CP Correction: Fulk 'III' FitzWarin and His Descendants
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris, Cris, Rosie, Douglas, Louise, Ivor, Kay, et al.,
The current account in CP concerning Fulk FitzWarin ‘III’ [1] is
compressed into a footnote initially concerned with Sir Fulk FitzWarin (d. 14
May 1254), father of Sir Fulk FitzWarin of Whittington, Salop, 1st Lord
FitzWarin:
‘ He was s. and h. of Fulk fitz Warin of Whittington (living Oct.
1250), who m., 1stly, Maud, widow of Theobald Walter, and da. of
Robert le Vavasur (Patent Roll, 9 Joh., m. 5; Fine Roll, mm. II,
8) and, 2ndly, Clarice Dauberville (Fine Roll, 34 Hen. III, m. 2;
Chron. of Fulk FitzWarin, p. 410). ‘ [2]
A long-running discourse is to be found in CP, on SGM and elsewhere on
the identification of individuals named Fulk FitzWarin, and (as noted esp. on
SGM) the lack of certainty concerning these identifications. In particular,
the chronology concerning Fulk ‘III’ and his son Fulk ‘IV’ has caused
considerable confusion, consternation and frequent error. While I do not
concur with her final determination on this point, Janet Meisel correctly
states on this subject,
‘ Although the records of the thirteenth century give a
surprisingly clear picture of Fulk III’s life, they give
an even more surprisingly muddled picture of his death.
Unlikely though it may seem, it is impossible to determine
the date of Fulk’s death with anything approaching
certainty.’ [3]
The confusion in large part emanates from two sources:
A. The Chronicle of Fulk FitzWarin, which states that Clarice
d’Auberville was the 2nd wife of Fulk ‘III’ [4]. [the Chronicle is
specifically cited as one of the sources used in CP V:495(c)].
B. Sir William Dugdale, who also used the Chronicle (in a manuscript
collection he cited as ‘Lel. Coll. Vol. I’, using pp. 261 through
269) together with other sources, and unfortunately managed to
combine Fulk ‘III’ and ‘IV’ together as evidenced by his writing,
‘ This Fulke married a second Wife called Clarice; and in
48 Hen. 3 being in the Battle of Lewes, on the Kings part;
was there drowned in the adjacent River; leaving issue
Fulke his Son and Heir, and a Daughter called Eve, who
became the second Wife to Lewelin Prince of Wales. ‘ [5]
There are two sources of information, hitherto unknown or unrecognized,
which provide sufficient details as to resolve the confusion, and to provide
a
basis for reconstructing the FitzWarin pedigree [6].
1. Narborough, co. Leics. was a part of the maritagium of Maud
le Vavasour, concerning which there is significant documentation.
Concerning this, we know that Maud le Vavasour must have died before
1226, by which time Hawise FitzWarin (daughter of Fulk ‘III’ and
Maud le Vavsour) and her husband William Pantulf were holding
Narborough as part of her maritagium. At that time, her half-brother
Theobald Walter brought a suit of ‘mort d’ ancestor’ to recover the
manor, which was not ultimately successful [7].
Concerning the market at Narborough, co. Leics. for which Fulk ‘III’
had a charter from King Henry III in 1219, and to which his right
was reinstated in 1220 [8], this apparently fell in disuse, possibly
as a result of the suit of Theobald Walter in 1226. There is record
of the revival of the market in 1235 for Hubert Huse, the second
husband of Hawise FitzWarin (William Pantulf d. in 1233) in the
Close Rolls, as follows:
‘ On 22 Nov 1235, K Hen III granted Hubert Hues that the market
which was accustomed to be held at the manor, which was formerly
held by Fulk fitz Warin, deceased, was to be revived and to be
held as before on Tues. Mandate to the sh of Leicestershire to
proclaim the market and cause it to be held (CR, 1234–7,
p. 210). ‘ [9]
We have then a contemporaneous statement that the Fulk FitzWarin who
held this market (the earliest grant of which to one ‘Fulk FitzWarin was in
1219) was deceased on or before 22 November 1235, to the knowledge of the
King
and his court. As closely involved as Fulk ‘III’ had been with the King
(cf.
Meisel, pp. 41-51), and given that the manor of Narborough was only brought
into the FitzWarin family by the marriage of Maud le Vavasour to Fulk ‘III'
no
later than 1 October 1207, we can then be confident that Fulk ‘III’ was in
fact the deceased individual referred to in the Close Roll entry.
2. Clarice d’Auberville is identified in the ‘Chronicle of Fulk
FitzWarin’ as the second wife of Fulk ‘III’, which identification
is taken up by the CP account referenced above. This has been
relatively consistently reflected, from the ‘Chronicle’ (14th
century) through Dugdale [10], with one noted exception. Ivor
West, in discussing a number of issues concerning individuals
surnamed FitzWarin/FitzWarine, noted the placement of Clarice
d’Auberville in an older version of CP as wife of Fulk ‘IV’ and
mother of Fulk ‘V’ [11].
The answer as to the correct placement is provided in part by
an entry in the records of King’s Bench from 1249, which Meisel
stated was
" so peculiar that I quote it in its entirety.
‘ Fulk Fitz Warin acknowledges that he gave, conceded and
by his charter confirmed to Mabil, his daughter, for homage
and her service, his entire manor of Lambourn with all
appurtenances, to have and hold for herself and the heirs
of her body of Fulk and his heirs freely, quietly, etc.,
saving religious service, as is described in his charter.’ "[12]
Meisel did not understand that this was Mabel, wife first of William de
Crevequer, and secondly of John de Tregoz [13], who was clearly
‘marriageable’;
she further was unaware that Lambourn was in fact carried by Mabel FitzWarin
as her maritagium, and that the manor (or a moiety thereof) is known to have
been carried by Sybil de Tregoz, daughter of Mabel FitzWarin, to her marriage
to Sir William de Grandison, 1st Lord Grandison [14].
It is clear, however, that Mabel was the daughter of a Fulk FitzWarin who
was alive in 1249, as evidenced by the record provided by Meisel as noted
above. Given that Fulk ‘IV’ had received the manor of Edlington, co. Yorks.
as part of his inheritance and defended same successfully in 1252 against a
suit by John le Vavasour, it is clear that he was the son of Maud le Vavasour
and not another wife of Fulk ‘III’ (if Fulk 'III' indeed had another wife)
[15]. Further, since Fulk ‘III’ had died in 1235 or before, it was Fulk
‘IV’
who was the father of Mabel, subsequently wife of William de Crevequer and
John de Tregoz, as evidenced by this record of 1249.
Mabel FitzWarin had two daughters and coheiresses by her second husband
John de Tregoz: the eldest, Clarice, wife of Sir Roger la Warre (lst Lord La
Warre, or de la Warr), and the youngest, Sybil, wife of Sir William, lst Lord
Grandison. The younger, Sybil, was given a family name of the Tregoz family
(Sybil de Ewyas, heiress of Ewyas Harold, was grandmother of John de
Tregoz).
The name Clarice, given to the elder daughter, is onomastic evidence that
Mabel FitzWarin was the daughter of Clarice d’Auberville: based on the
chronological facts, she could in fact not have been the daughter of
Constance
de Tosny [16].
Fulk ‘III’ is typically placed as being born in 1178 or before, and
living
at least until October 1250 [17], and even is placed by Meisel as living
later, that he ‘probably died in the spring or early summer of 1258’.
Writers
have either not noted the alleged advanced age of Fulk (say 72 or more in
1250, and possibly over 80 in 1258), or indicated surprise at his activity at
that age [18].
We can now clarify the basic reason for the confusion. Fulk ‘III’ died
in
1235 or shortly before, aged say 56 (assuming a birth date of 1178, as per
Meisel) or slightly older; references to Fulk FitzWarin or Fulk FitzWarin
‘senior’ from that date until the battle of Evesham (1264) therefore refer
to
his son Fulk ‘IV’, aged say 26 or slightly older at his father’s death in
1235; say 40 years of age or so at the time of granting the maritagium of his
daughter Mabel in 1249; and no more than 56 at the time of his death at
Evesham.
The FitzWarin family therefore is properly reconstructed as follows:
1) Theobald = bef 1200 Maud le = 2) Fulk ‘III’ FitzWarin
Walter I (19) Vavasor I bef 1 Oct 1207
d. bef 14 I I d. ca. 1235
Feb 1205/6 I __________I
_______I ____I____
I I I
Theobald Walter Hawise Fulk ‘IV’ = 1) Clarice = 2)Constance
b. ca. 1200 =1) bef 1226 FitzWarin I d’Auberville I de Tosny
of Boxted, William b.say F) I (20) I m. after
Suffolk & c. Pantulf 1208 I I 1238
(19) 2) Hubert k. 1264 I I (20)
Huse I I
I I
_____________________I I
I I
Mabel FitzWarin = 1) William de Fulk ‘V’ FitzWarin
Crevequer b. 14 Sept 1251
= 2) John de = Margaret de la
I Tregoz Pole
I I
V V
___________I
I
Fulk FitzWarin
b. 1251;
= before 25 Feb
`176/7 Margaret
de la Pole (G)
As always, any comment, criticism or further documentation relating to
the
above is welcome.
Good luck, and good hunting.
* John
----------------------
NOTES
[1] For purposes of relating this discussion to prior posts and publications,
the following designations are adhered to (with the caveat that no such
numbering system was known to have been used in the 12th/13th centuries):
Fulk ‘I’ FitzWarin held to have been the ‘son of Warin’,
m. Eve; d. ca. 1171
Fulk ‘II’ of Whittington, co. Salop & c.; m.
Hawise, dau. and coheiress of Josce de
Dinan [Lambourn, co. Berks. was her
maritagium or inheritance]; d. after
Nov. 1194
Fulk ‘III’ of Whittington, co. Salop., Lambourn,
co. Berks. & c.; noted marcher baron and
adversary of King John, and (largely)
the subject of the ‘Chronicle of Fulk
FitzWarin’; m. before 1 Oct 1207 Maud,
dau. and heiress of Robert le Vavasour
and widow of Theobald Walter ‘I’
Fulk ‘IV’ of Whittington, co. Salop.; supporter
of King Henry III against Simon de
Montfort; m. Constance de Tony/Tosny;
k. in escaping from Battle of Lewes,
(drowned), 14 May 1264
Fulk ‘V’ of Whittington, co. Salop; b. 14 Sept
1251; m. bef 25 Feb 1276/7 to Margaret
‘de la Pole’, dau. of Gruffydd ap
Gwenwynwyn of Powys (d. 1286);
summoned
to Parliament from
24 June 1295 to 16 Oct 1315 by writs
directed 'Fulconi filio Warini', thereby
held to have become 1st Lord FitzWarin;
d. 24 Nov 1315
[2] CP, Vol. V - FitzWarin, p. 495, note (c).
[3] Janet Meisel, Barons of the Welsh Frontier: The Corbet, Pantulf
and Fitz Warin Families, 1066-1272, p. 50.
[4] Various renditions of 'The Chronicle of Fulk FitzWarin' are to be
found in Internet sources. Much of the tale is taken into the text
of Dugdale's account of the career of Fulk 'III' FitzWarin (see
reference below).
[5] Dugdale, Baronage of England (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1675 [reprint
New York: Georg Verlag, 1977], Fitz-Warine: pp. 443-5.
[6] The generally accepted structure of the family, as of this writing,
would appear as follows:
[I] [II]
1) Theobald = bef 1200 Maud le = 2) Fulk FitzWarin = Clarice
Walter I Vavasor I bef 1 Oct 1207 d’Auberville
d. bef 14 I I
Feb 1205/6 I I
_______I __________I
I I I
Theobald Walter Hawise Fulk FitzWarin = Constance
b. ca. 1200 = bef 1226 k. at Lewes I de Tosny
of Boxted, Suffolk William I b. say
& c. Pantulf I 1233/35
I
___________I______
I I
Fulk FitzWarin Mabel = 1) William
b. 1251; de Crevequer
= before 25 Feb = 2) John
`176/7 Margaret de Tregoz
de la Pole
[7] Meisel, pp. 98-99.
[8] Meisel, p. 98.
[9] Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III (1227-1272), Vol. II p. 210,
as cited in the Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs:
[10] Dugdale, Baronage ,p. 445.
[11] The lack of clarity in distinguishing between the various Fulks
FitzWarin is nothing new to members of SGM; a review of the archives
will suffice to bear this out. CP also has had issues in this
regard, as Ivor West noted some time ago (relevant part of post
only given below):
‘Message 5 in thread
From: Ivor West
Subject: Re: FitzWarine - Argentan
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2003-02-21 08:29:50 PST
I think I have it worked out now, thanks to J.J. Alexander's paper on
the early owners of Merton, (DCNQ, xx, 256).
< SNIP >
Reverting to Clarice de Auberville: on looking at an older version of
CP, I notice that she is attributed as wife to Fulk fitzWarin, d.1264.
If it isn't shown as such in the current edition, presumably they have
back-tracked for some reason or have left it indeterminate. It goes:
"Fulk fitz-Warine, of Whittington and Alberbury, co.Salop., s.and h.
of Fulk F. of the same, by Clarice [presumably de Auberville] his
wife, suc. his father (who was slain, ex Parte Regis, in the battle of
Lewes), 14 May 1264...", which seems to sideline Constance de Toeni.
If this is the correct scenario, Mabel becomes the full sister of
Fulk, 1251 - 1315, rather than a half-sister, but the age
discontinuity, with Mabel born c1225, would remain.
Ivor West '
[12] Meisel, p. 96.
[13] Meisel argued that the grant of Lambourn to a daughter of Fulk
‘III’ was ‘patently absurd’, and that Mabil ‘must have been
unmarriageable, for most of Fulk’s children were married in
the 1220s’ [p. 96].
[14] CP, under Tregoz, and Grandison.
[15] Meisel, p. 99.
[16] Constance de Tosny was born most likely between July 1233 and Jan.
1236/7:
1. Her parents, Ralph (VI) de Tosny and Petronilla de Lacy, were
married after October 1232 (CP Vol XII-Tony). A birthdate of
July 1233 would be the earliest reasonable date, but we do not
know that such a birth occurred, or that Constance was necessarily
the eldest child (surviving or otherwise).
2. Fulk, son of Constance by Fulk FitzWarin, was born 14 September
1251 (CP Vol V-FitzWarin, p. 495). Assuming the conventions of
the age were observed, Constance was aged 14 or more at the time
of conception: therefore, a date of January 1236/7 would be
the latest presumable (although not theoretical) birthdate for
Constance.
Her father, Roger de Tosny, d. 1239 (CP) at sea, while on Crusade.
His actual departure date from England is not known, but this was
most likely in the summer of 1239 (Runciman, History of the Crusades
III:211-2). There could have been no issue of the marriage of Roger
de Tosny and Petronilla de Lacy, posthumous or otherwise, after early
1240.
At the time of Fulk ‘IV’ FitzWarin’s grant of the manor of Lambourn
to Mabel FitzWarin in 1249, evidently as her maritagium, Fulk himself
was no more than 41 years of age; Constance de Tosny, no more than 16
years of age, and possibly less. Working backward from the terminus of
the estimated birth date for
Clarice de Tregoz (no later than Jan 1261/2), the birthdate for Mabel
FitzWarin was no later than April 1247 (assuming she was at
least 14 at the time of conception for Clarice). As Constance de
Tosny was most likely aged 13 or less in April 1247, the mother of
Mabel FitzWarin had then to be a previous wife of Fulk ‘IV’ FitzWarin.
[17] Fulk was ‘almost certainly a young man in his twenties when he
succeeded his father in 1198’ (Meisel, p. 36). As to his being
alive in October 1250, see CP Vol V, p. 495, note (c), as discussed
above.
[18] Meisel, pp. 50-51.
[19] Theobald, son of Theobald Walter and Maud le Vavasor, was aged
6 at his father’s IPM (14 Feb 1205/6), therefore
1. The son was most likely born before March 1200, and
2. Theobald Walter and Maud le Vavasor were most likely married
in 1199, or before.
[20] For the identification of Clarice d’Auberville as lst wife, and
mother of Mabel FitzWarin, see note [16] above. As to Constance
de Tosny as 2nd wife, and mother of Fulk ‘V’ FitzWarin, see
CP Vol. V (FitzWarin), p. 495 note (d).
* John P. Ravilious
John Ravilious
Hello All,
In attempting to piece together the disparate strands concerning the
FitzWarins, I failed to include the most important thread:
'This post was the result of significant work by several people,
without whom any advance accomplished would not be possible.
My thanks to Cris, Ivor, Louise, Rosie, and the many members of
the list for their contributions on the subject.'
That being said, certainly any flaw or oversight in the above is the
sole responsibility of the author of the original post.
Cheers,
John
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<1ca.8e3eec...@aol.com>...
> Saturday, 3 May, 2003
>
>
> Dear Chris, Cris, Rosie, Douglas, Louise, Ivor, Kay, et al.,
>
> The current account in CP concerning Fulk FitzWarin ‘III’ [1] is
> compressed into a footnote initially concerned with Sir Fulk FitzWarin (d. 14
> May 1254), father of Sir Fulk FitzWarin of Whittington, Salop, 1st Lord
> FitzWarin:
>
> ‘ He was s. and h. of Fulk fitz Warin of Whittington (living Oct.
> 1250), who m., 1stly, Maud, widow of Theobald Walter, and da. of
> Robert le Vavasur (Patent Roll, 9 Joh., m. 5; Fine Roll, mm. II,
> 8) and, 2ndly, Clarice Dauberville (Fine Roll, 34 Hen. III, m. 2;
> Chron. of Fulk FitzWarin, p. 410). ‘ [2]
>
> A long-running discourse is to be found in CP, on SGM and elsewhere on
> the identification of individuals named Fulk FitzWarin, and (as noted esp. on
> SGM) the lack of certainty concerning these identifications. In particular,
> the chronology concerning Fulk ‘III’ and his son Fulk ‘IV’ has caused
> considerable confusion, consternation and frequent error. While I do not
> concur with her final determination on this point, Janet Meisel correctly
> states on this subject,
>
> ‘ Although the records of the thirteenth century give a
> surprisingly clear picture of Fulk III’s life, they give
> an even more surprisingly muddled picture of his death.
> Unlikely though it may seem, it is impossible to determine
> the date of Fulk’s death with anything approaching
> certainty.’ [3]
>
<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cristopher Nash
to resolve one of the ineffable riddles we've relied on to confirm
our very humanity, after all. Just so I can integrate thinking about
it with lines in my own mind, would you say that Hawise FitzWarin
wife of Ralph (de) Gousille (who d. bef. 30 Aug 1294) is the da. of
Fulk 'V' and Margaret de la Pole* ?
* with the onomastic support I suppose of a mother Hawise, da of
John Lestraunge/Strange of Knockin, Salop. (_which_ John forever
eludes me). I note that both Piers de Gousille/Goxhill, fa of Ralph,
& this Fulk FitzWarin were with the king in Wales in 1282.
While I'd adore to, I refuse any credit (so profligately offered) for
this, BTW, tho I'll gladly take any blame in sheer gratitude's token.
I see where you're going; it's those delicious Canteloupes again, isn't it?
Cris
John Ravilious wrote
[LARGE SNIP]
> The FitzWarin family therefore is properly reconstructed as follows:
>
>
>
> 1) Theobald = bef 1200 Maud le = 2) Fulk 'III' FitzWarin
> Walter I (19) Vavasor I bef 1 Oct 1207
> d. bef 14 I I d. ca. 1235
> Feb 1205/6 I __________I
> _______I ____I____
> I I I
> Theobald Walter Hawise Fulk 'IV' = 1) Clarice = 2)Constance
> b. ca. 1200 =1) bef 1226 FitzWarin I d'Auberville I de Tosny
>of Boxted, William b.say F) I (20) I m. after
> Suffolk & c. Pantulf 1208 I I 1238
> (19) 2) Hubert k. 1264 I I (20)
> Huse I I
> I I
> _____________________I I
> I I
> Mabel FitzWarin = 1) William de Fulk 'V' FitzWarin
> Crevequer b. 14 Sept 1251
> = 2) John de = Margaret de la
> I Tregoz Pole
> I I
> V V
>
--
Rick Eaton
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> In attempting to piece together the disparate strands concerning the
> FitzWarins, I failed to include the most important thread:
>
> 'This post was the result of significant work by several people,
> without whom any advance accomplished would not be possible.
> My thanks to Cris, Ivor, Louise, Rosie, and the many members of
> the list for their contributions on the subject.'
>>
John et al:
You may want to correspond a bit with Barbara Fitzsenry (sic), who is the
only member of the Eaton Families Association doing any work on the
FitzWarrens, Whittington and the Fulks.
Barbara does not pretend to be a scholar, or an expert genealogist, but she
does pursue every conceivable lead and may well have accessed information
(for good or for bad*) that others may not have found.
* Barbara, like me, does not have the time or opportunity to spend large
amounts of time or money at this pursuit and, like me, casts a wide net,
hoping to, and actually, finding some caviar among the sturgeon. She will
tell you plainly that the information she finds is riddled with falsities
and miscues, as well as canapé-quality material but that even the bad fish
can be of value in proving and disproving claims. So, be good to her if you
contact her. She is doing prodigious work with limited resources. In time,
she will cull it all down to a credible family work. In the meantime, maybe
you can help each other.
Write to me personally, and I shall give her e-mail address to you... If I
recognize your name as a worthy member of this list. If I don't, no offense
is intended, it is only my own ignorance at play and I may ask you to have a
recognized (by me) poster to vouch for you. Sorry for that, but I do not
want to subject Barbara to the spam that can be generated by posting her
address here.
Rick Eaton
The...@aol.com
Dear Cris,
Whilst delving into these many Warins, we have all gone through many
Fitz - and, your contributions are/have been appreciated, providing rare
bits (Welsh and otherwise) for us all to Nash on.
That being said, your portrayal of the Goushill/FitzWarin/le Strange
connection is accurate in my view. I note that John le Strange of Knockin,
his son-in-law Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, and Fulk 'IV' FitzWarin were
involved together on the Welsh marches during July 1260: the eventual
marriage of the young Fulk 'V' and Margaret 'de la Pole' (dau. of Gruffydd,
and granddaughter of John le Strange) was simply subsequent genealogical
cement.
Robert de Tregoz = Sibyl de Ewya
___________________I____
I I
Lucy de = John le Robert Fulk 'IV' = 1) Clarice = 2)Constance
Tregoz I Strange d. bef FitzWarin I d'Auberville I de Tosny
I d. bef Sept 1268 d. 1264 I I
I Mar 1269/70 I I I
I I I I
Hawise = Gruffydd John de = Mabel FitzWarin I
I d. 1286 Tregoz I I
I d. 1300 V I
______I___________ __________________I
I I I
Owain Margaret = Sir Fulk 'V' FitzWarin
'de la Pole' 'de la Pole I b. 1251, d. 1315
I
I
Hawise = Ralph de Goushill
FitzWarin I d. bef 30 Aug 1294
I
I
Margaret = Philip le Despenser
heiress of Goxhill I
d. 1349 I
V
Actually, I hadn't thought about any implications re: the lords of
Calne and Abergavenny; we shall see where the evidence leads, for we
Cantelou'd the truth, wot?
Cheers,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Rick Eaton
This should stir the hunting instinct in us all:
> About 1317 Henry Hussey was remarried to Katherine
> FitzAlan, daughter of Edmund FitzAlan, second Earl of
> Arundel. She was a sister to Richard FitzAlan who became the
> third Earl of Arundel.
Now, this is interesting to we Eatons, who have been "dealing" with claims
of relationships with the FitzAlans dating back to the 11th century.
In published works, and inherited pedigrees, it is claimed that William
Eaton of Dover (a Cinque Port figure there and d. before 1584) was m. tp
Jane (or Joan) Hussey d. 1584, whose will states trhat she is to be buried
in the churchyard of St. James, Dover. St. James no longer exists, having
been bombed during WWII. I was not able to find any further record of Jane
Hussey in the Canterbury Cathedral repository of St. James records. That
doesn't mean much, as I was there for just one day and it takes a month to
find an index card there.
Anyone who comes upon any documentation of the William-Jane union or progeny
will be for ever exalted by Eatons.
Thanks for your consideration.
Rick
Cristopher Nash
may seem, I'll Warin it's a Gwenwynwyn situation -- Abergavenny
thought to this yourself? I've Hawise believed so, it's as Clarice
day to me and I've been Knockin around a long time now.
Cris
--