Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
Douglas Richardson
A while back, I posted evidence which indicates that William Longespee
(bastard son of King Henry II) had two daughters named Ida, one who
married William de Beauchamp, Baron of Bedford, co. Bedford, the other
who married Walter Fitz Robert, Baron of Little Dunmow, Essex. The
evidence for the first Ida consists of a fine recorded in Essex in
which William Longespee is specifically called that Ida's father.
The evidence for the second Ida involves chronology and the pedigree
of the Longespee family recorded in the records of Lacock Abbey, which
abbey was founded by Earl William's widow, Ela.
In a post today, I stated that the chronology of the family of the
second Ida'a son-in-law, Sir William de Oddingseles, suggests that he
was born say 1230/5. This birthdate for Sir William is entirely
consistent with his wife, Ela, being a granddaughter of Earl William
Longespee.
Tonight I located another piece of evidence which similarly places
Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, in the generation of William
Longespee's children. According to the Patent Rolls, I learned that
following her husband, Walter Fitz Robert's death in 1258, his "men,
lands and goods" were committed to William de Aette, which William was
also one of the executors for the will of Ida's brother, Sir Stephen
Longespee, who died in 1260 [References: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1258-1262 (1910), pg. 209; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1259-1261 (1934), pg.
79].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ADRIANC...@aol.com
Longespee II (b aft 1205, d 7 Feb 1249/50 by Idonea (d c 1225) d&h of Richard
de Camville, and that the Ida who m (2ndly) William (1185-1260) fudal baron
of Bedford was dau of William I the bastard. Has evidence been found to show
this is incorrect?
regards,
Adrian
Douglas Richardson wrote,
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
People have puzzled over the placement of the two Ida Longespee's for
quite a while. As best I can determine from the evidence and from the
chronology, the two Ida's were both daughters of William Longespee I.
Some earlier scholars who grappled with this problem shoved the second
Ida Longespee (wife of Walter Fitz Robert) down a generation,
basically to avoid having two sisters with the same name. However, a
close examination of the evidence indicates the two Ida's were in fact
sisters, not aunt and niece. Among other factors, Walter Fitz Robert
appears to have been a contemporary of William Longespee II, and was
not the age to be his son-in-law. The chronology of Walter Fitz
Robert's son-in-law, William de Oddingseles' family, supports that
conclusion.
The medieval custom of naming two children with the same name is
annoying to those of us who want things nice and tidy. As I noted in
another post this week, King Henry VII's mother, Margaret, Countess of
Richmond, had a sister named Margaret Saint John. This is yet another
example of two women of the same name being sisters. In this case,
the two women were half-sisters and were named for their common
mother, also named Margaret. As with the two Ida Longespees, scholars
have tried to make Margaret, Countess of Richmond, and Margaret Saint
John aunt and niece. Regardless, the evidence is absolute and
conclusive that the women were half-sisters, not aunt and niece.
All the same, if anyone has any evidence which bears on the Longespee
matter, I'd very much appreciate hearing from them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote in message news:<73.256c999...@aol.com>...
norenxaq
>
> The medieval custom of naming two children with the same name is
> annoying to those of us who want things nice and tidy.
it still happens today. Imagine the aggravation of genealogists in the future
trying to sort all of George Foreman's children from each other as all 5 of his
sons have the same name as him...
Douglas Richardson
Adrian asked about the placement of the second Ida Longespée, wife of
Walter Fitz Robert, as the daughter of William Longespée I. I stated
that the evidence and chronology of the Longespée, Fitz Walter, and
Oddingseles families dictates placing her as the daughter of William
Longespée I.
As for further evidence, I suggest we look at the family of Ida's
brother, Nicholas Longespée, Bishop of Salisbury. The following
information on Bishop Nicholas is taken from the manuscript of the
forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry:
1. NICHOLAS LONGESPÉE, clerk, treasurer of Salisbury Cathedral, Bishop
of Salisbury. In the period, 1226/36, he was granted the manor of
Edgware, Middlesex and the village of Cooling, Suffolk by his widowed
mother, Ela. He also acquired lands in Little Stanmore, Middlesex
from Thomas Esperun. By an unknown wife or mistress, he had one son,
Nicholas, and two daughters, Alice and Isabel. NICHOLAS LONGESPÉE,
Bishop of Salisbury, died 18 May 1297.
References:
L.C. Loyd, Sir Christopher Hatton’s Book of Seals (1950): 43-44.
Charters &c. of Salisbury Cathedral, RS, 362. Desc. Catalogue of
Ancient Deeds 1 (1890): 204; 2 (1894): 61,76,97,100. VCH Middlesex 4
(1971): 155; 5 (1976): 114,117. Nottingham Medieval Studies 35
(1991): 41-69; 36 (1992): 79-125. J. Ward, Women of the English
Nobility and Gentry 1066-1500 (1995), pp. 115,201-202.
Children of Nicholas Longespée, by unknown wife or mistress, _____:
a. NICHOLAS LONGESPÉE.
b. ALICE LONGESPÉE (living 1272/3), married 1260/1 GEOFFREY DE
JARPENVILLE (living 1272/3).
c. ISABEL LONGESPÉE.
We see above that Bishop Nicholas Longespee had three hitherto
unnoticed children. I believe the eldest child was the daughter,
Alice Longespée, who married in 1260/1 to Geoffrey de Jarpenville.
By comparison, Ela Fitz Walter, daughter of Ida Longespée, was
evidently married before 1263, when her husband, Sir William
Oddingseles, witnessed a deed for her aunt, Ela Longespée, Countess of
Warwick. Ela and Sir William de Oddingseles had five known children,
the youngest of whom, Margaret, was born in 1277.
Given the fact that the respective daughters of Bishop Nicholas and
Ida were married about the same time, I have no trouble assigning Ida
as Bishop Nicholas Longespée's sibling.
Lastly, it seems a good bet that there are modern descendants of Alice
Longespée, wife of Geoffrey de Jarpenville. If anyone has further
particulars on the Jarpenville family, I'd appreciate hearing from
them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0209...@posting.google.com>...
ADRIANC...@aol.com
In my opinion, it has not been proved that Ida (wife of Walter FitzRobert's)
was the daughter of William Longespee I.
Unfortunately I am limited to the sources of my own library, but comment as
follows:
CP Vol V page 472 gives Ida, da. of William (Longespee), Earl of Salisbury
quoting _Liber de Lacock_ (Bowles, _Antiquities of Lacock Abbey, appendix, p.
ii); but then CP Vol XIV throws doubt on this statement as there is another
Ida daughter of William Longespee I.
I am in full agreement that the same christian name can be used more that
once in the same generation (cf Paston letters) but when this occurs, I have
found that records are careful to distinguish between them, usually by using
junior and senior.
The problem is that William Longespee II laid claim (unsuccessfully) to the
title Earl of Salisbury but nevertheless used this title in some of his
charters, an example from Bradenstoke cartulary:
360 [1239 x 1242] Grant by William Longespee [II], earl of Salisbury, {fn l}
to the church of All Saints, Canford, of an oak from his wood of Canford
every year at Christmas in perpetuity. Warranty. Seal. Witnesses: Hervey
prior of Bicester, Sir Reynold of Whitchurch, Sir Ste. Longespee, Sir Wm.
Turber, Sir Hen. de la Mare, knights.
The editor's (Vera London) footnote:
fn 1 William was occasionally styled earl 1238-42.
So the reference from _Liber de Lacock_, without further evidence, may well
have been to William II.
With so many child marriages at this time, I don't think the age of William
de Oddingsells is sufficient evidence for the age of his wife.
As to the age of William II, we have William I marriage to Ela in 1198, but
when she was only 8 years old, so let us assume the eldest son would have
been born by about 10 years later, around 1208. This gives a gap of almost
40 years to the birth of Sir Robert fitz Walterin in 1247 (the 1st Baron) son
of Sir Walter fitz Robert by Ida and is consistent with Ida being daughter of
William Longespee II.
I think you stated in one post that you have evidence that William II came of
age in 1233, but I am not sure if you gave a source. (I note that there was
a deed in Bradenstoke dated 1233 in which William II confirmed a deed of
William I, was this your source? if so, I don't think it proves William II
came of age in 1233.). Even so this would give 35 years for the birth of a
grandson, which is acceptable.
Perhaps there is some other evidence which I have missed, but in my opinion
the case is not proven, only a possibility.
regards
Adrian
In a message dated 10/09/02 17:41:21 GMT Daylight Time, royala...@msn.com
writes:
Douglas Richardson wrote,
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
overdoses)
so pray tell me why in both cases (Ida Longespee & Margaret) you do not
presume
merely two marriages for the same person, rather than two persons of the
same name
in the same family in the same generation... in the case of multiple
marriages, they
would still have the same relations to the respective inlaws...
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5cf47a19.02090...@posting.google.com...
ADRIANC...@aol.com
writes:
> I seem to have moments of denseness these days, (an effect of the listmail
> overdoses)
> so pray tell me why in both cases (Ida Longespee & Margaret) you do not
> presume
> merely two marriages for the same person, rather than two persons of the
> same name
> in the same family in the same generation... in the case of multiple
> marriages, they
> would still have the same relations to the respective inlaws...
>
>
I don't believe they were of the same generation, but anyway, barring an
annulment they were both living at the same time, the first (who died around
1268) m2 around 1220 William fudal baron Bedford who died 1260, whilst the
second Ida's son by Walter FitzRobert was born in 1247.
regards
Adrian
Douglas Richardson
If you check the chronology of the children of both Ida's and the
chronology of the children of their brothers, William II, Stephen, and
Nicholas, you'll find they all match. I've already posted on the
chronology of Nicholas' children. John Ravilious has kindly offered
to prepare a chart showing the chronology of the other Longespee
siblings and their offspring.
Among other factors, I show that the second Ida's husband, Walter Fitz
Robert, was the same age as her brother, William Longespee II. Also,
I posted this week the one of the executors of Stephen's estate was
granted the land of Ida's husband, Walter Fitz Robert. As best I can
determine, the two Ida's, William II, Stephen, and Nicholas were
contemporaries of one another.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote in message news:<125.1670d9...@aol.com>...
Reedpcgen
CP 5:472 does say that Sir Robert Fitz Walter, son of Ida, was born at Henham
in 1247 and proved his age in 1268.
The first William Longespee was married in 1196, but his wife was supposed to
be quite young. CP says she was born ca. 1191, but it also says she was b.
1187 (CP 11:377, 382).
If one took the earlier date, she might have started having children about
1201-3 (1203-5 if you take the later estimate).
The first William Longespee died in 1226, leaving his son William a minor (b.
in or after 1206), but do we know when he achieved majority, as he had already
taken part in the King's epedition to Britany in 1230 and was knighted in 1233?
We know of several daughters, so if the mother began having children ca.
1201-3, and the second William was not born until 1206-7, there could have been
3-4 daughters born ahead of him if a nurse was breast feeding the children (or
at least two daughters if you take th elate route). In fact, as he was elsest
son, one would conclude he attained majority not long after his father's death
(but records are very sparse in this period).
The arrangement for the marriage of the second WIlliam Longespee was in 1216.
If he were at least age 7 by that time, he would be born by 1209 (after 1205).
If the second Ida gave birth in 1247, and one assumed she was about 15 at that
time, she would be born about 1232.
If the second WIlliam Longespee had his marriage arranged in 1216, and was
fighting in battle by 1230 and knighted by 1233, is there a difficulty in his
having a daughter born about 1232?
Paul
Reedpcgen
1205).
The second William Longespee married Idoine de Camville. Farrer (Honors and
Knights' Fees 2:222) says that the King rendered the lands of her father on 12
May 1226, to both William and Idoine, she being of full age. He cites R. Lit.
Claus 2:110b, 123 [Close Rolls]. In that same year, the sheriff of Oxford was
directed to give William Lungespee, son of the late Earl, acquittance of
scutage demanded from the knights fees the late Earl held of his wardship of
the daughter and heir of Richard de Camvill and her lands, and to suspend the
sheriff's demand for an ox for seisin of the late Richard de Camvill.
Now, my understanding is that even if the wife was of full age, if her husband
was a minor, her lands would have been held of his lord, once married. He
could not have received livery of seisin of her lands until he was age 21.
Would this not indicate that though William Longespee II was a minor (according
to CP) on 7 March 1225/6, he was of age by 12 May 1226? That would narrow his
birth to IN 1205. Couldn't he have a grandson born in 1247?
Adrian said it was the first Ida who married William de Beauchamp of Bedford
and died about 1268, and the second who married Walter Fitz Robert. Do I have
this correct?
Paul
Vickie Elam White
>The first William Longespee was married in 1196, but his wife was supposed
>to be quite young. CP says she was born ca. 1191, but it also says she was
>b. 1187 (CP 11:377, 382).
The Liber de Lacock (Bowles, Antiquities of Lacock Abbey)
states that Ela was born at Amesbury in 1188. Is there reason
to doubt this? Do you know the proof for that year given in
the book?
Vickie Elam White
Douglas Richardson
One way to examine the plausibility of the two Ida Longespee's being
sisters is to check the history of their descendants to see if the
chronology of their descendants is similar or dissimilar. If the two
women were sisters, one would expect the dates of their descendants to
be in sync with each other.
I took the time to check the chronology of the descendants of this two
Ida's this past week. For purposes of simplicity, I will call the
elder Ida (wife of William de Beauchamp) Ida I, and the younger Ida
(wife of Walter Fitz Robert) Ida II.
What I discovered was basically that the descendants of the two women
were basically in sync with one another. Ida I had three known
daughters, Maud, Beatrice, and Ela. Tracing the descendants of the
three daughters out to their grandchildren, we find Maud's grandson
and heir, John Mowbray, was born in 1286. Beatrice's grandson, Thomas
Botetourt, was born say 1290. Ela's eldest grandchild was Isabel (or
Elizabeth) Stonegrave, born 1271/3.
As for Ida II, she had two known children who left descendants, Ela
and Robert. Ela's daughter Ida de Oddingseles had her eldest child,
Ela de Herdeburgh, born say 1284/1286. Ela's younger daughter,
Margaret, had her eldest son and heir, John de Grey, born in 1300.
Robert Fitz Walter had his eldest surviving grandchild, Hawise
Marshal, born say 1300.
Comparing the descendants of the two women, my guess is that the
descendants of the younger Ida (Ida II) are running perhaps ten years
after the descendants of the elder Ida (Ida I). This would certainly
be pretty much what we would expect if the two women were sisters.
Interestingly, I find the chronology of the descendants of the two
Ida's dovetails nicely with the chronology of the descendants of their
brother, Stephen Longespee. Stephen had one daughter, Ela, who left
issue. Ela's two granddaughters and co-heiresses were Ellen and Maud
la Zouche, who were born in 1288 and 1290 respectively.
In sharp contrast, however, the chronology of the descendants of the
one known niece of the two Ida's and Stephen, namely Ela de Audley, is
running a full generation after the descendants of the two Ida's and
Stephen. Ela de Audley has two known grandchildren (not
great-grandchildren) born about 1289. Again, this is what one would
expect when comparing the chronology of the descendants of a niece
against those of her aunts and uncle.
I must point out the when examining "out" generations that you are
dealing with averages. Averages can and should only be taken as
indicators. Having said that, it appears in this case the averages
"indicate" the two Ida's were full sisters.
The 85 year rule of thumb for 3 generations can also be used to
suggest an approximate birthdate of the two Ida's. If we add the
three birthdates of Ida I's three great-children, divide by three, and
subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida I of 1198. If we add
the three birthdates of Ida II's three great-grandchildren, divide by
three, and subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida No. 2 of
1210. Or, in other words, we have approximately 12 years separating
the two Ida's based on the chronology of their descendants.
I usually use 28 years for a generation in the medieval period. In
this case, 12 years is less than half a generation's difference. For
this reason, I conclude the two Ida's were probably full sisters to
one another.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote in message news:<125.1670d9...@aol.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Paul has raised an excellent point. Did a man have to wait until he
was 21 to have seisin of his wife's lands?
I know one example which might give us the answer to this question.
Elizabeth de Segrave was born in 1338. She was heiress to her father,
John, 4th Lord Segrave, in 1353. She proved her age in September
1353, one month short of her 15th birthday [Reference: Complete
Peerage, 9 (1936): 384]. Her husband, John de Mowbray, was age 13 at
this time, he being born in 1340. I don't know if Elizabeth and John
had seisin of her lands in 1353. However, since the whole point of
Elizabeth proving her age was to obtain seisin, I assume they had
seisin in 1353.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote in message news:<20020914053817...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
> >The arrangement for the marriage of the second WIlliam Longespee was in
> 1216. If he were at least age 7 by that time, he would be born by 1209 (after
Reedpcgen
"The 85 year rule of thumb for 3 generations can also be used to suggest an
generation in the medieval period."
But you leave me confused about your methodology. You are the person who
claims a girl of high rank normally married in their early teens, and Gwladys
when she was seven. You had just written,
"Dear Ken, Vickie, etc. ~
I seriously doubt that Amy de Gavaston was in her 20's at the time of her
marriage. As a general rule, women of this rank married before they were 20."
And,
"My call is for consistency."
"Consistency is a good thing I think. Or is that just an American concept? "
If we have the '28 year rule' between generations, how do we account for the
space of more than a decade from the time of marriage to the time of birth
according to your statements? If 28 years between generations is the norm, and
Amie left one child (Alice), and Amie was married about 1334....
?
Paul
ADRIANC...@aol.com
writes:
> The 85 year rule of thumb for 3 generations can also be used to
> suggest an approximate birthdate of the two Ida's. If we add the
> three birthdates of Ida I's three great-children, divide by three, and
> subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida I of 1198. If we add
> the three birthdates of Ida II's three great-grandchildren, divide by
> three, and subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida No. 2 of
> 1210. Or, in other words, we have approximately 12 years separating
> the two Ida's based on the chronology of their descendants.
>
> I usually use 28 years for a generation in the medieval period. In
> this case, 12 years is less than half a generation's difference. For
> this reason, I conclude the two Ida's were probably full sisters to
> one another.
>
> Comments are invited.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
>
Thank you for your post.
I am not sure why so much time should be spent on looking at the Chronologies
on siblings. We have a rough date for the birth of William II and an exact
date for the eldest son of Ida II which shows she could be of either
generation, but probably a grand-dau. Then we have the problem of "can there
be two Idas being sisters", although there is evidence of two siblings having
the same name, this is relatively rare, (usually occurring with half-brothers
and sisters, presumably where the second spouse wishes to use his/hers
father's/mother's or other relations name, even though already used by the
first spouse). When it does occur, it is usually the eldest son and heir's
name which is repeated probably to ensure the name continues in spite of a
premature death of the eldest son, due to the high mortality rates.
Repeating a younger son or the daughters name would be less important in a
patriarchical society.
As to you rule of 85, it reminds me when, during high inflation, a system of
accounting for inflation was introduced based on adjustments on the general
level of inflation (more specifically the retail price index). No company
was prepared to use this proposed standard because specific industries
complained "but our prices are a special case". Another example is that,
nobody is exactly average high, weight etc. Also this rule will vary with
different societies and at different times. Further the figure will vary
when looking at the eldest son of an eldest son as compared with any
grandson.
We have a birth date for Alan I Baron de la Zouche (9 Ot 1267 - CP Vol 12/2 p
935), so this statistical approach is not needed.
As for the birth date of Ela, there is no need to look at the chronology of
her grandchildren. She m James of Aldithley (Audley) in 1244 and they had a
son b in 1250 (CP I p 338 as corrected by Vol XIV) This is quite consistent
to having a sister Ida born about 1227 and mother of Robert b 1247.
Adrian
Rosie Bevan
Walter fitzRobert was daughter of William II, is sound. However, the main
sticking point with this line is that proof has always been lacking about
Ela's parentage, let alone Ida's. By Ela I'm referring to Ela who was
married to William de Odingsells, Justiciar of Ireland and mother of Ida,
Ela, Alice and Margaret, coheirs of their brother, Edmund.
The latest theory that there were two Ida's as siblings in the family of
William Longespee and Ela, Countess of Salisbury is not supported by the
Foundation History in the annals of Lacock Abbey, which was founded in
1229-30 by Ela, widow of William Longespee. The annals were compiled about
1275 and continued down to the end of the 15th century. Kenneth H. Rogers
(ed). 'Lacock Abbey Charters' (Wilts. Record Soc. 34 ; 1978).
"At ille lectissime eam suscepit, et fratri suo [of king Richard] Gulielmo
Lungespe maritavit, per quem liberos subscriptos habuit; viz Gulielmum
Lungespe secundum, Stephanum, Ricardum, Nicholaum, Isabellam Vescy,
Petronillam, quae obiit invirginitate, et apud Bradenstock, juxta
latus aviae suae dextrum, ibidem sepultum, sub lapide marmoreo, Elam et
Idam, A.D.mccxxvi." [William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanea, v.6 p.501]
The children are named William, Stephen, Richard, Nicholas, Isabel,
Petronilla, Ela and Ida. This is the source of the information given in CP
XI p.381-382, most of which can be verified by independent contemporary
record.
Working out a family chronology by the dates of the males in a family is
misleading. A male can father a child any time after puberty but a female
generally only produces children over a 25 year period in her life, starting
from the age of 15/17 by which time she was already married. It follows that
generations need to be calculated through the female not male lines for
accuracy. Younger sons in a household did not generally contract marriages
as early as the son and heir, because the future of the estate and
allegiance was not so much at issue.
Working backwards along the female line and allowing a comfortable 17 years
generation gap for the birth of each eldest child from Ida
(Herdeberge/Clinton) Odingseles to William Longespee II it can be seen that
the younger Ida was actually born after William Longespee I had died.
Ida (Odingsells) Herdeberge was already the mother of two infant daughters
when widowed in 1284. This would place her as having been born around 1265.
This is in line with what we known of her brother Edmund's birth in 1273 and
her youngest sister's birth in 1277. If we assume this to be the case, this
would place the birth of her mother, Ela, wife of William Odingseles around
1248. We know that Ela's brother Robert FitzWalter was born in 1247, so we
have a realistic match. Ela is clearly younger than her husband,William
Odingseles, who was born around 1229 (granted free warren in 1250). It was
probably a subsequent marriage for him.
As Robert, the eldest child of Ida was born in 1247, her estimated date of
birth is around 1230. Ida who was married to Walter fitzRobert was not the
same as the Ida, daughter of William Longespee and Ela Countess of
Salisbury, was married first to Ralph de Somery who died in 1220, and
secondly to William Beauchamp, Baron Bedford, recorded as holding the manor
of Chislehampton, Oxon., as Ida's dower from the Somery family in 1235 [CP
XII p.110-12]. CP IX p.382 is in error in stating that this Ida was married
to Walter fitzRobert first. At the time of the death of her first husband,
Ida was mother of Nicholas de Somery. She was therefore probably born
1203-1205 and the eldest child of Ela and William Longespee. She was
probably already contracted to marry Ralph by 1210 when William Longespee
was holding Chislehampton manor on behalf of Ralph de Somery who was then a
minor.
Ida's sister, Ela, was married around 1244 to James Audley when the manor of
Stretton and 2 carucates and two virgates in Wrecchewyke, Oxon were settled
on them by fine by William Longespee and Idonea his wife. [H.E.Salter, 'The
Feet of Fines for Oxfordshire,1195-1291 (Oxford Record Society, 1930)]. If
this was part of the final marriage arrangement, Ela's birth would have
occurred before 1232.
Today Paul cited Farrer (Honors and Knights' Fees 2:222) which shows that
William Longespee II had livery of Idonea's land at her coming of age in
1226, and if of age himself this would put his date of birth around 1205. We
know that negotiations for his marriage had taken place in 1216 presumably
after he had turned seven [CP XI p.383]. If so, that would put his date of
birth around 1209. The most telling evidence of his age was the 1229
inspeximus and confirmation of his mother's foundation charter of Lacock
Abbey [charter no.2, Lacock Abbey Charters]. He would have had to be of age
in order to legally carry out this function. This places his birth by 1208.
He was most certainly of age when he issued letters patent to all knights
and free tenants to the manors of Lacock and Hatherop, notifying them that
he had granted and confirmed those manors in free alms ca. 1231-2 (no. 8).
He was knighted in 1333 but this does not mean he had come of age, as
knighthood could be bestowed at any age. He was apparently due to be
knighted three years prior to that when on service with the king in
Brittany.
Crucially we need to focus on the age of Idonea. She was of full age in
1226, meaning she was around fifteen at that time. There is no reason to
believe she could not have borne children in the early 1230s around the time
that Ida and Ela appear to have been born.
1.William Longspee d.1226=Ela 1188-1261
2.William Longespee b.c. 1208-1250=Idonea de Camville b.c 1212-1252
3.Ida de Longespee b.c.1231 =Walter fitzRobert d.1258
4.Ela b.c.1248=William de Odingsells c.1229-1295
5.Ida b.c.1265=1. Roger de Herdeberge d.1284, 2. Thomas de
Clinton d.1210
A more fundamental genealogical issue for this line is that the only source
of the information for Ida wife of Robert fitzWalter being mother of Ela de
Odingsells is a passage from the 'Fundatorum Historia' of Lacock abbey.
There are significant problems with the particular passage in which it
appears. Here it is quoted in context with the description of the progeny of
Ela Countess of Salisbury and William Longespee.
"Gulielmus Longespe ex praedicta Ela liberos genuit, quorum nomina sunt haec
; Gulielmus Longespe secundus qui viriliter contra hostes Christi in Terra
Sancta dimicans ibidem pro nomine Jesu contumeliam patiens, vitam temporalem
finiens in Christo sine fine victuris, ut fertur, athleta Dei ad couli
palatium A.D.1249 ascendit, cujus animam domina Ela mater ipsius tunc
existens abbatissa de Lacock, vidit coelos penetrans in stallo suo, et horam
caeteris sororibus denuncians. genuit etiam Ricardum, qui fuit canonicus
Sarum, cujus corpus apud Lacock tumulatur ; Stephanum comitem Ultoniae,
cujus corpus apud Lacock humatum est, cor vero ejus apud Bradenstok optinet
sepulturam ; et Nicolaum, qui fuit episcopus Sarum, cujus corpus apud Sarum
tumulator, cor itaque ejus apud Lacock, viscera vero apud Ramisberiam ;
Isabellam de Vescy ; Elam, quam duxit comes Warwyk, et postea Philippus
Basset, quae remansit sterilis ; Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem
Walterus fil. Roberti, da qua genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quae velatae
erant apud Lacok ; Elam, quam duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua
genuit Robertum qui.....Ela ergo uxore Guil. Lungespee primi, nata fuid apud
Ambresbiriam, patre et matre Norman novem..." [William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanea, v.6 p.501]
It mentions William II, but there is no mention of his wife Idonea de
Camville. It then mentions Richard who was a canon at Salisbury and buried
at Lacock ; Stephen, Earl of Ulton, Ireland whose body was buried at Lacock
and heart at Bradenstoke ; Nicholas, bishop of Salisbury whose body was
buried at Salisbury, heart at Bradenstoke, entrails at Amesbury ; Isabella
[married to William de] Vescy ; Ela who was married to the Earl of Warwick
[Thomas de Newburgh] and after Philip Basset but died without issue.
It is at this point we meet the confused statement that Ida "Camyle" was
wife of Robert fitzWalter. Does this mean Ida is daughter of [Idonea de]
Camville, or does it mean Ida is married to Robert de Camville in the same
style that Isabella is known by her married name of Vescy? She is stated to
have two daughters Catherine and Lora who were veiled at Lacock.
Ela wife of William Odingsells is not overtly named as daughter of Ida, but
listed afterwards, the implication being she was progeny of William de
Longespee I. We know this to be incorrect from her approximate date of birth
around 1248. Her son and heir is also named as Robert but we don't have any
evidence for this at all.
We have to assume that the passage was written a long time after the events
and judging by the details, extracted from information on family tombs. The
crucial question for us, despite the chronological possibility of what is
hinted at here in the passage, is what actual independent proof do we have
that about the parentage of Ela de Oddingsells?
Cheers
Rosie
ADRIANC...@aol.com
Thanks so much for your post. I'm jealous of the amount of material you seem
to have available and the clear way you express your findings.
Here are a few comments which may be of interest, not necessarily requiring a
reply.
1) In a previous post there is a mention of an Agnes being a daughter of
William Longespee I by Ela, but not given in your list. This Agnes was
abbess of Shaftesbury in 1243, and possibly for the period 1242-46.
Unfortunately no sources was given.
A question I have been meaning to ask: I think that on ordination in RC
church's the priest/nun will often take on a new name. Does anybody know if
this happened in the Mediaeval period. Perhaps Agnes was Petronilla
2) I have a book called "The Canons of Salisbury" by Christopher Ross (2000)
which seems well researched; for instance under Nicholas Longespee he has:
_Canopy statuette and shield_:-Nicholas Longespee was fourth son of William
Longespee, who in the right of his wife Ella, the foundress of Lacock Abbey,
became Earl of Salisbury. He was Treasurer of Sarum [=Salisbury] from before
1275 to 1291 and was Bishop of Sarum from 1292 until his death on 18 May
1297. He was buried in the cathedral, with his heart at Lacock and his
viscera at Ramsbury. Fig 31 then gives a picture of his Shield affixed to
the rear of the canons stalls being the royal shield (ie six lions rampant ag
3,2,1 on a background vert.-if I have remembered these terms correctly). He
held the Prebend of Pottern, Wilts (1292-97) as well as Treasurer (both
offices entitling him to a Canons stall, although his shield is actually
affixed to the rear of the Prebend of Bitton's stall.)
However this book has not identified his brother Richard who was also
supposed to be a canon - and perhaps he is one of the unidentified Richards
who were canons. One of these Richards was Chancellor of Sarum in 1236 (but
who might be the same as Richard de Bremble who held the perbend of Bitton
from c1226-c1233), the three other unidentified Richards would seem to be too
early, holding office c 1122; c 1198 and before 1219.
From the Bradenstoke Cartulary I have deduced that Richard Longespee was
still living in 1250 and that he (and his brother Stephen) had been knighted
by 1242.
(NB Vera London - editor of the Bradenstoke Cartulary - gives the date of
death of Stephen Longespee as 1266. I don't know if this is correct, but I
think I saw 1260 quoted in a recent post)
3) I am glad you have mentioned the Rosa who, as well as her sister
Catherine, took the veil at Laycock. In my notes I show a daughter of Ida
and her 1st husband Ralph de Somery as leaving Lora, a nun at Lacock, then I
have marked it with lots of red question marks and "where did this come
from!", now I can put that right and will be able to sleep at nights. I have
also noted that this Ida was probably too young to have had issue at her
first husbands death so I was surprised to see your mention of their son
Richard de Somery. Perhaps there is something in the archives about him, and
I will search around.
On a different point, have you seen all those "de la Mare" names in
Bradenstoke Cartulary? I assume they are linked to those in CP Vol VIII p
463, if so this would give a link to the Akeni family, who featured in the
threads on the Tosnie family, perhaps connecting countess Ida Bigod to them -
I know, a long shot.
many thanks for your post,
Adrian.
Rosie Bevan wrote;
> -
Paul Davis
There is a difference between average generation and first birth, and there is a
difference between marriage and first birth. This accounts for how a typical
marriage age could be 14, but an average generation still 28. The average will be
somewhere between the first and last ages at a birth, and the first birth is not
necessarily promptly after marriage. Remember also, the eldest child or children
may have died young.
- PKD [Paul K Davis - paulk...@earthlink.net]
Reedpcgen
>there is a
>difference between marriage and first birth. This accounts for how a typical
>marriage age could be 14, but an average generation still 28.
> The average will be >somewhere between the first and last ages at a birth,
and the first birth is >not >necessarily promptly after marriage. Remember
also, the eldest child or >children >may have died young.
Paul, that is true, but not exactly my point.
It has been assumed that male and female heirs will marry not long after they
achieve ages 12/14. And in fact, we do know that many marriages are arranged
in infancy, long before that age.
But the average age of first marriage for average people has been found,
according to statistical studies, to be in the 20-30 year old range, which also
agrees with a 28-33 year midrange.
In the case in question - trying to make two Ida Longespees sisters instead of
aunt/niece based on rough and general chronology, when more exact chronology
is available - is a flawed approach, especially as the eldest son and heir who
is a factor in this equation is known, his date of marriage is known, and it is
known when his wife came of age.
You cannot use one rule when it best suits one conclusion you are trying to
make, and another at a different time because it suits a different conclusion
you are trying to make. Methodology does need to be consistent.
When Doug discussed that Amie must have been born after 1312 because she would
not have been married after age 20, he was not giving us leeway with that
statement or conclusion. Amie had no viable marriage prospects on her own; she
was not an heiress or of the peerage (in that she had no inheritance and
though the status of an illegitimate child was not disgraceful, it was not
equal to legitimate children either).
That conclusion, that Amie would not be married after age 20, is opposed to
this situation concerning two Idas.
You cannot be whimsical about how you approach this methodology. That was my
point, and perhaps I should have stated it in a more direct fashion.
Paul
Rosie Bevan
To correct two errors in my post
1. 1333 for the knighting of William II should read 1233 (Thanks, Henry)
2. The heir of Ralph de Somery was not called Nicholas - that was his
brother William Perceval Somery's heir. It appears that Ralph may have left
a son who died young called Ralph. Ida was already married to William
Beauchamp in 1220 as recorded by a fine.[CP XII p.111, note e]
Cheers
Rosie
Bennett, Barbara
future
>trying to sort all of George Foreman's children from each other as all 5 of
his
>sons have the same name as him...
I worked with a woman named Rose Marie. Her identical twin sister was named
Rosalie. They were both known as Rose.