GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1995-08 > 0807899634


From: "Paul M. Gifford" <>
Subject: Re: Weis : Ancestral Roots, 7th Edition - Corrections
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 09:33:54 -0700


In article <4060sf$> (Todd A. Farmerie)
writes:
>From: (Todd A. Farmerie)
>Subject: Re: Weis : Ancestral Roots, 7th Edition - Corrections
>Date: 7 Aug 1995 21:34:07 GMT

>>
>>Clearly there is a line, as you've shown, from Richard de Vernon, alive in
>>1292, to his son Richard, who married Eleanor, daughter of Giles de Fenes
>>(now, who was he? An illegitimate younger brother of Sir William de Fiennes,
>>maybe?), to their son Richard, d. bef. 3 Feb. 1322/3, who m. Maud, daughter
of
>>William de Camville, who had a son William de Vernon, b. c.1312, d.
1330-1346.
>>

>This is debated. First, I don't think there is any connection between
>Giles de Fenes (sometimes Frenes) and the Fiennes family. More to the
>point, there is a question as to whether there was two or three Richards
>between Gilbert le Franceys and William Vernon. However, if you accept
>Isabella as the christian name of the de Harcla daughter, then it would
>appear that there was only two generations.

>Richard le Franceys/de Vernon married a sister of Earl Anthony de Harcla.
>In 1292, he gave Pitchcott to his son Richard, and daughter in law Eleanor,
>and made Eleanor's father Giles de Fines guardian for the couple, who were
>minors. In 1312, Richard de Vernon and wife Maud make a grant. Finally,
>in 1323, William de Vernon is named, with doweries claimed by Maud, widow
>of his father Richard, and Isabel, widow of his grandfather Richard de
>Vernon. Thus there are two reconstructions possible:

>1.Richard le Franceys/de Vernon m. dau de Harcla

>2.Richard de Vernon m1. Eleanor de Fenes, m2 Isabel

>3.Richard de Vernon m Maud de Camville

>4.William de Vernon

>or

>1.Richard le F/de V m Isabel de Harcla

>2.Richard de V m1. Eleanor de Fenes, m2 Maud de Camville

>3.William de Vernon

>Farrar presents version 1 in vol. 1, and version 2 in vol. 3., while VCH
>Bucks (under Pitchcott) seems to prefer (or at least present it in a way
>more consistant with) version 2. In my own opinion (and I just took a
>quick pass through my notebooks last night, and wish I could look at Farrar
>again) version 2 seems more likely.

After looking at your argument, I agree with the second version too. Since
Richard and Eleanor were minors in 1292, it would seem stretching it a bit to
allow them to be grandparents 20 years later.

>>Doesn't the inquisition p.m. of Rhys ap Griffith in 1382 name Joan,
wife of >>Richard de Vernon? It seems to me that the index to the particular
volume >>with it shows her as appearing on that page, but I couldn't find her
name in >>that inquisition.

>You don't recall the volume number do you?

No, but it would be for the year 1382.

>>Or is my memory playing tricks on me? The Visitation of
>>Staffordshire says that two generations of Vernon wives were Griffiths, so
>>there might be something to it.

>I think this is a screw-up. The only marriage I know of is between
>Richard, son of Juliana (de Pembroke) de Vernon, and Joan, daughter of
>Rhys ap Griffith (son).

I was under the impression that you had doubted whether Joan was the daughter
of Rhys ap Griffith (the younger). My interpretation was that she was Rhys's
daughter presumably by Isabel de Stackpole, but you explained the problem of
his wife in an earlier post. Have you traced Rhys ap Griffith Sr. back? I've
found a Rhys ap Griffith as an active knight in South Wales beginning in the
1320s, called Rhys ap Gruffudd ap Hywel, but I don't have my notes here and,
in any case, wasn't sure of his identity (based on the Close Rolls).

Paul Gifford

This thread: