> The Chronicle of Sibton omits mention of Sarra and her issue; and worse still, it does not mention the heir who succeeded to the Sussex portion of this fee. This was Alice daughter (?) and heir of John de Chesney, who married first Hugh de Periers, who died at the end of 1175,35 and secondly Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;. In 1180 Geoffrey; and Alice;, holding the manor of Ditton Priors, Salop, in dower by the endowment of Hugh de Periers to the said Alice, delivered it to the prior of Wenlock charged with an annuity to Alice.36 Geoffrey de Say;, with the consent of Alice his wife and William his son and heir, and for the health of his lord Henry II, gave the advowson and church of Bradfield, Norf., to Walden priory.37 Geoffrey de Say; confirmed to Coxford the gifts of William de Chesney and John his nephew, and also gave the church of St. Margaret at Thorpe by (South) Repps for the souls of his wife Alice, his father William, and others of his kindred.38 On New Year's Day, 1198 or 1199, Geoffrey de Sai and Geoffrey son of the same Geoffrey; and Alice; (Aeliza) de Chesney, for the souls of the said Alice de Chesney, William her son and William earl of Mandevill, gave to the hospital at Drincourt a church and land in the same district.39 Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;, made a feoffment of land in Edmonton, Midd., towards the end of the 12th century; as Geoffrey de Say;, son of Alice de Chesney, he made another feoff- ment of land there.40 Geoffrey; and Alice; gave the church of West Greenwich, Kent, to the abbey of Beigham.41 Within the period 1196-1198 Geoffrey son of William de Say; gave to Geoffrey his son the manor of Ridding, Essex.42 Geoffrey de Say; was surety in n94 with earl Roger Bigod and William de Warenne (of Wormegay) for Robert de Mortemer (of Attleborough) that Robert would make his peace with the king, through the mediation of the primate, for having tourneyed without licence.43 In August 1214 Geoffrey son and heir of Geoffrey de Sai made fine with the king for his father's lands in the counties of Hertford, Buckingham, Sussex, Middlesex and Northampton ; 44 he gave 400 marks; for; this; fine; to; include; the; manor; of Rickling; given to him by his said father.45 In 1223 he was preparing to go on pilgrimage to Santiago.46 He died beyond seas on 19 August, 1230; when William his son and heir succeeded,47 and in 1237 conceded the right of William earl Warenne to the fishery of Hamsey (Hammes) and withdrew his claim to chase venison in certain of the earl's woods in Sussex.48 About the same date William confirmed to the Templars their manor of Saddlescombe, which Geoffrey his grandfather had given in exchange for his earlier gift of the manor of East Green- wich.49

De Caisneto, Johannes
Son of Ralph II de Chesney and Emma Maminot, tenants of Warenne in Sussex. Active in the 1140s. He married Sibil and had issue three sons, Robert, Drogo, and John, who all d.s.p., and three daughters, including Alice, wife first of Hugh de Periers (d. 1175), and then of Geoffrey de Say, and Emma, wife of Michael Belet.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Domesday_Descendants/5HFLEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22hugh+de+periers%22+alice&pg=PA368&printsec=frontcover

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:13:53 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 2:35:35 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > > > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> > > > > Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
> > > > >
> > > > > As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
> > > > >
> > > > > Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.
> > > > I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.
> > > >
> > > > The version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
> > > >
> > > > Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a document differently than the CP editor does. This (the Ancient Deeds citation) is what CP summarizes as by 'Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife', and further confirmed by William de Say son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. CP clearly parsed this as "Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and Agnes his wife" - i.e. Agnes was wife of the confirmer, while the only way you could get Richardson's reconstruction is parsing it "Geoffrey de Say, filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife", making Agnes teh motehr of the confirmer. The difference makes Agnes either the [step?] mother of William (which is entirely inconsistent with this William being the son of 'widow Hawise de Clare' as in Richardson's reconstruction), or that same William's grandmother.
> > > >
> > > > As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > And this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
> > > Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429
> > "Walkelin [Magminot/ Maminot] was apparently dead in 3 Ric. I, when the scutage of Wales due from his estate was paid by his heir, and it is suggested that he left no issue, but was succeeded by one or more of his brothers, who also died childless, until at last his barony passed to the husband of his sister Alice. Geoffrey de Say, son of the Geoffrey of this roll, in confirming grants to Beigham, [Kent,] speaks of the gift which his father Geoffrey de Say and his mother Aliz had made: and in the elder Geoffrey's own grant Walkelin Maminot is described as his “antecessor," a word which at this period means simply predecessor in title.
> > By the end of Richard's reign Geoffrey de Say had succeeded to the responsibilities of his wife's inheritance, the following entry appearing in the Pipe Roll for the ninth year under Kent 'Galfr' de Say debet roli. ios. de scutagio heredum Walkelini Maminot quorum heres est.' Whether in fact he succeeded to the estate of joint heirs or to the debts of successive heirs does not at present appear.
> > Part of the Say fief in Bucks. was thus certainly derived through the Maminot alliance, but this does not account for the whole of it. Sawbridgeworth in Herts. came to him, for in the 2nd year of John he owes seven marks to have lands which had been Earl William's; and in 1212 he is returned as holding Sabrithteswurth in chief, pertaining to the honour of Earl William de Mandevill. The fief may of course have grown after the time of Geoffrey."
> >
> > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039477511&view=1up&seq=229&q1=%22by%20one%20or%20more%20of%20his%20brothers%22
> Forgive the lack of punctuation; this whole chunk was cut and pasted from the Hathi Trust sidebar (from Farrer's _Honors and Knights' Fees_, 3:318-19).
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015032992151&view=1up&seq=334&q1=%22geoffrey%20and%20alice%22%20say
>
> The Chronicle of Sibton omits mention of Sarra and her issue; and worse still, it does not mention the heir who succeeded to the Sussex portion of this fee. This was Alice daughter (?) and heir of John de Chesney, who married first Hugh de Periers, who died at the end of 1175,35 and secondly Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;. In 1180 Geoffrey; and Alice;, holding the manor of Ditton Priors, Salop, in dower by the endowment of Hugh de Periers to the said Alice, delivered it to the prior of Wenlock charged with an annuity to Alice.36 Geoffrey de Say;, with the consent of Alice his wife and William his son and heir, and for the health of his lord Henry II, gave the advowson and church of Bradfield, Norf., to Walden priory.37 Geoffrey de Say; confirmed to Coxford the gifts of William de Chesney and John his nephew, and also gave the church of St. Margaret at Thorpe by (South) Repps for the souls of his wife Alice, his father William, and others of his kindred.38 On New Year's Day, 1198 or 1199, Geoffrey de Sai and Geoffrey son of the same Geoffrey; and Alice; (Aeliza) de Chesney, for the souls of the said Alice de Chesney, William her son and William earl of Mandevill, gave to the hospital at Drincourt a church and land in the same district.39 Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;, made a feoffment of land in Edmonton, Midd., towards the end of the 12th century; as Geoffrey de Say;, son of Alice de Chesney, he made another feoff- ment of land there.40 Geoffrey; and Alice; gave the church of West Greenwich, Kent, to the abbey of Beigham.41 Within the period 1196-1198 Geoffrey son of William de Say; gave to Geoffrey his son the manor of Ridding, Essex.42 Geoffrey de Say; was surety in n94 with earl Roger Bigod and William de Warenne (of Wormegay) for Robert de Mortemer (of Attleborough) that Robert would make his peace with the king, through the mediation of the primate, for having tourneyed without licence.43 In August 1214 Geoffrey son and heir of Geoffrey de Sai made fine with the king for his father's lands in the counties of Hertford, Buckingham, Sussex, Middlesex and Northampton ; 44 he gave 400 marks; for; this; fine; to; include; the; manor; of Rickling; given to him by his said father.45 In 1223 he was preparing to go on pilgrimage to Santiago.46 He died beyond seas on 19 August, 1230; when William his son and heir succeeded,47 and in 1237 conceded the right of William earl Warenne to the fishery of Hamsey (Hammes) and withdrew his claim to chase venison in certain of the earl's woods in Sussex.48 About the same date William confirmed to the Templars their manor of Saddlescombe, which Geoffrey his grandfather had given in exchange for his earlier gift of the manor of East Green- wich.49

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Genealogist/myI9AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22hugh+de+periers%22+alice&pg=PA183&printsec=frontcover

> Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.
>
> taf

It fell to me in the hereditary society to investigate the alleged Cheyne-Town link. Watch for a forthcoming article in TAG that presents what several interested parties found. There are several charts and graphics needed to explain the evidence, making this newsgroup an unwieldy place to try to present it, but here's a teaser.

We found some evidence that suggests the Town-Sondes-Bettenham family inherited Salerne lands, which led us to conclude that Thomas Town's wife Joan fits as William and Eleanor (Salerne) Cheyne's daughter.

Also, we dug through MSS collections of Thomas and Joan Town's great-great-great-great grandson antiquarian Sir Edward Dering, 1st Baronet (1598-1644).. Dering was only able to conclude that “Johanna F[ilia] Will[elm]i vel Ric[ard]i Cheney de Shapeia” (Joan was the daughter of William or Richard Cheney of Sheppey); source: U350/Z34, Kent Record Office. We're not sure at what point in his research he drew this conclusion, or if this was his final conclusion.

The stain-glassed window at Nettlestead church in Kent is further analyzed, as well as a probable connection to John Warner, of Foots Cray, Kent, Esq., MP (d. 1460), whose bio appears in the latest HoP series. Theories about the shared ancestry of Warner's two wives through the Cralles, resulting in the need for a papal dispensation, will also be discussed.

No contemporary record was found that directly identifies the parents of Joan wife of Thomas Town. We'll have to leave it up to readers to analyze the findings and draw their own conclusions about her identity.

Nathan

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:00:11 PM UTC-5, nathan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.
> >
> > taf
> It fell to me in the hereditary society to investigate the alleged Cheyne-Town link. Watch for a forthcoming article in TAG that presents what several interested parties found. There are several charts and graphics needed to explain the evidence, making this newsgroup an unwieldy place to try to present it, but here's a teaser.
>
> We found some evidence that suggests the Town-Sondes-Bettenham family inherited Salerne lands, which led us to conclude that Thomas Town's wife Joan fits as William and Eleanor (Salerne) Cheyne's daughter.
>
> Also, we dug through MSS collections of Thomas and Joan Town's great-great-great-great grandson antiquarian Sir Edward Dering, 1st Baronet (1598-1644). Dering was only able to conclude that “Johanna F[ilia] Will[elm]i vel Ric[ard]i Cheney de Shapeia” (Joan was the daughter of William or Richard Cheney of Sheppey); source: U350/Z34, Kent Record Office. We're not sure at what point in his research he drew this conclusion, or if this was his final conclusion.
>
> The stain-glassed window at Nettlestead church in Kent is further analyzed, as well as a probable connection to John Warner, of Foots Cray, Kent, Esq., MP (d. 1460), whose bio appears in the latest HoP series. Theories about the shared ancestry of Warner's two wives through the Cralles, resulting in the need for a papal dispensation, will also be discussed.
>
> No contemporary record was found that directly identifies the parents of Joan wife of Thomas Town. We'll have to leave it up to readers to analyze the findings and draw their own conclusions about her identity.
>
> Nathan

Cool! Sounds interesting ...

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 6:00:11 PM UTC-8, nathan...@gmail.com wrote:

> We found some evidence that suggests the Town-Sondes-Bettenham family inherited Salerne lands, which led us to conclude that Thomas Town's wife Joan fits as William and Eleanor (Salerne) Cheyne's daughter.
>

This would seemingly match the uncorrected Sondes pedigree in the Kent Visitation.

If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, or would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to be a quagmire, and it loses a level of immediacy if there is no connection to the Epps immigrants (though if Mr. Richardson's account is accurate, I have a Say descend from a different immigrant anyhow, so I may be stuck with it). I do understand if you would prefer not to answer until after publication.

Thanks, taf

> If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, or would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to be a quagmire, and it loses a level of immediacy if there is no connection to the Epps immigrants (though if Mr. Richardson's account is accurate, I have a Say descend from a different immigrant anyhow, so I may be stuck with it). I do understand if you would prefer not to answer until after publication.
>
> Thanks, taf

William Cheyne was Richard Cheyne's son, so the proposed Epps royal descent would still be going through the Cheyne/Say lineage. The 1566 Vis. of Bedfordshire (HSP 21:15) offers a third alternative for Joan's father, "John Cheyney of the Isle of Sheppey in Kent." The only John of Sheppey I've found was also Richard Cheyne's son (CIPM 25:28-29). He witnessed another person's IPM, which is the only record I've found of John. John died sometime between 1413 and 1437.

Please continue the Say research. I'd love to see what you all find.

Nathan

P.S. Nathaniel Taylor is now in the role of approving genealogist for several of the royal hereditary societies in the USA. I've needed to bow out to work on another project, i.e. the Great Migration Study Project through NEHGS.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 1:12:54 AM UTC-5, nathan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, or would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to be a quagmire, and it loses a level of immediacy if there is no connection to the Epps immigrants (though if Mr. Richardson's account is accurate, I have a Say descend from a different immigrant anyhow, so I may be stuck with it). I do understand if you would prefer not to answer until after publication.
> >
> > Thanks, taf
> William Cheyne was Richard Cheyne's son, so the proposed Epps royal descent would still be going through the Cheyne/Say lineage. The 1566 Vis. of Bedfordshire (HSP 21:15) offers a third alternative for Joan's father, "John Cheyney of the Isle of Sheppey in Kent." The only John of Sheppey I've found was also Richard Cheyne's son (CIPM 25:28-29). He witnessed another person's IPM, which is the only record I've found of John. John died sometime between 1413 and 1437.
>
> Please continue the Say research. I'd love to see what you all find.
>
> Nathan
>
> P.S. Nathaniel Taylor is now in the role of approving genealogist for several of the royal hereditary societies in the USA. I've needed to bow out to work on another project, i.e. the Great Migration Study Project through NEHGS.

Nathan, interesting about your new work for NEHGS. I assume this means you have joined Ian Watson, who produced the first vol. of the new series. Since that will undoubtedly be a huge job, it is probably good to have two working on it.

I've been hit and miss on the Say end, just noticing new things and throwing quotes to see what sticks. I did get a chance, yesterday, to briefly scan the Pyel cartulary (? or letters) that Doug Richardson cited in his rearrangement of the Say line to include a Clare marriage. The record does appear to say something about "Geoffrey de Say and Hawisia de Clare" granting some land in the appropriate time period. I only got the briefest look before the announcement came on to vacate the library building, but I'll look again tomorrow and try to post the whole grant (or deed/ charter?).

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:40:41 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 1:12:54 AM UTC-5, nathan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, or would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to be a quagmire, and it loses a level of immediacy if there is no connection to the Epps immigrants (though if Mr. Richardson's account is accurate, I have a Say descend from a different immigrant anyhow, so I may be stuck with it). I do understand if you would prefer not to answer until after publication.
> > >
> > > Thanks, taf
> > William Cheyne was Richard Cheyne's son, so the proposed Epps royal descent would still be going through the Cheyne/Say lineage. The 1566 Vis. of Bedfordshire (HSP 21:15) offers a third alternative for Joan's father, "John Cheyney of the Isle of Sheppey in Kent." The only John of Sheppey I've found was also Richard Cheyne's son (CIPM 25:28-29). He witnessed another person's IPM, which is the only record I've found of John. John died sometime between 1413 and 1437.
> >
> > Please continue the Say research. I'd love to see what you all find.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > P.S. Nathaniel Taylor is now in the role of approving genealogist for several of the royal hereditary societies in the USA. I've needed to bow out to work on another project, i.e. the Great Migration Study Project through NEHGS.
> Nathan, interesting about your new work for NEHGS. I assume this means you have joined Ian Watson, who produced the first vol. of the new series. Since that will undoubtedly be a huge job, it is probably good to have two working on it.
>
> I've been hit and miss on the Say end, just noticing new things and throwing quotes to see what sticks. I did get a chance, yesterday, to briefly scan the Pyel cartulary (? or letters) that Doug Richardson cited in his rearrangement of the Say line to include a Clare marriage. The record does appear to say something about "Geoffrey de Say and Hawisia de Clare" granting some land in the appropriate time period. I only got the briefest look before the announcement came on to vacate the library building, but I'll look again tomorrow and try to post the whole grant (or deed/ charter?).

102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger , the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

> 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

"Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover

Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.

For the lands held by the branch of interest:

IPM of William de Sey, writ 12 Feb 56 Hen III [1271/2]
heir William de Say, aged either 18 or 19 on the feast of St Edmund the King. [20 Nov - another inquisition reported that the age of the heir was not known, but that he was in utero when the king went to Gascony, so 1253]

Norfolk: Strattun (manor), held of the earl of Gloucester,
Kent: Burgham manor, held of the king
Codham manor and advowson, held of the king
Westgernewich manor, held of the king
Berling als. Berlinges manor, held of the king
Sussex: Strete manor and advowson, tenure unspecified
Hammes manor and advowson, tenure unspecified
Hertford: Sabritteswrth manor (part), tenure unspecified
Cambridge: Lintone manor, held of the earl of Hereford
Middlesex: Edelmeton manor, held of the king

CIPM, Hen III #813, pp. 281-282

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:53:36 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> "Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover
>
> Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.

No. They were FitzAylwin; The William here is William Aguillon, and Joan was his wife. Most sources I am finding represent Margaret's husband as Roger de Clere, rather than Clare. No Say relevance here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=BrpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45 (with summary chart on next page)

taf

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 3:38:15 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger , the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

IPM of WIlliam le Rus, (CIPM Hen III, #282), 7 June 37 Hen III.
Norfolk: Stintune manor with advowson of Salle and Heydon, held of Sir ROger de Clere, Roger having sold the same to the said William . . . and the said Roger held it of Sir William de Say by service of 1 knights fee.
and again, #462, 41 Hen III
Norfolk: Stinton manor, held of William de Say

And while we are at it
IPM of John le Blund (CIPM Hen III, #571) 48 Hen III
Middlesex: Edelmeton, manor, held of William de Say in chief, 1/4 knight's fee.

taf

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:47:34 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with
> the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was
> the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety.
> Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held
> Rickling, Essex,

Ancient Deeds, vol. 2, #2287 p. 503

Confirmation by Geoffrey de Say, son of Geoffrey, son of William de Say, of a grant made by his said father to Geoffrey de Say, his own brother, whom his father had by Alice de Ver, on the petition of WIlliam de Say, his eldest brother, of the manor of Rickeling. [witnesses . . . ] date est. betw. 10 August 1197 and 8 March 1198

Ancient Deeds, vol 3, #3100, p. 338

Grant by Geoffrey de Say son of William de Say to Geoffrey de Say, his son, of the manor of Rikeling [witnesses . . . ] date est. 1196-1198 {but obviously before the above confirmation of it}

taf

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:55:42 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:45:38 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > > > Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> > > > > > > > William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> > > > > > > > Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> > > > > > > > William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> > > > > > > > WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> > > > > > > > William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> > > > > > > > Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As you say, quite different.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looking at CP:
> > > > > > > > William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> > > > > > > > (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> > > > > > > > William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> > > > > > > > William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton.." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > taf
> > > > > > > Roberts has ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?
> > > > > > Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
> > > > > > William de Say = Sybil _____
> > > > > > Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > > > > William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> > > > > > Robert de Cheyne = _____
> > > > > > Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."
> > > > > Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that Geoffrey son of William de Say granted Rickling to his son Geoffrey, and that Geoffrey de Say II later confirmed the grant (which would make no sense were he the original recipient - there were clearly two Geoffreys in this generation). CP also relates that two grants by Walkelin Maminot and Geoffrey de Say were confirmed by Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and his wife Alice de Cheney, and also confirmed by William de Say, son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. He adds that by 1200, the Say barony consisted almost entirely of formerly Maminot lands.
> > > > >
> > > > > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> > > > Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
> > > >
> > > > As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
> > > >
> > > > Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.
> > > "He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death went to Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney."
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+alice+cheney&pg=RA14-PA4&printsec=frontcover
> > [6 Henry VI] ..."John Willecotes, Esq., was seized in demesne of the manor of Great Tywe [Tewe] of the King as of his honour of Chester, by the service of a knight's fee, which manor he had granted, long before his death, by charter produced, to Richard Crable [? Cralle] of Sussex, Esq., and Alexander Cheyne of Kent, and Thomas Frankleyn, to hold, &c. ..."
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=willecotes+crable&pg=RA14-PA6&printsec=frontcover
> "William de Say of Sawbridgeworth, Herts., a baron by tenure, died early in 1272, leaving William his son and heir, who was born on 20th Nov. 1252, and a daughter Agnes, who was then already the wife of Alexnder de Cheney. The age of these children makes it clear that Mary [de Say, their father's widow, who remarried to Ufford] was not their mother, as the son and heir of her second marriage was nearly 27 years younger than his supposed half-brother William de Say. Mary's parentage is wholly unknown."
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t11p14v10&view=1up&seq=365&q1=%22it%20clear%20that%20Mary%20was%20not%20their%20mother%22
>
> So in CP's scheme, the last person in the descent should be the father of Agnes (de Say) Cheyney ...
> William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary

Click here to read the complete article

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:54:17 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:53:36 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
>
> > "Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.
> No. They were FitzAylwin; The William here is William Aguillon, and Joan was his wife. Most sources I am finding represent Margaret's husband as Roger de Clere, rather than Clare. No Say relevance here.
> https://books.google.com/books?id=BrpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45 (with summary chart on next page)
>
> taf

Okay, so FitzAylwin, not Aguillon, but Joan married into Aguillon.

I posted this to try to figure out if this was the same "Ralph de Clare" in the below ...
"Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ..."

However, you say it's more likely "de Clere," which I take to be different from the commital "de Clare" family.

Although, as Isabel was a Chesney/ Chesnay, I guess there was already some non-agnate connection there.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:12:09 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:54:17 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:53:36 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> >
> > > "Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > > Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.
> > No. They were FitzAylwin; The William here is William Aguillon, and Joan was his wife. Most sources I am finding represent Margaret's husband as Roger de Clere, rather than Clare. No Say relevance here.
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=BrpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45 (with summary chart on next page)
> >
> > taf
> Okay, so FitzAylwin, not Aguillon, but Joan married into Aguillon.
>
> I posted this to try to figure out if this was the same "Ralph de Clare" in the below ...
> "Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ..."
> However, you say it's more likely "de Clere," which I take to be different from the commital "de Clare" family.
>
> Although, as Isabel was a Chesney/ Chesnay, I guess there was already some non-agnate connection there.

This doesn't look like a productive avenue to me. Whether Clare or Clere, the man's daughter was holding Edmonton as a Say vassal, which need not imply any genealogical connection.

taf

Anyone care to translate the following ...?

(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]

Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.

(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]

Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.

Relevant index entries seem to be ...

Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de

Clare, Alice wife of Roger de

Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes

Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 3:56:25 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>
> Relevant index entries seem to be ...
>
> Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
>
> Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
>
> Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
>
> Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de

S.J. O'Connor, ed., _A Calendar of the Cartularies of John Pyel and Adam Fraunceys_, Camden 5th series, vol. 2 (1993), p. 240, no. 271:

271 Charter of William, son of Geoffrey de Say, and Avice (_Awisia_) [fn. 1: MS. Aelesia.] de Clare with warranty [fn. 2: MS: without warranty.] and date made to John son of John Marsh (_de Mareys_), of the croft called 'Rammescroft' and of 3 perches of meadow in Edmonton lying in 'Middelmerssh' and pertaining to the said croft, to be held of William for 12d _pa_ for all service. And the grantee paid 60s in fine.
Witnesses: Aunfrey de Fhering', seneschal, Stephen de Dunmowe, bailifff, John Blund, William de la Forde, Thomas Picot, Richard Harulf, Peter de la Berewe, Richard de Gysors, Nicholas Marsh, Geoffrey his brother, William son of Geoffrey, Laurence de la Forde.
[Date: 1230 x 1272]
[WAM 261]

There are many other "de Say" entries relating to Edmonton.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 3:56:25 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>
> Relevant index entries seem to be ...
>
> Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
>
> Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
>
> Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
>
> Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de

The indexing is probably wrong on these relationships.

This source below seems to explicitly state that Alice (Dammartin), wife of Roger de Clare, was the daughter of Margery, widow of Dammartin, divorced wife of Geoffrey de Say.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Victoria_History_of_the_County_of_Su/0Jw4AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+%22roger+de+clare%22&pg=PA321&printsec=frontcover

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>
>
> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>
> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>
> Relevant index entries seem to be ...
>
> Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
>
> Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
>
> Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
>
> Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de

A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'. Since no claim was made that she personally committed the wastage in her widowhood and it is agreed the majority was carried out by her second husband, Geoffrey de Say, Roger and Alice don't have a complaint against her. Margery is prohibitted from wastage.

The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.

taf

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:12:58 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > Anyone care to translate the following ...?
> >
> > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> >
> > Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
> >
> >
> > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> >
> > Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> > Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
> >
> > Relevant index entries seem to be ...
> >
> > Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
> >
> > Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
> >
> > Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
> >
> > Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
> A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'. Since no claim was made that she personally committed the wastage in her widowhood and it is agreed the majority was carried out by her second husband, Geoffrey de Say, Roger and Alice don't have a complaint against her. Margery is prohibitted from wastage.
>
> The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.
>
> taf

Is Margery saying Dammartin was specifically "first husband," with Geoffrey de Say was her "second husband"?

Some sources seem to be stating her "de la Ferte" or "de Feritate" husband was prior to Odo/ Eudo Dammartin, so that could be a discrepancy.

"William de la Ferte of Marden and Lavington, Wiltshire, and Alphington, Devon, married Margaret one of the sisters and coheirs of William Briwere, and died in 1216, when Pain de Chaworth had seisin of the lands of William de la Ferte which belonged to his wife by hereditary right, she being Gundred daughter and heir of William de la Ferte and Margaret Briwere."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Early_Yorkshire_Charters_Volume_6_The_Pa/uTwHG7akovwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+lands+of+William+de+la+Ferte+which+belonged+to+his%22&pg=PA54&printsec=frontcover

Assuming Gundred de la Ferte and Alice de Dammartin both married quite young (14-16), I guess Margaret / Margery could be the mother of both of them ....

On 06-Jan-23 11:12 AM, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
>> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>>
>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>
>> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>>
>>
>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>
>> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
>> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>>
>> Relevant index entries seem to be ...
>>
>> Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
>>
>> Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
>>
>> Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
>>
>> Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
>
> A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'.
"Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua ... Et Margeria dicit
quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri
sui" - Margery forcefully defended that she had never in her widowhood
made wastage, sale or destruction, and Roger and Alice had not brought
forward an adequate suit against her on this score. The heronry had been
destroyed by the father of her first husband Odo de Dammartin.
Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:12:58 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > > Anyone care to translate the following ...?
> > >
> > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > >
> > > Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
> > >
> > >
> > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > >
> > > Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> > > Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
> > >
> > > Relevant index entries seem to be ...
> > >
> > > Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
> > >
> > > Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
> > >
> > > Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
> > >
> > > Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
> > A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'. Since no claim was made that she personally committed the wastage in her widowhood and it is agreed the majority was carried out by her second husband, Geoffrey de Say, Roger and Alice don't have a complaint against her. Margery is prohibitted from wastage.
> >
> > The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.
> >
> > taf
> Is Margery saying Dammartin was specifically "first husband," with Geoffrey de Say was her "second husband"?

Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui - Odo Dammartin, her first husband; Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui - Geoffrey de Say, her second husband

> Some sources seem to be stating her "de la Ferte" or "de Feritate" husband was prior to Odo/ Eudo Dammartin, so that could be a discrepancy.

Most do, in fact. Figures the one I pick at random from a Google search happens to have it wrong in a way that matches the text. Probably a scribal slip, an incorrect assumption based on the only two known to the scribe being Eudo and Geoffrey in that order.

> "William de la Ferte of Marden and Lavington, Wiltshire, and Alphington, Devon, married Margaret one of the sisters and coheirs of William Briwere, and died in 1216, when Pain de Chaworth had seisin of the lands of William de la Ferte which belonged to his wife by hereditary right, she being Gundred daughter and heir of William de la Ferte and Margaret Briwere."
>

I am seeing broad agreement that the Ferte marriage came first. The other question is who the Geoffrey was. THere was general agreement until the oft-referenced author simply declared it was a different one.

taf

On 06-Jan-23 1:58 PM, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:12:58 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
>>>> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>>>>
>>>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>>>
>>>> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>>>
>>>> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
>>>> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>>>>
>>>> Relevant index entries seem to be ...
>>>>
>>>> Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
>>>>
>>>> Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
>>>>
>>>> Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
>>>>
>>>> Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
>>> A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'. Since no claim was made that she personally committed the wastage in her widowhood and it is agreed the majority was carried out by her second husband, Geoffrey de Say, Roger and Alice don't have a complaint against her. Margery is prohibitted from wastage.
>>>
>>> The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.
>>>
>>> taf
>> Is Margery saying Dammartin was specifically "first husband," with Geoffrey de Say was her "second husband"?
>
> Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui - Odo Dammartin, her first husband; Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui - Geoffrey de Say, her second husband
>
>> Some sources seem to be stating her "de la Ferte" or "de Feritate" husband was prior to Odo/ Eudo Dammartin, so that could be a discrepancy.
>
> Most do, in fact. Figures the one I pick at random from a Google search happens to have it wrong in a way that matches the text. Probably a scribal slip, an incorrect assumption based on the only two known to the scribe being Eudo and Geoffrey in that order.
This seems plausible to me - if she referred to Odo de Dammartin as her
"prior" husband this could have been taken to mean "first" instead of
"former".
If court clerks had been diligent genealogists we would have much less
to do.
Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:44:52 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> The heronry had been
> destroyed by the father of her first husband Odo de Dammartin.

'Heronry', just like it looks. Thanks for that.