On Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:05:07 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:45:57 PM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > Dear Nicola ~ > > > > You've asked an interesting question. > > > > Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 4 (1846): 89 includes the following person in his list of prioress of Wroxall: > > > > "Isabella, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, knight" was a Prioress of Wroxall. She died in A.D. 1300." END OF QUOTE. > > > > The additional information is added in a footnote on this page: > > > > "So Dugdale, in the first edition of his History, from Chron. de Wroxhall, ut supr. fol. 9 a ... Dr. Thomas .... adds "Isabella de Clinton, injunctiones ab epis. missae fuere et monialibus reformare scandala, A.D. 1323." .... According to Willis's MSS. Notes in a copy of his Mitred Abbies, she died in 1330." END OF QUOTE. > > > > The above material can be found at the following weblink: > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA89 > > > > You're correct that VCH Warwick 2 (1908): 70-73 refers to the abbess Isabel (not Ida) de Clinton as Prioress of Wroxall. Here is what is said in that source: > > > > "Bishop Cobham visited this nunnery in 1323, when he found grave discord existing between the prioress and Lady Isabel Clinton, some of the sisters adhering to the one and some to the other. He also found that cups and other vessels and utensils intended for hospitality had been sold, that hospitality and almsgiving were insufficient, and that there were scarcely enough necessaries for the sisters ... It would seem that the party of Isabel de Clinton obtained the victory, for Agnes was succeeded by Isabel, widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, patron of the house. On the death of Isabel the temporalities were seized by the too great zeal of the county escheator. On 13 November, 1325, John de Bolingbrok, escheator for Warwickshire, was ordered to meddle no further with the priory of Wroxall or any of its possessions, which he had taken into the king's hands at the late voidance." END OF QUOTE. > > > > Reviewing the above, it would appear that we have no less than three different death dates for Isabel the prioress, 1300, 1330, and 1325. Likewise this prioress is identified by both Dugdale and VCH Warwick as the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke. If she was the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, "patron" of Wroxall, she can only have been his known widow, Ida de Oddingseles. However, Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 312–313 (sub Clinton) makes no mention that Ida was a Prioress, only that she was living 1 March 1321/2. > > > > Elsewhere Smith and London, Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216–1377 (2001): 624 merely adds to the confusion. They make no mention of either Ida or Isabel de Clinton as prioress. Rather they say an Isabel de Fokeram occurs as prioress 13 March 1328 (Records of Wroxall, no. 44) and 2 Oct. 1328 (PRO, E326/5500). They list a second and apparently separate Isabel de Fokerham who served as prioress in 1339-1352. See the following weblink for this source: > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=aRDqqGWj3ikC&pg=PA624 > > > > If you're shaking your head and say you don't understand, join the club. > > > > Here's what I know about the later life of Ida de Oddingseles, widow of Sir John de Clinton, of Maxstoke: > > > > In 1319 Ida, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, was summoned to answer William la Zouche [Mortimer] concerning a plea that she surrender to him [her son] John son and heir of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, whose wardship belonged to the said William, for reason that John de Clinton held his land of him by knight’s service. The said Ida came by William de Coleshill her attorney and said that she held the aforesaid wardship by the lease of William la Zouche [Mortimer], lord of Ashby, Alice the widow of Sir Guy de Beauchamp, Simon de Sutton, and William de Wellesbourne, executors of the will of Guy de Beauchamp, late earl of Warwick; she vouched to warranty the said William, Alice, etc. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/229, image 299f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no229/aCP40no229fronts/IMG_0299.htm)]. > > > > On 1 March 1321/2 the king ordered John de Walewayn, escheator this side Trent, to permit her to have the easement of houses in the manor of La Grove until further order. In Feb. 1322 she was granted protection for one year. > > > > On 8 April 1325 John Pecche the elder and John Murdak acknowledged in court that they owed Ida, widow of John de Clynton, a debt of £100; in Trinity term 1328, Ida then being deceased, her executors, John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry de Lisle, were suing the said parties in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of the debt. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 49d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0049.htm)]. > > > > In Trinity term 1328 Thomas de Hastang sued John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry del Idle, executors of the will of Ida late the wife of John de Clynton, of Maxstoke, and John son of John de Clynton in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £200. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 378d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0378.htm). > > > > In summary, I can accept that Ida de Oddingseles is the Lady "Isabel" de Clinton" who was found to be in grave discord with Agnes, Prioress of Wroxall, in 1323. Although Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2 suggest otherwise, Ida was surely not a prioress on 8 April 1325 when John Pecche and John Murdak acknowledged that they owed her a debt. Likewise Ida de Oddingseles is not styled prioress of Maxstoke in the last two legal matters in 1328 which immediately follow her death. Given these facts and that Smith and London do not include Ida as a prioress of Wroxall, I conclude that she was not prioress of Wroxall as alleged by Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2. > > > > Possibly new information may be found which sheds additional light on this confusing matter. I see VCH Warwick 2 cites the Register of Walter Reynolds, Bishop of Worcester (which is in print), which source I haven't yet examined. To be thorough, this source should be checked. If you have access to the bishops's register, please let me know. > > > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > > > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:59:20 AM UTC-6, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 8:11:50 PM UTC+1, Peter Howarth wrote: > > > > On Monday, 24 July 2017 18:02:33 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your help and pointers to resources, particularly your reference to the shield of Ralph de Grey which is described but not identified in Blair's article. If Ralph had a shield of his own, what conclusion can I draw? Does it mean that he lived to 21? Thank you again, Nicola > > > > > > > > The only extant copy of the Carlisle Roll says that it is a list of earls, bannerets and knights present in the vanguard of Edward III's host at Carlisle on 12 July 1334. At this time each knight would be expected to bear arms as identification, not in battle as the old books claim, but in order to help with the organising of each banneret's group of knights. The earls and bannerets appear at the beginning of the roll. At number 218, Ralph Grey was well down the list, not too far from the end, where numbers 241-275 were German knights serving under William, Count of Jülich and Earl of Cambridge. This suggests that he was not one of the more experienced knights. In the case of Scrope v Grosvenor in 1389, several of the witnesses claimed to have been on campaign, one or two in actual battle, from their early or mid teens onwards. Edward of Carnarvon (later Edward II), born 1284, went on campaign in Scotland with his father from 1300 onwards. There can therefore be no guarantee that Ralph Grey would be of age in 1334. > > > > > > > > One other point. Younger sons were often discouraged from marrying unless they had found themselves an heiress. I have a few times found an unmarried younger son in one generation followed by another unmarried younger son in the next generation both of whom held the same manor for life and bore the same differenced coat of arms. The arms attributed to Ralph Grey appear in three windows in Cogges church, more often than any other arms apart from those for Grey of Rothermere itself. That could mean something -- or nothing. > > > > > > > > Peter Howarth > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Can anyone help me sort out the following please? > > > Margaret Oddingsell's eldest sister was Ida who as Douglas Richardson shows in Plantagenet Ancestry (p 545-6) married first Roger de Herdebergh and then John Clinton (d. 1311). He goes on to say that some time after John's death Ida entered the convent at Wroxall and became prioress, dying in office in 1325. > > > > > > This is partly confirmed in the 'Records of Wroxall Abbey and Manor', J.W. Ryland, 1903, xix, 17-18; and in VCH Warks 2, 70-73, except that both these sources call the woman Dame Isabella de Clinton, not Ida. Are they the same person? Could it be Ida's daughter-in-law? Her first son was called John (d. 1335). This wiki entry says he married Isabella de Beauchamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Beauchamp,_10th_Earl_of_Warwick. > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, thank you > > > Nicola > > Thanks very much Douglas for such a thorough and helpful answer. > > If Ida was the same woman as Isabella, she would have been prioress for quite a short time, after 1323 when she was in dispute with Agnes, the existing prioress, and before 1325 when she died. The date of her death is indicated by a vacancy at the convent at which point Ida's son John is named as patron (Records of Wroxhall, Rylands, 1903, p. 18, quoting Close Roll for 1325). This is the same date as Ida's death as indicated by her will, coincidences which point to Ida. If Ida had written the will before entering the convent that could explain why it didn't describe her as prioress. She may also have just been acting rather than confirmed prioress which might explain her absence from Smith and London's list. Do you think this is likely? I will try and find bishop Reynolds's Register to see what the entry actually says. > Thanks again > Nicola Hi Nicola, Bishop Walter Reynolds' register isn't going to help you. He was bishop of Worcester from 1307 to 1313, when he was translated to Canterbury. His register shows (p. 29) that Agnes de Aylesbury was elected prioress of Wroxall in December 1311. Agnes appears to have died before November 1325 (CCR, 1323-1327, 426). The bishop's register covering this period is: E. H. Pearce,The register of Thomas Cobham, Bishop of Worcester, 1317-1327. Worcester Historical Society, 40 (1930) which does not seem to be online. Regards, John