Does anyone know where Complete Peerage is getting this 14 Sep 1368 marriage date from?

Question

Cecily appears to have been married to both husbands by 1361, when all her surnames, including maiden, are used in the multiple inquisitions after her brother's death. And, already a widow to both, as she appears to be handling her own affairs, with none of her inheritance being passed on to a husband.

1361:

"Cecily Turbervyll"

"Cecily Turberevyle"

"Cecily de Seymor"

"Cecily Beauchamp"

"Cecily de Beauchaump"

And, in 1364, 1366, 1367. 

1364-1366:

"These are the fealties and homages belonging to the fees assigned to Lady Cecily de Turberville for her purparty in Somerset, Devon, Dorset:"

"Lady Cecily at Hacche Beauchamp"

"in the presence of William Seymour, Edmund his son" (brother-in-law and nephew)

"Lady Cecily de Turbervyle, lady of Hacch"

"Cecily de Turbervyle, one of the sisters and heirs of John de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) of Somerset"

1365: 

"222. Note concerning the default of Cecilia de Turberville to do suit or homage, 39 Ed. Ill [1365]."

4 Jul 1367: 

"Cecily Turberville"

---

Does anyone know what primary source is being cited, for a later marriage date, by Complete Peerage? 

And, why, if his profile is listing Richardson as a source, is the Gilbert she's attached to nothing like the Gilbert Richardson presents? 

Answer 1

Haven't located anything for a Sep 1368 marriage.  I did come across a post on SGM by Douglas Richardson with regard to her marriages.  You might want to look at it as well as the further discussion by him and others.  He stated: "Cecily de Beauchamp's known husband, Roger de Seymour, was dead before 29 Jan. 1365/6 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1364-1367 (1912):81]. My research indicates that Roger de Seymour died testate. Their son, William, was the executor of Roger's will. As such, it seems that William was born no later than 1344."  See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-04/1082088013

Comments

Following through the discussion, it seems that Wikitree has her attached to the wrong Gilbert de Turberville.  Paul reed states:  "On 29 August 1347, it is stated that Sir Gilbert Turbervill "is dead.  Also, as the siege of Calais lasted until August 1347, it would be most likely that Sir Gilbert DID serve in the campaign, which lasted a year. His son, 'Gilbert son of Gilbert,' was not styled knight in the IPM which looked into his holdings, which IPM stated he died 16 Jan. 1348/9 (or in the Fine Rolls entries). As he held the 2/3 of Sir Gilbert's lands that was not the 1/3 held by Cecily in dower, he was definitely not Cecily's husband."  (See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-04/1082162047

---

Yes, I read that same thing on the profile of the previous Gilbert (Gilbert IV) we had Cecily married to.

The way I understand it, both Richardson and Reed agree that Complete Peerage is in error, and that Cecily married Gilbert Turberville, before Roger Seymour. Their disagreement is about whether she married Gilbert IV (d. 1347) or Gilbert V (d. 1349, just a couple years after his father). But, we've decided to go with Complete Peerage, for some reason, and have created a Gilbert that is neither of those two. 

The main thing about Richardson's option is that would push back Cecily's possible marriage date to Seymour a couple more years, infringing on the birth date of her son a couple more years. Reed actually seemed to have a better grasp on the family, from what I read. 

---

Maybe we should change the Gilbert she's attached to into Gilbert V, with a note that she may have been married to the father, or something like that.

---

Looking at that Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1364-1367, it actually doesn't say it is William, the son. Roger also had a brother, William. There may actually be no issue with son William's birthday, which could be after 1350, maybe ... although he is marrying in 1369, so 1348ish, and married to Gilbert IV does work a bit better. 

---

According to what Paul Reed wrote (my previous message), it was the older Gilbert that was married to Cecily, i.e. the one that died in 1347.  Paul said that the Gilbert that died in 1348/9 held the 2/3 of Sir Gilbert's land that Cecily wasn't holding in dower, and the Gilbert that died in 1348/9 wasn't styled 'Sir' in his IPM.  So that the Gilbert that died 1348/9 wasn't Cecily's husband . . .

---

Yes, going by what Paul argued, she should be reattached to the Gilbert she was attached to. We could remove her current marriage, marry her back to Gilbert IV, turn the Gilbert she's now attached to into Gilbert V, and make him Gilbert IV's son.

---

Setting being executor of his father's will aside, as it might refer to his uncle, William's son, another Roger, is age 21 in 1391, 27 in 1394 (born 1367-1370). The 1391 born 1370 is where William's marriage date comes from, I imagine (abt, 1369). If William is 21, about then, born 1348ish would just fit in with Cecily getting quickly remarried and pregnant, and everyone being adults. That would require being married to Gilbert IV. A couple years later would mean William or his son Roger married underage, or Roger's coming of age estimate is off.

---

I adopted Gilbert IV and rewrote the research notes into a section about his marriage. Do you think it makes the case well enough to reattach him to Cecily? 

---

Yes definitely.  Nice job!

---

Thanks. All done. I turned the other Gilbert into Gilbert V, son of IV.

A tech quirk: If you give both marriages the same date, with one marked before, and one marked after, Wikitree doesn't sort them in the proper order. I had to make Gilbert's a day earlier.

Answer 2

CP 2nd edn vol 2 p 50 said "before 1383".

Vol 14 p 76 said change 1383 to 14 Sep 1368 - ie keeping the word "before".

The new evidence was this

http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarofcloser13grea#page/331/

ie she was using the name Turberville by 42 Edw III.

They've assumed that Turberville must have been the current or most recent husband - same mistake as with Pantulf.

Comments

Thanks RJ. So, it is just a guesstimate, rather than an actual marriage agreement, or something.

---

That is correct Jason.  The feast of the exaltation of the holy cross is 14 September, so the record in the Close Rolls is clearly the basis for the date.

feast of the exaltation of the holy cross, 42 Edward III = 14 Sept. 1368

---

I had no clue what Complete Peerage was was even citing. Don't have a copy.

---

https://sites.google.com/site/cochoit/home/complete-peerage

---

Nice. The top search results had 14 for sale. Thought it was still copyrighted. Thanks.

Is that your site?

---

Yes, it is my collection of links to resources I find myself using all the time. I think it allows very quick access to sources when researching medieval profiles.  Most useful I think, are the Visitations, Fine Rolls, Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, and the IPMs.  The link I use most frequently is to the Regnal Calendar for calculating dates.

---

I like it. Bookmarked. 

These can come in handy, too, if you don't have them listed ... 

Monasticon Anglicanum:

Vol 1

Vol 2

Vol 3

Vol 4

Vol 5

Vol 6, Part 1

Vol 6, Part 2

Vol 6, Part 3

Online: 

King Henry III Fine Rolls Project

The Magna Carta Project