Early MONTGOMERYs
THERON L. SMITH
the MONTGOMERY line):
< ... van Houts concluded that the pedigree ran as follows:
(name unknown, father of Gunnora and her siblings)
Senfria
[QUESTION: Was Wevia same as Senfria?]
<Josceline m. Hugh de Montgomery
Roger de Montgomery
Roger de Montgomery m. Mabel.
<In this she has been followed by both Thompson and Keats-Rohan.
I will take these three historians over anything in an LDS file
any day.><
I have had trouble in untangling and/or verifying this line of
MONTGOMERYs who are, of course, ancestors of Isabella Of Angouleme,
wife of King John.
Using Todd's posting plus the following secondary sources
Moriarty, PLANTAGENT ANCESTRY, 44-45
Ancestral Roots("Weis"), 7th Edition, 1992 (153-26; 185-1)
D. Spencer Hines' Sep 2, 1998 posting
Stuart's ROYALTY FOR COMMONERS, 3d Edition, 1998 (87-29;
335-32 thru 38; 360-32),
I came up with the following revision of my line of interest:
1. Hugh de Montgomery
+Josceline
2. Roger de Montgomery (I)
+N.N.
3. Roger de Montgomery (II)
+Mabel Talvas
4. Roger de Montgomery (III)
+ Adelmonde de la Marche, daughter of Adalbert II, Count de la
Haute Marche
5. Pancia de la Marche (Moriarty 45; Stuart 87-29)
+ Wulgrim II "Tallefer", Count of Angouleme (AR7:153-26;
doesn't show wife)
4. Maud (Matilda) de Montgomery
+ Robert Mortain
Moriarty apparently placed generation 1 and 2 above as one
generation, making Josceline the wife of Roger (I) and not showing
a Roger with unknown wife.
Stuart almost got it right. He corrected Moriarty's apparent error,
but then two fatal flaws appear in the 2d and 3d editions: (a)
Mabel Talvas is placed as wife of BOTH Roger (I) and (II); (b)
Roger (II) and Roger (III) were confused in the 1st Ed.; apparently
there were plans to show Roger(III), father of Pancia, in a new line
406-32 (see forward reference at 87-29) in the 2d Ed., but line 406
was never added in the 2d Ed.; in the 3d Ed, the dangling reference
to 406-32 is still in 87-29, but in that edition line 406 was used
for an extension to certain Pict lines!
Any critique will be greatly appreciated. Am I getting close?
Regards,
Theron Smith.
raymond l montgomery
Here is what i have on the early Montgomery's
It disagrees with what this keats woman writes however.
I have that roger Montgomery i below was married to josceline de
pontaudemere
and that his father hugh married a sister of gunnora named sibella. and
that josceline was her neice. This is very probably correct as josceline
would have been of the younger generation as a neice instead of the
older.
This is from the book Catolog and succesion of the kings 1619 by york
herald Raphe Brook 1619
and also another book called fragments with which i did not put in very
good notes.
This also follows the memorials of the montgomeries by Fraser. with the
book on the arrundels by yeatman
I would really like to see the primary records this woman uses to state
such claims.
i would also really like to see how the Montgomeries befire Hugh where
shown to be the counts of Heismois?
Any one have the answers to this one!
Sincerely
RAY
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Sutliff
raymond l montgomery wrote:
> Theron
> Here is what i have on the early Montgomery's
> It disagrees with what this keats woman writes however.
> I have that roger Montgomery i below was married to josceline de
> pontaudemere
> and that his father hugh married a sister of gunnora named sibella. and
> that josceline was her neice. This is very probably correct as josceline
> would have been of the younger generation as a neice instead of the
> older.
> This is from the book Catolog and succesion of the kings 1619 by york
> herald Raphe Brook 1619
> and also another book called fragments with which i did not put in very
> good notes.
> This also follows the memorials of the montgomeries by Fraser. with the
> book on the arrundels by yeatman
> I would really like to see the primary records this woman uses to state
> such claims.
> i would also really like to see how the Montgomeries befire Hugh where
> shown to be the counts of Heismois?
> Any one have the answers to this one!
> Sincerely
> RAY
<snip>
Referring to Dr. Katharine Keats-Rohan of the Unit for Prosopographical
Research at Linacre College, Oxford as "this keats woman" is a particularly
harsh opinion of a very respected researcher. Your equally amazing statement
"I would really like to see the primary records this woman uses to state such
claims" is very puzzling. Are you suggesting that K-R does not have your
knowledge, experience and expertise with primary medieval records or that she
is incompetent at evaluating them?
In fact, discarding her contemporary research in favor of the work of one of
the heralds from 1619 is mystifying. Have you actually seen any of
Keats-Rohan's work and documentation?
Todd Farmerie uses Dr. Keats-Rohan, along with Elizabeth M. C. Van Houts and
Kathleen Thompson as his sources for his article on Gunnora, Duchess of
Normandy (http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/gunnor.htm). Todd does not show a
sister of Gunnora named Sibella, but rather makes Joscelina, daughter of
Senfria (Seinfreda). If K-R is unreliable in your view, is Todd also?
Ray, sorry for climbing up on a soapbox, but I think you took a cheap shot at
respected researcher. I do not mean to offend or embarrass you, but I just
couldn't let what I believe is an injustice go unchallenged.
Regards,
Henry Sutliff
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Monday, July 19, 1999 11:00 AM, Todd wrote (relative to
> the MONTGOMERY line):
> < ... van Houts concluded that the pedigree ran as follows:
>
> (name unknown, father of Gunnora and her siblings)
> Senfria
>
> [QUESTION: Was Wevia same as Senfria?]
No. Conflicting records provide different information. One calls
Joscelina daughter of Wevia (and husband Osbert de Bolbec) while the
other, which dates from almost exactly te same time, calls her daughter
of Senfria, Wevia's sister. Because of the inheritance patterns,
Senfria is the more likely mother.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Here is what i have on the early Montgomery's
> It disagrees with what this keats woman writes however.
For those of you unfamiliar with this reference, 'this keats woman' is
Dr. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, Director for the Unit for
Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, Oxford. However, the
conclusions being questioned actually come from the work of Dr.
Elizabeth van Houts.
> I have that roger Montgomery i below was married to josceline de
> pontaudemere
> and that his father hugh married a sister of gunnora named sibella. and
> that josceline was her neice. This is very probably correct as josceline
> would have been of the younger generation as a neice instead of the
> older.
This is very probably INcorrect, since first cousins were prohibited to
marry (plus Gunnora didn't have a sister named Sibella, plus Josceline
married Hugh). In fact, one of the two sources that we have for the
descent of the Montgomerys is a prohibition of marriage between third
cousins, descendants of Gunnora and her sister Senfria (according to the
source). This source specifically states that Roger de Montgomery was
son of Hugh de Montgomery and his wife Josceline, daughter of Senfria,
sister of Gunnora. A second source, dating from ca. 1139 but clearly
based on earlier material, records the same descent, with the sole
difference that Wevia was given as mother of Josceline, rather than
Wevia's sister Senfria.
> This is from the book Catolog and succesion of the kings 1619 by york
> herald Raphe Brook 1619
> and also another book called fragments with which i did not put in very
> good notes.
> This also follows the memorials of the montgomeries by Fraser. with the
> book on the arrundels by yeatman
1619 - only 650 years after the events it is describing.
> I would really like to see the primary records this woman uses to state
> such claims.
The records 'this woman' uses are Robert de Torigny's redaction of Gesta
Normannorum Ducum, which dates to approximately 1139, and the second is
a letter written by a bishop addressing an impediment to the marriage of
a son of Henry I to a gaughter of the Montgomerys.
Now it's your turn. What primary records does 'this brook guy' use for
his pedigree? How about Fraser or Yeatman?
> i would also really like to see how the Montgomeries befire Hugh where
> shown to be the counts of Heismois?
The Montgomerys before Hugh can't be shown to exist, let alone be Counts
of anywhere. In fact, before Hugh's time, there were NO Norman counts,
the first being Richard I's sons, and his younger half-brother. The
Montgomerys before Hugh are almost certainly invented in their entirety.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd Farmerie uses Dr. Keats-Rohan, along with Elizabeth M. C. Van Houts and
> Kathleen Thompson as his sources for his article on Gunnora, Duchess of
> Normandy (http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/gunnor.htm).
I should point out that the post which has been placed on this web page
is several years out of date, and I have a revision in the works that
incorporates several more recent references, but I am waiting on an
interlibrary loan request.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
sources which address the parentage of Roger de Montgomery (husband of
Mabel). And they conflict with each other. Robert de Torigny wrote, in
his c.1139 redaction of William de Jumieges' Gesta Normannorum Ducum,
that Roger was son of Hugh de Montgomery by his wife Josceline, daughter
of Wevia. A slightly earlier source is a letter written by a Norman
clergyman (whose name escapes me) addressing a genealogical impediment
to the marriage of one of Henry I's illegitimate sons to a Montgomery
daughter. It provides very similar information, with one key difference
- that Josceline, wife of Hugh and mother of Roger, is given as daughter
of Senfria. Finally, there is a contemporary donation in which Roger
specifically names his father as Roger. That is the evidence, and all
the rest is derived one way or another from this evidence.
1) who was Josceline's mother. Most sources are split between accepting
Wevia and Senfria, based on whether they feel the historian or the
clergyman is more reliable. Thompson pointed out however that the
Mongomerys had extensive properties, most probably deriving from this
marriage, and this suggsts that Josceline was a substantial heiress.
Wevia had at least two sons, and perhaps several daughters, while
Senfria is not known to have had any sons, so she concluded that
Josceline was more likely daughter of the latter.
2) what is the parentage of Roger. Past recostructions have been split
in either proclaiming the charter or the combined testimony of historian
and priest erroneous regarding the name of the person involved. Thus
Roger is shown as either son of Hugh and Josceline (rejecting the
charter) or of Roger and Josceline (altering the testimony of the
historian and clergyman). The biggest problem with both of these
reconstructions is the chronology, for Roger de Montgomery was a
contemporary (perhaps even younger contemporary) of William the
Conqueror, yet these descents place him in the generation before
William, in spite of having an additional female in the line, which
normally shortens the average generation time. This it would appear
that the descent is missing a generation. (Note that Robert de Torigny
probably dropped a generation at two other places (Warenne and Giffard)
where there were two successive men of the same name.) This allows for
a solution which is more in line with all three sources as well as
chronology. Specifically, the Roger de Montgomery who was son of Hugh
and Josceline was the Roger, father of Roger named in the contemporary
grant, and not the Conqueror's comanion himself. This novel (at the
time) suggestion does a good job of harmonizing the available sources,
and from my perspective, must take precidence over prior
reconstructions.
taf
raymond l montgomery
What is the work you are waiting on?
Perhaps i have it available to me here is Salt Lake?
also what are the names of the manuscripts you are using below?
Sincereley
RAY
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:56:17 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
writes:
___________________________________________________________________
raymond l montgomery
Thanks for this chastizement! i was being harsh!
I do need to be less direct in some things. perhaps this is one of them.
I do appreicate the advice!
but at the same time I have extracted every records i could from hundreds
of sources and then i am stomped on by what seems to be in todds
estimation this keats woman.
I do not see her or him pointing out the documents that i have stated.
but my research is brushed aside as of no worth. How exasperating!!!!
Agian thanks for the word of advice.
I shall find her work and read it!
Sincereley
RAY
Sutliff <ss...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
>raymond l montgomery wrote:
>
>> Theron
>> Here is what i have on the early Montgomery's
>> It disagrees with what this keats woman writes however.
>> I have that roger Montgomery i below was married to josceline de
>> pontaudemere
>> and that his father hugh married a sister of gunnora named sibella.
>and
>> that josceline was her neice. This is very probably correct as
>josceline
>> would have been of the younger generation as a neice instead of the
>> older.
>> This is from the book Catolog and succesion of the kings 1619 by
>york
>> herald Raphe Brook 1619
>> and also another book called fragments with which i did not put in
>very
>> good notes.
>> This also follows the memorials of the montgomeries by Fraser. with
>the
>> book on the arrundels by yeatman
>> I would really like to see the primary records this woman uses to
>state
>> such claims.
>> i would also really like to see how the Montgomeries befire Hugh
>where
>> shown to be the counts of Heismois?
>> Any one have the answers to this one!
>> Sincerely
>> RAY
>
><snip>
>
>Referring to Dr. Katharine Keats-Rohan of the Unit for
>Prosopographical
>Research at Linacre College, Oxford as "this keats woman" is a
>particularly
>harsh opinion of a very respected researcher. Your equally amazing
>statement
>"I would really like to see the primary records this woman uses to
>state such
>claims" is very puzzling. Are you suggesting that K-R does not have
>your
>knowledge, experience and expertise with primary medieval records or
>that she
>is incompetent at evaluating them?
>
>In fact, discarding her contemporary research in favor of the work of
>one of
>the heralds from 1619 is mystifying. Have you actually seen any of
>Keats-Rohan's work and documentation?
>
>Todd Farmerie uses Dr. Keats-Rohan, along with Elizabeth M. C. Van
>Houts and
>Kathleen Thompson as his sources for his article on Gunnora, Duchess
>of
>Normandy (http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/gunnor.htm). Todd does not
>show a
>sister of Gunnora named Sibella, but rather makes Joscelina, daughter
>of
>Senfria (Seinfreda). If K-R is unreliable in your view, is Todd also?
>
>Ray, sorry for climbing up on a soapbox, but I think you took a cheap
>shot at
>respected researcher. I do not mean to offend or embarrass you, but I
>just
>couldn't let what I believe is an injustice go unchallenged.
>
>Regards,
>
>Henry Sutliff
>
___________________________________________________________________
raymond l montgomery
See my comments below.
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:54:46 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
writes:
>raymond l montgomery wrote:
>>
>> Here is what i have on the early Montgomery's
>> It disagrees with what this keats woman writes however.
>
>For those of you unfamiliar with this reference, 'this keats woman' is
>Dr. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, Director for the Unit for
>Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, Oxford. However, the
>conclusions being questioned actually come from the work of Dr.
>Elizabeth van Houts.
What is the work you are speaking of and what are her sources?
>> I have that roger Montgomery i below was married to josceline de
>> pontaudemere
>> and that his father hugh married a sister of gunnora named sibella.
>and
>> that josceline was her neice. This is very probably correct as
>josceline
>> would have been of the younger generation as a neice instead of the
>> older.
>
>This is very probably INcorrect, since first cousins were prohibited
>to
>marry (plus Gunnora didn't have a sister named Sibella, plus Josceline
>married Hugh). In fact, one of the two sources that we have for the
>descent of the Montgomerys is a prohibition of marriage between third
>cousins, descendants of Gunnora and her sister Senfria (according to
>the
>source). This source specifically states that Roger de Montgomery was
>son of Hugh de Montgomery and his wife Josceline, daughter of Senfria,
>sister of Gunnora. A second source, dating from ca. 1139 but clearly
>based on earlier material, records the same descent, with the sole
>difference that Wevia was given as mother of Josceline, rather than
>Wevia's sister Senfria.
Thank you for pointing this out. My data base has been corrected
accordingly,
Agian this source as you call it shows that senfria is the mother of
Josceline.
Why do you assign her to wevie?
>> This is from the book Catolog and succesion of the kings 1619 by
>york
>> herald Raphe Brook 1619
>> and also another book called fragments with which i did not put in
>very
>> good notes.
>> This also follows the memorials of the montgomeries by Fraser. with
>the
>> book on the arrundels by yeatman
>
>1619 - only 650 years after the events it is describing.
>
>> I would really like to see the primary records this woman uses to
>state
>> such claims.
>
>The records 'this woman' uses are Robert de Torigny's redaction of
>Gesta
>Normannorum Ducum, which dates to approximately 1139, and the second
>is
>a letter written by a bishop addressing an impediment to the marriage
>of
>a son of Henry I to a gaughter of the Montgomerys.
>
>Now it's your turn. What primary records does 'this brook guy' use
>for
>his pedigree? How about Fraser or Yeatman?
Fraser was quoting if i remember right the ayrshire history that used the
memorials and documents that where then available in eglington castle
before the fire.
AS i do not have yeatman handy i must pass on his sources.
Sincerely
RAY
>> i would also really like to see how the Montgomeries befire Hugh
>where
>> shown to be the counts of Heismois?
>
>The Montgomerys before Hugh can't be shown to exist, let alone be
>Counts
>of anywhere. In fact, before Hugh's time, there were NO Norman
>counts,
>the first being Richard I's sons, and his younger half-brother. The
>Montgomerys before Hugh are almost certainly invented in their
>entirety.
>
>taf
>
___________________________________________________________________
raymond l montgomery
RAY
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:17:01 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
writes:
>Let me just lay out the origin of the question. We have three ancient
>sources which address the parentage of Roger de Montgomery (husband of
>Mabel). And they conflict with each other. Robert de Torigny wrote,
>in
>his c.1139 redaction of William de Jumieges' Gesta Normannorum Ducum,
>daughter
>of Wevia. A slightly earlier source is a letter written by a Norman
>clergyman (whose name escapes me) addressing a genealogical impediment
>to the marriage of one of Henry I's illegitimate sons to a Montgomery
>daughter. It provides very similar information, with one key
>difference
>- that Josceline, wife of Hugh and mother of Roger, is given as
>daughter
>of Senfria. Finally, there is a contemporary donation in which Roger
>specifically names his father as Roger. That is the evidence, and all
>the rest is derived one way or another from this evidence.
rogers.
It is the charter to toarne There roger was called roger son of roger the
great.
As the first roger father of roger did nothing to cause him to be called
the great it must have been for two rogers previous to hugh and his son
and grandson named roger.
Also this roger the great is called the norseman or norman. showing that
he must be from the time of the influx of norsemen at the time of rollo.
See Yeatman origins of the arrundels
Wevie was married to De forrester who it appears did not own very much
property whom you are stating as the source for the montgomerys lands.
Where as senfria's family was very wealthy. how ever this does not
matter as it appears that the montgomery's owned these lands previous to
the marriage with joceline. I dont have the list here in front of me but
there where several.
>1) who was Josceline's mother. Most sources are split between
>accepting
>Wevia and Senfria, based on whether they feel the historian or the
>clergyman is more reliable. Thompson pointed out however that the
>Mongomerys had extensive properties, most probably deriving from this
>marriage, and this suggsts that Josceline was a substantial heiress.
>Wevia had at least two sons, and perhaps several daughters, while
>Senfria is not known to have had any sons, so she concluded that
>Josceline was more likely daughter of the latter.
>
>2) what is the parentage of Roger. Past recostructions have been
>split
>in either proclaiming the charter or the combined testimony of
>historian
>and priest erroneous regarding the name of the person involved. Thus
>Roger is shown as either son of Hugh and Josceline (rejecting the
>charter) or of Roger and Josceline (altering the testimony of the
>historian and clergyman).
What charter are you speaking of here??
if it is the charter of toarne (not sure of spelling here as going from
memory) this charter does not list the names of wifes.
Also yeatman shows documents if i remember right that proved the count of
heismois status. This property (heismois) had been esheated to the crown
so how did the montgomerys come up with it?
The biggest problem with both of these
>reconstructions is the chronology, for Roger de Montgomery was a
>contemporary (perhaps even younger contemporary) of William the
>Conqueror, yet these descents place him in the generation before
>William, in spite of having an additional female in the line, which
>normally shortens the average generation time. This it would appear
>that the descent is missing a generation. (Note that Robert de
>Torigny
>probably dropped a generation at two other places (Warenne and
>Giffard)
>where there were two successive men of the same name.) This allows
>for
>a solution which is more in line with all three sources as well as
>chronology. Specifically, the Roger de Montgomery who was son of Hugh
>and Josceline was the Roger, father of Roger named in the contemporary
>grant, and not the Conqueror's comanion himself. This novel (at the
>time) suggestion does a good job of harmonizing the available sources,
>and from my perspective, must take precidence over prior
>reconstructions.
if this is based on the toarne charter then it would still be invalid.
There is one source which you have not brought up which seems to be based
on the memorials in the eglington castle that where extact at the time.
This castle later burned destroying this data.
This county history (history of ayrshire) is the same as the history
found in the manuscript in the biblioth library in paris france.
I have changed this pedigree how ever to show the data that was provided
in fragments and the herald of york pedigree.
how ever i now feel from the data you have provided that this is wrong
and i should have followed the above.
This history showed the following.
Roger married to mabelle
Hugh married to Senfrie
Gwilliam married to elizabeth tripon? is any one aware of this familiy?
and then several rogers to roger the great.
Todd A. Farmerie
> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:54:46 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
> writes:
> >raymond l montgomery wrote:
> >>
> >> Here is what i have on the early Montgomery's
> >> It disagrees with what this keats woman writes however.
> >
> >For those of you unfamiliar with this reference, 'this keats woman' is
> >Dr. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, Director for the Unit for
> >Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, Oxford. However, the
> >conclusions being questioned actually come from the work of Dr.
> >Elizabeth van Houts.
> What is the work you are speaking of and what are her sources?
Take a look at the following. They rely primarily on the sources that
we have been discussing:
Elisabeth M C van Houts. Robert of Torigni as Genealogist. in Studies in
Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, p.215-33.
Kathleen Thompson. The Norman Aristocracy before 1066: the Example of
the Montgomerys. in Historical Research 60:251-63.
> >This is very probably INcorrect, since first cousins were
> >prohibited to marry (plus Gunnora didn't have a sister named
> >Sibella, plus Josceline married Hugh). In fact, one of the two
> >sources that we have for the descent of the Montgomerys is a
> >prohibition of marriage between third cousins, descendants of
> >Gunnora and her sister Senfria (according to the source). This
> >source specifically states that Roger de Montgomery was son of
> >Hugh de Montgomery and his wife Josceline, daughter of Senfria,
> >sister of Gunnora. A second source, dating from ca. 1139 but
> >clearly based on earlier material, records the same descent,
> >with the sole difference that Wevia was given as mother of
> >Josceline, rather than Wevia's sister Senfria.
> Thank you for pointing this out. My data base has been corrected
> accordingly,
> Agian this source as you call it shows that senfria is the mother of
> Josceline.
> Why do you assign her to wevie?
I don't. Robert de Torigny does. Bishop Ivo calls her daughter of
Senfria. Analysis of the socio-political situation leads Thompson, van
Houts, and Keats-Rohan (and me) to agree that Josceline was more likely
daughter of Senfria.
taf
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:17:01 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
> writes:
> >Let me just lay out the origin of the question. We have three ancient
> >sources which address the parentage of Roger de Montgomery (husband of
> >Mabel). And they conflict with each other. Robert de Torigny wrote,
> >in his c.1139 redaction of William de Jumieges' Gesta Normannorum
> >Ducum, that Roger was son of Hugh de Montgomery by his wife Josceline,
> >daughter of Wevia. A slightly earlier source is a letter written by a
> >Norman clergyman (whose name escapes me) addressing a genealogical
> >impediment to the marriage of one of Henry I's illegitimate sons to a
> >Montgomery daughter. It provides very similar information, with one
> >key difference - that Josceline, wife of Hugh and mother of Roger, is
> >given as daughter of Senfria. Finally, there is a contemporary
> >donation in which Roger specifically names his father as Roger. That
> >is the evidence, and all the rest is derived one way or another from
> >this evidence.
> This contemporary evidence as you call it is dated previous to these two
> rogers.
Are you questioning that it is contemporary?
> It is the charter to toarne There roger was called roger son of roger the
> great.
> As the first roger father of roger did nothing to cause him to be called
> the great it must have been for two rogers previous to hugh and his son
> and grandson named roger.
What did this hypothetical older Roger do to be called 'the great'? How
can we draw this conclusion when this document is the only record we
have of any 'earlier' Roger? Likewise, if you change the dating of this
charter to predate Hugh, then there is no documentary evidence for a
Roger as father of Roger, wife of Mabel.
> Also this roger the great is called the norseman or norman. showing that
> he must be from the time of the influx of norsemen at the time of rollo.
William the Conqueror and his companions were caled Norman, so how is
this useful in dating?
> See Yeatman origins of the arrundels
If you have this handy, why don't you quote the original charter.
> Wevie was married to De forrester who it appears did not own very much
> property whom you are stating as the source for the montgomerys lands.
Wevia married Osbert de Bolbec, not a forester and definitely not De
(of) Forrester. The Forester (title, not surname) was Senfria's
husband.
> Where as senfria's family was very wealthy.
What family. She has no (other) known child, as opposed to Wevia, from
whom the Giffards and Martels come.
> how ever this does not
> matter as it appears that the montgomery's owned these lands previous to
> the marriage with joceline. I dont have the list here in front of me but
> there where several.
Again, what is the evidence (other than the one charter you mention
above, the dating of which is subject to debate) for any Montgomerys
prior to Hugh?
> >2) what is the parentage of Roger. Past recostructions have been
> >split in either proclaiming the charter or the combined testimony of
> >historian and priest erroneous regarding the name of the person
> >involved. Thus Roger is shown as either son of Hugh and Josceline
> >(rejecting the charter) or of Roger and Josceline (altering the
> >testimony of the historian and clergyman).
> What charter are you speaking of here??
> if it is the charter of toarne (not sure of spelling here as going from
> memory) this charter does not list the names of wifes.
I am not saying that it does, only that it states that Roger was son of
Roger (not Hugh). In so doing, it is in conflict with the historian
(Robert de Torigny) and the priest (Bishop? Ivo). (This of course
assumes that it is refering to Roger, husband of Mabel.)
> Also yeatman shows documents if i remember right that proved the count of
> heismois status. This property (heismois) had been esheated to the crown
> so how did the montgomerys come up with it?
What were these documents. This question, of when the first Norman
Counts were named was addressed by Douglas:
Douglas, David C. "The Earliest Norman Counts." EHR 61 (1946): 129-156.
And he concluded that there were no Counts before Richard I's time, and
none outside Richard's immediate family until later than that. If we
don't know HOW the Montgomerys came to posess the property in question,
how do we know WHEN?
> The biggest problem with both of these
> >reconstructions is the chronology, for Roger de Montgomery was a
> >contemporary (perhaps even younger contemporary) of William the
> >Conqueror, yet these descents place him in the generation before
> >William, in spite of having an additional female in the line, which
> >normally shortens the average generation time. This it would appear
> >that the descent is missing a generation. (Note that Robert de
> >Torigny
> >probably dropped a generation at two other places (Warenne and
> >Giffard)
> >where there were two successive men of the same name.) This allows
> >for
> >a solution which is more in line with all three sources as well as
> >chronology. Specifically, the Roger de Montgomery who was son of Hugh
> >and Josceline was the Roger, father of Roger named in the contemporary
> >grant, and not the Conqueror's comanion himself. This novel (at the
> >time) suggestion does a good job of harmonizing the available sources,
> >and from my perspective, must take precidence over prior
> >reconstructions.
> if this is based on the toarne charter then it would still be invalid.
Only if it can be shown that this charter predates Hugh. However, if I
follow Yeatman's argument, to conclude that it can't refer to Roger,
husband of Mabel of Belleme just because we don't know enough about an
immediate predicessor Roger to recognize someone who would be called
"Great", and instead assign it 100 years earlier, to two Rogers about
whom we have no other evidence, is not something that engenders much
faith.
> There is one source which you have not brought up which seems to be based
> on the memorials in the eglington castle that where extact at the time.
> This castle later burned destroying this data.
> This county history (history of ayrshire) is the same as the history
> found in the manuscript in the biblioth library in paris france.
Perhaps this is not a coincidence, that they based their reconstruction
on the same lost tradition. Unfortunate as it is, lost charters are
lost, and any source relying on lost charters must be srcuitinized
carefully. Unless it provided specific quotes of the documents in
question, you don't know what the exact source for the conclusions might
be.
> This history showed the following.
> Roger married to mabelle
> Hugh married to Senfrie
> Gwilliam married to elizabeth tripon? is any one aware of this familiy?
> and then several rogers to roger the great.
What evidence is there for this William? What documents were cited in
support of him and his wife?
taf