Joan (Douglas) de Moray (abt. 1360 - abt. 1395)

Born about 1360 in Douglas, Lanarkshire, Scotland

Ancestors

Descendants

Died about 1395 at about age 35 in Naworth Castle, Cumberland, England

Biography

Johanne, (Joan aka Mary) married William de Dacre. They had one son and heir, Thomas.^[1]

Name

Name: Mary /Douglas/^[2]

Research Notes

Stirnet.com: Although TCP (Dacre) [?] acknowledges that William's wife is said to have been Joan Douglas "illegit. da. of James, Earl of Douglas" it then reports that his wife was called Mary. As was kindly brought to our attention by a site visitor (JH, 24.03.08), the dates make it likely that Mary, if a Douglas, was of the same generation as James (2nd Earl of Douglas) rather than his offspring. We therefore provisionally show his wife as Douglas, possibly natural half-sister of James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Douglas, Earl of Mar.

In 1777 Lord Hailes expressed his opinion that Johanne (Joan) could not have been a daughter of James 2nd Earl of Douglas, but that she might well have been a sister.^[1]

Some interesting links for reference: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-06/1212324054

http://genforum.genealogy.com/medieval/messages/1995.html
http://genforum.genealogy.com/medieval/messages/2388.html
http://genforum.genealogy.com/medieval/messages/2390.html

Sir William Dacre, Lord Dacre of Gilsland is shown in Burke's Peerage and in the complete peerage as having a wife who was called Joan, daughter of James Douglas (k.1388 at Otterburn) 2nd Earl of Douglas. However there is a caveat attached which would seem to cast doubt upon the veracity of the statement and even the existence of the Lady. CP lists as follows:

"William (De Dacre), Lord Dacre, s and h (of Hugh, 4th Lord Dacre), aged 26 and more at his father's death. He had livery of his father's lands 19 March 1383/4 his homage and fealty being respited. etc............He is said to have m. Joan Douglas (footnote g). He m Mary. He d. 20th July 1399 and was bur. in Lanercost Priory".

Footnote g says: "Genealogists add that Joan was illegit. dr of James, Earl of Douglas. But if son (and if she were the mother of the heir) this worthy, b. about 1358 would have been a grandfather at the age of 29, or thereabouts."

What we do know is that he left a widow, Mary in 1399. We also know that his only known child was his heir, Thomas who was born 27th October 1387. It is quite possible that the mother of Thomas may have died in childbirth and that Mary (whatever her origin) was a second wife. This would explain the absence of other children in a twelve year period. It could also be that Mary was the actual name of the daughter of the Earl of Douglas.

What we do know is that Thomas Dacre had a daughter by the name of Joan (married to Thomas, Lord Clifford), and his son Thomas, Lord Dacre had an only daughter and heiress, also called Joan. The name of Mary does not seem to appear in the family at all. Therefore there is some circumstantial evidence to support Joan's existence.

The other aspect of doubt has been the age of grandfathership of the Earl of Douglas. '29 or thereabouts' Firstly the date of birth of James Douglas may have been 1357 rather than 1358 as he was knighted in 1378 which usually (but not always) occurred at or after the age of 21. Although only making a small difference, it is by no means impossible that the precocious James could have fathered an illegitimate daughter by the age of 14 or 15. And it is also possible that this daughter could have become a mother at the age of 14 or 15.

Blanche of Lancaster wife of John of Gaunt became a mother in 1360 six days after her 15th birthday (Britain's Royal families. Alison Weir)

Mary wife of the future King Henry IV became a mother in April 1382, she was said to have been born in 1369/70 making her 12 or 13 at the most when she gave birth. (ref: as above)

There are several other examples of very young girls giving birth to children at an early age (often leading to the death of the mother in childbirth). James Douglas had married in 1371 (age 13 or 14) and may therefore have started to become sexually active at that time.

There is another reason why the marriage of William Dacre and the daughter of the Earl of Douglas seems possible in the tangled history of the two families. Hugh, Lord Dacre, father of William had married Elizabeth the widow of Sir William Douglas Earl of Atholl, Lord of Liddesdale and owner of Hermiston castle. William Douglas was ambushed and killed by his kinsman, William, the future Earl of Douglas in 1353. William's daughter and heiress, his widow, and his lands came into the custody of Hugh Dacre. The new Earl of Douglas took control of the Douglas family and coveted the lands once owned by his murdered kinsman. This lead to raids and fights between Douglas and Dacre amounting to a feud. The castle of Hermiston changed hands a couple of times in this exiting period. In 1371 Hugh Dacre was fined £100 for inflicting damages on the Earl of Douglas in times of truce. (C.P) Hugh Dacre died in 1383 and the Earl of Douglas in 1384, therefore the new Lord Dacre and the new Earl of Douglas, could continue their fight for Liddesdale and Hermiston, or come to an arrangement. I believe that the marriage of Joan Douglas and William Dacre could have been part of this settlement. Thereafter, Liddesdale and Hermiston remained to the Douglas family. The birth of Thomas Dacre in October 1387 would seem to point to a marriage taking place in 1385 or 1386 which would accord well with the 'arrangement' theory.

When families allied, it was usual for their extended kin to move in similar social circles and to form further alliances. In the Douglas/Dacre case I find that Thomas, Lord Dacre the son of the disputed marriage was second cousin to Herbert Maxwell and that Herbert married the daughter of Sir Herbert Herries by his wife Margaret daughter of William, Earl of Douglas. If Thomas was the son of Joan Douglas it would mean his second cousin (Maxwell), married his first cousin once removed.

Finally and for me the evidence that cannot be overlooked is a posting from Todd Whitesides in 2005 on Gen Med which mentions William Hutchinson's History of the county of Cumberland and some Places adjacent (1794) where a description is made of the arms and alliances of the stained glass windows once in the castle of Kirkoswald and alledgedly installed by Thomas, Lord Dacre of the North in the sixteenth century. These included all the Lords and their wives including 'William III. married Joane Douglas, ...........buried in Lanercost'. This would be within one hundred years after the death of Thomas Dacre in 1457 who was the son of the marriage. And as every other alliance mentioned is verifiable and not in doubt, are we to disregard this one?

On balance of evidence it seems that there is little reason to doubt the Dacre/Douglas alliance, and if we accept that, then placing Joan in her traditional position as the daughter (albeit natural) of the Earl of Douglas seems the most logical conclusion.

there is no evident proof of this Joan’s parentage-but also there’s really no proof this particular Joan Douglas, as a wife of William de Dacre or daughter of James, Earl Douglas, ever existed at all. The problem stems from earlier derivative sources, The Visitations of Yorkshire for one (1563, 1564, William Flowers, 1881), which on p. 83 (chart) show the wife of William Dacre to be doghter of therl Doglas (sic). Also, the first edition of the Complete Peerage, vol. III (1890), p. 2 stated: he m. Joan Douglas, said to have been an illegit. da. of James (Douglas), Earl Douglas [S.] He d. 20 July 1398.

This last excerpt was corrected in the second edition of the Complete Peerage, vol. IV, p. 6: : He is said to have m. (g) Joan Douglas.(s) He m. Mary...(i)

Note in the corrected version the subtle he is said to have (as in rumored to have) versus the statement he married Mary (unknown). Unfortunately, information, good or bad, once released seems to develop a life of its own. The footnotes (g) and (i) provide more clarification as to the identity of his wife:

(g) Record as on p. i, note " d." Genealogists add that Joan was illegit. da. of James, Earl of Douglas. But if so (and if she were the mother of the heir), this worthy, b. about 1358, would have been a grandfather at the age of 29, or thereabouts.

(i) Writ de dote assignanda " Marie que fuit uxor Willelmi de Dacre chivaler defuncti," 3 Oct. (Close Roll, i Hen. IV, p. I, m. 37).

Note (g) points out the chronological implausibility that this supposed Joan could not have been both a daughter of James, Earl of Douglas and (as wife of William Dacre) the mother of Thomas Dacre. So if not Thomas’s mother, her information is relegated to a less important detail and would not be as important to this lineage.

Note (i) cites a writ assigning Mary, widow of William de Dacre (knight, deceased), her dower. The text dates it 3 October 1399 (he died 20 July 1399) Most social histories of that time period will tell you that such a writ was usually issued within 90 days or so of the death of the husband, as this was. But it identifies his widow as Mary. We have no evidentiary reason to suppose or speculate that Mary was also called Joan or that she was a Douglas.

The subject of illegitimacy during the Middle Ages could (and has) filled volumes. We know it was fairly widespread during that time period; not just among the nobility or royalty. Other than the fathers who acknowledged such children-and apparently most didn’t-we only have the recorded instances of leyrwite in manorial courts to go by. Illegitimate pregnancies fell under the catchall term of fornication and leyrwite was usually levied against the woman. For men, such extramarital activities were held as a minor misdeed by medieval churchmen-that is, by those who weren’t practicing it themselves. Finding records of out of wedlock children (at a time when perhaps 5% of the population at best was documented) creates a major and often insurmountable task for genealogists and family historians today. If there is no evidence, then following most genealogical guidelines (GPS and others), you’d have to conclude a connection can’t honestly be made.

I didn’t mention, nor did I notice anyone else in this thread mentioning a will for William de Dacre. Typically, not being mentioned in a will could indicate a number of situations. The child wasn’t his, the child predeceased the father, the father had not acknowledged the child, or there could have been a dispute where perhaps the child was disowned. But, charters, chancellery records, charters, and other documents can sometimes be found that might help determine what the situation was and why a child was excluded. But where there is simply no primary evidence of a person ever existing you have to question why a researcher would want to include him or her in a genealogy (other than perhaps as a footnote). Genealogy is, after all, about documentation, not speculation.

As for the possibility of a middle name (e.g. Mary Joan Douglas or Joan Mary Douglas), I’m afraid middle names were not customary in fourteenth-century England. They are a later convention, something on the order of mid-1600s for England-even later before the usage could be called widespread. So, I’d have to disagree with that idea just on this basis alone.

You also mentioned lack of citations in the sources mentioned. If you carefully follow the footnotes in The Complete Peerage, The Scots Peerage, and other similar compilations (with a notable exception to Faris, The Plantagenet Ancestry, where they are usually found in the text) you’ll find reference to the sources used. Case in point; CP IV (1916), p. 6 re: William de Dacre, Lord Dacre. While limited to a single paragraph on him, his information contained 6 footnotes (d through i) containing the following citations:

Fine Roll, 7 Ric. II, 12.
Close Roll, m. 13 d
Close Roll, m 42 d
Reference to p. 1, note d. (which in turn referred to H. Howard, Howard Memorials)
Ch. Inq. P. m., Ric. II, file 109, no. 18
Reference to Dugdale (Baronage or Monasticon Anglicanum, unspecified) Close Roll, 1 Hen. IV, p. 1, m. 37

As an example of the Scots Peerage (founded on Wood's ed. of Sir Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland) citations, here is SP III, pp. 148-155 footnotes for William, 1st Earl of Douglas (a favorite ancestor), father of James (2nd Earl of Douglas and Mar) and George (1st Earl of Angus):

Rotuli Scotiae, i, 709, 749
Reg. Honoris de Morton, ii, 46, 47
Foedera, iii, 246
The Douglas Book, i, 222-228
The Douglas Book, iii, 360, 361
cf. Seventh Hist. MSS, Rep. App. 527
Fordun, ed. 1871, 376
Acta Parl. Scot.,i , 522, 523
Sterlings of Keir, 199
Cf. Liber de Melros, ii, 428-433
The Douglas Book, i, 236
Bain, Cal. Docs. Scot., iv, No. 9
Cf. Acta. Parl. Scot.,i, 524, 525
Bain, Cal. Docs. Scot., iv, No. 91
Acta. Parl. Scot.,i, 495, 496, 526, 527
The House of Douglas, by Sir Herbert Maxwell, i, 86
Cf. The Douglas Book, i, 253, 254
Ibid, 255
The Douglas Book, i, 371
Rotuli Scotae, i, 960
Liber de Melros, ii, 478-480
The Douglas Book, i, 291; ii, 550
cf. The Douglas Book, i, 287
Reg. Mag. Sig., 16 April 1476
Mar Charter Chest
Gen. Reg. Ho., No. 220
Exch. Rolls, iv, 86
Les. Ecossais en France, Parl, Michel, i, 64
i 290; ii, 550
Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, iv, 731

Admittedly Cokayne’s CP usually provides more sources than most, but it is one of the reasons it’s considered a benchmark. It’s important to check citations however. Your mention of these shows you are aware of their value. Case in point; earlier in the thread I mentioned Faris, PA, p. 105, the excerpt being: ...William de Dacre [5th Lord Dacre of Gilsland] (of baronial descent), by his wife Joan Douglas, said to be base-born daughter of James Douglas, 2nd Earl Douglas. His information is found under the title Philippe de Neville, wife of Thomas de Dacre (son and heir of William); the citations being:

H.S.P. 16:84 (1881) (1563 Vis. Yorks).
Clay (1913), p. 37.
C. P. 4:7-9 (1916).
Paget (1977), p. 416.

You don’t have to go far to find problems here when you check these sources. As previously cited (and despite the phonic spelling), you see in the Visitations of Yorkshire that the supposed father of this Joan was simply listed as the Earl of Douglas (therl Doglas). James was not mentioned by name, and, while he is a possible father, no explanation was given for the interpretation that this necessarily meant it was James, the 2nd earl. Then, the citation to CP IV contains information on William de Dacre on p. 6 and his son Thomas on p. 7, yet the authors are inexplicably citing pages 7-9. Pages 8 and 9 contain information on Joan, Baroness Dacre (p. 8) and Thomas Fiennes, Lord Dacre (p. 9) neither of whom are mentioned. Worse, they took information from p. 6, which they obviously read, but didn’t include it in the citation; omitting any mention of the properly cited Mary in favor of the supposed wife Joan Douglas. There is more here that displays less than accurate use of source citations, but these two alone are sufficient to show that, at best, this wasn’t very carefully researched or documented.

Lastly, you mentioned thinking more needs to be done to figure out what the actual facts were (or were not), and sorting hearsay from myth, I think here it’s more a sorting out of hearsay from fact, but, I do have more supporting information on the subject of Mary vs. Joan if you’re interested.

Sources

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Barrett-Lennard, Thomas. An account of the families of Lennard and Barrett. 1908. Pg 178-179
2. ↑ Ancestry Family Trees Data: http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=15540767&pid=279034331

• This person was created through the import of Acrossthepond.ged on 21 February 2011.
• Baines, Edward. The History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster (London, 1893) Vol. 5, Page 2
• Ancestry Family Trees (Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com) Family Tree files submitted by Ancestry members.

http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=7179083&pid=-808663652

http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=25520292&pid=1045

http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=7469449&pid=284