GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1011012145


From: Cristopher Nash <c@windsong.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: A New Bohun Daughter Discovered
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:44:41 +0000
References: <17c.20ba6cd.2973a9b1@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <17c.20ba6cd.2973a9b1@aol.com>


wrote on Sunday, 13 January, 2002 -

> 1. The mother of Theobald de Verdun, Lord Verdun (b.
> ca. 1248) was not Eleanor, who was the 2nd wife of
> John de Verdun; it was the first wife, Margery de
> Lacy, daughter of Gilbert de Lacy of Ewyas Lacy, co.
> Hereford and of Meath [she was coheiress of Meath].
> It was his inheritance of his mother's Irish lands
> that kept him 'constantly in Ireland' [CP Vol XII/2,
> p. 249].

John, you're absolutely right about this - forgive my latenite lapse
and thanks for putting it straight right away. (My concern still
hangs about, I'm afraid, lest we miss the extent - intimated by
Hagger but never satisfactorily explored - of possible Bohun
connections so long as one we're entertaining has ifs around it!)

> 2. Humphrey de Verdun, mentioned by Hagger (p. 251, per
> your post) is also identified in CP (p. 248 note f,
> also Vol XII/2). Certainty as to his parentage is
> not established, I think especially since CP and
> Hagger both appear to take this from Dugdale. The
> CP footnote reads (under John de Verdun):
>
> 'Presumably his s. Humphrey, b. on the vigil
> of Pentecost 1267, was by the 2nd wife (Dugdale,
> Mon., vol. v, p. 661). Nothing is known of
> Eleanor's parentage but she may have been a Bohun.'
>
> There is an IGI record for a Humphrey de Verdun,
> identified as younger brother of John de Verdun,
> b. ca. 1229, and shown as d. Paris, 1285. If this
> is based on fact (and preferably, an accurate
> rendition of fact), the occurrence of the name
> Humphrey among the children of John de Verdun
> would not indicate anything unusual re: a Bohun
> connection at that generation.

Yup - there's a lot of confusion floatin around, as shows when we
compare this with Hagger. I think I should give the full p. 251
quote, not only to point up the scramble for dates among various
sources but because the closing phrase about Croxden may provide a
lead both in thinking about family land-connections and in any search
for source-material:
"[John de Verdun's] second marriage to Alianor de Bohun also seems
to have produced a son, called Humphrey after the bride's father.
He was born in 1267 and died in Paris in 1285, presumably without
an heir, these details being provided by the Croxden chronicler who
took an unusual and inexplicable interest in Humphrey's brief life."
[Croxden Chronicle, s.a.1267, 1285, fos. 75v, 76v.]
I.e. until this interest is found less 'inexplicable', a route to
understanding the family links may have been unduly neglected.

And yes, Chris --

>Thanks for those further details. If Hagger is correct in giving Theobald no
>fewer than 7 sons younger than Theobald II (who was b.1278), I'd guess
>Margery's period of childbearing would extend to the early 1290s. I think
>this would rule out the scenario of her being married twice in the lifetime
>of Humphrey (d.1265), with 15 years between the marriages, which I thought
>was the most natural interpretation of the Year Book report.

S'what I was thinking. Unless Hagger's using the name 'Matilda'
instead of 'Margery', however perplexing in itself, reveals something
else - e.g. that this 'unitary' wife needs to be split and distrib'd
among a couple of ladies.

>>a real person, alive and well and working in --- .
>
>I think that's a very good suggestion. I suppose, in fact, he may be
>interested to see one or two of the new pieces of information about the
>Verduns that have surface here over the last few months.

Ok - when I've a chance, I'll see about contacting Hagger. Unless
anyone here would like - e.g. has found it useful anyway - to frame
the questions in a shortlist, my inclination would be to commend to
him the sequence of archived Verdun postings (obviously there are
several headers). It's a burden for a newcomer to pore over (tho
he's certainly a publicly vested interest) but I'd be sorry to have
omitted something crucial, and fear my timetable these days may not
let me cull them effectively. If anyone's kept a record of the key
ones, great....

Cris
--

This thread: