GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1011550535


From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Bohun, Grey and Verdun birthdates
Date: 20 Jan 2002 10:15:35 -0800
References: <001001c1a000$6bc066a0$324c86d9@oemcomputer>, <ntaylor-1801022352210001@mid-tgn-nou-vty20.as.wcom.net>


Dear Nat ~

Thanks for posting the abstracts from the Papal Registers on the
newsgroup. I had assumed from my file notes that John de Lisle and
Maud de Grey obtained their dispensation for marriage prior to getting
married. However, as you are aware, the actual abstract shows that
they got their dispensation after marriage. My notes also didn't
indicate that John de Bohun and Margaret Basset were related in the
4th degree. It was nice to have that confirmed as well.

Since the both brides were granddaughters of Maud de Verdun, for a 4th
degree relationship to be correct in both cases, it would mean that
Maud's mother, Eleanor de Bohun, was the daughter of Earl Humphrey de
Bohun, died 1275. That fits the chronology of the Bohun family just
fine.

As far as the maternity of Eleanor de Bohun, we know that Earl
Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275) had two wives, Maud of Eu (died 1241)
and Maud de Avenbury. At this point, I can only make guesses as to
Eleanor's birthdate, given we know so little about her life. However,
I think it is safe to assume that she was older than John de Verdun's
oldest son who was presumably born in or before 1244. We can guess at
that date as we know John de Verdun's third son, Theobald, was born
about 1248. If so, then it would place Eleanor's birth as being in or
before 1243.

As for Eleanor's son-in-law, John de Grey, his father's IPM shows that
he was aged 40 in 1408, or born about 1268. However, he must have
been closer to 50 in 1408, as he shows up regularly in the records
from 1277 functioning as an adult [see Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward
I, vol. 2 (Harleian Soc. Pub., vol. 81) (1929), pp. 148-150]. As
such, he was clearly not a child in 1275/6, as I previously thought,
when Eleanor de Verdun gave property in Debden, Essex to him and his
wife, Maud. As for an approximate birth date for John de Grey, we
know that John de Grey's parents, Reynold and Maud de Grey, were
married in or before 1257. If we pegged John de Grey's birth at
1258/60, he would still be in the 40-50 age bracket at the time of his
father's death. That would makes him 17-19 when he first shows up in
the records. If correct, then we might assume his wife, Maud de
Verdun, was born say 1260/2. That would make Maud 13-16 years old in
1275/6 when her mother settled property at Debden, Essex on Maud and
her husband, John de Grey.

As for Maud de Avenbury, 2nd wife of Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died
1275), I believe she is closely related to the Eleanor de Avenbury,
living 1313, who married Sir Roger le Rous, of Harescombe, co.
Gloucester, died 1294. Sir Roger le Rous and his wife, Eleanor de
Avenbury, are in the ancestry of several immigrants, among them Agnes
Harris and Thomas Owsley. Perhaps Ronny Bodine has material on the
Avenbury family in his files he can share with us. Sir Roger le Rous
and Eleanor his wife are Individuals #4144 and 4145 in Ronny's book,
Ancestry of Dorothea Poyntz.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail:


(Nathaniel Taylor) wrote in message news:< >...
> In article <001001c1a000$6bc066a0$ >,
> (Chris Phillips) wrote:
>
> >Douglas Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> . . . As I stated earlier, there were two
> >> marriages between descendants of Eleanor (de Bohun) de Verdun and
> >> their Bohun kinfolk which required a dispensation due to
> >> consanguinity. In the first instance, a dispensation was granted
> >> PRIOR to marriage for John de Lisle to marry Maud de Grey. The Papal
> >> registers contain the petition for the required dispensation with the
> >> statement that the couple were related in the 4th degree (i.e., third
> >> cousins to each other).
>
> [and elsewhere:]
>
> >>I should be note that of the two marriages involving kinship here, one
> >>couple followed church rules and applied for the required
> >>dispensation. The other couple clearly did not...
>
> > . . . Complete Peerage
> >(vol.8, p.76) gives the reference for the Lisle-Grey dispensation as Cal.
> >Papal Letters vol.2, p.380 (actually, this is also said to be a
> >"post-nuptial" dispensation - "16 Dec. 1332, when they had dispensation to
> >remain within the marriage they had contracted while ignorant that they were
> >within the 4th degree...").
> >
> >I can't see a reference in CP to the Bohun-Basset case, but from previous
> >notes supplied by Douglas Richardson, I think it's also Cal. Papal Letters,
> >either vol.1, p.503 or vol.2, p.398.
>
> I find both marriages in _Cal. Papal Letters_, vol. 2 (1304-1337). As
> Chris points out, both are *post facto* hearings. But there's an
> interesting difference:
>
> The Lisle / Bohun marriage was brought up by the parties to "at the king's
> request ... to grant a dispensation to [John de Lisle and Matilda de Gray]
> to remain in the marriage which the contracted in ignorance that they were
> related in the fourth degree." (2:280, 17 kal. Jan 1332)
>
> The Basset / Bohun (Hereford) marriage appears *twice* in the registers.
> The first mandate (11 kal. Mar 1331, 2:349), tells the bishops of
> Lichfield & Coventry, and London, "to summon the parties to London, and
> hear the cause touching the marriage of John, earl of Hereford, and
> Margaret Bassett, who after their marriage discovered that they were
> related in the fourth degree, and thereupon ceased to live together.
> Margaret's relations, and especially Thomas de Modoville, knight, and
> Alice de Bellocampo, of the dioceses of London and Worcester, are to
> appear as witnesses."
>
> Three years later (2 kal. Feb. 1334, 2:398), the mandate was reissued to
> the Bishop of London "to summon to some place in the dioceses of London or
> Lincoln, suspected by neither party, those concerned in the case touching
> the marriage of John, earl of Hereford, and Margaret Basset. After
> consummation of the marriage, it came to the knowledge of the earl that he
> and Margaret were related in the fourth degree, whereupon petition was
> made to the pope, Thomas de Mandeville, knight, Alice de Beauchamp, and
> other kinsfolk of Margaret, and a papal mandate was issued to the bishop
> of Lichfield and Coventry, who refused to act. The pope now orders a full
> report to be made to him, and the following witnesses to be cited:
> Bertrand de Verduyn, clerk; Ralph Basset, Henry de Grey, Roger de Grey,
> John de Verduyn, Robert de Lylle, William de Ruysshton, Thomas de Gobioun,
> Oliver de Bohun, Thomas de Mandeville, Thomas de Aledone, knights; Joan,
> wife of the said Ralph; Joan de Verduyn, Alice de Beauchamp, Margaret de
> Lylle, Elizabeth Peverel, Alice de Mungomery, Petronilla de Nevile, Sibyl
> de Bibbesworth, and Hawisia de Ferrers."
>
> It is unclear who originally motivated the action: third parties who
> wanted a formal annulment (or who wanted a dispensation with order that
> the spouses live together)? Why did both spouses avoid any action? So as
> not to disinherit children? The request for a hearing 'suspected by
> neither party' doesn't clarify the motivations to avoid this process. In
> the second sentence, perhaps the abstract *should* read: "... whereupon
> petition was made to the pope *by* Thomas de Mandeville, knight, Alice de
> Beauchamp, and other kinsfolk of Margaret."
>
> So: two interesting windows into the nature, timing, and likely response
> to consanguinity hearings.
>
> Nat Taylor


This thread: