The Aguillon and the Ecstasy
Chris Phillips
> I have some notes on the daughters of Robert Aguillon at:
> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/arg/argbiog.shtml#aguillon
...
> I see that my version doesn't agree with what CP vol.5, p.400, note b
says,
> as far as the fitz Bernards are concerned:
> "This Ralph [living 32 Edw. I], aged 13, 14, or 15 in 1259, was s. and h.
of
> John fitz Bernard (who d. shortly before 30 Oct. 1259), by Joan (living 15
> Feb. 1262/3), da. and coh. of Robert Aguillon (Ch. Inq. p.m., Hen. III,
file
> 24, no.3: Patent Roll, 47 Hen. III, p.1, m.15: &c). John was s. and h. of
> Ralph fitz Bernard (who d. before 10 June 1238), by his 2nd wife, Joan.
> Ralph was s. and h. of Thomas fitz Bernard ... (who d. before 11 Dec
> 1214)..."
>
> I haven't seen these references - although they are presumably in print -
> but I think there must be something askew in the CP version of fitz
Bernard.
> Obviously "fitz Bernard" was a surname by this time, so I shouldn't have
> translated Joan's husband's name as "Ralph son of Bernard". But the Curia
> Regis roll of 1239 seems to be clear that Joan, the daughter of Margery
("de
> Fresney"; and from other evidence, of her husband Robert Aguillon) was the
> wife of a Ralph fitz Bernard who was dead by 1239 - and not the wife of a
> John fitz Bernard, as CP has from evidence dating from 1259 and c.1262.
> Surely Joan's husband must be the Ralph mentioned by CP as dead by 1238.
It
> looks as though wives called Joan in two successive generations have
somehow
> been confused.
>
> Quite what the correct version should be, I'm not sure. It's tempting to
> assume Joan Aguillon was just the grandmother, rather than the mother, of
> the Ralph who was b.c.1245. But this may not be right - after being
widowed
> by Ralph fitz Bernard, Joan remarried (after 1239) to Imbert Pugeys, and
in
> 3 Edward I (c.1274) she seems to be represented by a Roger de Pugeys. The
> latter fact, and the chronology, may suggest that Ralph's father John fitz
> Bernard was the son of Ralph by his first wife (implied but unnamed by
CP).
> But perhaps a look at John's IPM and the Patent Roll of c.1262, mentioned
by
> CP, would make things clearer.
I've now had a chance to look at the sources cited by the Complete Peerage,
and one or two others.
Of the two references cited in support of the statement that Ralph fitz
Bernard (b.c.1245) was the son of John fitz Bernard (d.1259) by Joan, da and
coh of Robert Aguillon:
(i) The Inquisition post mortem of John "son of" Bernard (i.e. fitz
Bernard), for which the writ was dated 30 October 44 Henry III, just says
that his son and heir was Ralph, variously stated to be 13, 14 or 15, and
gives details of his lands in Essex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Kent
[Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Henry III, p.130, no 468].
(ii) The Patent roll, dated 15 February 1263, records a grant to Joan de
Aguylun, late the wife of Imbert Pugeis, sometime the steward, and to their
children, of the wardship of the lands and heirs of John fitz Bernard,
tenant in chief, previously granted to Imbert (with further conditions)
[Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1258-1266, p.247].
So there's nothing there to support the relationships claimed in the text,
against the clear evidence of the Curia Regis roll in 1239 that the husband
of Joan [de Aguillon] had been called Ralph fitz Bernard. (To be fair, I
don't think that evidence was in print when the CP article on fitz Bernard
was written.)
And there's also the evidence that Joan's share of the Aguillon inheritance
was later in the hands of a Pugeis, not a fitz Bernard: in 1274 the Hundred
Roll records land in Norfolk held by Adam de Cokefud, Roger de Pugeys, Luke
de Ponings and Reginald de Argentem - Adam, Luke and Reginald being the sons
of the other three Aguillon heiresses. I think "Roger" here must be a
misreading of "Robert", though - see below.
It seems clear that it's Joan Aguillon who was the widow of Ralph fitz
Bernard, who was awarded dower in Kent and Buckinghamshire in June 1238 and
later [Cal Pat R 1237-1242, pp.59,61,68,80,92]. CP does refer to this Joan,
whom it calls Ralph's 2nd wife, and says she was the mother of his son John.
But the fact that Joan's share of the Aguillon inheritance went to the son
of her subsequent husband, Imbert Pugeis, suggests that she left no issue by
Ralph, and that John fitz Bernard was the son of Ralph's first wife.
(Actually, the material I've looked at doesn't contain any reference to
Ralph having had an earlier wife, or even, I think, to John being the son of
Ralph. Presumably this comes from "LFC charters xxv, nos 12, 14, 21 and
xxvii, nos 17, 19, 22" referred to by CP. But I haven't been able to work
out what these may be.)
If this is correct, Imbert Pugeis was granted the wardship of the lands of
his wife's stepson, not - as CP seems to have assumed - of her first
husband.
It seems that the son of Imbert Pugeis and Joan was called
Robert - not Roger (as appears in the old printed edition of the Hundred
Rolls, for 1274). An item in "Calendarium Genealogicum" (p.146), dated 55
Henry III (c.1271) refers to "dominus Robertus Pogeys, filius et haeres
praedicti Ymberti", and in the Inquisition post mortem of William Marmyun,
the yearly dues from the manor of Berwick, Sussex, include 17s 9 1/4 d to
Sir Robert Pogeys, the same amount to Sir Giles de Argentein [the husband of
Joan's sister Margery] and twice that amount to Lady Alice de Marley [the
widow of Joan's father Robert Aguillon]. The inquisition is undated, but CP
[vol.8, pp.517,518] says that William Marmyun was dead by 1276, and cites
one author as saying he died 27 July 1275.
Incidentally, this same inquisition gives another indication that there was
a reasonably close relationship between the Robert Aguillon who was this
Joan's father, and the later Robert who this thread was originally about.
The inquisition contains a note that "this extent was made in the presence
of the bailiffs of William Marmyun whose was the manor, and of Robert
Agwilun to whom the king gave it." Joan's father Robert had been dead for at
least 25 years, so presumably the manor was granted to the later Sir Robert
for some reason.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
>I wrote (back in July):
>> I have some notes on the daughters of Robert Aguillon at:
>> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/arg/argbiog.shtml#aguillon
>...
>> I see that my version doesn't agree with what CP vol.5, p.400, note b
>says,
> > as far as the fitz Bernards are concerned:
[SNIP]
>It seems clear that it's Joan Aguillon who was the widow of Ralph fitz
>Bernard, who was awarded dower in Kent and Buckinghamshire in June 1238 and
>later [Cal Pat R 1237-1242, pp.59,61,68,80,92].
[SNIP]
>
>Incidentally, this same inquisition gives another indication that there was
>a reasonably close relationship between the Robert Aguillon who was this
>Joan's father, and the later Robert who this thread was originally about.
>The inquisition contains a note that "this extent was made in the presence
>of the bailiffs of William Marmyun whose was the manor, and of Robert
>Agwilun to whom the king gave it." Joan's father Robert had been dead for at
>least 25 years, so presumably the manor was granted to the later Sir Robert
>for some reason.
Chris, your work's invaluable. For myself, it would be so even if
only because here appears (to my recollection, anyhow) to be one of
the first near-contemporaneous allusions (if not the first) to the
two Roberts in the same document, given something more to go on in
this crazy chase after some sense of their relationship and the
implications for a sorting-out of their two lines, over all.
>for some reason<
There's the rub.
Thanks enormously.
Cris
--
Chris Phillips
> >Incidentally, this same inquisition gives another indication that there
was
> >a reasonably close relationship between the Robert Aguillon who was this
> >Joan's father, and the later Robert who this thread was originally about.
> >The inquisition contains a note that "this extent was made in the
presence
> >of the bailiffs of William Marmyun whose was the manor, and of Robert
> >Agwilun to whom the king gave it." Joan's father Robert had been dead for
at
> >least 25 years, so presumably the manor was granted to the later Sir
Robert
> >for some reason.
>
> Chris, your work's invaluable. For myself, it would be so even if
> only because here appears (to my recollection, anyhow) to be one of
> the first near-contemporaneous allusions (if not the first) to the
> two Roberts in the same document, given something more to go on in
> this crazy chase after some sense of their relationship and the
> implications for a sorting-out of their two lines, over all.
Actually, I've been delving into my notes again, and have noticed something
that I really should have remembered when this was being discussed before.
I have some notes on the Aguillons from Paget's Baronage. Unfortunately, I
have mainly noted what relates to the "first" Robert (the one with 4
daughters), and have made only brief notes of the rest. However, Paget does
state a relationship between this Robert and the younger one, the
father-in-law of Hugh Bardolf.
Paget says that the younger Robert's father was a second cousin of the elder
Robert [but perhaps this is slightly wrong - see below]. The common ancestor
is said to be Manasser Aguillon, living 1156, who had a son and heir William
(I noted that he says a lot more about this William, but I didn't copy it).
William had a grandson William (again, I didn't note the intervening
generation), who died shortly before 3 Oct 1244, when his son Robert did
homage and had livery [citing Rot. Fin. 28 Henry III, m.2]. This Robert was
the younger of the Roberts we've been discussing, says Paget.
Going back to Manasser, Paget says he had a second son Manasser, living
1172, and that the younger Manasser had a third son Richard, who married Ela
de Frivill or Freville, by whom he had a son Robert. Richard and Robert
appear as witnesses in 1201 [citing Cal. Docs. France i no 1403]. Paget says
that this son Robert was the elder one we've been discussing.
Paget gives further details of the "elder" Robert's career, from 1203 to
1227, and says he married Agatha, dau and coheir of Fulk Beaufoy [citing
Blomefield's History of Norfolk], and says he had 4 daughters by her
(repeating some of the errors about the daughters, that we've discussed here
before). He adds that Robert married secondly Alice, widow of John de Wahull
(d.1217) [citing Bracton's Notebook, no 1182] and daughter of William de
Munchensi, and that Robert was still living 1232.
Having said that, we know that the mother of the "elder" Robert's 4
daughters was not in fact Agatha de Beaufo, but Margery, daughter of William
de Fresney. Also that at least two of these daughters gave birth to their
heirs around 1240. And that C.J. Phillips in his History of the Sackville
Family makes Agatha de Beaufo the mother of Robert, not his wife.
So could it be that there are two Roberts here - the first who was active by
1203 and married Agatha de Beaufo, and the second who married Margery de
Fresney and died around 1249 leaving 4 daughters and a widow Alice "de
Merley/Marley"? Perhaps this Alice is the same one mentioned above, in any
case.
On the question of which of the "younger" Robert's wives was the mother of
Isabel, the wife of Hugh Bardolf, Paget agrees with what's been said here
before. He says that Robert married Margaret of Savoy "after 13 June 1269",
and that Isabel was born 25 March 1258. Again, frustratingly, I haven't
noted down what his authority is for these statements.
Obviously I'll have to make another trip to the British Library to fill in
some of the gaps some time!
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> However, Paget does
> state a relationship between this Robert and the younger one, the
> father-in-law of Hugh Bardolf.
While I can't address this specific case, it should be noted as a
warning that Paget linked several families that were not,
actually, related, such as the two Aubigny lines and, IIRC,
Beauchamp, so such linkages must be taken with a grain of salt.
taf
Chris Phillips
> While I can't address this specific case, it should be noted as a
> warning that Paget linked several families that were not,
> actually, related, such as the two Aubigny lines and, IIRC,
> Beauchamp, so such linkages must be taken with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the note of caution.
I haven't used Paget very much, although I can't help being impressed by the
breadth of the record evidence he cites. Having said that, his account of
the Aguillons is obviously wrong in several respects, so the rest of it
must - as always - stand or fall on the quality of the evidence.
I'll have to go back and look at the parts of the account that I didn't copy
fully before. I'm not sure quite when I'll get the chance, though.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
>Actually, I've been delving into my notes again, and have noticed something
Chris, thanks enormously for taking us through this. Your and Todd's
cautions look just right to me. Oddly enough, natheless, my response
to your notes on the Paget is -- on the grounds of the sheer density
of its propositions re this family, which I wouldn't have expected --
you've made me want to have a second look at it. We'll _both_ have
to make these trips! Meantime, I'm -- maybe a lot of us are --
putting your valuable comments to the front of an eye-level shelf,
for real study. Thanks again.
Cris
--