s. VIIL NOV. s, 1913.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
375
I venture to think that, with Lord Walter's "De Riddlesford" pedigree, the problem of the identity of Emeline de Reddesford is solved, but I am afraid the parentage of Lesceline, the first wife of Hugh de Laci, still requires elucidation, as positive proof is at present lacking.
P.S.—The above had already left my hands when Mr. St. Clair Baddeley's second communication appeared in your columns. The suggestion he makes, and for which I beg to thank him, is of so important a character that I have endeavoured to obtain such additional evidence as I could in support of it, or, in the alternative, in favour of the statement I submitted that Bertram de Verdon was married, secondly, in c. 1140.
Unfortunately, I find that I have mislaid my note giving the reference for the date quoted for this marriage, but as Langford, in his 'Staffordshire Past and Present,' i. 300, stated that Maud de Ferrers, Bertram's first wife, died "s.p. 1139," I saw no reason to doubt the correctness of the date of the second marriage.
According, however, to 'Sketches of the Earlier Verduns' in Lynam's 'The Abbey of St. Mary, Croxden, Staffordshire,' as will be seen from the following extracts, neither of the above dates would appear to be reliable:—
"Bertram II. was of age, and but little more, in 1159" (p. vi); "Maud, born more or less about 1140, who was the first wife of Bertram II. de Verdon" (p. ix), married "before 1166 " (p. xi), and was dead without issue ante 1179, because
"in the Cottonian Charter Bertram especially names Rohais as then his wife. By the Chronicle it seems the date of this Charter was 1179; perhaps it was as late as 1180; we may take it therefore that Bertram had married Rohais in or by 1179 . . . . he does not say he had any son . . . . If that was a fact, then Maud was dead without issue, and by Rohesia as yet he has no issue manifestly."—P. x.
Tabulated, the position is as follows:—
Maud, dau. of Robert Ferrers, second Earl of Derby, b. c. 1140; = before 1166; † s.p. before 1179. 1st wife.
Bertram II. de Verdon, b. c. 1138, †1192.
Rohais, b. c. 1165 [see below]; = in or by 1179; †1215, "no older, actually, than c. 50." [Mr. St. C. B. at p. 254]. 2nd wife.
It will thus be seen that your correspondent's suggestion is as near accurate as no matter regarding the dates of Bertram's birth and second marriage.
In my above remarks I have referred to two matters upon which some light is thrown by Lynam in his before-mentioned work, namely, (1) regarding the identity of Lesceline de Verdon, Countess of Ulster; and (2) respecting the date at which Nicholas de Verdon acquired, and from whom, the Irish estates, some of which formed a portion of Lesceline's dowry.
As regards the first our author says:
"By the dates it might appear that she [Lesceline, Countess of Ulster] was more probably the sister of this Thomas [who, he states at p. x, "was born about 1180, and in any case but very little before, and very little after"], and daughter accordingly of Bertram II."—(p. xvi.)
And he adds that
"Eustacia was doubtfully old enough to have any issue at the death of Thomas in 1199."—Ib.
He concludes:—
"It is not unlikely that she [Lesceline] was in fact daughter of Bertram II., for she held two castles of the fee of Nicholas in Ireland of her maritagium."—Pat. 10 Hen. III. m. 3, m. 5, and 5 dors.; 'Cal. Doc. Ireland,' i. 1371-2-3-4, 1386. Ib.
With reference to the second matter Lynam writes:—
"Nicholas was still a minor till about 1203. Dugdale's narrative states that in 6 John he fined 1007. [m.], a courser, and a palfrey for livery of the lands in Ireland 'whereof his father died seized.'"
He proceeds:—
"He [Nicholas] must presumably have been of age by 21 Aug., 1203, when to him is committed custody of the bridge of Drogheda as Bertram his father held it [Liberate 5 John, m. 9], and it is likely his fine was agreed at about the same time. The fine, however, is inter alia 'for having his ands in Ireland whereof Bertram his father was seized in his demesne as of fee at his death '['Cal. Doc. Ireland,' i. 251]. This is clear on the point that there at least Nicholas succeeded his father, not his brother Thomas."—Ib.
From this it would appear, as the castles of Rathour and Le Nobcr formed part of the estates of Bertram in Ireland, and were only acquired by Nicholas in 1203, that Leseeline's marriage to Hugh de Lacy would be more correctly assigned to c. 1203 than to 1192, as suggested by your correspondent.
Charles Lamb's "Mrs. S—" (11 S. viii. 262, 318).—The "position" of Dr. Spinks in "the legal world" was that of an advocate of Doctors' Commons, not a member of the Temple; and when the Probate and Divorce Court was established in 1858 at
