Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 9: Montfort

MONTFORT

See also "proposed" section

Volume 9, page 126:
He [Piers de Montfort] m., in or before 1228, Alice, da. of Henry DE AUDLEY. He d. as stated above, 4 Aug. 1265. Alice surv. him.(o)
Note o:
Close Roll, 50 Hen. III, m. 8d.

Alice was still living 23 February 1276/7, when she presented to the churches of Preston and Martinsthorpe, Rutland [Lincoln Record Society, vol. 20, p. 130].

[This evidence was provided by Douglas Richardson in November 2004.
Item last updated 2 December 2004.]

Volume 9, page 127:
He [Piers de Montfort (d. 1286/7)] m., circa 1260, Maud, da. and h. of Matthew, son of Henry DE LA MARE, with whom he had Ashtead in Surrey.(q)
Note q:
V.C.H. Surrey, vol. iii, p. 248

Contemporary sources identify Maud as the daughter and heir of Henry, not Matthew, de la Mare, who was dead by 1265. In June or July 1280 Maud and Hawise, the wife of Robert le Veel, appear as daughters and coheirs of Joan de la Mare, deceased. Circumstantial evidence suggests that Hawise was the daughter of Joan by a subsequent husband, Walter de la Hyde, to whom she was married by 1260.

VCH Surrey cites two contemporary sources which describe Maud as the daughter and heir of Henry de la Mare [Coram Rege Roll 11, m. 14d; Abbreviatio Placitorum, 152]. She is also described as Henry's daughter and heir on 7 May 1265 [Calendar of Close Rolls, 1264-1268, p. 55]. VCH also notes that a pedigree in De Banco Roll 926, m. 427, makes Maud the daughter of Matthew, son of Henry, but as this dates from 1493 obviously the contemporary sources must be preferred.

In June or July 1280, Peter de Montfort and Maud, his wife, and Robert le Veel and Hawise, his wife, sought the manor of Norton, Somerset, which they claimed as the right of Maud and Hawise as daughters and coheirs of Joan de la Mare [Somerset Record Society, vol. 44, pp. 60-62]. In 1260, Peter de Montfort had ejected Walter de la Hyde and Joan, his wife, from half the manor of Ashtead, which they held by virtue of the wardship of Maud [Victoria County History, Surrey, vol. 3, p. 248]. In 1262 the manor of Cokeham, in Sompting, Sussex, was settled on Walter and Joan; its reversion was later sold by Hawise, the wife of Robert le Veel [Victoria County History, Sussex, vol. 6, part 1, p. 57].

[This evidence was provided by Douglas Richardson in November 2004. This question was also discussed by John P. Ravilious, Rose in Ashtead and Mark Harry.
Item last updated 2 December 2004.]

Volume 9, page 128:
He [John de Montfort (d. 1296)] m. Alice, da. of William DE LA PLAUNCHE, between 1286 and 1289. ... His widow Alice had dower in Nov. 1296. In 1303 she recovered the manors of Preston and Uppingham against the heir.

Alice was a kinswoman of Queen Eleanor, presumably through a descent of her father from the queen's Fiennes cousins [J. C. Parsons, The Court and Household of Eleanor of Castile in 1290 (Toronto, 1977), pp. 48-50]. John and Alice were married by 28 March 1287 [ibid., p. 50, citing P.R.O. SC 1/45/46], and Alice was still living in Easter Term 1309 [M. S. Arnold, ed., Select Cases of Trespass from the King's Court, 1307-1399, vol. 1 (Selden Society 100, 1985), pp. 126, 127].

Alice is one of a group of four "damsels" of the chamber who appear frequently throughout Queen Eleanor's wardrobe account book for 1289-90 and in one entry are described as kinswomen of the queen. That Alice's kinship came through her father is indicated by a reference in 1286 to the lord (dominus) de la Plaunche as a kinsman of the queen [Parsons, loc. cit., p. 50, citing P.R.O. E 101/352/4, m. 4]. A descent from the queen's Fiennes cousins is suggested by the later presence of a family known as "de Fiennes de la Plaunche" in the Boulonnais, bearing arms similar to those of the Fiennes family.

[Douglas Richardson, in March 2004, provided the evidence of Alice's survival, and referred to Parson's earlier work.
Item last updated 13 July 2004.]

Volume 9, page 128, note k:
... Erdeswicke's notes (loc. cit. [Harl. MS. 506], fo. 123) state that Piers [(de Montfort), Lord Montfort (d. c. 1369/70)] had been bred a clerk, but when his brother d. s.p., he gave up that way of life, and was afterwards made a knight, and had an illegitimate son John, by one Lora. See text and note "g" on following page.

Page 129:
In 1324, as Piers de Montfort of Beaudesert, he settled Remenham and Ilmington on himself and the heirs of his body, with remainder to John, son of Lora of Ullenhall, and his issue, in default to Alice, sister of John, &c.(g)
Note g:
Feet of Fines, Divers Counties, file 32, no. 228. He made a settlement on another illegitimate son, Richard de Montfort of Lapworth, in 1363 (Ancient Deed, P.R.O., A 13635). For the descendants of these sons see Dugdale, Warwickshire, ed. 1730, pp. 1008, 786.

As well as his illegitimate sons John and Richard, he seems to have had an illegitimate daughter Alice, who is said to have married firstly Fulk de Penebrugg (dead by Michaelmas 1345) and secondly Ralph Nowers.

In 12 Edward III [1338-1339], Peter de Montfort settled by a fine the manor of Gunthorp (in Lowdham), Nottinghamshire, on himself and his wife Margaret, and their heirs, with successive remainders to John, son of [L]ora de Ollenhale and the heirs of his body, Richard, brother of the said John, and the heirs of his body, and Alice, wife of Fulk de Penebrugg and the heirs of her body [J. Throsby, ed., Thoroton's Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, vol. 3, p. 27 (1796; repr. 1972)]. According to G. R. Farnham [Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees, p. 7 (1925)] Fulk died before Michaelmas 1345, and Alice remarried to Ralph Nowers.

[This information was supplied by Douglas Richardson in November 2004.
Item last updated: 21 February 2005.]