GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-09 > 1190052705


From: Douglas Richardson <>
Subject: Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon,wife of Sir Richard de Stafford, Lord Stafford
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:11:45 -0700
References: <1189447655.475165.21630@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com><1189456329.467804.90120@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com><1189489205.853622.29770@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1189498527.625542.223510@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com><1189542291.947701.18210@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com><1189587198.355153.274400@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com><1189615918.865792.134930@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com><1189617441.889683.44280@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1190002772.426552.11980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com><1190023438.304185.161180@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1190044416.830443.283200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1190047568.339628.203970@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1190047568.339628.203970@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>


My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Sep 17, 10:46 am, Matthew Connolly <>
wrote:

< Please can you post these abstracts Douglas, so that we can compare
< them. The text Rosie posted was very clear in its import.

The text that has been quoted is the same one that I have seen. It
states that land was settled on Richard de Vernon and his wife, Maud,
at Clifton Campville, Staffordshire, during Richard's lifetime by
William de Camville. It makes no mention of when this grant was
made. It also makes no mention that Maud was William de Camville's
daughter, or that she was the mother of Richard de Vernon's son and
heir, William. Or, are you reading a different document than I am?

Actually, if we take the inquisition post mortem of Richard de Vernon
strictly, then William de Vernon can not be Maud de Camville's son.
The inquisition clearly states that the property in Clifton-Campville,
Staffordshire was settled on Richard de Vernon and his wife, Maud, by
William de Camville TO HOLD TO THEM AND THE HEIRS OF THEIR BODIES. We
know that the manor of Clifton-Campville later fell to Richard and
Maud's daughter, Isabel, not Richard's son William. If so, then
Isabel would typically be deemed to be the child of this marriage, not
William. It is possible, however, that the lands at Clifton-Campville
granted by William de Camville had a separate history from the manor
itself. But, usually this is not the case.

> There is not a single part of that sentence that has been disputed.
> The evidence is also clear that William de Vernon was dead in 1339;
> the year the three ladies appear together in the fine.

This has nothing to do with whether or not William de Vernon was Maud
de Camville's son.

< It is clear that Isabel was the *de facto* heiress. It is clear that
< she received land by fine. It is not clear that she would have
< inherited it all anyway. 75 posts in, we can safely say it is
anything
< but clear.

Isabel de Stafford was not her mother's "de facto" heiress. She was
her mother's heiress, pure and simple. Isabel stated as such when she
claimed to be the "kinswoman and heiress" of Maud de Camville's
ancestors, William and Aubrey de Camville, in the Warwickshire fine
dated 1351. Isabel also put her mother's Camville arms on her seal
before her mother's death. This action would also be most unusual,
unless Isabel was her mother's heiress.

Isabel only received L30 of lands in Staffordshire by gift of her
mother in 1339. The rest of the Camville inheritance came to Isabel
by some unknown conveyance or other legal means sometime in or before
1351. The rest of the Camville's lands included property in
Leicestershire, Warwickshire, and Ireland. The only thing Isabel did
not get of the Camville inheritance was the L20 out of lands in
Haunton, Staffordshire that was settled on her sister, Maud de Vernon,
wife of William de Venables.

< > DR: I've also encountered two different documents in which
< > the age of Richard de Vernon's son and heir, William de Vernon,
was
< > disputed during his minority.
<
< The relevance of that to the rest of your statement is not so clear-
< please post more details. As you have seen, it was accepted he was
< under age by one of the people who'd previously denied it. But his
age
< isn't the problem here, is it?

Yes, William de Vernon's age is most certainly a problem if you assume
he was aged nine or ten at his father's death in 1323. If he was
older than that, then it would have implications as to whether or not
Maud de Camville was his mother. Richard de Vernon had a wife named
Maud by 1313, and probably by 1309. I assume this wife was Maud de
Camville. If William was born before 1309, he could have been by an
earlier wife. And, we know that Richard de Vernon had an earlier
wife.

In any event, I find it odd that William de Vernon's age was disputed
on at least two different occasions when he was a minor. You've
already cited one of these occasions already. I found a second one.
Again, it is rather unusual for the heir's age to be disputed not once
but twice, especially when the minor in question was a ward of the
king.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


This thread: