On Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 11:49:56 PM UTC-4, Rosie Bevan wrote:
> My apologies about the last post, which seems to have had problems
> with the font I used. I'm reposting in the hope this will be easier to
> read.
> Mr Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread but some
> further points in regard to the nature of Eve and James's relationship
> need to made, which continue to throw doubt on the existence of any
> marriage.
> In my opinion the biggest stumbling block is the question of affinity
> - and this must explain the circumspection of the author, Josiah
> Wedgwood of the Audley of Helegh section in 'The Complete Peerage'.
> Politically their marriage was not important enough for them to be
> granted a dispensation at such a high level of consanguineous
> affinity. At two degrees this would have meant a papal dispensation,
> not one by a bishop, who only had discretion over fourth degree
> dispensations at this period in time. Eve's father had alienated most
> of his patrimony in 1311, so that there was precious little for her to
> inherit, and James came from a minor cadet branch with a small estate.
> It seems doubtful that they would have even considered applying for
> one, in the knowledge that they had neither the resources or political
> influence to carry through the process, which had no guarantee of
> success anyway.
> The 1319 deed bears closer examination. While Mr Richardson has
> glossed over
> it, saying it is indication that they had married by that time, the
> evidence shows otherwise.
> There were actually two deeds - one dated 1 November 1319 and the
> other dated 11 November 1319.
> The one dated 1 November was a deed of James de Audley leasing the
> third part of the manor of Cold Norton, Eve's dower, to Peter de
> Giffard for an annual rent of £23 6s 8d.,
> "...covent entre Sir James Daudeleye de une parte et Sir Piers
> Giffard
> de autre part, cest-a-savoir que le dit Sir James par cest escrit ad
> grante et a ferme Coldenorton ove tous les appurtenaunces saunt rein
> retenir en le Countee de Estafford le quel le dite Sir James ad du
> donn dame Eve Doufford a terme de la vie la dite dame Eve a avoir le
> tenir la tierce partie du maner susdit ove les appurtenaunces a le
> avaunt dit Sir Piers, ses heirs et ses assignes del dit Sir James a
> terme de la vie la dite dame Eve. Rendaunt pures chescun an a dit Sir
> James vint trois livres siz soutz vyt deners desterlings a deux termes
> etc E si aveigne qe le dit Sir James devie. (No witnesses.) (1st
> November, 1319)" [NCHS, Vol. 5, p. 224]
> With the kind help of Peter Stewart the above translates to,
> ...agreement between Sir James de Audley on one part and Sir Peter
> Giffard on the other part, notice that the said Sir James by this
> writing has granted the fee farm to the said Sir Peter of the third
> part of the manor of Cold Norton including all its appurtenances
> without withholding anything in the County of Stafford, which the said
> Sir James acquired by the gift of lady Eve Doufford for the term of
> life of the said lady Eve, to have and to hold, the third part of
> themanor aforesaid and its appurtenances to the aforesaid Sir Peter,
> his heirsand assigns, of the said Sir James for the term of the life
> of lady Eve.
> Here we see that James held the third part manor by the GIFT of lady
> Eve, not by right as her husband - "le quel le dite Sir James ad du
> donn dame Eve Doufford". The nature of the tenure is reinforced by the
> fact that lady Eve made a separate charter on 11 November 1319
> confirming James' lease to Peter de Giffard. Had James de Audley been
> married to Eve at this time there would have been one deed in which
> both their names appeared as granting the lease. James would have had
> automatic right de jure uxoris, and a confirmation charter by Eve
> would have been superfluous.
> The article in which the second charter is mentioned is by Josiah
> Wedgwood himself - Parentage of Sir James de Audley, K.G., in Coll.
> Hist. Staff. N.S. vol. IX, pp.246-268. This is a fairly detailed and
> competent study of Sir James de Audley and worthreading. The author
> included an illustration of the seal of Eve at the end of the article,
> and from the description in Hedley, it is exactly the same one as was
> used in 1334, with the arms of Ufford impaling Audley. They are of
> Audley of Heighley, those of her first husband, not Audley of
> Stratton.
> The author gives another potentially important piece of evidence
> showing that a James de Audley was alive on 23 Sept 1333 when Hugh de
> Audley, brother of James de Audley, appointed him his attorney while
> he was on a pilgrimage overseas. This pilgrimage is given in the
> account of his life in CP V p.717.
> Patent Rolls, 1333, p.467
> "Simple protection, until a fortnight after Easter, for Hugh Daudele
> going on pilgrimage beyond the seas.
> The said Hugh has letters nominating James Daudele and John de Sancto
> Paulo, clerk, his attorneys in England until the same date."
> Although the entry does not specify that James is Hugh's brother,
> there is no other known candidate of the same name within Hugh's
> trusted family circle at that time. It could not have been James de
> Audley of Heleigh, who was still a minor and not able to legally
> conduct affairs on Hugh's behalf, even though he had been given early
> seisin of his lands. It is my belief that James de Audley was still
> living at that date and died between then and 1334, as is stated by CP
> I p.339.
> Cheers
> Rosie

Rosie,

I have completely gone through this entire thread as I am working on research for Eve de Clavering, and the most striking passage is from Wedgwood referencing the second document from 11 November 1319. I quoted it with the source as follows:

The conclusion by Josiah Wedgwood in his own words:

"Now this James eldest son of Hugh the elder married, if in fact he ever married her at all, Eve de Clavering, 2 widow of Thomas, Lord Audley (d. 1307), and of Sir Thomas de Ufford (d. 1314). In a deed of 11th November, 1319, Eve, still spoken of as Eve de Ufford, leases her one-third part of the manor of Cold Norton to Sir Peter Giffard, "c'est a savoir qe, come Sire James Daudeleye a lese la tierce partie du maner a Sire Pieris advie de la vie la dame Eve,.. La dite dame Eve par cest escrit graunte que si ensi aveigne (qui Deux defent) qe le dit Sire James devie vivaunte la dite dame Eve, qe le dit Sire Pieris teigne..." It will be noticed that Sir James and Eve do not speak of each other as husband and wife, but that they have some mutual interests in each others' lives."

"still spoken of as Eve de Ufford" and "qe le dit Sire James devie vivaunte la dite dame Eve" are very strong. I will be noting the arguments for both married and unmarried with all available sources online. If I am missing anything which could add to the summation, I will gladly accept it.

My work in progress under Research Notes: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Clavering-110

Thank you.

Darrell E. Larocque