A illegitimate daughter of Henry I of England - Adeliza fitz Edith?

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Greetings,

I have observed in a number of unsourced pedigrees and in the Wikipedia entry for Edith Forne (fitz Sigulf) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Forne) that a documented illegitimate son of Henry I named Robert fitz Edith (or fitz Regis) had a sister Adeliza fitz Edith. Wikipedia states, regarding this woman, “Adeliza FitzEdith who appears in charters with her brother, Robert.” I am well aware of the perils of unsourced pedigrees and the limitations of Wikipedia. I am also fairly familiar with Edith Forne, her marriage to Robert II d’Oilly and subsequent offspring.

I would, however, appreciate any information which:

1. Confirms the existence of the aforementioned Adeliza fitz Edith, alleged sister of Robert fitz Edith (fitz Regis);
2. If no such confirmation is available, offers any suggestions for the origin of the unsourced references to Adeliza fitz Edith;
3. If Adeliza fitz Edith is documented by evidence, does such evidence establish that Adeliza is both the daughter of Edith Forne AND Henry I; and/or
4. Basically, any documentary evidence or information shedding light on the purported Adeliza fitz Edith.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance!

Cheers,

Pete
pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com

[Peter Stewart]

Adeliza is one of the alleged offspring of Henry I who exists in an
evidentiary pea-soup fog, that some people claim to see through clearly
- the only basis is the witness list in a notice in the cartulary of
Eynsham abbey in Oxfordshire, no. 64 in vol. 1 pp. 72-73 edited by
Herbert Salter, here:

https://archive.org/stream/eynshamcartular03saltgoog#page/n116/mode/2up.

This is a donation by Robert de Oilly and his wife and sons ("Robertus
de Oileio & uxor eius & filii") and the fifth witness is "Adeliza filia
Reg" - the name of her father has been completed by the editor as
Reg[inald], but some have supposed that the abbreviation "Reg" may have
stood for "Regis", i.e. that she was the king's daughter. However, given
her middling position in the witness list among men who were not sons of
either Robert or his wife, this is fanciful. Geoffrey White did not
include her in his study of Henry's illegitimate children (CP vol 11,
appendix D).

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:07:38 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Adeliza is one of the alleged offspring of Henry I who exists in an
> evidentiary pea-soup fog, that some people claim to see through clearly
> - the only basis is the witness list in a notice in the cartulary of
> Eynsham abbey in Oxfordshire, no. 64 in vol. 1 pp. 72-73 edited by
> Herbert Salter, here:
>
> https://archive.org/stream/eynshamcartular03saltgoog#page/n116/mode/2up.
>
> This is a donation by Robert de Oilly and his wife and sons ("Robertus
> de Oileio & uxor eius & filii") and the fifth witness is "Adeliza filia
> Reg" - the name of her father has been completed by the editor as
> Reg[inald], but some have supposed that the abbreviation "Reg" may have
> stood for "Regis", i.e. that she was the king's daughter. However, given
> her middling position in the witness list among men who were not sons of
> either Robert or his wife, this is fanciful. Geoffrey White did not
> include her in his study of Henry's illegitimate children (CP vol 11,
> appendix D).

Not that Wikipedia pages can't be terribly confused, but this charter does not match what is being described, that 'Adeliza Fitz Edith' "appears in charters with her brother, Robert", but he is not to be found in this Eynsham charter. Might there be something else, or is this editor simply out to sea?

taf

[Peter Stewart]

I don't know of any other charter in which an Adeliza occurs along with
members of Robert de Oilly's family - I don't expect that Geoffrey White
would have missed such "charters", or that we would not have heard about
it here before now if he had, and going by the failure of this Wikipedia
"stub" (whatever that means - a fag end?) to provide any citation for
the statement you quote, I'm not inclined to make a search.

Peter Stewart

[John Watson]

Robert d'Oilly's charter to Eynsham also appears in Monasticon, where Adeliza is named as "Adeliza filia Reginaldi Resel."

William Dugdale, ed., Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 3, (London, 1846), 21, no. XLVIII.
https://books.google.com/books?id=r71LN35ZEG4C&pg=PA21

Regards,

John

[Peter Stewart]

I think Herbert Salter's reading ("Adeliza filia Reg[inaldi], Ketel
...") is preferable.

In the following charter of Robert de Oilly he completed the same
abbreviation differently for Henry I's son Robert ("Teste Roberto filio
Reg[is], & Edida uxore mea"). I suppose the precedence of Robert fitz
"Reg" as first witness, before Edith and Robert's brother Fulk, in no.
65 as opposed to the lowlier occurrence of Adeliza as fifth witness in
no. 64 provides a good enough reason for this distinction.

Peter Stewart

[Wjhonson]

A "stub" means that the article is too small -- needs to be expanded.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Greetings,

Many thanks for the multiple responses to my queries. I have not found any additional documented references to “Adeliza filia Reg[…]” nor any references to an “Adeliza fitz Edith (or equivalent)”. Is anyone aware of any additional instances of either name occurring in charter evidence in a similar time period? I struggle to read too much into a singular ambiguous instance.

However, with a view to exploring this a little further, I came across an earlier thread that addressed this same topic. I set out a portion of said thread in Note 1 below.

An additional follow-up query I have is whether “Adeliza filia Reg[?]” may be the wife of Arnulph I de Mandeville as, for example, found in the following charters. Alternatively, is there something that conclusively establishes that Adeliza/Aeliz, wife of Arnulph I, was the daughter of Edith Forne AND Robert II d’Oilly?

[A] WAM 2307 (Wethered's Number 9 - p. 92),

“Arnulf de Mandeuilla.
I have granted in perpetual alms and given to the church of St Mary of Herleia 1 hide of land in Chaingheha', half a hide from the demesne and half a hide from lawarlande, to wit, that virgate which was of Turb[er]t the small (parui) and the other virgate which was of Roger the red (rufi) and 4 acres of meadow, 2 acres in refhamme and 2 acres in harstanneshamme from the better part of the meadow and 1 messuage in the croft of Brettesberghe. I have given this to the church of St Mary with my body for the health of the souls of my father and of me and of my wife the lady Adeliza and of all my heirs who shall succeed me, free from all services etc.
And I Geoffrey de Mandeuilla his heir have confirmed this gift with my body.
Witnesses: Geoffrey his heir, the lady Adeliza, the wife of the same Arnulf, Arnulf his son, William his son, Maud de Port his daughter, Beatrice his daughter, Emma de Peri, John de Matha' and Alan de Matha' knights, Bartholomew the chaplain, Pastoralis the chaplain, Henry the clerk, Richard nofranchis, Ralph son of Turstan, Nicholas Harpeur, Walter de Corneuill', Nicholas the reeve (p[re]posit[us]) Perchehaie, Ranulph beart, Walter, Osbert son of Godfrey, knights, and m a n y o t h e r s”

[B] Salter, Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, V, no. 691,

“Henry de Oilleio, Constable of King Henry.
Note that I give and grant in free and perpetual alms to god and the church of St Mary of Oseneya 2 hides of land in my manor of Cleidone, which Edith my mother gave to the church and canons there, when she devoted herself to the church in life and in her death, 1 [hide] to wit of villeinage with these 4 men Godwin de Horewelle, Ailmer, Toui and Leuricus with their offspring, and the other hide of demesne, namely Medelham and Suenesham for half a hide from 2 fields with meadow in the headlands up to the next brook and the other half hide in 6 bordars. The canons are to have pannage for their own pigs.
Witnesses: Ernald de Mandeuille and Geoffrey his son, Adeliza his wife, Ralph son of Roger, Bardolf his brother, Philip de Hamtona and Stephen his son, Walter de Tywa and Peter his brother, Walter and William his brother poor men, Guy de Olleyo, Peter de Witefeld, Robert his "nepos", Walchelin the priest, Swerlo, Norman, William Angeuinus, at Westone.”

[C] Arnulph I’s wife is also referenced as “Aeliz” and “Aliz” in charters no. 1254 (pp. 518-19), no. 1256 (pp. 519-20) and no. 1257 (pp. 520-21) in ‘Early Yorkshire Charters’, Vol. II, (1915), edited by William Farrer, Section XXII. ‘The Fee of Greystoke’ (https://archive.org/details/earlyyorkshirech02farruoft).

Cheers,

Pete

Note 1:

Upon review of the ‘soc.genealogy.medieval’ website, I discovered this topic had been discussed previously under the thread ‘Bastards of Henry I’ (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/RkKZnaKJH3k) between November 14, 2003 and November 26, 2003:

Chris Phillips – “Would I be right in assuming that Thompson doesn't make any further additions to the list on her own account?”

Stewart Baldwin – “Oops. That was the intent in my posting, but I hit the "send" without realizing that I had forgotten to include one claimed daughter that Thompson adds to the list (number 13 on her list):

Adeliza, the king's daughter, appearing as "Adeliza filia Reg'" in the Eynsham Cartulary, I, no. 64. Thompson remarks that "Although this is translated by the editor as Adeliza daughter of Reginald, no Reginald appears in the act."

Since the existence of this daughter depends on an ambiguous expansion of an abbreviated form in a document, it seems that she ought to be placed in the uncertain category.”

John P. Ravilious – “Thanks for bringing up the issue of Adeliza 'filia reg.' from Thompson’s article, esp. the cite from Salter.

Here is the text of that charter, and interestingly, of the following one (No. 65), as given in the Eynsham Cartulary (1907 - Vol. I, pp. 72-73):

“64. Carta Roberti de Oili de terra in Oxenefordia.
Notum sit omnibus fidelibus tam presentibus quam futuris, quod Robertus de Oileio & uxor eius & filii dederunt deo & ecclesie sancta Marie de Egnesham illam terram de feodo suo que est in Mullesford, & totam illam terram quam tenuit de eo Rualdus in Oxenefordia, pro anima reg[is] & pro animabus suis & pro animabus patrum suorum & matrum solidam & quietam sicut elemosinam. Et ad hoc confirmandum dote ecclesiastica super altare miserunt. Huius donationis testes sunt, Robertus filius Widonis, Radulfus filius Rogerii, & Hugo frater eius, & Nigellus frater ipsius Roberti, & Adelizia filia Reg[inaldi], Ketel & Lefwinus Canc, Nicholaus filius Sawoldi, & Robertus filius Osberti, Rannulfus.”

“65. De Terra Oxenefordie.
Robertus de Oilio omnibus baronibus suis & burgensibus de Oxenefordia salutem. Sciatis quod ego concedo Rualdo clerioc terram que fuit Lefsi & illam terram quam emit de Saboda & terram Rogerii
Scuelarii quietam & liberam de omni seruicio & de omni redditu, eo dante per unumquemque annum vi denarios ad Natiuitatem domini ad oblationem meam & uxoris mee. Et concedo ut has predictas det post obitum suum cui placuerit ita quietas & liberas sicut predixi.
Teste Roberto filio Reg[is], & Edida uxore mea, & Fulcone fratre meo, & Roberto filio Widonis, Roberto filio Petri, Ricardo de Alnod, Ricardo de Brai, Willelmo filio Isward, Rogero de Tiwia.”

Salter notes re: No. 64 (p. 72, note 2) that he dates the charter as "? 1130-35", and says of this dating, "Apparently before the reign of Stephen; but after no. 65."

Re: No. 65, he notes concerning the date with regard to the attestation by 'Roberto filio Reg[is]', "Robert 'filius Regis', who seems to have been a good deal younger than Robert Earl of Gloucester, would not attest much earlier than 1130." Now, who Salter had in mind as Robert filius Regis besides Robert [filius regis, aka Fitz Roy, aka de Caen], Earl of Gloucester [b. ca. 1090, d. 1147] I have no idea.

At any rate, to have Adeliza 'daughter of the King' attesting a charter of Robert de Oilly in Oxfordshire ca. 1130-35 should not be too problematic; Robert's wife Edith, daughter of Forne fitz Sigulf of Greystoke, co. Cumbs., was after all a former mistress of King Henry I. One wonders what the precise relationship might in fact be between Edith, former mistress of the King, and Adeliza ‘filia regis’ [assuming regis, not Reginaldi, is correct]?”

Reedpcgen (Paul) – “Does it not seem worthy of remark that a woman appears in the middle of this list of witnesses? Unless she had some direct claim to the land through a father named Reginald, wouldn't this strengthen the presumption that "Regis" was actually meant in the unabbreviated form?”

Rosie Bevan – “Yes, particularly as the four attestors before her can all be identified as d'Oylys or their Chesney cousins. In the wording of the charter Robert d'Oyly includes his wife and sons as party to the gift of land (two hides) at Moulsford, Oxfordshire, which had been a personal gift to him from Henry I, to Eynsham, so we would expect his extended family and tenants there to be party to the act as witnesses. As it was not unusual for women to witness as family members in the 12th century, Adelisa would not be out of place attesting as daughter of one of the grantors, IF a full sister of Robert fitz Ede. It's surprising that Thompson does not attempt to explore the idea (or the charters) more fully in her article, having come up with the observation.

The Moulsford grant was confirmed later by Robert d'Oyly's son, Henry, around 1144-47 [Eynsham Cartulary, no.71]. Three of the six attestors were illegitimate sons of Henry I - Robert earl of Gloucester, Reginald earl of Cornwall and Robert filio Regis. The others were Patrick earl of Salisbury (Henry's wife's cousin), Roger earl of Hereford and Humphrey de Bohun (Henry d'Oyly's father in law).”

Chris Phillips – “CP identifies the witness of no 6 as Robert the king's son by Ede/Edith, who later married Robert de Oilli.

So, as Rosie points out - and as you're hinting above - Adelisa "filia Reg" occurring after a string of Oilli relations suggests she may have been another child of the king by Ede/Edith.”

[Peter Stewart]

I disagree with the last point - Adeliza would only be named as 'filia
reg[is]' if she was the king's acknowledged daughter, and in that case
she would not have witnessed after a string of four d'Oillys or their
Chesney cousins in no. 64, for the same reason that Robert 'filius
reg[is]' witnessed before his mother and her brother-in-law in no. 65.
Being the child of a king, even illegitimate, carried precedence over
being a d'Oilly wife, cadet or collateral. Of course precedence was not
strictly or minutely observed at all times in all charters (or cartulary
records of them). However, if "Reg" stood for "regis" in no. 64 this
would be doubly exceptional: first, in that a woman witnessed anyway
without herself being a d'Oilly or a Chesney cousin; and secondly, that
she was relegated to also-ran status after them despite being the king's
daughter. If a case is to be made that Henry I and Edith had a daughter,
some firmer basis than this is required.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 11-Oct-17 2:06 PM, Peter G. M. Dale wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Many thanks for the multiple responses to my queries. I have not found any additional documented references to “Adeliza filia Reg[…]” nor any references to an “Adeliza fitz Edith (or equivalent)”. Is anyone aware of any additional instances of either name occurring in charter evidence in a similar time period? I struggle to read too much into a singular ambiguous instance.
>
> However, with a view to exploring this a little further, I came across an earlier thread that addressed this same topic. I set out a portion of said thread in Note 1 below.
>
> An additional follow-up query I have is whether “Adeliza filia Reg[?]” may be the wife of Arnulph I de Mandeville as, for example, found in the following charters. Alternatively, is there something that conclusively establishes that Adeliza/Aeliz, wife of Arnulph I, was the daughter of Edith Forne AND Robert II d’Oilly?
>
> [A] WAM 2307 (Wethered's Number 9 - p. 92),
>
> “Arnulf de Mandeuilla.
> I have granted in perpetual alms and given to the church of St Mary of Herleia 1 hide of land in Chaingheha', half a hide from the demesne and half a hide from lawarlande, to wit, that virgate which was of Turb[er]t the small (parui) and the other virgate which was of Roger the red (rufi) and 4 acres of meadow, 2 acres in refhamme and 2 acres in harstanneshamme from the better part of the meadow and 1 messuage in the croft of Brettesberghe. I have given this to the church of St Mary with my body for the health of the souls of my father and of me and of my wife the lady Adeliza and of all my heirs who shall succeed me, free from all services etc.
> And I Geoffrey de Mandeuilla his heir have confirmed this gift with my body.
> Witnesses: Geoffrey his heir, the lady Adeliza, the wife of the same Arnulf, Arnulf his son, William his son, Maud de Port his daughter, Beatrice his daughter, Emma de Peri, John de Matha' and Alan de Matha' knights, Bartholomew the chaplain, Pastoralis the chaplain, Henry the clerk, Richard nofranchis, Ralph son of Turstan, Nicholas Harpeur, Walter de Corneuill', Nicholas the reeve (p[re]posit[us]) Perchehaie, Ranulph beart, Walter, Osbert son of Godfrey, knights, and m a n y o t h e r s”
>
> [B] Salter, Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, V, no. 691,
>
> “Henry de Oilleio, Constable of King Henry.
> Note that I give and grant in free and perpetual alms to god and the church of St Mary of Oseneya 2 hides of land in my manor of Cleidone, which Edith my mother gave to the church and canons there, when she devoted herself to the church in life and in her death, 1 [hide] to wit of villeinage with these 4 men Godwin de Horewelle, Ailmer, Toui and Leuricus with their offspring, and the other hide of demesne, namely Medelham and Suenesham for half a hide from 2 fields with meadow in the headlands up to the next brook and the other half hide in 6 bordars. The canons are to have pannage for their own pigs.
> Witnesses: Ernald de Mandeuille and Geoffrey his son, Adeliza his wife, Ralph son of Roger, Bardolf his brother, Philip de Hamtona and Stephen his son, Walter de Tywa and Peter his brother, Walter and William his brother poor men, Guy de Olleyo, Peter de Witefeld, Robert his "nepos", Walchelin the priest, Swerlo, Norman, William Angeuinus, at Westone.”

I forgot to go back to this in my previous post: Ernald de Mandeville,
his wife Adeliza and their son Geoffrey evidently had an interest in the
2 hides at Cleydon given to Oseney abbey, and in this case Adeliza was
probably a full-sister of Henry de Oilly.

According to a memorandum in the Oseney cartulary (vol 5 p. 206) Cleydon
had been given by Henry I to Robert de Oilly 'in liberam maritagium'
with Edith. Robert founded Oseney abbey and after his death Edith gave
the 2 hides to the foundation, with the consent of her son and heir
Henry de Oilly (vol. 5 p. 206 no. 690: 'ego Editha uxor Roberti de Olly,
uolente & concedente Henrico filio meo & herede, do & concedo ecclesie
sancte Marie de Oseneya [&c.] in perpetuam elemosinam pro anima domini
mei Roberti & Gileberti filii mei & aliorum antecessorum meorum & pro
salute mea & Henrici filii mei & aliorum amicorum meorum duas hidas
terre in uilla mea de Cleidone'). Consequently Ernald's wife Adeliza, if
she was Edith's daughter and Henry's sister, was most probably Robert de
Oilly's daughter too, making it somewhat implausible that Edith had
another daughter of the same name fathered by Henry I.

Peter Stewart

[Peter G. M. Dale]

> I forgot to go back to this in my previous post: Ernald de Mandeville,
> his wife Adeliza and their son Geoffrey evidently had an interest in the
> 2 hides at Cleydon given to Oseney abbey, and in this case Adeliza was
> probably a full-sister of Henry de Oilly.
>
> According to a memorandum in the Oseney cartulary (vol 5 p. 206) Cleydon
> had been given by Henry I to Robert de Oilly 'in liberam maritagium'
> with Edith. Robert founded Oseney abbey and after his death Edith gave
> the 2 hides to the foundation, with the consent of her son and heir
> Henry de Oilly (vol. 5 p. 206 no. 690: 'ego Editha uxor Roberti de Olly,
> uolente & concedente Henrico filio meo & herede, do & concedo ecclesie
> sancte Marie de Oseneya [&c.] in perpetuam elemosinam pro anima domini
> mei Roberti & Gileberti filii mei & aliorum antecessorum meorum & pro
> salute mea & Henrici filii mei & aliorum amicorum meorum duas hidas
> terre in uilla mea de Cleidone'). Consequently Ernald's wife Adeliza, if
> she was Edith's daughter and Henry's sister, was most probably Robert de
> Oilly's daughter too, making it somewhat implausible that Edith had
> another daughter of the same name fathered by Henry I.
>
> Peter Stewart

Many thanks for your commentary and insight Peter. A brief follow-up if you don’t mind. As I already stated, I struggle to read too much into a singular ambiguous instance of “Adeliza filia Reg”. However, unless I am mistaken, there is nothing in the charters I set out in my earlier post, including the charter of Henry d’Oilly (Salter, Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, V, no. 691) you quote dealing the property in Cleydon witnessed by Adeliza, wife of Arnulph I de Mandeville, that precludes the Adeliza referenced therein being the daughter of Edith but not Robert II d’Oilly.

I am just trying to clarify whether there is anything in the charter evidence presented, or in any other documentation that you or others may be aware of, which requires an interpretation that makes Adeliza the daughter of Robert II d’Oilly.

I entirely agree that additional corroborative evidence will be required in order to establish that “Adeliza filia Reg” is a reference to a daughter of Henry I as contemplated by Kathleen Thompson (in ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry’, (2003), Journal of Medieval History, 29:2, 150 (Appendix A, Daughters, #13)) given the singular and ambiguous nature of the reference. However, I’m trying to get my head around any current documentary bars to such a possibility in the case of Adeliza, wife of Arnulph I. Presumably at the time of Arnulph I’s marriage to Adeliza (c. 1135-44) his father Geoffrey II de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex, was at or near his peak.

BTW, I do appreciate, and have noted, the interpretive bar you raised in your earlier post.

Cheers,

Pete

[Peter Stewart]

On 12-Oct-17 3:54 PM, Peter G. M. Dale wrote:
>> I forgot to go back to this in my previous post: Ernald de Mandeville,
>> his wife Adeliza and their son Geoffrey evidently had an interest in the
>> 2 hides at Cleydon given to Oseney abbey, and in this case Adeliza was
>> probably a full-sister of Henry de Oilly.
>>
>> According to a memorandum in the Oseney cartulary (vol 5 p. 206) Cleydon
>> had been given by Henry I to Robert de Oilly 'in liberam maritagium'
>> with Edith. Robert founded Oseney abbey and after his death Edith gave
>> the 2 hides to the foundation, with the consent of her son and heir
>> Henry de Oilly (vol. 5 p. 206 no. 690: 'ego Editha uxor Roberti de Olly,
>> uolente & concedente Henrico filio meo & herede, do & concedo ecclesie
>> sancte Marie de Oseneya [&c.] in perpetuam elemosinam pro anima domini
>> mei Roberti & Gileberti filii mei & aliorum antecessorum meorum & pro
>> salute mea & Henrici filii mei & aliorum amicorum meorum duas hidas
>> terre in uilla mea de Cleidone'). Consequently Ernald's wife Adeliza, if
>> she was Edith's daughter and Henry's sister, was most probably Robert de
>> Oilly's daughter too, making it somewhat implausible that Edith had
>> another daughter of the same name fathered by Henry I.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> Many thanks for your commentary and insight Peter. A brief follow-up if you don’t mind. As I already stated, I struggle to read too much into a singular ambiguous instance of “Adeliza filia Reg”. However, unless I am mistaken, there is nothing in the charters I set out in my earlier post, including the charter of Henry d’Oilly (Salter, Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, V, no. 691) you quote dealing the property in Cleydon witnessed by Adeliza, wife of Arnulph I de Mandeville, that precludes the Adeliza referenced therein being the daughter of Edith but not Robert II d’Oilly.
>
> I am just trying to clarify whether there is anything in the charter evidence presented, or in any other documentation that you or others may be aware of, which requires an interpretation that makes Adeliza the daughter of Robert II d’Oilly.

Yes, I think there is evidence that she was Robert's daughter -
otherwise she and her husband and son would most probably not have
witnessed Henry de Oilly's charter that was effectively a confirmation
of his mother's donation as a widow from the 'liberum maritagium'
(apologies for my typo 'liberam') given with Edith to Robert by King
Henry I. Edith specified that her son Henry was heir to this; so if
Ernald's wife Adeliza was her daughter (as seems highly likely) then she
was presumably Henry de Oilly's full-sister in order to have had an
interest in the maritagium he inherited that would have prompted her
witnessing a deed of gift from it.

Peter Stewart

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Greetings,

Thank you again Peter for your analysis and insight – it is much appreciated.

I thought I would pass along an excerpt from ‘The Cartulary of St Leonard’s Hospital, York’, Rawlinson Volume, Volume II, (2015), edited by David X Carpenter, The Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, Volume CLXIII for the years 2014-2015, published by The Boydell Press. I don’t have an opinion on the excerpt given my lack of knowledge of the subject area. However, I thought it was interesting, and current, so am passing it along as a FYI.

p. 640, East Riding, Hugate [Huggate],

“A list of Yorkshire scutage payments in the pipe rolls for 1161-62 shows that Henry de Oilly [I] was excused payment of 1m. which Farrer deduced was in respect of 1 k.f. he was holding of Greystoke in Hugate and Millington (PR, 8 Hen. II, p. 51; EYC, II, 506). But by 1166, as noted above, the Oilly tenancy of Greystoke had passed to Ernulf de MANDEVILLE, the illegitimate son of Geoffrey de Mandeville, first earl of Essex,[9] whose name is given variously as Ernulf, Arnulf, Arnold, or Ernold. Ernulf and his wife Alice jointly confirmed the gifts of Edith daughter of Forne and Henry d’Oilly (R561). Alice’s rights in Huggate are also apparent in her demise to Osney Abbey of a mark’s worth of land in Huggate, which Ernulf confirmed (EYC, II, no. 1256). It was doubtless this interest which caused Farrer to speculate that Alice was a daughter of Robert de Oilly and his wife Edith.[10] But it is more probable that Alice was a previously unnoticed daughter of Henry I. Robert FitzRoy, Henry I’s illegitimate son by Edith daughter of Forne, has been mentioned above. John of Hexham tells us that he was at the siege of Winchester in 1141, describing him as Robertus filius Ede et Henrici regis nothus (John of Hexham, Historia regum, II, 310). One of Robert de Oilly’s grants to Eynsham is witnessed by Adeliza filia Reg’. Salter expanded this to Adeliza filia Reginaldi, but the correct expansion is more likely to be Adeliza filia regis (Ctl. Eynsham, I, 73). If Alice was indeed a daughter of Henry I, then we may perhaps add her marriage to Ernulf to the list of concessions made to his father Geoffrey de Mandeville by the Empress Matilda in her attempts to secure his loyalty.[11] Geoffrey de Mandeville and Robert de Oilly II had been together in the company of King Stephen in Westminster in 1136 and in Oxford in 1136 x 1140 (Regesta, III, nos 626, 945, 947-48). About twenty years later Ernulf de Mandeville, his wife Alice and son Geoffrey were present when Henry de Oilly, constable of King Henry, confirmed the gift of two hides in Claydon which his mother Edith had made to Osney (Ctl. Oseney, v, 209).

Notes:

[9] The evidence that Ernulf was illegitimate is more than adequate. It was laid out by Holt under four headings: Ernulf appears as a son, but not heir, of Geoffrey de Mandeville; he accepted enfeoffment from his two legitimate half-brothers; he attested deeds of Geoffrey’s son and heir, also called Geoffrey; neither Ernulf nor his descendants disputed the claim of the younger Geoffrey to the earldom (Holt, ‘Winchester’, p. 298).

[10] Farrer says nothing in the text, but in his genealogical table of the Greystoke family places Alice as a daughter of Robert de Oilly and Edith by a dotted line (EYC, II, 508).

[11] For the career of Geoffrey de Mandeville, and his changing allegiances during the reign of Stephen, see ODNB.”

One other observation regarding “Adeliza filia Reg” v “Adeliza filia Reg[inaldi]” is that a review of the “full text” version (which I know is not perfect) of the ‘Eynsham Cartulary’, Vol. I, (1907), edited by Rev. H. E. Salter, printed by The Clarenden Press, Oxford, (https://archive.org/stream/eynshamcartular03saltgoog/eynshamcartular03saltgoog_djvu.txt), shows “Adeliza filia Reg[inaldi]" as the only instance in the cartulary of Reginald being abbreviated as Reg, which otherwise seems to be used exclusively for regis (or once regali).

Cheers,

Pete

[Colin Withers]

Thank you so much for bringing this two volume set to my attention, especially as it covers charters in the East Riding that I am particularly interested in. UKP 75 will take a little saving, but before I start saving, would you be so kind to simply state yes, or no, if there are any entries in the Index to the family of Blanchard, Blaunchard, or variants.

Kind Regards

Colin Blanshard Withers

>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Hi Colin,

Unfortunately I don’t own a copy of the Cartulary. I reviewed it at the Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto and only recorded the index and entry items of particular interest to my research. If I get back to PIMS in the near future I’ll review it for references to the Blanchard (and derivatives) family as per your request.

Cheers,

Pete

[jonathan kirton]

Dear Peter Dale,

Having seen your kind offer to Colin Blanchard, could I possibly also
request a look-up in the same volumes, if and when you get the
opportunity ?

My special interest is in Sir Alexander de Kirketon, Knight, who on 18
Oct., 1274 was appointed as High Sheriff of the County of Yorkshire,
and Constable of York Castle; in those days before Lord Lieutenants,
the king's main representative in the county (ref.: Calendar of Fine
Rolls, Edward I, Vol. I, (1274), p. 31).

During that same year his presence is also mentioned in the Wapentake
of Bludford (Yorks. North Riding), and the Wapentake of Pykering
(Yorks. East Riding) (ref.: Vernona Smith MSS, Soc. of Genealogists,
London, Vol. 36, p. 45).

On 27 Apr., 1275 he was appointed during pleasure to the custody of the
Hospital of St. Leonard's, York, which had fallen into debt, & also of
Newborough Priory, co. Northumberland (ref.: Cal. of Patent Rolls,
Edward I, Vol. 1, Vol. I, p. 85), and received several other
commissions in this area at that time.

On 13 July, 1276 he was also appointed to the custody during pleasure
of the Abbey of Rievaulx, to apply the issues to the payment of its
debts (Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward I, Vol. I, p. 152).

I would be very interested in finding out if the Cartulary has any
mentions of him.

With very sincere thanks in advance if you are able to assist me,

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kirton

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Greetings Colin and Jonathan,

I attended the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto yesterday and briefly reviewed ‘The Cartulary of St Leonard’s Hospital, York’, Rawlinson Volume, (2015), edited by David X. Carpenter, The Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, Volume CLXIII for the years 2014-2015, published by The Boydell Press. I note the following from the Index:

• There are no entries for Blanchard, Blaunchard, or variants; and
• There are entries for Kirkton, Kirketon.

The entries for Kirkton/Kirketon include “Alexander, de, sheriff of York, warden of St Leonard’s, 937”, "Gilbert de, steward of York St Mary, 889", "John, 462", and "Margaret, maidservant to Alice Lacy, 462".

The entry on p. 937 is under the heading: ‘The Masters of the Hospital’, ‘Thomas of Geddington (1263 x 1265 to 1275 x 1276). It states: “During Thomas’ rule the hospital’s indebtedness is first mentioned. On 27 April 1275 Alexander de Kirketon, at that time sheriff of Yorkshire, was appointed by the king, ‘during pleasure’, to the custody of the hospital of St Leonard ‘fallen into debt’. On the same day Kirketon was also appointed to the custody of Newburgh Priory, also in debt. On 20 November 1276 Thomas de Normanville, king’s steward, was appointed to the custody of the master and brethren of the hospital, again because of debt (CalPat, 1272-1281, pp. 85, 171).”

Cheers,

Pete

[jonathan kirton]

Dear Pete,

Thank you very much indeed for your very prompt reply to my request for
a look-up on Sir Alexander (Bozon) de Kirketon in the Cartulary. More
grist.

I was also very intrigued by the other Kirketon / Kirkton entries which
you noted, particularly that of "Gilbert de, steward of York St Mary"
on Page 889. Since this entry is a good many pages before the
Alexander entry, I am assuming that it was chronologically earlier.
Presumably this refers to St. Mary's Abbey, York, rather than to St.
Mary's Church, Castlegate, York ? What would have been the duties of a
steward to an abbey or church ? Presumably it was a lay position ?
This Gilbert may possibly be the man I call "Gilbert(1) de Kirketon",
who was the probable younger brother of Sir Alexander's father. If at
all possible I would very much like to know more details about this
Gilbert de Kirketon entry, if the opportunity presents itself.

With regard to the John (who I call "John(2)") and Margaret de Kirketon
mentioned on Page 462, I feel quite sure in identifying them as brother
and sister, son and daughter of the man I call Peter(1) (Bozon) de
Kirketon & his wife Elizabeth (nee de Woodthorpe). Peter(1) was a
younger brother of Sir Alexander, born circa 1210, almost certainly
the second son of Sir Robert(2) de Kirketon, Knight, so John(2) and
Margaret were nephew and niece to Sir Alexander. Prior to 1262 / 3
Peter(1) married ELIZABETH de WOODTHORP, born circa 1247; youngest
daughter and co-heir of her father, Sir WILLIAM de WOODTHORPE, Knight.
ELIZABETH was thus a great-great-granddaughter of ALAIN de CRAON of
co. Lincs., and inherited, as her share of her father's estates, the
MANOR of AISTHORPE, co. Lincs., held by 1/ 2 of a knight's fee (less 1/
60th. part), which she brought to her marriage. In June, 1272 it was
PETER(1) who presented a priest to be rector of Aisthorpe, and again in
1285 (ref.: "History of Aisthorpe", Foster (1927), Chap. V, p. 43).
He and his wife had three sons and a daughter, but he had died before
1300, when Elizabeth was reported as a widow (ref.: "The Visitation of
Lincs., 1562-4; "Notes & Queries", 6th. Series, Vol. VIII, (4 Aug.,
1883), p. 99, etc.). In 1300 Elizabeth herself presented a new
rector. In 1303 she was again reported holding the manor in an
inquest of knight's fees (ref.: "Inquest of Assessments Relating to
Feudal Aids, Vol. III, London (1904) p. 131). She again presented a
new vicar in 1310; and was still alive in 1327 – 8, known as the "Lady
of Aisthorpe", and was still paying to the subsidy of 1/ 20th. granted
to the king, but she had evidently died by 1333, in which year the
subsidy was paid by her heir, evidently Ralph(4) (Bozon) de Kirketon
(ibid, pgs. 43 & 44).

JOHN(2) (BOZON) de KIRKETON / KIRTON. Born circa 1270, probable
second son of Peter(1) and Elizabeth (nee de Woodthorpe), he was
probably born at Aisthorpe, but sometime prior to 1327 he acquired from
his sister, Margaret de Kirketon the Manor of Saxton-in-Elmet,
including 102 acres of arable land, of which 20 acres were located at
Towntondale, in Yorkshire (ref.: "History of Sherburn and Cawood" by
William Wheater (London: 1882) pgs. 51 & 141), so that he evidently
moved north into Yorkshire, and before 1327 had also leased additional
lands at Saxton and Saxton Woodhouse, N. R. Yorks. (ref.: Yorkshire A.
S. R. S. , Vol. 42, p. 5, Feet of Fines for Yorkshire, item 23;
"Westminster, Quindene (15th.) of St. John the Baptist, 9 Jan., 1327 &
York, Octave (8th.) of Martinmas, 18 Nov., 1327). However in that
same year of 1327 John(2) granted the Manor and its additional lands
back to his sister and her husband Sir Roger (de North Hall) de Leeds,
knight, for their lives, to hold of John(2) and his heirs for the
annual rent of a rose (ref.: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record
Series, Vol. 42, Feet of Fine for Yorkshire, 1327-47(1910) p. 5, No.
23). John(2) and his wife had two sons. He probably died soon after
1327, his holdings passing to his eldest son and heir, Peter(3) de
Kirketon / Kirton.

MARGARET de KIRKETON, born c. 1272, died after 1356. She was a
servant of Lady Alice de Lacy (widow of Edmund de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln). "I, Alice de Laci, have given to Margaret de Kirkton, my
mayd servant, my manor of Saxton and five score and two acres of arable
land in Saxton, whereof twenty acres lie in a place called Towton-dale,
and two placeas of pasture lying at Maydencastell, and the mill of
Lede. Witnesses, Sir William Vavasour, Richard Tyas, John Reygate,
Gilbert Singleton" (ref.: William Wheater, History of Sherburn and
Cawood (London: 1882) pp. 51, 141). Dodsworth made a copy of this deed
which is in the Bodleian; "Alice de Lacy grants the manor of
Saxton-in-Elmet, Yorkshire to Margaret de Kirketon" (ref.:- Joseph
Hunter, "Three Catalogues: Describing the Contents of the Red Book of
the Exchequer", (London: 1838) p. 116). At some time before 1325
Margaret gave these lands to her brother John(2). Margaret married,
probably as his second wife, at some time prior to December, 1325, Sir
Roger (de North Hall) de Leeds, knight. In 1327 her brother John(2)
(Bozon) de Kirketon / Kirton granted the Manor of Saxton-in-Elmet,
including 102 acres of arable land, of which 20 acres were located at
Towntondale, in Yorkshire back to Margaret and her husband, Sir Roger
(de North Hall) de Leeds, knight, for their lives, to hold of John(2)
and his heirs for the annual rent of a rose (ref.: Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series, Vol. 42, Feet of Fine for
Yorkshire, 1327-47(1910) p. 5, No. 23). However Sir Roger (de North
Hall) de Leeds died only about one year later (circa 1328), so that the
Manor of Saxton-in-Elmet and its other lands returned to Margaret for
her lifetime, and so eventually did return to her brother John(2)
(Bozon) de Kirketon / Kirton. Sir Roger de Leeds left 4 sons and one
daughter but it is unclear if any of the children were Margaret's.
She lived to a great age, dying in late 1356 (ref.:- Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series, Vol. 52, Feet of Fines for
Yorkshire, 1347-77 (1915) p. 59, No. 51).

Again, my very sincere thanks for your help. If anybody can add to
the above I would be very glad to hear from them,

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kirton

---------- Original Message ----------

From: "Peter G. M. Dale" <peter...@gmail.com>

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Hi Peter et al,

Just a brief note in inquire whether anyone knows if any of the following conclusions may be drawn from charter no. 1260 ‘Early Yorkshire Charters’, Vol. II, (1915), edited by William Farrer, Section XXII. ‘The Fee of Greystoke’ p. 522 (https://archive.org/stream/earlyyorkshirech02farruoft#page/522/mode/2up). It is the “Demise by Geoffrey de Mandevill, son of Geoffrey, to Geoffrey his father, son of Arnulf de Mandevill, for his life, of the moiety of his tenement in Highworth (co. Wilt.), with the chief messuage and a hide of land which the grantor held in demesne, for all which he has made fine with the king. 1190-94.”

Proposed conclusions:

1. The grantor (“Geoffrey Jr.”) is of age, i.e. over 21 years of age;
2. Geoffrey Jr. is more likely than not over the age of 21; or
3. No conclusions may be drawn about the age of Geoffrey Jr.

I am trying to establish whether it is possible that Arnulph I de Mandeville, father of Geoffrey (“Geoffrey Sr.”) and grandfather of Geoffrey Jr., may have been married post his exile (c. 1144) and after his return to England (post the reign of Stephen).

It appears to me to be generally understood that Arnulph I was married de Alice, daughter of Edith Forne and, it is said, Robert II d’Oilly, before Arnulph I’s rebellion and exile (1143-1154/5).

It seems unlikely to me that Arnulph I and Alice would have been married post Arnulph I’s rebellion and during his exile (1143-1154/5).

Is it possible, and, if so, with what likelihood, that they would have been married after Arnulph I returned to England?

If Geoffrey Jr. was of age in c. 1194, it would put his birth date at c. 1173 at the latest and that of Geoffrey Sr. c. 1152 (at the latest, assuming a 21 year generation). In this scenario, Geoffrey Sr. would have been born while Arnulph I was most likely exiled which would tend to support a marriage to Alice pre-1143. Arnulph I and Alice were known to have at least 6 children: Geoffrey, Ralph, Arnulph II, William, Maud (wife of Adam de Port) and Beatrice.

Geoffrey Sr. is said to have died c. 1193, Geoffrey Jr. in 1246 and his son Ralph in 1280 (EYC, 2, p. 508).

Any insight or assistance would be much appreciated.

[Peter Stewart]

Your #1 is reasonable, except that this would be more exact as "i.e. 21
years of age or over", since "over 21" implies that majority started on
the 22nd birthday instead of the 21st.

However, the conclusion is not very helpful beyond this narrow limit. To
go any further, you would first need to establish certainty for the date
range 1190-94, then test the assumption of 21-year generations for these
individuals specifically. The latter, and perhaps the former too, may
well be impossible.

Such efforts on such a small indicative basis can quickly get into the
frustration of diminishing returns for the time spent.

Peter Stewart

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Hi Peter et al – many thanks again. Assuming my proposed dates are correct, do you have any thoughts (or speculation) on when the marriage took place based on the facts we know?

Cheers,

Pete

[Peter G. M. Dale]

One more thing kindly, can you refer me to a source or authority for the proposition that Geoffrey Jr. was, or it is expected he was, 21 years or more in charter no. 1260 (EYC, v2, p. 522). I would like to learn more about this topic if possible. Thank you.

Cheers,

Pete

[Peter Stewart]

Your proposed dates are not entirely consistent - if you want the
charter cited to be dated as late as 1194, then Geoffrey Sr. must have
died in or after that year, not "c. 1193".

There is not enough information as far as I know to pin down when either
Geoffrey was born (except that Jr. was evidently aged 21 or more at the
time of the charter that may have been transacted by 1194).

This is what I meant by diminishing returns - if there isn't enough
information likely to be available to get further in answering your
question, then it's most probably not worth troubling over. Some things
cannot be known, and valid deduction is not always possible. You are
free to guess, but by no stretch can that get you beyond guesswork to
actual knowledge. Rules of thumb about the span of generations may be of
sociological interest for population groups, but these are not at all
reliable for individuals.

A useful discussion of the age of majority can be found in an article by
Theodore James here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/844549?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

If your library doesn't provide access to download this from JSTOR, then
you can set up a free "shelf" account t read it. And if you are
especially avid to keep it, you can copy it page by page via screen shots.

Peter Stewart