• Re: Another C.P. Correction: Eve de Clavering, wife of Sir James de Aud

    From Darrell E. Larocque@21:1/5 to Peter Stewart on Fri Dec 17 20:02:25 2021
    On Friday, April 27, 2007 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
    <mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1177651689....@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
    On 27 Apr., 04:49, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> 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.

    Rosie

    Excellent post! A good example of the use of logic, knowledge of
    one's field and reliance on primary sources, rather than secondary
    ones whose import (we have seen) can be seriously mis-interpreted.

    In the absence of Douglas's "spanner", it seems we must conclude that
    CP got it right - and is owed an apology.
    On this score, but don't forget that CP still has to answer for the death of Phar Lap and for suppression of the truth about his private life.
    We were told on 21 April to "Get ready" for Richardson's post, the very next day, inserting a spanner into the works - but he has made himself scarce since then. I wonder why....
    Peter Stewart

    I am now trying to research Eve de Clavering and I must say having to scroll through your messages is counterproductive at best. It was because of your attitude right from the beginning that he probably decline to take your bait... instead of just
    providing details as to why you disagreed with him, you used language which was rude and snarky. I have read through every single message here in this conversation and it amazes me that amongst all of the responders, your messages have the same tone
    regarding Douglas. Your barbs offer little value to researching this line and are painful to read and unfortunate even 15 years after the fact.

    D. E. Larocque

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Darrell E. Larocque@21:1/5 to Rosie Bevan on Thu Dec 23 11:22:36 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)