1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.GENEALOGY.MEDIEVAL

  • Reason behind this payment to Queen Philippa from Sir Michael de Poynin

    From Darrell E. Larocque@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 8 17:40:29 2022
    I have found a record which contains a payment to Queen Philippa from Sir Michael de Poynings:

    10 February 1366. "Indenture made between Queen Philippa and Sir Michael de Ponynges knight, being a grant and sale to Sir Michael of the wardship of the body of William son and heir of Sir John de Bardolf and his marriage, to the effect that the said
    William shall take to wife Agnes daughter of the said Michael before the month of Easter next, for which the said Michael shall pay the said queen 1,000/. in lieu exchequer at Westminster, to wit 500/. within eight days after the month of Easter next,
    250 marks at Michaelmas following, 250 marks at Easter following, and 250 marks at Michaelmas following; and a defeasance of the foregoing recognisance upon condition that the said Sir Michael shall keep the days of payment, and if any default be found
    in the said William whereby he may not marry the said Agnes by the law of the church, or if he shall refuse so to do, or if either of them die before marriage, the said Sir Michael, his heirs and executors, shall be discharged as well of the payment
    aforesaid as of the said recognisance. Covenants that if the said Agnes after her marriage die without issue living before the said sum be fully paid, Sir Michael, his heirs, executors and tenants, shall be discharged of the part thereof unpaid and of
    the said recognisance, that the said William shall yearly during his nonage take 50 marks for maintenance at the queen's exchequer or by the hands of the farmers of the lands in Sussex of his heritage."

    Great Britain. ''Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III, vol. 12. 1364-1368'', (London: 1910), pp. 262-263.

    https://archive.org/details/calendarofcloser12grea/page/262/mode/2up?view=theater

    WHY would Sir Michael need to pay the Queen that much for the wardship and marriage of William Bardolf, son of Sir John? Normally there is some sort of an exchange for a payment, but in this case it looks like Sir Michael has to pay the Queen just to
    marry his daughter to William Bardolf as if it is a tribute but I have no idea why this is necessary. Any help is appreciated!

    Darrell E. Larocque

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Cayley@21:1/5 to Darrell E. Larocque on Sun Jan 9 03:05:29 2022
    Wardships and the generally associated right to determine marriage could be valuable commodities, and were quite often sold. This was a significant source of income for the monarchy. i do not see anything particularly strange in this transaction.

    On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 01:40:30 UTC, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
    I have found a record which contains a payment to Queen Philippa from Sir Michael de Poynings:

    10 February 1366. "Indenture made between Queen Philippa and Sir Michael de Ponynges knight, being a grant and sale to Sir Michael of the wardship of the body of William son and heir of Sir John de Bardolf and his marriage, to the effect that the said
    William shall take to wife Agnes daughter of the said Michael before the month of Easter next, for which the said Michael shall pay the said queen 1,000/. in lieu exchequer at Westminster, to wit 500/. within eight days after the month of Easter next,
    250 marks at Michaelmas following, 250 marks at Easter following, and 250 marks at Michaelmas following; and a defeasance of the foregoing recognisance upon condition that the said Sir Michael shall keep the days of payment, and if any default be found
    in the said William whereby he may not marry the said Agnes by the law of the church, or if he shall refuse so to do, or if either of them die before marriage, the said Sir Michael, his heirs and executors, shall be discharged as well of the payment
    aforesaid as of the said recognisance. Covenants that if the said Agnes after her marriage die without issue living before the said sum be fully paid, Sir Michael, his heirs, executors and tenants, shall be discharged of the part thereof unpaid and of
    the said recognisance, that the said William shall yearly during his nonage take 50 marks for maintenance at the queen's exchequer or by the hands of the farmers of the lands in Sussex of his heritage."

    Great Britain. ''Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III, vol. 12. 1364-1368'', (London: 1910), pp. 262-263.

    https://archive.org/details/calendarofcloser12grea/page/262/mode/2up?view=theater

    WHY would Sir Michael need to pay the Queen that much for the wardship and marriage of William Bardolf, son of Sir John? Normally there is some sort of an exchange for a payment, but in this case it looks like Sir Michael has to pay the Queen just to
    marry his daughter to William Bardolf as if it is a tribute but I have no idea why this is necessary. Any help is appreciated!

    Darrell E. Larocque

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Darrell E. Larocque@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jan 9 06:23:28 2022
    On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 6:05:31 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
    Wardships and the generally associated right to determine marriage could be valuable commodities, and were quite often sold. This was a significant source of income for the monarchy. i do not see anything particularly strange in this transaction.

    Thanks, Michael... I was just surprised that there was no tangible benefit for Sir Michael or William and Agnes in the exchange, but that makes sense... I don't know what to use to describe it other than tribute. I just need to find the right word or
    words to explain it!

    Darrell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Darrell E. Larocque on Sun Jan 9 08:41:32 2022
    On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 3:23:29 PM UTC+1, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
    On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 6:05:31 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
    Wardships and the generally associated right to determine marriage could be valuable commodities, and were quite often sold. This was a significant source of income for the monarchy. i do not see anything particularly strange in this transaction.
    Thanks, Michael... I was just surprised that there was no tangible benefit for Sir Michael or William and Agnes in the exchange, but that makes sense... I don't know what to use to describe it other than tribute. I just need to find the right word or
    words to explain it!

    Darrell

    Hi Darrell. We are normally talking heirs and heiresses in these cases. It looks like William was to be the next Lord Bardolf, so Ponyngs was providing his daughter with a nice position in life. The other thing to keep in mind is that families often also
    saw these new alliances as insurance. Heirs could die, and disasters could happen. A natural result of this sort of strategy was that some families could rapidly move up several notches after a series of bad luck among allied families.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Darrell E. Larocque@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jan 9 09:37:11 2022
    On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 11:41:33 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
    On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 3:23:29 PM UTC+1, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
    On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 6:05:31 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
    Wardships and the generally associated right to determine marriage could be valuable commodities, and were quite often sold. This was a significant source of income for the monarchy. i do not see anything particularly strange in this transaction.
    Thanks, Michael... I was just surprised that there was no tangible benefit for Sir Michael or William and Agnes in the exchange, but that makes sense... I don't know what to use to describe it other than tribute. I just need to find the right word or
    words to explain it!

    Darrell
    Hi Darrell. We are normally talking heirs and heiresses in these cases. It looks like William was to be the next Lord Bardolf, so Ponyngs was providing his daughter with a nice position in life. The other thing to keep in mind is that families often
    also saw these new alliances as insurance. Heirs could die, and disasters could happen. A natural result of this sort of strategy was that some families could rapidly move up several notches after a series of bad luck among allied families.

    Thank you for the response! Michael clarified the meaning in an email and now I think I have a pretty complete understanding as of what happened.

    Sir Michael had already obtained a large amount of property at the time of this indenture, and so I can only gather that he wanted his children to have as much property and influence as they could have. He must have known that something was off health
    wise because after the indenture was finalized after the monies were paid in 1368, he died a few months later.

    The ironic thing is that the de Uffords didn't fare well- his daughter ended up losing Sir William at a relatively young age, and watched as both her son and her second husband ending up engaging in treason and lost them both. Fortunately for her, her
    daughters chose well as Elizabeth married into the Scales and Percy families while Cecily married into the Stapleton family.

    Darrell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)