Maud de la Mare

   Another name for Maud was Matilda de la Warr.

  Information about this person:

• Background Information. ¹⁴¹
Sir Piers de Montfort married, circa 1260, Maud, daughter and heir of Matthew, son of Henry de la Mare, with whom he had Ashtead in Surrey. He died before 4 March 1286/7.

~Cockayne's Complete Peerage, (Montfort), Vol. IX, p. 127

• From Gen-Medieval Archives: Joan, Mother of Maud de la Mare . ¹⁹³
From: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Joan, mother of Maud de la Mare, wife of Peter de Montfort
Date: 8 Nov 2004 11:19:31 -0800

Dear Newsgroup ~

Upon review of a variety of records, I've determined that Maud de la Mare, wife of Sir Peter de Montfort, was the daughter of Sir Henry de la Mare (died 1257), of Ashtead, Surrey, a prominent royal justice, by his 2nd wife, Joan, daughter of Sir John de Neville of Essex. Conclusive proof of Maud's parentage is found in Calendar of Close Rolls, 1264-1265 (1937), pg. 55, which reads as follows:

"Pro Matilli filia Henrici de la Mare. - Rex Willelmo de Wenling', escaetori suo citra Trentam, salutem. Monstravit nobis Matildis filia Henrici de la Mare quod, cum dudum contulissemus eidem Henrico custodiam terrarum Willelmi Ortye defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite habendam sibi et assignatis suis cum feodis militum, wardis et aliis ad dictam custodiam pertinentibus, et idem Henricus dudum ante mortem suam custiodiam illam assignasset eidem Matildi habendam usque ad legitimam etatem heredem ejusdem Willelmi ..."

Briefly, the above text states that the king had formerly granted the lands of William de Lorty deceased to Henry de la Mare, which Henry during his life had assigned to his daughter, Maud, to have until the lawful age of the heir of the said William de Lorty. Since no husband is mentioned for Maud in this record, I assume she was unmarried at the date this document was recorded. Typically, a husband would be named if one existed. We know from other records that Maud was definitely a minor in 1260. If we assume that Maud was still an unmarried minor in 1265, this might suggest that she was born in or about 1252. Maud and her husband, Peter de Montfort, had their first known child in or about 1271, so a marriage date of between 1265 and 1271 for Maud and Peter would surely be acceptable.

Although there may be another grant involved, it appears that Henry de la Mare obtained the lands of William de Lorty deceased in 1256 on the payment of a fee of 100 marks a year at the Exchequer. The grant does not mention William de Lorty's lands, rather the wardship "falling in land to that yearly value" late of Sabina de Lorty. That Henry de la Mare, the royal justice, is the person who obtained the Lorty properties is indicated by the fact that Henry was then stated to be in the king's "service," and then when he was in Gascony, he "gave commandment to the queen and R[ichard] earl of Cornwall, guardians of the realm." Elsewhere, the king states that he is about to send Henry on a message to the court of Rome [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258 (1908), pp. 463, 478]. The records show that during his career, Henry de la Mare the justice made several trips abroad for the king.

That Henry de la Mare was married twice is indicated by the fact that on his death, he was survived by a son and heir, Henry, who was of full age ["plene etatis"] in 1257 [Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls, 1256-1259 (1932): 159]. Curiously, the son is not mentioned in any published accounts of this family that I can find. He evidently did not survive long, as VCH Surrey shows that before 1260, half the manor of Ashtead, Surrey (the family's chief estate) was held by Joan de la Mare (widow of the justice) and her 2nd husband, Walter de la Hyde, due to the minority of Joan's daughter, Maud de la Mare [Reference: VCH Surrey, 3 (1911): 248]. This suggests that Maud was her brother's heir before 1260. That Maud was half-sibling to her brother, Henry, is suggested by the wide gap in their ages. Also, it appears from other records that Maud's mother, Joan de Neville, had at least one child by her 2nd marriage to Walter de la Hyde, namely Hawise (wife of Robert le Veel). That Joan de Neville was the widow of Henry de la Mare the father, not the son, is indicated by the fact that Joan's daughter, Maud, was a child of Henry de la Mare, the royal justice, not his son, as I have shown above. That Maud was the only surviving child of Henry de la Mare is indicated by the fact that she was sole heiress to the de la Mare family estates in Surrey and Berkshire [see VCH Surrey, 3 (1911): 248; VCH Berkshire, 3 (1923): 253], whereas her half-sister, Hawise le Veel, was the sole heiress to the de la Hyde properties in Sussex [see VCH Sussex]. Maud and her half-sister, Hawise, were joint heirs to Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset, as this property had been conveyed directly to their mother, Joan, not to either of Joan's husbandss.

That Henry de la Mare was considerably older than his surviving widow, Joan de Neville, is indicated by several factors. First, I estimate that Henry de la Mare was born no later than 1208, being the son and heir of Sir William de la Mare, of Ashstead, Surrey, by his wife, Basile, which William and Basile were married in or before 1204. Due to the fact that there are several Henry de la Mare's in this time period, it is difficult to know exactly when Henry de la Mare first appears in the records, but we know that he was made a royal justice in 1248, at which date I think we can safely assume Henry was at least 40 years of age [Reference: Edward Foss, Judges of England, 2 (1848): 397]. Henry de la Mare was surely born not much later than 1208, as his first cousin, Pain de la Mare (son of his uncle, Henry, and Pernel de Craon), was allegedly born about 1205 [Reference: C.A.F. Meekings, ed., The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979): 218-220]. That Joan de Neville was considerably younger than Henry de la Mare is suggested by the chronology of her parents, John de Neville and his wife, Hawise de Courtenay, and that of their other children. We don't know exactly when Joan's father, John de Neville, was born, but his parents were married before 1200 and he was clearly an adult by 1234. Joan's eldest brother, Hugh de Neville, was born about 1235, being of age in 1256. We know that Joan's mother, Hawise, married (2nd) Sir John de Gatesden in the period, 1247/53, and produced one child by that marriage, Margaret, born about 1253 [Reference: C.A.F. Meekings, ed., The 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979): 196-199]. As such, it would be safe to assume that Joan's mother, Hawise de Courtenay, was born about 1210/13.

It is uncertain when the marriage of Henry de la Mare and Joan de Neville took place. Henry de la Mare clearly knew the Neville family as early as the 1240's. I find that in 1246, the year of Joan's father's death, the king ordered Henry de la Mare to release the castle of Stokecursy, Somerset to the king, Henry then being "John de Neville's constable." This was immediately before Henry de la Mare was made a royal justice. Henry and Joan were presumably married before 10 July 1256, when the king made a gift of three deer ("iij damos") to the "wife of Henry de la Mare." I find two subsequent records dated 1256, both of which involve Henry de la Mare and Joan de Neville's brother, Hugh de Neville. In one of them, Henry de la Mare served as a pledge for Hugh de Neville, when the king granted Hugh his late father's lands [Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls, 1254-1256 (1931): 277]. In the other record, the king specifically states that he has pardoned Hugh de Neville the debts of his father, which action was done at the "instance of Henry de la Mare." [Reference: Excerpta e Rotuilis Finium, 2 (1836): 228]. These are typical actions of a brother-in-law in this time period.

The evidence of Joan de la Mare's identity is based on many records which, taken as a whole, show a pattern of close association between her and the Neville family over many years. In other posts, I've shown that Joan was granted land in Somerset by her step-father, Sir John de Gatesden. I've also shown that Joan's 2nd husband, Sir Walter de la Hyde, witnessed documents for both Sir John de Gatesden and for Joan's mother, Hawise de Neville. I've also shown that at least one property, Waldron, Sussex, passed from Sir John and Hawise de Gatesden to Joan's husband, Walter de la Hyde. In 1277, I find that Walter de la Hyde and two other men were said to have taken two does belonging to Hawise de Neville (then deceased). These animals were granted to Hawise de Neville back in 1264 [References: Calendar of Close Rolls, 1264-1268 (1937): 8; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (1900): 378]. The king ordered that the justices not "disquiet or aggrieve" Walter de la Hyde regarding the deer, although he provides no explanation for his order. If Walter de la Hyde was the son-in-law of Hawise de Neville, it would explain why the king allowed Walter to retain the deer. Besides Joan de la Mare's continued association with the Neville family, I've elsewhere shown that her two daughters were involved on more than one occasion with Joan's half-sister, Margaret de Gatesden. In one case, Joan's daughters sued Margaret for a manor in Somerset; in the other case, Joan's younger daughter, Hawise, conveyed a manor in Sussex to Margaret.

However, there is even more telltale evidence of Joan de la Mare's identity. Sometime between 1265 and 1269, an alleged miracle took place in Sussex, which was accredited to the late Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester. The witnesses to the miracle were listed as "Lady Joan de la Mare" and "Lady Hawise de Neville," both of whom are styled noblewoman [nobiles mulieres] [Reference: James O. Halliwell, ed., The Chronicloe of William de Rishanger of the Barons' Wars. The Miracles of Simon de Montfort) (Camden Soc. 15) (1840): 90, 101-102]. That Joan de la Mare is accorded the same status as Hawise (de Courtenay) de Neville is significant, all of the more so because Joan is listed first before Hawise in the list of witnesses. If Joan and Hawise were daughter and mother, it would explain Joan being listed first and why Joan was styled "noblewoman." Hawise was surely considered to be of noble birth, she being a descendant of both King Henry I of England and Isabel de Vermandois.

In my next and final post, I plan to chart the various relationships between the parties discussed above and show how Joan de la Mare's great-grandson, Bishop Simon de Montagu, was kinsman to King Edward II of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Maud married Sir Piers de Montfort, son of Piers de Montfort and Alice de Audley.¹⁴¹ (Sir Piers de Montfort was born circa 1242 in Castle Beldesert, Warwickshire, England and died before 4 Mar 1287 in England ¹⁴¹.)