Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 4: Devon (PROPOSED CORRECTIONS)

DEVON

See also main section

Volume 4, pages 313, 314:
He [Baldwin (de Reviers), Earl of Devon (d. 1188)] m. Denise, da. and h. of Raoul, last PRINCE DE DÉOLS (i.e., du Bas Berry), SEIGNEUR DE CHÂTEAUROUX in Berry ... His widow, who was aged 3 years in 1176, m., in Aug. 1189 at Salisbury, in the presence of Richard I and of Queen Alianore, André DE CHAUVIGNY [d. 1202] ... His widow, who lost the lands in England which she had in dower from her 1st husband, d. in 1221, and was bur. in the Church of Déols.

Nicholas Vincent ["William Marshal, King Henry II and the Honour of Chateauroux", Archives: The Journal of the British Record Association, vol. 25, number 102 (2000); online version at the De Re Militari website; discusses Denise's marital career, and says that by 1205 she had remarried to William, Count of Sancerre [citing L. de Grandmaison, ed., Cartulaire de l'archeveche de Tours, vol. 2, pp. 196-198, nos 72, 73 (Memoires de la Societe Archeologique de Touraine, 38, 1894)].

[Douglas Richardson drew my attention to Vincent's paper in December 2002.
Item last updated: 16 March 2003.]

Volume 4, page 317 (chart pedigree):
Renaud, Sgr. of Courtenay: lost his lands in France: of Sutton, Berks, in 1161.
[married firstly] ..., sister of Guy du Donjon.
[and secondly] Maud, dame du Sap: d. s.p. 1224 [dau of] Robert, illeg. s. of Henry I: d. 31 May 1172.
[By his first wife, Renaud had issue] Elizabeth: 1205 [wife of] Pierre de France of de Courtenay: dead 1183 [and ancestress of] The French Courtenays.
[and Elizabeth's brother] Renaud de Courtenay: d. 27 Sep. 1194. [ancestor of the Courtenays of Okehampton]

William Addams Reitwiesner, in May 2002, referred to evidence suggesting that Renaud of Sutton, Berkshire in 1161 was a different man from the Seigneur of Courtenay, so that the English and French families were not related as shown above [citing H.F. Seversmith, Colonial Families of Long Island, New York and Connecticut, vol. 5, pp. 2419-2424 (1958)].

[This question was also discussed by Peter Stewart.]