Maud [de Clere?] de Lacy and the treasurers of York [LONG]
Reedpcgen
article by Charles Travis Clay in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal (v. 35
[1943]), pp. 7-35. This is the list we would have to choose from if Maud were
actually sister of one of the treasurers of York. As Maud's son John de Lacy
was born ca. 1192, we would expect Maud to have then been at least
fifteen--more likely older--therefore born before about 1177 or earlier. We'll
start with some chronologically unlikely candidates just to be extremely
thorough.
William FitzHerbert, later Archbishop of York (St. William of York), a younger
son of Herbert of Winchester, Chamberlain and treasurer of Henry I, was
definitely treasurer by 1127, and possibly as early as 1113-14. He was elected
Archbishop of York in June 1141. He was deposed in 1147, restored in 1153, and
died on 8 June 1154.
He was obviously born too early to be Maud's brother, aside from the fact that
since he was made Archbishop, he would not have been referred to as treasurer
in the Kirkstall account.
Hugh de Puiset, Bishop of Durham from 1153 to his death in 1195, was probably
son of Hugh de Puiset, vct.of Chartres, by Agnes, sister of King Stephen.
William FitzHerbert continued to hold the treasurership of York and
Archdeaconry until his consecration in 1143. Hugh de Puiset is known to have
been treasurer by 24 July 1147, when he was described as the king's nephew and
treasurer.
He too would have been born too early, and attained the rank of Bishop.
John of Canterbury, alias John Bellesmains [fair hands], succeeded Hugh as
treasurer. He became Bishop of Poitiers in 1162, and held the Archbishopric of
Lyons 1182-93, when he retired to Clairvaux Abbey, dying there about 1204. He
was a friend of Thomas Becket. He was an Englishman; Walter Map states he was
born at Canterbury. William Farrer mistakenly followed the theory that he was
a son of William Talvas, Count of Ponthieu [notes to EYC i, no. 29, iii, no.
1830--so Farrer was not without mistakes in his identifications]. It was Paley
Baildon who disproved another theory that the John Talvas [son of an Ivo
Talvas], rector of Halifax, was identical to the treasurer. There is actually
no evidence, Clay eventually concludes, to determine the treasurer's parentage
or family.
It is likely that John became treasurer in 1154, at about age thirty-two, so
he was therefore born about 1122. This was a celebrated man who could not have
been Maud's brother. He was still treasurer of York in 1162, but became Bishop
of Poitiers, being consecrated 23 Sep. 1162.
[Note that there is a possible, if unlikely, gap of about five years here.]
Ralph de Warneville is the next known treasurer. He had been treasurer of
Rouen, and continued to hold it concurrently with that of York after his
appointment. He is described as treasurer of York by 1173, in which year King
Henry II appointed him Chancellor. Clay concludes, though, that it is likely
he became treasurer of York shortly after John of Canterbury was consecrated
Bishop of Poitiers in 1162. Ralph held land in Yorkshire by 1162-6. Clay
concludes that he was definitely treasurer by 1167. Ralph was appointed Bishop
of Lisieux in 1181, when he was still Chancellor and treasurer. Ralph resigned
the treasurership in return for a lands of great value. He died in 1191.
Aside from Ralph being much older than Maud, as he became Chancellor, and
Bishop of Poitiers, he would certainly not have been described only as
'treasurer' in the Kirkstall coucher book, and therefore could not be Maud's
brother.
Geoffrey son of the King was the next treasurer of York, succeeding after Ralph
was appointed to the see of Lisieux. When he resigned the see of Lincoln he
was made Chancellor, and received the Archdeaconries of Lincoln and Rouen, with
the treasurership of York. He continued as treasurer until 1189, when he
received the Archbishopric of York. Geoffrey was most likely made treasurer in
1182. His career 1191-1207 is well known.
Geoffrey could not have been Maud's brother, aside from the fact that he
became Archbishop, as she would certainly been called daughter of the king or
at least of royal blood.
I listed the previous chronologically unlikely candidates just to show there
was no earlier candidate to whom Maud might have been sister. The following
become more acceptable on chronological grounds, given that Maud may have been
born about 1165-77.
Bouchard du Puiset, nephew of Hugh, Bishop of Durham, was given the
treasurership on 16 Sep. 1189 when Geoffrey was given the Archbishopric of
York. Bouchard died as treasurer 6 Dec. 1196. He had witnessed charters of
his cousin Henry du Puiset (son of the Bishop). Bouchard apparently retained
the Archdeaconry of Durham, which position he held when he was appointed
treasurer, until his death.
It is chronologically possible that this Bouchard was Maud's brother.
Master Eustace, the keeper of the king's seal, was given the treasurership of
York on Bouchard's death. He was consecrated Bishop of Ely 8 March 1198 and
made Chancellor. He died in 1215.
Though his surname is unknown [so he could have been a de Clere], as he
attained the rank of Bishop, I would doubt the clerics of Kirkstall would have
missed that fact. He therefore would not have been Maud's brother.
Hamo, precentor of York, who had expectations of becoming treasurer since 1181,
attained the position by 1199, within a year after Eustace was consecrated
Bishop of Ely. He became Dean of York between 1216 and 1218, but died by 1220.
This Hamo had a son named Hamo, who witnessed a charter as 'son of the
treasurer' to which the father Hamo was first witness. The son Hamo had
letters of safe conduct issued on 12 May 1215. Hamo the father relinquished
the treasurership when appointed Dean 1216-18.
It is chronologically possible that this Hamo was Maud's brother, but I would
tend to doubt it. And I would have expected cleric at Kirkstall to have made
reference to the higher office of Dean of York if he were Maud's brother.
William 'the treasurer' was the next to succeed as treasurer of York. But he
was not Archdeacon of the East Riding, as that office was separated from the
treasurership by 1218. William the treasurer also witnessed a charter in 1221.
In the 1943 article detailing the biographies of these treasurers, Clay states
that witnesses to a charter of Archbishop Gray dated 3 Sep. 1220 included
William 'the treasurer,' William 'Archdeacon of the East Riding,' and William
'Archdeacon of Richmond,' and that they were therefore three separate men named
William. This agrees with the statement that the Archdeaconry of the East
Riding had been separated from the treasurership of York by 1218 [Clay, p. 30,
citing _Reg. Gray_, p. 133n; _Cal. Papal Letters, i. 57 (see also VCH Yorks.
3:80)]. He also states that William the Archdeacon of Richmond and William the
treasurer were also separate men according to another charter that same year
[p. 31, citing _Reg. Gray_, pp. 139n].
THIS WILLIAM THE TREASURER, 1218-1221, COULD HAVE BEEN MAUD'S BROTHER. If
older when appointed treasurer, he would still fit chronologically, and we know
from other records that Maud was still then alive. The documents pertaining to
him simply call him William 'the treasurer,' so his surname is undetermined.
BUT [!] Sir Charles Travis Clay, author of that article, also edited _York
Minster Fasti_ (YAS 123), published in 1958, reversing his original decision
that there was a William 'the treasurer' who was succeeded by a William de
Rothersfield as treasurer. He finally concludes that there were two men named
William de Rotherield at the same time, one the treasurer, the other the
Archdeacon of Richmond.
William de Rotherfield was treasurer of York by 19 June 1222, when he received
a quitclaim of land in Accomb, Yorkshire, as free alms belonging to the
treasurership [_Yorks. Fines, 1218-31, p. 46].
William 'the treasurer' [without the surname de Rotherfield] was named in
documents in 1221 as successor of Hamo, in 1222,
IN 1225 (KIRKSTALL COUCHER, NO. 368),
in 1226, 1227, 1230 and 1237.
[Note that It is this Kirkstall Coucher Book that states that Maud was sister
of the treasurer of York, and includes a separate mention of William "the
treasurer of York" in 1225.]
William de Rotherfield is called Archdeacon of Richmond on 13 May 1238 [_Reg.
Gray_, p. 81]. But William de Rotherfield was succeeded in that post by 17
Feb. 1238/9.
Clay had originally concluded that he was the William who was mentioned
[without surname] as Archdeacon of Richmond in the 1217-18 document. There are
also references to William Archdeacon of Richmond [no surname] in 1220 and
1224. And the William Archdeacon of Richmond in 1220 was not the William the
treasurer. William de Rutherfield, formerly treasurer of York, was mentioned
on 18 April 1242 after his death. He was dead by 22 March 1241/2 by which time
Robert Haget was appointed treasurer.
WHAT THINK YE ALL OF THIS? Could there have been a William 'the treasurer
1218-1221 who then died as was succeeded by 1222 by a different man, William de
Rotherfield? It seems Clay decided that William de Rotherfield who was
Archdeacon of Richmond was dead when he was succeeded by another man in that
post before 17 Feb. 1238/9 (when Walter de Wuburne was called Archdeacon of
Richmond). But Robert Haget who succeeded as Archdeacon of Richmond subsequent
to that date was succeeded in that post before 5 Nov. 1241, though he continued
as treasurer and was still alive 14 Jan. 1251/2.
Clay's logic here seems faulty. William de Rotherfield could have become
treasurer of York by 19 June 1222, been Archdeacon of Richmond 1238-9, still
retaining the treasurership, and died by 18 Apr. 1242. Why could William de
Rotherfield not have held both the treasurership and Archdeaconry or Richmond
between 1222 and 1238? Mag. Robert Haget held both posts. It is only before
1222 that it is certain that there were two or three different Williams.
Mag. Robert Haget succeeded as treasurer by 22 March 1241/2. He also witnessed
as treasurer 19 Jan. 1249/50, and as 'mag. Robert, treasurer of York,' on 14
Jan. 1251/2. As noted before, "For a short while subsequently to 17 Feb.
1238-9 he held the archdeaconry of Richmond, being succeeded therein before 5
Nov. 1241."
It is chronologically unlikely that Robert Haget would have been Maud's
brother.
Mag. John le Romeyn, the elder, succeeded as Archdeacon of Richmond and
treasurer by 16 Mar. 1253/4. He died 1255-6. He had received a Papal letter
dated 15 Feb. 1224/5 declaring his legitimacy, as he lost his parents at a
tender age and his date of birth uncertain. Clay determines that he was the
mag. John Romanus who was a canon of York as early as 1201, and appeared again
in documents in 1218.
As to the office of treasurer, Clay states, "The dignity was evidently a
particularly lucrative piece of ecclesiastical preferment.... But in the years
1162 to 1189 it is unlikely that the treasurers performed their duties in
person.... [W]hen archbishop Gray decided to separate the treasurership from
the archdeaconry, it was because the former required constant residence...."
[p. 34]
I found no mention of Maud [de Clere?] de Lacy in the first volume of the
Coucher Book of Selby Abbey (YAS 10). Likewise there was no entry in either
the Great Roll of the Pipe for 1230 (PRS, ns v .4) or the Cartae Antiquae (PRS,
ns v. 33). There were entries in the Great Roll of the Pipe for 1220 [PRS, ns
v. 47] and 1221 [PRS, ns v. 48]:
[v. 47, 4 Hen. III Michaelmas 1220, p. 12, "nova oblata" for Lincolnshire:]
Matillis de Lascy mater constabularii Cestr' debet xl s. pro ij dissaisins.
[p. 97, Lincolnshire, where Matillis de Lascy is mentioned twice.]
[v. 48, Michaelmas 1221, p. 130, mentioning "Matillis de Lascy" owing in
Yorkshire; p. 153, Lincolnshire; and p. 161 (Lincolnshire), where she is called
"Matillis de Lascy mater constabularii Cestr'."
So what do you think about all this?
pcr
Dcrdcr4
found many sources which call her a Clare without any documenation. Then at
one point I found a book which referred to a charter which Maud issued as a
widow with her son, John, in which Maud specifically called herself "de
Clare." You might try contacting the Chester Record Office for help in
finding this charter.
The possibility remains that Maud was not a Clare by birth, but had an earlier
unknown Clare marriage prior to becoming the wife of Roger de Lacy. However,
if an earlier Clare marriage existed, it doubtless would have been noticed a
long time ago.
As for the subsequent intermarriage between Roger and Maud's granddaughter and
another member of the Clare family, I think you should look for a kinship that
would make the granddaughter and her husband not related closer than the 4th
degree. I often see dispensations for couples related in the 4th degrees and
lower, but seldom for the 5th degree.
All for now. Best to you always, Paul. Douglas Richardson
J.C.B.Sharp
>So what do you think about all this?
The monastic genealogies which describe Maud the wife of Roger de
Lacy contain many other statements of relationship. By considering
some of these we may better understand the way they worked.
For Henry I de Lacy we find that:
Iste Henricus duxit in uxorem sororem W.Vesci rectoris de Berwik.
Since Eustace fitz John, the father of William, was married twice
this statement seems designed to suggest that the wife of Henry
was a child of the first marriage rather than the second, but it is
a very odd way to describe William de Vesci lord of Alnwick and
Malton. The reference is probably to Berwick-on-Tweed but how or why
is not known (see Wightman, The Lacy Family, p 245-6).
The lesson here is that people may not be descibed as we would
expect.
Johannes vero constabularius, filius predicti Ricardi et Aubrie de
Lisuri, duxit in uxorem Aliciam de Ver, sororem Willelmi de
Maindevile... (Thoresby Society, VIII p 241).
Again the wife is identified by her brother, and in a way
which makes us reach for the pedigrees of the earls of Oxford and
Essex. When I did so I realised that Roger de Lacy descended from
Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare in the female line.
Note also that the lady is given the surname de Vere which was her
mother's name, and so it may not be so surprising that no
treasurer of York with the surname of Clare/Clere is apparent.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net
Reedpcgen
>What do I think? I believe Roger de Lacy's wife, Maud, was a Clare. I've
>found many sources which call her a Clare without any documenation.
Doug, it is only fair to require you to tell us SPECIFICALLY what these sources
are, if you are going to question our conclusions.
Then at
>one point I found a book which referred to a charter which Maud issued as a
>widow with her son, John, in which Maud specifically called herself "de
>Clare." You might try contacting the Chester Record Office for help in
>finding this charter.
>
The early Cheshire charters have been gathered and published in a number of new
volumes, and these I have already checked. You said you thought it was from
Farrer's Honors and Knights' Fees, and there was an entry there which would
have fit your requirements, except it did not cite to a charter, just the Book
of Fees.
WHAT is your source? You need to give a specific source rather than expecting
us to go along on faith. It is only fair to ask for a source. Why should we
question what factual information we have found until other factual information
is presented to counter it? You have to be fair, and scholarly.
All my best (but requiring you to be your best too),
pcr
Dcrdcr4
I haven't questioned your conclusions. In this case, I'm basically going along
with the standard sources which state that Roger de Lacy's wife, Maud, was a
Clare. And, yes, I really saw a book which referred to a charter in which Maud
used the Clare surname. If you give me some time and exert some patience,
hopefully I can supply you with the name of the source which mentioned Maud de
Clare's charter. You're a cool dude. You can handle it.
In the meantime, can you check on potential kinships outside the 4th degree
which would have permitted Maud de Clare's granddaughter, Maud de Lacy, to have
married her Clare cousin.
Best always, Doug