Husband of Adelisa de Vere
Bill Prokasy
According to Domesday Descendants, p. 250, John married Alice, daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere.
According to Medieval Lands, http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3T-Z.htm#JohnVescidied1183, Alice was the daughter of Robert of Essex and Adelisa de Vere.
I would appreciate receiving any information that would resolve this discrepancy.
Bill Prokasy
hsone
> Richard FitzEustace and Albereda de Lisoriis had a son, John, who became constable of Chester in 1163.
>
> According to Domesday Descendants, p. 250, John married Alice, daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere.
>
> I would appreciate receiving any information that would resolve this discrepancy.
>
> Bill Prokasy
You might want to check out the following sources which I have in my
notes and some of which may apply, but I have not verified recently.
It has been a while since reviewing these sources.
EYC (Early Yorkshire Charters) III:199
Early Yorkshire Families (Pedigree between pages 98-99)
Ormerod I:693
Family Trees and the Roots of Politics pp.180-181
By and large Medieval Lands is a dreadful source as is Stirnet and
other similar internet sources. They perpetuate error and cause
sincere researchers such as you to question more reliable sources like
Keats-Rohan (which is also not infallible, but contains fewer errors
and is based completely on documentation)
HS
Peter Stewart
"Bill Prokasy" <w...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1.129442309...@rootsweb.com...
On this point Keats-Rohan was following Round in his article 'Who was Alice
of Essex?', where the point is given "as I believe" and not proved - this is
available on Google Boks at
http://books.google.com/books?id=qcUGAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:OCLC1568251&lr,
see p. 248.
Peter Stewart
John Watson
> "Bill Prokasy" <w...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:mailman.1.129442309...@rootsweb.com...
>
> > Richard FitzEustace and Albereda de Lisoriis had a son,
> > John, who became constable of Chester in 1163.
>
> > According to Domesday Descendants, p. 250, John married
> > Alice, daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere.
> > According to Medieval Lands,
> > Alice was the daughter of Robert of Essex and Adelisa de
> > Vere.
>
> > I would appreciate receiving any information that would
> > resolve this discrepancy.
>
> On this point Keats-Rohan was following Round in his article 'Who was Alice
> of Essex?', where the point is given "as I believe" and not proved - this is
> see p. 248.
>
> Peter Stewart
Hi Bill,
See also Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 388-96
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924027915812#page/n409/mode/2up
Regards,
John
wjhonson
> "Bill Prokasy" <w...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:mailman.1.129442309...@rootsweb.com...
>
> > Richard FitzEustace and Albereda de Lisoriis had a son,
> > John, who became constable of Chester in 1163.
>
> > According to Domesday Descendants, p. 250, John married
> > Alice, daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere.
> > According to Medieval Lands,
> > Alice was the daughter of Robert of Essex and Adelisa de
> > Vere.
>
> > I would appreciate receiving any information that would
> > resolve this discrepancy.
>
> On this point Keats-Rohan was following Round in his article 'Who was Alice
> of Essex?', where the point is given "as I believe" and not proved - this is
> see p. 248.
>
> Peter Stewart
I think this is a full-view book and so the direct URL to page 248
would be
http://books.google.com/books?id=qcUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA248
All you need for full-view books is the "id" field and the "pg" field,
you don't need anything else.
The "pg" field for all normal pages (not prefaces or appendixes) is
always PA something, so in this case PA248 would be Page 248.
Let me know if that doesn't work.
Are these pipe rolls 1185 published? Maybe I already have a link to
them on my Sources page, I'll have to see if I can't find the exact
citation.
W
Peter Stewart
"wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7406961e-0032-4468...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> I think this is a full-view book and so the direct URL to page
> 248 would be
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=qcUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA248
>
> All you need for full-view books is the "id" field and the "pg" field,
> you don't need anything else.
No - all I and most of the planet need is for Google Books to have the sense
to make all full-view books available to us, instead of releasing them only
for readers in the USA or fiddling through a proxy, as if copyright law is
some sort of incomprehensible monster beyond your insular shores. But we are
not holding our collective breath.
> The "pg" field for all normal pages (not prefaces or appendixes)
> is always PA something, so in this case PA248 would be Page 248.
>
> Let me know if that doesn't work.
This simpler URL does work, but I couldn't have copied it to SGM because it
is not shown by the proxy service I use. The efficient sharing of knowledge
is NOT the first (or any) priority of Google Books.
> Are these pipe rolls 1185 published? Maybe I already have a link
> to them on my Sources page, I'll have to see if I can't find the exact
> citation.
http://www.archive.org/details/piperollsociety34pipeuoft
Peter Stewart
pj.evans
> "wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
Copyright laws differ from country to country. The US is actually less
restrictive than most of the world.
John P. Ravilious
>
> - Show quoted text -
--------------------
Dear John, Peter, Bill, 'HS' et al.,
There is an item in the Nottinghamshire Archives that may help
lead to a solution (accent on may). This is a grant by Adelicia/
Alice, daughter of 'Alice of Essex' and wife of John, Constable of
Chester:
' Reference: DD/SR/102/41
Creation dates: 1190 - 1211
Scope and Content
Grant by Adelicia once the wife of John constable of
Chester to the monks of Rufford of all her land in Almatona which
belongs to her fee in Cresale at an annual rent of 10s 0d. ' [1]
There is certainty as to whom Adelicia or Alice was, and at least
a terminus for the grant (John de Lacy, the constable, having d. in
1190). The key may be in identifying 'Almatona' and 'Cresale'. There
is a Cresswell in Woodhorn par., Northumberland lying 12 km south of
Warkworth, but then there appear to be Creswell locations (if Cresale
= Cres(s)well) in several locales in England.
I will be doing a bit more searching later, but should this ring
a bell perhaps some certainty as to Alice's paternity may be achieved.
Cheers,
John
Notes
[1] A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and
Estate Papers [DD/SR/13-DD/SR/205], DD/SR/102/41
Peter Stewart
"pj.evans" <pj.eva...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:aa7c8f11-1476-4d98...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Copyright laws differ from country to country. The US is actually
> less restrictive than most of the world.
I know that - but you would not be looking to make excuses for this if you
lived outside the USA.
Google Books has COUNTLESS titles that are patently out of copyright
EVERYWHERE, including some publications from the 17th and 18th centuries
restricted to the USA.
And any book that the digitiser knows to have been reprinted is not made
available from the start - except by mistake - or else withdrawn from full
view later, as if that somehow revives a lapsed copyright, giving a
pre-emptive claim to the last republisher.
The probability is that Google has the idea of charging everyone to access
all titles eventually, and they are using the rest of the world to try this
on first and/or to gauge how determined people are to find and download
currently restricted books.
Peter Stewart
Bill Prokasy
Alice de Vere, sister of Alberic III and wife successively of Robert (II) of Essex and Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth, occurs in two entries in the Rotuli de Dominabus of 1185. In the first, p. 29-39, she is described as aged 60 with two sons and a daughter married to John the constable of Chester. The Northamptonshire manor of Aynho is mentioned, which her nephew William de Mandeville had given her in addition to the dower provided by her husband Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth. The Clavering manor (p.76-7) held as part of her marriage into the Essex family also descended to her issue by Roger fitz Richard. There is no evidence that she had issue by Robert of Essex.
This seems to be a good case for Roger fitz Richard being the father. If so, then Early Yorkshire Charters, Vol III:199 would be in error.
Thanks to all of you for your help in providing sources.
Bill
From: Bill Prokasy
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 12:58 PM
To: Gen-Medieval
Subject: Husband of Adelisa de Vere
Richard FitzEustace and Albereda de Lisoriis had a son, John, who became constable of Chester in 1163.
According to Domesday Descendants, p. 250, John married Alice, daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere.
According to Medieval Lands, http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3T-Z.htm#JohnVescidied1183, Alice was the daughter of Robert of Essex and Adelisa de Vere.
I would appreciate receiving any information that would resolve this discrepancy.
Bill Prokasy
Peter Stewart
> I wrote Professor Keats-Rohan to see what she thought about
> which of Adelisa de Vere’s husbands was the father of the
> Alice who married John the Constable of Chester. She was
> kind enough to write back, and this is quoted from her email:
>
> Alice de Vere, sister of Alberic III and wife successively of
> Robert (II) of Essex and Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth,
> occurs in two entries in the Rotuli de Dominabus of 1185.
> In the first, p. 29-39, she is described as aged 60 with two
> sons and a daughter married to John the constable of
> Chester. The Northamptonshire manor of Aynho is
> mentioned, which her nephew William de Mandeville had
> given her in addition to the dower provided by her husband
> Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth. The Clavering manor
> (p.76-7) held as part of her marriage into the Essex family
> also descended to her issue by Roger fitz Richard. There is
> no evidence that she had issue by Robert of Essex.
In *Geoffrey de Mandeville* (1892) p. 391 Round stated that Alice "married
twice, and left issue by both husbands", citing the chronicle of Walden
abbey, written early in the 13th century.
Unfortunately he did not quote the specific evidence from this, and I don't
have a copy of the edition, *The Book of the Foundation of Walden
Monastery*, edited by Diana Greenway & Leslie Watkiss, Oxford Medieval Texts
(Oxford, 1999).
Can anyone post the relevant text?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:...
After a little Googling I found this online - it's not shown not on Google
Books, needless to say, but on the reader at Amazon.co.uk.
Round was stretching the evidence, as the chronicle only says that Alice's
first husband Robert de Essex left her some property to be transmitted to an
heir, that she kept this until she died and then left it to her son by her
second husband Roger. There is nothing to say that she had offspring by her
first husband, and indeed the contrary is implied. The text is:
"Domino quidem suo primo marito, Roberto sciilicet de Essexia...moriens
tamen uxori dimisit liberam et quietam heredi reddendam...Predicta uero uxor
illius Alicia terram dictam usque ad mortem propriam retinens, filio suo et
heredi Roberto quem de alio uiro nomine Rogero susceperat dimisit" (p. 76).
Peter Stewart
Alex Maxwell Findlater
>
> - Show quoted text -
This Latin is not grammatical and doesn't make sense. 'Domino ....
Essexia' is in the dative, so cannot be the subject of the verb
dimisit. liberam et quietam are both adjectives and reddendam is a
gerundive, presumably agreeing with them, but there is no object for
them to describe. The Latin does not mention 'an' heir, nor indeed
'the' or even 'her' heir, as not using articles, whether definite or
indefinite. I would expect that what was implied was that someone,
who might indeed be Robert of Essex, would have had an heir, not
necessarily of the body, and the lands would revert to that heir after
her death, but that what is perhaps really being said is that she had
a good competence from him upon which to live, perhaps an enhanced
widow's terce. Is it possible to quote the full text, please?
Peter Stewart
"Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98220b90-9d4c-4571...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> This Latin is not grammatical and doesn't make sense.
Yes, I'm not a typist and I don't have all day to spare for SGM so I cut it
to the barest minimum. I did tell you where to find it, via Amazon.co.uk.
> 'Domino .... Essexia' is in the dative, so cannot be the
> subject of the verb dimisit.
Ho hum - it would have taken less time for you to look it up than to post a
treatise about it.
"Domino quidem suo primo marito, Roberto scilicet de Essexia, Ricardus Goet
pater Willelmi Goet terram quandam de feodo suo uiginta et duas acras
continentem, pro duabus marcis inuadiauerat quam idem Robertus usque ad
obitum retinens, moriens tamen uxori dimisit liberam et quietam heredi
reddendam...Predicta uero uxor illius Alicia terram dictam usque ad mortem
propriam retinens, filio suo et heredi Roberto quem de alio uiro nomine
Rogero susceperat dimisit."
> liberam et quietam are both adjectives and reddendam
> is a gerundive, presumably agreeing with them, but there is
> no object for them to describe.
Now you can see it, "terram quandam", but I had no intention of adding the
irrelevant stuff about the Goet pair in order to explain this to pedants.
> The Latin does not mention 'an' heir, nor indeed 'the' or
> even 'her' heir, as not using articles, whether definite or
> indefinite.
Um, it mentions "heredi" in a context that clearly means "an heir", or
perhaps "her heir", rather than "the heir", since if he had one of his own
Robert would presumably have left it to that person and not to his widow.
> I would expect that what was implied was that someone,
> who might indeed be Robert of Essex, would have had an
> heir, not necessarily of the body, and the lands would
> revert to that heir after her death, but that what is perhaps
> really being said is that she had a good competence from
> him upon which to live, perhaps an enhanced widow's
> terce.
Again Um, no - the passage is about a small property that eventually came to
the abbey, not her entire widow's "competence".
You would obviously expect that I had no idea what I was copying. The only
way your suppositions make sense is if Robert had an underage heir when he
died who did not survive long enough to be given the property in question.
But there is not a scintilla of actual evidence for this construction. Alice
kept it until she died when her son by Roger, her second husband, made
arrangements for it to go to Walden abbey. Nothing imples that he was the
heir of an imaginary heir to Robert de Essex.
Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
Given the Notts connection Creswell in Derbyshire springs to mind.
There's an Elmton just SW of it.
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=451520&Y=373965&A=Y&Z=12
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Alex Maxwell Findlater
that firstly I live in the depths of the country in the UK, so I
cannot read most of the googlebook references, and I presume that no-
one else outside America can either, and I also find it difficult to
get to any large library. If you had given the amazon address for
this quote (and I could not work out the address easily), I would have
tried it, but that was not an option open to me.
Thank you for the full text. My translation is as follows, and I hope
that it is accurate,
Richard Goet the father of William Goet had pledged for 2 marks a
certain land of his feu, containing 22 acres, to a certain lord her
first husband, that is Robert of Essex, which (land) the same Robert
retaining to his death, [and] dying however devised it to his wife
free and quit and to be returned to the heir.
The aforesaid wife of that man, Alice, retaining the said land until
her own death, devised it to her son and heir Robert whom she had had
of another man called Roger.
If I am right, then the heir might be either the heir of the Goets or
the heir of Robert. I don't think that it could include her own
heir. In the event I suspect that the pledge was never repaid and so
after a period of time - I don't know what the normal limitation would
have been then - it would become the permanent possession of the new
owner. As it was personalty when Robert of Essex died, I imagine that
it would not have been returnable to the right heir of Robert of
Essex, whom, if he was childless, I presume would be his brother. As
such it was free to be given by Alice to her son by Roger FitzRichard.
So I withdraw my previous suggestion. I would expect, but I guess
that it cannot be proved, that she had no issue by Robert of Essex.
Otherwise we might see some inheritance going elsewhere, and one would
certainly expect that this small parcel would have gone to him/her.
In any case Robert FitzRoger would have been her own heir, unless she
had an older son by Robert of Essex. Any lands which Robert had from
his father would surely have gone to his brother Henry of Essex, in
default of a lineal heir. Furthermore I understand that the Clavering
lands came from Geoffrey de Mandeville, husband of her sister Rohese
and that land certainly went to the Warkworth family.
So, all this tends, in my opinion, to suggest that Aice was the
daughter of Roger FitzRichard of Warkworth.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
> lead to a solution (accent on may). This is a grant by Adelicia/
> Alice, daughter of 'Alice of Essex' and wife of John, Constable of
> Chester:
>
> ' Reference: DD/SR/102/41
> Creation dates: 1190 - 1211
>
> Scope and Content
> Grant by Adelicia once the wife of John constable of
> Chester to the monks of Rufford of all her land in Almatona which
> belongs to her fee in Cresale at an annual rent of 10s 0d. ' [1]
>
> There is certainty as to whom Adelicia or Alice was, and at least
> a terminus for the grant (John de Lacy, the constable, having d. in
> 1190). The key may be in identifying 'Almatona' and 'Cresale'. There
> is a Cresswell in Woodhorn par., Northumberland lying 12 km south of
> Warkworth, but then there appear to be Creswell locations (if Cresale
> = Cres(s)well) in several locales in England.
This was quoted some time ago in a correspondence where it was
suggested that Richard de Crevecour (actually Richard de Trevecour,
now Troqueer, of which he, as an attorney, was probably the parson)
was the father of John de Lacy.
Rufford Monastery is in Notts, and it would seem that Almaton in
Cresale could also be there, so it is perhaps more likely that this
land came to Alice as a part of her maritagium.
pj.evans
> "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote in message
Thank you for insulting my intelligence.
In fact, there are books that are available in the US, and NOT in the
rest of the world, because of the copyright issue.
Google has pulled stuff that they mistakenly thought was out of
copyright; I hear that they would like, eventually, to sell electronic
copies of now-out-of-print works, although whether they'll be allowed
to do so is a different matter. (I think that one will result in legal
action.)
Peter Stewart
> On Jan 8, 5:33 pm, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:aa7c8f11-1476-4d98...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Copyright laws differ from country to country. The US is actually
> > > less restrictive than most of the world.
> >
> > I know that - but you would not be looking to make excuses for this
> > if you lived outside the USA.
> >
> > Google Books has COUNTLESS titles that are patently out of
> > copyright EVERYWHERE, including some publications from the
> > 17th and 18th centuries restricted to the USA.
<snip>
> > Peter Stewart
>
> Thank you for insulting my intelligence.
>
> In fact, there are books that are available in the US, and NOT in
> the rest of the world, because of the copyright issue.
It is you who are busily insulting the intelligence of readers.
Quite obviously some books are restricted to the US because of copyright
issues. Equally obviously, publications from the 17th and 18th centuries are
NOT restricted because of the copyright issue, since none persists although
Google for some reason pretends that it does.
In other words, they couldn't care less about making the printed heritage of
mankind - including countless publications from the rest of the world -
available to the rest of the world. That was my point that your intelligence
had evidently still not grasped.
No-one, I suppose, has ever lived for 100 years after publishing a book. I
am sure that, if they wished, Google could develop a filter to use the
bibliographic information provided by digitisers to ensure satisfying the
different restrictions of copyright law in most countries from which they
draw revenue. But they don't bother. Why, if there is not another agenda
apart from the stated mission of making "the world's books discoverable
online"?
Google run considerable operations in the UK and Australia, for instance,
and could surely devote some staff resources to complete this very simple
task in both of those jurisdictions. Ditto almost every other. They present
the *Book of Mormon* in full view to the whole world in an edition from
1937, that would be restricted by their general rule, so plainly this can be
overridden by discretion if someone chooses.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>I am very sorry for causing such a Ho Hum situation. I should explain
> that firstly I live in the depths of the country in the UK, so I
> cannot read most of the googlebook references, and I presume that no-
> one else outside America can either, and I also find it difficult to
> get to any large library.
And I live in a provincial town in Victoria, Australia, also well away from
any large library. But I can avail myself of ILLs, of course, and having
access to the internet (like you) I am able to read Google Book references
through a proxy.
> If you had given the amazon address for this quote (and I could
> not work out the address easily), I would have tried it, but that was
> not an option open to me.
Ho hum, another song and dance. I gave the address - Amazon.co.uk. I also
gave the title of the book. There is a search facility that will bring it up
on screen, and then a reader with another search facility to go into the
text. I posted more than enough of this for the purpose.
> Thank you for the full text. My translation is as follows, and I hope
> that it is accurate,
>
>
> Richard Goet the father of William Goet had pledged for 2 marks a
> certain land of his feu, containing 22 acres, to a certain lord her
> first husband, that is Robert of Essex, which (land) the same Robert
> retaining to his death, [and] dying however devised it to his wife
> free and quit and to be returned to the heir.
There is nothing to suggest that Robert left only a life interest to his
widow - "heredi reddendam" in this context means either that the rights were
left to Alice, for the land itself to be returned to an heir of Richard Goet
(presumably William at the time Robert de Essex died, yet he was not
specified) whenever the pledge might be redeemed (just as in that case it
would have been in Richard's own lifetime), or more probably to be passed on
to her heir (clearly as yet unborn at the same time). In other words, to
"an" heir, not "the" heir, since Robert could have no way of knowing to whom
Alice might leave any rights that she retained until she died.
> The aforesaid wife of that man, Alice, retaining the said land until
> her own death, devised it to her son and heir Robert whom she had had
> of another man called Roger.
>
>
> If I am right, then the heir might be either the heir of the Goets or
> the heir of Robert. I don't think that it could include her own
> heir.
So why did her own heir end up with the rights left to Alice? The terms
"terram...dimisit liberam" do not imply an entail. Alice's heir eventually
made a three-way arrangement with Goet's heir and with Walden abbey. You can
find this information by looking on Amazon.co.uk.
> In the event I suspect that the pledge was never repaid and so
> after a period of time - I don't know what the normal limitation would
> have been then - it would become the permanent possession of the new
> owner. As it was personalty when Robert of Essex died, I imagine that
> it would not have been returnable to the right heir of Robert of
> Essex, whom, if he was childless, I presume would be his brother.
We don't know that he had a brother - his parentage is only assumed, not
proved.
> As such it was free to be given by Alice to her son by Roger
> FitzRichard.
>
> So I withdraw my previous suggestion. I would expect, but I guess
> that it cannot be proved, that she had no issue by Robert of Essex.
Certainly it can't be proved from the evidence discussed so far, but the
argument posted from Katherine Keats-Rohan is clearly consistent with this
whereas Round's assertion is not.
Peter Stewart
John Watson
> "Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1a09e08d-b859-44c4...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Hi all,
I also looked at the Walden charters book on Amazon.co.uk, as Peter
suggested. I also turned to the next page where there is a translation
of the charter into English.
Regards,
John
Peter Stewart
"John Watson" <watso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8451670-74d8-4188...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> I also looked at the Walden charters book on Amazon.co.uk, as
> Peter suggested. I also turned to the next page where there is a
> translation of the charter into English.
Not a charter but a monastic chronicle, but note that the translation also
gives "an heir", clearly meaning Alice's heir and not Richard Goet's - the
alternative reading would imply that Robert de Essex somehow knew before
dying that the pledge would not be redeemed by Richard Goet but only by an
anonymous heir of his. There is no basis for reading this into it, when the
use of the land was left to Alice "free and unencumbered", i.e. the plain
understanding is that she could pass this on to her own heir if the pledge
had not been redeemed.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"John Watson" <watso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8451670-74d8-4188...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> I also looked at the Walden charters book on Amazon.co.uk, as
> Peter suggested. I also turned to the next page where there is a
> translation of the charter into English.
I didn't notice this before: the editors (p. 76 note 57) have mistakenly
identified Alice's husband Robert de Essex with his namesake Robert (fitz
Suain) de Essex, lord of Rayleigh, who died 1132/40 and whose widow was
Gunnora Bigod - see *Domesday Descendants* 450-451.
Peter Stewart
Alex Maxwell Findlater
deduces that Robert of Essex must have been Robert of Essex's
(FitzSwein's) son, as one man could not have left two widows.
DD is doubtless based on this.
I have just noticed (CP ix p578 note (c)) that Gunora, widow of Robert
FitzSwein was the daughter of Roger le Bigod and Adeliza daughter of
Robert de Tosny of Belvoir, from whom the Claverings were themselves
descended in the male line. This would put them in the second degree
of consanguinuity, which seems somewhat close. Has anyone done any
work on this? Or was the second degree at this very early period
considered acceptable?
Peter Stewart
> Round in his Appendix to Geoffrey de Mandeville points this out and
> deduces that Robert of Essex must have been Robert of Essex's
> (FitzSwein's) son, as one man could not have left two widows.
>
> DD is doubtless based on this.
I imagine that Keats-Rohan did her own work rather than relying on Round -
in 'Who was Alice if Essex?' he had asserted "The pedigree, therefore, is
now clear" identifying Alice's first husband with "Robert fitz Swegen alias
Robert of Essex" who had previously been married to Gunnor Bigod. Needless
to say, he did not admit his own error when he changed his mind, balndly and
smoothly stating that "We are now in a position to construct an authentic
tabular pedigree", though he was still keen to point out that "Dugdale makes
her, in error, the wife of Henry de Essex". What a charming scholar he was.
> I have just noticed (CP ix p578 note (c)) that Gunora, widow of Robert
> FitzSwein was the daughter of Roger le Bigod and Adeliza daughter of
> Robert de Tosny of Belvoir, from whom the Claverings were themselves
> descended in the male line. This would put them in the second degree
> of consanguinuity, which seems somewhat close. Has anyone done any
> work on this? Or was the second degree at this very early period
> considered acceptable?
This is taking conjecture for certainty - it is not known how Alice's second
husband Roger fitz Richard was "nepos" to Hugo Bigod, and making him a
brother's son (as a male-line descendant of Hugo's father Roger) is a guess.
Peter Stewart
Alex Maxwell Findlater
> husband Roger fitz Richard was "nepos" to Hugo Bigod, and making him a
> brother's son (as a male-line descendant of Hugo's father Roger) is a guess.
>
> Peter Stewart
That is quite true, and I should have been more accurate, but what of
the matter of second degree of consanguinuity?
Peter Stewart
It's too late at night for me to follow this - I am struggling with a
completely unrelated problem at the same time, and both have me stumped.
Do you mean the affinity if Alice de Vere's two husbands were first cousins
to each other (i.e. if they were both grandsons of Roger Bigod, one through
Hugo's sister Gunnor and the other through an unknown sibling of hers)?
Peter Stewart
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Roger le Bigod
|
NN
|
Roger FitzRichard of Clavering and Warkworth
and
Roger le Bigod
|
Gunora m Robert de Essex
|
Adeliza de Essex m Roger FitzRichard
John P. Ravilious
---------------
Dear Alex,
The first descent you give is I think likely, but yet
(unfortunately) unproven.
The second is erroneous. Alice or Adeliza, aka Alice de Essex,
evidently took her name from her first husband. She was most likely
known in youth as Alice (or Adeliza) de Vere, a daughter of Aubrey de
Vere and Adeliza de Clare. The following from the Rotuli de Dominabus
mentions her brother Count Aubrey (Aubrey de Vere, whether styled as
Count of Guines or as Earl of Oxford) and her nephew 'Count' William
(Earl William de Mandeville of Essex, d. 1189):
' Alicia de Essex est de donatione Domini Regis, et est lx annorum,
et est amita Comitis Willelmi, et soror Comitis Albrici, et habet duos
filio militos, et j filiam maritatam Johanni Constabulario Cestrie.
Akenho quod est manerium ejus, quod etiam tenet de Comite
Willelmo, ...'[1]
Cheers,
John
Notes
[1] S. Grimaldi, Rotuli de Dominabus (London, 1830), p. 15
Peter Stewart
> No, what I meant was the descents from Roger le Bigod, viz
>
> Roger le Bigod
> |
> NN
> |
> Roger FitzRichard of Clavering and Warkworth
This is possible, though we don't know for sure that "nepos" meant Roger
fitz Richard was a nephew of Hugo Bigod and thus a grandson of Roger. The
term might have been used more loosely for a different relationship.
> and
>
> Roger le Bigod
> |
> Gunora m Robert de Essex
> |
> Adeliza de Essex m Roger FitzRichard
Adeliza de Essex was Alice de Vere - we know from the Walden chronicle that
she was a sister of Rohesia, countess of Essex, and from her own charter
that she was daughter of (Aubrey) de Vere and Alice (de Clare) and sister of
their son Robert ("Ego Adeliz de Essex.pro anima Domini mei Roberti de Essex
et pro anima patris [sic] de Ver et fratris mei Roberti de Ver.Testibus:
Matre mea domina Aliz de Ver"). Her first husband, Robert de Essex, may have
been a son of Robert fitz Suain de Essex - but this is uncertain - and if so
perhaps the son of an unknown wife prior to Gunnora Bigod, or else less
plausibly son of the latter, creating the possible affinity I mentioned
before.
Peter Stewart
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Essex/wife of Roger who were within the second degree. So that is
really the question. Now that I have managed to formulate the
question correctly, was this normal at that time?
psssst
No, it was prohibited - in the 12th century affinity (not only
genealogical but also spiritual) was considered in much the same way
as consanguinity. Normally a woman would not have married the first
cousin of her deceased husband, any more than she would the godfather
of her own child.
Such practices were of course permitted later - canon law is closely
related to the ass that is civil law.
There is nothing to suggest an exception in the case of Alice de
Essex, so that _if_ her second husband Roger fitz Richard was actually
a gransdon of Roger Bigod then her first husband Robert de Essex
almost certainly was not - consequently _if_ Robert fitz Suain was his
father then Gunnora Bigod was most probably not his mother.
Peter Stewart
John P. Ravilious
-------------
Dear Alex,
The marriages in question took place well before the Fourth
Lateran Council (1215) which reduced the prohibited degrees of
affinity and consanguinity from 7 to 4. Even so, I am aware of no
relationship in the 2nd degree wherein a dispensation was even sought,
let alone granted.
That does not mean none were granted, but the lack of evidence
(in the face of then current prohibitions) is significant. More
distant relationships (4th degree and further) were dispensed; but,
there were also cases where dispensations sought for 4th and 5th
degree cases were denied (e.g. William de Warenne and a daughter of
Henry I - 4th and 6th degree), or the marriage subsequently annulled
due to consanguinity (e.g. William 'the Clito' and Sibyl of Anjou -
5th and 6th degree, married 1123, annulment 1124).
The short answer I think must be, as Peter indicated, that there
was not a mutual Bigod ascent. Perhaps Robert de Essex was a stepson
of Gunnora le Bigod - but this is as yet uncertain.
Cheers,
John
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Gunora le Bigod was the second wife of Robert I de Essex and that it
was perhaps through her influence that Adeliza, presumably her step-
daughter-in-law married her nephew Roger FitzRichard.
There was a second relationship here as well, as Juliana de Vere,
sister of Adeliza married Roger le Bigod 2nd earl of Norfolk. There
was also a third one as Aubrey de Vere 1st Earl of Oxford married as
his third wife in 1162 or 1163 Agnes daughter of Henry of Essex, son &
heir of Robert I of Essex, and Robert II's elder brother.
John Watson
> lead to a solution (accent on may). This is a grant by Adelicia/
> Alice, daughter of 'Alice of Essex' and wife of John, Constable of
> Chester:
>
> ' Reference: DD/SR/102/41
> Creation dates: 1190 - 1211
>
> Scope and Content
> Grant by Adelicia once the wife of John constable of
> Chester to the monks of Rufford of all her land in Almatona which
> belongs to her fee in Cresale at an annual rent of 10s 0d. ' [1]
>
> There is certainty as to whom Adelicia or Alice was, and at least
> a terminus for the grant (John de Lacy, the constable, having d. in
> 1190). The key may be in identifying 'Almatona' and 'Cresale'. There
> is a Cresswell in Woodhorn par., Northumberland lying 12 km south of
> Warkworth, but then there appear to be Creswell locations (if Cresale
> = Cres(s)well) in several locales in England.
>
> a bell perhaps some certainty as to Alice's paternity may be achieved.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> Notes
>
> [1] A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and
> Estate Papers [DD/SR/13-DD/SR/205], DD/SR/102/41
John,
When Henry de Pinkney died in 1254, he was holding the following lands
(amongst others) -
Writ, 2 July, 38 Hen. III. Inq. (undated.)
Eumedone, 189a. arable, 29s. 6d. rent, 1½a. meadow, 8a. pasture, &c.
held of the king of the honour of Boulogne by service of 2 knight's
fees.
Crsteshale, 150a. land, 32s. rent, 6a. meadow, pasture in the park,
&c. held of the honour of Angre by service of ½ knight's fee.
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 1, p. 80, No. 304
Eumedone and Crsteshale look suspiciously like your Almatona and
Cresale. The modern place names are Elmdon and Chrishall, both in
Essex, but neither of them seems to appear in VCH Essex.
Regards,
John
Matt Tompkins
> When Henry de Pinkney died in 1254, he was holding the following lands
> (amongst others) -
>
> Writ, 2 July, 38 Hen. III. Inq. (undated.)
> Eumedone, 189a. arable, 29s. 6d. rent, 1½a. meadow, 8a. pasture, &c.
> held of the king of the honour of Boulogne by service of 2 knight's
> fees.
> Crsteshale, 150a. land, 32s. rent, 6a. meadow, pasture in the park,
> &c. held of the honour of Angre by service of ½ knight's fee.
> Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 1, p. 80, No. 304
>
> Eumedone and Crsteshale look suspiciously like your Almatona and
> Cresale. The modern place names are Elmdon and Chrishall, both in
> Essex, but neither of them seems to appear in VCH Essex.
They're Elmdon and Chrishall, between Royston and Saffron Walden.
Place-names of Essex, pp. 521, 526, records several early occurrences
of these places as Cristeshale and Eumedon.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
> > There is an item in the Nottinghamshire Archives that may help
> > lead to a solution (accent on may). This is a grant by Adelicia/
> > Alice, daughter of 'Alice of Essex' and wife of John, Constable of
> > Chester:
> > ' Reference: DD/SR/102/41
> > Creation dates: 1190 - 1211
> > Scope and Content
> > Grant by Adelicia once the wife of John constable of
> > Chester to the monks of Rufford of all her land in Almatona which
> > belongs to her fee in Cresale at an annual rent of 10s 0d. ' [1]
>
> > There is certainty as to whom Adelicia or Alice was, and at least
> > a terminus for the grant (John de Lacy, the constable, having d. in
> > 1190). The key may be in identifying 'Almatona' and 'Cresale'. There
> > is a Cresswell in Woodhorn par., Northumberland lying 12 km south of
> > Warkworth, but then there appear to be Creswell locations (if Cresale
> > = Cres(s)well) in several locales in England.
>
> > I will be doing a bit more searching later, but should this ring
> > a bell perhaps some certainty as to Alice's paternity may be achieved.
>
> > Cheers,
> > John
> > Notes
> > [1] A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and
> > Estate Papers [DD/SR/13-DD/SR/205], DD/SR/102/41
On Jan 9, 11:30 am, Ian Goddard <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Given the Notts connection Creswell in Derbyshire springs to mind.
> There's an Elmton just SW of it.
Almatona was surely Ompton, just a few miles east of Rufford, which
was regularly recorded in forms like Almeton in the middle ages (Place-
names of Notts, p. 56). Thoroton's Nottinghamshire (iii, pp 203-5)
mentions several gifts of land there by John the Constable and his
family to Rufford Abbey, including the one by John's wife Adelicia.
Cresale must be Kneeshall, adjacent to Ompton, which was often
recorded in forms like Cneshale (P-ns Notts 53).
Matt Tompkins
wjhonson
Why NN ? If he goes here, his name must be Richard FitzRoger. Or are
you suggesting this NN could be a woman?
W
psssst
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Would that then imply that there was a diagonal relationship, ie that
> Gunora le Bigod was the second wife of Robert I de Essex and that it
> was perhaps through her influence that Adeliza, presumably her step-
> daughter-in-law married her nephew Roger FitzRichard.
This is not a very secure hypothesis - if Alice was 80 years old in
1185 then she would have been fairly close in age to Gunnora, and
their marriages might have been arranged at the same time for all we
know. (Agnes de Essex was just three years old when she was betrothed
to Alice's brother Aubrey, 1st earl of Oxford.)
> There was a second relationship here as well, as Juliana de Vere,
> sister of Adeliza married Roger le Bigod 2nd earl of Norfolk. There
> was also a third one as Aubrey de Vere 1st Earl of Oxford married as
> his third wife in 1162 or 1163 Agnes daughter of Henry of Essex, son &
> heir of Robert I of Essex, and Robert II's elder brother.
We can't be sure that Henry de Essex and Robert the husband of Alice
were brothers. (For some reason, when this has been pointed out you
have again asserted the relationship without acknowledging a doubt -
if you dispute a point, it would be a courtesy to the newsgroup to
address this.) However, if they were brothers then Robert was
presumably the elder brother, since he too apparently held the Essex
fee and died well before Henry.
Peter Stewart
John P. Ravilious
--------------
Dear Peter,
I assume the above mention of Alice de Essex as aged 80 in 1185
is based on the Rotuli de Dominabus account for Essex (as cited by
Round in 'Who was Alice of Essex', p. 244).
Both versions (Grimaldi and Round) of the Rotuli de Dominabus for
Northamptonshire state that she was 60 years of age at the time
("Alicia de Essex est de donatione Domini Regis, et est lx
annorum..."). I see no other near kin with very definite dates of
birth to attempt absolute certainty between the two ages, but 60
appears the more likely of the two.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart
"John P. Ravilious" <the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:105dbb50-1f17-4edc...@i41g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 11, 5:28 pm, psssst <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 7:19 pm, Alex Maxwell Findlater
> >
> > <maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Would that then imply that there was a diagonal relationship,
> > > ie that Gunora le Bigod was the second wife of Robert I de
> > > Essex and that it was perhaps through her influence that
> > > nephew Roger FitzRichard.
> >
> > This is not a very secure hypothesis - if Alice was 80 years old
> > in 1185 then she would have been fairly close in age to
> > Gunnora, and their marriages might have been arranged at the
> > same time for all we know. (Agnes de Essex was just three
> > years old when she was betrothed to Alice's brother Aubrey,
> > 1st earl of Oxford.)
>
>
> I assume the above mention of Alice de Essex as aged 80 in
> 1185 is based on the Rotuli de Dominabus account for Essex (as
> cited by Round in 'Who was Alice of Essex', p. 244).
>
> Both versions (Grimaldi and Round) of the Rotuli de
> Dominabus for Northamptonshire state that she was 60 years of
> age at the time ("Alicia de Essex est de donatione Domini Regis,
> et est lx annorum..."). I see no other near kin with very definite
> dates of birth to attempt absolute certainty between the two
> ages, but 60 appears the more likely of the two.
It would be helpful to say why - the other mention of Alice in the roll
stating that she was 80 appears to me more likely closer to the mark,
indicating that she was born ca 1104/05.
Her sister Rohese was married to Geoffrey de Mandeville, who was probably
born in the early 1080s. Her brother Aubrey was probably born by ca 1110.
Alice's first husband apparently died ca 1130 or not long after, then she
remarried and had children. If she was only 60 in 1185, born ca 1124/25,
then she would have been considerably younger than these siblings and
extremely young when widowed for the first time - I should think too young
to be left property rights "liberam" by Robert de Essex.
Peter Stewart
Alex Maxwell Findlater
family, please. It affects two of the points being discussed.
The chronology of the earls of Norfolk would support a birth date
nearer 1130 for Adeliza. Her sister Juliana, first wife of Hugh 1st
earl of Norfolk died in ca 1199x1200, it is suggested in note (d) on p
585 CP IX; however her age is not stated in Rot Dom, (p38 of
Grimaldi's edition). Her son Roger, 2nd earl only appears in 1163/4,
so suggesting a birth date consistent with this and his grandson Roger
4th earl was born 1212 or 1213 (all from CP).
Peter Stewart
> Would you mind quoting the evidence for the chronology of the Essex
> family, please. It affects two of the points being discussed.
What chronology, what points? If you don't quote any of the message to which
you are responding, it's hard to tell whose post has prompted a question.
> The chronology of the earls of Norfolk would support a birth date
> nearer 1130 for Adeliza. Her sister Juliana, first wife of Hugh 1st
> earl of Norfolk died in ca 1199x1200, it is suggested in note (d) on p
> 585 CP IX; however her age is not stated in Rot Dom, (p38 of
> Grimaldi's edition). Her son Roger, 2nd earl only appears in 1163/4,
> so suggesting a birth date consistent with this and his grandson Roger
> 4th earl was born 1212 or 1213 (all from CP).
Juliana was the first wife of the first earl of Norfolk, a man who was lord
of Framlingham from 1120, witnessed royal charters from January 1121 and was
a steward of the king's household by April 1123. I don't see how any of this
indicates that one of her sisters was born "nearer 1130", making Alice only
about 55 when she was stated to be 60 or 80. Juliana could have been 90+
when she died for all we know.
Peter Stewart
John P. Ravilious
> "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:105dbb50-1f17-4edc...@i41g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------------
Dear Peter,
The chronology concerning most individuals during this period is
poor at best, and certainly it is difficult to derive good
approximations for one individual (given ranges of potential dates for
sibling birthdates, parental deaths/remarriages, etc.). That being
said, the following pertain directly to Alice de Essex:
1. Alice de Essex had a daughter Alice (her paternity still a
matter of discussion) whose husband John, Constable of Chester, was
probably born ca 1145 (he fined for his mother's lands held of the
honour of Tickhill in 1166 - Pipe Roll 12 Hen. II, p. 51). Their son
Roger fitz John (de Lacy) received the lands of the honour of
Pontefract from his grandmother Aubreye de Lisours in 1194 - this
evidently in exchange for the lands of Aubrey's father Roger de
Lisours being given to her son William by a 2nd marriage, fine dated
21 Apr 1194 (CP V:519). Roger was certainly born before 1173. I
think it safe to conjecture that Alice, daughter of Alice de Essex
(nee de Vere) was born say 1145-1150.
2. Robert fitz Roger of Warkworth (d. 22 Nov 1214), Alice's son
by her 2nd husbnd Roger fitz Richard, provides us with no firm date as
to his birth, but he did have a daughter Alice who m. Piers fitz
Herbert of Blaen Llyfni on 28 Nov 1203 (CP V:465). Alice was most
likely born say 1183-1188 based on this marriage date, and probably
closer to the later date. It is difficult to allege a birth date for
her father Robert based on this. We know he was still acting as
sheriff of Northumberland in 1200/01 and 1206/07 (Pipe Roll 2 John
Rot. 1, and Pipe Roll 8 John, Rot. 22), and that he had the daughter
of Alan of Galloway as a royal hostage in his custody in August 1209,
possibly as late as June 1213 [Bain, CDS I:100-101). A birth date of
ca 1145-1150 for Robert would make him between 68 and 63 in June 1213:
I think it reasonable to presume he was at least a little younger than
that.
If Alice de Essex (nee de Vere) were born ca 1125, the
possiblities re: her son Robert's birth combined with the probabily
concerning her daughter Alice would make her aged 20-25 or older when
producing these children. The 1105 date works poorly with the same
details. It would appear the ages given in the Rotuli de Dominabus
were relatively reliable for younger individuals - born during the
recent lifetime of those providing the details - but for older
individuals the ages were evidently rounded (50, 60 or higher).
Perhaps Alice was actually 65, or 70, in 1185. Certainty on this
point will likely not be achieved.
As to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex (d. ca Sept 1144) I
show his father dying sometime before May 1116, following which his
widow Margaret married Othuer of Chester (d. 1120), by whom she had a
son William. We know Geoffrey's sister Beatrix (wife of William de
Say) died ca 19 Apr 1197 - she would likely have been born well after
1100, and I would think a bit closer to 1116 given her mother was
still producing issue subsequently with a 2nd husband.
It is I think unlikely that Rohese de Vere was an early marriage
for Geoffrey de Mandeville. We know he had a son Arnulf or Ernulf by
a spouse or mistress other than Margaret - he was disinherited, but on
what basis is unknown. Arnulf's birthdate is a matter of conjecture,
but would have been ca 1135 or before (he had a grant of lands in
Wiltshire in 1156 or soon thereafter). What is the baais for a
birthdate range of early 1080's for Geoffrey de Mandeville?
Cheers,
John
John P. Ravilious
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------------
correction: for 'We know he had a son Arnulf or Ernulf by
> a spouse or mistress other than Margaret ' read
We know he had a son Arnulf or Ernulf by
> a spouse or mistress other than _Rohese_ '
Cheers,
John
WJho...@aol.com
the...@aol.com writes:
> 1. Alice de Essex had a daughter Alice (her paternity still a
> matter of discussion) whose husband John, Constable of Chester, was
> probably born ca 1145 (he fined for his mother's lands held of the
> honour of Tickhill in 1166 - Pipe Roll 12 Hen. II, p. 51). Their
I don't understand how this tells us that he was "probably born ca 1145"
instead of "he was certainly born BY 1145".
W
Douglas Richardson
There is a charter of Alice de Vere's published in Gervers, Cartulary
of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England, 1 (Recs. of Soc. &
Econ. Hist. n.s. 6) (1982): 225.
According to this charter, Alice granted assarted land called Stanheye
in Ugley, Essex to the Hospitallers in ?1145 for the health of her
soul, and those of her late husband, Robert de Essex, her father,
[Aubrey] de Vere, and her brother, Robert de Vere.
Thus there can be no question that Alice de Vere was the wife of
Robert de Essex (who was dead in 1141).
Following Robert de Essex's death, Alice de Vere married (2nd) Roger
Fitz Richard, of Warkworth, Northumberland, by whom she had one known
son, Robert Fitz Roger. What seems to be at question is which
husband was the father of her daughter, Alice, wife of John, Constable
of Chester.
As best I can tell, there was a certain disparity in the ages between
the two children of Alice de Vere. The elder of her children must
have been her daughter, Alice, wife of John, Constable of Chester, who
herself was having children as early as c.1165. John Ravilious states
that the "key" to this Alice's paternity may be her grant in the
period, 1190–1211, to the monks of Rufford "of all her land in
Almatona" which belonged to "her fee in Cresale." However, the land
she held in Ompton, Nottinghamshire, was part of her dower, not her
maritagium, So this grant can not be used as a key to anything
regarding her paternity.
As for Alice de Vere's son, Robert Fitz Roger, he is known to have
married Margaret de Chesney, widow of Hugh de Cressy (died before
Michaelmas 1189). I would think this marriage took place in or before
1190, as we know that Robert's own son, John Fitz Robert, the Magna
Carta baron, was born before 1191 (he being of age when his father
died in 1212).
If I understand the chronology correctly, there would be approximately
25 years difference between the marriages of Alice, wife of John,
Constable of Chester, and her brother, Robert Fitz Roger. This
disparity creates the impression that Alice and Robert were half-
siblings, which may be the case. However, I might point out that
Alice and her husband, John, Constable of Chester, named their eldest
son, Roger, which is a good indication that Alice was the daughter of
Alice de Vere's 2nd husband, Roger Fitz Richard.
Likewise, it seems likely that John, Constable of Chester, was born c.
1145, he having been granted livery of his lands in 1166. If we
assume his wife, Alice, was also born c.1145, it would necessarily
place her as the daughter of Alice de Vere's 2nd marriage to Roger
Fitz Richard. My file notes indicate that Alice de Vere's 1st
husband, Robert de Essex, was dead in 1141. John Ravilious has
suggested that Alice, wife of John, Constable of Chester, was born c.
1145-1150. This estimate seems sensible to me.
It has been mentioned that Alice de Vere's 2nd husband, Roger Firz
Roger, was "nepos" to Hugh le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. The assumption
has been made in this thread that "the Latin word nepos" means
"nephew." However, in this time period, "nepos" meant kinsman,
nephew, or grandson. So Roger can have been related in any number of
ways to Earl Hugh, besides being his nephew. Without additional
evidence, all we can say is that Roger Fitz Roger was blood related to
Earl Hugh le Bigod.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
As a followup up to my earlier post today, I note that Archaeological
Journal n.s. 14 (1907): 217-226 has an interesting article on the
Sackville family by none other than the prince of medieval history,
J.Horace Round. On page 225, he states that William de Sackville, of
Great Braxted, married "Adeliza" daughter of "Aubrey the
Sheriff" (i.e., Aubrey de Vere). However, William de Sackville was
claimed as husband by another Essex lady, Aubrey, daughter of Geoffrey
de Tregoz, of Tolleshunt Tregoz, on the grounds of pre-contract. A
papal rescript followed, and the case was heard in the ecclesiastical
Council of London, in 1141 or 1143, when a divorce was pronounced
between William and Adeliza. Round states that he "thinks" that
Adeliza de Vere subsequently married two Essex men, who he names in a
footnote as (1) Robert de Essex, and (2) Roger Fitz Richard, of
Clavering and Warkworth.
Following William de Sackville's death, there were two claimants to
his estate. One was Mabel de Franqueville, the issue of the dissolved
marriage, and the other claimant was William's sister's son, Richard
de Anesty, a tenant of the honour of Boulogne.
This article by Mr. Round in Archaeological Journal may be viewed at
the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YyYUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA225
Assuming Mr. Round has his facts correctly stated, then Alice de Vere
married William de Sackville, by whom she had a daughter, Mabel de
Franqueville. Mr. Round places this as Alice de Vere's first
marriage. But, as we will see below, this is impossible.
Elsewhere I find an article by the same J. Horace Round entitled "Who
was Alice of Essex?" which was published in Transactions of the Essex
Archaeological Society, n.s. 3 (1889): 243-251. In that article, Mr.
Round correctly identifies Alice de Vere's parentage and mentions her
husbands, Robert de Essex and Roger Fitz Richard.
This article may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qcUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA243
As far as I can tell, Mr. Round doesn't state when Robert de Essex
died. All he says is that Alice de Vere was "already a widow" in
1141.
If correct, then the order of Alice de Vere's marriages would
necessarily have to be Robert de Vere (died by 1141), William de
Sackville (divorced 1141x3), and Roger Fitz Richard.
And, since Alice de Vere's daughter, Alice, can not have been the
issue of the marriage to William de Sackville, the chronology would
seem to dictate that she was the daughter of the third marriage to
Roger Fitz Richard.
In accordance with my order of Alice de Vere's three marriages, I note
a more recent article in Nomina: Journal of the Society for Name
Studies in Britain and Ireland: Volumes 17-19, published in 1994, page
104, which states that :
Alice or Adeliza de Vere "married first Robert of Essex, lord of the
barony of Rayleigh (Essex), died 1132 x 1140, and then William de
Sackville of Great Braxted (Essex), who died in c. 1158, a marriage
dissolved in 1141 x ...." [Courtesy of Google snippet view].
We see here the statement that Robert de Essex died 1132 x 1140.
Again this can only mean that he was Alice de Vere's first husband and
that Mr. Round was in error as to the order of her marriages.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9f198266-938a-47eb...@fu15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Apart from his prior change of mind about Alice's connections, Round himself
had previously quoted from the Walden chronicle naming Robert de Essex as
her _first_ husband. All of the above is based on the unsubstantiated
identification of "Aubrey the Sheriff" as Aubrey de Vere (killed in 1141),
whose title as great chamberlain would normally trump that of sheriff. How
is it so certain that one and the same man is indicated?
> Elsewhere I find an article by the same J. Horace Round entitled "Who
> was Alice of Essex?" which was published in Transactions of the Essex
> Archaeological Society, n.s. 3 (1889): 243-251. In that article, Mr.
> Round correctly identifies Alice de Vere's parentage and mentions her
> husbands, Robert de Essex and Roger Fitz Richard.
>
> This article may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=qcUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA243
>
> As far as I can tell, Mr. Round doesn't state when Robert de Essex
> died. All he says is that Alice de Vere was "already a widow" in
> 1141.
>
> If correct, then the order of Alice de Vere's marriages would
> necessarily have to be Robert de Vere (died by 1141), William de
> Sackville (divorced 1141x3), and Roger Fitz Richard.
Round in that article was not correct, as he himself silently recognised
when he published *Geoffrey de Mandeville* - try to keep up with a thread
before joining it. He had mistakenly identified Alice's first husband Robert
de Essex with Robert fitz Suain de Essex.
> And, since Alice de Vere's daughter, Alice, can not have been the
> issue of the marriage to William de Sackville, the chronology would
> seem to dictate that she was the daughter of the third marriage to
> Roger Fitz Richard.
>
> In accordance with my order of Alice de Vere's three marriages, I note
> a more recent article in Nomina: Journal of the Society for Name
> Studies in Britain and Ireland: Volumes 17-19, published in 1994, page
> 104, which states that :
>
> Alice or Adeliza de Vere "married first Robert of Essex, lord of the
> barony of Rayleigh (Essex), died 1132 x 1140, and then William de
> Sackville of Great Braxted (Essex), who died in c. 1158, a marriage
> dissolved in 1141 x ...." [Courtesy of Google snippet view].
>
> We see here the statement that Robert de Essex died 1132 x 1140.
> Again this can only mean that he was Alice de Vere's first husband and
> that Mr. Round was in error as to the order of her marriages.
Adding to the confusion - a "can only mean" consequence invalidated if the
premise is wrong. Was it actually Robert fitz Suain or Alice's husband
Robert who died between 1132 and 1140?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Regarding the identity of Aubrey the Sheriff, who was the father of
Alice de Vere, divorced wife of William de Sackville, Hubert Hall made
a comment regarding this matter in his book, Court life under the
Plantagenets, published back in 1890.
Mr. Hall stated that the designation "Aubrey the Sheriff" was "perhaps
sufficient to indicate Albericus de Ver, who figures in the Essex Pipe
Roll of 1130." He further observed: "Another clue is to be found in
the statement made during litigation, that William de Sackville was
dissatisfied with the social position of his contracted bride, Albreda
de Tregoz, who was merely of knightly family, and was desirous of a
more ambitious marriage alliance, doubtless with the daughter of a
'count.'"
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> If Alice de Essex (nee de Vere) were born ca 1125, the
> possiblities re: her son Robert's birth combined with the
> probabily concerning her daughter Alice would make her
> aged 20-25 or older when producing these children. The
> 1105 date works poorly with the same details.
Why? She can't have married Roger fitz Richard until after the death of
Robert de Essex, bu whom she appears to have had no offpsring. If Robert did
not oblige her by dying until she was in her late 30s, then she could not
have had children by Roger until she was ca 40. But of course the
conjectured birthdates of these children are very uncertain anyway.
> It would appear the ages given in the Rotuli de Dominabus
> were relatively reliable for younger individuals - born during
> the recent lifetime of those providing the details - but for older
> individuals the ages were evidently rounded (50, 60 or higher).
> Perhaps Alice was actually 65, or 70, in 1185. Certainty on
> this point will likely not be achieved.
The age given for Alice in one return was 60 ("est .lx. annorum") and in the
other 80 ("est .iiij.xx annorum"). Four-score was probably less readily
mistaken by medieval copyists than simple numerals.
> As to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex (d. ca Sept
> 1144) I show his father dying sometime before May 1116,
> following which his widow Margaret married Othuer of Chester
> (d. 1120), by whom she had a son William. We know Geoffrey's
> sister Beatrix (wife of William de Say) died ca 19 Apr 1197 - she
> would likely have been born well after 1100, and I would think
> a bit closer to 1116 given her mother was still producing issue
> subsequently with a 2nd husband.
Apart from trusting a much later account from Tintern, how do you know that
Margaret was Geoffrey's mother; and how is it established that she married
"Othuer of Chester (d. 1120)", or that Geoffrey's mother married the man
named Otuel after rather than before a Mandeville marriage?
> It is I think unlikely that Rohese de Vere was an early
> marriage for Geoffrey de Mandeville. We know he had a son
> Arnulf or Ernulf by a spouse or mistress other than Margaret - he
> was disinherited, but on what basis is unknown. Arnulf's
> birthdate is a matter of conjecture, but would have been ca 1135
> or before (he had a grant of lands in Wiltshire in 1156 or soon
> thereafter). What is the baais for a birthdate range of early
> 1080's for Geoffrey de Mandeville?
My faulty memory. Reflecting on the very slender evidence he seems to have
been born at any time in a range of perhaps 20+ years, from the early 1080s
to ca 1105.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
You really can't take a hint, can you?
It was of course predictable that you would blunder on with this, trying to
Google up any old authority when you couldn't answer the question. But the
identification above was rubbish when Hall wrote it, and rubbish when Round
repeated it. This "prince of genealogists" was a supercilious know-it-all
who made mistakes like everyone else, including occasional poor methodology
and failure to verify sources.
See CP 10, Appendix J,. p. 115 note (h):
"Alice has been identified with Alice, who m. William de Sackville, which
marriage was annulled, probably in 1141 or 1143, on the ground of a
pre-contract with
Aubreye, da. of Geoffrey de Tregoz. This Alice was described by John of
Salisbury in his letter to the Pope as " filiam Aufridi vicecomitis"
(Foedera, vol. i, p. 20; Palgrave,
English Commonwealth, vol. ii, p. vi, n. 5), or, as Giles reads the father's
name, " Amfridi vicecomitis" (John of Salisbury, Opera, vol. i, p. 124). His
name was translated as
"Aufred" by Palgrave (op. cit., vol. ii, p. vii); but he was identified with
Aubrey de Vere by Hubert Hall (Court Life under the Plantagenets, pp. 98,
211). J. H. Round
(Arch. Journal, vol. Ixiv, p. 224) styled him "Aubrey the Sheriff,"
identified him with Aubrey de Vere, and his da. Alice widi the Alice who
made the two marriages set forth
in the text, treating the Sackville marriage as a still earlier marriage.
This account was incautiously accepted by hee present writer (Genealogists'
Mag., vol. vii, p. 470);
but it is difficult to believe that either Aufridus or Amfridus could
represent Aubrey."
More than difficult, it is absurd.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< More than difficult, it is absurd.
<
< Peter Stewart
You could well be right. Aufridi or Amfridi would not be the normal
Latin form of Aubrey. The name Amfrid is rare. There was, for
example, an Amfrid de Chanci living in 1107-1116.
Even so, I note that R.C. van Caenegem, author of English Lawsuits
from William I to Richard I 2 (Selden Soc. 107) published in 1991
accepts the identification of William de Sackville's wife "Adelicia"
as a Vere. But he calls her father "Amfrid the Sheriff." See the
following weblinks:
Peter Stewart
> On Jan 12, 5:47 pm, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> < More than difficult, it is absurd.
> <
> < Peter Stewart
> You could well be right. Aufridi or Amfridi would not be the
> normal Latin form of Aubrey. The name Amfrid is rare. There
> was, for example, an Amfrid de Chanci living in 1107-1116.
>
> Even so, I note that R.C. van Caenegem, author of English
> Lawsuits from William I to Richard I 2 (Selden Soc. 107)
> published in 1991 accepts the identification of William de
> Sackville's wife "Adelicia" as a Vere. But he calls her father
> "Amfrid the Sheriff."
Some people have been inclined to fantasise that Round was the ultimate
authority on Essex families, and that if he said a person belonged to a
certain kindred then - willy nilly - so it must be.
Now, thanks to Raoul van Caenegem, we have an invented "Amfrid de Vere" from
cobbling together the source that Round didn't check with the patently wrong
conclusion he repeated. This is not the only such poor reasoning or lazy
assumption made in *English Lawsuits*.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iglhoo$qiu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> 1144) I show his father dying sometime before May 1116,
>> following which his widow Margaret married Othuer of Chester
>> (d. 1120), by whom she had a son William. We know Geoffrey's
>> sister Beatrix (wife of William de Say) died ca 19 Apr 1197 - she
>> would likely have been born well after 1100, and I would think
>> a bit closer to 1116 given her mother was still producing issue
>> subsequently with a 2nd husband.
>
> Apart from trusting a much later account from Tintern, how do you know
> that Margaret was Geoffrey's mother; and how is it established that she
> married "Othuer of Chester (d. 1120)", or that Geoffrey's mother married
> the man named Otuel after rather than before a Mandeville marriage?
I have now refreshed my failing memory by re-reading 'The Misfortunes of the
Mandevilles' by Warren Hollister - he makes a strong case, as John posted,
for Othuer fitz Earl (drowned in the White Ship on 25 November 1120) as the
second husband of Geoffrey de Mandeville's mother. Also, Geoffrey's
inheritance appears to have been in the hands of the king for an unknown
time after his father's death, so that he had evidently not yet come of age
in 1116.
>> It is I think unlikely that Rohese de Vere was an early
>> marriage for Geoffrey de Mandeville. We know he had a son
>> Arnulf or Ernulf by a spouse or mistress other than Margaret - he
>> was disinherited, but on what basis is unknown. Arnulf's
>> birthdate is a matter of conjecture, but would have been ca 1135
>> or before (he had a grant of lands in Wiltshire in 1156 or soon
>> thereafter). What is the baais for a birthdate range of early
>> 1080's for Geoffrey de Mandeville?
>
> My faulty memory. Reflecting on the very slender evidence he seems to have
> been born at any time in a range of perhaps 20+ years, from the early
> 1080s to ca 1105.
Clearly I was still wrong, and this should be revised to a range from the
late 1090s to ca 1110.
Peter Stewart
richar...@live.co.uk
So specifically relating to the maternal ancestry of Roger de Lacy (1170-1211)"Aka Roger Fitz John, son of John Constable of Chester (according to Wikipedia)" is this Ancestry of Roger on Wikipedia correct please, or at least as near to correct as possible?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_de_Lacy_(1170%E2%80%931211)#Ancestry
Thank you.
Richard Ebdon.