Thankyou Douglas for the information that Eve, the wife of Hamon Pecche
had previously been married to Robert de Valoines. I previously had two
separate Eves.
Merilyn Pedrick
Here is previous correspondence about Eve:-
Rosie,
Thank you very much for sharing this information with me. It is very
helpful and very much appreciated.
I can only hope that the identity of Eve, wife of Robert Valoines (#7
below), might proof intriguing enough to catch the eye of some of the
other researchers. It seems there may be an, as yet, unidentified royal
connection to be worked out. It will be interesting to see what clues
may turn up that will lead to that connection.
I know you are busy with many tasks, so thanks again for taking the time
to respond. Sincerely,
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosie Bevan [<mailto:rbevan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:57 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard
> Rosie et al, >
> Thanks for posting this; I found it very helpful. However, as you can
expect, it raises some additional questions that I'm hoping you, or
someone else, can answer.
Dear Gordon
Please see comments below
1.According to the IPM of William le Blund [CIPM I no. 585] he was
holding the "land of Lenehey(?)' of the Earl of Oxford by free marriage.
So the indication is that he was married to a comital Vere - perhaps a
daughter of Hugh de Vere and Hawise de Quincy. Cecily might be a name
that would appear in the de Vere family as it was the name of Hugh's
great grandmother.
2.The evidence about Eve's kin****p to the king comes from the
inquisition of her husband [CIPM 2 no. 432]. "Mandate to W. de Odiham
and A. de Berton marvelling that they have returnes the extents sent to
them without making assignment of dower to Lady Eva, the king's cousin,
pretending that it was not fully evident to them what the king wished,
and commanding that not what pleases him, but what is in accordance with
right by these extents should be done. They need not write about the
manors of Toleshunte and Blunteshale, the king having formerly commanded
the manor of Toleshunte to be delivered to her" Eve's inquisition [CIPM
III no. 150] says that she and her first husband, Nicholas Tregoz, had
been granted the manors for life by Robert Burnel bishop of Bath and
Wells, with remainder to the heirs of Nicholas. It is unlikely that Eve
was a Criketot, on the grounds of consanguinity - unless she was a
daughter of William de Criketot by a previous wife to Agnes Blund.
3.. The following is the descent of the Valoines of Parham, Suffolk
1.Hamo de Valoines, tenant of Count Alan in Parham and other lands in
Suffolk [EYC V 234; DP 242]
2.Theobald de Valoines, lord of Parham. Father of Bertha, wife of
Ranulph de Glanville, and Matilda, wife of Hervey Walter. Living 1135.
Married to Helewise [EYC V 234; DD755] 3. Robert de Valoines , holding 7
fees of the castle guard of Richmond, dead by 1178. Married to Alice
[EYC V 234 ; DD754* see note below]
4. Theobald de Valoine held 5 1/2 fees in Parham, Suffolk, 1 fee in
Hickling Norfolk and 3 fees in Ditton, Cambs. In return for castle guard
at Richmond. Founder of Hickling priory d. bef 1209. Married to Avice.
[EYC V 234; DD 754; Monasticon Anglicanum vol VI p.476]
5. Thomas de Valoines, holding 7 fees of the honour of Richmond,
including 3 fees in Ditton. Involved in a suit over land in Parham in
1220. Married to Isabel de Creake [EYC V 234; CRR IX p.24, 31; CIPM 4
no. 392; HKF III p.428].
6. Robert de Valoines . Held the manor of Parham of John de Vaux of the
honour of Richmond. Married to Roese Blund, sister and coh of William
Blund d.s.p. 1264 [ HKF III p.428; CIPM I no. 585].
7. Robert de Valoines b. c 1247. In the custody of Robert Burnell,
bishop of Bath and Wells during his minority. Holding 3 fees in Cambs.
(Wood Ditton aka Ditton Valence) and 2 fees in Hickling, Norfolk (no
return for Suffolk) of the honour of Richmond (of Peter de Savoy) for
castle guard. Married to Eve, widow of Nicholas Tregoz. She died in 1292
[CIPM II no.381; CIPM II no.
432; CIPM III, no.125; HKF III p.428].
8. Rose de Valoines b.1280 married Sir Edmund de Pakenham. At her death
in 1353 she was holding the manor of Ditton Valoyns, held of the earl of
Richmond for 3 knights fees and 37s. yearly [CIPM X no. 111] 8. Cecily
de Valoines b.1281 married to Robert de Ufford who was granted free
warren in his lands in Parham in 1304. At her death in 1325, Cecily was
holding in dower the manor of Hickling of John of Brittany, earl of
Richmond, by service of a knight's fee and 10s. for the guard of the
castle of Richmond, and the manor of Parham of Petronilla de Nerford, by
service of 55s. for the guard of the castle of Richmond. Note.
Keats-Rohan DD 754 is clearly in error on chronological grounds for
attributing Rose Blund as wife of the Robert (generation 3) described as
dead by 1178.
I hope this has been of some help. Cheers Rosie
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Sir Gilbert Pecche, Knt., 1st Lord Pecche, was styled "king's kinsman"
> by King Edward II of England [Reference: Tout, The Place of the Reign
> of Edward II in English Hist. (1914): 395].
>
> The reference to Tout's comments may be viewed at the following
> weblink:
>
>
http://search.live.com/books/#q=%22king's%20kinsman%22&filter=all&page=1&t=891GnkRPJZetRfmL_PpL_Q&sq=%22king's%20kinsman%22
>
> Tout suggests (correctly I think) that the kin****p betyween Gilbert
> Pecche to the king comes through Gilbert Pecche's paternal
> grandmother, Eve, wife of Hamon Pecche, which lady is known to have
> been foreign born [see Complete Peerage, 10 (1945): 335, footnote b).
> If so, it would seem that Eve Pecche was probably a near relative to
> one of the foreign born queens of England. In 1242, for example, Eve
> Pecche had license to go abroad.
>
> We can be reasonably sure that Sir Gilbert Pecche was not related to
> King Edward II of England through the English oryal family itself, as
> Sir Gilbert's mother, Joan de Creye, is known to have married first to
> Richard de Dover, a great-grandson of King John [see C.P. 10 (1945):
> 335–336 (sub Pecche)]. Had Gilbert Pecche's father also been a
> descendant of the English royal family, then Gilbert's parents would
> have needed to obtain a dispensation for affinity when they married.
>
> Another helpful clue is the reference to Eve , widow of Robert de
> Valoines, being styled “king’s cousin” to King Edward I of England
> [Reference: Cal. IPMs 2 (1906): 247; see also C.P. 12(2) (1959): 150
> (sub Ufford)]. Due to the given name, Eve, I have speculated that Eve
> de Valoines (died 1292) was a sister of Sir Gilbert Pecche, Knt., and
> thus named for Gilbert's grandmother, Eve Pecche the foreigner.
>
> If Gilbert Pecche and Eve de Valoines were in fact siblings, then the
> connection to one of the the foreign born queens would necessarily
> date before King Edward I's queen, Eleanor of Castile.
>
> We're afforded one other possible clue to the identity of Sir Gilbert
> Pecche's grandmother, Eve Pecche. Complete Peerage, 10 (1945): 334
> tells us that the marriage of this Eve's husband, Hamon Pecche, was
> granted in 1213 to Hugh de Boves, a French knight. Hugh de Boves was
> not near related to the English royal family, but he might well have
> had a near kinswoman that was. My research indicates that Sir Hugh
> de Boves was styled "kinsman" [nepoti] by Hugh de Gournay in 1210
> [Reference: Gurney, The record of the house of Gournay (1858): 763].
> This reference can be found at the following weblink:
>
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=gFUBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA763&lpg=PA763&dq=%22Hugh+de+Boves%22&source=web&ots=_wsk0phf-5&sig=L5E_e12RyaADU9R14Qs85JFylas&hl=en
>
> The kin****p of Hugh de Boves and Hugh de Gournay is elsewhere noted in
> the recent book, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early
> Thirteenth Centuries (2004), by Daniel Power, pg. 359. This citation
> may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=UrjF6T6JZvYC&pg=PA359&dq=%22Hugh+de+Boves%22&lr=&sig=JptbK3qtZbuE2f7wbCRbR9Q-2j8
>
> For interest's sake, I should note that there is at least one 17th
> Century New World immigrant that descends from Sir Gilbert Pecche,
> Knt., 1st Lord Pecche, namely Jane (Lawrence) Giddings, of New
> England. As for Eve (_____), widow of Robert de Valoines, I find that
> she is ancestral to over 50 New World immigrants, who are listed
> below.
>
> This matter deserves further research.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + +
> List of Colonial Immigrants descended from Eve (_____) de Valoines
> (died 1292).
>
> l. Elizabeth Alsop.
>
> 2. Henry, Thomas & William Batte.
>
> 3. Anne Baynton.
>
> 4. William Bladen.
>
> 5. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
>
> 6. Thomas Booth.
>
> 7. Elizabeth Bosvile.
>
> 8. George, Giles & Robert Brent.
>
> 9. Obadiah Bruen.
>
> 10. Stephen Bull.
>
> 11. Nathaniel Burrough.
>
> 12. Elizabeth Butler.
>
> 13. Charles Calvert.
>
> 14. Edward Carleton.
>
> 15. Kenelm Cheseldine.
>
> 16. Grace Chetwode.
>
> 17. Jeremy Clarke.
>
> 18. William Clopton.
>
> 19. St. Leger Codd.
>
> 20. Francis Dade.
>
> 21. Anne Derehaugh.
>
> 22. Edward Digges.
>
> 23. Thomas Dudley.
>
> 24. John Fenwick.
>
> 25. Henry Fleete.
>
> 26. Muriel Gurdon.
>
> 27. Jane Haviland.
>
> 28. Warham Horsmanden.
>
> 29. Anne Humphrey.
>
> 30. Edmund Jennings.
>
> 31. Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe.
>
> 32. Roger & Thomas Mallory.
>
> 33. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.
>
> 34. Anne & Katherine Marbury.
>
> 35. Elizabeth Marshall.
>
> 36. Anne Mauleverer.
>
> 37. Philip & Thomas Nelson.
>
> 39. Ellen Newton.
>
> 40. Thomas Owsley.
>
> 41. John Oxenbridge.
>
> 42. Herbert Pelham.
>
> 43. Henry & William Randolph.
>
> 44. Thomas Rudyard.
>
> 45. Katherine Saint Leger.
>
> 46. Maria Johanna Somerset.
>
> 47. John Stockman.
>
> 48. Jemima Waldegrave.
>
> 49. John West.
>
> 50. Thomas Wingfield.
>
> 51. Hawte Wyatt.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
|
