GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-08 > 1125464051


From: "Douglas Richardson " <>
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord
Date: 30 Aug 2005 21:54:11 -0700
References: <24.77748beb.30462757@aol.com> <1125438210.610225.203430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4314e82f@news.ColoState.EDU> <1125444734.564644.169470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <4314fca2@news.ColoState.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <4314fca2@news.ColoState.EDU>


Dear Todd ~

Under normal conditions, when a father, in this case Richard de Vernon,
Sr. (born ca. 1262), settled lands on his son and his son's wife, in
this case, Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say 1278/80, and Eleanor de
Fiennes, and to their issue, the property would NOT revert back to the
father, unless BOTH the son and his wife died without issue.

Are you telling us then that both Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say
1278/80, and his wife, Eleanor de Fiennes, died without issue before
1302?

If this is not what you are saying, then you should explain to us why
the manor of Pitchcott reverted back to the father before 1302, when
the property had been settled on the son and his wife back in 1290?

And, if the reason you are claiming that the property reverted back to
the father is because the son's marriage was childless, surely the land
would remain in the son's hands for his life, regardless of his wife's
early death without issue. A settlement is a settlement.

It seems necessary therefore that you examine the documents that you
claim show that Richard de Vernon the father re-possessed the manor of
Pitchcott before 1302. These records are:

Feudal Aids, i, 93;
De Banco R. 178, m. 218; 204, m. 103d.;
Feudal Aids, i, 113.

I think we can safely assume that Richard de Vernon, Jr., and Eleanor
de Fiennes who were married in 1290 likely consummated their marriage
in or before 1292. The fact that Richard de Vernon was a minor under
21 in 1292 does not preclude he and his wife from having a raft of
children before he became 21. Producing a large number of children was
the whole point of such early childhood marriages. Surely the
historian Farrer was aware of this. One of his versions of the Vernon
family pedigree had three Richard de Vernons in rapid succession, just
as I have done. This is nothing new.

As for the chronological issues, we know for a fact that we have one
short generation between Richard de Vernon I and Richard de Vernon II.
We also know for a fact that Richard de Vernon II was married when he
was married very young when his own father was 28. These facts are
well documented in the records. Suffice to say that this totals up to
a short chronology to me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> 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?
>
> taf

This thread: