GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-11 > 1100844638
From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Josce de Dynham
Date: 18 Nov 2004 22:10:38 -0800
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage has a good account of the history of Sir Oliver de
Dynham (or Dinham) (died 1298/9), 1st Lord Dinham, of Hartland, Devon.
Regarding his marriages, Complete Peerage gives the following
information:
"He married, 1stly, ..... He married, 2ndly, before 24 January 1276/7
(royal license 18 or 19 May 1280 for a fine of £100) Isabel, widow of
Sir John de Curtenay or Courtenay, of Okehampton, Devon (who d. 3 May
1274, and was buried in the Abbey of Ford), and daughter of Hugh (de
Vere), Earl of Oxford, by Hawise, daughter of Saier (de Quincy), Earl
of Winchester." END OF QUOTE.
No evidence is cited for the first marriage, which is strange. This
marriage seems to inferred only by the fact that Sir Oliver de
Dibham's son and heir, Josce, was aged 24 or 26 ar his father's death
in 1299, or born about 1275 or 1273. However, given that the marriage
of Sir Oliver and his known wife, Isabel de Vere, could have taken
place as early as late 1274, there seems to be no reason to create a
first marriage for Sir Oliver. If so, Oliver's son, Josce, could
conceivably be a child of Isabel de Vere.
In recent time, it has been speculated on the newsgroup that Sir
Oliver de Dynham might have married (1st) Iseult de Cardinham, widow
successively of Thomas de Tracy and William de Ferrers [see copy of
post below]. However, the evidence for such a union is weak at best.
Also, a footnote in the Cornwall Feet of Fines states that Iseult de
Cardinham was still living in 1301, long after Sir Oliver de Dynham
married Isabel de Vere. If correct, Iseult de Cardinham could not
possibly have been Oliver de Dynham's wife, either before or after his
marriage to Isabel de Vere.
The question remains: Is there evidence that Isabel de Vere is the
mother of Josce de Dynham? The answer is yes, there is.
A few years after the death of Sir Oliver de Dynham, his son, Josce's
son and heir, John de Dynham, came of age. This took place in 1316.
Shortly before John obtained livery of his father's lands, Hugh de
Courtenay (grandson of Isabel de Vere) wrote a letter to William de
Airmyn dated c. September 1316, in which he requested assistance for
his kinsman, John de Dynham, now of age, in obtaining seisin of his
lands [Reference: List of Ancient Correspondence, Lists and Indexes,
No. XV, reprinted 1968, pg. 552; cf. Index to Ancient Correspondence
of the Chancery and the Exchequer, 1 (Lists and Indexes, Supplementary
Series, No. XV) (reprinted 1969), pp. 308, 351]. The King
subsequently took John de Dynham's homage, and he had livery of his
father's lands, 18 October 1316.
Reviewing John de Dynham's ancestry, I see no immediate connection
between him and Hugh de Courtenay, unless the two men had the same
grandmother, Isabel de Vere. Then, Hugh de Courtenay's reference to
John de Dynham as his kinsman would make perfect sense.
Reviewing the chronology, I find that Isabel de Vere's eldest known
child, Hugh de Courtenay, was born in 1249, approximately 26-27 years
before Josce de Dynham could have been born. Given the early age of
high born noblewomen at first marriage in this period (usually around
14), a span of births of up to 30 years between a woman's oldest and
youngest child is entirely possible. The range in births between Hugh
de Courtenay, born 1249, and Josce de Dynham, born say 1275, would be
26 years, still within the 30 year span.
As for other contrary evidence, I note that there was at least one
later intermarriage between the Dynham and Courtenay families. If
Isabel de Vere was the mother of Josce de Dynham, this couple would
have been related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred. In this
case, no dispensation is known to exist for the marriage. However,
the fact remains that not all dispensations for this period have
survived, nor did all couples who need a dispensation obtain one.
Given this situation, the lack of a dispensation fails to disprove
that a kinship existed between the two partites. Only if a
dispensation existed would one know that there was kinship between the
two parties.
In summary, I find no evidence that Sir Oliver de Dynham had an
earlier marriage than his documented marriage to Isabel de Vere. I
find that Sir Oliver de Dynham's grandson, John Dynham, was styled
kinsman by Isabel de Vere's grandson, Hugh de Courtenay. I conclude
therefore that Sir Oliver de Dynham's son, Josce, was the child of
Isabel de Vere. Had another relationship existed between these
parties existed, then Sir Oliver de Dynham and Isabel de Vere would
themselves likely have had to obtain a dispensation for marriage, they
being related through affinity, rather than kindred.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
From: Ivor West ( )
Subject: Re: Isolda de Cardinham
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-06-10 09:10:17 PST
As you say, it will take more than a moment's thought to go into the
ins and outs of the implications of this fine.
One could, of course, take the Shropshire fine at its face value and
read Richard as a younger son of Geoffrey who married someone called
Isolda and they had some property in Ludlow. Is there any previous
history of the land showing it was in the hands of the family of this
Isolda? I see that the rose is to be offered to the heirs of Isolda,
not to the heirs of Richard and Isolda. Did Josce or his heirs receive
the rose for the Ludlow messuage?
Alternatively, to avoid a charge of special pleading, having read
Richard as Oliver, one might equally have read Richard's wife Isolda
as Isabella, in which case there would be no problem with Isabel de
Vere.
If your reading of the Shropshire fine is correct, however, it would
provide a piece of evidence for Isolda's marriage to Oliver.
A marriage between Isolda and Oliver de Dinham has been suggested
before, of course. Pearse-Chope, for instance, in the Transactions of
Devonshire Association (TDA, vol.50, (1918), p434) had Isolda as
Oliver's unknown first wife, with Isabel de Vere as his second. As
there was no evidence for the first marriage, he acknowledged it was
an assumption, based on the grant of Cardinham and Bodardle. This
conflicts with the footnote to Cornish fine no.222 of 1270, where it
says Isolda was still living in 1301. I don't know the source for
this date but the footnote also says that she had two sons by William
de Ferrers, which has since been discounted. As far as I can see, the
1301 date is the only thing that stands in the way of a chronology
which would allow Isolda to be the first wife of Oliver.
Isabel de Vere, following the death of John de Courtenay, was said to
have married Oliver de Dinham c.1280, or earlier. DEP says it was
without licence and that a fine of £100 was paid in consequence. That
should be verifiable somewhere. If the marriage was after 1275, she
wouldn't be Josce's mother on that score alone, so I guess it doesn't
say precisely when.
Thomas de Tracy died c.1267/8 (he was patron of St. Mabyn 1266). After
his death, Isolda de Cardinham married William de Ferrers (they
granted Strete to Hugh de Treverbyn in 1269). William de Ferrers died
c.1271/8 ( Isolda presented to Ferrers' churches in 1279 ). So a third
marriage of Isolda to Oliver de Dinham might have been possible within
William's time-limit. For Isolda to have been the mother of Josce de
Dinham, b.1275, the limit would be reduced to 1273. Isolda herself
would presumably need to be born not much later than c.1235 (Thomas de
Tracy was holding her fees in 1255) making her about 40 at the time of
Josce's birth. Oliver would have also been about 40 (b.1234), which
seems late for a first marriage unless he had an even earlier one
still, which would complicate matters.
Isolda divested herself of most of her estates during her widowhood of
Thomas de Tracy and, apparently, during her marriage to William de
Ferrers. They went first, in 1268/9 (Caption of Seisin, Duchy of
Cornwall, 1337, xi.), to Richard, earl of Cornwall, who received
Restormel, and to Oliver de Dinham (Dynham Cartulary, BM Add.MS 34792
(A)), Henry de Champernoun and others in c1268 -1270. All these were
alienees, of course, and mostly relations but not necessarily heirs.
If Isolda's latest notice was, in fact, 1279 and not 1301, this
chronology seems to fit ~
Isolda (1235 - 1279), m.1 (1255), Thomas de Tracy (1230 - 1267), m.2
(1268), William de Ferrers (1230 - 1273), m.3 (1274), Oliver de Dinham
(1234 - 1298). Oliver, m.2 (1280), Isabel de Vere (1222 - 1299).
Isabel, m1 (1240), John de Courtenay (1218) - 1274.
In my own view, it is not unlikely that Oliver was, in any case,
Isolda's nearest surviving male heir, which might have been sufficient
in itself to explain the large grant to him. If my calculation is
correct, their kinship would have been fairly remote, possibly in the
fifth and sixth degrees. So Oliver could have been in the position of
potential heir and husband.
It might be possible that Isolda followed the bulk of her property to
Oliver when she found that she had William de Ferrer's untimely (?)
demise on her hands. One difficulty that remains, however, is that one
can hardly imagine Isolda granting her lands to Oliver, with future
marriage in mind, while she was still married to William de Ferrers.
But one never knows.
Ivor West
John Ravilious < > wrote in message
news: ...
| Thursday, 30 May, 2002
|
|
| Hello Ivor, et al.,
|
| I have found another piece of evidence that I think will (A)
| lead us to a documented connection between de Cardinham
| and de Dinham,and (B) a related correction to CP, and the
| history of these families, in the end.
|
| From Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 5, there is the
| following extract from a fine on page 288:
|
| ' By Fine of Nov. 3, 1276, Richard son of Geoffrey de Dynan,
| and Isolda Richard's wife, enfeoff Hugh le Tanur, in a
| messuage in Ludlow, for eight marks paid down, and a rent of
| one Rose, reserved to the Grantors and the heirs of Isolda. '
|
| While this will take more than a moment of thought to resolve
| with the rest of the information at hand concerning these families,
| it would appear initially that:
|
| 1. Isolda de Cardinham was married to Oliver [named Richard
| in the fine as above] de Dinham, who in fact was the
| grantee of Cardinham and Bodardle, presumably after the
| de Tracy marriage - the chronology here will need another
| look;
|
| A. The possibility that Oliver de Dinham was the grantee
| from a sister-in-law (assuming Isolda was married to
| a brother of Oliver, named Richard) seems unlikely as
| there were other eventual heirs.
|
| 2. Sir Josce de Dinham, 2nd Lord Dinham (b. before 26 Feb
| 1274/5 according to his father's IPM - see CP) was the
| son of Sir Oliver de Dinham and Isolda de Cardinham.
|
| 3. Margery de Hydon, widow of Sir Josce de Dinham, was in
| fact related (by marriage) to the then extended Cardinham
| clan by virtue of the above 'change' in Josce's parentage,
| causing her to be more than a token party to the
| Kilkampton fine of 1317 [see previous post, below].
|
| I realize the above is as yet unproven, but the possibility
| appears quite strong.
|
| Your thoughts (pro or con) ?
|
This thread:
| C.P. Addition: Parentage of Josce de Dynham by (Douglas Richardson) |