Ida was Pateshull, Grandison, Tregoz, etc. {Parts 2 and 3}
Adrian Channing
>
> This identification of "Countess Ida", mother of William Longespee, with
> the Countess of Bolougne of that name was suggested by Evans, but the
> last time she was discussed in this group someone (pcr or Nat Taylor?)
> presented chronological data that made it pretty unlikely. From what I
> have seen here and elsewhere, the future wife of the Earl of Norfolk is
> the only nominated candidate that matches what little we know. (This
> identification was published, without discussion in Roberts' book on
> royal descents, based on unpublished work of Douglas Richardson.)
>
I rather thought that the Gen-Medieval discussions on Ida Bigod countess of
Norfolk had also ruled her out as mother of William Longespee?
My money is that Countess Ida was connected to the Giffard family
Complete Peerage Vol V page 642 part of note c):
QUOTE with my remarks in square brackets:
"John [Giffard b bfr 1233 died 29 May 1299] and Maud, [that is Maud de
Clifford] ] and her 1st husband William Lungespee, [the III, g-son of
William Longespee I] were all descended from Richard fitz Ponce [the
progenitor of the Cliffords]. Why John Giffard should have referred to
himself as being of the race of Le Lungespee - as in the proof of age
mentioned above [in CP] he is said to have done - is not explicable;
unless, indeed the sobriquet was derived from the family of Clifford."
UNQUOTE
But the argument that the term "Le Lungespee" came from the Clifford family
seems to be based on the assumption that William Longespee's mother was
Maud/Rosamund Clifford. If that m. no longer holds and William Longespee
was not descended from the Cliffords, then an explanation of the use of
this term could be that William I's mother was of the same race of Le
Lungespee as John Giffard.
I don't know if it is of any relevance, but it would be easy to mistake
Gliffard for Clifford in a written document.
There was another William Longsword [ie Longespee] at this time, that is
the son of Count William III of Montferrat. In 1176 he went to Jerusalem,
married Sibylla, the heiress of the kingdom but then died within a few
months, leaving a posthumous son, later Baldwin V. Sibylla then married
Guy de Lusignan. I wonder if he was also of the race Le Lungespee?
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
Nathaniel Taylor
ACha...@compuserve.com (Adrian Channing) wrote:
This all hinges on the idea that such a sobriquet must have been inherited
to be used, and that all users of this sobriquet must be related. The
same idea is used in the facetious connection of unrelated people who used
the cognomen "Taillefer" in the period. In fact, "Longsword" had been
used early on for one of the earliest, most important dukes of Normandy,
so why would it not be applied to another William [albeit a bastard] of
the royal house? As for the quotation from CP, people calling themselves
"of the race of the Longsword" do not imply that this was an inherited
surname, merely that there was some consanguinity between Giffard &
Longsword. Now what was it?
Nat Taylor
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/23/1999 7:05:37 AM, ACha...@COMPUSERVE.COM writes:
<< I don't know if it is of any relevance, but it would be easy to mistake
Gliffard for Clifford in a written document. >>
Yes, this may be significant and may require a trip back to the original
sources to see if these references are indisputably Clifford or Giffard. The
C and G can be misinterpreted and the 'l' stroke could be lost--especially if
it were by my careless hand. In the scripting actually used it may be unlikely
to drop an 'l'. Anyway, this is an interesting point.
- Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
Todd A. Farmerie
> I rather thought that the Gen-Medieval discussions on Ida Bigod countess of
> Norfolk had also ruled her out as mother of William Longespee?
Not anything that I saw. (Other than the one poster who did not accept
that William could be trusted to provide his mother's name at all.)
Perhaps if you can find what gave you this impression and repost it . .
. .
> My money is that Countess Ida was connected to the Giffard family
>
> Complete Peerage Vol V page 642 part of note c):
>
> QUOTE with my remarks in square brackets:
> "John [Giffard b bfr 1233 died 29 May 1299] and Maud, [that is Maud de
> Clifford] ] and her 1st husband William Lungespee, [the III, g-son of
> William Longespee I] were all descended from Richard fitz Ponce [the
> progenitor of the Cliffords]. Why John Giffard should have referred to
> himself as being of the race of Le Lungespee - as in the proof of age
> mentioned above [in CP] he is said to have done - is not explicable;
> unless, indeed the sobriquet was derived from the family of Clifford."
> UNQUOTE
>
> But the argument that the term "Le Lungespee" came from the Clifford family
> seems to be based on the assumption that William Longespee's mother was
> Maud/Rosamund Clifford. If that m. no longer holds and William Longespee
> was not descended from the Cliffords, then an explanation of the use of
> this term could be that William I's mother was of the same race of Le
> Lungespee as John Giffard.
The Rosamund Clifford thing is out. As to Longespee, one need not look
very far to figure out where Henry II's son got it. Not only was it a
nickname used by his distant ancestor, the second Duke of Normandy, but
it was also a nickname applied to Henry II's brother, William
Longespee. That being the case, he didn't get it from his mother. What
Gifford had in mind is another story. Perhaps it harkens back to the
supposed descent of the Giffords from the step-son of Duke William I
Longespee of Normandy.
> There was another William Longsword [ie Longespee] at this time, that is
> the son of Count William III of Montferrat. In 1176 he went to Jerusalem,
> married Sibylla, the heiress of the kingdom but then died within a few
> months, leaving a posthumous son, later Baldwin V. Sibylla then married
> Guy de Lusignan. I wonder if he was also of the race Le Lungespee?
There was also a William Longespee involved in the siege of Lisbon (or
is this the same one). Clearly, Longespee was a nickname appearing
frequently with the name William, and need not imply relationship.
taf
Adrian Channing
taf,
> Adrian Channing wrote:
>
> > I rather thought that the Gen-Medieval discussions on Ida Bigod
countess of
> > Norfolk had also ruled her out as mother of William Longespee?
>
> Not anything that I saw. (Other than the one poster who did not accept
> that William could be trusted to provide his mother's name at all.)
> Perhaps if you can find what gave you this impression and repost it . .
> .
After checking the Ida messages, I agree,sorry, a failing memory on my
part. The only discovery was that she may have been a de Thouy which might
be a mistake for de Thony.
I guess you are right, but I wonder why the name was only applied to Henry
II illegitimate children William and Geoffrey. I have not seen the name
used by any of his legitimate issue.
Not much has been said about this Geoffrey Longespee. I have him as b 1159
d, 18 Dec 1212 in Gresmont, Normandy; Chancellor and Archbishop of York.
In c1208 banished by k John. Is there any evidence that his mother was the
same as William's, probably not in view of his date of birth.
At a little later date, Sir Maurice Powicke in The _Thirteenth Century_
mentioners a Roger Longespee, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1257-95)
kinsman of Henry III. I don't know how he fits in, and do not have him as
a descendant of William and Ela. The same author also mentions a Stephen
Longespee as friend of Edward (later king) in 1259, but he is presumably
the Stephen, son of William and Ela, who married Emmeline dau of Walter de
Ridellisford
> > There was another William Longsword [ie Longespee] at this time, that
is
> > the son of Count William III of Montferrat. In 1176 he went to
Jerusalem,
> > married Sibylla, the heiress of the kingdom but then died within a few
> > months, leaving a posthumous son, later Baldwin V. Sibylla then
married
> > Guy de Lusignan. I wonder if he was also of the race Le Lungespee?
>
> There was also a William Longespee involved in the siege of Lisbon (or
> is this the same one). Clearly, Longespee was a nickname appearing
> frequently with the name William, and need not imply relationship.
>
I don't know if it the same chap as the son of the count of Montferrat.
The few lines in Encyclopaedia Britannica on William (of Montferrat) does
not mention the siege of Lisbon. Runciman's Crusades states that he was no
longer young when he went to Jerusalem (although his father was still
active enough to travel there and look after William's daughter), so
perhaps he could have been in Lisbon thirty years ealier.
regards, Adrian
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
Todd A. Farmerie
> I guess you are right, but I wonder why the name was only applied to Henry
> II illegitimate children William and Geoffrey. I have not seen the name
> used by any of his legitimate issue.
It wasn't even used for Geoffrey. This is sometimes incorrectly
assigned to him as brother of William, but I have found nothing
contemporary giving him that name.
> Not much has been said about this Geoffrey Longespee. I have him as b 1159
> d, 18 Dec 1212 in Gresmont, Normandy; Chancellor and Archbishop of York.
> In c1208 banished by k John. Is there any evidence that his mother was the
> same as William's, probably not in view of his date of birth.
There is specific evidence to the contrary. His mother was named
Ikenai, and is thought to have been continental in origin. Henry may
have had another child by her. Her son Morgan was appointed to a church
office, but could not get a dispensation for his illegitimacy. He was
given the opportunity to take his seat, if only he would swear that
Ikenai's husband was his father, rather than the king. He declined to
make this statement, prefering a claim to a royal paternity than having
a job.
> At a little later date, Sir Maurice Powicke in The _Thirteenth Century_
> mentioners a Roger Longespee, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1257-95)
> kinsman of Henry III.
Isn't he another son of William and Ela? They had another son, Nicholas
Longespee, who held a prominant church seat (I don't recall which).
> I don't know if it the same chap as the son of the count of Montferrat.
> The few lines in Encyclopaedia Britannica on William (of Montferrat) does
> not mention the siege of Lisbon. Runciman's Crusades states that he was no
> longer young when he went to Jerusalem (although his father was still
> active enough to travel there and look after William's daughter), so
> perhaps he could have been in Lisbon thirty years ealier.
>
The story goes that Alfonso Enriquez highjacked a group of Crusaders on
their way to the Holy Land, and got them to help him out. (I have to
admit, I have not studied the history of this, although I did read the
quirky Saramego novel, "History of the Siege of Lisbon".)
taf
Paul Mackenzie
Adrian Channing wrote:
> taf wrote
> >
> > This identification of "Countess Ida", mother of William Longespee, with
> > the Countess of Bolougne of that name was suggested by Evans, but the
> > last time she was discussed in this group someone (pcr or Nat Taylor?)
> > presented chronological data that made it pretty unlikely. From what I
> > have seen here and elsewhere, the future wife of the Earl of Norfolk is
> > the only nominated candidate that matches what little we know. (This
> > identification was published, without discussion in Roberts' book on
> > royal descents, based on unpublished work of Douglas Richardson.)
> >
>
> I rather thought that the Gen-Medieval discussions on Ida Bigod countess of
> Norfolk had also ruled her out as mother of William Longespee?
>
> My money is that Countess Ida was connected to the Giffard family
>
> Complete Peerage Vol V page 642 part of note c):
>
> QUOTE with my remarks in square brackets:
> "John [Giffard b bfr 1233 died 29 May 1299] and Maud, [that is Maud de
> Clifford] ] and her 1st husband William Lungespee, [the III, g-son of
> William Longespee I] were all descended from Richard fitz Ponce [the
> progenitor of the Cliffords]. Why John Giffard should have referred to
> himself as being of the race of Le Lungespee - as in the proof of age
> mentioned above [in CP] he is said to have done - is not explicable;
> unless, indeed the sobriquet was derived from the family of Clifford."
> UNQUOTE
>
> But the argument that the term "Le Lungespee" came from the Clifford family
> seems to be based on the assumption that William Longespee's mother was
> Maud/Rosamund Clifford. If that m. no longer holds and William Longespee
> was not descended from the Cliffords, then an explanation of the use of
> this term could be that William I's mother was of the same race of Le
> Lungespee as John Giffard.
>
> I don't know if it is of any relevance, but it would be easy to mistake
> Gliffard for Clifford in a written document.
>
Dear Adrian
I have a passing interest in this line, and this has vexed me. The following
may be of some interest to you. Complete Peerage also states under John de
Breuse of Glasbury, co. Brecon supposedly son of Margaret, dau of Llewelyn ap
Iowerth
that
QUOTE
He had disputes about this manor(on the borders of cos. Brecon and Radnor) with
Roger de Clifford in 1272, and with John Giffard of Brimpsfield and Maud his
wife( which Maud, on the above hypothesis, was his (John de Breuse) half
sister, being daugther of Margaret above-named, by her 2nd Husband, Walter de
Clifford). John and Maud conceded the manor to him and his heirs male in 1275,
and Rogers claim was settled for 100 marks of silver. (Cria Regis, roll no.
205, mm. 5 d, 6 d, 15; Coram Rege, Mich. 3-4 Edw 1, m. 41, Mich. 4-5 Edw. 1, m.
17 Mich. 5-6 Edw. 1, m. 8)
UNQUOTE
This John de Breuse had also a brother Richard de Breuse who married Alice,
widow of Richard LUNGESPEYE. D.G. Elwes had no proof but suggested this
LUNGESPEYE was brother to
William LUNGESPEYE [ the III, g-son of William Longespee I]
D.G. Elwes also cites the following
1261
Inq. p.m. 46 Hen 111, No. 1 on Richard Langespeye deceased. The writ being
dated 27 Dec, 46 Hen 111[1261]
Inquisition-John de Fay held in chief of the King the manor of Brumleyle
Surrey, by the service of three knight's fees. After the death of said John,
the manor descended to his two sisters, to wit, Maltida and Philippia, and it
was divided between them. Of the aforesaid Maltida there issued a daughter, by
the name of Agatha, who had issue Alice who was the wife of Richard Langespey;
and the said Richard and Alice held a moiety of the said manor of Brumlelie in
chief of the King by service of one knight's fee and a half.
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
1264
Coram Rege, 49 Hen 111, m. ii
Trial between Maltida Langespeye and Richard de Breus and Alice his wife which
settles the date of Richard and Alice's marriage as being between the years 46
and 49 Hen 111 (1261-1264). Maltida sues Richard and Alice for ejecting her men
from the manors of Stradefford, Stinton, Bromleigh, Lutheburg, Sevelington,
which she had to farm. The defendants made many defaults and the Sheriff was
ordered to bring them up in Hilary Term.
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
1272
A fine Hen 56 No. 70, between Richard de Breous and Alice his wife, and John
Giffard and Maltida his wife, as to the manors of Akenham, Whitingham,
Brumleigh, Stradbrok, Clopton, Asketon, Stynton, Lubure, and Syvelyngton in
cos. Suffolk, York, Lincoln, Norfolk, and Surrey. They are the right of Alice;
and Richard and Alice grant Asketon and Stinton to John Giffard and wife, for
life of the said Maltida.
De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
Regards Paul
Adrian Channing
Thanks for you interesting message.
Note that I was wrong when I stated that Ida Bigod had been ruled out ruled
out as the mother of William Longespee, as pointed out by a subsequent
message.
Your information fits in, and adds to the information I have collected
I presume the Roger de Clifford you mention was the father of Robert 1st
Baron. I don't know what relationship he was to Walter de Clifford (who m
Margaret supposed dau of Llewelyn), perhaps a brother?
In a previous e-mail message it was stated that there was an un-named
brother of William Longespee (III) and who dsp, from your information this
is perhaps the Richard you mention.
I have been given the following information, not verified by me:
Ralph de Fay of Poitou, kinsman of Queen Eleanor, held 3 knights fees in
Bramley, Surrey (Pipe Rolls 1210/2) of the Honour of Dudley.
]
Ralph de Fay (Excerptae. Rot. Fin 1.25) = Beatrice, d. of Stephen de
Turnham (2nd husband Hugh de Plaiz)
and
Bramley, in the Blackheath Hundreds of Surrey, was given by Henry II to
Ralph de Fay who was dispossessed during the war between the king and
Prince Henry. King John granted it to Ralph, son of the above, whose son
John de Fay held it in 1223 . He died in 1241 and the manor was divided
between his 2 sister, Maude de Clere and Phillipa de Fay who had Bramley -
her husband was William Neville whose daughter Beatrice married William
Wintershill, lord of Wintershull (Winter's Hall ) in Bramley.
Maud's moiety (she died in 1250) passed to her daughter Alice and then to
Alice's daughter Agatha and William Longespee (Earl of Salisbury); their
daughter Alice was wife of Richard Breus who granted it in 1266 to Maud
Longespee. In 1271 Richard and Alice Breus conveyed it to William Breus
and wife Mary in exchange for Akenham, Suffolk. Mary died in 1236, her
grandson Thomas d. 1396 (sp) when it descended to George Breus, son of
John (brother of Thomas de Breus). George died 1418 and the Cookseys
became heirs of Agnes, sister of George de Breus. Cooksey d. 1445/6 when it
passed to his widow Alice and then to Hugh Cooksey's sister, Joyce
Beauchamp and from her to the Winters of Wych.
This seems to have come from "History of Surrey" by H E Malden. The account
appears to be a little muddled, but also may contain valuable information.
There is still a "Wintershall" manor just outside Bramley, not far from me
although I have not been in it, and don't know how old it is. Perhaps
Bramley manor was at the site of what was the Bramley Grange Hotel,
unfortunately recently burned to the ground, set fire to by a disgruntled
chef!
regards Adrian
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
Paul replied
John Carmi Parsons
son of the viscount Aimeri I of Chatellheraut (d. 1151) and Maubergeonne a.k.a.
Dangereuse (sometimes said to have been a dau. of the seigneur of l'Isle-
Bouchard). The seigneurie of Faye came to Raoul by his marriage to Elisabeth,
dame de Faye-la-Vineuse, by whom he indeed had a son Raoul/Ralph, and also a
daughter Eustache. Raoul served his niece as seneschal in Poitou, and
witnessed a number of her charters on Poitevin matters.
See Sidney Painter, *Feudalism and Liberty Essays*, p. 85, and also the
difficult-to-find "Chronologie historique des vicomtes de Chatellerault avant
la fin du XIIIe siecle, d'apres les documents inedits," by Dom. Francois
Chamard, in the _Memoires de la societe des antiquaires de l'Ouest_, vol. 25
(1870-71), pp. 79-121, esp. 107-08, 121.
John Parsons
RAY Montgomer
how do these Fay's tie in with matilda De Fay whom married William De
Braose born ą1175 and was of Bramber Sussex Co. England.
Sincerey
RAY
On 6 Feb 1999 06:23:49 -0800 jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca (John Carmi
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Richard Borthwick
I am not John, but I do have some material on Maud de Fay and her
connection to the Brewes (Braose) family of Norfolk. Maud (d.1249) dau. of
Ralph de Fay (d.1223) of Bramley and coheir of her brother John (d.1241),
was wife of Roger (III) de Clere (d.1250) of Sinnington, Shere & Bramley.
Roger and Maud had a daughter Agatha de Clere (d.<1250) who married William
le Rus (d.1253), of Stinton. Alice (b.1245/47 d.before 28 Jan 1301) the
dau. and heir of William and Agatha was also the heir of her maternal
grandparents, Roger and Maud. Alice le Rus (b.1245/47 d. married 1260/65
Sir Richard de Brewes (b.before 1232 d.before 18 Jun 1292).[W Farrer
*Honors and Knights' Fees* (London/New York/Manchester, 1923-25) 3 vols,
II:190, III:355-57, 438-441; VCH Yorks (NR) II:490; CP II:304; W Farrer
*Early Yorkshire Charters* I:480-481]
Adrian Channing gave some interesting information on the probable origins
of the Fays of Bramley and John Carmi Parsons gave information on the
Faye-le (sic)-Vineuse family. ES III/4:813 records the two Raouls de Faye
mentioned by John. Raoul (queen Eleanor's uncle) was dead probably by 1190.
He married before 1144 Elisabeth de Faye dau. and heir of Aimery lord of
Faye. Raoul his son was dead by 1210. If Ralph de Fay (d.1223), of Bramley,
is of this family then he may be a son of the second Raoul. ES does not
give any indication of an English connection and as far as I can see Farrer
does not allude to a French one for the Bramley family. The clue would seem
to rest on Adrian's references and VCH if it has yet reached Bramley. Does
Painter make the connection?
Adrian Channing
Richard wrote,
>
> I am not John, but I do have some material on Maud de Fay and her
> connection to the Brewes (Braose) family of Norfolk. Maud (d.1249) dau.
of
> Ralph de Fay (d.1223) of Bramley and coheir of her brother John (d.1241),
> was wife of Roger (III) de Clere (d.1250) of Sinnington, Shere & Bramley.
> Roger and Maud had a daughter Agatha de Clere (d.<1250) who married
William
> le Rus (d.1253), of Stinton. Alice (b.1245/47 d.before 28 Jan 1301) the
> dau. and heir of William and Agatha was also the heir of her maternal
> grandparents, Roger and Maud. Alice le Rus (b.1245/47 d. married 1260/65
> Sir Richard de Brewes (b.before 1232 d.before 18 Jun 1292).[W Farrer
> *Honors and Knights' Fees* (London/New York/Manchester, 1923-25) 3 vols,
> II:190, III:355-57, 438-441; VCH Yorks (NR) II:490; CP II:304; W Farrer
> *Early Yorkshire Charters* I:480-481]
Do you have a little more information on Roger (III) de Clere ( d 1250)
From various ref in CP, I have
Geoffrey fitz Piers Earl of Essex [CP V p 122-4] m2 Aveline dau of Roger de
Clare (-1173) Er of Clare and Hertford. In 1163 this Roger lost the fealty
of Tonbridge.
]
John Fitz-Geoffrey (-22 Nov 1258); Of Shere etc. He was the only son by
his fathers m2, + 2 daughters.
]
John FitzJohn (-1275); Of Shere etc [CP Vol V p 433, see also p 437]
From a local history book I have there was a grant of the manor of Shere by
Roger de Tonbridge (Clere) to John Fitz-Geoffrey in 1244 (The grant
included Vachery manor, Cranleigh which in 1170 was granted to Richard de
Tonbridge)
I imagine that the Roger (III) de Clere you mention is the same as the
above Roger de Tonbridge (Clere), and presumably descend from Roger de
Clare (-1173) Er of Clare and Hertford.
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
John Carmi Parsons
The Cleres were, I believe, from Yorkshire and were related to the earls
of Lincoln and the Vescies, but they were most definitely not part of the
Clare family.
John Parsons
Adrian Channing
Thanks for your message.
Do you say this because you know that this particular Roger de Clere came
from the Yorkshire family, or are you basing this on the particular
spelling of the name. I note that The Oxford "A Dictionary of English
Surnames" states "Clere was the French popular form of Clare" and also the
name derives from Clere in Hampshire, although the earliest example given
there in 1279 from Huntingdonshire.
Adrian
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
-
John Carmi Parsons
forebears of either the Lacy earls of Lincoln, or the Vescies, married one
Maud de ClEre, who is identified only as a sister of the treasurer of York
cathedral. No known member of the ClAre family ever held that office, and
no genealogy of the ClAre family I have ever seen includes that Lacy or
Vesci wife.
ClEres existed throughout the Middle Ages, moreover, whereas the ClAres
became extinct in the male line in the early 14th century. The Paston
papers, for example, include several letters from Margery Paston's cousin
Elizabeth ClEre, among them the famous missive in which Elizabeth informs
Margery's son that his sister was being beaten three times a week to force her
to agree to a marriage the family had arranged for her.
Before I read the reference you give below, I had never seen any assertion
that "Clere" was a popular variant of "Clare." I would be hard put to it to
understand why there might ever have been a popular variant of it. Does
anyone know of any similar "popular" variants of aristocratic medieval
English names?
Regards,
Dcrdcr4
Clare. Her maiden name is given in a charter which she issued. It is
sometimes stated that she was the sister of the priest, Bevis (or Bogo) de
Clare, who a younger son of the well known Clare family. But that is
impossible. However, a close examination of the Clare family pedigree would
probably find the appropriate place for her.
The possibility exists that Clare was not her maiden name, but the name of an
earlier husband. My ancestress, Maud de Ferrers, for example, was known as
Maud de Kyme as an adult by virtue of her first marriage to a Kyme.
In any case, I believe this one can be solved if someone has the mind to do it.
Reedpcgen
Altschul's study, _A Baronial Faamily in Medieval England: The Clares,
1217-1314_ (Baltimore, 1965).
And John's recollections on the Cleres is correct. They are distinctly
different from the de Clare family.
pcr
Doug Thompson
----------
In article <19990206.120114....@juno.com>, monte...@juno.com
(RAY Montgomer) wrote:
>john
>how do these Fay's tie in with matilda De Fay whom married William De
>Braose born ±1175 and was of Bramber Sussex Co. England.
>Sincerey
>RAY
Ray,
An important correction is needed here. The William de Braose you have in mind
did not marry Matilda de Fay! This was an error promulgated by the articles in
the Genealogist by DGC Elwes in about 1880. Despite the fact that this has been
shown to be false the error continues in many articles and databases.
William married a Matilda de Clare. After his death she went on to marry Rhys
Gryg.
Regards
Doug Thompson
--------------
History and Genealogy of the Braose Family
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/index1.htm (Genealogy)
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/stage.htm (History)
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For
he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er
so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in
England, now a-bed, Shall think themselves accursed they were not
here; And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought
with us upon Saint Crispin's day." William Shakespeare [1564-1616]
Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, Lines 60-67.
Dcrdcr4 wrote in message
<19990207174717...@ng01.aol.com>...
>Your Maud de Clare, ancestress to the Lacys, Earl of Lincoln, was
defintely a
>Clare. Her maiden name is given in a charter which she issued. It
is
>sometimes stated that she was the sister of the priest, Bevis (or
Bogo) de
>Clare, who a younger son of the well known Clare family. But that is
>impossible. However, a close examination of the Clare family
pedigree would
>probably find the appropriate place for her.
>
>The possibility exists that Clare was not her maiden name, but the
name of an
>earlier husband. My ancestress, Maud de Ferrers, for example, was
known as
>Maud de Kyme as an adult by virtue of her first marriage to a Kyme.
Who were Maud de Ferrers' husbands?
DSH
Reedpcgen
Yorkshire (d. 1211), mother of John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, Magna Charta
Surety, all we certainly know is that she was sister of the treasurer of York
Cathedral.
Sed et iste Rogerus constabularius duxit in uxorem Matildem de Clere, sororem
thesaurarii Eboracensis Ecclesie, de qua genuit Johannem constabularium
(Coucher Book of Kirkstall [Thoresby Society 8:241]).
The question then becomes, who was this cleric? There was a Clere family in
Yorkshire in this early period.
pcr
Reedpcgen
[Bigot Fee] and William Farrer, _Honors and Knights' Fees_ 3:348-9, 355-8,
438-40.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
hallucinations! JCP
Benjamin Hertzel
Doug,
> An important correction is needed here. The William de Braose you have
> in mind did not marry Matilda de Fay! This was an error promulgated by
> the articles in the Genealogist by DGC Elwes in about 1880.
> William married a Matilda de Clare. After his death she went on to marry Rhys
> Gryg.
Do you know how this Matilda fits into the de Clare family?
Thank you.
Benjamin
Dcrdcr4
William de Forz, son of Hugh de Vivonne, by whom she had four daughters; and
(3rd) to Aimery (or Emery), vicomte de Rochechouart, by whom she had no issue.
She was known as Maud de Kyme, even after her 2nd and 3rd marriages. That name
is also used for her IPM, even though one would think she should have been
styled Maud, victomtess de Rochechouart., instead. Her daughters that remained
in England, Joan, 2nd wife of Reynold Fitz Peter, and Cecily, wife of John de
Beauchamp, have many traceable descendants.
Hope that answers your question. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson
Dcrdcr4
If the Coucher Book of Kirkstall spells Roger de Lacy's wife's surname as
Clere, her name appears elsewhere under her own charter as Clare. As I recall,
I saw a reference to Maud's charter in Honours and Knights' Fees by Farrer. I
would follow Maud's charters myself. It seems clear to me that people of that
time were quite careful to distinguish between the two families in the records.
As I recall, the treasurer of York was Bevus (or Bogo) de Clare. He was a
younger son of the well known Clare family. For a biography of him, see Alumni
Oxonienses where his history is given in full detail. Due to his powerful
relatives, he held many benefices.
As best I understand it, Roger de Lacy's wife, Maud de Clare, can't possibly be
Bevis de Clare's sister. As such, she probably belongs elsewhere in the Clare
family tree.
As I said earlier, I'm certain that the problem of Maud's identity can be
solved.
All for now. Douglas Richardson
Doug Thompson
Benjamin,
Dugdale's Baronage cites Pat Roll 17 John m 23 as giving this William de Braose
as married to a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare. This is Richard,
earl of Hertford, b c1153. Her mother was Amicia, Countess of Gloucester. You
can pick up the line on Brian Tompsett's database at
http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal13029
RAY Montgomer
with all the discussion on this family is it not a fact that matilda
(maud) is the daughter of Ralph fay, and that she married first about
1197, Roger Clere De Tonbridge in abt 1210 and Gryffudd Rhys later?
at least that is how i see it.
Could it be that dugdale got messed up?
sincerely
RAY
On Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:06:42 +0000 "Doug Thompson"
<doug.t...@virgin.net> writes:
>>Doug
>>Thank you sir!
>>do you know who the parents of this maud-matilda de Clare are?
>
>Ray,
>
>Dugdale's Baronage cites Pat Roll 17 John m 23 as giving this William
>de Braose
>as married to a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare. This is
>Richard,
>earl of Hertford, b c1153. Her mother was Amicia, Countess of
>Gloucester. You
>can pick up the line on Brian Tompsett's database at
>
>http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal13029
>
>
>Regards
>
>Doug Thompson
>--------------
>History and Genealogy of the Braose Family
>
>http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/index1.htm
>(Genealogy)
>
>http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/stage.htm
>(History)
>
___________________________________________________________________
Reedpcgen
since some questions have been raised and I am involved, I took a little time
today to help sort some things out and get this started on an intelligent
footing. What I have determined (at this point) is that the wife of Roger de
Lacy (d. 1211) was definitely named Maud/Matilda, but we cannot be certain what
family she belonged to.
Here's a list of a few sources I checked for Maud/Matilda so others do not
waste time:
W. E. Wightman, _The Lacy Family...1066-1194 [but he does not cover this
marriage]
Barraclough's _Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester1071-1237 [nil]
The Chartulary of St. Werburgh, Chester (Chetham Soc. 79, 82) [nil]
Early Yorkshire Charters [no mention of Maud in any charter, though a pedigree
with no references calls her "de Clare"]
Curia Regis Rolls [nil]
Calendar of Charter Rolls [nil]
CIPM
VCH Yorks.
Red Book of the Exchequer [nil]
The Chartulary of St. John Pontefract (YAS 25, 30) [nil]
York Minster Fasti (YAS 123)
Yorkshire Feet of Fines 1218-31 (YAS 62) [nil]
Early Yorkshire Families (YAS 135) [nil]
Reg. Antiquissimum (Lincoln RS v. 27-9, 32, 34, 41-2, 46, 51, 62, 67-8) [nil]
Register of Hugh de Welles, Bishop of Lincoln [LRS 1, 3, 4]
Robert de Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln 1235-53 [LRS 11]
[Final Concords, LRS 17; Charters LRS 18; Lincoln Assize 1202-9 LRS 22]
Lincoln Episcopal Records [LRS 2]
William Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees (3 vols.)
Pipe Roll Society:
66 (28) PR 1211
67 (29) Linc. Feet of Fines 1199-1216
68 (30) PR 1212
73 (35) PR 1214
74 (36) in memory of Doris Stenton
75 (37) PR 1214
77 (39) PR 1218
80 (42) PR 1219
Dugdale, Mon. Angl. 5:533-4, 6:314
Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees ... Testa de Nevill [see below]
As stated previously, _The Coucher Book of the Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstall_,
ed. by W. T. Lancaster and W. P. Baildon [Thoresby Society 8 (1904)], states
that Roger de Lacy married Matilda/Maud de Clere, sister of the treasurer of
the Church of York. W. Pailey Baildon was one of the best scholars of English
Medieval documents at that time, so I doubt they misread the original.
My thinking runs along the same lines as that of J. C. B. Sharp. All these
accounts (foundation charters, genealogies of the founders, etc.) were written
much later than the event; it is possible that the scribes, though possibly
copying from an earlier text, erred and confused Roger's wife with his
granddaughter Maud/Matilda, who married Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester
and Hertford.
Richard de Clare, b. 4 Aug. 1222 [CP 5:696-702], was a boy at the death of his
father, the Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, in 1230. His lands, wardship and
marriage were given to the Justiciar Hubert de Burgh, whose daughter Margaret
was secretly married to Richard. Hubert fell from grace in July 1232, whence
Richard again became ward of the King. His wife Margaret died Nov. 1237. The
Earl of Lincoln was to have Richard's marriage for 3,000 marks [CPR 1232-47, p.
200], and Richard de Clare was married to Maud de Lacy, daughter of John de
Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, by his wife Margaret de Quincy, by 25 Jan. 1237/8, when
he would have been fifteen. Maud (de Lacy) de Clare survived her husband, and
held the manor of Clare with other lands in dower, dying 1287-1289.
A. B. Emden, _A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A. D.
1500_ 1:423-4 gives a long and detailed biography of Bogo/Bevis de Clare, who
at one time was treasurer of the Church of York. But this source states that
he was a "younger son of Richard (de Clare), earl of Gloucester and Hertford.
Studying at Oxford with his brother, Thomas, in 1257.... pres[ented] by his
father [to Rotherfield] May 1258...." If this is true, Bogo would be son of
Maud de Lacy, not her brother. But as Gilbert de Clare, Maud de Lacy's eldest
son, was born 2 September 1243, this would have Bogo being presented to
Rotherfield at a very young age in 1258 if younger brother of Gilbert. But
even placing Bogo back a generation, we would have that he was brother-in-law
of Maud (de Lacy) de Clare, not her brother. Bogo/Bevis died at London 26 Oct.
1294.
Until 1218, the treasurership was combined with the Archdeaconry of the East
Riding of Yorkshire [York Minster Fasti (YAS) 123:vii, VCH Yk. 3:80]. So this
at least gives us a select list to choose from, assuming that Roger de
Lacy/Lascy's wife Maud was indeed sister of the treasurer of York.
We know Roger de Lacy's widow was definitely named Maud/Matilda and that she
survived him. Doug states that he recalls that she had a charter issued under
her own name of "de Clare" but I wonder about this. Perhaps there is confusion
with her granddaughter, Maud (de Lacy) de Clare, who would have used de Clare
as her surname. Doug thought the citation for this might have come from
William Farrer's _Honours and Knights' Fees_, but the only possible reference I
could find was 2:202, which reads, "Upon Roger [de Lascy]'s death in 1211 his
relict Matilda de Clare held West Halton in dower [citing to Bk. of Fees,
285]." It would be Farrer who also introduced the "de Clare" into the Lacy
pedigree in EYC.
But _The Book of Fees_, 285, does not designate her as "de Clare":
[under Candelisho Wapentake]
Matillis de Lasci est de donacione regis: terra sua valet in Ingoldismelis
xv.l.
[under Manle Wapentake]
Matillis de Lasci, mater constabularii Cestrie, est de donacione domini regis,
et terra sua valet in Halghton' xiij.l.
There are other pertinent entries too:
[p. 63-4] Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester, is stated by chroniclers to have
died in 1211, but is mentioned [as if he were alive] in a roll which might be
dated to 1212. He is stated to have died on 1 October 1211 [Roger of Wendover,
_Flores Historiarum_ 2:58; Matt. Paris, _Chronica Majora_ 2:532; _Flores
Historiarum_ (ed. Luard) 2:140; Dugdale's _Mon. Angl._ 6:315; see also _Rotuli
de Oblatis et Finibus_ 472; _Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum_ 1:120]. The Pipe
Rolls show that the king's agents received profits from Roger's lands "as from
Michaelmas 1211, allowing to John his son 50l. a year to maintain himself in
the king's service." John de Lacy did not obtain livery of his father's lands
until 1213.
[p. 163 Candeleshou Wapentake, dated 1212] Domina Matildis de Lacy tenet de
domino rege in Ingaldemoles et in Schekenessa et in Steping et in Burg' et in
Partenay iij. carucatas dimidia bovata minus, sed necimus per quod servicium.
[p. 269, under Snayth, Yorks., dated between 1211 and 1213] Matillis de Lascy
est de donatione domini regis, et terra eius in soca valet xx.l.
[p. 285, Lincoln, dated 1219]
[Candelisho Wapentake] Matillis de Lasci est de donacione domini regis; terra
sua valet in Ingoldismelis xv.l.
[Manle Wapentake] Matillis de Lasci, mater constabularii Cestrie, est de
donacione domini regis, et terra sua valet i nHalghton' xiij.l.
[p. 362, Lincoln, dated 1226-8] Matillis de Lascy habet xx. libratas terre in
dote in Thoresby et Northecotes; et est de donacione domini regis.
In _Rotuli Hugonis de Welles. Episcopi Lincolniensis A. D. MXXIX-MCCXXXV._
[1209-1235], p. 218, we have Matilda de Lacy presenting Richard de Bela Fargo,
clerk, to Halton, "Annus Quartus Decimus" [c. 1222]:
Anno pontificatus domini Episcopi xiiij, v'to Kal. Junii, Ricardus de Bella
Fago, clericus, presentatus per dominam Matildam de Lacy ad ecclesiam de
Halton....
In _The Great Roll of the Pipe ... Michaelmas 1219_ [PRS NS 42]
[pp. 128-9, Lincolnshire] Matillis de Lascy debet j m. pro habendo brevi de
attingendis xij contra Willelmum Wibien et Henricum Quinchaut.
Matillis de Lascy debet dim. m. pro eodem contra Willelmum f. Radulfi et Alanum
f. Siwardi. Eadem debet aliam dim. m. pro eodem contra Robertum personam de
Toreby.
[p. 197, Yorkshire] Matillis de Lasci debet unam m. pro. eodem contra aabbatem
de Seleby et William de Polinton' et Rade de communa pasture in Cuwic.
I did not have time to check further in the Pipe Rolls as the library closed.
Nor did I have a chance to check the Coucher Book of Selby (YAS 10, 13).
Now this I wonder. Why mention that Margaret was sister of the treasurer of
York if the reference were to Bogo de Clare, even if in error? Why mention
Bogo when the Earls of Gloucester and Hertford--far more important
individuals-- were involved. Pehaps "de Clere" was a slip, but I would think
she may well still have been sister of the treasurer, who would also therefore
have been Archdeacon of the East Riding. I did not immediately find a list of
the treasurers/Archdeacons before 1212.
Even if the accounts which call Matilda "de Clere" and 'sister of the
treasurer' do not date before the fourteenth century, Maud (de Lacy) de Clare,
wife of Earl Richard, was still living in 1288, Bogo de Clare until 1294. And
Bogo de Clare held an extraordinary number of benefices and positions, as well
as being Papal chaplain by 1282 and King's clerk by 1285. If it were a slip
for htis Bogo de Clare, why call him treasurer?
We know that Maud/Matilda was the wife and widow of Roger de Lacy, whose
inheritance was one of the greatest in England (I posted information from
Sidney Painter about the valuation of his estates in January 1998, which if I
recall correctly were worth more than the Earl of Chester. Their son John de
Lacy was not made Earl of Lincoln so much by any type of inheritance as the
political and finacial power he weilded. So I conclude at this point that
Maud/Matilda was likely a sister of the treasurer/Archdeacon of the East
Riding, but cannot say that her surname was "de Clere" as a scribe's eye might
have slipped and put 'de Clere/Clare' where it should not have been.
I cannot, however, accept without direct evidence that the wife of Roger de
Lacy/Lascy issued her own charter under the surname "de Clare" as a wife
usually only reverted to a maiden name when either she had a great inheritance
or her own family's social standing was of much greater worth than that of her
husband or deceased spouse. This was not the case with Roger de Lacy.
Although I could see how Doug might have misremembered a charter given by
Maud's daughter Matilda (de Lacy) de Clare, and confused it with Farrer's
mistaken statement that she was Matilda de Clare. I myself might make such a
mistake if working solely from memory. So if there is actually such a charter
someplace, I'd like to see it.
John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was apparently not born until about 1192, as he
did not succeed his father until July 1213 [which is also the conclusion of CP
7:676]. This means that Roger de Lacy may not have married Maud until about
1190. As J. C. B. Sharp noted in private correspondence to me, Geoffrey
'Plantagenet' the illegitimate son of Henry II was treasurer 1181-1189. (Bogo
de Clare was not appointed treasurer until 1285 [CPR 1281-92, 193].) But we
do not know when Maud's brother might have served as treasurer.
One final point might be made. If Maud was a de Clare of close relation to the
main stock, and it was a well known fact (it would have been), why was no
objection made when her granddaughter married Richard de Clare in 1238? The
"de Clere" family was quite prominent in Yorkshire anad Lincolnshire, though
they also had lands in Hampshire, etc., and is still a good candidate.
pcr
Kay Robinson
<doug.t...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>Do you know how this Matilda fits into the de Clare family?
>Benjamin,
>Dugdale's Baronage cites Pat Roll 17 John m 23 as giving this William de Braose
>as married to a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare. This is Richard,
>earl of Hertford, b c1153. Her mother was Amicia, Countess of Gloucester. You
>can pick up the line on Brian Tompsett's database at
>http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal13029
>Regards
>Doug Thompson
>--------------
Mention of this particular database begs an answer for me. I have had
occasion to visit this web site, however, once I've found what I have
been looking for, saving the info using 'save', 'save as' or whatever
has resulted in no saving and I've had to resort to a very time (and
cost) consuming transcription from screen to paper. Is there no other
way of extracting information from this site?
Kay
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.
William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson <ad...@dail.pipex.com>
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Doug Thompson
----------
In article <19990208.191319....@juno.com>, monte...@juno.com
(RAY Montgomer) wrote:
>Doug
>with all the discussion on this family is it not a fact that matilda
>(maud) is the daughter of Ralph fay, and that she married first about
>1197, Roger Clere De Tonbridge in abt 1210 and Gryffudd Rhys later?
>at least that is how i see it.
>Could it be that dugdale got messed up?
>sincerely
>RAY
Ray,
You are confusing the two Matildas. Yes, Matida de Fay married Roger de Clere
etc. (I don't know about Gruffydd Rhys though). She is not the Matilda de Clare
who married William de Braose and Rhys Gryg and whose ancestry I indicated in my
last post. Dugdale was referring to the second.
ED MANN
>
> On Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:05:09 +0000 "Doug Thompson"
> <doug.t...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >>Do you know how this Matilda fits into the de Clare family?
>
> >Benjamin,
>
> >Dugdale's Baronage cites Pat Roll 17 John m 23 as giving this William de Braose
> >as married to a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare. This is Richard,
> >earl of Hertford, b c1153. Her mother was Amicia, Countess of Gloucester. You
> >can pick up the line on Brian Tompsett's database at
>
> >http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal13029
>
> >Regards
>
> >Doug Thompson
> >--------------
>
> Mention of this particular database begs an answer for me. I have had
> occasion to visit this web site, however, once I've found what I have
> been looking for, saving the info using 'save', 'save as' or whatever
> has resulted in no saving and I've had to resort to a very time (and
> cost) consuming transcription from screen to paper. Is there no other
> way of extracting information from this site?
I use the copy and paste function in Windows to paste the data into a
word porcessor to be cleaned up and printed later.
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com