Calre
>> and William la Zouche Mortimer?
>
> Historian T.B. Pugh, in 'Glamorgan County History Volume III: The
> Middle Ages' (University of Wales Press, 1971), pp. 176, 605 n. 60,
> states that Eleanor de Clare and her second husband William Zouche had
> only one son, the monk William. But in a footnote Pugh points out
> that Dugdale's 'Monasticon', Volume II, p. 62 (which I haven't seen)
> states that Eleanor had a son Hugh Zouche. Since Eleanor did have a
> son named Hugh (Despenser) - this may be an error on the part of
> Dugdale or the chronicle he cited.
>
> Eleanor turned age 38 in 1330, the year William Zouche the monk was
> born. She died seven years later. I don't see the likelihood of her
> having many more children after William, though its possible
> biologically and chronologically for there to have been another.
>
> Cheers, ---------Brad
>

This thread: