"Matilda de Mandeville" by Keats-Rohan
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Domesday Descendants this fact:
"Gaufrid II de Mandeville
"... he was killed in 1144, when his heir was Geoffrey III by his
wife Rohais de Vere. Father also of William, eventual successor of
his elder brother Geoffrey, and of Robert, and a daughter Matilda, wife
first of Peter of Ludgershall and secondly of Hugh II of Buckland
(d.1175)."
She gives a host of references so I do not know which one of these is
the source for Matilda's parentage, but I thought that other sources
were adamant that this one was false and that Matilda (or Maud) was NOT
Geoffrey's daughter.
Can anyone guess where she got this parentage from?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Todd A. Farmerie
> Idly thumbing through the pages I found on p. 566 of Keat-Rohan's
> Domesday Descendants this fact:
>
> "Gaufrid II de Mandeville
> "... he was killed in 1144, when his heir was Geoffrey III by his
> wife Rohais de Vere. Father also of William, eventual successor of
> his elder brother Geoffrey, and of Robert, and a daughter Matilda, wife
> first of Peter of Ludgershall and secondly of Hugh II of Buckland
> (d.1175)."
>
> She gives a host of references so I do not know which one of these is
> the source for Matilda's parentage, but I thought that other sources
> were adamant that this one was false and that Matilda (or Maud) was NOT
> Geoffrey's daughter.
OK, now that it is out in the open, and it has been discussed
here before, there is no sense in putting off my comments. This
is the case I had in mind the other day, of a connection almost
certainly wrong, probably drawn from other secondary sources
assumed to be reliable, while these in turn were derived from the
chart of the Earls of Essex in CP. In this chart, Maud is placed
under a horizontal line connecting Geoffrey's children, but is
not connected to that line. This placement was certainly done
solely for the purposes of graphical arrangement, and was never
intended to display relationship. However, as far as I know, no
one has ever published this "correction".
What has been published are studies of Geoffrey Fitz Piers, son
of "Peter de Ludgershall" and "Matilda". These follow in detail
the manipulations that Henry II took to ensure that the
Mandeville birthright, represented by Beatrice de Say,
grand-niece of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, came to his favorite.
THis man, Geoffrey Fitz Piers, was specifically said by a
contemporary chronicler to be of insubstantial origins. Now if
Geoffrey Fitz Piers was maternal grandson of Earl Geoffrey, and
nephew of the recently deceased Earl William de Mandeville, then
he would neither have been of lowly origins, nor would Henry have
had to manipulate the status of the Say heiress in order to
justify Geoffrey coming into the Mandeville inheritance - he
would have been the legal heir. Simply put, this connection is
wrong on so many levels, that it would require a higher burden of
proof than for a connection that does not have so many strikes
against it.
> Can anyone guess where she got this parentage from?
I have already started through her references, just to be
certain, and have found nothing. I certainly will not be able to
get my hands on all of them, even though most appear to be taken
from secondary sources, and I have every expectation, for the
reasons stated above, that such a pursuit will be an enormous
waste of time.
taf
Chris Phillips
Todd Farmerie wrote:
<<
OK, now that it is out in the open, and it has been discussed
here before, there is no sense in putting off my comments. This
is the case I had in mind the other day, of a connection almost
certainly wrong, probably drawn from other secondary sources
assumed to be reliable, while these in turn were derived from the
chart of the Earls of Essex in CP. In this chart, Maud is placed
under a horizontal line connecting Geoffrey's children, but is
not connected to that line. This placement was certainly done
solely for the purposes of graphical arrangement, and was never
intended to display relationship. However, as far as I know, no
one has ever published this "correction".
>>
I remember you've had to point this out a number of times in the last few
years, but it's depressing to see it surfacing again in "Domesday
Descendants".
Incidentally, as I'm sure you've noticed, if Maud were Geoffrey's daughter,
this would imply two marriages between second cousins in the following
generation.
The chart in CP is certainly laid out in a very confusing way. Not only with
regard to Maud, but in the following generation there are lines crossing
over each other, which require the reader to make a positive effort at
disentanglement. I suppose Hawise the wife of William de Lanvalay is a
daughter of Maud by her 2nd marriage?
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
> Incidentally, as I'm sure you've noticed, if Maud were Geoffrey's daughter,
> this would imply two marriages between second cousins in the following
> generation.
Yes. Likewise, it is clear that Geoffrey's claim involved the
Say connection, and not his own descent, since the grant of the
earldom to him was limited to his children by Beatrice. Fitz
Piers' eventual heir male, John Fitz Geoffrey, born to Aveline de
Clare, was bypassed in favor of Maud, wife of Humphrey de Bohun.
As I said, the connection appears wrong on so many levels that
I would give any 'primary' source claiming such a connection a
very close look as to authenticity.
I am also not entirely comfortable with her labelling the
disinherited Arnald (Ernulf) as illegitimate, a conclusioon which
in the past has been assumed from his failure to inherit, yet if
he was disinherited (something that while not easily done during
the reign of Edward II, was not so much out of the question under
Stephen, Henry II, or John), he need not have been illegitimate,
and CP calls him "elder brother (or half-br.)" of the second Earl
Geoffrey. One may hope that she found a pattern of brother
Geoffrey preceeding Arnald, even prior to his disposession,
implying that, while elder, we has not the heir, but I must
wonder if this is another case where qualifiers were lost in the
transfer from database to print.
> The chart in CP is certainly laid out in a very confusing way. Not only with
> regard to Maud, but in the following generation there are lines crossing
> over each other, which require the reader to make a positive effort at
> disentanglement.
Unfortunately, this is often unavoidable, with siblings
intermarrying. I faced this with some of my own charts, and
ended up having to use either a double line for one of the
descents, or else different colors. What makes less sense is why
Maud went where she did, when she could have gone between Robert
de Mandeville and William de Say (except, I guess, this would
have placed her right above her Boclande children, and required
something similarly contorted to display the Fitz Piers
children.) This is not the only case where such a graphical
arrangement has been misread, and because of this I am convinced
that such arrangements (placing a woman of unknown parentage
under a horizontal of another family) should be avoided unless
the non-relationship is made explicit, either by a textual
statement that her parentage is unknown, or by insertion of a
second horizontal dotted line above her to make it clear that she
does not connect.
> I suppose Hawise the wife of William de Lanvalay is a
> daughter of Maud by her 2nd marriage?
Yes, that is the intent.
taf
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris,
That is how I show the parentage of Hawise, taken from MC 5th ed. (p.
188). The source cited by Weis (or Sheppard) is
' Wrottesley, Pedigrees from Plea Rolls, p. 486'
But then, at generation 2 of the Boclande-Lanvallei pedigree in MC 5th
ed., we find the notorious 'Maud de Mandeville'....... No source cited.......
I hope the number of 'DD Corrections' is winding down, as opposed to
up.... especially for Rosie's sake....
Best regards,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> That is how I show the parentage of Hawise, taken from MC 5th ed. (p.
> 188). The source cited by Weis (or Sheppard) is
>
> ' Wrottesley, Pedigrees from Plea Rolls, p. 486'
>
> But then, at generation 2 of the Boclande-Lanvallei pedigree in MC 5th
> ed., we find the notorious 'Maud de Mandeville'....... No source cited.......
This error was specifically brought to Sheppard's attention
following the publication of the 4th edition, but since he was
working on AR7 at the time, he simply set it aside. He then went
and added the incorrect connection to AR7, based on its
appearance in MC4, and reprinted it in MC5.
> I hope the number of 'DD Corrections' is winding down, as opposed to
> up.... especially for Rosie's sake....
I know of at least one additional that I am not at liberty to
discuss yet - it is an obvious error, with two proximal entries
being in direct conflict with each other.
taf
Doug Smith
Todd A. Farmerie
> 'Maud de Mandeville'.......could she have been an illegimate daughter of Geoffrey?
Not "Maud de Mandeville", just "Maud". There is absolutely no
reason to think she was daughter of Geoffrey at all, and it is a
mistake to try to come up with such scenarios to "fix" a
relationship that has no basis in reality to begin with. This
whole thing appears to come from the misreading of a chart that
never inteded to show any relationship between Maud and Geoffrey.
Thus is cannot be "fixed" by coming up with scenarios to
explain away the inconsistencies in a story that arose out of
thin air.
taf
Tim Powys-Lybbe
al...@mindspring.com (Doug Smith) wrote:
> 'Maud de Mandeville'.......could she have been an illegimate daughter of
> Geoffrey?
Too many contradictions for that one.
But CP does include a fascinating snippet on Geoffrey's son William, 3rd
earl: on Vol V, p. 119 it says that William "dspl", ie died without any
legitimate offspring, implying that he had illegitimate ones. I have
one candidate in a daughter Amicia but does anyone else have any other
candidates for his illegitimate offspring? (Not to mention any sources
for same.)