Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-08 > 1125448867

From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:41:07 -0600
References: <> <> <4314e82f@news.ColoState.EDU> <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Todd ~
> Thank you for your posts. You've made some excellent points.
> One immediate comment: The passage of the manor of Pitchcott,
> Buckinghamshire in 1292 to Giles de Fiennes was surely a trust position
> on behalf of his daughter and son-in-law, Eleanor and Richard de
> Vernon, both then minors. The allegation that it was back in the hands
> of the Vernon family by 1302 doesn't preclude the marriage of Richard
> de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes from having produced issue. I'm sure
> it was intended that Giles de Fiennes only hold the manor for a short
> period until his son-in-law came of age. By my arrangement, Eleanor de
> Fiennes' husband, Richard de Vernon, was of age by 1302, which would
> explain the end of Giles de Fiennes' trusteeship.

Why, when Giles's trusteeship ended would it revert to Richard the
father, as is indicated by the quote? It would also be consistent if
Richard was younger - was engaged in early childhood, and was still a
minor in 1302, but that the trusteeship of Giles became inconvenient and
was terminated in favor of the father when his daughter died, perhaps
even before the nuptuals could be celebrated. Keep in mind we don't
have a single record in which a Richard de Vernon has wife Eleanor - not
one. Again, you can argue this either way, so why is yours the prefered
solution, seeing as it requires the short chronology and the ad hoc
creation of a second Isabella?


This thread: