<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 thatOn 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.
CP got it right - and is owed an apology.
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
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
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 82:37:53 |
Calls: | 6,495 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,276,825 |