Possible Solution to the Fitz Alan Problem
Cristopher Nash
- to Gen-Med and do so now as a relatively quick way not only of
making more visible my own gratitude for Chris' work but of passing
on my thoughts about the Haughmond Cartulary, which have been pending
for all too long.
To Chris Phillips 24 Jun --
Chris, this is enormously helpful. In addition, while I've finally
wound up the majority of my near-death uni commitments this past
weekend and -- prior to heading for Cambridge and Greece this coming
weekend -- have sat down to my raft of photocopied pp. of the
Haughmond Cartulary and sheaves of notes, I see now why our remaining
puzzlement in spite of Eyton's and others' having studied the
cartulary. I.e. I've found nothing of significance to add that might
lead us to deviate from Eyton's scheme.
It's worth pointing out that in fact in her preparation of the modern
edition of the Haughmond Cartulary (1985), while she's seen the
Sanders, Una Rees consistently _relies_on_Eyton's_ reading in
constructing her representation of the William I, II, III, and John I
FitzAlan sequence and its dates. Actually in her great care to date
as well as she can every document (and gives reasons wherever this is
speculative), she bases her *dating* of *many* documents precisely on
death dates derived from Eyton for these individuals. (E.g. 'this
cannot must be dated to after/prior to X year since X FitzAlan was
dead before/after X date, per Eyton'.)
What's especially precious about your work is that at last we have
_independent_ corroboration of the scheme, providing the chance for
us to break out of the circle that I've been saying plagued us.
To me, there remains principally only the idea of finding at some
time in the future further evidence of the presumed m. of William II
to a daughter of Hugh de Lacy. I'll just add on this front that the
Haughmond Cart. gives no explicit sign that I can see of such a
marriage, but yields strong evidence (I think I mentioned the hope of
finding this) of the relevant Lacys' connections with FitzAlan in the
sense that they themselves were frequent witnesses/donors to the
abbey in the period. 'Hugh de Lacy de Colemere' (whom Eyton and
Wightman identify with fair confidence as a likely tenant, while
young, of William FitzAlan I and as the individual subsequently to be
called Hugh II below -- see my posting of 19 May) appears once,
early, _by_that_name_ (witnesses grant of advowson of Wroxeter by
William FitzAlan I, 25 Jul 1155 [H.C. #1370, p. 244; this may or may
not be the H.C. folio 236 to which Wightman refers]). 'Hugh de Lacy
of Ludlow' (certainly Hugh II) subsequently e.g. witnesses many
entries [viz. e.g. H.C. #23, 205, 443, 492, 723, 832, 1142, 1371-2,
App. C.i]. This is of course at best only the roughest kind of
circumstantial evidence contributing to a picture one might wish to
see in support of the marriage.
Rees accepts without question the marriage of William I to Isabel
daughter of Elias de Say.
Thanks hugely to you - as always - for this contribution.
Cris
>Today I thought I'd look at the published Curia Regis Rolls on the
>off-chance that they might contain something helpful about the early
>FitzAlans. I've come across a couple of entries which I think do clearly
>resolve the main question, in favour of Eyton's scheme and against Sanders
>(and other alternatives such as Morris's).
>
>The more important one is from volume 11 (1223-4), p.69, dated Hilary Term,
>7 Henry III (1223). It relates to a claim for a third part of the manor of
>Tasselegh, Shropshire, in dower by Margery de Chabbenour, formerly the wife
>of Thomas son of Odo. The outcome depended on whether Thomas had held the
>manor in such a way that he could dower her with a third of it, or if he had
>held it of the bailiwick of King Henry, grandfather of the King, while
>William FitzAlan, the father of John, was under age and in his custody with
>that land (si idem Thomas manerium illud tenuit de ballia domini regis
>Henrici avi domini regis dum Willelmus filius Alani pater Johannis fuit
>infra etatem et in custodia sua cum terra illa). The jurors found in favour
>of John, because Thomas had no entry except by King Henry's bailiffs, while
>the said William was under age and in the king's custody.
>
>So this tells us that William, the father of the John FitzAlan who was
>living in 1223, was a minor in the king's custody during the reign of Henry
>II.
>
>This is precisely in agreement with Eyton's scheme, which has William II
>(d.1210) as a minor between his father's death in 1160 and his coming of age
>about 1175, and makes him the father of William III (d.1215) and John I
>(d.1240).
>
>In contrast, it's wholly inconsistent with Sanders's scheme, in which John I
>is the brother of William [IV], and their father William III succeeds
>William II in 1212 or 1213, to hold the estates briefly before his own death
>in 1213. This doesn't fit at all - it would have John's father as head of
>the family only in the reign of King John, and certainly not as a minor in
>c.1213, because in this scheme his elder son married before dying in 1215,
>and his younger son was old enough to rebel against the king at that date.
>
>The other variant that's been suggested was Morris's, which apparently is
>similar to Sanders's, but makes John I succeed William [IV] as his uncle,
>not his brother. Actually, I think we've already seen enough evidence that
>John I succeeded his brother, not his nephew. But another entry in vol.9
>(1220), p.57 of the Curia Regis Rolls does confirm this.
>
>This is dated Trinity Term, 4 Henry III (1220), and has William de Duston
>and Mary his wife called to answer John FitzAlan and show by what warrant
>they hold in the manor of Meleham, Norfolk, which John claims as his right
>and inheritance. They recognise it to be his inheritance, and say they claim
>nothing in that manor except the dower of Mary by the gift of William the
>brother of the same John, who was husband of the same Mary. In this case
>judgment was given in favour of William and Mary.
>
>Comparing this with Eyton's account (Antiquities of Shropshire, vol.7,
>pp.247-250), we see that in 1214 Thomas de Erdington, had been granted the
>marriages of the sons of William FitzAlan - the elder of whom was to marry
>Thomas's daughter; in 1217 the sheriff of Oxfordshire had been ordered to
>give Thomas seisin of the manor of Norton, which was of the dower of his
>daughter Mary, out of the lands of William FitzAlan, late her husband; and
>in 1218, after Thomas's death, his widow Roese de Cokefield obtained
>possession of Mary's dower in Mileham.
>
>Clearly Mary was the wife of the William FitzAlan who died in 1215, and so
>it's this William who is clearly identified as the brother (not the nephew)
>of the John FitzAlan who was living in 1220.
>
>Although some relatively minor questions remain (for example, in what year
>William II FitzAlan died), I think this establishes the main genealogical
>framework as it was given by Eyton many years ago:
>
>(1) William I (d. 1160)
>= Isabel daughter of Elias de Say
>(she remarried to Geoffrey de Ver and William Boterel)
>
>(2) Their son and heir William II (b.c. 1154; d. 1210 according to Eyton or
>1212-1213 according to Sanders)
>= a daughter of Hugh de Lacy (according to Eyton and others)
>
>(3) His son and heir William III (d. Easter 1215)
>= Mary, the daughter of Thomas de Erdington
>(she remarried to William de Duston)
>
>(3) His brother and heir John I (d. 1240)
>(ancestor of the earls of Arundel)
>
>
>Incidentally, I think the evidence from 1223 effectively rules out another
>possibility that's been suggested - that there were in fact two Williams in
>the second generation - the first b.1154 and succeeded his father as a minor
>in 1160, and the second who married the daughter of Hugh de Lacy and
>fathered William and John. This would require a second minority, somewhere
>between 1175 and about the mid-1190s, for which no one seems to have found
>any evidence in the records.
>
>Chris Phillips
--
--