Wills: 14 Edward II (1320-1)

Calendar of Wills Proved and Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London: Part 1, 1258-1358. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1889.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

'Wills: 14 Edward II (1320-1)', in Calendar of Wills Proved and Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London: Part 1, 1258-1358, (London, 1889) pp. 287-289. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/court-husting-wills/vol1/pp287-289 [accessed 20 April 2024]

ANNO 14 EDWARD II.

Monday the Morrow of tfte Feast of S. Margaret, Virgin [20 July].

Balauncer (Ralph le).—Specific legacies of money and chattels, including a silver cup with three acorns (glandis) of silver under the cover, &c., to his daughters Isabella, Johanna, and Margaret, the same to remain in the custody of William de Causton, merchant, during their minority. To Agnes his daughter a tenement in the parish of S. Peter the Less. To Johanna his wife a tenement in the parish of Paternostercherche for life; remainder to chantries in the church of S. Mary le Bow. To Richard his valet a tenement in the parish of S. Mary de Abbecherch, charged with the maintenance of a chantry in the said parish church. No date.
Roll 49 (1).

Montacute (William de).—To Elizabeth his wife houses in the parish of S. Benedict atte Wodewharf near S. Paul's Wharf. To Mary his daughter he leaves the marriage (maritagium (fn. 1) ) of Richard, son and heir of Sir Thomas de Cogan, late knight, which the testator had purchased of the lord Edward, the King of England. No date.
Roll 49 (5).

Penyvader or Penifader (William).—To Alice his wife a house and rents in the parishes of S. Mary de Fancherch, S. Margaret Patyns, S. Nicholas Acon, and in Mangonelane for life; remainder to his daughters Matilda and Edith. No date.
Roll 49 (9).

Gille (Alice, late wife of John).—To Albreda her daughter, wife of William de Grenestede, tenements and rents in the parish of S. Andrew de Holeburne and elsewhere, charged with the maintenance of a chantry in the church of All Hallows de Garscherch for the space of one year. To William le Rowe, chandler, of Oldefisstrete, and Emma his wife, daughter of Geoffrey de Bordesle, a house in the same parish, with a similar charge for the maintenance of a chantry. To Walter, son of John de Ryngwode and of Marion his [wife], daughter of the testatrix, rents in the parish of S. Sepulchre. No date.
Roll 49 (10).

Monday next after the Feast of S. James, Apostle [25 July].

Dunstan (Gilbert).—His house in the parish of Seint Marie atte the Holle near Billinggesgate to be sold to pay his debts, and the residue of the proceeds to be given to the poor. No date.
Roll 49 (16).

Monday next after the Feast of S. Luke, Evangelist [18 Oct.].

Mundene (Simon de).—To Agnes his daughter the reversion of a tenement in the parish of S. Alphege after the decease of Matilda his wife; in default of heirs the same to be sold, and one moiety of the proceeds to go to the repair of the work of the said parish church, and the other moiety to be devoted to pious and charitable uses. No date.
Roll 49 (31).

Footnotes

  • 1. This right of marriage, as distinguished from matrimonium, prevailed under the feudal system, although not strictly of feudal origin. It was the power which the lord or guardian in chivalry had of disposing of his female infant ward in matrimony, for while the infant was in ward the guardian was entitled to offer her a suitable match, without disparagement (ubi non disparagetur) or inequality; and if this was refused the infant forfeited to the guardian the value of the marriage, that is, such a sum as a jury would assess or any one would bonâ fidegive to the guardian for such an alliance. This arbitrary power was one of the greatest hardships of ancient tenures, and although attempts were made to place restrictions upon its exercise by both Henry I. and King John, the right of selling the ward in marriage extended itself to the male as well as the female ward during the reign of Henry III., and was expressly recognized by the Statute of Merton (20 Hen. III. c. 6). It is a matter for no little astonishment to find that such a system should have prevailed in this country so late as 1660.
PreviousTable of contentsNext