Clemence de Broc
Paul C. Reed
> One of the things the search for Clemence as mother of Joan has brought home
> to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early 13th
> century.
>
> One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher and
> Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc. Her
> brother Robert later inherited the role as Chief Marshall for King John.
> Interestingly her sister's IPM reveals that Clemence was pregnant on her
> marriage to William de Malesours.
[snip] : ) [thanks, Rosie]
I just wanted to say that this Clemence actually fits the chronology quite well,
being the best of the candidates so far, and even had close connections with
the courts of King John and his father.
But that does not mean I think she is a necessarily likely candidate. I would
hope this exercise [late Dauntsey, newly le Butiller, now Broc] will have
helped teach people to be more careful about checking for details and evidence,
rather than struggling as hard as you can to force a connection just because the
possibility is there.
Happy Thanksgiving to all the Americans out there, on this day to remember
things for which we are thankful. I am thankful for what I have learned from
interaction on this group over the years, and thankful for some good friends I
have made along the way.
CHEERS!
Paul C. Reed, FASG
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I would
> hope this exercise [late Dauntsey, newly le Butiller, now Broc] will have
> helped teach people to be more careful about checking for details and evidence,
> rather than struggling as hard as you can to force a connection just because the
> possibility is there.
With the popularity of RD500, we are still stuck with Clemence de
Dauntsey, just as we will forever have to refute Rosamunde
Clifford.
taf
Rosie Bevan
to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early 13th
century.
One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher and
Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc. Her
brother Robert later inherited the role as Chief Marshall for King John.
Interestingly her sister's IPM reveals that Clemence was pregnant on her
marriage to William de Malesours. This indicates that her son and heir,
Auger, was a mantle-child and as such illegitimate. He would have had to
have been granted land because he could not inherit it. However in the
following IPMs he appears to be accepted as an heir of his aunt. Clemence
went on to have three more sons. The Broc and Turnham families appear to
have been well favoured by John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to
John's cousin Ralph de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of
Aquitaine. Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of
Anjou and in 1215 the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
remarriage [H&G, v.5 p508].
38 Hen III Domina de Chetindon [in Brevi]; Sibilla de Brok' [in
Inquisitione] Extenta terrae, et de eschaea & c
Inquisitio facta coram Abbate de Persor', Vicecomite salop et Stephano de
Butterlegg' Escaetore ejusdem comitatus. Dicunt [juratores] per sacramentum
suum quod Sibilla de Brok tenuit duas carucatas terrae cum pertinentiis in
Chettynton de domino rege in capite. Item dicunt quod praedicta Sibilla
obiit sine haerede de corpore suo
procreato. Sed habuit duas sorores seniores se, videlicit, Edelinam seniorem
et Clementiam juniorem et praedicta Edelina habuit tres filias maritatas in
comitabus Sussex et Surr quarum nomina ignorant, et bene sciunt quod
Nicholaus de Wauncy est consanguineus unius praedictarum filiarum, Johannes
de Bendig' alterius, et Petrus de Hatot' tertiae " et dicunt quod predicta
Clementia, soror praedictae Sibillae, habuit quatuor filios, videlicit,
Augerum de quo predicta Clementia pregnans fuit die quo Willielmus de
Maleseveres quondam maritus praedictae Clementiae ipsam desponsavit, et
alios tres in legitimo matrimonio procreatos, videlicet, Thomas seniorem,
qui ante obitum suum procreavit quendam filium de uxore sua legitima, nomine
Willielmum, Simonem medium, et Adam juniorem; unde nesciunt si terra
praedicta sit eschaeta domini Regis, necne, sed in arbitrio consilii domini
Regis sit. Salop
IPM Isabella alias Sibilla de Broc 40 Hen III
Dicunt[juratores] quod Sibilla nullum haeredum de corpore suo procreatum
habuit; sed habuit tres sorores, scilicet, Edelinam, Aliciam et Clementiam.
Et ignorant utrum Edelina habuit haeredum de se vel non. Et Alicia habuit
duas filias, scilicet, Emmam et Feliciam.Emma vero habuit unum filium,
scilicet Petrum de Hautoft. Et Felicia habuit unum filium, scilicet
Nicholaum de Wancy. Et Clementia habuit unum filium, scilicet Angerum de
Tatelinton. Et dicunt quod isti tres sunt propinquiores haeredes ejusdem
Sibillae et sunt plenae aetatis. Salop.
Predictae Sibilla obiit sine harede de se. Et habuit tres sorores haeredes
suos, videlicit, Edelinam quae fuit uxor Stephani de Turnham; et Aliciam
quae fuit uxor Willielmi Harang; et Clementiam quae fuit uxor Willielmi
Malleseveres. Unde dicunt [juratores] super sacramentum suum quod nesciunt
nominare haeredes preadictae Edelinae quae fuit uxor Stephani de Turnham; et
Aliciam quae fuit uxor Willielmi Harang; et Clementiam quae fuit uxor
Willielmi Malleseveres. Unde dicunt [juratores] super sacramentum suun quod
nesciunt nominare hearedes praedictae Edelinae quia non sunt in comitatu
Salop. De praedicta Alicia exierunt duae filiae, scilicet, Emma senior, de
qua exiit Petrus Hotoft qui est unus hearedum praedictae Sibillae, et
Felicia junior de qua exiit Nicholaus de Wauncy unus haeredum. De Clementia
autem exiit Aungerus de Tatlinton primogenitus, unus haeredum praedictae
Sibillae. Dicunt etiam desicut Aungerus est de sorore, et Nicholaus et
Petrus sunt de neptibus, eis videtur quod Aungerus proprinquior haeres est
dicta Sibillae. De aetate dicunt quod Petrus de Hotoft et Nicholaus et
Aungerus sunt plenae aetatis. De aetate [haeredum?] praedict Edelinea
nesciunt cujus aetatis sint. Salop
1.Sir Ranulph de Broc, Usher and Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II
d.1187
+ bef 1166 Damietta da. of William Goram, Lady of Chetton, d bef 1204
2.Sir Robert de Broc Marshall of the King, Forester of Cannock
+Margery da. of Richard Beauchamp, had issue
2.Alicia de Broc
* +William Hareng of Sussex
2.Lucia de Broc d.s.p.
+ William Maubank
2.Sibil de Broc d.1255
+William de Arundel
2.Edelina de Broc d.1221
+Stephen de Turnham of Great Berwick, Salop.d 1214, Seneschal of Anjou
1186, Escort of Queen Berengaria 1193-4
3.Mabel de Turnham
+Hamo de Gatton
3.Beatrix de Turnham
+(1)Ralph de Fay d.1222 (first cousin once removed of King John)
* +(2)Hugh de Neville d.1234
+(3)Hugh de Playz d.1244
3.Alianor de Turnham
3.Alice de Turnham
3.Clemence de Turnham
* 2.Clemence de Broc
+William FitzAuger alias Malesoures
3.Auger de Tatlington
[Source Herald and Genealogist, v.5 p.508]
1.In the IPM of Robert Waleraund, we saw that he had rents from land in
Steeple Lavington. (Dicunt [juratores] quod Robertus Walleraund' habuit
dictam terram [in Stupellavinton] de dono dominae Matildae de Albo
Monasterio quondam uxoris domini Johannis filii Alani, et praedicta Matilda
habuit dictam terram in liberum maritagium de domina Clementia de Verdun
matre sua). This land is called Fiffhide Verdun in the IPM of John Walraund.
Robert Waleraund also held lands in Tatelington villa, Wiltshire. Clemence
le Broc's son was 'of Tatlinton,' Wiltshire.
2.Robert Waleraund appears to have acquired this land by confiscation from
Hugh de Neville. After his wife, Joan de Cornhill died, Hugh de Neville's
grandfather was married to Clemence de Broc's niece Beatrix. During the
second marriage he held his former wife's lands by courtesy of England.
Barony of Stogursey
1.William de Curci d.1171
2.William de Curci b.1168 d.1194 s.p.
2.Alice de Curci b c 1170
+ Henry de Cornhill d.1193
3. Joan de Cornhill b c 1186 coheir of her mother d abt 1223
* +.Hugh de Neville d.1234 (married secondly Beatrice de Turnham)
4.John de Neville d.1246
5. Hugh de Neville of age 1256. During the Baron's War his
lands were confiscated and granted to Robert Waleraund. Hugh regained 2/3 of
it in 1266.
+ Warin FitzGerold d1216
3. Margaret
+ Baldwin de Riviers d.1216
+ Fawkes de Breate controlled all of Alice de Curci's lands until
his fall in1222 when they were divided between Joan and Margaret.
[Source Sanders p.143]
3.Paul mentioned that in 1216 Nicholas de Verdun's lands were confiscated
and held by Ralph de Hareng. Clemence de Broc's sister was married to a
William Hareng.
I realise that all these are loose associations pointing in the direction of
Clemence de Broc and time is needed to digest all the information. However,
timing, situation, family connections make her an ideal candidate as mother
of Joan. There is even circumstantial evidence which ties her in with
Clemence de Verdun.
Cheers
Rosie
Cristopher Nash
Rosie, this is a rich posting - thanks! Just a quick ques. as I digest it.
>One of the things the search for Clemence as mother of Joan has brought home
>to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early 13th
>century.
>
>One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher and
>Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc.
[SNIP]
>The Broc and Turnham families appear to have been well favoured by
>John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to John's cousin Ralph
>de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
>Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of Anjou
>and in 1215 the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
>remarriage [H&G, v.5 p508].
Does this perhaps rest on new evidence in the long spell since
Richard Borthwick's article of 8 Dec 99 <re: Clere/Fay/Rus/Turnham>?
Viz. --
>28 Ralph # [ =? Raoul de FAYE] de FAY, of Bramley, Surrey. Died
>Before 1210.
> Ralph the elder was granted Bramley and other fees by king Henry II.
>Ralph was dispossessed for his part in the rebellion of the young Henry and
>it would appear that while he did recover some lands after king Henry's
>death, he did not recover Bramley. There is a conjecture that this Ralph de
>Fay is to be identified with Raoul de Faye, lord of Faye-la-Vineuse, first
>cousin of queen Eleanor, consort of king Henry II. The references below
>give no evidence to support this conjecture. The dates given in ES for
>Raoul fit what we know of Ralph's dates, but ES indicates no descendants
>for Raoul.
Cheers.
Cris
--
Edith Gomez
children are BROCKs and this may help me in my search after I find what I am
looking for at present. They are an elusive family.
Want to relate this bit of info though. I purchased a photocopy of the
Brock Family Record by Anna Maude Cawthra Brock which included pictures and
one was of a Lord Bolingbroke of Cobham Castle and he was born in the 1400's
and he bore a striking resemblence to my late husband who was born in 1938.
That was so awe inspiring. I believe whole heartedly that looks repeat
themselves if there is a family connection especially if it is a dominate
factor. Just my thoughts but worth checking into.
Edith
"Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:14f401c1731d$ccc9af20$04794fcb@cbevan...
Rosie Bevan
That was a very astute question.
CP VIII , p622 note (g) gives the strongest link I have seen between between
Ralph de Fay, Poitou, and the Turnhams. It deals with the dispute about the
custody and marriage of the heirs of Robert de Meinill, a son and daughter,
which the King granted to Robert de Turnham on 15 Dec 1207. The custody and
marriage was sold on to Ralph de Fay, and between 1218-1220 it was in
dispute between Ralph de Fay and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is quite
a complex case but I quote the nub of it here for those who don't have
access to CP.
Curia Regis Roll 71 Mich 3-4 Hn III (1219), m.7. Ralph de Fay v. Archbishop
of Canterbury, for the custody of the land and heirs of Robert de Meisnill ;
the plaintiff says that Robert de Turnham bought the custody from from King
John for 1000 marks, and Robert gave it to the plaintiff (Fay), with the
marriage of the heir to marry to his daughter (Fay's) for 500 marks and 100
Poitevin pounds ; and he produced Robert's deed. And he says that King John
made the grant during the vacancy of the archbishopric, the kings charter
being enrolled in the Exchequer, where Robert paid his fine in full. The
Archbishop claims the custody as belonging to the church, because William
Paynel, chief lord of the fees of the said Robert, gave the whole fee of
Robert de Meisnill to Hubert, late Archbishop ; and he produces Paynel's
deed ; he also produces a charter of King John, granting to S, Archbishop
the whole fee that Robert de Mednull held of William Paynel, which fee the
said William gave to H,. late Archbishop, namely the fee of seven knights,
to hold to him and hid successors, with wardship, homages, services etc. ;
he ought not answer without the King. The plaintiff says that the grant to
Robert de Turnham was made and enrolled before the charter to the
Archbishop. In answer to a question he says he has been in seisin of the
heir, but not the land; he had the heir for three years, and afterwards when
he went to Poitou, he committed him to Stephen de Turnham.
Rot. Chart. vol. i, p.173, Robert de Turnham was granted the marriage of the
heirs, to be married to his nearest relations - namely his nephews
(nepotibus) or nieces (neptibus). [Presumably these were the children of
Stephen de Turnham, his younger brother.]
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cristopher Nash" <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Broc
> "Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote on 21 Nov 2001 23:53:31 --
>
> Rosie, this is a rich posting - thanks! Just a quick ques. as I digest
it.
>
> >One of the things the search for Clemence as mother of Joan has brought
home
> >to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early 13th
> >century.
> >
> >One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher
and
> >Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >The Broc and Turnham families appear to have been well favoured by
> >John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to John's cousin Ralph
> >de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
> >Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of Anjou
> >and in 1215 the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
> >remarriage [H&G, v.5 p508].
>
Rosie Bevan
the names of Raoul de Faye's children - he had a son, Ralph and a daughter,
Eustache. I reproduce the relevant part below.
"Raoul or Ralph de Fay was a maternal uncle of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a
younger son of the viscount Aimeri I of Chatellheraut (d. 1151) and
Maubergeonne a.k.a. Dangereuse (sometimes said to have been a dau. of the
seigneur of l'Isle-Bouchard). The seigneurie of Faye came to Raoul by his
marriage to Elisabeth, dame de Faye-la-Vineuse, by whom he indeed had a son
Raoul/Ralph, and also a daughter Eustache. Raoul served his niece as
seneschal in Poitou, and witnessed a number of her charters on Poitevin
matters.
See Sidney Painter, *Feudalism and Liberty Essays*, p. 85, and also the
difficult-to-find "Chronologie historique des vicomtes de Chatellerault
avant la fin du XIIIe siecle, d'apres les documents inedits," by Dom.
Francois Chamard, in the _Memoires de la societe des antiquaires de
l'Ouest_, vol. 25 (1870-71), pp. 79-121, esp. 107-08, 121. John Parsons "
Cheers
Rosie
> > >One of the things the search for Clemence as mother of Joan has brought
> home
> > >to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early
13th
> > >century.
> > >
> > >One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher
> and
> > >Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc.
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > >The Broc and Turnham families appear to have been well favoured by
> > >John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to John's cousin Ralph
> > >de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
> > >Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of Anjou
> > >and in 1215 the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
> > >remarriage [H&G, v.5 p508].
> >
Renia
father's Polish father. My brother is also the living image of my mother's
English cousin. The two families are not related.
Renia
Cristopher Nash
> > >The Broc and Turnham families appear to have been well favoured by
>> >John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to John's cousin Ralph
>> >de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
>> >Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of Anjou
>> >and in 1215 the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
> > >remarriage [H&G, v.5 p508].
>>
>> Does this perhaps rest on new evidence in the long spell since
> > Richard Borthwick's article of 8 Dec 99 <re: Clere/Fay/Rus/Turnham>?
AND:
>From: "Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz>
>Subject: Re: Clemence de Broc
>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:50:00 +1300
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>
>
>Cris, I don't know whether you saw the post from John Parsons where he gives
>the names of Raoul de Faye's children - he had a son, Ralph and a daughter,
>Eustache. I reproduce the relevant part below.
>
>"Raoul or Ralph de Fay was a maternal uncle of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a
>younger son of the viscount Aimeri I of Chatellheraut (d. 1151) and
>Maubergeonne a.k.a. Dangereuse (sometimes said to have been a dau. of the
>seigneur of l'Isle-Bouchard). The seigneurie of Faye came to Raoul by his
>marriage to Elisabeth, dame de Faye-la-Vineuse, by whom he indeed had a son
>Raoul/Ralph, and also a daughter Eustache. Raoul served his niece as
>seneschal in Poitou, and witnessed a number of her charters on Poitevin
>matters.
>
>See Sidney Painter, *Feudalism and Liberty Essays*, p. 85, and also the
>difficult-to-find "Chronologie historique des vicomtes de Chatellerault
>avant la fin du XIIIe siecle, d'apres les documents inedits," by Dom.
>Francois Chamard, in the _Memoires de la societe des antiquaires de
>l'Ouest_, vol. 25 (1870-71), pp. 79-121, esp. 107-08, 121. John Parsons "
>
>Cheers
>
>Rosie
You know what -- I'm going to go along with the spirit of your
comments, though on no real grounds, I'm afraid, other than sheer raw
instinct. I _think_ the proposition is probably right that Ralph de
Fay of Bramley etc. (d. bef. 1210) and his s. Ralph (d. 1223) are the
son and Gson of Raoul de Fay of Faye-la-Vineuse, but -- though I may
be dead-blind -- I don't see evidence of it here beyond the Poitevin
associations of both Ralph de Fay of Bramley and the Turnehams (with
whom the first Ralph's undeniably connected), plus of course such
unmentioned facts as that a nephew of Raoul is, in England, Ralph de
Mortimer. Though I've the CP and the Painter, neither does it for me
- and I'm willing to bet that the Chamard won't either. This is only
a bet, mind; I'll see what I can do to get my hands on it in the Bod.
But of course I'm probably missing something vital! E.g. is there a
Eustache associated with Ralph of Bramley?
I note that John Parson's passage is quoted but without indication he
was addressing the question of the connection with Ralph of Bramley,
and he appears not to have answered requests here for a connection.
When asked, Richard Borthwick answered (6 Feb 99): >The clue would
seem to rest on Adrian's references and VCH if it has yet reached
Bramley. Does Painter make the connection?< (As I say, Painter
doesn't [25, 82, 85, where Faye is discussed].) But I've been unable
to find Adrian's posting on this. If you happen to be watching,
Adrian, maybe you could remind us where to find it? Or anyone else
here? Do you have it, Rosie?
Best,
Cris
--
Janet Ariciu
Was William Tell a real person or just fiction? If so was the story of the
apple on his son true? If so then after he shoot the apple with arrow. Did
William Tell chance the family from Tell to Fry/Frey?
The Frey family who came to America in 1675. Tells a story which has been
pass down thru the family from 1680 to Sarah Fry b 1853 d 1930.
Sarah Fry of Doylestown/Morristown, PA in 1926 wrote this story with more on
the family in America to Mr. Hocker and later copy by Lafayette Fry in 1947
for the Lancaster County, PA Historical Society.
That Heinrich Frey b abt 1655 Altheim, Province of Alsace Loraine, Germany
was a descendant of William Tell/Fry.
Sarah's story goes:
"William Tell who when came in colitoon with gessler govenor of Schreitz an
un under Albert 1st of Austra. The hat of Austria was place on a pole in the
market place and the Swiss were ordered to salute it. William Tell
refused.Then he was orderd by gessler to put in jeopardy the life of his son
Heinrich by shooting an apple placed as a target on his son head.
of couse gessler thought that William Tell would injure or kill his child.
He knew that Tell was a patriot of all patriots. He took this means of
avenging himself and not knowing Tell felt safe in promising him that in and
not injure the boy. Both should go free of immprovment Tell was Loak to
make the attemp But where he thought of his wife and children at home. He
selected two arrows one in bow and the other under the arm. Telll was so
overjoyed when he succceeded in hittng the apple thas he Exclaimed "ICLE
BIRR FRY" (I am free) and from that time on bore the name Fry.
When gessler saw the arrow under his arm he asked what that ? (can not
make out what she wrote here. I think was) for
William Tell replied. Had I killed or injured my child. The second arrow was
in tended for gessler.
Gessler immediately ordered him imprisoned. But he esscaped"
Now can anyone tell if this true or just a story/legend?
If true can anyone tell my more about William Tell/Fry?
Janet
D. Stussy
about 1285 in one of the "forest" cantons of Switzerland (Schwyz or Uri - I
don't remember offhand). The Habsburgs of Austria did control that part of
Switzerland back then.
Frei is a [root] Swiss surname, and many eastern Swiss citizens did colonize
the Alsace region in the latter half of the 17th Century. I know nothing about
the surname change - except I do note that I have seen such an occurance before
(e.g.: Kilchmatter -> Aebli, and "something" -> Wild).
Somewhere, I have a picture of [one of] the monument[s] of Wilhelm Tell - a
picture that my father took during one of his trips to Switzerland. It's my
understanding that there's also a "Hotel Tell" near it. The picture is
labelled as having been taken in Altdorf (in Kt. Uri) in 1978. Unfortunately,
as a translucent slide, I have had some difficulty scanning it into my computer
(e-mail me later regarding this).
In the 18th Century (1763?), Friedrich von Schiller (possibly misspelled name -
again from memory on the spur of the moment) did write the play version of the
legend. It's too bad that we can't ask him where he pulled everything together
from. His play has someone with my original root surname in it (the
park-ranger/game-warden character) - which would be an appearance of the
surname about 16 years before its first known RECORDED use in 1301. Schiller
did get the general geographic location of this "ancestor" correct, so
obviously, he did non-trivial research into the legend before writing his play.
I have found both English and German versions of the play on-line in the past
year. Although it's fiction, it may have factual clues.
Cristopher Nash
(e.g. <Clere>, <Dauntsey>, <Broc>) might be missed by friends here
interested and able to help, I'd like to ask whether anyone may be
able to recall the location of a posting of Adrian Channing's giving,
as Richard Borthwick said in Feb 1999, what may be evidential clues
for Ralph de Fay (of Bramley, etc., d. by ca. 1210) as the son of
Raoul de Faye (of Faye-la-Vineuse, d. probably by ca. 1190)?
(Adrian I gather you're not around just now, but in case you are...?)
Thanks.
Cris
--
The...@aol.com
Hello Cris,
Haven't had time yet to peruse, but I just found the two threads you
are looking for re: Fay, Faye & c.
1. Re: Ida was Pateshull, Grandison, Tregoz, etc. {Parts
2 and 3}
dates running 23 Jan to Feb 6 1999
2. Re: Raoul/Ralph de Fay and Braose????
dates running 6 Feb to 9 Feb 1999
Planning to do a little reading later, but thought this would help with
your afternoon/evening plans ...........:)
Good luck, and good hunting.
John
A Channing
Here is a copy of my message, plus my notes on this family, which I have
not looked at for a while (use fixed font, eg Courier):
message of Feb '99
I have been given the following information, not verified by me:
Ralph de Fay of Poitou, kinsman of Queen Eleanor, held 3 knights fees in
Bramley, Surrey (Pipe Rolls 1210/2) of the Honour of Dudley.
]
Ralph de Fay (Excerptae. Rot. Fin 1.25) = Beatrice, d. of Stephen de
Turnham (2nd husband Hugh de Plaiz)
and
Bramley, in the Blackheath Hundreds of Surrey, was given by Henry II to
Ralph de Fay who was dispossessed during the war between the king and
Prince Henry. King John granted it to Ralph, son of the above, whose son
John de Fay held it in 1223 . He died in 1241 and the manor was divided
between his 2 sister, Maude de Clere and Phillipa de Fay who had Bramley -
her husband was William Neville whose daughter Beatrice married William
Wintershill, lord of Wintershull (Winter's Hall ) in Bramley.
Maud's moiety (she died in 1250) passed to her daughter Alice and then to
Alice's daughter Agatha and William Longespee (Earl of Salisbury); their
daughter Alice was wife of Richard Breus who granted it in 1266 to Maud
Longespee. In 1271 Richard and Alice Breus conveyed it to William Breus
and wife Mary in exchange for Akenham, Suffolk. Mary died in 1236, her
grandson Thomas d. 1396 (sp) when it descended to George Breus, son of
John (brother of Thomas de Breus). George died 1418 and the Cookseys
became heirs of Agnes, sister of George de Breus. Cooksey d. 1445/6 when it
passed to his widow Alice and then to Hugh Cooksey's sister, Joyce
Beauchamp and from her to the Winters of Wych.
This seems to have come from "History of Surrey" by H E Malden. The account
appears to be a little muddled, but also may contain valuable information.
==========
ALMERIC/AIMERY I (c1076-7 Nov 1151 l'Abbey de Notre Dame de
Noyers-sur-Cher) de Chatellheraut; s of BOSO III de la
Rochfoucauld by Alienor de Thouars m 1109 Maubergeonne (aka
Dangereuse) sometimes said to have been a d of the sgr of
l'Isle-Bouchard
Ś
+--------------------------------------------+
Ś Ś Ś
SON RAOUL/RALPH; yngr son; sgr de 1)dau
Fay in right of his wife; 2)Alienor of Chatellerault
maternal uncle of Eleanor of (1103? Chatellerault,
Aquitaine and to whom he Vienne->March 1129/30) m
served as senechal in Poitou; GUILLAUME VIII/X d'Aquitaine
Probably the RALPH de Fay of (-9 April 1137)
Poitou who held 3 knights
fees in Bramley (Pipe Rolls
1210.2); m Elizabeth dame de
Faye-la-Vinesue
Ś
Ś
+-----------------------------+
Ś Ś
RALPH/RAOUL de Fay (-1223) Eustache
of Bramley m Beatrice d of
STEPHEN de Turnham; She m2
HUGH de PLAIX
Ś
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------C
JOHN (-1241) Maud/Maltida de Fay (-1249) m1 WILLIAM de BRAOSE (-1210
Corfe Castle, starved by k JOHN) of Bramber and of Brecon
s&h of WILLIAM (-9 Aug 1211 Corbeil nr Paris bur 10th Abbey
of St Victor, Paris) Ld of Braiose (now Briouze) Normandy
by Maud de St Valery (-1210 starved Corfe) `Lady of La
Haie' m2 ROGER III& de Clere (-1250) of Sivelington, Yks;
Shere and Bramley, Sy & Ludborough, Lincs
mŚ1 mŚ2
+---------------+ +---------------------------------------------------B
Ś
JOHN de BRAOSE (-1232) Ld of Bramber and
Gower; m 1219 Margaret d of Llewelyn ap
Iorwerth Pr of N Wales (she m2 WALTER de
CLIFFORD (-1263) and by him had d&h Maud m
WILLIAM LONGESPEE, This Maud was probably
ward of her half br WILLIAM de BRAOSE&)
Ś
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------A
Ś
WILLIAM de BRAOSE/BREUS (<15 Jul 1224-6 Jan 1290/1); s&h; Sir; Ld BREWOSE
(cr ?1290) From many law suits he seems to have attempted to appropreate
the property of Maltida Clifford&, probably his ward; With his br RICHARD
he exchanged Akenham manor for Bramley manor, a property which devoleved
on his issue by m2; m1 Alina of Thorganby manor, Yorks d of THOMAS de
MULTON of Burgh-on-Sands by Maud d&h of HUBERT de VAUX of Gilsland ; m2
Agnes of Woodlands manor, Dorset d of NICHOLAS de Moels of Cadbury,
Somerset by Hawise d&ch of JAMES de NEWMARCH of Cadbury & wdw of JOHN de
BOTREAUX ; m3 <= 1271 Mary (-1326) of Werthorpe, Yorks d of ROBERT de Ros
of Helmsley by Isabel d&h of WILLIAM D'AUBIGNY of Belvoir
mŚ1
WILLIAM (<1270-shortly <1 May
1326) 2Ld; Sir; s&h; Ld of
Bramber and Gower; m1 Agnes;
m2 <24 Apr 1317 Elizabeth
(c1296-<24 Aug 1328 sp) d&h
of Sir RAYMUND de SULLY of
Sully, Glamorgan (after his
death SIMON de MONTFORT had
lic to m her)
mŚ1?
Ś
+-------------+
Ś Śds&ch:
WILLIAM (l 1)Joan (-?11 May 1324 St
1306-?1320) Benet's Abbey, Holm, Nfk) m1
m Mary ť <=1301 JAMES de BOHUN (-1306)
(THOMAS ť of Midhurst; m2 Sir RICHARD
(PETER)) FOLIOT of Gressenhall, Nfk
2)Aline (c1290-<21 Aug 1331)
m1 1298, Swansea, Sir JOHN de
MOWBRAY (-23 Mar 1321/2 Hung
after bat of Boroughbridge)
Ld MOWBRAY, of Axholme, Lincs
m2 Sir RICHARD de Peshale
A:
-------------------------------+
Ś Ś
Ś JOHN de BRAOSE
Ś /BREUS of
Ś Brecon
Ś
RICHARD de BRAOSE/BREUS
(<1232-<18 Jun 1292 bur
Woodbridge ) Sir; m 1261x64
Alice le Rus& (-shortly <28
Jan 1300/1 bur Woodbridge)
wdw of RICHARD (imp 27 Dec
1261) s of WILLIAM LONGESPEE*
(-1249/50)
Ś
+-----------------------------+
Ś d m ROGER de
Ś COLVILE
Ś Ś
Ś Ś
Ś Ś
GILES BRAOSE/BREUS Ś
(c1272-shortly <6 Feb Ś
1310/1); s&h; Sir; Held Ś
Ludborough, Lincs; Akenham Ś
and Whittingham, Sfk; Ś
Stinton, Nfk; m1? Katherine Ś
d of Sir LAURENCE de Ś
Huntingfield; m(2?) Joan d of Ś
RICHARD de Beaumont of EDMOND (1288-)
Witnesham, Sfk
Ś
+---------------+
RICHARD (- ŚŚ
1302); s&h; ŚJOHN (1307)
probably died ROBERT (-<
young 1325)
B:
--
Ś
Agatha de Clere (-<1250);
od&h; m WILLIAM le RUS (-1253)
of Stinton, Nfk and Akenham &
Whittingham, Sfk ť
Ś
Alice le Rus& (1247-1300x28
Jan 1301); od&h and h of
maternal g-parents; m1
1260/61 Sir RICHARD (-shortly
<27 Dec 1261 sp) 2s of Sir
WILLIAM LONGESPEE (>1205-7
Feb 1249/0) by Idonea
(-c1220) d&h of RICHARD de
Camville; m2 1261x64 Sir
RICHARD BROUSE/BREUSE&
C:
-+
Philippia m
WILLIAM
NEVILLE
Ś
Beatrice
Neville m
WILLIAM
WINTERSHILL,
Ld of
Wintershull,
Bramley
The de Clere connection:
RALPH II de Clere (->1232) m(1?) Margaret
d&ch of PETER (-1207) fitz HENRY fitz AILWIN
(Henry fitz Alwin Liefstane, goldsmith was
1st mayor of London 1189-1211 in which year
he d, bur priory of the Holy Trinity, nr
Aldgate) by Isabeil (-<10 Dec 1203) d&h of
Bartholomew de Chesney (=? Chenney) (->1161)
of Addington, Surrey
mŚ? mŚ(1?)
Ś +---------+
RALPH III&/ Joan m
ROBERT WILLIAM
AGUILLN
(-<3 Oct
1244)
ŠAdrian (Surrey, UK) <ACha...@CompuServe.Com>
NB There should _not_ be an(y) attachment(s) to this plain text message
The...@aol.com
Hello Cris, Adrian, et al.,
I've tried to find a track re: Malden's Surrey history you referenced,
but no luck as of yet.
Perhaps if the following is either a direct quote or an accurate
transcript from the Pipe Rolls, there is more than fertile ground here:
[from Adrian's post, originally from Feb 1999] :
_Ralph de Fay of Poitou, kinsman of Queen Eleanor, held 3 knights fees in
Bramley, Surrey (Pipe Rolls 1210/2) of the Honour of Dudley_
Anyone with access to the Pipe line ?
John
Rosie Bevan
de Braose. This is a mistake which has been discussed on SGM and can be
found in the archives.
The following line of descent as outlined by Richard Borthwick is the one
current accepted although I think chronologically there should be another
Ralph in between Ralph Seigneur de Faye who was born about 1100-1110 and the
Ralph who died in 1222. A point which I am uncertain about is whether
Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of Anjou or Poitou. I have seen him
described as of both.
1.Aimery I de Rochefoucauld d.1151
+ Dangereuse de L'Isle-Bouchard
2.Aenor Chatellerault b.1103 d.aft 1130
+ William X Duke of Aquitaine d.1137
3.Eleanor of Aquitaine b.1121 d.1204
+ Louis VII of France (div 1152)
+ Henry II of England d.1189
2.Ralph, Seigneur de Faye la Vineuse (by right of his wife)
+ Elisabeth de Faye le Vineuse
3. Eustacia
3. Ralph de Fay d.1222
+ Beatrix de Turnham d. 1245, da. of Stephen de Turnham, (King's
Marshall & Seneschal of Anjou or Poitou) and Edeline de Broc, da and coheir
of Ranulf de Broc. She married 2nd Hugh de Neville d.1234, 3rd Hugh de
Plaiz d.1244
4.John de Fay d.s.p.1241
4. Maud de Fay 1182-1249
+ Sir Roger de Clere d.1248
5.Agatha de Clere
+ William le Rus d.1253
6.Alice le Rus (1245-1300)
+ Richard Longespee d.s.p.1261
+ Richard de Braose d.1292 2nd son of John de Braose,
Lord of Bramber and Margaret verch Lllewellyn
4.Philippa de Fay
+William de Neville
Cheers
Rosie
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> ==========
You appear to have first cousins marrying. (Unless I have misread
your chart.)
> Maud/Maltida de Fay (-1249) m1 WILLIAM de BRAOSE (-1210
> Corfe Castle, starved by k JOHN) of Bramber and of Brecon
> s&h of WILLIAM (-9 Aug 1211 Corbeil nr Paris bur 10th Abbey
> of St Victor, Paris) Ld of Braiose (now Briouze) Normandy
> by Maud de St Valery (-1210 starved Corfe) `Lady of La
> Haie' m2 ROGER III& de Clere (-1250) of Sivelington, Yks;
> Shere and Bramley, Sy & Ludborough, Lincs
> mŚ1 mŚ2
> +---------------+ +----------+
> Ś Ś
> JOHN de BRAOSE (-1232) Agatha de Clere (-<1250);
> m 1219 Margaret od&h; m WILLIAM le RUS
> d of Llewelyn ap of Stinton, Nfk and Akenham
> Iorwerth & Whittingham, Sfk
> Ś Ś
> Ś Ś
> RICHARD de BRAOSE/BREUS Alice le Rus& (1247-1300x28
> (<1232-<18 Jun 1292 bur Jan 1301); od&h and h of
> Woodbridge ) Sir; m 1261x64 maternal g-parents; m1
> Alice le Rus& (-shortly <28 1260/61 Sir RICHARD (-shortly
> Jan 1300/1 bur Woodbridge) <27 Dec 1261 sp) 2s of Sir
> wdw of RICHARD (imp 27 Dec WILLIAM LONGESPEE (>1205-7
> 1261) s of WILLIAM LONGESPEE* Feb 1249/0) by Idonea
> (-1249/50) (-c1220) d&h of RICHARD de
> Camville; m2 1261x64 Sir
> RICHARD BROUSE/BREUSE&
Do we know that Agatha is daughter of Matilda de Fay?
taf
Cristopher Nash
> ¦
> +--------------------------------------------+
> ¦ ¦ ¦
> SON RAOUL/RALPH; yngr son; sgr de 1)dau
> Fay in right of his wife; 2)Alienor of Chatellerault
> maternal uncle of Eleanor of (1103? Chatellerault,
> Aquitaine and to whom he Vienne->March 1129/30) m
> served as senechal in Poitou; GUILLAUME VIII/X d'Aquitaine
> Probably the RALPH de Fay of (-9 April 1137)
> Poitou who held 3 knights
> fees in Bramley (Pipe Rolls
> 1210.2); m Elizabeth dame de
> Faye-la-Vinesue
> ¦
> ¦
> +-----------------------------+
> ¦ ¦
> RALPH/RAOUL de Fay (-1223) Eustache
> of Bramley m Beatrice d of
> STEPHEN de Turnham; She m2
> HUGH de PLAIX
> ¦
>
[SNIP]
Many thanks, Adrian! I do think Rosie's point about the possibility
of a missing generation pins a tail on the crucial donkey. There's
been a tendency among us to confuse (a) Raoul de Faye (d. prob. by
1190) with (b) Ralph de Fay of Bramley (d. by 1210), and the latter
with (c) his s. Ralph de Fay (d. ca. 1222-3), when the problem in
front of us is exactly that evidence for the relation -- if any --
between (a) and (b) appears wanting. I.e. I fear that <RAOUL/RALPH;
yngr son> of <Almeric/Aimery I> above is not the same as the Ralph
<who held 3 knights fees in Bramley (Pipe Rolls 1210.2)>.
>Bramley, in the Blackheath Hundreds of Surrey, was given by Henry II to
>Ralph de Fay who was dispossessed during the war between the king and
>Prince Henry. King John granted it to Ralph, son of the above, whose son
>John de Fay held it in 1223.
This sequence of what by this account is 3 gens. would be reassuring
if accurate; the trick's to verify that the same generational
drift/slippage hasn't happened here too. If gift by <Henry II> can
be confirmed -- and obviously if accompanied by a precise date -- we
might be on our way (since Henry II d. 1189), though it's likely that
Ralph de Fay of Bramley (d. say 1210) himself, probably having at
least attained his majority before Henry's death, may well be the
first recipient and _re_-grantee of Bramley, there being only 2
generations involved, with Raoul de Faye (d. prob. by 1190) not
figuring as superficially seems here.
So -- more work to do, but you've set us on some good trails!
Yes, John, thanks for the c[l]ues, and the Pipe line's the place to go!
>At the Surrey lending library
>
>http://ww2.surreycc.gov.uk/lib/surreylib.nsf/webpagesall/Surrey+Libraries?O
>penDocument
>
>search under Author name Malden H E (Henry Elliot)
>
>There are about a dozen sections to his history of Surrey, it should be the
>Guildford section which covers Bramley.
>
>I have not seen this work, what was in my message was what was given to me.
This looks to be very helpful. Sadly -- unless someone here's found
a happy workaround -- through no fault of yours, I'm sure, this ww2
page appears to be an ex-parrot (Error 500). (I'll ferret out the
Malden at the Bodleian, but there'll be a brief -- perhaps extended
-- pause, and if anyone's a copy or notes from it at hand re Fay(e)
it would be good to know.)
Rosie --
>A point which I am uncertain about is whether Stephen de Turnham was
>Seneschal of Anjou or Poitou. I have seen him described as of both.
-- yes, I've been wondering about that. From K John on, the
difference is far from trivial, wot?!
>The only line known to me to be connected with Raoul de Fay of Bramber at
>this point in time is his son, Ralph (Raoul also) granted Bramber in
>December 4, 1199.
Bramber, really? (Not Bramley?) Implying a heavy connection with
Braose at this date, then?
The lore recited by O'Hart and Pernoud is familiar and friendly if
not downright fuzzy, but the one passage that would seem to bear on a
possible relation between the Faye-la-Vineuse cluster and the English
line is O'Hart's --
>"... Radulphus or Ralph De Fay.... held until the 19th of Henry II, when
>taking part with Prince Henry against his father, he was disseized,
>and Bromely was granted to Baldwin De Bethune. "
-- _if_ by "Bromely" he means Bramley. But here too it's not
dead-certain that the "Radulphus or Ralph De Fay" referred to isn't
Ralph who d. ca. 1210. Still, a search of records relating to
Baldwin De Bethune might stir up something fresh....
Cris
.
--
Patricia Junkin
the de Fay line in July.
My descent is from this Phillipa.
Phillipa de Fay m. William Neville. Their daughter Beatrice Nevill m.
William de Wyntersulle, died 20 April 1287. They held Bramley, Surrey.
In this descent Robert, Lord of Wintershull, 3 Henry VII [1488] m. Jane
Sandis. Their daughter Jane [Margaret] married William Bysshe b.
1495-1500. Bramley mentioned in the will of my ancestor John Byshe 1568.
Symon, Prior of Bysshmede, gave John de Wyntershull and his heirs 29
Villans in the Manor of Bromle, in the County of Surrey, and all their
lands and tenements as they held them of Philippa de Fay. Witness, John
de Aubernon....William de Wyntershull.... Wintershull pedigree is in the
History of Surrey.
Pat
----------
>From: Cristopher Nash <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Raoul de Faye->Ralph de Fay?
>Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 10:05 PM
A Channing
> Rosie
>
> >
> > Just a note of warning about the pedigree. Maud de Fay did not marry
> William
> > de Braose. This is a mistake which has been discussed on SGM and can be
> > found in the archives.
> >
>
> possible I missed the above. I will try to find time to look into it.
>
>
Some of the information I used to prepare the chart on the de Fay/Braose
came from material sent to me by Paul. W. Mackenzie. Paul has not only
given me permission to quote from his work, but has sent me a copy of his
updated and splendid e-book on the Braose family giving many ipms writs
fines, concentrating primarily on the 14th century family of the de Brewes
of Wiston, Sussex. Many of the early entries are based on the work of
D.G.C. Elwes
The following ipm is of Maltida de Fay. In a message from Doug Thompson,
he stated that D.G.C. Elwes was incorrect in giving William de Braose
(-1210) as married to Maltida de Fay.
Doug Thompson's Web page gives a William de Braose as married to Matilda de
Clare a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare and attributes four
issue to them, although he also states that this Matilda was, in 1219,
married to Rhys Gryg, son of Lord Rhys I am not sure how this works, -
William and Matilda must have had four children in 1219/20, or was Rhys
Gryg her second marriage, in which case her marriage to William must have
been annulled? This Richard Earl of Clare is presumably the one CP calls
the 6th earl (died Nov 1217) and listed under Hertford; 3rd earl.
1250
Inq. pm. 34 Hen III No 44 Maltida de Clere (wife of (1)William de Braose
d1210 and (2) Roger de Clere and mother of John de Braose)
Surrey - Moiety of the Manor of Bromle. Alice daughter of William le Rus,
whom he had of Agatha his wife, daughter of the said Maltida is her heir,
age 2.
York - Lands of Roger de Clere and Maltida de Clere his wife. They held no
lands of the King in Yorkshire, but the Lord Roger held the moiety of the
manor of Brumelay in the county of "Sedred", next London, of the
inheritance of the Lady Maltida his wife. He held lands in Sivelington in
Yorkshire of Lord Roger Bigot, Marshall. Roger de Clere had a daughter and
heir Agatha, as above.
_The De Braose Family by D.G.C. Elwes_
I guess the remarks in parenthesis are D.G.C. Elwes, so ignore them for
the time being.
Next lets look at the following (the only mention of de Fay in Paul's
work):
1261
Inq. p.m. 46 Hen III, No. 1 on Richard Langespeye deceased. The writ being
dated 27 Dec, 46 Hen III[1261]
Inquisition-John de Fay held in chief of the King the manor of Brumleyle
Surrey, by the service of three knight's fees. After the death of said
John, the manor descended to his two sisters, to wit, Maltida and
Philippia, and it was divided between them. Of the aforesaid Maltida there
issued a daughter, by the name of Agatha, who had issue Alice who was the
wife of Richard Langespey; and the said Richard and Alice held a moiety of
the said manor of Brumlelie in chief of the King by service of one knight's
fee and a half.
_De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes_
Thus we have:
Roger de Clere (-<1250) held a moiety of Bramley, Surrey in right of his
wife Maltida (-<=1250); She had inherited it from her brother John de Fay
(the other moiety to their sister Philippia); Maltida had a dau Agatha who
m William le Rus who in turn left Alice (b c1248) heir to her maternal
grandmother and who m Richard Langespeye (-<=1261)
CP Vol II p 304:
Sir Richard Breuse, a younger son of John de Breuse, Lord of Bramber and
Gower, by Margaret d of Llewelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North Wales, b.
before 1232 ... He m before 9 Sep 1265 Alice widow of Richard Lungespeye
(who d.s.p. shortly before 27 Dec 1261) and d and h of William le Rus of
Stinton, Norfolk, Akenham and Whittingham, Suffolk by Agatha d&h of Roger
de Clere of Bramley, Surrey and Ludborough, co Lincoln. She was b. 25 Dec
1245 or 1247 or 1 Jan 1245/6 He died before 18 June 1292. His widow d
shortly before 28 Jan 1300/1. They were bur. in Woodbridge Priory.
I've run out of time to work on this further tonight, here are a few more
extracts from Paul's work (to 1300)
1253
Inq. p.m. 37 Hen 111, No. 49, on William de Rus, deceased:-
Lincoln- He held no land of the King of his wife's inheritance, but he held
Ludberg "by his wife" of Roger de Clere. Alice daughter and heir age 6 at
Christmas next. The king now holds Ludberg = Lutheburgh.
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
1260
Inq. p.m. 44 Hen 111, No. 15 on William de Rus
Norfolk - Manor of Stinton held of William de Say by service of one knight
worth 300 pounds. Alice dau and heir, age 14.
Lincoln - Manor of Luberg held of William de Albiniaco. Alice dau and heir,
age 15
Suffolk - Manors of A'Kenham, Hasketone, Cloptone, held of Lord R. de
Bygod, Earl of Norfolk of the honour of Lancaster. Alice dau and heir, age
14
Suffolk - Manor of Wytingham, held as above, Manor of Stradebrok, held of
Richard King of Almain, of the honour of Eye. Byrcholt, pertaining to the
same manor, held of William de Huntingefeld. Alice dau and heir, aged 14 at
the circumcision 44 Hen 111 (Wednesday, 1 Jan 1260)
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
1264
Coram Rege, 49 Hen 111, m. ii
Trial between Maltida Langespeye and Richard de Breus and Alice his wife
which settles the date of Richard and Alice's marriage as being between the
years 46 and 49 Hen 111 (1261-1264). Maltida sues Richard and Alice for
ejecting her men from the manors of Stradefford, Stinton, Bromleigh,
Lutheburg, Sevelington, which she had to farm. The defendants made many
defaults and the Sheriff was ordered to bring them up in Hilary Term.
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
1267
Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas, 51-52 Hen 111 m. 12
Trial between Richard de Brewode and Richard Fitz Theobald and others
whereby the former complains of the latter coming with force and arms to
his manor of Asketune(co. Suffolk) and burning it. The judgement was that
the sheriff is not to fail, on account of the liberty of St. Etheldreda, to
distrain them by their lands, &c, and to have their bodies, &c.
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
1272
A fine Hen 56 No. 70, between Richard de Breous and Alice his wife, and
John Giffard and Maltida his wife, as to the manors of Akenham, Whitingham,
Brumleigh, Stradbrok, Clopton, Asketon, Stynton, Lubure, and Syvelyngton in
cos. Suffolk, York, Lincoln, Norfolk, and Surrey. They are the right of
Alice; and Richard and Alice grant Asketon and Stinton to John Giffard and
wife, for life of the said Maltida.
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
1272
A fine No. 70 56 Hen 111.
William de Brewse granted by fine to Richard and Alice the manor of Akenham
and advowson, with those of Claydon and Hemingston; he granting to William
and Mary his wife the manor of Bromley in Surrey.
The Manors of Suffolk by Copinger
n.b. D.G.C. Elwes suggests the grant was the other way around which seems
incorrect.
1277
Brehuse, Ricardus...summoned to perform Military service in person against
Llewelin Prince of Wales - Muster at Worchester in eight days of St. John
the Baptist. 1 July
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:184
1277
Brehuse, Ricardus de (Surrey)...husband of one of the daughters of Rogerus
de Clere, proffers the service of one knight's fee and a half in Bromleigh
and elsewhere, for the moiety of the lands of the said Roger performed by
himself and one "serviens". Expedition against Lewelin Prince of Wales -
Muster before the constable and the earl Marshall at Worchester eight days
of St. John the Baptist, 1 July
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:201
1277
Brehuse, Ricardus de....knight, his service and that of the 'serviens'
appearing with him transferred by the king to Edmund Earl of Lancaster, to
be performed under the latter in west Wales.
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:213
1282
Breuse, Ricardus...summoned to perform military service in person against
the welch. muster at Worchester, Whitsuntide, 17 May
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:223
1282
Breuse, Ricardus...summoned the same. muster at Rhuddlan on Sunday the
morrow of St. Peter ad Vincula 2 August
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:225
1283
Breus', Ricardus de...summoned the same. Muster at Montgomery in fifteen
days of Easter, 2 May
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:246
1283
Breus', Ricardus de...summoned to parliament at shewsbury, on the morrow of
St. Michael, 30 September
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:246
1287
Breus', Ricardus...summoned to appear with horses and arms, at a mitilary
council to be held at Gloucester before Edmund Earl of Cornwall in three
weeks of St. John the Baptist, 15 July
Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:250
1297
Edmund the king's brother
Suffolk. Inq. made at Cattesham on Wednesday after the Epiphany, 26 Edw. 1.
Amongst others
Wytingham, Clopton, Hasketon and Akenham, with the advowsons of the
churches of Akenham, Hemminggeston and Cleyton, held by Sir Roger le Bigot,
earl of Norfolk and Marshall of England of the honour of Lancaster, for
three knights' fees; which sometime were of William Rous, and now are held
of the said earl by the lady Alice de Brewose, rendering to him yearly at
Whitsunday 30s. for the guard of the castle of Lancastle.
CIPM 3:308
[Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other analogous documents
preserved in the public record office]
>
©Adrian (Surrey, UK) <ACha...@CompuServe.Com>
The...@aol.com
Hello Adrian, Rosie et al.,
A big Thank You for the posts of the Inqs.p.m. for Richard de
Braose/Brews, and the other citations. This helps in pushing the
Brews/Wingfield research a bit further along, amongst other issues.
As to the Maud de Clare/Maud de Fay issue, this appears to be a bit of
confusion due to similar names (Clere/Clare), and some not so similar perhaps
(William de Braose/William le Rus ?)
To outline things in a multi-generational nutshell, what I have is:
Richard de Clare = Amicia of Ralph = Beatrice
Earl of Hertford & I Gloucester de Fay I de
MC Surety I of I Turnham
d. bef 28 Nov 1217 I Bramley I
I I_____
I I
William de Braose = MAUD de Roger de = MAUD de
d. ca. 1210 I Clare Clere I Fay
I I heiress
I I____
I I
Margaret ferch = John de Braose William le = Agatha
Llywelyn I of Bramber & Rus I de Clere
I Gower of Akenham I heiress
I d. 1232 Stinton I of
I d. 1253 I Bramley
____________I___________ I
I I I
William Sir Richard de = Alice le Rus
(acquired Braose, 2nd son I heiress of
Bramley d bef 18 Jun 1292 I Bramley, Akenham
from Brother) I & c.
_______________I________
I I I
V V V
BRAOSE BREWS (Daughter)
OF WISTON OF STRADBROKE WEYLAND
OF BLAXHALL
From the above, you can see, if MAUD de Fay (wife of Roger de CLERE; she
was therefore MAUD de CLERE, not de CLARE) had married William de Braose and
given birth to John de Braose, Richard de Braose and Alice le Rus would have
been related in the 2nd degree of consanguinity.
Hopefully the above will translate well (should show on Google without
any problems, I trust). Please let me know if there is any problem with the
presentation.
Rosie Bevan
You have presented some good documentation. I've made one or two comment
below to clarify things.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "A Channing" <ACha...@compuserve.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Raoul de Faye->Ralph de Fay?
>
> Some of the information I used to prepare the chart on the de Fay/Braose
> came from material sent to me by Paul. W. Mackenzie. Paul has not only
> given me permission to quote from his work, but has sent me a copy of his
> updated and splendid e-book on the Braose family giving many ipms writs
> fines, concentrating primarily on the 14th century family of the de
Brewes
> of Wiston, Sussex. Many of the early entries are based on the work of
> D.G.C. Elwes
>
> The following ipm is of Maltida de Fay. In a message from Doug Thompson,
> he stated that D.G.C. Elwes was incorrect in giving William de Braose
> (-1210) as married to Maltida de Fay.
>
> Doug Thompson's Web page gives a William de Braose as married to Matilda
de
> Clare a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare and attributes four
> issue to them, although he also states that this Matilda was, in 1219,
> married to Rhys Gryg, son of Lord Rhys I am not sure how this works, -
> William and Matilda must have had four children in 1219/20, or was Rhys
> Gryg her second marriage, in which case her marriage to William must have
> been annulled? This Richard Earl of Clare is presumably the one CP calls
> the 6th earl (died Nov 1217) and listed under Hertford; 3rd earl.
William de Braose to whom Maud de Clare was married died in 1210. Rhys Gryg
must have been her second husband.
As none of William de Braose' children (or Rhys Gryg's for that matter) were
heir to Maud de Fay's inheritance it is highly unlikely that there was a
Braose/Fay marriage. I think this is a case of confusion between the Clere
and Clare names.
> 1250
> Inq. pm. 34 Hen III No 44 Maltida de Clere (wife of (1)William de Braose
> d1210 and (2) Roger de Clere and mother of John de Braose)
> Surrey - Moiety of the Manor of Bromle. Alice daughter of William le Rus,
> whom he had of Agatha his wife, daughter of the said Maltida is her heir,
> age 2.
> York - Lands of Roger de Clere and Maltida de Clere his wife. They held no
> lands of the King in Yorkshire, but the Lord Roger held the moiety of the
> manor of Brumelay in the county of "Sedred", next London, of the
> inheritance of the Lady Maltida his wife. He held lands in Sivelington in
> Yorkshire of Lord Roger Bigot, Marshall. Roger de Clere had a daughter and
> heir Agatha, as above.
> _The De Braose Family by D.G.C. Elwes_
>
> I guess the remarks in parenthesis are D.G.C. Elwes, so ignore them for
> the time being.
Yes, the parentheses do not belong to the entry. There is nothing pertaining
to the Braose family in this IPM
> Next lets look at the following (the only mention of de Fay in Paul's
> work):
>
> 1261
> Inq. p.m. 46 Hen III, No. 1 on Richard Langespeye deceased. The writ being
> dated 27 Dec, 46 Hen III[1261]
> Inquisition-John de Fay held in chief of the King the manor of Brumleyle
> Surrey, by the service of three knight's fees. After the death of said
> John, the manor descended to his two sisters, to wit, Maltida and
> Philippia, and it was divided between them. Of the aforesaid Maltida there
> issued a daughter, by the name of Agatha, who had issue Alice who was the
> wife of Richard Langespey; and the said Richard and Alice held a moiety of
> the said manor of Brumlelie in chief of the King by service of one
knight's
> fee and a half.
> _De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes_
>
> Thus we have:
>
> Roger de Clere (-<1250) held a moiety of Bramley, Surrey in right of his
> wife Maltida (-<=1250); She had inherited it from her brother John de Fay
> (the other moiety to their sister Philippia); Maltida had a dau Agatha who
> m William le Rus who in turn left Alice (b c1248) heir to her maternal
> grandmother and who m Richard Langespeye (-<=1261)
Yes, this is an accurate assessment.
The Matilda who sued Richard and Alice was Matilda/Maud Clifford, wife of
William Longspee, former brother in law of Alice. She afterwards married
John Giffard. Alice's first husband husband had granted the manor to his
brother William and Maud for life. Richard de Braose attempted to regain his
wife's property by force.
This is covered in VCH Surrey v.3 p.83. n.45
Feet of F. Div. Co. 56 Hen III, no 73
Bramley was to be held of Richard and Alice by William and Mary, and after
the death of Alice's son, Giles Breus, the manor was said to be held of his
heirs. (CIPM 19 Edw II, no. 90), but in all subseqeunt documents the
successors of William and Mary are said to have held it in chief (CIPM 29
Edw I, no.52 ; CIPM 4 Edw II, no. 40 ; Cal Pat 1324-7, p. 262)
The William de Braose (1220-1291) here is son and heir of John de Braose and
Margaret verch Llywelyn and Richard's elder brother. Mary de Ros was his
third wife.
Cristopher Nash
contributions on this line, and have to admit to feeling that in
spite of the wealth of documentary allusions to both, we remain
without documentary evidence of the connection between Raoul de Faye
of Faye-la-Vineuse (d. prob. by 1190) and Ralph de Fay of Bramley (d.
prob 1210). It would be helpful to know whether I'm mistaken and
that e.g. the evidence liberally referred to by O'Hart as "Calendar
of Close Rolls, in Tower of London" - showing somewhere, for example,
the granting of Bramley to the former (which seems to me the one
present claim capable of documentary confirmation of their
relationship) - has been attested to, to the satisfaction of someone
here? Or is it the view of everyone that circumstantial evidence
(such as the activities of both vis-à-vis Hen. II and John and their
treatment by these two) makes it compelling that they be accepted as
father and son?
Cheers,
Cris
"Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote --
--
Cristopher Nash
>referred to by O'Hart as "Calendar of Close Rolls, in Tower of
>London" - showing somewhere, for example, the granting of Bramley to
>the former (which seems to me the one present claim capable of
>documentary confirmation of their relationship) - has been attested
>to, to the satisfaction of someone here
-- and my promise to check H E Malden's _History of Surrey_ to which
Adrian very helpfully referred us:
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I know of no Close Rolls for the period in
question, and none of those I've seen (from 12 Hen. III) appear to
refer back to any Ralph de Fay before the one who m. Beatrice de
Turnham (and who, well-documented in the Close Rolls, d.1222-3).
(Since O'Hart's account extends to several later Faye generations, he
may never have intended to mislead readers into thinking that his
reference to the Close Rolls meant he had seen anything there about
the earlier generations.)
A version of the Malden in fact can be seen (from 1901 on) in the VCH
series, and Adrian was right in saying that she thought the
Raoul-matter she gave was a paraphrase of Malden's article on the
manor of Bramley. It appears in VCH (_History of Surrey_) III, 82-3,
and gives us a chance to see Malden's sources. Viz.:
"Henry II gave the manor to Ralph de Fay, who was, however,
dispossessed during the war between the king and his son, the young
King Henry.*
*Footnote 4: Ibid. [i.e. Testa de Nevill (Rec. Com.), 225
...After his accession John granted the manor to Ralph de Fay, son of
the former tenant.*
*Footnote 8: Cal. Rot. Chart. (Rec. Com.), 33 "
With limited time and feeling it the more immediately relevant, I've
had a look at the Testa de Nevill (or _The Book of Fees__ [_Testa de
Nevill sive Liber feodorum in Curia scaccarii Temp. Hen. iii & Edw.
i_]). Malden's statement is an accurate report (though itself a
paraphrase of an early paraphrase of Exchequer records). While the
Testa de Nevill had no legal status (as documents of these
transactions would have), it includes phrases omitted by Malden that
may be relevant to its value to the discussion on this thread, one of
which is that the first Ralph is "Radulfo de Faya patri Radulfi qui
nunc tenet" -- i.e. the _Testa de Nevill_ statement is written in the
lifetime of the second Ralph.
While there's a strong and persistent 'secondhand/hearsay' element
about all this -- as there is about the material brought here
recently in support of the Raoul->Ralph connection (such as Seward's
and O'Hart's stories and the popularizer Regine Pernaud's account of
Raoul de Faye in Eleanor of Aquitaine's life -- Pernaud is a she, by
the way, not a he) -- I think it would be silly not to treat the idea
seriously. Sceptics (whose role I've adopted for the nonce) would
have to point out, though, that there's still nothing to prevent our
thinking that all the things so-far said of Ralph de Fay (of Bramley,
d. ca. 1210) might not apply equally to someone entirely different
from any son of Raoul de Faye (of Faye-la-Vineuse, d. by say 1190),
if only because no document has identified the father of the former
as having lived in France.
In sympathy with those who may be drawn to the Raoul/Ralph connection
because, unable to find one by way of the Plantagenets, it would
provide them with a gateway to colorful families of C11-12 Aquitaine,
I hope someone can suggest how this last comment may be unjust!
Failing that, as soon as I can I'll have a look at Cal. Rot. Chart.
(Rec. Com.), 33, and see if I can trace evidence of Adrian's other
promising quotation:
>Ralph de Fay of Poitou, kinsman of Queen Eleanor, held 3 knights
>fees in Bramley, Surrey (Pipe Rolls 1210/2) of the Honour of Dudley.
Cris
--
Robert W Fay
wrote:
<snip>
> In sympathy with those who may be drawn to the Raoul/Ralph connection
> because, unable to find one by way of the Plantagenets, it would provide
> them with a gateway to colorful families of C11-12 Aquitaine, I hope
> someone can suggest how this last comment may be unjust!
Hi Cris,
And thanks for all the insight that you have provided. I have long
wondered about O'Harts account, but within the limited references I have
been able to use, it seems credible and makes sense, as do the others that
have been discussed. That doesn't make it quite fact though.
For those of us that study surnames that have multiple independent
unrelated origins it is challenging to learn about all of them, so as to be
able to easily distinguish one from another when the surname is identical.
Raoul was the one that most puzzled me.
As far as I have been able to determine there are none that took Raouls
surname beyond those shown by O'Hart, and that essentially limits it to
those in Ireland. There are known descendants from the line O'Hart
describes in Ireland, however it appears to me that any claim they might
make to the colorful families of the C11 and 12 in Aquitaine, is clouded
by the uncertain connection O'Hart makes between Raoul 1 of Faye-la-
Vineuse and Richard de Fay a knight to Walter de Lacy, as well as the
lingering uncertainty about the question of does Raoul of Faye-la-
Vineuse=Ralph de Fay of Bromley. And there is a line whose anglicized
surname is taken from this Irish line and residing around Galway but is
completely unrelated.
Although I'm reluctant to place too much faith on websites, in the interest
of defining the heritage of Raoul of Faye-la-Vineuse and his descendents
with more certainty, I did want to note this little connection between
Charles V and "lord for Faye, "his dear cousin"," from the Faye-la-
Vineuse website (translated by machine)
"Two centuries later, during the 100 year old war, Faye the Vinous one
had to undergo new devastations. in 1360, the treaty of Brétigny had
given Poitou to English, except for the areas for Loudun, Montcontour
and Mirebeau. Faye was thus to king de France. the hostilities were not
calmed for as much, because tapes of plunderers, called " the large
companies " from time to time made raids on the grounds of French and
were put at the shelter on those of English. Thus in 1368, of the
uncontrolled tapes settled in Faye for 5 months, devastating and
plundering the city and its surroundings until Mirebeau. The reaction of
the king Charles V was energetic. It tore the treaty of Brétigny and took
again the weapons; in addition, it decided to impose taxes and
confiscations to the sympathizers of king d' Angleterre to compensate the
lord for Faye, "his dear cousin", who had fought almost without
interruption in the army of the king to hold head with English. It was
probably present at the battle of Purnon which was held little time after
the resumption of the hostilities and saw the crushing defeat"
This is at
http://perso.club-internet.fr/sducruit/page10.html
I did make a bit of a remark within the last few weeks suggesting that
George Bush may be descended from these people. While I don't know
that it is not the case (and in fact there are some elements of the history
of Faye-la-Vineuse that suggest it), the only lines that I know of that can
be traced accurately, trace back to the other family that O'Hart identifies
in his account. Those don't include Mr Bush however. Hope I didn't
unintentionally mislead anyone.
Bob Fay
Cristopher Nash
Thanks for your comments, Bob. The Irish material (with which I'm in
no way familar) sounds interesting, and I enjoyed your genetic
explanation of George Bush's manner of speaking; it'd never dawned on
me that machine translation was the missing link. $ -}>
--
Cris
The...@aol.com
Good morning Cris,
For myself, and the rest of the group, many thanks for your efforts
past and ongoing.
Soon, with some luck, the (presumed) line of descent will be an
accomplished fact.... Une Faye accompli ? ;)
Good luck, and good hunting to all.
John
Cristopher Nash
> For myself, and the rest of the group, many thanks for your efforts
>past and ongoing.
>
> Soon, with some luck, the (presumed) line of descent will be an
>accomplished fact.... Une Faye accompli ? ;)
=:-> We don't know the meaning of the word Faylure. Well, hopes may
Fayde, but not without a gRaoul.
Cris
--
The...@aol.com
Good afternoon, Cris,
Vineuse say things like that, it surely makes our ancestors Turnham
over in their graves * .
John
* unmarked graves and Margraves, both.