GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-05 > 0925861801
From: Cristopher Nash < >
Subject: Re: Isolt de Mortimer (was Re: Help on Beauchamp line)
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 00:50:01 +0100
Don Stone < > wrote --
>Cristopher Nash wrote:
>>
>> "H. L. Marvin" < > wrote --
>> >I have her as wife of "Edmund de-Mortimer, VII Lord Mortimer of Wigmore"
>> >who is in
>> >generation 4 of this chart and mother of Isolde and Sir Roger.
>> >John de-Neville b. 1331
>> >Margaret de-Fiennes b. 1262
>>
>> As you may have guessed, there are a number of individuals named Margaret
>> de Fiennes, but I think it would be best to note in any case that Margaret
>> de Fiennes da. of Sir William de Fiennes and wife of Edmund de Mortimer of
>> Wigmore was not the mother of Isolde/Isolt, whose mother remains unknown.
>
>An article in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register (the
>famous author's name escapes me at the moment), vol. 116: 16-7, gives
>Isolt as the daughter of Edmund de Mortimer, and this opinion has been
>followed by Weis/Sheppard/Faris in Ancestral Roots (9-30, 207-30) and by
>Faris in Plantagenet Ancestry (Audley 13). But as I recall, the editor
>of the Register, in an introduction to the article, seemed to be happier
>with the hypothesis that Isolt was the sister of Edmund de Mortimer,
>referring to an article by Josiah Wedgewood entitled "The Parentage of
>James de Audley, K.G.". This article appeared in Collections for a
>History of Staffordshire, ed. by the William Salt Soc., NS vol. 9, 1906;
>on p. 262 Wedgewood says "Hugh d'Audelee, the elder, Baron Audley of
>Stratton, b. c. 1260, m. Isolda, probably sister of Edmund Mortimer of
>Wigmore and had with her Arley (staffs.) for life." This works well
>chronologically (Edmund Mortimer was b. 1261, according to
>Weis/Sheppard/Faris), and an otherwise unknown first wife of Edmund is
>no longer required. The source which Wedgewood footnotes for Isolda is
>"Extracts from the Plea Rolls", by Maj.-Gen. G. Wrottesley, Collections
>for a History of Staffordshire, ed. by the William Salt Soc., part 1,
>vol. 6, 1885. On p. 250, from the Stafford Assize Roll, 21 Edward I
>[1292/3], we read "Hugh de Audelegh and Isolda his wife were summoned to
>show their title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren,
>fair, market, and wayf in Arlegh. Hugh and Isolda state they held the
>manor for term of their lives of the inheritance of Edmund de Mortimart,
>without whom they cannot answer; and Edmund being summoned stated one
>John de Burgo had the manor with the said liberties and John had given
>the manor to Robert Burnel, who conveyed it to the present King, who had
>given it to Latard de Heny; and Letard [sic] with the King's license had
>given the manor to Roger de Mortimer the father of Edmund, and that from
>time out of memory all the said franchises had been annexed to the
>manor. The King's attorney disputed the claim, and it was adjourned to
>be heard _coram Rege_. m.36 [membrane 36, I suppose]." Note that the
>precise relationship between Edmund and Isolda is not specified.
>
> -- Don Stone
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
This thread:
| Re: Isolt de Mortimer (was Re: Help on Beauchamp line) by Cristopher Nash < > |