GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1010939434


From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: A New Bohun Daughter Discovered
Date: 13 Jan 2002 08:30:34 -0800
References: <001d01c19c1f$3a81f840$840586d9@oemcomputer>


Dear Chris, Paul, John, etc.

In the fragmentary parts of the legal case presented in the Year Book
of King Edward I, Theobald de Verdun "vouched the Earl of Hereford and
said that one Humphrey [de Bohun] his father gave the tenements
demanded to Robert de W. in frank-marriage with Margery his daughter
and bound himself." Theobald subsequently refer to Margery's father,
Humphrey de Bohun, as "our father," he evidently having married
Margery as her second husband. Theobald's wife, Margery, would thus
have been the sister of the Earl of Hereford who Theobald vouched.

The Year Book item in question is dated 1306, but the Earl who is
apparently intended in the testimony is Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of
Hereford, who died in 1298. As with the Grey case about which I have
posted elsewhere, there appears to have been a delay in the
proceedings of the original suit and the entry we have in the Year
Book. In the Grey case, there appears to be upwards of 12 years
difference between the two. If so, then presumably Theobald de Verdun
vouched Earl Humphrey de Bohun before he died in 1298.

In this case, Theobald de Verdun specifically states it was the father
of the vouched Earl who was the father of his wife, Margery. If so,
then Margery would be the daughter of Sir Humphrey de Bohun (died
1265), by his wife, Eleanor de Breuse. This makes sense to me as Sir
Humphrey (died 1265) was never Earl and is not called Earl by Theobald
in the Year Book record. Also, if Theobald de Verdun vouched Earl
Humphrey (died 1298), then Margery wouldn't be the daughter of the
earlier Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275), as he was grandfather (not
father) of the Earl who Theobald de Verdun vouched.

Clarity in medieval records is a good thing but unfortunately not
always found.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail:

(Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<001d01c19c1f$3a81f840$>...
> Paul Mackenzie wrote:
> > Looking through my notes I found the following Inq. post. mort. in 1295 on
> > Gilbert de Clare, Earl, of (Gloucester and Hertford)
> >
> > "Worchester. Inq. Wednesday after St. Hilary, 24 Edw. 1.
> > Bisseley. Two parts of the manor (extent given) held jointly with Joan
> his
> > wife of the king in chief and enfeoffment, service unknown, the third part
> > is held by Margery late the wife of John de Breuse in dower of the
> > inheritance of the said heirs of the said Gilbert. Gilbert his son, aged 5
> > at the feast of St. Mark last is his nxt heir."
> >
> > Cal. Inq. post. mortem. Vol 3:p 234.
>
> I presume that's a different manor, in Worcestershire (the one held by the
> Bohuns was in Gloucestershire), although I can't see it on the map at the
> moment.
>
> [Renia Simmonds wrote:]
> > > I'm not really following this thread, but what's the difficulty with
> 2nd-cousin
> > > consanguinity?
> [Douglas Richardson replied:]
> > There is no difficulty is a second cousin marriage.
> [Renia replied:]
> That's what I thought. I just wondered why Chris saw a difficulty.
>
> This is a perennial question, that I think was most recently discussed when
> we were debating whether Clemence de Verdun was the mother of Kign John's
> illegitimate daughter Joan.
>
> I'm sure there are others better qualified to comment, but as I understand
> it there should have been a dispensation for a marriage between 2nd cousins;
> I think everyone agrees that the lack of a record of such a dispensation
> cannot disprove a marriage, but if we are weighing circumstantial evidence
> it has to be thrown into the balance.
>
> The question here is which Humphrey de Bohun was Margery's father.
> Chronologically, it must be either Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford
> (d.1275) or his son Humphrey, who died before his father, in 1265, and was
> therefore never earl (though his son, another Humphrey, was).
>
> Taken at face value, the text of the Year Book quoted by Douglas Richardson
> implies that Margery's father was the father of an Earl of Hereford. So that
> would select the younger Humphrey (d.1265). But the only known wife of this
> Humphrey, available as the mother of Margery, is Eleanor de Briouze. That
> would imply a second-cousin marriage for Margery's son Theobald.
>
> I still don't fully understand the report from the Year Book, but to me the
> most natural reading seems to be that Margery's father Humphrey gave land to
> Robert de W in free marriage with Margery, and later gave it to Theobald
> [who must have been a later husband of Margery, from the other evidence].
> But it was argued that at the time of the second gift, Margery was seised,
> and Humphrey "had nothing in those tenements" for the previous 15 years.
> Does this mean that the second gift was also in free marriage, and that the
> first marriage had taken 15 years before? If so, and if both gifts were made
> by Humphrey (d.1265), the chronology becomes awkward, with Margery's birth
> being pushed back to about 1238 at the latest - probably earlier, but with
> her second son Theobald born in 1278 - I'm not sure whether there were later
> children as well - maybe Cris Nash's copy of Hagger's book would tell us.
>
> (Maybe an alternative interpretation would be that the first gift to Robert
> de W was by Humphrey junior before 1265, and the second to Theobald by
> Humphrey junior, between 1265 and 1275. If so, the 15 year period before the
> second gift might refer to a gift by Humphrey senior to Humphrey junior.)
>
> That's rather speculative, as the report in the Year Book is a bit cryptic.
> But if we opted for Humphrey (d.1275) as the father, the potential problems
> of consanguinity and chronology would disappear. That would imply an error
> in the Year Book, but that's not inconceivable given its status as a highly
> compressed unofficial report, rather than a legal record.
>
> I think really we need more evidence to be sure we have the right Humphrey.
> With luck, perhaps the references that Cris Nash has provided may make
> things clearer.
>
> Chris Phillips

This thread: