Essex/Valognes/Fitz John
Rosie Bevan
p.206; Sanders p.120, 139; DD p.449-451 and were further summarised on sgm
by Chris Phillips on 15 March 2001, as given below in quotation marks.
"Henry was the son of Robert of Essex by Gunnor Bigod (CP vol.10, p.206; on
Gunnor's family see http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/PRSPN9.stm).
According to Round elsewhere ["Geoffrey de Mandeville", p.391], Robert was
the son of Sweyn, and Sweyn the son of Robert son of Wimarc, both Sweyn and
his father Robert having been sheriffs of Essex under William the
Conqueror."
Henry de Essex was also Constable in 1152 the title of which came with the
barony of Haughley later called the honour of Perche [Sanders 120].
"1163 was the date when he [Henry of Essex] forfeited his estates when he
was defeated in single combat by Robert de Montfort, who had accused him of
treason. But J.H.Round [Essex Arch Soc. Trans. NS vol.3, pp.243-51]
suggested that he may have survived much longer, saying that that 'Jocelyn
de Brakelond professed to have seen him alive, at Reading, in later years'."
"Henry's wife was called Cicely [CP, citing Dugdale]. Miss Fry [Essex Arch
Soc Trans. vol.5, p.109] suggested she was the dau and heir of Robert son of
Bernard de Vere, but Round argued against this, and his conclusion was
accepted by CP, vol.10, Appendix J (p.112)."
"CP says that Henry had 3 sons (correcting the erroneous statement in the
first edition of CP that Agnes was his heir), citing Stow MS 935, no 97
[Monks Horton cartulary, British Library] and Dugdale's Monasticon vol.4,
p.82. Round, in the article mentioned above, names these sons as Henry,
Hugh, and Robert, a clerk. He says that Henry and Robert are mentioned in 2
charters of Henry of Essex confirming the foundation of Monks Horton (Add.
MS [British Library] 5516, fo.3). "
Further to the above, a charter to St Mary Clerkenwell, a nunnery
situated north west of the City of London, of the church of North Weald,
dated 21 March 1194, has Hugh, son of Henry of Essex, confirming a gift
by his mother Cecilia (unknown date), and his brother Henry (1186). Hugh's
charter, confirmed by Richard fitzNeale, bishop of London on the same day,
does not give any mention of a brother Robert. [W.O. Hassall, Cartulary of
St Mary Clerkenwell, (Camden Third Series; LXXI, 1949) nos. 27-30]. The
confirmation of Hugh would imply that Henry fitz Henry had died without
issue by 1194 and that Hugh had succeeded to the fee.
North Weald, and the five knight's fees associated with it, was held by the
Essex family in demesne of the Valognes barony. The holder of the Valognes
property after 1194 was Robert fitzWalter of Little Dunmow who held it in
right of his wife, Gunnor de Valognes. Their two daughters died without
issue and in 1235 the Valognes inheritance fell to the three daughters of
Gunnor's cousin, William de Valognes of Panmure [CRR, v.XV, no.1432]. An
error in DD p.450 has the entry for Henry de Essex, son of Henry of Essex
and
Cecily, holding five fees of Robert fitz Walter "de Valognes". It is
doubtful that he can be identified as son of Henry de Essex, but was rather
son of Hugh de Essex.
VCH Essex v. 4 p. 287, on the section for North Weald Basset, discusses the
paper written by J. H. Round, 'North Weald Basset and the Essex family',
E.A.T. N.S. xiv, 111-114, saying that Round suggested that the manor had
been brought into the family by Cecily, mother of Henry and Hugh of Essex.
The reason that it had not been confiscated with the rest of the de Essex
lands was because it was held by right of her inheritance. Details of family
are given thus
1236 Henry of Essex held 5 knights fees in Sutton, Springfield, Layer de la
Haye, Barningham and Ikenton of the barony of Valoines.
1244 Henry son of Hugh of Essex was involved in litigation concerning the
advowson of North Weald.
1254 Henry de Essex compounded with Lora de Baliol coheiress of the Valognes
barony for the customs and services due from his tenement in Benington
(caput of the Valoines barony).
1267/68 Hugh son of Hugh de Essex granted to Philip Basset and Ela Countess
of Warwick, his wife that they should hold North Weald for their lives from
him and the heirs of his body.
Baldwin son of Hugh de Essex granted Philip and Ela the manor of North Weald
and the 5 knights fees belonging to it.
Charters relating to these transactions are to be found in the PRO
PRO E 40/753
Letters patent of Edward I. approving the grant made by Roger le Bygod, Earl
of Norfolk and Marshal of England, and Alina his wife, daughter and heir of
the late Philip Basset, to Hugh de Essex of the manor of Toleshunt; which
grant has been made to remove the ambiguity in a demise of Northwelde manor
made by the said Hugh to Philip Basset in the latter's lifetime, and in
order that the said manor of Northwelde may remain to the Earl and Alina
without challenge of Hugh or his heirs.
Winchester, 4 January, 8 Edward I
PRO E 40/768
Grant by Baldwin, son of Hugh de Essex, for 100 marcs, to Sir Philip Basset,
of his manor of North Waude (North Weald), formerly his father Hugh's, the
advowson of the church there, and five knights' fees to it belonging,
whereof Sawhal de Springgefeld holds one in Springgefeld, William de Monte
Caniseto one in Legere de la Haye, the Knights Templars of Jerusalem two in
Sutton, Rocheford Hundred, all in Essex, and lady Isabella de Berninggeham
one in Berninggeham, Norfolk.
PRO E 40/774
Grant by Baldwin, son of Hugh de Essex, to Sir Philip Basset and lady Ela,
Countess of Warwick, his wife, for 100 marcs, of the manor of North Waude
(North Weald), formerly belonging to Hugh his father, with advowson of the
church and five knights' fees belonging thereto, held as specified in
E40/768, with reamainder to the next heirs of Sir Philip, if lady Ela die
without issue.
PRO E 40/798
Acknowledgment by Baldwin de Essex that whenever Sir Philip Basset shall
summon him he is bound to go to prosecute concerning Waude manor, if Sir
Philip be impleaded for the same, at the latter's cost; if he fail to do so
(except in the case of grave infirmity), he will permit Sir Philip to enter
on and hold his land of Westle.
A further charter shows that Hugh de Essex had a daughter Anne who married
Hamon le Parker.
PRO DL 25/1000
Hugh de Essex to Hamon le Parker, and Anne daughter of the grantor: Grant,
indented, of his land in the townships of Tolleshunt, Gynes in the parish of
Tollesbury, Salcott, Rivenhall, Laver (Lawefare), Walda, and Mary Hall in
Belchamp Comitisse: (Essex)
An inquisition was held for Hugh de Essex shortly before 28 Dec 1250 when he
was found to be holding the town of Rivenhall, Essex [CIPM 1 : no.184]. He
left a son and heir Hugh aged five. It's possible that there had been a
marriage to a descendant of Baldwin de "Oskerwicke' who had held Rivenhall
in demesne in 1212 [Red Book of the Exchequer p.476]. By coincidence the
manors of Rivenhall, Tolleshunt and Sutton had been held in chief by Swein
of Essex at Domesday, but were held in demesne by the family in the 1200s.
The above shows that Henry de Essex, the Constable, left male descendants,
and that Agnes his daughter, wife of Aubrey de Vere first Earl of Oxford,
could not have been his heir. She was holding 5 fees of the honour of
Haughley in 1206 in her widowhood, possibly representing her marriage
portion (which had probably been arranged before her father's downfall). As
the Haughley barony consisted of 50 knights' fees and the Rayleigh barony
had consisted of about 48-58, [Sanders 120, 139], this is a very small
proportion of the total. Most of it remained in the king's hands after
confiscation, although in 1205 Gilbert Stanford (Sanford?) answered for 13
fees "a sixth part" of the honor of
Henry de Essex and four and a half fees of the honour of Haughley [Red Book
of the Exchequer, p.748].
About the identity of Cecily, abstracts of charters in the PRO point to
further Valognes links
PRO E 40/3699
Grant by Agnes de Waloniis, to Gunnora de Essex', her niece and foster
child, of all the land and fee which she holds of the bishopric of Ely and
of Roger de Thorn, viz. Westley, Fulburn and Feversam, which William
Delmaneir holds, and the land called 'the land of the small hall;' to be
held by the service of two knights, which the said William will perform, and
a sparrowhawk yearly.
(Twelfth Century)
PRO E 40/3958
Grant by Peter, the prior, and the convent of Binham, to Gunnora de
Estsexia, for her life, or until she takes the veil, of land in Westleia
granted to them, in frank almoin, by Lady Agnes de Valoniis, and Robert de
Valoniis, her son. Witnesses:- John, the chaplain of the countess, Robert de
Ver, Geoffrey de berleia, and others (named): [Camb. Twelfth century.
The grant by the prior of the convent of Binham, Norfolk, which Peter de
Valognes founded about 1107, points to the identification of Lady Agnes de
Valognes as Agnes, sister of Payn and Eustace fitz John and widow of Roger
de Valognes d. 1141 of Benington, Herts., and mother of his sons and heirs,
Peter d.s.p.1158, and Robert d.1184. Because the gift is made with the
assent of Robert, the charter would appear to date after the death of her
eldest son in 1158 and
probably after 1163 when the Essex family lost its vast fortune. Agnes was
trying to provide for a younger daughter of the family. I would also suspect
that the interpretation of the word 'niece' is derived from the Latin
neptis, which was also used to mean granddaughter.
The lands which Agnes gave Gunnor de Essex are in Westley Waterless,
Fulbourn and Teversham (Feversam is a misreading), in Cambridgeshire, and
had been in the demesne of the Abbey of Ely probably from before the
conquest. The reason for two charters granting Westley, is that at some
stage
after the first grant, it was transferred from Ely to the Valognes
foundation of Binham priory [VCH Norfolk, v.2 p.343]. Binham priory appears
to have tightened the conditions of the grant to a life tenure.
'The land of the small hall' which is mentioned in document E 40/3699 is
identified in VCH Cambs v.6 p.177, as land in Westley which was given to
Agnes by Ralph de Tony before 1126, citating Cat Anc. D. v. A
11090, and Farrer, Feud. Cambs, 50. The author of the article assumes that
the donee, was Gunnor, daughter of Robert de Valognes. However, in 1272
Baldwin de Essex granted a messuage in Westley and 1 carucate to Hugh de
Essex, and in 1307 Reynold de Essex sold a messuage and 70 acres in Westley
to Nicholas de Styvecle, retaining a life interest, and was still alive in
1321 [VCH Cambs. v.6 p.178]. The continued de Essex family holdings in
Westley clearly show that this Gunnora's heirs were male descendants of
Henry and Cecilia de Essex.
In addition to the five fees attached to North Weald, there is further
evidence of Valognes land in Hertfordshire passing to the Essex family in
the twelfth century - the manors of Hertford, Bayford and Essendon,
Hertfordshire, had been granted to Peter de Valognes when sheriff of
Hertfordshire by William I, and confirmed by Empress Maud to Roger de
Valognes, son of Peter. By 1154/5 these had passed to Henry de Essex [VCH
Herts. v.3 p. 501]. Held in chief, they appear to have been confiscated with
the rest of the Essex estates in 1163.
Taking the Valognes links into consideration, a reasonable conclusion is
that Cecilia was the daughter of Roger and Agnes de Valognes. This would
suggest that Gunnor has been misidentified as the daughter of Robert de
Essex by Keats-Rohan in DD 451, but was actually the daughter of Henry and
Cecilia de Essex, as well as the sister of Agnes, wife of Aubrey de Vere.
Onomastically it is a good match - Agnes the first born daughter was named
for Cecily's mother and Gunnor the second daughter was named for Henry's
mother.
The name Cecily appears to have originated from the fitz John family [CP
XII/2 : 271 n.(i)]. Circumstantial evidence suggests that John's wife
(Agnes' mother) may have been named Cecily. Before the Vescy marriage, the
fitz Johns' main landed interests were in Norfolk with John 'nepos Walerami'
holding land in Saxlingham of the abbot of St Benet of Holme [CP XII/2 :
269]. In 1205 a Norfolk fine between Eustace fitz John and the abbot of
Holme confirmed tenancy of land which had been held by his grandmother
Cecily and mother Ede [Barbara Dodwell, 'Feet of Fines for the County of
Norfolk for the reign of King John 1201-1215', (London : Pipe Roll Soc.new
series v.XXXII, 1956) no. 156]. This Eustace is possibly a younger son of
Eustace fitz John. Curiously the tithes of the manor of Saxlingham formed
part of the foundation of Binham priory.
From the above information we can deduce the de Essex descent in North
Weald.
1.Henry de Essex=Cecily de Valognes d. by 1186
2.Henry de Essex fl.1186, d.s.p.bef 1194
2.Hugh de Essex fl 1194 d. by 1227
3.Henry de Essex d.s.p aft 1254
3.Hugh d.1250
4.Hugh b c.1245 heir of his uncle
5.Baldwin de Essex had issue
?4.Anne=Hamon le Parker
2.Robert, cleric d.s.p.
2.Agnes de Essex b. 1151/2, fl 1206
2.Gunnora de Essex d.s.p.
This is the proposed reconstruction of the Valognes/Essex families based on
the above discussion.
1.Peter de Valognes d. c.1109, founder of Binham priory=Albreda de
Saint-Sauveur
2.Roger de Valognes d.1141=Agnes f. John
3.Peter de Valognes d.s.p. 1158=Gundred de Warenne
3. Robert de Valognes d.1184=Hawise
4.Gunnora de Valognes=(1) Durand de Ostilli d.1194
(2) Robert fitz Walter of
Little Dunmow
d.1235
5.Maud f Walter d.s.p.=William de Mandeville
5.Christiana f. Walter d.s.p. 1232=Geoffrey de Mandeville
3.Philip de Valognes of Panmure
4.William deValognes
5.Christiana }
5.Lora } coheirs of the Valognes inheritance in 1235
5.Isabella }
3.Roger de Valognes
3. John de Valognes
3.Geoffrey de Valognes
3.Cecilia de Valognes=Henry de Essex
4.Henry de Essex
4.Hugh de Essex, had issue
4.Robert de Essex, cleric
4.Agnes de Essex=Aubrey de Vere 1st earl of Oxford
5.Aubrey de Vere 2nd earl of Oxford d.s.p.l 1214
5.Ralph de Vere d.s.p.
5.Robert de Vere 3rd earl of Oxford d.1221 had issue
5.Henry de Vere
4.Gunnor de Essex d.s.p.
2.William de Valognes
2 .Muriel de Valognes=Herbert de Munchensy
2. NN= Alvred de Athleborough
Comments welcome.
Cheers
Rosie
.
Cristopher Nash
promising) account under this header -- two points:
(1) the Cicely-onomastic issue reminded me immediately of the
following later sequence put forward by CP re the Valognes'/Valoines'
of Ixworth & Walsham, Suffolk --
John de Valognes/Valoines
& Isabel de Creke (da. of Robert de Creke & Agnes de Glanville)
| ---- de Valognes/Valoines
| | Sir Robert de Valognes/Valoines
| | & Eve Tregoz (da. of Nicholas Tregoz of Tolleshunt D'Arcy)
| | | Cecily de Valognes/Valoines
| | | b. ca 1282
| | | d. 16 Jul 1325
| | | & Sir Robert de Ufford
| | | b. 11 Jun 1279
| | | d. ca 9 Sep 1316 ... etc.
(CP II, 305; CP XII, pt 2, 150)
-- and I wonder whether (alongside the question of its own accuracy)
you've a sense of a connection between these lines? I don't want to
push this too far. Kay last year said she believed they were separate
- John who m. Isabel de Creke being >the son of Theobald<, >the
greatgrandson of the Theobald Valoines who was father-in-law of
Hervey Walter<. Since I don't have the full sequence she had in
mind, I just thought your new work might reveal a link or altogether
confirm Kay's view.
(2) I'm also -- maybe even more -- interested in the fact that
Eustace fitz John (who per your suggestion would be bro. of 'Lady
Agnes de Valognes') m. Agnes FitzNigel/FitzNeel combined with Peter
de Valognes' m. to Albreda de Saint-Sauveur. I.e. interested not
simply because of the recurrence of the name Agnes but because of the
traditional (and often debated here) notion that the
FitzNigel/FitzNeels are to be identified with the family of (Neel/
Richard FitzNeel et al. de) Saint-Sauveur. (I note in your posting
'Richard fitzNeale, bishop of London', but feel the issue involved
yields no genealogical link.) I'd be intrigued to hear anything more
you might be able to say about the origins/connections of Albreda de
Saint-Sauveur -- ?
There's been such a (natural) habit hereabouts of seeking FitzNeel/St
Sauveur associations in North country records (where the FitzNeels,
anyway, generally held sway along with, ultimately, Eustace FitzJohn)
that the chance of a freshening eye-shift for sources to East Anglia
(where Eustace had his original foothold) has a certain appeal.
Many thanks for setting these on the road, Rosie! (And to Kay for
having bequeathed me a question!)
Cris
"Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote (I know it's a load to
resend but find it hard to snip without 'damaging the evidence' for
people wishing to follow) --
--
The...@aol.com
Dear Cris, Rosie, et al.,
Many thanks for an extremely interesting, well-researched and detailed
post - this definitely adds to our knowledge on several points re: these
families and their relationships (not to mention those members of the Essex
family not previously identified/recognized).
I do have a divergent reconstruction of part of this relationship, which
goes back to a basic problem with Roger le Bigod of Earsham, Suffolk (d. Sept
1107) and his marriage(s). These have been discussed previously, on SGM and
elsewhere, and it has been held by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and others that Roger
evidently had a single marriage (or at least, a single marriage with
offspring) - that to Adeliza de Tosny/Tony, coheiress of Belvoir [1].
What I would suggest as a reconstruction actually is derived from a review
of your research, in which you noted:
A. concerning PRO E 40/3958 -
Grant by Peter, the prior, and the convent of Binham,
to Gunnora de Estsexia, for her life, or until she
takes the veil, of land in Westleia granted to them,
in frank almoin, by Lady Agnes de Valoniis, and Robert
de Valoniis, her son....
' Because the gift is made with the assent of Robert, the
charter would appear to date after the death of her eldest
son in 1158 and probably after 1163 when the Essex family
lost its vast fortune. Agnes was trying to provide for a
younger daughter of the family. '
B. concerning PRO PRO E 40/3699 -
Grant by Agnes de Waloniis, to Gunnora de Essex', her
niece and foster child, of all the land and fee which
she holds of the bishopric of Ely and of Roger de Thorn,
viz. Westley, Fulburn and Feversam,....
'...in 1272 Baldwin de Essex granted a messuage in Westley
and 1 carucate to Hugh de Essex, and in 1307 Reynold de Essex
sold a messuage and 70 acres in Westley to Nicholas de
Styvecle, retaining a life interest, and was still alive in
1321 [VCH Cambs. v.6 p.178]. The continued de Essex family
holdings in Westley clearly show that this Gunnora's heirs
were male descendants of Henry and Cecilia de Essex.'
Based on the information above in particular, and your extensive research
in general, together with the chronology of the individuals involved (as I
currently understand it), I would suggest:
1. That Gunnora de Essex, niece of Agnes de Valoins (nee
'fitz John') was actually not a child of Henry de Essex,
but rather Gunnora le Bigod, wife of Robert fitz Sweyn
de Essex and mother of Henry de Essex.
2. That Gunnora was not a daughter of Roger le Bigod
(d. 1107) by Adeliza de Tosny (the currently accepted
version), but rather one of the children
(or possibly the only surviving child) of Roger by his
hitherto unidentifiable first wife ‘Adelais’.
John fitz Richard
_________________I____________________
I I I I I
2) Adeliza = Roger le = 1)Adelais_ AGNES = Payn fitz John
de Tosny I Bigod I ‘filia Roger DE k. 1136
d aft 1135 I d. 1107 I Johanni’ VALOINS = Sibyl
I I__________________ d. 1142 I
___________I____________________ I I _______I____
I I I I I I I I I
Hugh Richard I others Cecilia GUNNORA Robert Agnes Cecily
d. 1176 I I of Belvoir = 1) Hamon de d. bef d. aft
EARL I I = William de St Clare Valoins 1198 Jan
OF I I d’Aubigny = 2) ROBERT d. 1184 = 1207
NORFOLK I I d.ca 1156 fitz Sweyn I Warin = Roger
I I Maud = I DE ESSEX I de E of
I I William I [1] [2] I Munchensy
Hereford
I I d’Aubigny I I I I I (dsp)
I I d. 1139 I I I___ I_____ I________
V I I__ I I I I I
from whom V V V Hubert HENRY DE Gunnora de I
EARLS LORDS EARLS OF LORDS I ESSEX Valoins I
OF FITZ- ARUNDEL OF I d.bef 1194 d. bef 1219 I
NORFOLK ROGER BELVOIR I = = Robert I
I Cecily fitz Walter I
I I I
V V V
LANVALLEI DE VERE MUNCHENSY
of Walkern E OF OXFORD of Swanscombe
The foregoing works with earlier opinion concerning Gunnora, daughter of
Roger le Bigod, as to her being the child of a mother other than Adeliza de
Tosny [2], although direct evidence is still wanting.
The chronology re: the above is feasible, assuming that (1) Agnes ‘filia
Johanni’ was born say 1095 or before, and acting as foster mother to her
niece
(2) Gunnora le Bigod, born say 1105 or before, subsequent to the death of the
infant’s mother (Adelais) and the remarriage of Roger le Bigod to Adeliza de
Tosny. The chronology is doubtless very tight, IF current opinion re: the
siblings of Gunnora stands (i.e., that they were all the issue of Adeliza de
Tosny). The above works more readily if
A. The issue of Roger le Bigod, other than Cecilia, were all (or almost
all) the children of the first wife Adelais; and
B. Contrary to Keats-Rohan’s opinion as discussed above, Cecilia was
the sole (or sole surviving) child of a rather late marriage (say
1106 or only shortly before) of Roger le Bigod to Adeliza de Tosny,
which would explain more readily why Cecilia was the eventual heiress
of Belvoir.
Your thoughts on the above, together with any and all comment or
criticism,
are welcome as always.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] See Richard Borthwick, < BIGOD - de ALBINI BRITO - d'AUBIGNY > (SGM, 14
Jul 1999); also K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, The Descent of Belvoir (Prosopon X,
Apr 1999)
[2] See Peter Stewart, < RE: Roger Bigod, d. 1107 > (SGM, 3 Apr 2001)
* John P. Ravilious
Cristopher Nash
Bevan's recent contribution there)--
>I'd be intrigued to hear anything more you might be able to say
>about the origins/connections of Albreda de Saint-Sauveur -- ?
To save trouble maybe I ought to add that I'm aware of DD's
associating Albreda (via vague circumstantial stretch) with Roger,
vicomte de Saint-Sauveur, nephew and successor of Eudo vicomte de
Saint-Sauveur, "and who was certainly of the family of the Niels
[sic] of Saint-Sauveur" (758). I'm simply wondering whether your
work's drawn out more detail here?
Looking back at DD with this in mind, I notice that (697) K-R's
accepting as a source the Delisle, _Les vicomtes de Saint-Sauveur_
(whose validity has been hotly contested here at times since 1998),
though not necessarily on the debated points re the relations [?]
between William de Saint-Sauveur and William FitzNigel of Salops,
which she appears not to consider.
Cheers!
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
Essex/Valognes/Fitz John>, for which many thanks, John.
I have to confess to having let slide the
Montcanisy/Montchensey/Munchensys of Edwardstone owing to unease
about the early generations and the work needed to sort them -- but
your proposal re 'Munchensy of Swanscombe' rouses me to return to the
riddle.
Down to where things seem to me to gain some stability (with still
some sure wobbles), I've reconciled myself to the fairly vague
working sequence:
Hubert de Montchensey/Munchensey (uncert. which)
| Hugh de Montchensey/Munchensey
| d. bef. Michaelmas 1187
| & Alice of Stoke
| | Stephen de Montchensey/Munchensey
| | d. bef 29 May 1199
| | | Sir Hubert de Montchensey
| | | d. living 1220
| | | & ?Rohaise
| | | | William I de Montchensey
| | | | d. bef Jun 1263
| | | | & Joan de Crek
At the top end, though, there are several Huberts, and I'm finding it
unclear which is the fa. of Hugh who d. bef. Michaelmas 1187, except
that Hugh is the son of 'the donor of Edwardstone', about whom it is
generally proposed that he m. twice: (1) possibly an heiress of
Godric dapifer, & (2) Muriel, da. of Piers de Valognes (sheriff of
Essex and Herts in 1086) by Aubrey, sis. of Eudo dapifer, and wid. of
William de Bachetone (CP IX, 411-13 and footnotes a, b, c). The
problem is essentially that this seems to me to be potentially
problematic on chronological grounds (as at least one DD proposition
concerning Hubert II and his unnamed son is, p. 594); and that CP, DP
and DD all offer data relating to the run of Huberts/Hughs that -
between different citings - is plagued by unclarity and occasionally
apparent contradiction. Over-all, I'm persuaded by CP's opening
proposition that "exactly how many Huberts there were before 1164 and
their interrelationships remain matter of conjecture" (411) and that
-- for various reasons -- this extends through the several Hughs
descending in the early generations from the first Hubert.
Now John, your reassuring apparent confidence in alluding to Warin de
Munchensy's line would seem to give some hope, as these develop. I
have, for example, that Cronne (1970), table, 161, & Lacy pedigrees
(e.g. in Wightman [1966]) follow (or match) olde Burke in giving
Agnes de Munchensi as widow of Warine de Munchensi and da of Payn
FitzJohn. But I do feel this needs much sorting - there's clearly
confusion in the Burke & CP sequences themselves that I'm not yet
confident doesn't infect more modern accounts. By Warin de Munchensy
do you mean Warin given in CP IX, 412, note (c) as s. of Hubert and
possibly of Muriel de Valognes? (One of the CP problems here is that
there's apparent conflict between notes (b) and (c).) And if so, are
you feeling easy as to which Hubert this would be (which CP isn't)?
Or did you mean that the speculative nature of your table extends
beyond the main-course bounds of the Essex/Valognes/Fitz John to
include these Munch(esn)y desserts? I've napkin tucked under chin in
blissome anticipation!
Cris
--
Donna
Robert de Grey married Joan de Valoines
Her parents were Thomas de Valoines of Shabbington and Joan
Thomas's parents were Robert de Valoines, lord of Shabbington died by 1234
and Unknown wife
Robert's parents were Alan de Valoines lord of Shabbington, sheriff of Kent
and first wife Helen of Alveston
do they connect this Roger and Agnes????
Donna
> ______________________________
>
Rosie Bevan
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
When I was researching around the problem of Gunnor's identity, I did
consider various scenarios but there are problems with the particular one
you have mooted which tend to disprove it.
1. I think it can be safely said that Adelais, Adelisa and Alice are
different versions of the same name, and while Agnes f. John is known to
have had a sister of that name, she was abbess of Barking and was so in 1137
[CP XII/2 p.270 n.(d)]. Therefore Alice f. John could not have been the
first wife of Roger Bigod, who died in 1107, as well as abbess of Barking in
1137, unless there had been a divorce.
2. Chronology. Agnes was still alive in 1185 [CP XII/2 p.270 n.(d)], having
been widowed by 1141. As mother of several children by Roger de Valognes by
that time, I would put her birth around 1110-1115. Gunnor on the other hand
must have been born before her - before1107, which is when her father died.
At best they are contemporary so this makes it very difficult for Gunnor to
have been Agnes' foster daughter.
3. It is not clear when Gunnor Bigod became Robert de Essex' widow but she
afterwards married Haimo St Clair as his first wife. After her death Haimo
married Margaret [DD 686]. Haimo was succeeded by his son Hubert by 1147
[DD450], so when Agnes made her gift after 1158, Gunnor Bigod was long dead.
I hope this helps clear the issue for you.
Cris - I have noted your questions, but today being a public holiday in NZ
(ANZAC Day), I am otherwise occupied. Hopefully I will reply in the next day
or so.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
The...@aol.com
Dear Rosie,
Thanks for your detailed and (fortunately or otherwise)
accurate post.
I fear the order in which I had the Hamo de St. Clare -
Robert de Essex marriages for Gunnora le Bigod (with Hamo
first, Robert second) led me astray. A copy of DD (and DP)
will go a long way in preventing such clutter; something
I will need to tend to before long.
It was a nice thought, tho......;)
Thanks again; now, what's this I hear about taking a
holiday, just when I've returned to the fold...?
Cheers, and enjoy,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Tim Powys-Lybbe
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
> Rosie, just starting to look/think through your big (and really
> promising) account under this header -- two points:
>
> (1) the Cicely-onomastic issue reminded me immediately of the
> following later sequence put forward by CP re the Valognes'/Valoines'
> of Ixworth & Walsham, Suffolk --
>
> John de Valognes/Valoines
> & Isabel de Creke (da. of Robert de Creke & Agnes de Glanville)
> | ---- de Valognes/Valoines
> | | Sir Robert de Valognes/Valoines
> | | & Eve Tregoz (da. of Nicholas Tregoz of Tolleshunt D'Arcy)
Are you sure about this? My CP says that Eve was the widow of Nich.
Tregoz and may have been Eve Criketot of Ousden, Suffolk. (CP 12/2,
150, note (f) )
> | | | Cecily de Valognes/Valoines
> | | | b. ca 1282
> | | | d. 16 Jul 1325
> | | | & Sir Robert de Ufford
> | | | b. 11 Jun 1279
> | | | d. ca 9 Sep 1316 ... etc.
>
> (CP II, 305; CP XII, pt 2, 150)
<snip>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
<snip of John Ravilous' tree>
I too had some happy times following Rosie's excellent account of the
Essex/Valognes/Fitz John axis and was likewise led to a re-examination
of the Munchesnies.
Like you I think everyone seems agreed that Stephan was the son of Hugh
and that the question is who was Hugh the son of? Eventually I found
this in Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants, p. 594:
"de Montcanisy, Stephan
Son and heir of Hugh fitz Hubert I de Montecanisy. Occurs from c. 1160"
"Hubert I" is the grand-daddy of them all and is given in K-R's Domesday
People, pp. 256-7. But the only Hugh who was a son of Hubert I's is there
given as one who "his mother made a monk at Thetford", his mother being
Muriel de Valognes.
Back to CP IX, p. 412, note (b) and towards the end of that note Miss
Ethel Stokes wrote:
"Hubert's sons Gilbert, Hubert snd Hugh appear to have been brothers of
the whole blood; Warin upon whom the Godric fees were settled was
possibly their whole brother. Roger and Geoffrey were sons by Muriel
de Volignes"
Then in note (c) on the same page, she wrote, referencing Farrer:
"Muriel, wife of Hubert de Nunchensy, granted her land of Rushworth,
which was of her marriage, to Thetford Abbey, when she made her son Hugh
monk there"
I wonder if there had been two Hugh sons, one by the first marriage and
one by the second. And further I wonder if the Hugh of the second
marriage was somehow mentally or otherwise defective.
This could give:
Hubert I de Montchensey/Munchensey (d. between 1115 and 1121)
& N.N. (ie not Muriel de Valoignes)
| Hugh de Montchensey/Munchensey
| d. bef. Michaelmas 1187
| & Alice of Stoke
| | Stephen de Montchensey/Munchensey
| | d. bef 29 May 1199
But there does seem to be rather too long a gap, a maximum of 72 years,
between the death of Hubert I and that of his presumed son Hugh.
(Though my father has survived his father by 73 years.)
all...@pacbell.net
families.
Kay Allen AG
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Donna carpe...@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:28:32 -0400
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Valognes/
According to The Blackman's of Knight Creek
Robert de Grey married Joan de Valoines
Her parents were Thomas de Valoines of Shabbington and Joan
Thomas's parents were Robert de Valoines, lord of Shabbington died by 1234
and Unknown wife
Robert's parents were Alan de Valoines lord of Shabbington, sheriff of Kent
and first wife Helen of Alveston
do they connect this Roger and Agnes????
Donna
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Don McArthur
Earl. Robert married Joan Courtenay, widow of Nicholas Carew] .
Did he have any other kids than John ? Specifically Mary, wife of Edward
Gedding, Kt. This comes from the Blois MSS, calling her dau of Robert,
Earl - obviously incorrect in the title at least.
Blois MSS, handwritten pedigrees compiled by Wm. Blois of Grundisburgh +
1673. There are later additions, filling in details of the last generation
or two.
Regards,
Don McArthur.
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> About the identity of Cecily, abstracts of charters in the PRO point to
> further Valognes links
>
> PRO E 40/3699
> Grant by Agnes de Waloniis, to Gunnora de Essex', her niece and foster
> child, of all the land and fee which she holds of the bishopric of Ely and
> of Roger de Thorn, viz. Westley, Fulburn and Feversam, which William
> Delmaneir holds, and the land called 'the land of the small hall;' to be
> held by the service of two knights, which the said William will perform,
and
> a sparrowhawk yearly.
> (Twelfth Century)
>
> PRO E 40/3958
> Grant by Peter, the prior, and the convent of Binham, to Gunnora de
> Estsexia, for her life, or until she takes the veil, of land in Westleia
> granted to them, in frank almoin, by Lady Agnes de Valoniis, and Robert de
> Valoniis, her son. Witnesses:- John, the chaplain of the countess, Robert
de
> Ver, Geoffrey de berleia, and others (named): [Camb. Twelfth century.
I'm finally starting to get to grips with this long and interesting post (or
getting to grips with parts of it, at least).
The central argument that "niece" in the above (surely "neptis" in the
original) is probably to be translated granddaughter, making Cecilia (the
wife of Henry of Essex) a daughter of Roger de Valognes and Agnes, seems
persuasive to me.
I had a couple of questions/comments on minor points, relating to this
paragraph.
> The name Cecily appears to have originated from the fitz John family [CP
> XII/2 : 271 n.(i)]. Circumstantial evidence suggests that John's wife
> (Agnes' mother) may have been named Cecily. Before the Vescy marriage, the
> fitz Johns' main landed interests were in Norfolk with John 'nepos
Walerami'
> holding land in Saxlingham of the abbot of St Benet of Holme [CP XII/2 :
> 269]. In 1205 a Norfolk fine between Eustace fitz John and the abbot of
> Holme confirmed tenancy of land which had been held by his grandmother
> Cecily and mother Ede [Barbara Dodwell, 'Feet of Fines for the County of
> Norfolk for the reign of King John 1201-1215', (London : Pipe Roll Soc.new
> series v.XXXII, 1956) no. 156]. This Eustace is possibly a younger son of
> Eustace fitz John. Curiously the tithes of the manor of Saxlingham formed
> part of the foundation of Binham priory.
(1) Complete Peerage vol. 12, part 2, p. 270, note d says that the Rotuli de
Dominabus give Agnes's age in 1185 as variously 50 and 60 or more, and
suggests that she may have been the daughter of a second marriage of her
father. I think it's clear from Rosie's data that 50 or 60 must be a
significant underestimate of her age, so this probably doesn't pose a
difficulty.
(2) I had more difficulty fitting in the grandmother Cecily and the mother
Ede of the Eustace fitz John of 1205, and with the suggestion that this
Eustace was possibly a younger son of Eustace fitz John. CP gives the latter
2 wives, Beatrice and Agnes (who survived him, and was the mother of Richard
fitz Eustace). The 1205 document seems to require another wife Ede between
these two, and would require the Eustace fitz John who appears to have
survived to a very good (though not impossible) age. Also, as far as I can
see, "fitz John" wasn't being used as a fixed surname in the family at this
time, as Eustace's elder son took his mother's surname, "de Vescy", and his
younger son is referred to as "Richard fitz Eustace".
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> Like you I think everyone seems agreed that Stephan was the son of Hugh
> and that the question is who was Hugh the son of? Eventually I found
> this in Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants, p. 594:
>
> "de Montcanisy, Stephan
> Son and heir of Hugh fitz Hubert I de Montecanisy. Occurs from c. 1160"
>
> "Hubert I" is the grand-daddy of them all and is given in K-R's Domesday
> People, pp. 256-7. But the only Hugh who was a son of Hubert I's is there
> given as one who "his mother made a monk at Thetford", his mother being
> Muriel de Valognes.
>
> Back to CP IX, p. 412, note (b) and towards the end of that note Miss
> Ethel Stokes wrote:
>
> "Hubert's sons Gilbert, Hubert snd Hugh appear to have been brothers of
> the whole blood; Warin upon whom the Godric fees were settled was
> possibly their whole brother. Roger and Geoffrey were sons by Muriel
> de Volignes"
>
> Then in note (c) on the same page, she wrote, referencing Farrer:
>
> "Muriel, wife of Hubert de Nunchensy, granted her land of Rushworth,
> which was of her marriage, to Thetford Abbey, when she made her son Hugh
> monk there"
>
> I wonder if there had been two Hugh sons, one by the first marriage and
> one by the second. And further I wonder if the Hugh of the second
> marriage was somehow mentally or otherwise defective.
This may be an example of a "fool rushing in", as I don't know anything of
these Munchensys, but my ears pricked up at the previous mention of CP
contradicting itself. I've been puzzling over the CP account, trying to make
sense of the reconstruction in terms of the evidence presented.
I can't help wondering how strong the evidence is for making Hugh (d. c.
1187) a son of Hubert who married (i) ... and (ii) Muriel de Valognes. CP
cites evidence that the name of Hugh's father was Hubert (though even that
is "uncertain"), but as you say, which Hubert?
Keats Rohan (Domesday People 594) cites Monasticon, iv 142, for Hugh's
parentage. I'm not sure what that is, but I suppose that it's unlikely to
have been missed by CP.
On the other hand, there's the evidence already pointed out that Hugh was
made a monk by his mother, and it's difficult to see why Hugh should have
succeeded at all, given the presence of Warin, apparently a child of
Hubert's first marriage, as well as other sons of the second marriage.
Indeed, the evidence that CP seems to cite for Hugh's parentage is a charter
of his predecessor Hubert (CP suggests this Hubert was Hugh's nephew) which
includes among its witnesses a Hugh de Munchensy, and Hugh and Gilbert de
Munchensy the grantor's brothers. I should have thought the most natural
conclusion to jump to was that the grantor was succeeded by his brother
Hugh, not to assume the two brothers disappeared. On CP's reconstruction,
that would still make Hugh a son of Hubert, as stated. Maybe I'm missing
something.
At any rate, if Hugh was a grandson, rather than a son of the original
Hubert, that would dispose of the chronological difficulty that leads CP to
suggest two Huberts at the start (Keats-Rohan simply identifies the Domesday
tenant as the father of Hugh, who died a century after Domesday).
Chris Phillips