Amicia, illegitimate daughter of Hugh, Earl of Chester
Reedpcgen
Kevelioc' by a previous unknown marriage is technically possible, there are
very good reasons for believing this is not the case, and that Amicia was
illegitimate.
Hugh, Earl of Chester, and Vicomte d'Avranches, was born in 1147. He married
Bertrade de Montfort (a cousin of the King, who gave her away), daughter of
Simon, Count d'Evreux, in 1169, when he would have hardly been twenty-two. He
died in 1181, aged about 34, but she lived until 1227.
They had one son and four daughters, the son being Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl
of Chester and Lincoln, who married as his first wife Constance (widow of the
King's son), daughter of Conan, Earl of Richmond and Duke of Bretagne (by his
wife Margaret of Scotland).
Ranulph was born about 1172/3. His birth was preceded by that of his sister
Maud, who was born in 1171. Of the four daughters who became heirs of their
brother on his death in 1232,
(1) Maud married David, Earl of Huntingdon, brother of William the Lion, King
of Scotland.
(2) Mabel married William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel and Sussex.
(3) Alice married William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby.
(4) Hawise, suo jure, Countess of Lincoln, married Robert de Quincy [son and
heir apparent of the Earl of Winchester].
Thus these four sisters married men of the highest rank in England--not just
Earls, but many of the most powerful magnates of the realm. The Earldom of
Chester itself was a powerful entity, in that it had been granted 'princely'
authority that came with the Palatinate.
NOW compare this with Amicia. She married, before 1181 [the year of her
father's death], Ralph de Mainwaring [Mesnilwarin], a local Cheshire gentleman.
Though he was justiciar of Chester for about ten years, he was not even one of
the traditional hereditary barons of Cheshire. In an undated charter, Earl
Hugh granted Ralph three knights' fees to be held by the service of two, in
frank marriage [liberum maritagium] with his daughter Amicia [see William
Beaumont, ed., _Tracts written in the controversy respecting the legitimacy of
Amicia..._ (Chetham Society) 78-80:449-50; and Geoffrey Barraclough, ed.,
_Facsimiles.of Early Cheshire Charters_ (Oxford, 1957), 46]. Was this a
reasonal marriage portion for the eldest/elder daughter of an Earl?
There is a VAST difference between three knights' fees and an Earldom.
There are other compelling reasons for believing Amicia was not a child by a
first unknown wife of Earl Hugh. The most prominent of Cheshire chronicles
[Richard Copley Christie, ed., _Annales Cestrienses, or, Chronicle of the Abbey
of S. Werburg at Chester_ (Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society)
14:xvii-xviii, 20-1, 24-5] records the birth of Earl Hugh in 1147, his marriage
to Bertrade in 1169, his knighting, etc. It is highly doubtful that this
chronicle, which focused on the family of their patron, the Earl of Chester,
would have overlooked an earlier marriage, and that such a marriage would be
overlooked in the Rolls Series as well. Also, the Earl and his wife Bertrade
were mentioned in many charters. If the Earl had had a first marriage, it
would be remarkable that there would be no charters involving her or that no
charters should be granted for the good of her soul (among the sould of his
ancestor, wife Bertrade, or others, as was typical).
So, (1) taking the Earl's young age at time of marriage, (2) comparing the
level of marriages of the Earl's known legitimate issue to Amicia's match with
a local gentleman (not even a Cheshire Baron, let alone a peer), and (3) the
omission of any mention of such a said previous marriage in chronicles,
foundation charters and accounts, etc., I see little reason to hold that Amicia
was the daughter of an unknown first marriage. Also, her marriage was granted
during the Earl's lifetime. Had the Earl's only son died before the Earl's
death (a scenario which not infrequently happened), Amicia would have been
senior daughter and coheir of her father. Given this possibility it is even
less likely the Earl would have married a legitimate daughter to Ralph and
given them only three knights' fees in frank marriage!
At the death of Earl Ranulph, it was found that his holdings throughout England
were worth more than four times the value of the palatinate County of Chester
[see Sir Geoffrey Ellis, _Earldoms in fee..._ (London, 1963), 108]. As such,
rather than dividing the Earldom of Chester, the eldest daughter Maud was
allowed the caput of the Earldom without division and the other three sisters
were satisfied with lands of like value elsewhere. Maud's son John 'le Scot'
was next Earl of Chester.
pcr
Douglas Richardson
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote:
> Though Doug's hypothesis that Amicia might have been daughter of
> Earl Hugh 'de
> Kevelioc' by a previous unknown marriage is technically possible,
> there are
> very good reasons for believing this is not the case, and that
> Amicia was
> illegitimate.
You've given us all the reasons why Amice must be illegitimate but none
why she might be legitimate. We need a more balanced view. The name
is actually Amice. Amicia is the Latin form.
> Hugh, Earl of Chester, and Vicomte d'Avranches, was born in 1147.
In the Beaumont book you cited below, I recall reading a record which
indicated that Earl Hugh was active as an adult in the 1150's. If that
citation is correct, then Earl Hugh was obviously born much earlier
than 1147. Can you find that citation and print it for us? That would
help the discussion.
> He married
> Bertrade de Montfort (a cousin of the King, who gave her away),
> daughter of
> Simon, Count d'Evreux, in 1169, when he would have hardly been
> twenty-two.
If Earl Hugh was born in the 1130's, then he would have been in his
mid-30's in 1169 and probably a widower when he married Bertrade de
Montfort. In any case, given marriages arranged in childhood which
were consumated in teenaged years, a 22 year old man could have already
had severa; children by a first wife.
They had one son and four daughters, the son being Ranulph de
> Blundeville, Earl
> of Chester and Lincoln, who married as his first wife Constance
> (widow of the
> King's son), daughter of Conan, Earl of Richmond and Duke of
> Bretagne (by his
> wife Margaret of Scotland).
> Ranulph was born about 1172/3. His birth was preceded by that of
> his sister
> Maud, who was born in 1171. Of the four daughters who became
> heirs of their
> brother on his death in 1232,
> (1) Maud married David, Earl of Huntingdon, brother of William the
> Lion, King
> of Scotland.
> (2) Mabel married William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel and Sussex.
> (3) Alice married William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby.
> (4) Hawise, suo jure, Countess of Lincoln, married Robert de
> Quincy [son and
> heir apparent of the Earl of Winchester].
You left out Llewelyn's wife who would have been a fifth hitherto
unknown sister. Please pay attention to all the evidence Paul.
> Thus these four sisters married men of the highest rank in
> England--not just
> Earls, but many of the most powerful magnates of the realm.
Yes, they did.
Actually Paul I don't agree on most of these point. We don't have a
copy of all the original charters of this time period. Only some of
them have survived. Our knowledge of these people is only partial.
For example, until I found the Papal letter which mentioned Llewelyn's
wife, no one knew that Earl Hugh had another daughter. Since our
knowledge is partial, we have to carefully sort through the evidence
which has survived. We can't assume for example that Earl Hugh did
not have a first marriage. We just don't know.
> So, (1) taking the Earl's young age at time of marriage, (2)
> comparing the
> level of marriages of the Earl's known legitimate issue to
> Amicia's match with
> a local gentleman (not even a Cheshire Baron, let alone a peer),
> and (3) the
> omission of any mention of such a said previous marriage in
> chronicles,
> foundation charters and accounts, etc., I see little reason to
> hold that Amicia
> was the daughter of an unknown first marriage.
I'm aware of all of your arguments. If Earl Hugh was born in the
1130's and if he had a first wife, it is entirely possible that his
first wife did not enjoy the high social status that his second wife,
Bertrade de Montfort, did. As you duly note, Bertrade was kinswoman
of the king. If a first wife was inferior in rank to Bertrade, that
would affect how people viewed any of her children, including Amice.
Also, her marriage
> was granted
> during the Earl's lifetime. Had the Earl's only son died before
> the Earl's
> death (a scenario which not infrequently happened), Amicia would
> have been
> senior daughter and coheir of her father.
I guess you weren't reading what I posted this past week. If Amice was
born to an earlier marriage, then she would have been excluded from
being a co-heir with her younger half-sisters. In this period, full
sisters of Earl Ranulph inherited ahead of any half-sisters.
Consequently, the issue of the Chester inheritance CAN'T be used to
prove Amice's legitimacy or illegitimacy. The inheritance issue can
only be used to prove that Amice was not Earl Ranulph's full sister.
That's all.
Given this possibility it is even
> less likely the Earl would have married a legitimate daughter to
> Ralph and
> given them only three knights' fees in frank marriage!
Since you are adamant about this point, please tell us the maritagiums
of the other daughters of Earl Hugh. If not that, then how about
maritagiums for other Earls' daughters who married in this same period.
I'm aware of one such maritagium myself. The Earl of Warwick married
his daughter, Agnes, off to Geoffrey de Clinton the younger. As I
recall, he gave Agnes 15 knights' fees in marriage, of which ten were
already held by Geoffrey of the Earl. This would be tantamount to a
gift of five knights' fees, not far off Amice's maritagium of three
knights' fees.
One other point that comes to mind, we know the property Amice had in
England from her father as a maritagium. Earl Hugh also had extensive
land holdings in France. As such, it is entirely possible that Amice
was given additional property in France as a maritagium. If true, it
is impossible for us to know the exact extent of Amice's maritagium.
For all these reasons, I believe it is necessary to take a neutral
position regarding Amice's legitimacy.
DR
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In article <19991007072524...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote:
>
> > Also, her marriage was granted during the Earl's lifetime.
> > Had the Earl's only son died before the Earl's death (a
> > scenario which not infrequently happened), Amicia would
> > have been senior daughter and coheir of her father.
>
> I guess you weren't reading what I posted this past week. If Amice was
> born to an earlier marriage, then she would have been excluded from
> being a co-heir with her younger half-sisters. In this period, full
> sisters of Earl Ranulph inherited ahead of any half-sisters.
> Consequently, the issue of the Chester inheritance CAN'T be used to
> prove Amice's legitimacy or illegitimacy. The inheritance issue can
> only be used to prove that Amice was not Earl Ranulph's full sister.
> That's all.
Her position as non-heiress of Ranulph is not relevant to Paul's point
here. At the time of her marriage, Amice was not half-sister of the
Earl, she was eldest daughter. The arguments related to her being
half-sister, and thus not in line to inherit, are only relevant to a
period after Ranulph inherited from his father. Any time before the
death of Hugh, the premature death of Ranulph would have left a
legitimate Amice the senior heiress of her father. That is the position
- potential senior heiress of Hugh - that Paul is contrasting with the
social position of her husband.
taf
Reedpcgen
>You've given us all the reasons why Amice must be illegitimate but none
>why she might be legitimate. We need a more balanced view. >>
I cannot give you a more balanced view. The ONLY argument which would make
Amicia legitimate is the assumption that she was a daughter of Earl Hugh by a
wife he married before Bertrade. This is THEORETICALLY possible, but based on
what I presented, it seems wholly unbelievable.
WHAT EVIDENCE do you have ASIDE from this theoretical position that she was
legitimate? Any other good reason or fact would be nice. Do you have one,
Doug? ONE?
[Doug wrote:]
>
>In the Beaumont book you cited below, I recall reading a record which
>indicated that Earl Hugh was active as an adult in the 1150's.
The tracts concerning Amice [whom they call Amicia] do indeed ASSUME that Hugh
was an adult and born earlier. BUT there is no documentary evidence of it, and
BOTH sides were then [amazingly] ignorant of the Chronicle of St. Werburg.
PLUS the original arguments were being presented so that the Mainwarings could
quarter the Chester arms and avoid any taint of bastardy or honour, which bears
on motivation.
[Doug wrote:]
>In any case, given marriages arranged in childhood which
>were consumated in teenaged years, a 22 year old man could have already
>had severa; children by a first wife.
Yes, it is POSSIBLE, but what EVIDENCE of this do you have? By this same
argument you had John de Braose marrying Margaret as a child, rather than a
twenty-two year old adult. IF Earl Hugh had married before his union with
Bertrade, he would have had to do it with the permission of his guardian, which
meant it would be an advantageous match to a bride of very respectable social
status, not an obscure woman.
[Doug wrote:]
>Actually Paul I don't agree on most of these point. We don't have a
>copy of all the original charters of this time period.
We have extensive numbers of charters for the Earls of Chester, there is a
whole book of them , and Bertrade appears as a witness in a whole slew of them
[Geoffrey Barraclough, ed., _The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071-1237_ (Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, v. 126) (1988)]. The
charter concerning Amicia [NB this authoritative book also refers to her as
Amicia, not Amice] is no. 193 (pp. 198-9). I quote from the commentary:
"Today, probably, no one questions that Amicia was an illegitimate daughter of
Hugh II. As Hugh was born in 1147, it is not difficult to calculate that the
date of the present charter must be c. 1180, or conceivably a year or two
earlier."
Now Doug, how is it that all these scholars who have formidable knowledge of
original source records for Cheshire keep missing what only you discover?
[Doug wrote:]
>partial.
>For example, until I found the Papal letter which mentioned Llewelyn's
>wife, no one knew that Earl Hugh had another daughter. Since our
>knowledge is partial, we have to carefully sort through the evidence
>which has survived.
I was under the impression that Lloyd was aware of the whole situation many
decades ago. Were you ignorant of Lloyd? But I agree with your statement that
"we have to carefully sort through the EVIDENCE which has survived."
I have presented sources, evidence, and analysis, and it was carefully reasoned
out. I have, in fact, documentary evidence to support my conclusion. Again,
aside from the theoretical possibility presented before, what EVIDENCE or
rationale do you have to convince us that Amicia should NOT be illegitimate?
[If you are going to blow about opinions without specifics, we might as well
argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.]
>
>I guess you weren't reading what I posted this past week. If Amice was
>born to an earlier marriage, then she would have been excluded from
>being a co-heir with her younger half-sisters.
No, I did read your posts. You did not clearly read what I wrote. I stated
that IF Amicia were daughter by a first marriage, and that IF Hugh's only son
died before he did, THEN Amicia (by your theory) would be the eldest daughter
and EQUAL coheir with her half-sisters. It would be Hugh that was the
PROPOSITUS. His son would only become the propositus if he survived Hugh.
The reason I stated that this argument should hold such weight in consideration
is that it would have (in the case that Hugh had no son who outlived him)
Amicia becoming heir of the senior purparty, and thus heiress of the Earldom of
Chester, making the Mainwaring family [who did not ever attain peerage in the
direct line] Earls of Chester!
pcr