Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 9.djvu/398

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.


392


NOTES AND QUERIES. pi s. ix. MAT 16, mi


as the youngest child because she was female issue, a practice which was very prevalent amongst early pedigree compilers, heralds particularly (vide Visitations), when they condescended at all to admit the existence of a daughter.

Your correspondent suggests 1196 as the earliest, and 1199 as the latest possible, date for Lesceline's marriage to Hugh, who in the latter year, according to the above theory, would have been 32, whilst his wife would have been 18 to 20 years of age. Is it known in what year Maud or Matilda de Laci, their only child, was born ? Apparently she married after 1227 (MR. ORPEN, ante, p. 331), and died 1303 (Lord Walter Fitz- Gerald, US. viii. 371).

With reference to Lesceline's maritagium, I think the acknowledgment of Walter de Laci, as quoted by MB. ORPEN, disposes of the idea that the castles of Ratour and le Nober formed a portion thereof of the fee of Nicholas de Verdon, for the words " et similiter," occurring as they do between the reference to the castles and the remainder of the passage, in my opinion clearly show that the castles named had nothing to do with Nicholas de Verdon 's gift to his sister on her marriage, but were held by Hugh of the fee of his brother Walter. It is very satisfactory that MR. ORPEN has been able to trace the cause of the error to its probable source.

It is also a satisfaction to me to know definitely what lands really formed Lesceline's maritagium, and I am grateful to your correspondent for the interesting details he has given.

Respecting the date of Lesceline's decease, MR. ORPEN kindly promises to make a suggestion later on. It may not perhaps, therefore, be out of place if I here put before him the only information I have on the point. It occurs in Lynam's * Sketches of the Earlier Verduns,' p. xviii (vide * The Abbey of St. Mary, Croxden, Staffordshire '), where that writer, referring to the year 1224, mentions, " the same Hugh de LacX Earl of Ulster, who was then the husband of Lesceline." Appa- rently, therefore, Lesceline was alive in that year.

The reason I concluded that it was Emeline de Riddlesford who had been abandoned by Hugh before 1225 was because I had before me MR. ST. CLAIR BADDELEY'S view that Hugh's second marriage took place between 1212 and 1216, and was not in possession of the theory MR. ORPEN now presents, that such marriage did not take place until after 1227. With the particulars your correspondent now gives, I am disposed to think that, after all,


it may have been Lesceline who became the neglected wife, and that the primary cause of the separation of the couple may not un- reasonably be attributed to the fact that the De Verdons took the side of the King in the matter of Hugh's rebellion.

Hugh had Ulster finally restored to him in 1227, and, as MR. ORPEN observes, it is hardly likely that, until he had made his peace with the King, Walter de Riddlesford would have given him his daughter in marriage.

In no work have I found any mention of Emeline having had any issue by the Earl. If, as MR. ORPEN suggests, the marriage only took place after 1227, she was clearly not the wife Hugh abandoned for a mistress before 1225. But may not Hugh have simply married Emeline to secure her inheritance, and, having so obtained it, neglected her as he did Lesceline ? An alternative might be found in the suggestion that, after all, Emeline was the mother of the Earl's chil- dren recorded by MR. ST. CLAIR BADDELEY at 1 1 S. viii. 172 ; but, if so, why has no pedigree compiler recorded the fact ? We know Emeline was capable of having issue, because she had two daughters by her second hus- band, Stephen de Longespee, whom she married c. 1243.

I am much obliged to your correspondent for giving me his reasons for supposing there were probably two Walter de Riddlesfords, father and son, and in the face of these the opinion he has expressed would appear to be fully justified. The difficulty will be how to prove the case. At 11 S. viii. 171, 172, MR. ST. CLAIR BADDELEY has given us some account of Walter de Riddlesford, the only Walter hitherto known to us, whose birth he assigned to c. 1150, which would make him 93 when he died if he is identical with the Walter who passed away in 1243. What dates does MR. ORPEN assign for the births of Emeline and Ela de Riddlesford ? The former is said to have been living 1276 ; the latter was dead ante 1240 (US. viii. 371). FRANCIS H. RELTON. 8, Lansdowne Road, East Croydon.


" BUSHEL AND STRIKE " (11 S. ix. 330). " Bushel and Strike " is certainly a curious combination for an inn sign, since " bushel " and " strike " are the same thing a measure of quantity. The bushel measure has, to a great extent, ceased to be used in the buying and selling of grain, though some speak of a bushel as eight gallons of dry measure even when buying by weight. After a day's threshing the grain has to be " sacked "