De St. Liz and de Quincy
ED MANN
>
> Hi Ed-
> I've appreciated your help before and took your advice and looked through
> the archived discussions of the Medieval genealogy group. I found some
> great things and cross-referenced some of my other information - but....
> I have a discrepancy that I can't quite figure out.
>
> I have:
> 1. Simon de St. Liz and Maud (Matilda?) de Huntingdon
> 2. Maud de St. Liz m. Saier de Quincy ( parents of Robert de Quincy b. abt.
> 1138)
> Is the above correct, as far as you know?
Sources as shown:
Descendants of Simon de Senlis
1 Sir Simon de Senlis aka: Simon de St. Liz d: 1111 ref #: (Ä148-24)
+Matilda de Huntingdon aka: Maud de Huntingdon b: 1072 d: Abt. 1131
ref #: Ä148-24
2 [2] Maud de St. Liz d: 1140 ref #: W157-1
+Robert FitzRichard aka: Robert FitzRichard de Clare d: Abt. 1135
ref #: (Ä148-25)
3 [1] Walter FitzRobert d: 1198 ref #: Ä148-26
+Maud de Bohun aka: Margaret de Bohun d: 1146 ref #: (Ä148-26)
*2nd Wife of [1] Walter FitzRobert:
+Maud de Lucy ref #: (Ä148-26)
3 Simon FitzRobert ref #: BxP:212
3 Maud FitzRobert b: Bef. 1134 ref #: W157-2
+William d'Aubigny
*2nd Husband of [2] Maud de St. Liz:
+Saier I de Quincy d: Abt. 1157 ref #: (Ä148-25)
3 Robert de Quincy d: Abt. 1197 ref #: BxP:447
+Orabella d: Bef. 30 Jun 1210 ref #: (Ä53-27)
3 Saier II de Quincy d: 1190
2 Sir Simon de St. Liz aka: Earl of Northampton b: 1098 d: Aug 1153
ref #: BxP:468
+Isabel de Beaumont b: 1121 d: Abt. 1188
3 Isabel de St. Liz b: Abt. 1120
3 ref #: (Ä84-27)
+William Mauduit d: 1195
> I also have Roger de Quincy b. abt 1200 m. to Helen MacDonal of Galloway,
> daughter to "Alan MacDonal, Lord of Galloway and his wife Margaret, dau. of
> Prince David of Scotland, grandson of King David." Is this the same Alan
> of Galloway that you refer to -
> Sir Alan de Galloway (1186-1234) was the son of Roland, Lord of Galloway
> and
> Elena De Moreville (?-1217) ?
Yes, except that Helen was the daughter of Alan's 1st wife, daughter or
sister oRoger de Lacy. See W139-1.
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
Π= Hardy, _Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America_,
[page].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
ED MANN
>
> Hi Ed -
> Just wanted to confirm something else with you:
> I have Elena de Moreville's parents as Richard de Moreville and Avice de
> Lancaster. But who is Avice's mother?
>
> I have two women having been married to William de Lancaster - Gundred de
> Warenne and Isabel ( Elizabeth) de Vermandois. Which one do you have as
> her mother?
BxP lists only Gundred as wife as mother of Avice. See BxP:313, which
is admittedly not necessarily reliable this far back.
Dcrdcr4
been some questions about whether she was the mother of William's daughter,
Avice, it appears that she was in fact Avice's mother. This is highly
probable as Avice's descendant, Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, needed a
dispensation to remain married to his second wife, Margaret of Huntingdon.
The dispensation was needed as Alan and Margaret were too closely related to
each other. Although their kinship is not stated in the papal registers, it
appears that Alan and Margaret were related through their common descent from
Isabel de Vermandois and her husband, William de Warenne. Alan's descent
would come through Gundred de Warenne, wife of William de Lancaster. Without
Gundred de Warenne in Alan's ancestry, he would possess no kinship to his wife,
Margaret.
U...@aol.com
dcr...@aol.com writes:
> Although their kinship is not stated in the papal registers, it
> appears that Alan and Margaret were related through their common descent
> from
> Isabel de Vermandois and her husband, William de Warenne.
Margaret's line:
Direct Descendants of William II de Warenne
1 William II de Warenne b: Abt. 1065 d: 11-May-1138
.. +Elizabeth de Vermandois b: Abt. 1081 Valois, Bretagne, FRA d:
13-Feb-1130/31 St. Nicaise, Meulan, FRA
2 Ada de Warenne b: Abt. 1120 d: 1178
.. +Henry de Huntingdon b: 1114 d: 12-Jun-1152
3 David de Huntington b: Abt. 1144 d: 17-Jun-1219 Yardley, NTH, ENG
*2nd Wife of David de Huntington:
.. +Maud of Chester b: 1171 d: 6-Jan-1232/33
4 Margaret de Huntington d: 1233
Alan's line:
Direct Descendants of William II de Warenne
1 William II de Warenne b: Abt. 1065 d: 11-May-1138
.. +Elizabeth de Vermandois b: Abt. 1081 Valois, Bretagne, FRA d:
13-Feb-1130/31 St. Nicaise, Meulan, FRA
2 Gundred de Warenne b: Abt. 1117 d: Aft. 1166
.. +William I de Lancaster
3 Avice de Lancaster b: Abt. 1155 CUL, ENG d: 1-Jan-1190/91 Kirkoswald,
CUL, ENG
.. +Richard de Morville b: Abt. 1143 Burgh-By-Sands, CUL, ENG d: 1189
4 Elena de Morville b: 1153 Kirkoswald, CUL, ENG d: 11-Jun-1217
.. +Roland of Galloway b: Abt. 1164 Galloway, Perthshire, SCT d: Dec-1200
NTH, ENG
5 Alan of Galloway b: Abt. 1186 d: 1234
Would this really have required a papal dispensation??
Always optimistic--Dave
sk...@ix.netcom.com
A close call. On the lines above, they were second cousins, once
removed. Canon law forbids the marriage of first or second cousins,
cf discussion of "nullity" at
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/NULITY.TXT
What it would take a canon lawyer to tell us, is whether the "once
removed" (which adds one degree of consanguinity) takes the case out
of the ban. But I think the real answer is "Yes or no, depending on
the Pope and the power politics of the situation." Apparently not in
the case at hand, if there was no mention in the papal registers.
>
>Always optimistic--Dave
>
sk...@ix.netcom.com
>Always optimistic--Dave
>
I'm bollixed here!
I did not have Ada, and have Gundred m. Henry and m2 Roger de
Beaumont. Can anyone straighten me out? Esp. who was Roger's wife?
Thanks
Bryant Smith
Austin
Dcrdcr4
Margaret of Huntingdon, would make them related in the 4th and 3rd degrees of
kinship through their common descent from the Warenne family. That would have
required a dispensation for them to marry, or, in their case, to have stay
married.
J.C.B.Sharp
In article <19990321043816...@ng04.aol.com>, Dcrdcr4 (dcr...@aol.com) writes:
>Gundred de Warenne was the wife of William de Lancaster. Although there have
>been some questions about whether she was the mother of William's daughter,
>Avice, it appears that she was in fact Avice's mother. This is highly
>probable as Avice's descendant, Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, needed a
>dispensation to remain married to his second wife, Margaret of Huntingdon.
>The dispensation was needed as Alan and Margaret were too closely related to
>appears that Alan and Margaret were related through their common descent from
>would come through Gundred de Warenne, wife of William de Lancaster. Without
>Gundred de Warenne in Alan's ancestry, he would possess no kinship to his wife,
>Margaret.
This argument only works if it is certain that they were otherwise
unrelated. Margaret and King Henry II were related in the fourth
degree through their common ancestor Malcolm Ceanmor. Alan's
grandfather Uctred is said also to be related to Henry II (Hoveden
ii 105).
J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net
Dcrdcr4
lord of Galloway, was related in some fashion to King Henry II of England. It
is commonly thought that Uchtred's mother, Elizabeth, was an illegitimate
daughter of King Henry I of England. After studying the matter, I believe
this is probably correct. However, such a connection betwen Alan Fitz Roland
to King Henry I would give him NO kinship to his wife, Margaret of Huntingdon.
If Alan's ancestress, Elizabeth, was Henry I's illegitmate daughter, Alan
would necessarily lose any connection to King Henry I's wife, Maud of Scotland,
which would otherwise provide him a connection to Margaret of Huntingdon.
Consequently, the only reasonable connection between Alan Fitz Roland and his
wife Margaret would presumably come through the common Warrenne ancestry.
In any case, due to Margaret of Huntingdon's high born status, her ancestry is
well documented and her potential relatives almost all identified. As such,
there isn't a whole lot of possibilities for her to be related to her husband,
Alan, other than the Warenne scenario. The Warenne kinship would cause Alan
and Margaret to be related within the prohibited degrees, which in turn
explains the need they had to obtain a dispensation following their marriage.
Suzanne Doig
>Yes, you are correct that Alan Fitz Roland's grandfather, Uchtred Fitz Fergus,
>lord of Galloway, was related in some fashion to King Henry II of England. It
>is commonly thought that Uchtred's mother, Elizabeth, was an illegitimate
>daughter of King Henry I of England. After studying the matter, I believe
>this is probably correct. However, such a connection betwen Alan Fitz Roland
>to King Henry I would give him NO kinship to his wife, Margaret of Huntingdon.
It may be outside the degrees of consanguinity applicable at the time,
but there is a relationship through Henry I if one accepts Fergus of
Galloway as a son-in-law of Henry:
Henry I
___________|_____________
| |
Robert, Earl of Gloucester ?Elizabeth
| |
Maud Uchtred of Galloway
| |
Hugh, Earl of Chester Roland of Galloway
| |
Matilda of Chester Alan of Galloway
|
Margaret of Huntingdon
--
Suzanne
* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -
Suzanne Doig - remove obvious from reply-to address
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4038/index.html
Dcrdcr4
I see what you are saying. The relationship you set forth would make Alan and
Margaret related in the 4th and 5th degrees. If Alan's ancestress, Elizabeth,
was truly the bastard daughter of King Henry I (and I believe she was), that
kinship would have existed between them. Technically, this would have
required a dispensation. However, since there is a bastardy in both Alan and
Margaret's lines of descent (both Alan and Margaret being descended from an
illegitimate child of King Henry I), I doubt this would be the relationship
which caused the couple their trouble. First, I was told some years ago by
Lee Sheppard that dispensations were not required in cases of people being
related through bastard lines. In this case, you have a bastardy in both the
groom and the bride's ancestry. To be honest, I have never checked to see if
Lee was correct but I assume he was. He was quite definite about the matter.
Second, in a more practical matter, Alan was criticized by one chronicler for
having married Margaret to whom he was too closely related. I doubt that a
kinship of the 4th and 5th degrees would have raised more than an eyebrow or
two. The more apparent and glaring kinship would be through the Warenne
family which would make them related in the 4th and 3rd degrees as I recall.
That's FAR within the prohbited degrees of consanguinity and that would
definitely have gotten Alan in HOT water. It's also apparent that neither
Alan or Margaret could plead ingorance of the kinship involved as they would
have been too closely related for them not to have known of the relationship
involved.
I hope this helps. Best always, Douglas Richardson
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> First, I was told some years ago by
> Lee Sheppard that dispensations were not required in cases of people being
> related through bastard lines. In this case, you have a bastardy in both the
> groom and the bride's ancestry. To be honest, I have never checked to see if
> Lee was correct but I assume he was. He was quite definite about the matter.
I have seen this claim too, but know of numerous examples in which the
relationship requiring a dispensation is attributed to just such an
illegitimate descent, so I do not know how true this is. If it is true,
then there are a whole lot of dispensations needing reanalysis.
taf
John Carmi Parsons
marriages (i.e., different mothers OR different fathers) of one ancestor,
it would seem likely that bastard descents did not matter, since they too
would involve different sexual partners of one ancestor. In other words,
I doubt whether the marital status of the ancestral sexual partners did
matter.
I recall reading in a biography of Catherine the Great, however, that the
Russian Orthodox church was willing to regard kinship reckoned through
female lines as less weighty that than through males. It was for this
reason that the church allowed Catherine's marriage to Peter III, even
though they were related within prohibited degrees. (It's all academic
anyway, of course, since Peter most probably wasn't the father of Catherine's
son Paul.)
John Parsons
Reedpcgen
checked in the past [Maitland, etc.] deal with English Civil Law, but in some
places they state that Canon Law is the same on this point.
If an illegitimate child is child of no one, then they have no relations except
the children they bear and spouse they marry. If this was the early Medieval
way of thinking too (one would have to verify this by checking sources
specializing on Canon Law), then this would explain Lee Sheppard's conclusion.
But of course, actual practice varied from theory, especially in places like
Wales and Scotland.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
On 24 Mar 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
> Consanguinity, of course, is all about affinity of relationships. Books I
> have checked in the past [Maitland, etc.] deal with English Civil Law, but
> in some places they state that Canon Law is the same on this point.
>
> If an illegitimate child is child of no one, then they have no relations
> except the children they bear and spouse they marry. If this was the early
> Medieval way of thinking too (one would have to verify this by checking
> sources specializing on Canon Law), then this would explain Lee Sheppard's
> conclusion.
It is true, as Paul says, that OOW children were considered to be the
children of no one--but this held true primarily, if not exclusively, for
purposes of inheritance. That is, an individual born OOW could not claim
property upon the death of either parent, nor upon the death of any kin
born in wedlock. If a parent or half-sibling wished the OOW child to hold
any property, it was necessary for that land to be settled on the OOW by
legal means in the lifetime of the parent or half-sibling (or other
relative). Moreover, the OOW could not leave property to anyone, even his
or her own in-wedlock offspring, without also employing such legal means
of settlement. To quote the medieval English maxim as it is regularly
seen in Inquisitions Post Mortem, "The said ----- was born in bastardy and
leaves no heir of himself," even in cases when the individual is known to
have married and left in-wedlock issue.
Inheritance, of course, like other legal practices, is a grid erected upon
the underlying existence of kinship ties, which come about through acts
of human generation that are not subject to human law. For the Middle Ages,
human reproduction was in the hands of the Almighty since it takes place at
His mandate ("Be fruitful and multiply"). Whether reckoned in or out of
wedlock, the link of blood that resulted from human generation existed
regardless of the strictures of inheritance law. When it came to marriage, in
the eyes of the Church these links of blood were relevant and did count in
reckoning links of consanguinity.
John Parsons
Tristan Tornado
good printed out, framed and hung on my wall which is
also plastered with m and m's dipped in karo syrup.
Tristan
(it happens to be true)
--- John Carmi Parsons <jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca>
wrote:
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Dcrdcr4
I've examined quite a few dispensations to try to track the kinships involved.
I've never found a bastardy involved in the kinships. Basically, the only
thing I've noticed is that people tended to marry up to the highest born
connection in their common ancestry.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Reedpcgen
Post something on topic.
pcr
JKent...@aol.com
writes:
<< Tristan, please take your medicine (A.D.D., did you say?) >>
How about OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)? He needs to stay off
Ritalin. His recent posts have very well stated the case of just why he got
thrown off another list. He is his own worst enemy.
In^o
Leo van de Pas
and make him feel that he is appreciated, when (I believe)
he is not by most. Internet time, for many if not most, is precious and
should not be wasted by silly prattle about dollies when the time should be
used economically and sensibly.
Again, Tristan do consider the other people.
Leo van de Pas
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Hi Todd:
>
> I've examined quite a few dispensations to try to track the kinships involved.
> I've never found a bastardy involved in the kinships. Basically, the only
> thing I've noticed is that people tended to marry up to the highest born
> connection in their common ancestry.
One of the sources we have for Gunnora's sisters a descriptin of the bar
to a proposed marriage of an illegitimate daughter of Henry I to a
Montgomery descendant? This would trace through two OOW connections.
taf
Tristan Tornado
orders and disorders flow naturally.
Tristan
--- JKent...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/25/99 2:52:52 AM Central
> Standard Time, reed...@aol.com
> writes:
>
> << Tristan, please take your medicine (A.D.D., did
> you say?) >>
>
>
> How about OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)?
He
> needs to stay off
> Ritalin. His recent posts have very well stated the
> case of just why he got
> thrown off another list. He is his own worst enemy.
>
>
> In^o
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Tristan Tornado
William the Marshal was the greatest knight that ever
lived. His 5 sons left no surviving descendants, but
his 5 daughters, Maud, Eve, Isabel, Sibyl, and Joan
( who all had very nice singing voices), left plenty of
descendents, I being one of them. You can take all the
kings in your ancestry and not one of them stands up to
William. If you want to blame anyone for my being here
in socgenmed, you can blame William.
Tristan
--- Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com> wrote:
> Tristan, please take your medicine (A.D.D., did you
> say?).
>
> Post something on topic.
>
> pcr
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Tristan Tornado
>
> ok. ill try. but be nice ok. im very sensitive.
Tristan
Dcrdcr4
course, that Lee Sheppard was wrong. All for now. Douglas Richardson
I Wallace
"William the Marshal was the greatest knight that ever lived."
When he died in 1219, King Philip of France said " William Marshal
was, in my judgement, the most loyal man and true I have ever known, in any
country I have been in." (translated from the French of course)
See also "William Marshal, the flower of chivalry" by Georges Duby
(Faber and Faber, London 1986, ISBN 0-571-13745-8).
Ian Wallace (In Bexleyheath, Kent).
D. Spencer Hines
Men like him, with great strength of character, are needed today.
But, how stupid of me, he could never be elected.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sir Robert De Lesseps: "She is a beauty, my lord,
as would take a king to church for a dowry of a nutmeg."; Lord Wessex:
"My plantations in Virginia are not mortgaged for a nutmeg. I have an
ancient name that will bring you preferment when your grandson is a
Wessex. Is she fertile?; Sir Robert: "She will breed. If she do not,
send her back."; Lord Wessex: "Is she obedient?; Sir Robert: "As any
mule in Christendom. But if you are the man to ride her, there are
rubies in the saddlebag."; Lord Wessex: "I like her" --- "Shakespeare
In Love" [1998]; Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard; p. 42.
I Wallace <10163...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:199903271116_...@compuserve.com...
Tristan Tornado
much too highly. It is but a mere lowly office to be
occupied by scoundrels and scurvy knaves. And it was
not Sir William's way to seek out that sort of power
for himself, but to serve others. But I have wondered
what would England have been like if Sir William had
been king. And how does a man with the amount of power
he had keep it in check so well as no one else seems
to be able to do it ? Why I know of people in small
places with small powers who would use that power to
get rid of someone like me off of socgenmed just
because they dont like me. And Sir William had great
power and great ability and yet never thought what this
power could do for him
personally. Because he was kind and unselfish, virtues
that seem to be sorely lacking in here.
Tristan Tornado
(no Im not pouting. I dont pout)
--- "D. Spencer Hines"
_________________________________________________________