GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-05 > 0925970858
From: Don Stone < >
Subject: Re: Isolt de Mortimer (was Re: Help on Beauchamp line)
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 02:07:38 -0400
Cristopher Nash wrote:
>
> Don, I think this old conjecture has always been intriguing. The key, for
> me, is the trajectory of [Upper] Arley (which is said to be conveyed to
> Roger de Mortimer ca. 1276).
>
> What I have from VCH Worc (Arley) is: "It passed from Roger to his son
> Edmund in 1282 [CP V, 379], and was granted by the latter to his daughter
> Iseult and her first husband Walter de Balun for their lives. After
> Walter's death Iseult married Hugh de Audley, and on his forfeiture in 1322
> the manor was granted by the King to Iseult [Cal.Close, 1323-7, p. 467],
> who held it until her death about 1339-40 [Abbrev.Rot.Orig. (Rec. Com.),
> ii, 130]. The reversion after her death, during the minority of Roger de
> Mortimer, had been granted in 1336 to William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton
> [Duchy of Lanc. Royal Chart., no. 277], who had married Elizabeth widow of
> Edmund de Mortimer, grandson of the Edmund who had granted the manor to
> Iseult. [Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271; CP V, 379]. Roger came of age about
> 1348, but Elizabeth held the manor until her death in 1356, when it passed
> to her son Roger [Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271], who had become Earl of March
> by the reversal of his grandfather's attainder in 1354 [CP V, 243]."
>
> Unfortunately ambiguous phrasing leaves it unclear how much of the critical
> bit (sentence 1) is based on firsthand sight (if indeed hands are gifted
> with that faculty) of contemporary documents, how much a potentially blurry
> CP précis. Sentence 3 with its "[Cal.Close, 1354-60, p. 271..." reference
> looks tasty, though.
>
> Let's hear what you think.
Cris:
I looked up the two references to the Calendars of the Close Rolls
contained in the quote you supplied from the Victoria History of the
County of Worcester (Upper Arley). Neither of these references (quoted
below) gives any information that I can see about Isolde's parentage. I
share your suspicion that the VCH reference to Isolt as a daughter of
Edmund may have come from the old Complete Peerage rather than from
newly-discovered information in primary sources. The new Complete
Peerage, under Audley, gives the following as a reference for the
statement that Isolt was the daughter of Edmund de Mortimer by Margaret
de Fiennes: Addit. MSS, no. 5485, f. 160. Possibly a smoking gun can
be found in this manuscript, or perhaps the identification of Edmund as
father of Isolt was a guess/inference.
-- Don Stone
Cal. Close Rolls, 1323-7, p. 467:
[Membrane 8. 1326. April 12. Kenilworth.] To James de Thiknes, parson
of the church of Estinton, fermor of the lands that belonged to Hugh de
Audeleye, the elder, in the king's hands. Order to deliver to Isolda,
late the wife of the said Hugh, the manor of Arley, co. Stafford,
excepting the weirs in the Severn and the ferry (_passagio_) and the
whole wood within the bounds of the chace of Edmund de Mortuo Mari of
Wyre, and all the lands that belonged to Adam de la Boure in Arleye, as
the king learns by inquisition taken by John de Hampton and Richard de
Haukeslouwe that the aforesaid Hugh held the manor, with the above
exceptions, together with Isolda, and that the aforesaid Edmund granted
the manor to Walter Baloun, formerly the husband of Isolda, and to
Isolda for their lives, and that the manor, with the above exceptions,
was taken into the king's hands by Hugh's forfeiture, and is still in
his hands for this cause, and that neither Walter and Isolda, nor Isolda
when she was single, nor Hugh and Isolda after their marriage remitted
or released her right to any one at any time, or changed her estate in
any way, and that the manor is held of the king in chief, by what
service it is unknown. The king has pardoned Isolda, in consideration
of a fine, the trespass that she and Walter made in acquiring the manor,
with the above exceptions, for life without licence from him and from
the late king, and has granted that she shall hold the same for life
according to the form of the acquisition. By a fine of 10_l_
[pounds]. This fine is enrolled in the great fines under the same
date.
Cal. Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 271:
[Membrane 12. 1356. July 8. Westminster.] To John de Swynnerton,
escheator in the counties of Salop and Stafford and the march of Wales
adjacent to Salop. Order not to intermeddle further with the manors
taken into the king's hand by the death of Elizabeth late wife of
William, earl of Northampton and formerly the wife of Edmund de Mortuo
Mari, tenant in chief, delivering the issues thereof etc. as above, as
the king has learned by divers inquisitions taken by the escheator that
Elizabeth, at her death, held for her life the manor of Arleye in the
county of Stafford and the manor of Clubury in Salop, except the park
and chace adjacent to the manor of Clubury, of the inheritance of Roger
de Mortuo Mari, earl of March, Edmund's son and heir, and the king has
lately taken Roger's homage for all the lands of his inheritance.
This thread:
| Re: Isolt de Mortimer (was Re: Help on Beauchamp line) by Don Stone < > |