Please see my comments and queries interspersed below.
Peter G R Howarth
-----Original Message-----
On 05 May 2008 03:34 "Douglas Richardson" <royalan...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936):380-383 (sub Mowbray) has
>a good account of the life history of Sir John de Mowbray, Knt., 3rd
>Lord Mowbray, who died in 1361. His marriages to Joan of Lancaster
>and Elizabeth de Vere are well known, and are well do***ented by
>Complete Peerage.
>
>However, it appears that Complete Peerage was unconvinced that John de
>Mowbray had earlier married and divorced Maud de Holand, daughter of
>Robert de Holand, Knt., 1st Lord Holand. No mention is made of the
>marriage in the main text. In fact, all discussion of this possible
>marriage was discretely placed in a footnote of the text on page
>383. As a consequence, as recently as this year, Gary Boyd Roberts
>cast doubt on Maud de Holand's subsequent remarriage to Sir Thomas de
>Swinnerton, by stating that "Mr. Brayton rejects the Holand-Swinnerton
>marriages [sic] on pp. 452, 454-455." [Reference: Gary Boyd Roberts,
>The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants (2008): 875]. The Mr. Brayton
>in question is John Anderson Brayton. No reason is given for his
>alleged rejection of Maud de Holand's marriage to Sir Thomas de
>Swinnerton.
>
>Certainly,.Complete Peerage was aware of claims that John de Mowbray
>had married Maud de Holand. In a footnote c on page 383 of Mowbray
>account, it indicates that The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Chetham
>Soc.), ii., p. 292 specifically states that John de Mowbray had in
>fact been married to and divorced from a daughter of Sir Robert de
>Holand, Knt., 1st Lord Holand. The actual passage in question in the
>Coucher Book reads in Latin as follows:
>
>"Qui quidem Johannes duxit uxorem filiam Roberti de Holand, sed
>divortio inter eos celebrato legitime postea duxit in uxorerm Johannem
>sororem Henrici primi ducis Lancastrie ....:"
>
Please would you check the last two words in the second line, they don't
look right. Living outside the US, I am not permitted access to your
link.
>This quoted material may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>http://books.google.com/books?id=PkYJAAAAIAAJ&dq=editions%3A0l2bpcdgGaDZlVR
>QAmydzl7&q=Holand&pgis=1#search
>
Why did C.P. choose to reject this evidence, which on the face of it seems
pretty clear about the unnamed daughter? And presumably Brayton and
Roberts
also rejected it, since they would both have known about the reference in
C.P. Did they have information we do not? Or is it just that the Coucher
Book is not to be trusted? It leaves a niggle in the back of the mind.
>In the same footnote on page 383 of the Mowbray account, Complete
>Peerage further reveals that John de Mowbray had license in 1332 to
>settle two manors on Maud de Holand, daughter of Robert de Holand for
>life, citing Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, pg. 368.
>
>The Patent Rolls item in question may be viewed at the following
>weblink:
>
>http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0368.pdf
>
>While Complete Peerage admits that there may have been "some contract
>of marriage," it seems to have determined the evidence was
>insufficient to conclude that John de Mowbray and Maud de Holand had
>actually been married. And, no mention whatsoever was made by
>Complete Peerage of Maud de Holand's later marriage to Sir Thomas de
>Swinnerton, 3rd Lord Swinnerton.
C.P. vi. p 530 note (i) mentions Maud, daughter of Sir Robert de Holand,
who
married Sir Thomas de Swynnerton, citing W. Salt Soc., vol vii. pt 2, p
40.
It should be worthwhile following up.
> Indeed, in its later treatment of
>the Swinnerton family, Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 588 (sub
>Swynnerton) says only that Sir Thomas de Swinnerton is "said to have
>married Maud." Regarding the identification in print by Canon
>Bridgeman of the wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton being Maud, daughter
>of Sir Robert de Holand, Lord Holand, Complete Peerage curtly
>dismisses Bridgeman by saying: "There does not seem to be any record
>of evidence of this marriage."
>
>In truth, John de Mowbray did marry and divorce Maud de Holand,
>daughter of Sir Robert de Holand, 1st Lord Holand. And, Maud de
>Holand did subsequently marry Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, 3rd Lord
>Swinnerton, just as claimed by Canon Bridgeman. The evidence of these
>two marriages can be found in three do***ents which are available in
>the helpful online A2A Catalogue. These do***ents are labelled #1,
>2, and 3 below. All are drawn from the Berkeley Castle Muniments
>catalogue.
>
>In the first do***ent, John de Mowbray the elder grants his son and
>heir, John de Mowbray the younger, and Maud his wife three manors in
>York****re, which manors are named.
Their modern names are Kirby Malzeard, Hovingham and Burton in Lonsdale
(all
in the North Riding - in the case of Burton only just!).
> This do***ent is undated. In the
>second do***ent dated 1332, Maud daughter of Robert de Holand releases
>the three manors in question in York****re back to John de Mowbray the
>younger, in return for a grant of two manors for life, namely Ryarsh,
>Kent and Crick, Northampton****re. In the third do***ent dated 1342,
Shouldn't this be 1343? (13 March 1342 O.S. = 1343 N.S.)
>Maud, then wife of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, is stated to be holding
>the manors of Ryarsh, Kent and Crick, Northampton****re for life. That
>Maud de Swinnerton is the same person as Maud de Holand is confirmed
>by Canon Bridgeman who re****ted that there was formerly in Swinnerton
>Church an effigy of a woman over whom was written, Mati[l]dis de
>Swynnerton [that is Maud de Swinnerton], with a ****eld giving the arms
>of Holand, viz: Azure, sémée of fleurs-de-lys argent, a lion rampant
>guardant argent.
>
What is the citation for Canon Bridgeman's re****t? Does he give a source
and, if so, what? What sort of date was the ****eld and was it really
coloured? Or were the tinctures added by Bridgeman? Presumably there
would
have been other coats of arms, e.g. a cross flory for Swinnerton.
>Maud de Holand, widow of Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, was known to be
>living in 1364–1365.
What is the evidence for this please?
> My research indicates that Maud must have died
>sometime before 10 May 1380, when the manor of Crick, Northampton****re
>which had been assigned to her for life was back in the possession of
>the Mowbray family [see Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1377–1381 (1895):
>488].
>
>For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
>World immigrants that descend from Maud de Holand and her second
>husband, Sir Thomas de Swinnerton, 3rd Lord Swinnerton:
>
>Robert Abell, Thomas Bressey, Obadiah Bruen, Agatha, Alice, Eleanor,
>Jane & Martha Eltonhead, John Fenwick, Thomas Gerard, Oliver
>Manwaring, Thomas Owsley, Anthony Savage, James Taylor, Amy Wyllys.
>
>Do you see your immigrant ancestor in this list? If so, I'd
>appreciate hearing from you here on the newsgroup.
>
>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
>
>Do***ent #1:
>
>Berkeley Castle Muniments
>Reference: BCM/D/1/1/1
>Creation dates: [c. 1319]
>
>Scope and Content
>
>John de Moubray, lord of the Isle of Axholme and of Gower; and John
>his eldest son and Maud, the son's wife. n.d.
>
>John has granted to John and Maud the manors of Kyrkeby Malasart,
>Burtone in Lounesdale and Hovyngham, to them and their issue, saving
>to John [the father] the right to hunt when he wishes.
>
>Witnesses: Sir Thomas earl of Lancaster, Sir William de Roos of
>Helmsley, William le Latymer, Edmund Dayncourt, Henry son of Hugh,
>William son of William, John Beek.
>
>[Please quote GC3253 at Berkeley Castle Muniments when requesting this
>file]
>
>+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
>Do***ent #2:
>
>Berkeley Castle Muniments
>Reference: BCM/D/1/1/2
>Creation dates: [1332]
>Language: French
>
>Scope and Content
>
>Sir John Moubray, lord of the Isle of Axholme, and Maud daughter of
>Sir Robert de Holand.
>Dated: 26 Oct. 6 Edward III [1332].
>
>In the presence of Sir Ralph de Neville, Sir Robert de Ufford, Sir
>Roger Swynnertone, and Sir John Darcy, the dispute between John and
>Maud has been settled, viz. that Maud has quitclaimed to John the
>manors of Hovyngham, Kyrkebymalasart, Burtone en Lounesdale and all
>other lands and holdings which he has in England and Wales, and for
>this John has granted to her for her life the manors of Ryesse (Kent),
>and Crek (Northants.).
>
>At: York.
>
>+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>Do***ent #3:
>
>Berkeley Castle Muniments
>Reference: BCM/D/1/1/9
>
>Creation dates: [1343]
>Language: French
>
>Scope and Content
>
>William de Mountagu, earl of Salisbury, Sir Edward de Mountagu his
>brother, and Lady Alice, Edward's wife; and Sir John lord of Moubray
>and Lady Joan his wife. 13 March 1342
>
>An agreement has been made for a double marriage between John, son and
>heir of John de Moubray, and Audrey, eldest daughter of Edward, and
>between Edward son and heir of Edward, and Blanche, daughter of John
>de Moubray, in this manner, viz. that the solemnities will be
>performed at the nativity of John the Baptist next [24 June 1343] at
>Moubray's expense, and Moubray will grant to John and Audrey and their
>issue 300 marks of land, viz. the manor of Melton Mowbray to the value
>of £90 and the remainder from the reversion of the manors of Creke
>(Northants.) and Ryasshe (Kent) which Maud wife of Sir Thomas de
>Swynarton holds for life, and Schidestoke (Warws.) which Sir Richard
>de Pessale holds for life; and Edward will grant to Edward and Blanche
>and their issue 100 marks of land and 200 marks of cash a year; and
>William and Edward will pay to Moubray £1,000 at terms, and both
>fathers promise that none of their lands will be eloined from the
>right heirs.
>
>At: Knepp.
|
