Eugenia Fitz Warin, wife of William Mauduit, of Warminster, Wiltshire
Douglas Richardson
Back in 2005 MichaelAnne Guido made several posts on the newsgroup
regarding the extended ancestry of the Mauduit family of Warminster,
Wiltshire. She presented contemporary evidence which showed that
William (not Thomas) Mauduit married before 1231-2 Eugenia Fitz Warin,
daughter of Fulk Fitz Warin, of Alveston, Gloucestershire, Tadlow,
Cambridgeshire, Alberbury, Shropshire, by his wife, Hawise, daughter
and co-heiress of Josce de Dinan, of Chipping Lambourn, Berkshire,
Westbury, Wiltshire, etc. Governor of Ludlow Castle.
The evidence in question as to the identity of Eugenia's husband is
the following item which MichaelAnne Guido found in the book,
Genealogical Proofs of the House of Maudit, A succinct Genealogy of
the House of Maudit by Robert Halstead (1685), page 131:
Placita de Banco, Easter Term, 14 Henry III, Rot. 15:
Robertus de Passleu per attornatum suum petit versus Willielmum
Mauduit & Eugeniam uxorem ejus [eius]. quod reddant ei Henricum filium
& haeredem Henrici Cromwell, cujus [cuius] custodia ad eum pertinet
ratione commissionis Domini regis quod inde & fecit & dicit, &c. Sed
quia dictus Robertus non oftendit dictam commissionem, dicta custodia
remansit penes dictos Willielmum & Eugeniam. END OF QUOTE.
The above record would seem to be rather straightforward evidence.
Yet MichaelAnne INSISTED that Eugenia Fitz Warin actually married
William Mauduit's father, Thomas Mauduit.
When I pointed out that the name of Eugenia Fitz Warin's husband was
named William Mauduit in this record, not Thomas Mauduit, MichaelAnne
proceeded to quote from the VCH Wiltshire, Volume 8, which also
identifies Eugenia Fitz Warin's husband as William Mauduit, c.
1244-1264. Specifically, VCH Wiltshire states:
"Hawise, Joce de Dinan's other daughter, married Fulk FitzWarin ( d.
c. 1198). Her share of the inheritance also included the overlordship
of half the manor of Westbury Priory. She was still living in 1226;
(Footnote 55) before her death she is said to have given the part of
Westbury which she held herself to her son Fulk. By c. 1219 he had
given the land which his mother gave him to his brother Eudo, who
soon after gave it to their sister Eugenia. She married William
Mauduit, lord of Warminster c. 1244–64, (Footnote 56) and took her
Westbury property into that family, from which it was called the manor
of Westbury Mauduits." END OF QUOTE.
Yet MichaelAnne maintained that VCH Wiltshire was in error, as Eugenia
Fitz Warin could not have been the mother of William Mauduit's heir,
Thomas Mauduit, who was born c.1248. The reason for this is simple.
Eugenia's father, Fulk Fitz Warin, was living in 1194, and dead before
1198. This chronology makes it certain that Eugenia Fitz Warin was
born before 1198, and thus could not be the mother of the younger
Thomas Mauduit, born c.1248. MichaelAnne decided that Eugenia must be
the wife of an earlier member of the Mauduit family. Perfectly
logical, except the contemporary records didn't agree with
MichaelAnne.
I then pointed out to MichaelAnne that Paget's English Baronage also
identified Eugenia Fitz Warin as the wife of William Mauduit, citing
Close Rolls, 20 Henry III, m. 18. Once again, Eugenia Fitz Warin's
husband was named as William Mauduit, not Thomas Mauduit. MichaelAnne
said she would check the citation from the Close Rolls and thanked me
for presenting this so this portion of the FitzWarin ancestry can be
sorted out. But nothing happened.
To my knowledge MichaelAnne has never posted on the Close Rolls
item. And, in the intervening time, Eugenia Fitz Warin has popped up
as the wife of the elder Thomas Mauduit in Hal Bradley's good database
and in one of Louise Staley's posts in 2006. This is in spite of the
fact that Eugenia Fitz Warin's husband is named as William Mauduit in
a contemporary record.
Interestingly, this past week, I appear to have encountered a
reference to the Close Rolls item cited by Paget. This item states
that in 1236 a certain Elias was named as a creditor of William
Mauduit and his wife, Eugenia. The reference given is the Close Rolls
for 1236, pg. 234 [Reference: Abraham Starrs & Jewish Charters
Preserved in the British Museum (1930): 41}.
This item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2Gg4AAAAIAAJ&q=Eugenia+Mauduit&dq=Eugenia+Mauduit&pgis=1
So it would seem that Eugenia Fitz Warin did marry William Mauduit
after all, not his father, Thomas Mauduit, as claimed by MichaelAnne
Guido.
This in turn resolves another problem in the Mauduit pedigree, as the
chronology of Eugenia Fitz Warin proves that she was born before 1198,
and thus can not have been the mother of William Mauduit's son and
heir, Thomas Mauduit, born c. 1248.
As such, I assume that Thomas Mauduit's mother was William Mauduit's
2nd wife, Eve. Contemporary evidence shows that William Mauduit and
his wife, Eve, gave the church of Warminster, Wiltshire to the dean
and chapter of Salisbury about 1257 [Reference: Jones and Macray,
Charters and Documents of Salisbury, pg. 239].
Thus, Eugenia Fitz Warin was not the mother of Thomas Mauduit at all.
Presumably the second wife Eve was the mother of Thomas Mauduit.
This in turn resolves yet another problem in the Mauduit pedigree. It
is known that the wardship of Thomas Mauduit, born c. 1248, was
granted to Warin de Bassingbourne, and that Thomas Mauduit was
subsequently married to Warin de Bassingbourne's daughter, Joan. The
problem here is that Warin de Bassingbourne was the grand nephew of
Eugenia Fitz Warin. If Eugenia Fitz Warin had been Thomas Mauduit's
grandmother (as stated by MichaelAnne Guido), then there would have
been a consanguinity problem if he married Joan de Bassingbourne, as
Joan descends from Eugenia Fitz Warin's sister, Eve Fitz Warin.
However, once Eugenia Fitz Warin is removed from Thomas Mauduit's
ancestry, the consanguinity problem vanishes. Poof!
Summing up: We now know that Eugenia Fitz Warin was married to
William Mauduit (died c.1264), not his father, Thomas Mauduit (died c.
1244). And we know that Eugenia Fitz Warin was not the mother of
William Mauduit's son and heir, Thomas Mauduit, born c. 1248. And we
know that William Mauduit had a second wife, Eve, who I presume was
the mother of the younger Thomas Mauduit, born c.1248. The
consanguinity problem has been resolved. And, the Mauduit family
still retains a descent from the Fitz Warin family through Joan de
Bassingbourne, whose great-grandmother was Eve Fitz Warin, wife of
Oliver de Tracy and Thomas de London.
This matter demonstrates once again why it is important to keep a firm
grip on contemporary records, and less so on secondary sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. I have been using the Latin form Eugenia throughout this post.
I assume the correct vernacular form, however, is Eugenie. Can
someone confirm that?
M.Sjostrom
I am somewhat surprised that Douggie actually has found some original medieval source....
Why is this genealogy important? I suppose it's because THIS lady's descendants include (a) important people, and (b) third-class atlantic passengers to certain former colonies...
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00349559&tree=LEO
.... and suppose they are her ancestors, actually her patriline...
----
The marriage of Joan Bassingbourne to Thomas Mauduit appears to be a very typical diagonal marriage.
Suppose, The Mauduit family had managed to acquire some properties via Eugenia. Their heir was not Eugenia's descendant, thusly not uncontestedly entitled to such properties. The Mauduit actually possibly should return those properties to Eugenia's natural heirs - possibly such relatives were already posing claims.
Now, the Mauduit however had the advantage of actually having the hold to properties.
some natural heir of the late Eugenia, and the family of the Mauduit, arrive to a compromise where the right to the properties was welded together by marriage of one of natural heiresses of the late Eugenia, and the male heir of the Mauduit.
after that, all sorts of counter-claims of other blood kin of Eugenia would be rather unsuccessful.
This sort of inheritance pattern is one of good reasons why such diagonal marriages took place all the time, though not the only reason... other reasons were such as keeping up alliance, or being neighbors, or having a new bone of contention to settle, or a scarcity of equal enough other families, or already-established familiarity between these...
--
Diagonal marriage: a woman of lineage A and a male of lineage B marry at a time.
Some time (a generation or so) afterwards, a member of the lineage A marries a member of lineage B (they are not blood kin from that earlier marriage, but collateral or so relatives of the earlier marriage's partners).
In family tree, these two marriages make sort of a diagonal pattern.
---
I greatly doubt that medieval English vernacular was up to forms like 'Eugenie' which resembles more a later french fashion, like almost all -e endings in female names.
Instead, the vernacular may have had some mangled, simplistic variant, of the 'official' name such as a resemblance of 'Gena'....
However, it's nice to observe that Douggie has possibly learned that of baptismal names, there usually exist several variants.
[this marks an event -miraculously- where Douggie actually was knowingly using a latin variant]
Congrats for NOT posing (yet, at least) a command that one and only variant of this name MUST be the only correct one...
Douglas Richardson
> I greatly doubt that medieval English vernacular was up to forms like 'Eugenie' which resembles more a later french fashion, like almost all -e endings in female names.
> Instead, the vernacular may have had some mangled, simplistic variant, of the 'official' name such as a resemblance of 'Gena'....
Tut, tut. This is your opinion, Stromie.
Henry, Robert, John, or Richard are not considered mangled, simplistic
forms. Nor are Alice, Cecily, Joan, Isabel, Mary, etc.
DR
M.Sjostrom
Like always, our guy Douggie shows by use of that codeword 'stromie' that HIS scribblings are not to be taken in any seriousness :))
I observe that Douggie has not managed to find any just-french-looking variants for his example list....
For his elucidation, such would be: Henri, (Robert,) Jean (, Richard)
and Alys, Cecile, Jeanne, Isabeau, Marie...
Margarita would be a latin-looking, 'official' variant, while 'Meg' would be mangled, simplistic in English... Today we usually interpret it as 'Margaret'
Perhaps it's possible to hope that one day Douggie will realize there exist such variants as Peg, Meg, Betsy, Hal, Harry, Bob... even perhaps realizing that they represent forms of certain names which are familiar to him already in some other form...
M.Sjostrom
who were parents of Hawise of London, wife of Patrick Chaworth ??
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00139487&tree=LEO
shows at present them to have been Maurice of London and Mabel Cantiloup
Renia
Not by you, perhaps, but how about:
Henri, Robertus, Johannes, Ricardus, Alicia, Cecilia, Johanna, Isabella,
Maria?
Or their even more simplistic but mangled forms:
Hal, Bob, Jack, Dick, Al, Celia, Jo, Bella, Molly or Polly.
genm...@gmail.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Back in 2005 MichaelAnne Guido made several posts on the newsgroup
> Wiltshire. She presented contemporary evidence which showed that
> daughter of Fulk Fitz Warin, of Alveston, Gloucestershire, Tadlow,
> Cambridgeshire, Alberbury, Shropshire, by his wife, Hawise, daughter
> and co-heiress of Josce de Dinan, of Chipping Lambourn, Berkshire,
> Westbury, Wiltshire, etc. Governor of Ludlow Castle.
>
> The evidence in question as to the identity of Eugenia's husband is
> the following item which MichaelAnne Guido found in the book,
> Genealogical Proofs of the House of Maudit, A succinct Genealogy of
> the House of Maudit by Robert Halstead (1685), page 131:
>
> Placita de Banco, Easter Term, 14 Henry III, Rot. 15:
>
> & haeredem Henrici Cromwell, cujus [cuius] custodia ad eum pertinet
> ratione commissionis Domini regis quod inde & fecit & dicit, &c. Sed
> quia dictus Robertus non oftendit dictam commissionem, dicta custodia
> remansit penes dictos Willielmum & Eugeniam. END OF QUOTE.
>
> The above record would seem to be rather straightforward evidence.
> Yet MichaelAnne INSISTED that Eugenia Fitz Warin actually married
> WilliamMauduit'sfather, ThomasMauduit.
>
> When I pointed out that the name of Eugenia Fitz Warin's husband was
> proceeded to quote from the VCH Wiltshire, Volume 8, which also
> 1244-1264. Specifically, VCH Wiltshire states:
>
> "Hawise, Joce de Dinan's other daughter, married Fulk FitzWarin ( d.
> c. 1198). Her share of the inheritance also included the overlordship
> of half the manor of Westbury Priory. She was still living in 1226;
> (Footnote 55) before her death she is said to have given the part of
> Westbury which she held herself to her son Fulk. By c. 1219 he had
> given the land which his mother gave him to his brother Eudo, who
> Westbury property into that family, from which it was called the manor
> of Westbury Mauduits." END OF QUOTE.
>
> Yet MichaelAnne maintained that VCH Wiltshire was in error, as Eugenia
> Fitz Warin could not have been the mother of WilliamMauduit'sheir,
> Eugenia's father, Fulk Fitz Warin, was living in 1194, and dead before
> 1198. This chronology makes it certain that Eugenia Fitz Warin was
> born before 1198, and thus could not be the mother of the younger
> the wife of an earlier member of theMauduitfamily. Perfectly
> logical, except the contemporary records didn't agree with
> MichaelAnne.
>
> I then pointed out to MichaelAnne that Paget's English Baronage also
> Close Rolls, 20 Henry III, m. 18. Once again, Eugenia Fitz Warin's
> said she would check the citation from the Close Rolls and thanked me
> for presenting this so this portion of the FitzWarin ancestry can be
> sorted out. But nothing happened.
>
> To my knowledge MichaelAnne has never posted on the Close Rolls
> item. And, in the intervening time, Eugenia Fitz Warin has popped up
> and in one of Louise Staley's posts in 2006. This is in spite of the
> fact that Eugenia Fitz Warin's husband is named as WilliamMauduitin
> a contemporary record.
>
> Interestingly, this past week, I appear to have encountered a
> reference to the Close Rolls item cited by Paget. This item states
> for 1236, pg. 234 [Reference: Abraham Starrs & Jewish Charters
> Preserved in the British Museum (1930): 41}.
>
> This item may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
> So it would seem that Eugenia Fitz Warin did marry WilliamMauduit
> Guido.
>
> This in turn resolves another problem in theMauduitpedigree, as the
> chronology of Eugenia Fitz Warin proves that she was born before 1198,
> and thus can not have been the mother of WilliamMauduit'sson and
>
> As such, I assume that ThomasMauduit'smother was WilliamMauduit's
> 2nd wife, Eve. Contemporary evidence shows that WilliamMauduitand
> his wife, Eve, gave the church of Warminster, Wiltshire to the dean
> and chapter of Salisbury about 1257 [Reference: Jones and Macray,
> Charters and Documents of Salisbury, pg. 239].
>
> Presumably the second wife Eve was the mother of ThomasMauduit.
>
> is known that the wardship of ThomasMauduit, born c. 1248, was
> granted to Warin de Bassingbourne, and that ThomasMauduitwas
> subsequently married to Warin de Bassingbourne's daughter, Joan. The
> problem here is that Warin de Bassingbourne was the grand nephew of
> grandmother (as stated by MichaelAnne Guido), then there would have
> been a consanguinity problem if he married Joan de Bassingbourne, as
> Joan descends from Eugenia Fitz Warin's sister, Eve Fitz Warin.
>
> ancestry, the consanguinity problem vanishes. Poof!
>
> Summing up: We now know that Eugenia Fitz Warin was married to
> 1244). And we know that Eugenia Fitz Warin was not the mother of
> know that WilliamMauduithad a second wife, Eve, who I presume was
> the mother of the younger ThomasMauduit, born c.1248. The
> consanguinity problem has been resolved. And, theMauduitfamily
> still retains a descent from the Fitz Warin family through Joan de
> Bassingbourne, whose great-grandmother was Eve Fitz Warin, wife of
> Oliver de Tracy and Thomas de London.
>
> This matter demonstrates once again why it is important to keep a firm
> grip on contemporary records, and less so on secondary sources.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> P.S. I have been using the Latin form Eugenia throughout this post.
> I assume the correct vernacular form, however, is Eugenie. Can
> someone confirm that?
Before judging the genealogical validity of this latest conclusion of
Mr. Richardson, readers may want to peruse the earlier thread which
Mr. Richardson references - and significantly distorts here. See the
archives starting 7 Feb 2005.
Richardson took quite a different appreciation of Michael-Anne's work
at that time. Here are some samples of his comments:
[quote]
Dear MichaelAnne ~
Thank you for your long and helpful post. You put a lot of
information
out there for everyone to digest. Much appreciated.
[and]
Hats off to you MichaelAnne for taking the time to post the voluminous
material on the Mauduit family. These records open the window a lot
wider for us to see the past with a better eye.
[end quote]
This latest post looks like a typical Richardson personal attack....
Readers should consider carefully and draw their own conclusions as to
the genealogy involved. Things are not always as certain as
Richardson would have us believe....
Hovite
> P.S. I have been using the Latin form Eugenia throughout this post.
> I assume the correct vernacular form, however, is Eugenie.
Eugenie appears to be unrecorded in England until the reign of
Napoleon III.
Renia
Coo, I didn't know Napoleon III reigned in England.
Eugenia is a Greek name, pronounced Ev-gain-ee-a, or Efi for short.
mhol...@mac.com
> who were parents of Hawise of London, wife of Patrick Chaworth ??http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00139487&tree=LEO
> shows at present them to have been Maurice of London and Mabel Cantiloup
It was Thomas de London, Lord of Kidwelly and Eve Fitz Warin, daughter
of Sir Fulk (II) Fitz Warin and Hawise de Dinan.
pj.evans
For whatever it might be worth, I''ve seen more English-language
occurrences of Eugenia than Eugenie (including my grandmother's aunt
[Eugenia] Mary).
Douglas Richardson
< Margarita would be a latin-looking, 'official' variant, while 'Meg'
would be mangled, simplistic in English... Today we usually interpret
it as 'Margaret'
We do?
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Douglas Richardson
Stromie ~
See the archives for my post dated 7 October 2003 regarding Mabel de
Cantelowe. The post is entitled "Mabel de Cantelowe and Hawise de
London."
Douglas Richardson
>
> Before judging the genealogical validity of this latest conclusion of
> Mr. Richardson, readers may want to peruse the earlier thread which
> Mr. Richardson references - and significantly distorts here. See the
> archives starting 7 Feb 2005.
If you wish to discuss the genealogical evidence I presented, by all
means, please do so.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you, Martin. You're correct as usual.
M.Sjostrom
Mr Richardson's self-referred posting fails actually to explain reasoning of the claimed parentage. Indeed, it only says that John Ravilious had done the work...
---------------------------------------------
Douglas Richardson
7 Oct 2003 10:33:18
Mabel de Cantelowe and Hawise de London
was: "
In 1998 Bill Kullman "on the Oregon Trail" posted a query about the
mother of Hawise de London, wife of Patrick de Chaworth. Hawise de
London figures in the ancestry of many people here on the newsgroup,
as she was the grandmother of Maud de Chaworth, wife of Henry of
Lancaster, Earl of Lancaster. In his post, Bill asked if Hawise's
mother was named Eve, or Mabel de Cantelowe/Cantilupe. Leo van de Pas
replied that according to Turton, Hawise's parents were Maurice de
"Londres" and his wife, Mabel de "Cantilupe." For interest sake, I've
copied both Bill's original post and Leo's reply below.
Elsewhere, I find in the newsgroup archives that John Ravilious has
identified Hawise de London's parents as Thomas de London and his
wife, Eve, widow of Oliver de Tracy. I believe John has Hawise'
parents correctly indentified. Who then was Mabel de Cantelowe?
My research indicates that Mabel de Cantelowe did exist and that she
was related in some manner to Hawise de London. This is indicated by
the following item which I found recently in the Patent Rolls:
Date: 2 Aug. 1267.
"Restitution to Hawise de London, as the king understands by
inquisition that she is heir to Mabel de Cantilupo, of an itinerant
forge in the forest of Dene, which Mabel had there and for which the
king some time ago gave Mabel 10l. a year for life, to hold to the
said Hawise in the same manner as Mabel and other ancestors of the
said Hawise used to hold it in the time of King John and other of the
king's predecessors, kings of England. By K., Sir Edward, and Roger
de Leyburn." [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1266–1272 (1913):
94]
I also found mention of Mabel de Cantelowe in the inquisition of
Hawise de London's husband, Patrick de Chaworth (died 1257), which
information I have abstracted below:
Inquisition of Patrick de Chaworces alias de Chaors, de Chauurces, de
Chawrces, de Chawerches, etc.
Writ to the sheriff of Gloucester, 23 Sept. 42 Hen. III
Wilts. Extent, Sunday the eve of St. Martin.
Berewik manor (full extent given with names of tenants), including
pastures called Kyggesmers and la Sterte. 60s. rent are held by
exchange for life by Mabel de Cantelo alias de Cantilupe, and ought,
with the advowson of the church, to revert to the manor after her
death. [Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 1
(1904): 113-115].
The above record merely states that the manor and advowson of Berwick,
Wiltshire was held by Mabel de Cantelowe for life "by exchange" and
that on the death of Mabel, the property was to revert to Patrick de
Chaworth's heirs. There is no indication in the inquisition if or how
Patrick de Chaworth is related to Mabel de Cantelowe.
Query: If Hawise de London's parents were Thomas de London and his
wife, Eve, who then was Mabel de Cantelowe and how was she related to
Hawise? Comments are invited. "
genm...@gmail.com
I'll discuss whatever I choose to on any aspect of this topic,
including your misrepresentations and continuing personal attacks
which reflect (whether or not you admit it) on your credibility.
Readers can see for themselves how you've changed your position over
time without admitting to it.
You don't dictate the bounds of the discussion (much as you might like
to), but your remarks in both their content and tenor continue to
require correction and criticism. If you can't handle that, tough
luck.
I believe a few weeks ago someone in the group referred to you as "a
pompous patronising prat". How true...
Douglas Richardson
>
> I'll discuss whatever I choose to on any aspect of this topic,
> including your misrepresentations and continuing personal attacks
> which reflect (whether or not you admit it) on your credibility.
> Readers can see for themselves how you've changed your position over
> time without admitting to it.
No evidence, no citations, no weblinks = IGNORE.
DR
M.Sjostrom
Interesting to observe the obvious changes of position by the useless prat, the so-famously pompous patronizing one....
-----------------------------
In 2008, the pompous prat endorses this parentage:
< It was Thomas de London, Lord of Kidwelly and Eve Fitz Warin,
daughter
< of Sir Fulk (II) Fitz Warin and Hawise de Dinan.
Thank you, Martin. You're correct as usual.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--
while, in 2003 the pompous prat
* admits it is work of John P Ravilious, not of his himself
( ".... I find in the newsgroup archives that John Ravilious has
identified Hawise de London's parents as Thomas de London and his
wife, Eve, widow of Oliver de Tracy. I believe John has Hawise'
parents correctly indentified.)
* did not yet claim a definite parentage, but rather was cautious and asked:
( ".... Who then was Mabel de Cantelowe?
Query: If Hawise de London's parents were Thomas de London and his
wife, Eve, who then was Mabel de Cantelowe and how was she related to
Hawise? Comments are invited. " )
Simon Fairthorne
in Farnborough Abbey (Hampshire)
Cheers
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Renia [mailto:re...@DELETEotenet.gr]
Renia
Oh, really. What web links does the previous poster need for his opinions?
Jared & Christina Olar
Richardson included, would stick to genealogy and quit veering off on
unedifying tangents of an ad hominem nature.
Jared L. Olar