Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Douglas Richardson
I've located two references in the medieval source, Foedera, in which
Edmund, Earl of Lancaster (younger son of King Henry III of England)
refers to Sir John de St. John as his "cousin" [see abstracts below].
I haven't made an attempt to determine the exact nature of the kinship
involved, but I presume it comes through John de St. John's maternal
grandmother, Milicent (de Gournay) de Cantelowe. Milicent de Gournay
has many descendants, among them being Milicent de Cantelowe, wife of
Eudes la Zouche, of recent topic here on the newsgroup.
If anyone has any particulars which might identity the kinship between
Earl Edmund and John de St. John, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Foedera, 1 (1816): 793
Available online at Anglo-Norman On-line
http://and4.anglo-norman.net:8082/cgi-bin/xpr-texts2?file=foedera1.xml&loc=793
A.D.1294
Esmon, filz du Roy Henri d'Engleterre, a son chier cousin mon sire
Johan de Seint Johan chevaler, tenant en la duchie de Guyenne, le lieu
de nostre treschere seigneur & frere, mon seigneur Edward, par la
grace de DIEU, Roy d'Engleterre, seignur d'Irland, & due de Guyenn' &
a sire Johan de Havering chevaler, seneschall de la dite duchie, & a
tous les autres seneschaus du dist nostre seigneur le Roy & duc, es
parties & es terres de la mesme duchie, saluz.
Sachiez que nous avons receheu, & veu les lettres overtes du dit
nostre seigneur le Roy, en la forme que s'ensuit:
Edward, par la grace de DIEU, Roy d'Engleterre, seignur d'Irland, &
due de Guyenne, a touz ceux qui cestes presentes lettres verront &
orront, saluz.
- - - - - - - - - -
Foedera, 1 (1816): 794
Available online at Anglo-Norman On-line
http://and4.anglo-norman.net:8082/cgi-bin/xpr-texts?file=/and-prod/texts/foedera1.xml%26amp;amp;target=794
A.D.1294
Esmon, filz du Roy Henri d'Engleterre, a son chier cousin, monsire
Johan de Saint Johan ehivaler, tenant en la duchee d'Acquitaine le
lieu de nostre treschere seigneur & frere Edward, par la grace de
DIEU, Roy d'Engleterre, seigneur d'Irland, & duc d'Aquitaine, saluz.
Les lettres overtes du dit nostre seigneur & frere nous avons receves,
& entendues en ceste forme:
Edward, par la grace de DIEU, Roi d'Engleterre, seigneur d'Irland, &
due de Guyenne, a touz ceaux qui cestes presentes lettres verront ou
orront, saluz.
Come Esmon, nostre chere frere, nous ait fait a savoir, que pleintes
sont venues, qe nostre seneschal, e autres de nos genz de Gascoigne,
eent fait plusors desobeisaunces, & plusours trespas a nostre
treschere seigneur & cousin le Roi de France, & a ces ministres, la
quel chose nous displet molt.
Nous, veillantz & desirantz que les choses soient adrescees & amendees
a son honeur & a sa volente, a cestes chose faire & acomplir;
Donos & ottroions plein poer a nostre frere avantdit par cestes
presentes lettres,
Et seur ce maundons & comandons a nostre seneschal, noz ministres, & a
noz autres gentz de la dite duchee, que, ces choses desus dites soient
obeissantz a nostre frere avantdit, & a son mandement ausint come a
nous mesmes.
En tesmoigne de queu nous avoms fet fere cestes lettres patentes
seales de nostre seal.
Done a Cantirbir', le primer jour du mois de Jenuer, l'an de Grace
MCCXCIII.
Et come li dit nostre sires Rois de France vuelle avoir en son arest,
& en sa prison de la gent du dicte nostre seigneur le Roi d'Engleterre
jusques a vint;
Et nous, par le poeir a nous donee es dites lettres, li aions promis
que nous les ferons avoir;
Nous vous mandons & commandons estreitement si chere, come vous amez
le bien du dit nostre seigneur & duc;
Que vous faites tant qee tuit cil, que li conestables vous nomers, des
seneschaux, baillis, & prevestz, sergentz, & autres officiaus du dit
nostre seigneur Roi & duc, jusques a vint, aillent en l'arrest, e en
la prison du dit seigneur Roi de France, e la ou li dit conestables
comandera, & ce ne lessiez en nule manere.
Don' a Paris, ...... de la Chandeleur, en l'an de nostre Seigneur
MCCXCIII.
The...@aol.com
Dear Douglas,
Thanks for another interesting find and lead.
A preliminary look at the ancestry of Sir John de St. John of Basing,
Hants.
[clearly the "Sir John" of the 1294 records; see AT given below] does not
give
a ready answer as to his relationship to Edmund of Lancaster. The de
Gournay-
Dammartin line would be reasonable, if the relationship was to the issue of
Edward I of England (nieces/nephews of Edmund), but this is not the case.
I do have a suggestion, for which proof might now be sought. Godeheut,
paternal grandmother of Sir John, is identified below by her two marriages
(incl. William de St. John) and a reference that she is 'called Godeheut
Paynel in the Boxgrove pedigree' [this from the CP account for St. John of
Basing, I believe]. I would actually like to suggest that she was an
hitherto
unknown/unidentified Godeheut de Tosny/Tony, daughter of Roger de Tosny and
Constance de Beaumont. In addition to resolving whence the name Godeheut was
drawn from, this explanation would have the benefit of (A) working with the
known chronology, as given below, and (2) providing the basis/confirmation of
the kinship between Sir John de St. John and Edmund of Lancaster, as follows:
NN ~ Henry I of England = Maud of Scotland
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I__________
I I
Constance of = Roscelin de Geoffrey of = Maud/Matilda
England I Beaumont Anjou I
I____________ I
________________ I I
I I Richard de Beaumont Henry II of
Godeheut Ralph d. aft 22 Sep 1199 England
= William de Tony I______ I
de Mohun I I I
I I I
Roger de Tony = Constance John of
d. aft 29 Dec 1208 I England
_______________________________ . . . . . I
I I I I . I
Ralph Roger Richard Margaret ? I
d. 1239 d. 1228 d. 1252 Godeheut Henry III of
= William de St. of England
John (d. 1239) I
________________I ______I_________
I I I
Robert de St. John Edward I EDMUND OF
d. bef 26 Mar 1266 LANCASTER
I
I
SIR JOHN DE ST. JOHN
d. bef 30 Sept 1302
This theoretical relationship would place Sir John and Edmund of
Lancaster
as 4th cousins, 1x removed. Certainly a recognizable relationship for the
age.
Should anyone have any comment or criticism re: the above, or suggestions
for research (let alone documentation to hand), all such responses are surely
welcome.
Good luck, and good hunting to all.
John *
_____________________
AT of Sir John de St. John:
1 John de Saint John. John died bef 30 Sep 1302.[1]
knight, of Basing, Hants.
one of the magnates en route with Edward I in France and Spain (1286).
One of the Auditors on behalf of King Edward at the trial of the claims to
the crown of Scotland, 1292
seneschal of Aquitaine 1294; captured by French forces ca. 1296,
released in 1297[1]
fought in the Caerlaverock campaign of 1300
' Johannes de Sco Johanne Dns de Hannak ', 20th of the barons who sealed the
Barons' Letter to the Pope, February 1301 (in response to the Scots letter
to Boniface VIII in 1298, defying the claimed English superiority)
following the Parliament at Lincoln, 13-20 Jan 1300/1[2]
bef 29 Jun 1256 John married Alice Fitz Reynold[1].[1]
2 Robert de Saint John. Robert died bef 26 Mar 1266.[1]
knight, of Basing, Hants.
held the Honour of Halnaker of the Earl of Arundel, by 1243[1]
had charter from King Henry III dated 4 Jan 1251 for a market and fair at
Walkhampstead [later known as Godstone], Surrey[3]
Robert married Agnes de Cantelou.
3 Agnes de Cantelou.
parentage as documented in the Boxgrove Stemma Funditoris
(cf. CP Vol XI [St. John], p. 323 and 323n[1])
4 William de Saint John. William died in 1239.[1]
of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
originally called William de Port
made profer in 1202 of £150 for the lands of his great-uncle William de
St. John in England [the Honour of Halnaker]; his Norman lands were
forfeit in 1204 upon his declaration for John in the pacification
supporter of King John - Southampton Castle put into his custody on father's
death, 1213; Sheriff of Hants. 1214-1215. Later in the camp of Prince
Louis, 1216, but returned to the King's peace by Feb 1219/20[1]
William married Godeheut[1].
5 Godeheut.[1]
called Godeheut Paynel in the Boxgrove pedigree
m. 1stly William de St. John,
2ndly Richard de Lucy (holding her dower of West Shefford, Berks.)[1]
6 William de Cantelou.[1] William died on 22 Feb 1250, he was 65.[1]
of Aston Cantlow, co. Warwick
steward of Henry III[4]
" he and Milicent his wife, 'formerly wife of Aumarie, Count of Evreux,'
had dower in Petersfield and Mapledurham (CP Vol V (Gloucester), p. 693)"[1]
served coheir to his cousin William de Courtenay, of a moiety of the manor
of Badmondisfield, Suffolk [Copinger, Vol. V, p. 301 citing O. 26 Hen.
III. 2][5]
had the wardship of young Piers de Montfort: under a charter dated 10 Feb
1227 from King Henry III for a market and fair at Beaudesert, co. Warwick,
' the market and fair evidently held by William de 'Cantilupe', who paid
15 marks for holding same'[3]
acquired the manor of Bingley, co. Yorks. ca. 1230 : following the
forfeiture by Maurice de Gant of his manor of Bingley in connection
with his ransom,
'...William de Cantilupe received a confirmation from the Crown of
the vill, market and manor of Bingley of the gift and feoffment of
Rannulph, earl of Chester and Lincoln, to be held of him by the
service of half a fief of one knight.'[6]
'Willielmo de Cantilupo junior ', had grant of manors of Boggeden and
Haverburgh, co. Leics. for his life from King Henry III, 18 Jan 21
Hen III (1236/7) [Nichols II/2, p. 488, ref. Testa de Nevill][7]
NOTE: (1) Turner assigned the acquisition of Bingley to
William (d. 1239), father of this William.
(2) The relationship of William de Cantelou to
William de Curtenai, as noted by Copinger
(see above), is unproven.[8]
In 1217 when William was 32, he married Millicent de Gournay.[1],[9]
7 Millicent de Gournay. Millicent died in 1260.[10]
she m. 1st Amauri de Montfort, Count of Evreux,
2ndly William de Cantelou[1]
Fine for her marriage by William de Cantelou 'senior', 2 Hen. III
(Dugdale, citing Rot. Pip. 2 H. 3)[9]
her maritagium included lands in Houghton, co. Beds. (fine in 4 Hen.
3 paid by William de Cantelou 'senior' for these lands)
re: her 2nd husband, William de Cantelou:
8 Adam de Port. Born ca 1150.[1] Adam died bef 29 Jul 1213, he was 63.[1]
of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
made a render of 1000 marks for the fine of his land and for his wife's
inheritance in Normandy, prob. for having married without licence, 1180[1]
2nd husband of Sibyl de Braose, then Countess (Dowager) of Derby
bef 1 Jan 1179 when Adam was 29, he married Mabel d'Orval.[1]
9 Mabel d'Orval.
heiress of the Honour of Halnaker, Sussex (through her mother) and of the
d'Orval lands[1]
identified in the Boxgrove pedigree, and confirmed (see gift by William
d'Orval confirmed by Adam de Port and Mabel his wife, after 1180;
see CP Vol XI (St. John), p. 320n[1])
first wife of Adam de Port[1]
12 William de Cantelou. Born ? 1158. William died on 7 Apr 1239, he was
81.[11]
of Aston Cantlow, co. Warwick
Steward to King John, 1210
Sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicester 1201-1204, 1209-1216[9]
Sheriff again under Henry III, 1217-1223 (2 Hen. 3-9 Hen. 3)[9]
exchanged the manor of Cockeswell, Berks. to the King for the manor of
Eaton [Eaton Bray], Beds., charter for which dated 4 April 1205
[Eyton Vol. VI, p. 356][12]
by a fine of Jan 1211, levied before the King at Westminster, acquired the
manor of Meole Brace, co. Salop to be held of Roger de Mortimer by the
service of one knight's fee, in exchange for 300 merks of silver
[Audulf II de Braci to hold a moiety of de Cantelou, by the service of
half a knight's fee]. Eyton, Vol. VI, pp. 354/5[12]
In 1213 ( 15 Joh.), had respite for
' Three hundred marks for a Fine which he was to have paid for the Wardship
and Custody of the Land of Henry de Longchamps Heir; ..' [his nephew][9]
' In this second year of King Henry the Third, he gave another Fine of two
hundred marks for Milisent, the Widow of Almaric, Earl of Evreux, to be a
Wife for William his Son; and for Katherine, the Daughter of Hugh de
L'Isle, to be married to one of his Brothers.
' In 4 Hen. 3. he paid to the King ten pounds Blanck for Lands in Hochton,
which he had with the Daughter and Heir of the before specified Hugh de
Gornay.'[9]
had grant by letter patent from King Henry III of a market at Aston Cantlow,
1227[3]
William married Mesceline de Braci.
13 Mesceline de Braci.
elsewhere, Masceline or Mazilia
'Vitalis Engaine and Roger Gernet, sued William de Cantelupe and Mazilia
his wife, for a carucate and a half of land in Wurle, and they also sued
Elias de Beauchamp for a carucate and a half of land in the same
vill,...'[8]
14 Hugh V de Gournay. Born ca 1148.[10] Hugh V died on 25 Sep 1214, he
was 66.[4]
of Mapledurham, Oxon., and Caister, Norfolk
assessed a fine of more than £119 1180 (Pipe Roll xxix p. 19[4])
received a grant of Wendover, Bucks. and Houghton, Beds. from King Stephen.
Companion of Richard I on the Third Crusade; at the siege of Acre, 1190
(charter to the abbey of Bec confirmed by Richard I, 1190)
opted for England at the pacification of Normandy, 1204 and had restoration
of his lands in Norfolk and elsewhere by decree of King John, 1206[4]
Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, 1214
resigned his lands to son Gerard, 1214[4]
Dugdale indicates he died in 1221 (6 Hen. 3),
'for then did the King direct his Precept to William de Cantilupe, to
restore unto Hugh his Son (Girard being dead, as it seems) all the Lands
of his Inheritance, then in his custody.'[9]
Cooke, p. 11:
"In England, among other manors, Hugh V now held, beside Mapledurham,
Bledlowe in Bucks, some restored manors in Norfolk (Caister, Cantley,
and lands in Aylsham), also Houghton in Beds and Waltham in Lincs,
while in 1210 we find him paying a fine of 700 marks for Wendover.'[4]
Hugh V married Juliana de Dammartin[10].
15 Juliana de Dammartin.[10] Born ca 1165.[10]
16 John de Port. John died in 1168.[1]
of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
3rd son, but first surviving (brothers Hugh and William dying d.v.p.)[1]
John married Maud[1].
17 Maud.[1]
18 William d'Orval. William died bef 1180.[1] Occupation: seigneur d'Orval.
seigneur d'Orval[1]
made a gift to Lessay, confirmed by Geoffrey of Anjou as Duke of Normandy,
1151[1]
it is theorised in CP that this is actually Richard (Ricardus) d'Orval, and
that a scribal error misidentified him in the Fundationis Historia of
Boxgrove as Rainald (Reginaldus) d'Orval - his great-grandfather.
[See CP Vol XI (St. John), p. 320n et seq.[1] ]
It is set forward here that it was probably William d'Orval, father of
Richard based on the chronology and the presumption of using the name of
Rainald d'Orval (Reginaldus) instead of William (Willelmus)
William married Muriel de St. John.
19 Muriel de St. John.
heiress (in her issue) of the Honour of Halnaker, Sussex[1]
24 Walter de Cantelou.
26 Audulf de Braci. Audulf died bef 27 Apr 1203.[12]
of Eaton Bray, co. Beds.[13] and Meole Brace, co. Salop[12]
joined Fulk fitz Warin in his rebellion against King John, 1201 - returned
to the King's peace prior to his death (Eyton, Vol. VI, pp. 351-2)[12]
called a 'cousin' of Fulk fitz Warin in the FitzWarin Chronicle [nature of
relationship not defined][12]
elsewhere 'Adulf' [Adelolf ?]
'Adolfus de Bracheio witnessed a charter (ca. 1164) by Walter Giffard
addressed to all his men, French and English.'[14]
Audulf married NN.
27 NN.
28 Hugh IV de Gournay. Born ca 1094.[10] Hugh IV died ca 1180,
he was 86.[4] Occupation: seigneur de Gournay.
of Mapledurham, Oxon. and Caister, Norfolk;
founded a chapter of the nuns of Fontevrault at Vallee de la Bataille,
after 1130[4]
rebelled against Henry I, pardoned ca. 1119
' acted as one of Henry's lieutenants in an effort to keep the peace in
Normandy after the death of the king.', 1135[15]
bef 1147 when Hugh IV was 53, he married Melisende de Coucy[10],
possibly before leaving on Crusade
29 Melisende de Coucy.[10]
called 'Millicent de Marla' by A. H. Cooke[4]
30 Aubri II de Dammartin. Aubri II died on 20 Sep 1200.[16]
Occupation: count of Dammartin.
Aubri II married Maud of Clermont[17].
31 Maud of Clermont.[17] Maud died aft Oct 1200.[16]
32 Henry de Port. Henry died ca 1153.[18]
of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
witness to Henry I's coronation charter, 1100; Sheriff of Hants. prior to 1107
founded the prior of Sherborne as a cell of the abbey of St.
Vigor-de-Cerisy (in the Bessin, Normandy)[1]
Henry married Hawise[1].
33 Hawise.[1]
36 Hugh d'Orval. Hugh died bef 1151.[1] Occupation: seigneur d'Orval.
38 Roger de St. John. Roger died ca 1130.[19]
lord of the Honour of Halnaker, de jure uxoris[1]
'Roger de Sancto Johanne' (DD pp. 690-91)[19]
'... some 140 knights of the familia [of Henry I], led by the brothers Roger
and John of Saint-Jean and entrusted with defending La Motte
Gautier-de-Clinchamps, surrendered to Fulk of Anjou in July 1118 after
a siege of eight days.' [Hollister, p. 258][15]
bef 1121 Roger married Cecily de la Haie[1].[19]
39 Cecily de la Haie.[1]
heiress of the honour of Halnaker, Sussex (DD pp. 690-91)[19]
52 Audulf de Braci.
of Eaton Bray, co. Beds.[13] and Meole Brace, co. Salop
elsewhere called 'Arnulf'
evidently made a gift to the priory of St. Faith in Longueville
[confirmed by charter of Henry II together with others, 1155][14]
56 Gerard de Gournay.[20] Gerard died ca 1104.[4] Occupation: seigneur de
Gournay-en-Bray.
seigneur de Gournay[20]
held manor of Castre [Caister], Norfolk
held to have participated in the First Crusade, under Robert of Normandy[4]
Gerard married Edith de Warenne.
57 Edith de Warenne.
heiress of the manor of Mapledurham, Oxon. [or had same as her maritagium][4]
she m. lstly Gerard de Gournay,
2ndly Drew de Monceaux[21]
58 Thomas de Coucy. Thomas died ca 1131 in Laon.[22] Occupation: lord of
Coucy and Marle.
sieur de Coucy, and also Marle (inherited through mother); member of the
First Crusade (with estranged father)
slain in combat by Raoul de Beaugency, comte de Vermandois[22]
Thomas married Melisende de Crecy.
59 Melisende de Crecy.
2nd wife[23]
parentage as provided by Ed Mann and Alan B. Wilson
60 Aubri I de Dammartin. Aubri I died aft 1181.[16] Occupation: count of
Dammartin-en-Goele.
chamberlain of Dammartin
ancestry given, and identification as Chamberlain (not Count) of Dammartin
as provided by Jean-Noel Mathieu, and in which Michel Bur and Todd A.
Farmerie concur[24]
Aubri I married NN[16].
61 NN.[16]
tentative: identification not certain, per T. A. Farmerie[25]
62 Renaud II of Clermont. Renaud II died bef 1162.[16] Occupation: count
of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis.
2nd husband of Clemence de Bar[25]
ca 1140 Renaud II married Clemence of Bar[16].[26]
63 Clemence of Bar.[16] Clemence died aft 20 Jan 1183.[16]
' later in life, as wife of Renaud de Clermont, still went by the title
Countess of Dammartin'[25]
she m. lstly Lancelin de Dammartin,
2ndly Renaud de Clermont[25]
1. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the
United Kingdom.
2. Brian Timms, "The Barons' Letter in reply to the Pope, February 1301,"
http://www.briantimms.com/baronsletter/background.htm
Seven earls and sixty five barons sealed the letter, which is now in
the Public Record Office.
3. "Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516," www.histparl.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/
4. "The Early History of Mapledurham," Alfred Hands Cooke, M.A., Sc.D.,
Oxfordshire Record Society, Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society, 1925,
*orig. cite by Timothy Powys-Lybbe, t...@powys.org
[t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk], p. 11 cited by T. Powys-Lybbe (re: Hugh
V de Gournay).
5. "The Manors of Suffolk: Notes on Their History and Devolution," W. A.
Copinger, M.A., LL.D., F.S.A., London: T. F. Unwin, 1905-1911, 7 Vols.
6. "J. Horsfall Turner," Ancient Bingley: or Bingley, Its History and Scenery,
Bingley, Yorks. : Thomas Harrison and Sons, 1897, Cantilupe: pp. 66 et
seq.,
scan copy provided by Beryl Thompson, Kambah, Australia,
www.pcug.org.au/~bthompso/bingley/bingleyy.pdf
7. "The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester," John Nichols,
F.S.A., London: Printed By and For John Nichols, 1795, Vol. I, Appendix
XIII: Chartulary of the Honour of Segrave, p. 119, charters of Thomas de
Birkin, William de Flamborough and Nicholas de Anesty, of lands in
Pickwell
and Leesthorpe, co. Leics. to Stephen de Segrave, Vol. II, Pt. II (Gartre
Hundred), p. 488 re: grant of 'Boggeden' and Haverburgh to William de
Cantelou, 1237;, pp. 531 et seq., Burton Overy (family of Hugh de
Meinill),
p. 768 et seq., manors of Pickwell and Leesthorpe (Camville and Curzon),
Vol. III, Pt. I (East Gascote Hundred) - 1800; p. 62 et seq., Barrow;, pp.
301 et seq., Launde priory;, pp. 332 et seq., Whadborough (charters of
Fulk Fitz Warin and family), pp. 353 et seq., Prestwould; pp. 363 et seq.,
Burton on the Wolds.
8. Todd A. Farmerie, "Re: FitzUrse and de Cantelou/Cantilupe," May 11, 2002,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, citing (1) Bracton's Note Book, De Banco
Roll,
4 Hen III and (2) a plea roll pedigree.
9. "The Baronage of England," William Dugdale, Norroy King of Arms, Tho.
Newcomb [reprint Georg Verlag, New York], London, 1675 [reprint New
York, 1977].
10. "Stevens/Southworth Medieval Database," James Allen Stevens, Rootsweb,
created 14 May 2000 [extracted 25 April 2001],
www.gendex.com/users/jast/D0026/G0000090.html
11. Richard Borthwick, "Cantelou Connections," Jan 8, 1997,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, citing I. J. Sanders, English Baronies.
12. "Antiquities of Shropshire," The Rev. R. W. Eyton, London: John Russell
Smith, 1855, Vol. 5 - p. 242 (Ludlow), pp. 132 (Banaster) and 133-142
(Barony of Hastings), Vol. 6 - pp. 350-359 (Meole Brace and de Bracy).
13. R. Leutner, "Re: De Cantilupe, Cantelupe, Cantelou," Oct 15, 1995,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com.
14. Ed Dunn, "The Bracey Surname,"
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~eddunn/bracey/
extracted 24 May 2002, citing Calendar of Documents Preserved in France
Illustrative, of the History of Great Britain & Ireland, ed. J. Horace
Round, (London, 1899) Vol. I: AD 918-1206, pp. 76-77, 145 [Braci].
15. "Henry I," C. Warren Hollister, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001,
[English Monarchs Series].
16. Leo van de Pas, "William Fiennes, Sire de Fiennes et de Tingry," 3 Feb
1998, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, leov...@iinet.net.au
17. "Fiennes," G. Edward Allen, Society of Medieval Genealogy (@rootsweb.com),
25 Mar 1999 (GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com).
18. "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086-1327," I. J.
Sanders, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
19. "Domesday Descendants," K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge,
2002, cited by Rosie Bevan, 'Re: de Stuteville' Jul 2, 2002, p. 723
20. "The Magna Carta Sureties, 1215," Frederick L. Weis, Th. D., Gen Pub Co.,
Baltimore, MD, 5th ed., 1997 (W. L. Sheppard Jr & David Faris).
21. Douglas Richardson, "Re: Dammartin," May 20, 2002,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, cites J. G. Jenkins, ed., Cartulary of
Missenden Abbey,, W. A. Copinger, Manors of Suffolk, 3 (1909): 277-278
and other records re: Gerard de Gournay.
22. "The Life of King Louis," Abbe Suger, pub. by Paul Halsall, Internet
Medieval Source Book, October 1999, www.
23. Douglas Richardson, "Re: Wife of Hugh II de Gournay," September 12, 2002,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, includes biography text by Douglas
Richardson
for Hugh de Gournay (d. 1181).
24. Todd A. Farmerie, "Dammartin Counts," September 16, 2001,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, Jean-Noel Mathieu,, ""Recherches sur le
Premiers Comtes de Dammartin"," Paris et Ile-de-France: Memoires..,
vol. 47 (1996), pp 7-59.
25. Todd A. Farmerie, "Dammartin/Basset marriage," 4 February 1997,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, followup message: Stewart Baldwin
(sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net), rootsweb.com (Todd: ta...@po.cwru.edu).
26. Paul Theroff, "House of Bar," Paul Theroff's Dynastic Genealogy Files,
worldroots.clicktron.com/brigitte/theroff/bar.txt
John Ravilious
Dear Gordon, et al.,
I think the confusion is rooted in the same name between William de St.
John (d.s.p. before 1195 - see #1.2 below), son of Cecily de la Haie, and his
great-nephew William, originally known as William de Port (d. 1239 - see
#1.1.1.1 below), son of Adam de Port and Mabel d'Orval.
I don't have notes on that portion of DD to hand, but if the entry for
William de St. John conflates the two, you have found another correction to
be cited. Presumably, Rosie (Bevan) will see these messages, and advise
- she is compiling these corrections for Dr. Keats-Rohan and the FMG website.
Hope this is helpful.
John *
_________________________________________
1 Roger de St. John
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1130[1]
Father: Ralph de St.-Jean
lord of the Honour of Halnaker, de jure uxoris[2]
'Roger de Sancto Johanne' (DD pp. 690-91)[1]
'... some 140 knights of the familia [of Henry I], led by the brothers
Roger and John of Saint-Jean and entrusted with defending La Motte
Gautier-de-Clinchamps, surrendered to Fulk of Anjou in July 1118
after a siege of eight days.' [Hollister, p. 258][3]
Spouse: Cecily de la Haie[2], heiress of the Honour of Halnaker [1]
Father: Robert de la Haye (-<1156)
Mother: Muriel of Lincoln, heiress of Brattleby, co. Lincs. [2]
Marr: bef 1121[1]
Children: Muriel
William (-<1195)
Robert (-<1203)
1.1 Muriel de St. John
----------------------------------------
heiress (in her issue) of the Honour of Halnaker, Sussex[2]
re: her husband, William d'Orval:
seigneur d'Orval[2]
made a gift to Lessay, confirmed by Geoffrey of Anjou as Duke of
Normandy, 1151[2]
it is theorised in CP that this is actually Richard (Ricardus) d'Orval,
and that a scribal error misidentified him in the Fundationis
Historia of Boxgrove as Rainald (Reginaldus) d'Orval -
his great-grandfather. See CP Vol XI (St. John), p. 320n et seq.[2]
~ It is shown here that it was probably William d'Orval, father of
Richard based on the chronology and the presumption of using the
name of Rainald d'Orval (Reginaldus) instead of William (Willelmus)
Spouse: William d'Orval
Death: bef 1180[2]
Father: Hugh d'Orval (-<1151)
Children: Mabel
Richard (-<1180)
1.1.1 Mabel d'Orval
----------------------------------------
heiress of the Honour of Halnaker, Sussex (through her mother) and of
the d'Orval lands[2]
identified in the Boxgrove pedigree, and confirmed (see gift by
William d'Orval confirmed by Adam de Port and Mabel his wife,
after 1180; see CP Vol XI (St. John), p. 320n[2])
first wife of Adam de Port[2]
Spouse: Adam de Port, of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
Birth: ca 1150[2]
Death: bef 29 Jul 1213[2]
Father: John de Port, of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
Mother: Maud
Marr: bef 1 Jan 1179[2]
Children: William (-1239)
Joan
1.1.1.1 William de Saint John
----------------------------------------
Death: 1239[2]
of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
originally called William de Port
made profer in 1202 of £150 for the lands of his great-uncle
William de St. John in England [the Honour of Halnaker]; his
Norman lands were forfeit in 1204 upon his declaration for John
in the pacification
supporter of King John - Southampton Castle put into his custody on
father's death, 1213; Sheriff of Hants. 1214-1215. Later in the
camp of Prince Louis, 1216, but returned to the King's peace by
Feb 1219/20[2]
Spouse: Godeheut[2]
Children: Robert de St. John, knight, of Basing, Hants. (-<1266)
1.1.2 Richard d'Orval
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1180, d.s.p.
heir of his father (possible d.v.p.)
1.2 William de St. John
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1195, d.s.p.[1]
lord of the Honour of Halnaker; succeeded by nephew William de Port
(thereafter William de St. John)[2]
Spouse: Olive of Richmond
Death: aft 1162[1]
Father: Stephen of Richmond (-1135), Lord of Richmond
Mother: Hawisa (->1134)
1.3 Robert de St. John
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1203, d.s.p.
1. "Domesday Descendants," K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 2002
2. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and
the United Kingdom.
3. "Henry I," C. Warren Hollister, New Haven: Yale University Press,
2001 [English Monarchs Series].
____________________________
Gordon Kirkemo wrote:
Subj: FW: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Date: 8/2/2003 8:42:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: kir...@comcast.net (Gordon Kirkemo)
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
John,
I noted your posting with interest and some confusion. My confusion comes
from your identification of Adam de Port as the father of the William de St.
John married to Godeheut (Paynel?). Based on DD, page 691, I show this
William (d. by 1195) as the son of Roger de St. John (d. c.1130) and Cecily
de la Haye. DD identifies his heir (by Godehild) as Robert. DD does
identify a William de St. John (d. 1239) as the son (p. 646) of Adam de Port
(d. 1213), but does not identify his wife or any children.
As I look at the chronology, your William seems to fit better, as Robert de
St. John would have to be born before 1195 (death of William identified by
DD), and you show his death as being before 1266. He could easily have been
born before 1195, but this would make William somewhat old as his father, as
he must have been born before 1130.
Is this a DD error, or is there some other explanation? It may be the error
was identified earlier and I just missed it.
Gordon
_________________________
* John P. Ravilious
Douglas Beahm
referred to Sir John de St. John as his cousin. My own slightly different and
extended ancestor list for Sir John de St. John is listed below:
1. Sir John de St. John, born Bef. 1240 of Basing, Hampshire, England; died
September 1302.
2. Sir Robert de St. John, born of Basing, Hampshire, England; died Abt. March
1266/67.
3. Agnes de Cantelou, died Aft. 1279.
4. William de Port, born Bef. 1190; died 1239.
5. Godeheut, born 1185; died Aft. 1243.
6. William de Cantelou II, died February 22, 1250/51 in Calne, Wiltshire,
England.
7. Millicent de Gournay, born Abt. 1185; died 1260.
8. Adam de Port, born Bef. 1160; died Bef. July 28, 1213.
9. Mabel, Heiress of Orval, born 1153; died Aft. September 1228.
12. William de Cantelou I, born of Calne, Wiltshire, England; died 1239.
14. Hugh de Gournay V, born Abt. 1148 in Caister, Norfolk, England; died 1214.
15. Juliana de Dammartin, born 1165.
16. John de Port, died 1168.
17. Maud, born 1127.
18. Richard d'Orval, died Bef. 1179. He was the son of 36. William d'Orval.
19. Muriel de St. John, born Abt. 1135.
28. Hugh de Gournay IV, born Bet. 1091 - 1095 in Gournay, Normandy, France; died
1180.
29. Melesinde de Coucy.
30. Alberic II, Count of Dammartin, born Abt. 1135; died September 19, 1200 in
London, Middlesex, England.
31. Maud of Clermont, born Abt. 1150; died Aft. 1200.
32. Henry de Port, died Aft. 1133.
33. Hawise, born 1089; died Aft. 1133.
36. William d'Orval, died Bef. 1179.
38. Roger de St. John.
39. Cecily de la Haie.
56. Gerard de Gournay, born Bet. 1037 - 1060 in Gournay, Normandy, France; died
Bet. 1098 - 1104.
57. Edith de Warenne, born Bet. 1076 - 1084.
58. Thomas I, Sire de Coucy, born 1073 in Coucy, Ardennes, France; died 1130.
59. Melesinde of Crecy, died Aft. 1147.
60. Alberic I, Count of Dammartin, born 1100; died 1182.
62. Renaud II, Count of Clermont, born Abt. 1100; died 1162.
63. Clemence of Bar-le-Duc, born Abt. 1120; died Aft. 1183.
64. Hugh de Port, died 1096.
65. Orence.
72. Hugh d'Orval.
76. John de St. John, born Abt. 1065 in Normandy, France.
78. Robert de la Haie.
79. Muriel.
112. Hugh de Gournay III, born Abt. 1040 in Gournay, Normandy, France; died 1093.
113. Basitia Flatel.
114. William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, born Abt. 1034; died June 24, 1088.
115. Gundred Fitz, born 1055; died May 27, 1085 in Castle Acre, Norfolk, England.
116. Enguerrand I, Seigneur de Coucy, born 1042 in Coucy, Ardennes, France; died
1116.
117. Adele de Roucy of Marle.
118. Guy II, Seigneur de Montlhery, died 1108.
119. Adelaide of Crecy, died Aft. 1104.
120. Aubrey de Mello, died Bef. 1112.
121. Aelis of Dammartin.
124. Hugh de Creil I, Count of Clermont, born Abt. 1030; died 1101.
125. Margaret de Montdidier.
126. Renaud I, Count of Bar-le-Duc, died 1150.
127. Gisele of Vaudemont, born 1090.
144. Rainald d'Orval, born Bef. 1090.
152. William de St. John.
153. Olivia de Filigiers.
224. Hugh de Gournay II, died 1074.
226. Gerald Flatel, born Abt. 985.
228. Rudolf de Warenne, born Abt. 1000; died Aft. 1074.
229. Beatrice de Vascoeuil, died Aft. 1053.
230. Gerbod, born of St. Bertin, Flanders.
232. Dreux, Seigneur de Coucy, born Bef. 1042; died Aft. 1069.
233. Adele of Coucy.
234. Lietaud II, Seigneur de Marle.
236. Guy I, Seigneur de Montlhery, born 1009; died 1095.
237. Hodierne de Gometz, born 1014.
240. Gilbert, Lord of Mello, died Aft. February 25, 1083/84.
242. Hugh, Count of Dammartin, born 1042; died 1103.
243. Rohais, Countess of Bulles, born Abt. 1046.
248. Renaud, Count of Clermont.
250. Hilduin IV, Count of Montdidier, died Abt. 1063.
251. Alix de Roucy, born 1014; died 1062.
252. Thierry II, Count of Bar-le-Duc, died 1105.
253. Ermentrude of Burgundy, died Aft. 1105.
254. Gerard d'Alsace, Count of Vaudemont, born 1057; died 1118.
255. Helvide of Egisheim, died 1126.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. You set forth an interesting
hypothesis. Also, your chart was quite helpful.
Reviewing the extended ancestry of John de Saint John and Edmund, Earl
of Lancaster, it seemed viable to me yesterday that the common link
between these two men might lie in John de Saint John's known
Dammartin ancestry. However, this appears not to be the case.
Checking my files, I find that Earl Edmund's father, King Henry III of
England, was married by proxy in 1235 to Jeanne de Dammartin, a member
of the same family that is found in John de Saint John's ancestry. In
1236 this marriage was annulled, due to the fact that King Henry III
and Jeanne de Dammartin were related in the 4th degree of kinship.
Studying their respective ancestry tables, it is obvious that the
indicated 4th degree kinship between King Henry III and Jeanne is by
way of their common descent from the French royal family, not due to a
connection through the Dammartin family. And, if Henry III had no
common link to Jeanne through the Dammartin family, then it follows
that John de Saint John and Earl Edmund wouldn't either.
In regards to your hypothetical placement of John de Saint John's
grandmother, Godeheut, as a daughter of Roger IV de Tony and his wife,
Constance de Beaumont, this certainly would fit chronologically.
Also, it has been established by me and others that Godeheut was a
given name used in successive generations of the Tony family. As you
note, the proposed parentage for Godeheut de Saint John would give her
grandson, John de Saint John, and Earl Edmund a kinship through the
Beaumont family which would be 5th degree on one side. A 5th degree
kinship seems to be the litmus test for kings and high born nobles
when acknowledging kinship. Moreover, the English royal family
clearly knew that they were related to the Beaumont family. My files
show for instance that King John referred to Godeheut de Saint John's
proposed mother, Constance de Beaumont, as his "kinswoman"
[consanguinee] [Reference: Complete Peerage, vol. 12, Pt. 1 (1953):
768, footnote j].
As for additional evidence of your hypothesis, I similarly show that
Alexander III, King of Scotland, was styled "cousin" by King Edward I
[Reference: A.O. Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish Hist. 500 to
1286 2 (1922): 675]. Alexander III descends from the same Beaumont
family as Constance de Beaumont, wife of Roger de Tony. I haven't
worked out the kinship between Alexander III and King Edward I through
Alexander's Beaumont ancestry, but it would obviously be a 5th degree
of kinship on King Edward I's side, just as you propose it would be
between Earl Edmund and John de Saint John. Possibly you know of a
closer kinship between King Alexander III and King Edward I than found
through Alexander's Beaumont descent. If not, this would presumably
be the kinship that King Edward I was acknowledging when he called
Alexander III his "cousin." When you have the opportunity, perhaps
you can chart for us any kinship within the 5th degree which you find
between King Alexander III and King Edward I, including the Beaumont
connection.
On the surface, your hypothesis meets various critical tests -
chronology, onomastics, and provides us with a kinship which was known
and acknowledged between various parties on at least two other
occasions. As such, I surveyed several sources in an effort to learn
more about John de Saint John's grandmother, Godeheut de Saint John.
According to Complete Peerage 11 (1949): 321-322 (sub Saint John),
Godeheut is identified in an ancient pedigree of a Saint John family
as a Paynel. Unfortunately, no verification has ever been found that
Godeheut de Saint John derives from the Paynel family. Moreover,
since widows occasionally adopted their first husband's surname as
their own (Milicent de Cantelowe is an example), it is possible that
Godeheut was known as an adult as Godeheut Paynel due to her 1st
husband being a Paynel, rather than this being her maiden name.
Checking the Curia Regis Rolls, I found a tantalising document which
suggests that Godeheut de Saint John does indeed have a connection to
Tony family. The following is a partial abstract of the lawsuit as it
appears in the Curia Regis Rolls. It indicates that Godeheut de Saint
John took the veil and became a nun at the priory of St. Giles de
Cella at Flamstead, co. Hertford in or about 1243. When Godeheut
entered the priory, her son, Robert de Saint John, made a valuable
gift of annual income to the priory for the health of the souls of his
father, himself, and his mother, Godeheut. I assume that the priory
at Flamstead was founded and supported by the Tony family, as
Flamstead, co. Hertford was the caput of the baronial Tony family in
medieval times. If Godeheut de Saint John was a member of the Tony
family, it would readily explain her choice of such a minor religious
house for her to spend her last days on earth.
[Date: 1243].
2124. Suht'. Kent'. Robertus de Sancto Johanne cognovit et fideliter
promisit pro eo et heredibus suis et scripto suo confirmavit quod
fideliter ei sine fraude solvi faciet viginti libras sterlingorum
singulis annis priorisse ecclesie Sancti Egidii de Cella et
successoribus suis que pro tempore fuerint et monialibus ibidem Deo
servientibus pro anima patris sui et salute anime sue et domine
Goddeheud matris sue, que in dicto monasterio habitum religionis
assumpsit, videlicet percipiendas de redditu suo assiso in maneriis de
Bromleg' [Bramley] et Syreburn' [Sherborne St. John] per manum
Willelmi de Warneford' clerici vel Stephani de Warneford', si dictus
Willelmus defficeret, quos ad dictam peccuniam recipiendam de
tenentibus dictorum maneriorium et dicte priorisse, ut dictum est,
annuatim persolvendam de voluntate et assensu ipsious priorisse
attornatos ad quatuor anni terminos ...." [Reference: Curia Regis
Rolls, 17 (1991): 425].
So we have a document with ties Godeheut de Saint John with a
religious house at Flamstead, co. Hertford, which house was probably
founded by the Tony family. While not conclusive evidence that
Godehaut de Saint John was a Tony, it certainly gives a good
indication that this is highly likely. I believe we are on the right
track. With further prodding of the records, hopefully more answers
will tumble out of the woodwork.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - -
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<161.23ca48...@aol.com>...
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Checking the Curia Regis Rolls, I found a tantalising document which
> suggests that Godeheut de Saint John does indeed have a connection to
> Tony family. The following is a partial abstract of the lawsuit as it
> appears in the Curia Regis Rolls. It indicates that Godeheut de Saint
> John took the veil and became a nun at the priory of St. Giles de
> Cella at Flamstead, co. Hertford in or about 1243. When Godeheut
> entered the priory, her son, Robert de Saint John, made a valuable
> gift of annual income to the priory for the health of the souls of his
> father, himself, and his mother, Godeheut. I assume that the priory
> at Flamstead was founded and supported by the Tony family, as
> Flamstead, co. Hertford was the caput of the baronial Tony family in
> medieval times. If Godeheut de Saint John was a member of the Tony
> family, it would readily explain her choice of such a minor religious
> house for her to spend her last days on earth.
In fact, according to Complete Peerage xii/1 768, Roger de Toeni IV (d.
?1208/9), "founded the little nunnery of St Giles in the Wood, near
Flamstead" (citing Dugdale, Monasticon, iv, pp. 299-300).
On John's hypothesis, this John would have been Godeheud's father.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> In fact, according to Complete Peerage xii/1 768, Roger de Toeni IV (d.
> ?1208/9), "founded the little nunnery of St Giles in the Wood, near
> Flamstead" (citing Dugdale, Monasticon, iv, pp. 299-300).
>
> On John's hypothesis, this John would have been Godeheud's father.
Sorry - I meant this _Roger_ would have been her father, of course!
Chris Phillips
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris,
"Roger" as to that.
Whatever my relationship with Godeheut is, I certainly disavow any
paternity alleged or
otherwise.
Cheers,
John
Gordon Kirkemo
Thanks for your response regarding the confusion about William de Saint John
(nee de Port).
Your chart below, and your earlier posting raise another question. You
identify the father of Mabel d'Orval as William while acknowledging
references that suggest his name was Rainald. The basis for this appears to
be chronological, despite the presumption by CP XI, pp. 320-321. I assume
this is based on the death of William being 1179 and the CP note saying he
was in possession of his father's lands before 1155.
I also noted in CP XI, page 320 sub a, a reference to Aureavalle as another
form for Orval. In checking DD for this spelling, I found a William de
Aureavalle on page 294. This William made a grant that was confirmed by
Henry I in 1126 suggesting he was of age by then. If this William is the
same as the one noted in CP, it would seem the chronology could support his
son Richard as the father of Mabel. Keats-Rohan, also in DD page 691,
identifies the husband of Muriel de Saint John as Rainald d'Orival. I think
it is very plausible that Rainald may be an error for Richard (per CP), and
that Richard (son of William) was the father of Mabel.
I am very much interested in your thoughts regarding this.
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: John Ravilious [mailto:the...@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 7:26 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Saturday, 2 August, 2003
Dear Gordon, et al.,
I think the confusion is rooted in the same name between William de St.
John (d.s.p. before 1195 - see #1.2 below), son of Cecily de la Haie, and
his
great-nephew William, originally known as William de Port (d. 1239 - see
#1.1.1.1 below), son of Adam de Port and Mabel d'Orval.
I don't have notes on that portion of DD to hand, but if the entry for
William de St. John conflates the two, you have found another correction to
be cited. Presumably, Rosie (Bevan) will see these messages, and advise
- she is compiling these corrections for Dr. Keats-Rohan and the FMG
website.
Hope this is helpful.
John *
_________________________________________
1 Roger de St. John
- --------------------------------------
Death: ca 1130[1]
Father: Ralph de St.-Jean
lord of the Honour of Halnaker, de jure uxoris[2]
'Roger de Sancto Johanne' (DD pp. 690-91)[1]
'... some 140 knights of the familia [of Henry I], led by the brothers
Roger and John of Saint-Jean and entrusted with defending La Motte
Gautier-de-Clinchamps, surrendered to Fulk of Anjou in July 1118
after a siege of eight days.' [Hollister, p. 258][3]
Spouse: Cecily de la Haie[2], heiress of the Honour of Halnaker [1]
Father: Robert de la Haye (-<1156)
Mother: Muriel of Lincoln, heiress of Brattleby, co. Lincs. [2]
Marr: bef 1121[1]
Children: Muriel
William (-<1195)
Robert (-<1203)
1.1 Muriel de St. John
- --------------------------------------
heiress (in her issue) of the Honour of Halnaker, Sussex[2]
re: her husband, William d'Orval:
seigneur d'Orval[2]
made a gift to Lessay, confirmed by Geoffrey of Anjou as Duke of
Normandy, 1151[2]
it is theorised in CP that this is actually Richard (Ricardus) d'Orval,
and that a scribal error misidentified him in the Fundationis
Historia of Boxgrove as Rainald (Reginaldus) d'Orval -
his great-grandfather. See CP Vol XI (St. John), p. 320n et seq.[2]
~ It is shown here that it was probably William d'Orval, father of
Richard based on the chronology and the presumption of using the
name of Rainald d'Orval (Reginaldus) instead of William (Willelmus)
Spouse: William d'Orval
Death: bef 1180[2]
Father: Hugh d'Orval (-<1151)
Children: Mabel
Richard (-<1180)
1.1.1 Mabel d'Orval
- --------------------------------------
heiress of the Honour of Halnaker, Sussex (through her mother) and of
the d'Orval lands[2]
identified in the Boxgrove pedigree, and confirmed (see gift by
William d'Orval confirmed by Adam de Port and Mabel his wife,
after 1180; see CP Vol XI (St. John), p. 320n[2])
first wife of Adam de Port[2]
Spouse: Adam de Port, of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
Birth: ca 1150[2]
Death: bef 29 Jul 1213[2]
Father: John de Port, of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
Mother: Maud
Marr: bef 1 Jan 1179[2]
Children: William (-1239)
Joan
1.1.1.1 William de Saint John
- --------------------------------------
Death: 1239[2]
of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
originally called William de Port
made profer in 1202 of £150 for the lands of his great-uncle
William de St. John in England [the Honour of Halnaker]; his
Norman lands were forfeit in 1204 upon his declaration for John
in the pacification
supporter of King John - Southampton Castle put into his custody on
father's death, 1213; Sheriff of Hants. 1214-1215. Later in the
camp of Prince Louis, 1216, but returned to the King's peace by
Feb 1219/20[2]
Spouse: Godeheut[2]
Children: Robert de St. John, knight, of Basing, Hants. (-<1266)
1.1.2 Richard d'Orval
- --------------------------------------
Death: bef 1180, d.s.p.
heir of his father (possible d.v.p.)
1.2 William de St. John
- --------------------------------------
Death: bef 1195, d.s.p.[1]
lord of the Honour of Halnaker; succeeded by nephew William de Port
(thereafter William de St. John)[2]
Spouse: Olive of Richmond
Death: aft 1162[1]
Father: Stephen of Richmond (-1135), Lord of Richmond
Mother: Hawisa (->1134)
1.3 Robert de St. John
- --------------------------------------
Death: bef 1203, d.s.p.
____________________________
Gordon Kirkemo wrote:
John,
Gordon
_________________________
* John P. Ravilious
______________________________
John Ravilious
Subj: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Date: 8/4/2003 1:01:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: The...@aol.com
Monday, 4 August, 2003
Dear Chris, Douglas, Douglas B., et al.,
I have seen other claims as to an earlier foundation of St.
Giles-in-the-Woods (say 1120), but perhaps this was not of the priory - ?
The citation you provided (Chris) from CP, taken from Mon. Anglicanum,
certainly provides a firm foundation <g> as to the Tony/Tosny relationship
with the nunnery.
To summary the evidence now in hand:
1. The name Godeheut was rare, and itself has been identified by
Charles Fitch-Northen as a basis [in an Anglo-Norman setting]
for deducing a Tony relationship [1].
2. William de St. John, of Basing, Hants. and West Shefford, Berks.
(d. 1239), the husband of Godeheut, is contemporaneous with the
issue of Roger de Tosny and Constance de Beaumont. Ralph de
Tosny, of Flamstead, also died in 1239, and Roger d. in 1228.
3. Sir John de St. John (grandson of Godeheut) is identified by Douglas
Richardson as 'cousin' of Edmund of Lancaster, specifically as
' son chier cousin mon sire Johan de Seint Johan '. [2]
4. As I noted on 3 August, there is no relationship between Edmund
of Lancaster and Sir John de St. John that would account for this,
except through the previously unknown ancestry of Sir John's
grandmother Godeheut [3]. If Godeheut was a daughter of Constance
de Beaumont, her grandson Sir John de St. John (d. bef 30 Sept
1302) would be a 4th cousin 1x removed from Edmund of Lancaster,
a relationship that would have resulted in one party addressing
the other as 'cousin' or 'kinsman' during the period.
5. The evidence found by Douglas Richardson in the Curia Regis
Rolls which indicates that Godeheut de St. John (wife of William,
and grandmother of Sir John) "took the veil and became a nun at
the priory of St. Giles de Cella [aka St. Giles-in-the-Woods] at
Flamstead, co. Hertford in or about 1243", and that "her son,
Robert de Saint John, made a valuable gift of annual income to
the priory for the health of the souls of his father, himself,
and his mother, Godeheut" [4].
We then find Godeheut de St. John near the end of her life, in 1243,
in a nunnery founded by Roger de Tony.
While we are short of the desired proof of the relationship, the
circumstantial evidence presented in this thread establishes that Godeheut
( ) (Paynell) St. John should be identified as Godeheut de Tony, daughter
of Roger de Tony and Constance de Beaumont.
Cheers,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<bgjvob$419$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Douglas Richardson
I agree with your analyses of the evidence that Godeheut de Saint John
is almost certainly a Tony, or a Tony descended woman. And, since we
know that her grandson, John de Saint John, was related to Edmund,
Earl of Lancaster, it stands to reason that Godeheut was the daughter
of Constance de Beaumont, wife of Roger V de Tony, who is known to
have been a kinswoman of the English royal family. This makes sense.
I understand that the cartulary of Flamstead Priory founded by Roger V
de Tony has survived but is unpublished. Does anyone know its
whereabouts? I'd very much like to see a transcript of Robert de
Saint John's charter to Flamstead Priory.
When I have time later today, I'll post a list of the colonial
immigrants that descend from Godeheut de Saint John. In the meantime,
special thanks go to you, Chris, Gordon, Douglas, and Rosie for your
participation in this discussion. This is an important breakthrough
in the Saint John pedigree.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
the...@aol.com (John Ravilious) wrote in message news:<55712d2e.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
For interest sake, please find below a list of the colonial immigrants
that descend from Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's kinsman, Sir John de
Saint John, of Basing, Hampshire (died 1302). At some point in the
future, I'll try to assemble a list of immigrants who descend from Sir
John de Saint John's grandmother, Godeheut de Saint John. The list of
immigrants who descend from Godeheut de Saint John will doubtless
include many more immigrants.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - -
List of colonial immigrants that descend from Sir John de Saint John
(died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire:
l. Anne Baynton.
2. Thomas Booth.
3. Elizabeth Bosvile.
4. Charles Calvert.
5. Jeremy Clarke.
6. Anne Cordray.
7. Humphrey Davie.
8. Thomas Dudley.
9. John Fenwick.
10. William Goddard.
10. Jane Haviland.
11. William Iremonger.
12. William Rodney.
13. Maria Johanna Somerset.
14. John Stockman.
15. Thomas Wingfield.
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> I understand that the cartulary of Flamstead Priory founded by Roger V
> de Tony has survived but is unpublished. Does anyone know its
> whereabouts? I'd very much like to see a transcript of Robert de
> Saint John's charter to Flamstead Priory.
There's an online summary relating to the priory at:
http://matrix.bc.edu/Matrix.taf?function=search&_UserReference=10051DFA248B7
2E5C2DCDBB0&_start=1
This part of the site was down when this was first discussed, but
unfortunately isn't as useful as I'd hoped. It does refer to Hertfordshire
Record Office, MS 17,465, fo. 3 under the heading "Published Primary
Sources", but it's not clear what that is.
I note that this page places the foundation a generation earlier than CP,
around 1150.
A Google search turned up a relevant Master's Thesis from the University of
Manitoba:
Name: Butterill, Christine
Date Completed:May 1988
Thesis Title: The Cartulary of Flamstead Priory
Advisor: L. A. Desmond
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/history/graduate/jmpthes1.html
I can't see anything in the British Library catalogue, but evidently there
are some extracts in Dugdale, Monasticon, iv pp.299-300, and according to CP
xii/1, p.768, note g, Clutterbuck prints a Tony charter for Flamstead, in
"op. cit." [too lazy to look back through pages of references to check, but
presumably his History of Hertfordshire], i 354.
Presumably the cartulary will be covered by G.R.C. Davis, Medieval
cartularies of Great Britain: a short catalogue (London, 1958).
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>Name: Butterill, Christine
>Date Completed:May 1988
>Thesis Title: The Cartulary of Flamstead Priory
I posted some time ago when we were looking into the Toeni family that she had
intended to publish a detailed study of this. The County Record Office was the
one who put Katharine Keats-Rohan in touch with her, who contacted her about
"Countess Ida" and the Flamstead Cartulary.
I've emailed her to see what has become of the project.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>that descend from
Were you still going to post a complete list of immigrants included in your
book, or has that collegial courtesy now been shelved? (You had posted your
intent to do so.)
Paul
Douglas Richardson
Reviewing the account of the Tony family in Complete Peerage, I noted
today that Robert de Tony, Lord Tony (died 1309) is stated to have
served in the retinue of Sir John de Saint John at the siege of
Caerlaverock Castle in 1300 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1
(1953): 774, footnote d]. As per John Ravilious' hypothesis, Robert
de Tony and Sir John de Saint John would be related as follows:
Roger V de Tony
= Constance de Beaumont
___________________/________________
/ /
Ralph de Tony Godeheut de Tony
=Pernel de Lacy =William de Saint John
/ /
Roger de Tony Robert de Saint John
= Alice de Bohun =Agnes de Cantelowe
/ /
Ralph de Tony John de Saint John
= Mary (died 1302)
/
Robert de Tony, Lord Tony
(died 1309)
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Reedpcgen
I wonder if you could address a few questions that concern this hypothesis,
just to test it.
(1) It was actually the name Yolande that was the key in the Mohun/Toeni/Ida of
Hainault connection discovered by Fitch-Northen. Godeheut/Godehilde was a name
that entered the family much earlier than the marriage to Ida of Hainault,
didn't it?
Roger de Toeni (d. about 1039) married Godeheut, and the name continued in this
family, as his son Ralph de Toeni (d. 1101/2)'s daughter Godeheut (also called
Godehilde by some sources) married Baldwin/Boudoin, King of Jerusalem (son of
Eustace, Comte de Boulogne), and Ralph de Toeni's son Ralph (d. 1126) is given
as father of Godeheut, who married Robert de Neubourg (this placement would
make her sister of Roger de Toeni who married Ida of Hainault, whose daughter
Godeheut married William de Mohun of Dunster). [Different secondary sources
place the Godeheut who married Baudouin and Robert in different places, or as
one individual.]
(2) Given that it is so difficult to account for wives of gentry before about
1200, given the lack of records usually relied upon after that period, is it
not possible that there were other daughters named Godeheut in the generations
closer to William de St. John who are unaccounted for, or that other daughters
not named Godeheut who belong to the Toeni family might have had a daughter
named Godeheut?
(3) Given the prominence of various branches of the Paynel family, especially
that of Hambye, in Normandy (where the Toeni family held great possessions and
a seat), is it possible that William de Port/de St. John's wife Godeheut was
indeed a Paynel, and that her mother or grandmother was a Toeni?
(4) If this Godeheut was indeed a Paynel of Hambye, in Normandy (who had close
Toeni connections), is it possible that there is another close relationship to
the continental ancestry of the Earl which has not been traced out, as it would
be through Continental sources, instead of the English ones we tend to rely
on)?
Paul
John Ravilious
Dear Paul,
Comments/responses interspersed below.
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote in message news:<20030809171611...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> John,
>
> I wonder if you could address a few questions that concern this hypothesis,
> just to test it.
>
> (1) It was actually the name Yolande that was the key in the Mohun/Toeni/Ida of
> Hainault connection discovered by Fitch-Northen. Godeheut/Godehilde was a name
> that entered the family much earlier than the marriage to Ida of Hainault,
> didn't it?
Correct (in part, as per the details & examples you've given
immediately below).
>
> Roger de Toeni (d. about 1039) married Godeheut, and the name continued in this
> family, as his son Ralph de Toeni (d. 1101/2)'s daughter Godeheut (also called
> Godehilde by some sources) married Baldwin/Boudoin, King of Jerusalem (son of
> Eustace, Comte de Boulogne), and Ralph de Toeni's son Ralph (d. 1126) is given
> as father of Godeheut, who married Robert de Neubourg (this placement would
> make her sister of Roger de Toeni who married Ida of Hainault, whose daughter
> Godeheut married William de Mohun of Dunster). [Different secondary sources
> place the Godeheut who married Baudouin and Robert in different places, or as
> one individual.]
>
> (2) Given that it is so difficult to account for wives of gentry before about
> 1200, given the lack of records usually relied upon after that period, is it
> not possible that there were other daughters named Godeheut in the generations
> closer to William de St. John who are unaccounted for, or that other daughters
> not named Godeheut who belong to the Toeni family might have had a daughter
> named Godeheut?
It is certainly possible. Have you seen any evidence for same?
>
> (3) Given the prominence of various branches of the Paynel family, especially
> that of Hambye, in Normandy (where the Toeni family held great possessions and
> a seat), is it possible that William de Port/de St. John's wife Godeheut was
> indeed a Paynel, and that her mother or grandmother was a Toeni?
My notes re: Paynel of Hambye are spotty, but certainly there are
some
well-placed unions in that particular branch of the Paynels. For
example,
William Paynel/Pagnel of Hambye (d. 1184) was one of the husbands
of Eleanor
de Vitre - no male issue, as her heirs were by other husbands. I
see no
evidence of a Tony union at that generation. Also, Fulk Paynel of
Hambye
was 2nd husband (say 1187/8) of Agatha du Hummet, widow of William/
Guillaume de Fougeres (d. 1187) and daughter of William du Hummet,
constable of Normandy (d. after 1204).
Obviously, any Paynel/Tony connection would have to precede the
Paynel family members noted above. I have no evidence in my notes
as
to such a union.
>
> (4) If this Godeheut was indeed a Paynel of Hambye, in Normandy (who had close
> Toeni connections), is it possible that there is another close relationship to
> the continental ancestry of the Earl which has not been traced out, as it would
> be through Continental sources, instead of the English ones we tend to rely
> on)?
>
> Paul
It is possible, but I see no evidence for same (see above).
- - - - - - - - -
One added point, re: the alleged de St. John - de Tony alliance.
In
addition to Godeheut, William de St. John and his wife Godeheut had a
daughter Lucy, identified as wife of William de Ros, of Helmsley in
Holderness, co. Yorks. (d. 1264). This provides additional onomastic
support for the de Tony parentage assigned to Godeheut, as follows:
Richard de Beaumont = LUCY de l'Aigle
vicomte de Beaumont I
______________________I_________
I I
Constance = Roger de Tony
____I d. aft 29 Dec 1208
I
Godeheut = William de St. John
I d. 1239
_________________I____________________
I I I I I
Geoffrey Robert William Godeheut LUCY = William de Ros
d. 1264
This was only noted after your above post prompted my review of
the details; much appreciated.
Cheers,
John
Reedpcgen
> daughter Lucy, identified as wife of William de Ros, of Helmsley in
> Holderness, co. Yorks. (d. 1264).
Godeheut, daughter of William de St. John and Godeheut [Paynel?] is given as
marrying (1) William de Ros, of Kent, and (2) Hugh de Wyndleshores (CP 11:322,
note h, citing sources therein).
Thanks for taking into account the questions. One must be careful when putting
forth an identification to explain what it is based on, when there is no direct
statement and the evidence is circumstantial.
Paul
Doug Smith
> >
> > One added point, re: the alleged de St. John - de Tony alliance. In
> addition to Godeheut, William de St. John and his wife Godeheut had a
> daughter Lucy, identified as wife of William de Ros, of Helmsley in
> Holderness, co. Yorks. (d. 1264). This provides additional onomastic
> support for the de Tony parentage assigned to Godeheut, as follows:
>
> Richard de Beaumont = LUCY de l'Aigle
> vicomte de Beaumont I
> ______________________I_________
> I I
> Constance = Roger de Tony
> ____I d. aft 29 Dec 1208
> I
> Godeheut = William de St. John
> I d. 1239
> _________________I____________________
> I I I I I
> Geoffrey Robert William Godeheut LUCY = William de Ros
> d. 1264
>
>
> This was only noted after your above post prompted my review of
> the details; much appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
Question:
One question, most sources identify William de Ros' wife as Lucia
FitzPiers. Did he have two wives? Or is this identification outdated?
Doug
Douglas Richardson
> Sunday, 10 August, 2003
>
> One added point, re: the alleged de St. John - de Tony alliance.
> In
> addition to Godeheut, William de St. John and his wife Godeheut had a
> daughter Lucy, identified as wife of William de Ros, of Helmsley in
> Holderness, co. Yorks. (d. 1264). This provides additional onomastic
> support for the de Tony parentage assigned to Godeheut, as follows:
>
> Richard de Beaumont = LUCY de l'Aigle
> vicomte de Beaumont I
> ______________________I_________
> I I
> Constance = Roger de Tony
> ____I d. aft 29 Dec 1208
> I
> Godeheut = William de St. John
> I d. 1239
> _________________I____________________
> I I I I I
> Geoffrey Robert William Godeheut LUCY = William de Ros
> d. 1264
>
>
> This was only noted after your above post prompted my review of
> the details; much appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
Dear John ~
I'm glad you brought up the subject of Lucy de Saint John, wife of
William de Roos, of Helmesley. When I have the time, I'd like to post
the evidence which deals with Lucy's identity and also show evidence
which links her descendants as probable kinsmen of the Tony family.
Kay Allen AG
Chamberlain who was allegedly married to Emma of Blois.
Kay Allen AG
Malinda Jones wrote:
> Another question...
>
> Is this Lucia FitzPiers also identified as Lucy de Brus d/o Piers de Brus ?
>
> ~malinda
Tim Powys-Lybbe
all...@pacbell.net (Kay Allen AG) wrote:
> No. Lucy FitzPiers is dtr of Piers FitzHerbert descended from Herbert
> the Chamberlain who was allegedly married to Emma of Blois.
I'm still convinced that "Lucy FitzPiers" is wrong. As her father's
surname was not FitzPiers, this is calling her "son of Piers". If she is
to be given a surname, then should it not be either "FitzHerbert" or
"filia Piers" (daughter of Piers)?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Jeffery A. Duvall
identity and it appears that her identification as a member of the family of
Reynold FitzPiers goes back to Dugdale (citing Glover, Somerset Herald)
where she apparently was named as a daughter of Reginald (Reynold?)
FitzPiers. CP states that if she belonged to this family then she was
"presumably" the sister of Reynold & Herbert FitzPiers and a daughter of
Piers FitzHerbert. (CP, vol. XI, p. 94, note h).
I've no idea how authoritative Dugdale (or his source) is considered to be,
but on face value this theory doesn't seem all that well-documented.
That being said, I'm not clear on what the documentation is for Lucy being a
Saint John. Has something on this been published somewhere?
If this theory about Godeheut and the Tony's is correct, and Lucy was her
daughter, then Lucy and her husband, Sir William de Ros, would have been
third cousins once-removed (both sharing a common descent from Isabelle de
Vermandois). Would that close a relationship have required some sort of
dispensation?
Thanks.
Jeff Duvall
> > In
> > addition to Godeheut, William de St. John and his wife Godeheut had a
> > daughter Lucy, identified as wife of William de Ros, of Helmsley in
> > Holderness, co. Yorks. (d. 1264). > > Cheers,
Rosie Bevan
That William de Ros of Helmsley was married to Lucy fitz Piers identified,
( CP (XI : 94) as you say, citing Dugdale), as daughter of Piers fitz
Herbert, lord of Brecknock, would appeare to be borne out by the names of
their children - Robert, William, Alexander, Herbert, John, Piers, Lucy and
Alice, as listed in CP XI p. 94 note (l) and supported by about ten
references.
I am not sure why Lucy is supposed to be a St John either, and think this
debate may have come come about over 'same name' confusion with the William
de Ros of Kent. (I wonder if in fact he was of Kendal rather than Kent.).
Perhaps Douglas would like to post his evidence as he intended.
Cheers
Rosie
Reedpcgen
> Obviously, any Paynel/Tony >connection would have to precede the
> Paynel family members noted above.
>
Why? There was only one male in each generation, no possibility of brothers?
And I was only discussing the Paynels of Hambye, not those at Brampton, Hooton,
Drax, etc.
We are dealing with a period IN OR BEFORE 1188. You are arguing that because
we cannot find other evidence in a period few records survive that we should
conclude a direct statement of paternity is wrong, without any reservation?
The name Godeheut, Godehoud or Godehilde (they were interchangeable in a number
of sources), was early on in the family of the Counts of Maine and Bellême.
(Is it possible that Godeheut [Paynel?] was goddaughter of Godeheut, wife of
Baldwin, King of Jerusalem, etc.?)
I've noticed in both the Selden Society, Please Before the King of His
Justices, 1198-1212, and Curia Regis Rolls, that in 1202 and 1212, Sir
Geoffrey/Gaufridus Peverel ["de ultra mare"] has a wife named
Godehoud/Godehild, concerning lands in Somerset and Sussex, v. Robert de
Almarie/Amaur'/Ameri.
How do we place her? If she was married by 1202, it would be difficult to make
her a daughter of William de Port/de St. John, by his wife Godeheut [Paynel],
especially as that Godeheut is given as marrying two other men.
Perhaps she was granddaughter pf Godeheut, wife of the earlier William de St.
John, by a different husband[?]. She was certainly connected with this St.
John family and Boxgrove (or at least her hisband was).
We have, first, Godeheld, second wife of William de St. John, of St.
Jean-le-Thomas in Normandy, lord of the honor of Halnaker, fermor of the
Vicomte of Coutances 1160-80, who died about 1189.
Where in the Toeni family should we place her? The first wife of this William
de St. Jean, Olive, daughter of Count Stephen, and widow of Henri de Fougeres,
was dead by 1187, but given William's prominence as son and heir of Robert de
St. John/St. Jean by his wife Cicely, daughter of Robert de Hay (lord of the
honor of Halnaker), and that his father Roger was heir to his brother in
Normandy, I'd say William's second wife Godeheld/Godeheut was probably younger,
especially as he'd had no surviving issue by his first wife. We might, then,
expect that she would have been in her twenties in 1189.
In 1187, William de Sancto Johanne and Robert, his brother, and Godeheld, wife
of William, conceded to the monks of Boxgrove whatever Robert de Haia their
grandfather had previously given tham (this is the charter referred to by
Round, Cal. Docs. France, no. 928, pp. 331-2). This was confirmed by other
charters, and Godeheld, wife of this elder WIlliam is specifically mentioned
again (Boxgrove Chartulary, nos. 6-8). This was, in deed, the actual
foundation charter of Boxgrove, as previous gifts had not been extensive enough
to found a real priory (instead of a choir of 1-6 persons).
Boxgrove was a cell of the Norman Abbey of Lessay. "Many other Norman names
that occur in the Chartulary attest to the close relationship that existed in
the 12th and 13th centuries between Lessay and Boxgrove, no doubt t the great
advantage of the younger fraternity."
In no. 32, the younger William de Port [who became St. John], son of Adam de
Port of Basing, Hants., by his wife Mabel de Orval (Aureavalle), daughter and
heir of Reynold de Orval by his wife Muriel de Sancto Johanne, eventual heiress
of her brothers WIlliand and Robert,
have land to the monks serving at Boxgrove, "for the good of my soul, and my
wife and of my children and for the souls of William and Robert de Sancto
Johanne and Adam de Port my father and Mabel my mother and of my ancestors...."
The first witess was Geoffrey Peverel, closely associated with William de St.
John, Thomas de Argentine and William de Liuns/Lions.
In no. 34, William de Sancto Johanne, son and heir of Adam de Port, names
Godeude my wife; in no. 37 she is called Godeheld, and Geoffrey Peurel, knight,
was a witness (dated Dec. 1222).
Geoffrey/Sir Geoffrey Peverel was also witness to no. 121 (c. 1205), no. 122,
no. 124 (with Sir William de Sancto Johanne and his sons Robert and Adam, c.
1230), no. 127 (c. 1222), no. 129, 134, 135, etc.
Geoffrey Peuerel also made donations to Boxgrove, e.g., nos. 163, 164, 177,
178, confirmed 179, 181, 394. "I, Geoffrey Peuerel, in my full power, in
spirit of charity, for the good of my soul and of my father and mother, and
also of Godeh[uda] my wife and of all mu ancestors...."
The younger William St. John mentioned his wife "Godehild" again in no. 186.
Given that Roger de St. Jean, who inherited the lands in Normandy, and his son
William de St. Jean, who received the honor of Halnaker in right of his mother,
had deep Norman connections, is it possible that William's wife
Godeheut/Godehilde married again not long after his death c. 1189, perhaps to a
Paynel?
The elder Godeheut had no issue by the elder WIlliam de St. John, so her issue
by a Paynel could marry the son of the son of the sister.
Do all these Godeheut/Godehoud/Godehilde[etc.]s all fit in the immediate Toeni
family? Is it not possible that cousins or grandchildren might also have a
connection to Flamstead? There are even other Godeheut/Godehildes in England
at this period.
What do you think of this, John? Given the detailed attestation of
Godhilde/Godeheut in the charters, is the statement in the Boxgrove Stemma
Fund. to be completely dismissed, or might there actually be a possibility that
she was indeed a Paynel, and her mother or grandmother a Toeni (thus retaining
a connection to Flamstead)?
Paul
Malinda Jones
MC Surety Baron & Isabel natural daughter of William the Lion, King of
Scotland) ?
~malinda
Reedpcgen
is not my strong point.]
It is also possible that [the Norman?] William de St. John who was a widower
when he married Godehilde, married a young widow. She could have been widow of
a Paynel before she married William by 1187 (he died within two years of that).
Godehild, wife of Geoffrey Peurell' de ultra mare, was his wife by Michaelmas
1201. I did not conclude that she was widow of WIlliam de St. John as a widow
should have held dower (though I have not checked the Pipe Rolls to see if
dower was assigned after the death of William de Port/de St. John).
We have a number of generations of Godehild/Godeheuts in the Toeni family.
1. Roger de Toeni, m. Godeheut [would her name suggest she descended from the
Counts of Maine or belonged to the family of Belleme?).
2. Ralph de Toeni III (d. 1101/2) m. Isabel de Montford. It would appear that
his daughter Godehilde was the one who married Baldwin, King of Jerusalem,
about 1095-6 and died within a year or two (by which time he had taken an
Armeian wife). She is said to have married (1) Robert "de Beaumont," 1st Earl
of Leicester (who married Isabel de Vermandois).
3. Ralph de Toeni (d. abt. 1126), m. Alice, heiress of Waltheof.
4. Roger de Toeni III (b. 1104) m. Ida of Hainault. It is his daughter
Godeheut who married William de Mohun.
5. Ralph de Toeni (d. 1162), m. Margaret de Beaumont. We have Robert de
Baumont, son of Henry, Earl of Warwick, marrying a Godeheut de Toeni. Henry's
son and heir Roger was probably born about 1100-2 (obtained the earldom in
1123). Robert succeeded to the Norman estates, including Neubourg. (Will. de
Jumieges, p. 334, says he married Godeheut, daughter of Ralph de Toeni, doesn't
he?).
6. Roger de Toeni, a little boy in 1162, m. Constance de Beaumont. (Their son
Ralph was born 1189/90.)
I guess the Godeheut who married Robert de Beaumont, would be of an age to be
godmother to the younger Godeheut, wife of William de Port.
(I'm a bit tired, but I think the above is a fair rendition. Correct me if I'm
wrong.)
Paul
Reedpcgen
>Baumont, son of Henry, Earl of Warwick, marrying a Godeheut de Toeni.
>Henry's
>son and heir Roger was probably born about 1100-2 (obtained the earldom in
>1123). Robert succeeded to the Norman estates, including Neubourg. (Will.
>de
>Jumieges, p. 334, says he married Godeheut, daughter of Ralph de Toeni,
>doesn't
>he?).
I guess, chronologically, it would be better to place this Godeheut as daughter
of Ralph who married Alice. The Godeheut who fits in this generation would be
the age to be wife of William de St. John, Sr.,
Paul
Chris Phillips
Paul Reed wrote:
> Do all these Godeheut/Godehoud/Godehilde[etc.]s all fit in the immediate
Toeni
> family? Is it not possible that cousins or grandchildren might also have
a
> connection to Flamstead? There are even other Godeheut/Godehildes in
England
> at this period.
>
> What do you think of this, John? Given the detailed attestation of
> Godhilde/Godeheut in the charters, is the statement in the Boxgrove Stemma
> Fund. to be completely dismissed, or might there actually be a possibility
that
> she was indeed a Paynel, and her mother or grandmother a Toeni (thus
retaining
> a connection to Flamstead)?
Thanks for posting all this thought-provoking information.
I'm not sure I have assimilated it all yet, but it seems quite likely that
these three Godeheuts are somehow related to one another, and to the Tonys.
(Or are there only two Godeheuts? I wondered initially whether the younger
William de St John could have married the widow of Geoffrey Pevrel, but your
no 37, showing William and Godeheut married and a Sir Geoffrey as witness,
seems to rule this out - if it is the same Sir Geoffrey. Still, it seems
feasible for the widow of the elder Sir William to have remarried to Sir
Geoffrey, as you suggest is possible.)
Am I being too fanciful in wondering whether there could have been a
misreading of "Pevrel" as "Paynel" at some stage, and that Godeheut number 3
could actually have been a daughter of Godeheut number 2? (I'm not clear
whether the "Stemma Funditoris" of Boxgrove has survived, or whether we have
to rely on Dugdale's "Monasticon" for a transcript of a lost document.)
I did have a brief look at the VCH Hertfordshire account of Flamstead
Priory, but didn't see anything that seemed relevant - or any reference to
the cartulary - except that VCH agrees with the online source I mentioned
previously, which placed the foundation around 1150, so that the founder
would be Roger III (d. around 1160) - the grandfather of the founder
according to CP.
If the Flamstead cartulary is accessible in some form, it would be very
interesting to see if there is any evidence of early connections with the St
Johns, Pevrels, or Paynels!
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>misreading of "Pevrel" as "Paynel" at some stage, and that Godeheut number 3
>could actually have been a daughter of Godeheut number 2?
That is equally thought proviking, and an excellent observation.
It would seem likely that Godeheut/Godehild, wife of the elder William de St.
John/St. Jean was younger in 1187, by which time she was married, and widowed
about 1187. We might presume, if she were a young widow, she was born about
1160-5. If she were a Toeni, that would place her as daughter of Ralph V (d.
1162) by Margaret de Beaumont (she would not likely be daughter of his brother
Roger, sg. de Acquigny).
Sir Geoffrey Peurel/Peverel was apparently a Norman (he was of 'beyond the
sea'), and he'd definitely married Godeheut/Godehoud/Godehilde by 1202, and
they were alive 1222. He was a knight, and frequently associated with the
younger William de Port/de St. John and his men.
If this Godeheud, wife of Geoffrey Peverel, were the widow of the elder William
de St. John, she should hold dower of his lands, and it should be easy enough
to find in sources such asthe Red Book of the Exchequer, Book of Fees, Pipe
Rolls, etc. This theory can be tested in surviving records.
>If the Flamstead cartulary is accessible in some form, it would be very
>interesting to see if there is any evidence of early connections with the St
>Johns, Pevrels, or Paynels!
>
I expect to hear from the woman who edited the Flamstead cartulary within the
next day or so. I'll report the results.
Thanks,
Paul
Reedpcgen
>John/St. Jean was younger in 1187, by which time she was married, and widowed
>about 1187.
Oops (time for bed). Widowed about 1189.
Latin:
Peuerellus = Peverell,
Pagaellus = Paynel
Paul
Rosie Bevan
Thank you very much for looking up the Cal. Docs. citation which I mentioned
last week, and for following up on the St John research. You have collated
some very interesting documentation and hopefully there will be more when
you hear from the editor of the Flamstead cartulary..
Having gone through your material, the following would be my take of the
pedigree.
1. Roger de St John d. bef. 1130
2.William de St John d.s.p. 1189? bef 1195?(DD 691) 1202?(CP XI : 344)
+Olive dau. Count Stephen of Brittany
+ Godeheut, married secondly Geoffrey Peverel (and had issue Godeheut?)
2.Robert de St John d.s.p.
+ Olive dau. Alan fitz Jordan, married secondly Roger de Montbegon
2. Muriel de St John
+ Richard de Orval
3.Mabel de Orval
+ Adam de Port d.1213
4.William (de Port) St John b.c 1180-1239
+ Godeheut de Peverel/Paganel, married secondly Richard de Lucy
5. Geoffrey de St John d.v.p. (CP XI p.322 note (k))
5. Robert de St John d.1267 son and heir
5. Adam de St John
5. William de St John
5. Godeheut de St John
Geoffery de Peverel does not appear on record until after the death of
William I de St John, therefore it's likely he married William's widow. He
would have been associated with major gifts to Boxgrove because of his
wife's dower i.e. they had an interest in a substantial part of the St John
estates and his wife probably had an interest in the advowson of Boxgrove.
As Paul suggests, I think it possible that Godeheut and Geoffrey had a
daughter, Godeheut, who married William II de St John. This would be
supported onomastically by the name of Geoffrey for the eldest son of
William II. Depending on the date of death of William I and subsequent
remarriage of Godeheut, there may have been a 10-20 or so year age
difference between the younger Godeheut and William II, (who appears to
have been of age in 1202 on succeeding to his maternal inheritance).
Like Chris, it had occurred to me that "Godeheld f. N.Paganel" named in the
Boxgrove 'Fundatione Historia' [Mon. Ang.v.IV p. 646 ] is actually a
transcription error (either by Dugdale or a cleric writing the history) of
'Peverel'. It can be easy to misinterpret medieval letters such as 'a' and
'e' but 'g' and 'v' are fairly distinct. If the name is indeed Paganel,
then Godeheut may have been daughter of the elder Godeheut by a first
marriage, or some other near relation.
Given the chronology, it seems rather unlikely that either the elder or
younger Godeheut had descent from Constance de Beaumont as she didn't marry
Roger de Tony until 22 Sep.1199 (Leo's Genealogics database). Whether we can
say every Godeheut we come across has Toeni descent, I'm not sure. In 1229
Richard de Wiaville and his wife, Godehud, were sued by Pharamus de Bononia
for a virgate of land in "Chepmannescumb'", Somerset. Richard may have been
the same person who was William, Earl of Warenne's steward, but who Godehud
was is not apparent [CRR v.XIII nos. 1347, 2319 ; PRO E 40/4114]. I suspect
a comprehensive search of contemporary records would reveal a few more
Godeheuts, and that Goda may be a shortened version of the name, in the same
way Ida is sometimes shortened from Idonea.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
The...@aol.com
Dear Paul, Rosie, Chris, et al.,
Many thanks for the several posts concerning the number of Godeheuts (&
such) who were about, ca. 1150/1200. It will be interesting to see what (if
any) information may yet be forthcoming from the Flamstead cartulary.
Preliminary to that, is there any detailed information on the ancestry of
the suspect Geoffrey Peverel? Is he of the Nottingham family? The placement
of Godeheut, wife of William 'the younger' de St. John (d. 1239) as daughter
of NN (Peverel or Pagnel) and a Godeheut, daughter of say Ralph de Tony and
Margaret de Beaumont, would not provide a close relationship between Sir John de
St. John (d. bef 30 Sept 1302) and his kinsman, Edward I of England.
Reedpcgen
It would seem the elder WIlliam de St. John, who was definitely alive in 1187,
was dead by 1189. Adam de Port owed 200 pounds for a fine of his land and of
his wife's inheritance in Normandy, according to Farrar's Honors and Knights
Fees 3:56-8, and Pipe Roll 1 Rich. I, p. 199. It's been too long since I
checked Round's account of the St. John family, so will have to do that later.
It's EXTRAORDINARILY interesting that Round determined that the eldest son of
William de Port/de St. John and Godeheut was named Geoffrey. I have to check
the citation which Round gives.
There is also a daughter named Agatha, who Farrer says held lands in Hunston,
Sussex, in 1230 (CCR , 342, and Bracton's Note-Book, nos. 410, 421), but was
then under age. As she was then stated to be daughter of William de St. John,
but in the wardship of James de Cicestre, perhaps she was to marry Cicestre's
heir.
William de Ros, who had married a daughter of William de St. John, was
pardonedin 1234 for failling to perform service in parts of Wales due in
respect of a fee held of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as was William de St.
John (CCR 1231-4, 370-1; and see Cal. Anc. Deeds, no. C. 438).
Paul
Reedpcgen
>of Godeheut, wife of William 'the younger' de St. John (d. 1239) as daughter
>of NN (Peverel or Pagnel) and a Godeheut, daughter of say Ralph de Tony and
>Margaret de Beaumont, would not provide a close relationship between Sir John
>de
>St. John (d. bef 30 Sept 1302) and his kinsman, Edward I of England.
>
> Cheers,
John, I think you are wrong here.
(a) We don't know what parentage Geoffrey Peverel, knight, had, but it was
likely Norman, but he would seem to have sided with William de St. John after
King John lost Normandy. It is very possible that the connection was through
his ancestr.
(b) As Godeheut would be daughter of Margaret de Beaumont, whose grandmother
was Isabel de Vermandois, the very knowledge of Vermandois blood would provide
knowledge of a link to the King's son. That may not conform to the "rule of
5," but does conform to common sense, and would constitute a knowable blood
relationship.
Paul
Reedpcgen
Also remember that during the earlier period we are exploring, it was required
that one know one's ancestry back through the 7th degree. (That puts the "rule
of 5" to bed!).
Two people could not marry if they had a common ancestor within 7 generations
of their ancestry. It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 that
this was reduced. Tricky thing, Church law.
We would therefore EXPECT they would know their ancestry back seven
generations, at the least, and more in famous lines. One has to only look at
the _Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls_ to find evidence that numerous families of
normal gentry status in England knew extended ancestry.
Paul
Dolly Ziegler
_Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls_. At familysearch.org I find that this
was compiled by George Wrottesley, covers 1200-1500, and is available on
microfilm from the Family History Library, item 1 on one roll of film.
Perhaps you would comment on how extensive this is, how useful you think
it is. Is there an index? Thanks, Dolly in Maryland
Chris Phillips
twice]
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> Preliminary to that, is there any detailed information on the ancestry
of
> the suspect Geoffrey Peverel? Is he of the Nottingham family?
I wonder if he is connected with the Robert Peverel shown in "Domesday
Descendants" (p. 1068), holding one fee of the Bishop of Chichester in 1166
and returning a Sussex Carta with Norman de Normanville. Keats-Rohan also
notes an Andrew Peverel in 1242, holding 4 fees in Somptings and Ewhurst
from the honour of Braose, and 2 parts of a fee in "Blechinton" in chief
[citing Fees, 689, 692).
Chris Phillips
Kay Allen AG
I find it very useful and it is indexed.
K
The...@aol.com
Dear Paul,
Thanks for the reply (and for all the prior input on this
thread).
Actually, I don't believe my prior statements in the post
you replied to were wrong.
I asked,
"Preliminary to that, is there any detailed information
on the ancestry of the suspect Geoffrey Peverel? Is he of the
Nottingham family? The placement of Godeheut, wife of William
'the younger' de St. John (d. 1239) as daughter of NN (Peverel
or Pagnel) and a Godeheut, daughter of say Ralph de Tony and
Margaret de Beaumont, would not provide a close relationship
between Sir John de St. John (d. bef 30 Sept 1302) and his
kinsman, Edward I of England."
To which you replied,
"John, I think you are wrong here.
(a) We don't know what parentage Geoffrey Peverel,
knight, had, but it was likely Norman, but he would
seem to have sided with William de St. John
after King John lost Normandy. It is very
possible that the connection was through his
ancestr. "
It is possible that the (as yet unidentified) father of
Godeheut, wife of William de St. John (d. 1239), was someone
other than Roger de Tony (d. 1208), and possibly the Geoffrey
Peverel being discussed. However, as I wrote, the placement
of Godeheut as the daughter of "NN (Peverel or Pagnel" in
fact does NOT provide the relationship we are seeking to
confirm, or clarify.
The question still is, what of this Geoffrey Peverel's
ancestry is known?
You further wrote,
"(b) As Godeheut would be daughter of Margaret de
Beaumont, whose grandmother was Isabel de
Vermandois, the very knowledge of Vermandois
blood would provide knowledge of a link to the
King's son. That may not conform to the "rule
of 5," but does conform to common sense, and
would constitute a knowable blood relationship."
This assumes that
(A) the wife of the elder William de St. John was
Godeheut de Tony, daughter of Ralph de Tony
(d. 1162), and
(B) that the mother of said Godeheut was in fact
Margaret de Beaumont, and not another as yet
unknown (or unidentified) wife of Ralph.
Can we say at this point that either (A) or (B) above
is a fact?
I hope to have some additional time in short order to
read through the remaining flurry of posts.
Again, thanks to you, Rosie, Douglas and Chris for all
the thought and effort!
Reedpcgen
Where I stated that I thought you were wrong was not in the "technicality" of
your statements, but what I read the meaning to be (the direction and goal of
your arguments).
I may have entirely misread your thoughts (something that is a bit impossible
to do anyway), so I apologize for that.
It seemed to me that you were ready to throw away the Paynel identification
comepletely, and in spite of my cautions, seemed bent on maintaining that the
younger Godeheut was daughter of Roger de Toeni IV (born say 1155 - he was a
little boy in 1162) by his wife Constance de Beaumont (their male heir was born
about 1189-90), without ANY QUALIFICATION.
What I have tried to do is not provide a definitive answer, but reasonable
alternative that must be taken into account - even one which is reasonable and
may actually be correct. Again, I am not presenting this as FACT, but as a
working hypothesis that is as likely as anything else
You seemed to still put forward the identification, while not giving a fair
shake to the unknown Paynel/Peverel ancestry, which could still retain a Toeni
connection and account for why Godeheut might retire to Flamstead (which she
may have done simply because it was a beautiful place and quiet).
> Can we say at this point that either (A) or (B) above
> is a fact?
I am not stating it is a fact, but a good working hypothesis. It is, however,
just as factual as the theory that Godeheut was daughter of Constance de
Beaumont. If one main reason for placing the younger Godeheut as daughter of
Constance (de Beaumont) de Toeni is the rarity of her name, by this same
argument one would have to place the elder Godegeut there as well - and
chronologically she woudl fit as daughter of Margaret de Beaumont, where
otherwise we do not know of a daughter named Godeheut who would preclude her
placement there. (Whereas, I know of another Godeheut who is of the gereation
to be placed as daughter of Constance de Beaumont.)
Paul
Reedpcgen
Aside from the church law, which until 1215 required that one know one's
ancestry back through at least seven generations...
...if I were a noble, I might go to pains to seek out and discover how I was
related to the king. The pool of royals, and upper peerage and barons, was by
modern standards extraordinarily small. How many men would you estimate it to
be?
If I were serving in campaigns alongside the Earl of Lancaster, or in
tournaments, or partying with him on an occasional basis, I might mention how
we were related - even in a distant way - because blood did mean something to
them, entirely aside from grants of royal favor being one of the most important
ways to augment one's estate in the medieval period.
Is it logical that John de St. John should search out, discover, and know how
he was related to the royal family, even if in a rather distant way? I think
it would be unusual if one did not know, and maintain such a knowledge through
generations. Is it surprising that in a grant of favor, a royal might mention
a relationship with a favored retainer or noble? I think in a spirit of
largess of the grant, no.
Paul
Chris Phillips
Paul Reed wrote:
> "(b) As Godeheut would be daughter of Margaret de
> Beaumont, whose grandmother was Isabel de
> Vermandois, the very knowledge of Vermandois
> blood would provide knowledge of a link to the
> King's son. That may not conform to the "rule
> of 5," but does conform to common sense, and
> would constitute a knowable blood relationship."
I'm not sure how far back one has to go to find a common ancestor via Isabel
de Vermandois, but maybe an alternative would be the relationship of the
Tonys to the royal family through their descent from Waltheof and his wife,
the Conqueror's niece.
This was something the Tonys were well aware of in later medieval times,
judging from the discussion a while ago about the arms "attributed" to
Waltheof.
If this - or a link via Vermandois - is the explanation of the kinship
between Prince Edmund and the St Johns, perhaps one would expect to see the
Tonys referred to as royal kinsmen elsewhere.
Chris Phillips
Doug Smith
> In message <3F37D443...@pacbell.net>
> all...@pacbell.net (Kay Allen AG) wrote:
>
> > No. Lucy FitzPiers is dtr of Piers FitzHerbert descended from Herbert
> > the Chamberlain who was allegedly married to Emma of Blois.
>
> I'm still convinced that "Lucy FitzPiers" is wrong. As her father's
> surname was not FitzPiers, this is calling her "son of Piers". If she is
> to be given a surname, then should it not be either "FitzHerbert" or
> "filia Piers" (daughter of Piers)?
Hi Tim
The safest thing to call her is Lucy or Lucia, as does CP XI: 94. The
footnote there goes on to note that Dugdale (Baronage, Vol. I, p 547)
called her daughter of Reginald FitzPiers. It goes on to note further
that she (if from this family at all) was, "presumably sister of
Herbert FitzHerbert and his br and h. Reynold FitzHerbert and daughter
of Piers FitzHerbert". It would appear that FitzHerbert was
funtioning as a patronymic at this time, so Lucia FitzHerbert would
seem more appropriate.
She is called Lucy Fitz Piers in MC 5: 116, 2; also AR 6: 170, 237;
Lucy FitzPiers in RD 500 p 342, etc. I think most people would
recognize her under this name even if not the best naming.
That said, the real issue is who she is. Interestingly the post
(earlier in this thread) from Paul Reed showed a daughter of William
de St John named Godeheut married to William de Ros of Kent and to
Hugh de Wyndleshores. John and Doug have indicated there is evidence
she had a sister Lucy married to William de Ros of Helmesley. John,
Paul, Doug, and Chris, and others have suggested possible connections
to the Toeni's, Peveral's, or Paynel's. It will be interesting to see
how this thread progresses.
Doug
Reedpcgen
>between Prince Edmund and the St Johns, perhaps one would expect to see the
>Tonys referred to as royal kinsmen elsewhere.
Perhaps a better, as easier, test would be to see if Robert de Beaumont, Earl
of Leicester (father of Margaret de Beaumont, and theoretical grandfather of
Godeheut), was called a kinsman. His mother Isabel/Elizabeth was daughter of
Hugues I, son of Henri I, King of France (by Anna of Kiev). Certainly the
Beaumonts were keenly aware of their close ties to the French crown.
Also, Ralph de Toeni's mother Ida/Gertrude of Hainault was daughter of Yolande,
granddaughter of Guillaume, Duke of Aquitaine.
Do we know the extended ancestry of Amice de Gael, wife of Robert de Beaumont?
Paul
Reedpcgen
>Funditoris" of Boxgrove has survived, or
>whether we have to rely on Dugdale's
>"Monasticon" for a transcript of a lost
>document.)
>
Round indicates that the Boxgrove Cartulary is Cottonian MS. Claudius A, vi, or
that the Boxgrove ''stemma fundatoris," at least, is folio 1 "(Cott. MS. Claud.
A, vi").
I think part of the Cottonian MS. Claudius D. is online at Gallica, but do not
know if A is (I did not find it), so it may have to be checked at the British
Library (where I assume it is held).
Paul
The...@aol.com
Dear Paul, et al.,
I am not aware of any evidence concerning the mother of Amicia de
Montfort/Gael. What I have (up to 6 generations) is given below.
Interestingly, we find amongst her gg grandparents, Roger de Tony (d.
1040) and GODEHILDIS. Also interesting, in that as a result of this, Ralph de
Tony (d. 1162) and Margaret de Beaumont stood in the 4th and 5th degrees of
consanguinity; I wonder if there is a record of a dispensation?
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
John *
__________________
__________________
AT, Amicia de Montfort (aka Amicia de Gael)
1 Amicia de Montfort. Amicia died aft 5 Apr 1168 in Monastery of
Nuneaton (d. a nun).[1],[2] Buried in Monastery of Nuneaton,
co. Warwick.[2]
heiress of the honour of Breteuil (CP vol IX, p 574n)[1]
aft Nov 1120 Amicia married Robert de Beaumont.[1]
2 Ralph de Gael. Occupation: seigneur de Gael et Montfort.[1]
Lord of Gael
successor to brother William[1]
lord of the honour of Breteuil, 1119 (resigned same to son-in-law,
Earl of Leicester - CP Vol. VII -Leicester, p. 530n)[1]
4 Ralph de Gael. Ralph died aft 1096 in on first Crusade.[1]
Occupation: Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk.
Lord of Gael [Brittany]; lord of large estates in Norfok, also lands
in Suffolk, Essex, Hertford at time of Domesday Book, 1086[1].
Defeated Norse invasion of Norfolk 1069, created Earl of Norfolk
and Suffolk by William I ca 1069.
Joined rebellion against William (together with Waltheof of
Northumberland) in 1075 [he fled to Denmark, returned with Danish
fleet without effect]. Forfeit of English estates and Earldom;
returned to Brittany.
Joined First Crusade with Robert of Normandy - present at siege at
Nicaea, 1098 - believe to have died on the crusade[1]
In 1075 Ralph married Emma FitzOsbern[1], in Exning, Cambridgeshire.[1]
5 Emma FitzOsbern.[1] Emma died aft 1096, evidently
on Crusade with her husband.[1]
8 Ralph the Staller. Ralph died bef Apr 1070.[1]
Occupation: Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk.
held office in England ca. 1060 ('dapifer'); held extensive estates
in Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincoln at time of Domesday Book, 1086
(referred to as 'Staller')[1].
Created Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk[1]
10 William fitz Osbern. William died on 22 Feb 1071 in Battle of
Cassel.[3] Occupation: seigneur de Breteuil and
Earl of Hereford.
seigneur de Breteuil
steward of Normandy, to Duke William I; participant in Norman
invasion of England, fought at Battle of Hastings (CP Vol XII,
Appendix L[1]).
Granted large estates in England; created Earl of Hereford.
Betrothed to Richildis, countess of Hainaut and Flanders, 1071 and
ventured to Flanders - slain at Battle of Cassel against
Robert I ('the Frisian', later Count of Flanders)[3]
William married Adeliza de Tosny.
11 Adeliza de Tosny.
20 Osbern fitz Herfast. Osbern died in 1040.[3] Occupation: seneschal
of Normandy.
seneschal [steward] of Normandy on accession of William I, 1035;
murdered 1040[3]
Osbern married Emma of Ivry.
21 Emma of Ivry.
22 Roger de Tosny. Roger died ca 1040.[3] Occupation: lord of Tosny.
killed in private warfare by Roger de Beaumont[3]
Roger married Godehildis[3].
23 Godehildis.[3]
40 Herfast.[3]
42 Rodulf of Ivry. Occupation: count of Ivry.
lord of several estates in Normandy, including Cocherel and Jouy, at
St.-Philibert, together with lands centered on Breteuil and Ivry
Styled Count of Ivry[3]
44 Ralph (II) de Tosny. Ralph (II) died aft 1013.[3] Occupation:
lord of Tosni (Toeni).
1. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain
and the United Kingdom.
2. "The Baronage of England," William Dugdale, Norroy King of Arms,
Tho. Newcomb [reprint Georg Verlag, New York], London, 1675
[reprint New York, 1977].
3. "William the Conqueror," David C. Douglas, Univ of California
Press, 1964 (1st of English Monarchs series).
Reedpcgen
Though it is certain Godeheud/Godehile was wife of Geoffrey Peverel in 1201 and
1212, when they occur together in that relationship before the Curia Regis, she
had apparently married, before that time, one William de Plaunch'/Planchis.
This immediately brings to mind William de la Plaunche who was cousin of Queen
Eleanor (and his son James called cousin by Edward II).
Geoffrey Peverell first surfaces in records (that I can find) in 1195 in Sussex
(Pipe Roll Society, new series, v. 6, pp. 37, 49; and see v. 7, v. 10, etc.).
He also at one point granted land in Stewkley, near Leighton Buzzard, Bucks.
He occurs frequently in the Curia Regis Rolls, almost always for Sussex, but
sometimes in Somerset, Bucks., and Wilts.
In 1201 a suit for land described him as (CRR 2:83), "tenementa Gaufridi
Peverell' quam diu idem G. fuerit in servitio suo [of the king?] ultra [mare
cum e]quis et armis."
He'd been given a grant by the King of Menestok, Hants. (CIPM 2:278, no. 467;
CChR 1:252 [1240]).
Key documents are found in The Chartulary of the High Church of Chichester (ed.
W. D. Peckham), Sussex Record Society, v. 46.
pp. 91-2 (no. 343) Geoffrey Peuerel, "with the consent of Godeheud my wife and
her eldest daughter Eustachia, grant to the church of Chichester" the residue
of tithes in the parish of Rumbaldeswike [Sussex]. (no. 344) "I, Godeheud de
Wikes, with the assent of G[eoggrey] Peuerel my husband and Eustachia my eldest
daughter, have granted to the Canons of Holy Trinity, Chichester, to make an
anniversary in the said church of my death, all the land of Otthulle [in
Rumbaldswike].... If I die in England I leave my body to be buried in the
graveyard of the said church." [witnesses include Roger Hay and Robert de
Coleuille]
I take it that Godeheud called herself "de Wikes" there because she was lady of
Wikes.
In the Boxgrove Cartulary, we have record of Godeheut's gift to the Abbey of
Ardenne, near Caen, which abbey sold it to Boxgrove in 1240:
p. 99 (no. 193): "I, Godehylda de Planchis, and Eustachie my daughter, have
given ... to the abbey of St. Mary of Hardena and the canons ... for the good
of our souls, and of Richard my son, rent of 5s. in the vill of Wikes ... This
was done at Wikes in June, 1218." In 1240 (no. 14) she is called Godehylda de
Planches.
There is apparently a suit in Bracton's Note-Book (no. 1058, which I have not
seen) which states that she was widow of William de Planchis, and dates to 1218
(VCH Sussex 4:171). Godeheut's eldest daughter Eustache de Planche married
Hubert de Warham (who apparently became known as de Wykes). After the death of
Godeheud, "Geoffrey [Peverel], Hubert [de Warham], and Eustache lived together
in the manor house, with an agreement that if they separated[,] Geoffrey should
have half the vill or manor of Rumboldswyke." Eustache was dead by 1235, when
her son and heir John de Wykes granted a moiety of a knights' fee to Hubert for
life, half the field called Othull, etc. (["A die Sci. Hillarii in xv. dies, 20
Henry III"] a final concord was made between John de Wykes and Hubert de Warham
[Sussex Feet of Fines, Sussex Record Society, v. 2, pp. 86-7]).
John, son of Eustache, died without issue and was succeeded by his brother
Roger de Wykes, who was dead by 1274, when he was succeeded by his sisters
Godeheud and Christiane. Godeheude went to live at the nunnery at Kilburn,
but never professed (i.e., never became a nun), so was assigned her share of
the manor in 1294.
In the Boxgrove Cartulary, we have, pp. 106-7 (no. 218) Roger de Wikes, son and
heir of lady Eustache de Planch' and heir of his brother John de Wikes, son of
Eustache, for the good of his soul, his father and mother and ancestors,
granting the church of Boxgrove and monks the 5 s. at Wikes it had of the gift
of the abbot and convent of Ardenne. Witnesses included, Sir Robert de Sancto
Johanne [first], Thomas de Argentem, William Paganell, knights, and others.
The IPM of Roger de Wykes (CIPM 2:54 [no. 72]), states that he held the manor
of Wykes OF THE HEIR OF ROGER DE TONI, who was a minor in the King's wardship,
by service of 1 knight's fee. His next heir was his sister Godehaude, aged 40
and more in 2 Edw. I [born say 1234-4 or before].
It had also been found in 1242 that John and Hubert de Wykes [husband and son
of Eustache, daughter of Godeheut] held the fee OF RALPH DE THONY [Book of
Fees, 692], and in 1274 the fee had been held recently by ROGER DE TOENI, who
was then dead, his son and heir RALPH DE TOENI being a minor in the King's ward
[CCR 1272-9, p. 129].
One is tempted to theorize that the manor of Wyke, or Rumboldswyke, was
obtained by the Toeni family, and granted as a maritagium to Godeheut, who
married [if not William de St. John, Sr.], William de Planche [William de la
Plaunche?] and, by 1201, Geoffrey Peverel, knight, who had been in the king's
service. There is nothing to preclude her from being the widow of Sir William
de St. John in 1189, marrying William de [la] Planche next, having more than
one daughter [and a son who died without issue], the eldest being Eustache [and
a younger named Godeheut?], and that Wyke remained to her daughter Eustache as
her part, being Godeheut's own inheritance.
The connection with Ardenne in Normandy is interesting [though the author of
VCH Sussex makes it to be Arden, in Yorkshire]. It is also interesting that
William de St. John granted the manor of Woodcote, a part of the honor of
Halnaker [which was in Boxgrove] to Geoffrey Peverel for life about 1225.
This would seem to heighten the possibility of a connection between Godeheut,
who was wife of Geoffrey Peverel (and before that of William de Plaunche), and
the Toeni family. Geoffrey's close and early connection with William de St.
John the younger would seem to tie his wife Godeheut into that family, however,
as she was older, she would only fit as widow of the elder William de St. John.
Paul
Reedpcgen
the Foundation, and Founders' Genealogy" (and a note that the original Latin,
extended, is given in the Appendix [p. 45] of Rev. J. L. Petit's _The
Architectural History of Boxgrove Priory_ [Chichester, 1861], which is not
available here).
Given that everyone prior to Round (including Stapleton) has messed up the
early St. John pedigree, it's amazing that the stem. fund. got it right, in
every detail from the time of Robert de Hay.
"Robert de Haya our founder ...gave his daughter Cecily as wife to Roger de
Sancto Johanne ... and of the said Cecily begat William and Robert deSancto
Johanne. ... These two brothers gave their sister Muriel as wife to Reynold de
Aurea Valle; and of her Reynold begat a daughter, Mabel by name, who was joined
in bonds of matrimony to Adam de Port; and of her Adam begat William the
second. And he begat Robert, of Godeheld daughter of N. Paynal; and Robert
[begat] John, of Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupo. John begat John, or
Alice daughter of Reynold fitz-Piers." etc.
As all those relationships are completely correct, perhaps Round's job
documenting it from original sources was not quite as difficult as he made out.
Paul
Reedpcgen
I have been able to document all the other children from primary sources, but I
have not seen where Lucy comes from. What source gives her as daughter of
William de St. John by Godeheut?
Thanks,
Paul
Chris Phillips
> An interesting development has come up (but which does not solve our
quandary).
Thanks for posting all that very interesting material. I'm still struggling
to keep up with it all, but I thought that this could be very pertinent:
> It is also interesting that
> William de St. John granted the manor of Woodcote, a part of the honor of
> Halnaker [which was in Boxgrove] to Geoffrey Peverel for life about 1225.
On the hypothesis that William was married to the daughter of Geoffrey's
wife Godeheut, could this be part of a deal whereby Geoffrey relinquished to
William lands which he was holding for life "by courtesy" after Godeheut's
death, and was compensated by a life grant of some St John lands?
Geoffrey's agreement with Eustache to split Rumboldswyke if they separated
suggests that he did have such rights over Godeheut's lands. That would
imply that there had been issue of Geoffrey's marriage to Godeheut, although
not that the issue had survived (if I understand the custom correctly).
It still seems possible that William's wife Godeheut was a daughter of
Godeheut by Geoffrey Peverel (especially in view of Rosie's observation that
William had an elder son Geoffrey). Either way, if William's wife was
Godeheut's daughter, obviously she would have been a coheir of her mother
with Eustache, and we should expect to find some of Godeheut's lands later
held by the St Johns (even maybe held as tenants of the Tonys).
(On the other hand I notice that a William Paganel appears in one of your
extracts from the cartulary, so perhaps we shouldn't rule out that Godeheut
really was a Paynel.)
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
These pedigrees were collected by George Wrottesley over a period of almost 25
years when he was searching for his materials for a History of Staffordshire.
Many were published in The Genealogist, vols. 7-21. Seven pages of pedigrees
are also taken from Bracton's Note Book, and were published in The Genealogist,
new series, vols. 5-6.
The last 32 pages of this volume includes pedigrees printed in the Reliquary
and Antiquary.
The bulke of the pedigrees, with brief explanations of the suit and land
involved, run from 1 Edward III (p. 1) through 9 Henry VIII (p. 471). These
are almost all from the de Banco rolls, but there are a few from the Chester
Plea Roll, Coram Rege, etc.
p. 472 begins with a de Banco 14 Edw. IV, then Assize Roll 6 John. Then (p.
473) continues accounts from the reigns of John and Henry III from the Curia
Regis Rolls, and then other sources such as de Banco and Staffordshire assizes.
By page 529 we get down to the reign of Edward I again until 20 Edw. II (p.
559). On the last page (p. 560) we have two accounts, from 11 Edw. III and 7
Henr. VII.
I'll present one account (pp. 460-1) as an example. This is taken from De
Banco, Michaelmas 22 Edw. IV, m. 615, concerning lands in Wiltshire.
Robert Bohnam sued Robert Baynard for an illegal distress at Charlaweswyke.
Richard Wyke formerly held the manor of William Mareschal, Earl of Pembroke, as
of his manor of Kakham, and had granted it to one William Bluet, Kt., and the
heirs of his body. Two pedigrees are presented:
1. William Bluet, Kt.
2. Ralp
3. Robert
4. John
5. Alianora
6. Philip
7. Robert
8. Philip
9. Robert Baynard, the defendant.
1. Richard Wyke
2. Joan Crok
3. Nicholas
4. Nicholas
5. Robert
6. John Crok
7a. one daughter, Anne, who married Robert Bonham, the plaintiff, and
7b. the other daughter, Philippa, married William Floyer.
The verdict was for Robert Baynard.
In another suit on page 449, dated 19 Edward IV, m. 360 dorso (from De Banco)
we have Robert Baynard, Armiger [Esquire], suing Robert Dudley and John
Harfordshere for lands in Charlaweswyke. There he presented the following
pedigree:
1. John Blewet, seised temp. Edw. I
2. Alianora
3. Philip
4. Robert
5. Philip
6. Robert Baynard, the plaintiff.
Other suits show cousins, second cousins, etc. - relationships of every
variety.
These abstracts are by no means exhaustive of those sources, but the series is
invaluable. (The pedigeres published in The Genealogist which contain three or
more individuals of the same surname should be included in Marshall and
Whitmore's Guides.)
The term "de Banco" refers to the Justices of the King's Bench and the Court of
Common Pleas/Common Bench.
Paul
Reedpcgen
The VCH Sussex was not able to directly trace the manor of Wykes/Wikes, alias
Rumboldswyke, earlier than what I presented, aside from the Domesday account.
As soon as we have an account of this manor, it is held of the main line of the
Toeni family. The way Godehuet seemed to be engaged in these dealings made me
think it was held in her right, such as by a marriage portion, rather than it
was held only for dower of a dead husband (she technically could not have
granted anything held solely as dower, as it was only a life interest, held
until her death).
If Wikes/Wykes was Godeheut's marriage portion, granted by the Toeni family,
they would typically keep the overlordship, which is exactly what we see here.
We cannot tell if there was at some point a private transaction which settled
the manor on Godeheut, to remain to her daughter Eustache (other lands being
settled on her other daughter). Eustache was called HER eldest daughter, and
was definitely daughter of William de Planch'/Planches, but I guess the wording
would not preclude a younger daughter being born (to Geoffrey Peverel).
Geoffrey held land in the vill of Stiuelye/Estieulye, which is apparently
Styuicle mentioned in a later account of the rent given by Geoffrey to the
Priory of Fontevrault. This would apparently be Stewkley, Bucks., near
Leighton Buzzard. Amesbry [Wilts.] was a house of nuns of Fontevrault. The
priory of Grave/Grove/ Grovebury or Leighton Buzzard [Beds.] was a dependancy
of Fontevrault.
We therefore still have Godeheut [de Toeni] having a daughter, Eustache, by
WIlliam de Plaunch' before 1201, a son [surname not specified, who died without
issue] and a younger daughter [not specified].
The law concerning tenancy by curtesy held that "so soon as a child is born of
the marriage, which child would, if it lived long enough, be its mother's heir,
the husband gains the right to hold the wife's land during his whole life.
This right endures even though the wife died leaving no issue and the
inheritance falls to one of her collateral kinsmen; it endures even though the
husband married a second time." [Maitland 2:414] "of this marriage portion the
husband on the birth of issue becomes tenant by the law of England." In
Normandy the husband lost the right if he married again.
But the husband held he land as guardian, instigated by the birth of the heir.
"Here in England the husband keeps out the feudal lord even though the infant
heir is not the husband's child. The lawyers can not explain this, and, to be
frank, we can not explain it." [Maitland 2:417]
If no child was born, the husband loses the right to his dead wife's lands at
her death.
Clearly Geofrey and Godeheut had some holding in Somerset by 1201 and in years
following. Robert de Almary/Amauri/Ameri was involved in 1201 and 1212, and a
suit in 1212 of Geoffrey Peverel versus Robert de Ameri concerning lands in
Sussex and Somerset mentions a cirographum [final concord] "per Willelmum de
Wikes" [?William de Plaunches?]. Three knights fees in Sussex were apparently
involved [my notes are sketchy].
It is also curious that a charter of WIlliam de St. John and his wife, the
younger Godeheut, dated December 1222, is witnessed by William de Godiuode (in
another place Godiwoude) [Round states this is an early form of Goodwood], and
Geoffrey de Godiuewod and his wife Sarah were tenants of John de Wykes listed
in his grant to Hubert de Warham.
Paul
Reedpcgen
Regis Rolls concerning Geoffrey Peverel and Godeheut was "Ubbey" [I think
that's the way it was spelled in the account.]
I notice that Sir Richard Damory, Lord Damory, son and heir of Sir Robert
Damory (d. 1285), not only held Bucknell and Woodperry, Oxon., and
Thornborough, Bucks., but also Ubley, Somerset.
CP 4:46, note (b) says Sir Robert was son and heir of Roger (liv. 1281), son
and heir of Robert (d. 1236), son and heir of Robert d'Amaury. This earliest
Robert would be of the period to be the man engaged with Geoffrey Peverel and
Godeheut.
(Sir Roger Damory who married Elizabeth de Clare, granddaughter of Edward I,
was a younger brother [sic] of Sir Roger Damory, 1st mentioned above. Younger
brothers can marry quite well.)
Paul
The...@aol.com
Dear Paul,
My source for Lucy de St. John is an email from some time ago from
Douglas (Richardson). I will check later to see where the paper copy is filed;
meanwhile, as I recall Doug is planning to provide details concerning the
documentation re: this subject in the near future. He may yet beat me to it....
Given some of the recent material presented in this thread, I hope to
look at one possibility in short order. What we have, in part, appears to be as
follows:
William = Godeheut = Geoffrey
de Plaunche I I Peverel
______________I_____ I
I I I .
I . . . . . .
I .
Eustache Richard
fl. 1201-1218
In Nottinghamshire at about this time, we find Ralph de Gresley, of
Greasley, Notts. and Middle Claydon, Bucks., who held 3 knights' fees held of the
honour of Peverel of Nottingham (he d. before 19 June 1228 acc. to CP). His
daughter and heiress Agnes married Hugh fitz Ralph, of Greasley, Notts., and
Ilkeston, co. Derby. Their son, Ralph fitz Hugh, dvp, leaving a daughter and
heiress Eustache, who was married 1st to Nicholas de Cantelou/Cantilupe (father
of her heir William, Lord Cantilupe), and 2ndly before Oct 1268 (acc. to CP)
to William de Ros, of Ingmanthorpe (d. ca. 1310).
If Eustache 'filia Radulfi' and William de Ros were married by contract
in 1268, she may have been born as late as say 1260; her father could have
been born say 1235-1245, and her grandfather Hugh fitz Ralph, born say 1210-1230.
It is possible that this Hugh fitz Ralph may have brought the name Eustache
to his descendants, and chronologically could have been a son of the Eustache
(daughter of Godeheut) now under discussion.
Outside CP, the only other property that I have seen that may help in
resolving this issue is Selston, co. Notts., which I understand was held by the
Peverel family early on; the advowson was held by Nicholas de Cantelupe
(grandson of Eustache 'filia Radulfi') in 1343.
Perhaps this piece of the puzzle may be solved as an offshoot of the
current research.
Reedpcgen
>Douglas (Richardson). I will check later to see where the paper copy is
>filed;
>meanwhile, as I recall Doug is planning to provide details concerning the
>documentation re: this subject in the near future. He may yet beat me to
>it....
I hope Doug does post something, at YOUR request (as he has thus far
collegially refused to respond in any way to my posts since the time he refused
to correct the false statement he made about John de Driby).
I'd wondered if, perhaps, there'd been some confusion caused by a slip of the
eye. Richard de LUCY was second husband of Godeheut the younger, and a
daughter married William de ROS. I'd wondered if this might have created a
daughter named Lucy, as I've seen no such daughter mentioned in any source
(including the Boxgrove cartulary, Round's account, Farrer's account, Bridges'
Collins' Peerage, the volumes of Burkes I'd checked, etc.)
If not, you can at least let us know if Doug gave any indication that this
proposed daughter Lucy existed and is evidenced from a document.
>
> William = Godeheut = Geoffrey
> de Plaunche I I Peverel
> ______________I_____ I
> I I I .
> I . . . . . .
> I .
> Eustache Richard
> fl. 1201-1218
>
We know that Godeheut had two daughters and one son. The son was dead without
issue fairly early on, and Eustache was the elder daughter. We do not know if
the father of Richard or the younger daughter was William de Planche or
Geoffrey Peverell.
Also, this Godeheut was bearing children in the 1190s. Her husband Geoffrey
was closely associated with Boxgrove and William de Port/de St. John. I cannot
see a likely association that would explain that, UNLESS she was Godeheut,
widow of William de St. John the elder.
As to the name Planche/Plaunche/Planches, I cannot see that it was a surname in
use in England at that time. I did not see it in the Pipe Rolls, Book of Fees,
Red Book of the Exchequer, etc.
John Carmi Parsons had theorized that the William de la Plaunche who is a
generation or two younger and was called kinsman of the Queen (and his son
James was called cousin by Edward II as prince) was because he must descend
from others wou were called kinsmen, and theorized that the link must be
through the Fiennes/Dammartin union. But no evidence was actually found to
link it, and the best supposition was that there was an illegitimate
connection.
I'm somewhat skeptical of that, as there are various places called "des
Planches" and "de la Planche" in France, including Maine, Picardie and
apparently Normandie (fief et hameau des Planches-sur-Amblie, a
Amblie-sur-Seulles").
In French, the name was not "de Planches" but either "des Planches" or "de la
Planche" and anciently (for obvious reasons) "des Planques."
There was a family of de Fiennes dit de la Planche in Picardie, but I've only
seen it originate with a Josee de Fiennes, dit de la Planche, docteur en
medecine, who was living in 1549. That's rather late, Likewise the "des
Planches" in Normandie was a family enobled in 1699 (sgr. des ondes").
Earlier than the above William de la Planche, I only found reference to men
associated with the Berkeleys and Dursley, Gloucester. About 1153, in the
marriage arrangements for Morice sonof Sir Robert fiz Herding to Alice,
daughter of Roger de Berkeley, we have, among the eight noble men of the party
of Roger, Gwafere de Planca and Hew de Planca his brother. In the Liber Niger
returns (by 1166), Hugh de Planca was listed as holding 1/2 a hide of Roger de
Berchley of the old feoffment. I think he gave his name to his holding, which
was a local piece of land, not a demesne fee held of the crown. In 45 Hen. III
we have William de Lesseborwe holding 12 acres in St. Brevell of the King in
chief, and among his other lands, on ecarucate held of Thomas de la Planche by
service of 1/2 a mark and suit at Dursley (CIPM 1:139, no. 493). Thomas
apparently left no isse, and was succeeded by a [maternal] nephew, Matthew, son
of Thomas, the parson of Newinton.
I'd suspect that Godeheut's husband William des Planches/de la Planche was
Norman (she was not certain whether she'd die in England or elsewhere, and gave
land to Ardenne). King John lost Normandy (1204?), but her connection with him
was prior to 1201.
Also, as Geoffrey Peverel was leading men in battle in France in 1201, and
occurred by 1195, I'd conclude he was likely born by 1160-70. There are a
number of Peverell families who had holdings in the areas of Hampshire, Sussex,
Dorset, Wiltshire, etc., in this early period, and I have seen nothing that
would connect to the Peverells from whom the Honour of Peverell in Nottingham
derived its name.
Paul
Reedpcgen
married Roger de St. John (mother of William de St. John the elder, Robert and
Muriel), was the same Robert de Hay/Haia who was lord of the barony of
Brattleby, Lincolnshire, and had married Muriel, daughter of Colswain, Domesday
lord of Brattleby, and sister and heir of Picot.
Robert and Muriel also had sons, his son Richard de la Hay succeeding by 1155,
and died in 1169, leaving three daughters, Nicholaa, Julia and Isabel.
This Nichola de la Hay we are very familiar with, as she married (1) William
fitz Erneis and (2) Gerard de Camville. She outlived her husband, and at her
death in 1230, her granddaughter Idoine was her heir (she married William
Longespee).
I thought that would help put things in perspective.
Paul
Rosie Bevan
Thank you for a fascinating succession of posts which I'm attempting to keep
up with.
The following PRO document identifies Godeheut de St John as wife of William
de Ros of North Cray, Kent.
C 146/438
Grant by Geoffrey de Percy, Matilda his wife, and Lora, widow, sister of the
said Matilda, to Hugh de Wyndlesores, and Godeholda his wife, of the manor
of Northcraye, which the said Godeholda, late the wife of William de Ros
(brother of the said Matilda and Lora) held in dower, together with the
advowson of the church there, and together with the fees, dower of the said
Godeholda, held respectively by John Martin in Taclefeld, Surrey
North Cray was held by Ansketil de Ros at Domesday so it is likely that
William, his eventual successor, was the same as William III de Ros who was
succeeded by his brother Richard in 1242, who was then succeeded by his
sisters by February 1246. [DD 671]
A William de Ros held in fee from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cossington,
for half a knights fee and 'Cullinges', for half a knight's fee, in Kent in
1210-12 [Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 472, 726]. This was most likely the
fee for which "William de Ros who had married a daughter of William de St.
John, was pardoned in 1234 for failling to perform service in parts of Wales
due in respect of a fee held of the Archbishop of Canterbury", as you note
below.
Cheers
Rosie
Reedpcgen
We have ample primary evidence that Godeheut, daughter of William de St. John,
married William de Ros.
Now we just have to figure out why Doug proposed that there was also (1) a
daughter named Lucy de St. John, and not only that, but that she was none other
than (2) wife of William de Ros of Helmsley, in spite of William having sons
named Herbert and Piers.
Should we hold our breath that Doug will clarify his statement(s), which should
take him no more than one minute to check, given that William's father was
Robert de Ros, Magna Charta Surety, who married Isabel, daughter of William
"the Lion," King of Scotland, and Doug has stated he'd prepared a manuscript on
Magna Charta Sureties?
Perhaps we can hope that Doug will experience an epiphany of collegiality and
make a simple statement in reply, rather than mislead all who should check the
archives and not find any statement of reply.
Paul
Douglas Richardson
I know you want an "instantaneous" reply to your query regarding Lucy
de Roos. However, I'm busy right now getting ready for a camping
trip with my six kids. I'm afraid you'll have to wait for an answer
until I return from the trip. In the meantime, I recommend some deep
breathing exercises and yoga to deal with the stress of waiting. I
also understand hugging your pillow and sucking your thumb are
helpful. Deprivation of information can lead to a serious disorder.
So, please do be careful while I'm gone.
All in good fun, Paul.
dcr
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote in message news:<20030814033417...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
Reedpcgen
>de Roos.
No, just a collegial response about the Lucy who you attribute as daughter of
William de St. John by Godeheut.
You've been following this thread, so must be aware of the details and what you
have done already (i.e., it's not something that suddenly sneaked up on you,
but something that has been fomenting [er, or is that fermenting?] in your
brain for some time).
It should be simple enough to reply whether there is documentation for her or
not, even if you do not go into a full blown discussion until you get back. It
should have taken you about one minute.
But, as you have expressed your willingness to fully explain about Lucy de Ros
as well, we shall await your full reply.
Collegially,
Paul
Reedpcgen
outset that the Flamstead cartulary was relatively small. I was surprised that
there are so few Toeni entries, aside from other maternal connections that do
not appear either.
But, as pertains to our immediate problem, we find no St. John, no Peverell, no
Painell, no Planches, no Ros, no Wykes, etc., including witnesses. But, given
the names that do appear in it, and those that do not, that does not seem so
surprisiing.
Paul
Chris Phillips
has already posted all the directly relevant material, but there was one
detail which I don't think has been posted, and gave me pause for thought.
Vol. 4, p. 176 treats a manor of Hampnet or Westhampnett held by a Paynel
family. This is in the same parish as the St John manor of Woodcote, which
as Paul has mentioned was granted by William de St John to Geoffrey Peverel
for life in about 1225.
VCH views these Paynels as possibly descended from "Nicholas" Paynel whose
daughter Godeheude married William de St John ("Nicholas" apparently being
VCH's interpretation of "N." in the manuscript, which others interpret as
"Anon").
It's particularly interesting that these Paynels were tenants of the St
Johns - a William Paynel who died in 1316 held the manor of John de St John
as 1/20 of a knight's fee.
Chris Phillips
Linda Jack
I don't know if this is the same family, but Michael M. Sheehan (The
Will in Medieval England, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies , 1963, Appendix A, p. 309) has a will of a John St. John (d.
1231) published in ed. Salter, Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, I, 135-136. I
have not seen the will, but perhaps there is some information that might
be useful.
Best, Linda
Reedpcgen
>1231)
As per Rosie's post, this family has Roger de St. John, heir of his brother
Thomas (d. by 1130) in Normandy (with another brother named John, heir in
England).
Roger married Cicely de Hay, who brough the Honor of Halnaker (Sussex), and was
granted the manor of Compton for life. She was mother of William de St. John
(who married Olive and Godeheut), Robert (who married Olive), and Muriel de St.
John, who married Reynold de Orval/Auraville.
Mabel de Orval died before her uncle Robert de St. John, but brought to her
husband Adam de Port, lord of the barony of Basing (Hants.), the St. John
inheritance, including Halnaker. After her death, Adam married the Countess
Sybil, but his son and heir, William de St. John, was by his first wife Mabel.
This younger Willioan is the one who married the Godeheut we have been
discussing. His father Adam died in 1213, he died about 1241, and his eldest
surviving son and heir Robert died in 1269.
If I can, I'll try to check the will tomorrow. I've come down with a head
cold, which I hope will pass very quickly <sniffle>.
Paul
Rosie Bevan
I've just looked up Clark's 'English Register of Oseney Abbey Written About
1460", and the John de St John in question (d. 1230) is covered in CP XI
p.347. About 1190 John's father, Roger, gave Oseney the various lands and
the church of Steeple Barton, of which Roger's son, William, was priest.
This John de St John, was first cousin, once removed of William I de St John
married to the elder Godeheut, being son of Roger, son of John, younger
brother of Roger, father of William, Robert and Muriel.
I hope you can follow this.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Chris Phillips
Now I think about it, I think whatever I've seen on Flamstead Priory has
emphasised how small and poor the house was, so I suppose that goes hand in
hand with few records of benefactions.
However, while browsing today I did turn up one useful reference in Emma
Mason's edition of "The Beauchamp Cartulary Charters 1100-1268" (Pipe Roll
Society, new series vol. 43, 1980).
Her charter no 370 (p. 210) is an acknowledgment by Alette, prioress of St
Giles of Woodchurch (i.e. Flamstead, Herts), to the nunnery's patron and
founder, Roger de Tosny (II), that his assent is necessary before the
convent becomes subject to any other house; before the number of nuns is
increased beyond 13, and before any prioress is elected.
The witnesses are:
"Matheo de Tervill', Gaufrido Pevrell', Johanne de Chare, Roberto de
Buisson', Stephano capellano, Henrico de Bona Villa, Johanne Chevron',
Johanne de Ponte Arch', et Willelmo presbitero de Bosc, Rogero filio Bertyni
et multis aliis".
So this is another indication of a connection between Geoffrey Peverel, the
Tonys and Flamstead Priory (where Godeheut de St John later became a nun).
Another useful aspect is that the description of Roger makes it absolutely
clear that the founder is the one who died ?1208/9, as he is described as
"son of Margaret" - "domino nostro Rpgerio de Toenio, filio Margarete,
nostro patrono, et loci illius fundatori".(In Dugdale's account, Monasticon
iv 299, 300, he quotes Tanner as saying the priory was founded in the reign
of Stephen, but Clutterbuck as giving the first charter in the chrtulary by
a Roger de Tony who mentions his wife Constance, and in a subsequent deed is
said to be the son of Margaret. Dugdale seems hopelessly confused about the
Tony genealogy, though.)
Mason dates this to 1162x1209, but Roger is known to have been a young child
when his father died c. 1162, so this and the other dates where Geoffrey
appears probably point towards the end of this period.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> I am not sure why Lucy is supposed to be a St John either, and think this
> debate may have come come about over 'same name' confusion with the
William
> de Ros of Kent. (I wonder if in fact he was of Kendal rather than Kent.).
> Perhaps Douglas would like to post his evidence as he intended.
John sent me the references for the statement that Lucy, the wife of William
de Ros of Helmsley, was a daughter of William de St John, as he was unable
to follow them up at the Library of Congress.
Apparently, it was Paget who drew the conclusion that Lucy was a St John, in
his "Baronage" (473: 3-4), citing "Cl 18 Hen. 3 m 30; Mon. Ang. I 728b n
10".
I was able to find the Close Rolls reference without any problem, though -
as I had feared - the reference to the "Monasticon" must be to a different
edition from the Caley one on the open shelves at the British Library, as
the page given doesn't exist in the latter.
The Close Roll entry is on pp. 370, 371 of the Calendar of Close Rolls,
1231-1234 (18 Henry III, m. 30), and runs:
"Pro Willelmo de Sancto Johanne. - Rex Willelmo de Haverull', custodi
archiepiscopatus Cantuarensis, salutem. Sciatis quod perdonavimus dilecto et
fideli nostro Willelmo de Sancto Johanne quadraginta solidos quos ab eo
exigitis, eo quod non venit nobiscum in servicium nostrum ad partes Wallie.
Perdonavimus etiam Willelmo de Ros, qui filiam predicti Willelmi duxit in
uxorem, quadraginta solidos quos ab eo exigitis pro eodem. Et ideo vobis
mandamus quod occasione predicta ipsos Willelmum et Willelmum non
distringas, quia volumus ipsos de predictis denariis esse quietos, eo quod
fuerunt tempore predicto per preceptum nostrum ad maritimam custodiendam.
Teste rege apud Wyntoniam, xxiiij. die Januarii, anno xviij. Per P. de
Rivall'."
[24 January 1233/4]
The king is notifying William de Haverull, guardian of the archbishopric of
Canterbury, that he has pardoned William de Saint John 40s which he [the
guardian] requires of him, beacuse he did not come with the king in his
service to the Welsh parts. He has also pardoned William de Ros, who has
married the daughter of the aforesaid William, 40s which [the guardian]
requires of him for the same [reason]. They are not to be distrained because
the king wishes them to be quit of the said sums, because at the time they
were guarding the coast by the king's orders.
The daughter is unnamed, and William de Ros is identified only by his name.
So in the light of the information Rosie has posted, it looks as though
Paget has slipped up in supposing that this relates to William de Ros of
Helmsley and his wife Lucy. (Even if it had been the right William de Ros, I
don't see that it would be safe to assume that it referred to his known wife
Lucy.)
It's difficult to tell what the Monasticon reference is, unless someone
knows which edition Paget used. It may be the one referred to by CP, but if
so it's puzzling, as this gives a different identification of Lucy.
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>"Matheo de Tervill', Gaufrido Pevrell'
That is quite interesting, Chris. I should have looked at that source.
Dr. Butterill has an article in _Hertfordshire's Past_ in which she discusses
who the founder is. She was nice enough to send a copy, so I'll read it and
explain her conclusion a little later.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>It's difficult to tell what the Monasticon reference is, unless someone
>knows which edition Paget used. It may be the one referred to by CP, but if
>so it's puzzling, as this gives a different identification of Lucy.
>
The British Library shows:
[7] Monasticon Anglicanum sive Pandectæ Cœnobiorum, Benedictinorum
Cluniacensium, Cisterciensium, Carthusianorum; a primordiis ad eorum usque
dissolutionem. Per R. D. [and] G. D. (???p??a??? J. Marshami - Volumen Tertium
et ultimum: Additamenta ... continens ... per W. Dugdale.)
DODSWORTH. Roger. and DUGDALE (Sir William)
3 vol. Londoni, 1655-73. fol.
[8] Monasticon Anglicanum, etc. Editio secunda auctior et emendatior. Cum
altero indice.
DODSWORTH. Roger. and DUGDALE (Sir William)
3 vol. Londini, 1682, 1661, 1673. fol.
[10] Monasticon Anglicanum: or, the history of the ancient abbies, and other
monasteries, hospitals, cathedral and collegiate churches in England and Wales.
... Collected and published in Latin by Sir W. D. [and R. Dodsworth,] and now
epitomised in English [by J. W., i.e. J. Wright].
DUGDALE. Sir. William
London, 1693. fol.
All these should be in Early English Books [i.e., books published before 1700],
so will be easy enough to check at the University library (which subscribes
online), but I won't be able to go today.
The edition I might not have access to is,
[9] Monasticon Anglicanum: or, the history of the ancient abbies, and other
monasteries, hospitals, cathedral and collegiate churches in England and Wales.
... Collected and published in Latin by Sir W. D. [and R. Dodsworth,] and now
epitomised in English [by J. W., i.e. J. Wright].
[Another edition.]. [Translated and abridged by J. Stevens?] To which are now
added, exact catalogues of the bishops of the several dioceses, to the year
1717.
DUGDALE. Sir. William
London, 1718. fol.
The reference, Mon. Ang. [vol.] I [page] 728b n[ote] 10, ought to be easy
enough to check against the pagination of those sources. I'd think, however,
that it would either be a reference to his abstract o fthe Stem. Fund. of the
Boxgrove cartulary or a similar account of the Rose family.
Many universities subscribe to the online data base (and many other useful
sources) and university students can even check frm their home computers by
connecting to the university system through their ID and library catalogue, but
I'm not furthering my education at this moment. ; )
Paul
Chris Phillips
> The reference, Mon. Ang. [vol.] I [page] 728b n[ote] 10, ought to be easy
> enough to check against the pagination of those sources. I'd think,
however,
> that it would either be a reference to his abstract o fthe Stem. Fund. of
the
> Boxgrove cartulary or a similar account of the Rose family.
>
> Many universities subscribe to the online data base (and many other useful
> sources) and university students can even check frm their home computers
by
> connecting to the university system through their ID and library
catalogue, but
> I'm not furthering my education at this moment. ; )
That sounds very useful.
Perhaps Paget was being a sound historian in referring back to the original
edition instead of the Record Commission's revision. But I do wonder a bit
about his habit of referring to the chancery rolls by regnal year and
membrane number, rather than the published editions. Perhaps he always went
back to the original manuscripts, but I wonder...
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
Though there is no entry in the witness lists for Flamstead under Peverell,
there are two entries for Geoffrey, referring to page 33:
Galfridi puerella ... 33
Gauf' peurella ... 33
I don't have a copy of the photostat of the original, so I guess we'll have to
wait until next week to find out what the original says.
Paul
Rosie Bevan
Many thanks to you and John for chasing up the reference and clarifying the
problem of Lucy's identity. I am surprised that Paget fell foul of the 'same
name' error considering how many other de Ros families were extant at that
time (at least four or five).
It might be useful to record here what Keats-Rohan says about the de Ros of
Kent family to flesh out details of this de St John connection.
DD p.671 de Ros, Gaufrid II
"Son of Geoffrey I de Ros of Kent, for whose land he accounted in 1129/30.
in 1166 he held 2 fees of Henry fitz Gerold as of the honour of Eudo
dapifer. He was succeeded by a son William. Both were benefactors of the
nunnery on the Isle of Sheppey, where Geoffrey's daughter was a nun (Cal.
Chart. R. iv 112, 114, R.Chart., 148b). In 1242 William III de Ros had been
succeeded by Richard, probably his brother, who was succeeded by his sisters
by February 1246. These were also heirs of Sibilla de Ros, a tenant of the
Arsic barony in 1135 and 1166. She is likely to have been a member of the
Arsic family and wife of Geoffrey II de Ros. Cf. Farrer, HKF iii 194,
Sanders, 105"
and
DD p.672 de Ros, Willelm
"Successor of Geoffrey II de Rots [sic] in the barony of Ros, Kent, by 1166
(Sanders, 106). He died in 1190, leaving a son William, who came of age in
1211 and d.1223"
As noted above, this family is covered in Sanders p. 105/6 (under Barony of
Ros, consisting of 7 knights' fees), which says that Richard de Ros' sisters
and heirs were Maud, wife of Geoffrey de Percy, who died s.p., leaving her
sister Lora, wife of Gilbert de Kirkeby, and their issue as successors to
the barony.
The fact that this family succeeded to Ansketil de Ros' possession of North
Cray, held by Godeheut in dower, as per PRO C 146/438, would be an
indicator that he and the Domesday Geoffrey I de Ros were related. DP 227
records that their name derived from Rots, Cavados, arr.Caen,
cant.Tilly-sur-Seulles.
Cheers
Rosie
> It's difficult to tell what the Monasticon reference is, unless someone
> knows which edition Paget used. It may be the one referred to by CP, but
if
> so it's puzzling, as this gives a different identification of Lucy.
>
> Chris Phillips
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Linda Jack
This is record no. 12 on pages 31-33. The translated portion says:
"Ralph, son of Roger de Tony confirms to God, St. Giles church of
Woodchurch of Flamstead, and the nuns namely the prioress and convent
all the lands and possessions o his fief in the village of Flamstead
given by his ancestors. The details are enumerated. (no rubrics)'"
I can transcribe this record (about 2 1/2 pages) but at the end of the
entry is says the following. "A new hand begins here on this recto
side. It begins with seven witness names that may or may not belong to
the previous charter as the previous closes with "et multis alliis.
Theo de Beruitt, Gauf' peurella, Johanne de carre Johanne. Chevron.
Johanne de pont' arche, / Stephano Capellano. Henrico de Bona Villa. et
aliis." Let me know if you want the complete entry.
Record 13: "Roger de Tony gives to God, the church of St. Giles
Woodchurch of Flamstead, and the nuns all the great assart up to the
home of John Chevron. One of the witnesses is Lord Baldwin de Tony son
of Roger (II) married to Ida, brother of Ralph V married to Margaret,
and uncle of Ralph III."
Alia Rogerus Toenyo/ Sciant tam presentes quam futuri quod ego Rogerus
de Thoeny dedi et concessi et hac mea pre/senti carta confirmavi Deo et
Ecclesie Sancti Egidy de la Wodecherche de Flamstede / et
sanctimonialibus ibidem deo servientibus totum magnum essartum annum
Januyira suam / versus domum Johannis Chevron. Herendum et tenedum de
me et heredibus meis quiete et pa/cifice in perpetuam elemosinam, His
testibus. Domino Baudwino de Toenio. Henrici / Luuet. Galfridi
puerella et aliis." p. 33
Linda
X-Message: #6
Date: 16 Aug 2003 21:27:34 GMT
From: (Reedpcgen)
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <20030816172734...@mb-m28.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
My head cold must have dulled my brain.
Chris Phillips
Linda Jack wrote:
> This is record no. 12 on pages 31-33. The translated portion says:
> "Ralph, son of Roger de Tony confirms to God, St. Giles church of
> Woodchurch of Flamstead, and the nuns namely the prioress and convent
> all the lands and possessions o his fief in the village of Flamstead
> given by his ancestors. The details are enumerated. (no rubrics)'"
>
> I can transcribe this record (about 2 1/2 pages) but at the end of the
> entry is says the following. "A new hand begins here on this recto
> side. It begins with seven witness names that may or may not belong to
> the previous charter as the previous closes with "et multis alliis.
> Theo de Beruitt, Gauf' peurella, Johanne de carre Johanne. Chevron.
> Johanne de pont' arche, / Stephano Capellano. Henrico de Bona Villa. et
> aliis." Let me know if you want the complete entry.
Thanks for those interesting extracts.
These witnesses look like the same ones from the charter in the Beauchamp
cartulary, though with some differences of transcription, and in a different
order.
> Record 13: "Roger de Tony gives to God, the church of St. Giles
> Woodchurch of Flamstead, and the nuns all the great assart up to the
> home of John Chevron. One of the witnesses is Lord Baldwin de Tony son
> of Roger (II) married to Ida, brother of Ralph V married to Margaret,
> and uncle of Ralph III."
>
> Alia Rogerus Toenyo/ Sciant tam presentes quam futuri quod ego Rogerus
> de Thoeny dedi et concessi et hac mea pre/senti carta confirmavi Deo et
> Ecclesie Sancti Egidy de la Wodecherche de Flamstede / et
> sanctimonialibus ibidem deo servientibus totum magnum essartum annum
> Januyira suam / versus domum Johannis Chevron. Herendum et tenedum de
> me et heredibus meis quiete et pa/cifice in perpetuam elemosinam, His
> testibus. Domino Baudwino de Toenio. Henrici / Luuet. Galfridi
> puerella et aliis." p. 33
I wonder if this identification of Baldwin is correct. Complete Peerage
(vol. xii/1, p. 764, note h) says that Baldwin the son of Roger and Ida was
brought up and knighted by his uncle Count Baldwin, settled in Hainault and
died in 1170. Pre-1170 is much earlier than I'd expect to see Geoffrey
Peverel, at least if it's the same one who was living into the 1220s, and
it's doubtful whether Roger de Tony would be of age by 1170, as he's
described as "parvulo filio" in 1162.
CP does note a different Baldwin de Toeni, son of Alda and benefactor of
Dodnash Priory. He and his mother were living after Michaelmas 1201, and
this would fit the other dated occurrences of Geoffrey Peverel.
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
the founder of the nunnery. I'll transcribe the two key paragraphs, noting
that the pivotal hinge in dating the foundation is a Papal bull that Walther
[sp?] Holtzmann dated 20 May 1163 [those volumes (Papsturkunden, 1952) have
gone back to high density storage at the university, so are not readily
available], which is a confirmation by Pope Alexander III (he had his hand in
much) to the Prioress Matilda, who had succeeded the pervious year in 1162,
possibly around the time of the death of Ralph who married Margaret (leaving a
minor son, which might be justification for her attempting to get Papal
approval, in the face of the heir falling into the king's hands):.
From her analysis, in _Hertfordshire's Past_, no. 27 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 24-5:
"On first glance the Flamstead Cartulary does seem to imply that the Roger ...
who married Constance was the founder. However, a closer reading of the
Flamstead Cartulary suggests a different conclusion. The charter referenced to
as charter 5 was issued by Roger ... married to Constance, and bestows land and
provisions upon the convent, and records the foundation charter conditions.
Yet a number of elements indicate that this document is not the foundation
charter.
"Firstly, it is labeled 'carta prima' by one of the scribes, whose script has
been designed as hand 'G'. This is similar to a marginal note in folio 14v
beside item 52, and therefore must be a hand of later date, not contemporary
with the original charter's recording.
"It is clearly a later insertion by a scribe who thought he was labelling the
foundation charter copy. Secondly, the same charter is addressed to the 'nuns
of the Church of St. Giles', a style which appears to preclude the possibility
that the priory was founded with this particular instrument. It is doubtful
that the church was built before the convent was founded. The like conditions
are also repeated in a later charter (8) by Roger ... dated 1204. It is a
reasonable assumption to make, therefore, that he is simply restating in
charter 5 the original agreement made at the priory's beginning."
[Here I would merely observe that it was not infrequent that a house's
cartulary was compiled many years after its foundation, when it became
necessary to defend grants, or be certain possessions could be accounted for.
This led sometimes to forgery. It was not uncommon for some of the original
charters to be missing, and the remaining charters compiled together as if they
were a coherent and complete entity.]
"A scrutiny of the next charter (6), also issued by Roger..., marked 'secundi
donatoris', seems to bear this assumption out. Even considering the
possibility that the copyist had charters 5, 6, 7, 8, out of order - since only
one bears a date - the words of this charter are important in supporting the
idea that Roger...'s ancestor founded the priory. Besides money, land, rights
of common pasture, and pannage for their pigs, the charter gives to the nuns in
absolute, perpetual, free, and undisturbed alms the place called Woodchurch,
the close contained among their hedges and ditches, the land Hydemari, and the
assart [a piece of woodland made arable by grubbing up the trees and
undergrowth] of "Baldwin 'quod eis dedit Rogerus de Tonui _avus meus_...'.
"This makes it clear that the nuns had been given their initial gift by his
grandfather, Roger II [III], married to Ida, who can therefore be accepted as
the founder of St. Giles.
"However, if there was a previous charter issued by Roger II [III], it still
was not recorded in the Cartulary; but the foundation conditions and the lands
which were bestowed were restated twice, and the nuns could still use the
Cartulary when needed as proof of their rights to, and possession of, the
convent and its benefits."
Her conclusion, which I tend to agree with, is that Roger de Toeni who married
Ida of Hainault founded the place. She thinks most likely in the turbulent
reign of Stephen (1135-1154), which would make sense, as he was born about
1104, but did not have family until a bit later than the earliest possible
period.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>Dodnash Priory. He and his mother were living after Michaelmas 1201, and
>this would fit the other dated occurrences of Geoffrey Peverel.
Yes, initially I wondered if nos. 12 and 13 involved Ralph (born 1189/90), son
of Roger who married Constance. The witnesses who occur with Geoffrey Peverel
are not the ones who occur frequently with him in the St. John charters
(Boxgrove, Chichester, etc.).
The other possibility is that the charters were altered when recorded into the
cartulary (I've seen no evidence of an earlier Geoffrey Peverel - nor does one
appear in DD), and thought it most likely our Geoffrey was connected with the
Peverel family of Sussex.
Paul
Chris Phillips
Paul Reed wrote:
> Thank you, Linda. This is partly related to what Dr. Butterill concludes
about
> the founder of the nunnery. I'll transcribe the two key paragraphs,
noting
> that the pivotal hinge in dating the foundation is a Papal bull that
Walther
> [sp?] Holtzmann dated 20 May 1163 [those volumes (Papsturkunden, 1952)
have
> gone back to high density storage at the university, so are not readily
> available], which is a confirmation by Pope Alexander III (he had his hand
in
> much) to the Prioress Matilda, who had succeeded the pervious year in
1162,
> possibly around the time of the death of Ralph who married Margaret
(leaving a
> minor son, which might be justification for her attempting to get Papal
> approval, in the face of the heir falling into the king's hands):.
Just as one aspect of this problem seems to become clear, it throws up
another puzzle!
The description of Roger, son of Margaret, as the priory's founder in the
Beauchamp cartulary seems irreconcilable with a papal bull implying it
existed as early as 1162 (and with the apparent reference to a gift by
Roger's grandfather).
It looks as though something must be wrong with the evidence on one side or
the other, but I wouldn't like to guess quite what. I suppose one
possibility could be that the phrase describing Roger in the Beauchamp
cartulary has been mistranscribed, or the abbreviations wrongly extended. I
was a bit puzzled why Roger should be identified with reference to his
mother at all (and according to Monasticon this is also the case in one of
the Flamstead cartulary charters). It couldn't be, could it, that it was
actually Margaret who was the founder? But that seems to involve fairly
major errors of transcription, and would still be at odds with the apparent
reference to a gift by Roger's grandfather.
I feel I'm clutching at straws here, but it's difficult to escape the
blatant contradiction, unless the charter is an out-and-out forgery. Or, on
the other hand, unless the papal bull has been misdated or misattributed, or
something.
Of course, it would be interesting to know Dr Butterill's view of the item
in the Beauchamp cartulary, if she were able to comment on it.
Chris Phillips
J.C.B.Sharp
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote:
<snip>
> It's difficult to tell what the Monasticon reference is, unless someone
> knows which edition Paget used. It may be the one referred to by CP,
> but if
> so it's puzzling, as this gives a different identification of Lucy.
>
> Chris Phillips
In the 1682 reprint of the first edition this page occurs in the section
on Rievaulx where there is a sixteenth century history of the lords of
Roos. The same is printed in the Chartulary of Rievaulx, Surtees Society
lxxxiii 359-62.
It says that the wife of William was named Lucy but adds no more about
her.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net
Reedpcgen
greatest expert on them, and created the most extensive collections on a well
organized basis for each country/region. It is from his manuscript notes left
at his death that those invaluable entries for England are culled.
In addition, the name of the Prioress Matilda sets a certain time frame, as she
did not succeed until 1162, but there was a prioress before her, so it could
not be the foundation. The death of Ralph de Toeni in 1162 and minority of his
heir would also provide a motive for her to want to receive Papal authority for
her positionand rights.
From this I would conclude that the foundation had to predate 1162, in any
case.
Margaret de Beaumont was not left a widow until 1162, and her son Roger was not
born until around 1155.
It may be that whoever recorded the charter concerning Roger, son of Margaret,
confused him with the Roger who was actually his grandfather.
The grandfather Roger was born about 1104, and lived until the period 1157-62.
His uncle Roger died v.p. unmarried, and the next previous Roger was buried at
Conches 1038/9, before the invasion and possession of the lands in England.
If the founder was a Roger, it must be Roger who married Ida of Hainault.
Also, given that he had succeeded to the inheritance about 1126, and held it
until about 1157-62, and the nunnery was certainly founded by 1162, he would
seem the prime candidate.
We have seen apparently two instances of the original foundation charter having
all its terms reissued in charters by later heirs, and lacking the real
original foundation charter, those charters by their very nature might mislead
one into thinking they were foundation charters, except for internal evidence
which is inconsistent with that conclusion.
The comforting point is that Roger, son of Margaret, was not born until about
1155, so would not succeed until about 1175, and died 1208/9. That is a period
we could be comfortable with seeing Geoffrey Peverel as a witness.
It may be that whoever compiled the initial cartulary or later scribes who made
marginal notations were in error in their understanding and observations
As to charters 12 and 13, if the Ralph, son of Roger involved was Ralph, born
1189/90, we would have no chronological difficulty. The difficulty is caused
by the interpretation of the identity of Domino Baudwino de Toenio. The
Baldwin who was son of Roger and Ida (as Chris observed) was supposed to have
been raised and lived in the Low Countries, and died in 1170.
Whereas we have Baldwin, son and heir of Roger, second son of Roger and Ida,
born about 1170, marrying a Bardulf heiress, holding lands in England, and
dying in 1216. As he was lord of substantial holdings in England (including
Holkham, Norfolk, Bergholt, Suffolk, Garsington, Oxford, and Whittlesford,
Cambs.), he would seem a better candidate, and the chronological difficulty
would be resolved.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>on Rievaulx where there is a sixteenth century history of the lords of
>Roos. The same is printed in the Chartulary of Rievaulx, Surtees Society
>lxxxiii 359-62.
>
>It says that the wife of William was named Lucy but adds no more about
>her.
>
>J.C.B.Sharp
>London
>jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net
>
>
Thank you, John. That accounts for the sources listed by Paget. I guess we
will have to await Doug's return to see if he has further evidence or reason
for this identification, as he did not mention Paget (which I could have easily
checked) before he left.
Paul
Reedpcgen
from the Beauchamp Cartulary and no. 12 from the Flamstead cartulary.
Beauchamp Cartulary:
"Matheo de Tervill', Gaufrido Pevrell', Johanne de Chare, Roberto de Buisson',
Stephano capellano, Henrico de Bona Villa, Johanne Chevron',
Johanne de Ponte Arch', et Willelmo presbitero de Bosc, Rogero filio Bertyni et
multis aliis".
Flamstead Cartulary, no. 12:
"et multis alliis. Theo de Beruitt, Gauf' peurella, Johanne de carre Johanne.
Chevron. Johanne de pont' arche, / Stephano Capellano. Henrico de Bona Villa.
et
aliis."
[I wonder of Matheo de Tervill' is correct, and Theo de Beruitt an error.]
Also note that charter 12 and 13 both mention John Chevron. Though the
duplicate witness list on charter 12, "A new hand begins here on this recto"
may not pertain to it, John Chevron would seem to date all three charters to
the same period.
Paul
Reedpcgen
could be misdated? It was dated to 1162, Roger de Toeni, but if it actually
pertains to Roger, son of Ralph,.... (more straws)
I don't have copies here.
Paul
Reedpcgen
charter 6, issued by Roger de Toeni, marked "secondi donatoris." It included
money, lands, etc., including the assart of Baldwin "quod eis dedit Rogerus de
Tonio avus meus...." If charter no. 6 was issued by Roger, son of Margaret,
and husband of Constance, this presents evidence that his grandfather Roger,
husband of Ida, made a donation, and thus that it existed as an antity in his
time.
I don't have a copy of this charter, so do not know who is in the witness list,
or if other internal evidence helps us determine which Roger is involved in no.
6.
Roger, son of Matilda, and husband of Constance, was grandfather of a Roger who
succeeded 1239 until his death in 1264 (he is the last of the Rogers).
I also wondered if the charter in teh Beauchamp Cartulary which calls Roger,
son of Matilda, the founder, could be referring to a second foundation?
Paul
Linda Jack
No. 370 (p. 210) regarding prioress Alette in the Beauchamp Cartulary is
dated 1162 X 1209.
Linda
X-Message: #15
Date: 17 Aug 2003 23:17:43 GMT
From: reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen)
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <20030817191743...@mb-m01.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Just an afterthought, I wonder if the charter concerning the Prioress
Reedpcgen
>
>No. 370 (p. 210) regarding prioress Alette in the Beauchamp Cartulary is
>dated 1162 X 1209.
>
>Linda
>
That would place it during the period of Roger, son of Margaret (whose father
died in 1162, and whose own death did not occur until 1208 or 1209), rather
than in the period of his grandfather Roger who married Ida.
I guess I was unsure because some have attributed it to the earlier Roger. We
know Margaret was prioress in 1163. A sentence in Dr. Butterill's paper on the
foundation reads,
"In the previous year (1162) her predecessor, prioress Aelet, had written to
"Roger de Tony" - thought by some to be the nunnery's first patron and founder
Roger [d. 1209] - agreeing to the conditions of its foundation. Since neither
the date nor the place of Roger's [husband of Ida] demise is known, he could
have died without Prioress Aelet's knowledge shortly before her letter was
penned [here she references only _Beauchamp Cartulary_ 370].
"He was certainly alive after March of 1157, since he received land grants at
that time from Henry III, but predeceased his son Ralph V who died sometime in
1162. The "Roger de Tony" addressed in Prioress Aelet's letter must refer to
Roger [husband of Ida] for she would hardly have written to the child Roger ...
about the complex concerns of the priory."
"Gibbs [citing here to CP] has postulated that this same Roger ..., who as an
adult marrie constance, was the founder. But his conclusion arises from a
misunderstanding of Aelet's letter contained in the Beauchamp Cartulary, and
perhaps from the first folios of the Flamstead Cartulary, although there is no
evidence that he actually read these documents."
At that point occurs in her paper the paragraphs I had already posted. (I
would comment that Gibbs, given his record, certainly must have at least
checked Dugdale.)
It would appear that she is dating the charter from the Beauchamp Cartulary we
have discussed to 1162, but if this is the charter which refers to his mother
Margaret, that cannot be, as the mother of Roger, husband of Ida (died 1157-62)
was Alice, daughter of Earl Waltheof and Judith of Lens. Her son Roger (husband
of Ida) was certainly the heir, and the land she brought as her marriage
portion was eventually settled on his second son (her grandson) Roger, husband
of Aude de Chaumont.
I don't know how she can get around the statement in th echarter naming
Margaret, mother of the Roger in question (unless I am somehow misreading the
abstracts that have been posted).
I guess I'll have to try to look at that charter for myself, though I trust the
parts Chris abstracted and posted!
Paul
Cristopher Nash
>many other de Ros families were extant at that time (at least four or five).
[SNIP]
>DP 227 records that their name derived from Rots, Cavados, arr.Caen,
>cant.Tilly-sur-Seulles.
Yes, just to dodge future confusion: per CP (and recited verbatim in
DD, p. 671) of Petrus/Piers/Peter de Ros -- d. by 1129/30 and anc. of
the de Ros line ultimately of Helmsley -- "probably derived his name
from Ros in Holderness". (This placename's origin -- Roos/Ros -- is
British, not Norman, deriving evidently from a local topographical
feature.)
Cris
--
Reedpcgen
have been a second foundation. The first foundation would be by Roger de Toeni
(husband of Ida of Hainault) before his death in 1162. That would make sense,
as the family was of such a high position in England and Normandy that one
would expect they would attempt some foundation at that period (it was a status
thing, aside from spiritual).
What I perceive to be a second foundation seems to have taken place when Roger
de Toeni, son of Margaret was well established (1185-1205). I have by no means
done an exhaustive comparison of witnesses, but did note the following.
Beauchamp Cartulary no. 367 (pp. 208-9) is a long agreement between Roger de
Toeni and Peter de Cornwall, Prior of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, London, concerning
land in Walthamstow. It is dated to
Summer 1206.
He styles himself "Rogerum de Thon', filium Margerie [sic, Margaret] de Thon.",
and the land was granted in free alms for his soul, that of his wife Constance
["et anima C. uxoris sue"] and all his ancestors and successors. The witness
list is large, and includes
Roberto de Buisson
Galfrido Wastmell
Rogero Bretyn
Willelmo de la Ferrer'
and quite a few others.
Galfrido Wastmell, Willelmo de la Ferere and others witnesses a quitclaim of
William fitz Wyard to Roger de Toeny of all his lands in Walthamstow [charter
366, p. 207]. Witnesses include
Bawdewino de Thon', Johanne de Charr', Roberto de Bouch', Galfrido Wastmell',
Stephano capellano, Henrico de Bona Villa, Johanne Chevron, Willelmo de la
Ferere, Rogero clerico de Aken[y] and others.
Then we have charter 370 [pp. 210-11], the acknowledgment by Alette, Prioress
of St. Giles of Woodchurch [Flamstead] to Roger de Toeny that his assent is
necessary if the number of nuns in increased beyond 13, and BEFORE any prioress
is elected. This includes the quote:
"concessimus domino nostro Rogero de Toenio, filio Margarete, nostro patrono,
et loci illius fundatori".
Witnesses include Gaufrido Pevrell', Johanne de Chare [also witnessed 366],
Roberto de Buisson' [ALSO CHARTER 367], Stephano capellano [also charter 366],
Henrico de Bona Villa [also in 366], Johanne Chevron' [also in 366], Rogero
filio Bertyni [ALSO IN CHARTER 367], and others.
If he is the same man, Johanne de Cheveron' lived long enough to witness the
1236 marriage agreement between Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, and Ralf
de Toeny, for a marriage between his daughter Alice and Roger, Ralf's eldest
son (or if Roger die under age, to the next brother Ralf), or to the next
sister if Alice dies under age.
The above witnesses and what we know of their chronology firmly place charters
367 and 370 in the period about 1190-1208/9, and since 367 is dated to 1206,
the later part of that period makes the most sense. It clearly concerns Roger
(died 1208/9), husband of Constance and son of Ralph (died 1162) by his wife
Margaret de Beaumont.
As it is clear the house existed earlier (by 1163) this must be a second
foundation, which would explain why this Roger's consent was necessary before
nuns were added beyond the number of 13 (lucky number) or a new prioress
elected.
The important marriage portion of Alice, daughter of Waltheof, Earl of
Northumberland by his wife Judith of Lens came into the Toeni family and passed
through Roger (husband of Ida) to his second son Roger (husband of Aude de
Chaumont). Roger and Aude were parents of Baldwin de Toeni (aged 15 in 1185,
died 1216, sg. de Acquigny), and his son was Roger de Akeny [i.e., de Acquigny,
to distinguish him from Roger, husband of Constance], which Roger de Akeny
witnessed charter 368.
Paul
Reedpcgen
me (well, he said, 'Hello, Paul') at the FHL (he's still working on the Clare
family in his manuscript).
I said I would like to know about Lucy. He replied, 'What do you want to
know?' I said I'd like to know if he had any other source for her existence
than Paget.
Doug replied that Chris had already posted the information (he said nothing
about John Sharp's post). I replied that I thought he (Doug) should post to
the group that he had no other source, and that the identification of Lucy was
wrong, so that people would not be misled when checking the archives.
Doug replied that he would make no such post, "The error is Chris's, not mine."
[!]
Doug went on to say he sent the information to Chris, Chris asked John
Ravilious [sic, I thought it was the other way round], and Chris made the post.
I replied that I would tell Chris what he said, and he replied, "Fine."
(I'm a bit stunned, but it seems similar to Doug's telling Clifford Stott that
his manuscript was at the printer, but delays at the printer was keeping it
from going to press. When confronted with that statement.)
It was DOUG who sent the information that identified Lucy, wife of William de
Ros/Roos of Helmsley as Lucy de St. John, to John Ravilious, and apparently to
Chris, and DOUG who posted that he would post evidence concerning "Lucy de St.
John."
I personally think it is Doug's responsibility to retract the statement, but he
is unwilling. I cannot comprehend how he could state, "The error was Chris's,
not mine." [!]
The short of it is that Doug told me directly that he had no other evidence for
the connection between the families or existence of such a daughter.
William de St. John had no daughter named Lucy. No daughter of William de St.
John was married to William de Ros/Roos of Helmsley.
The information in this thread should reflect that fact.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
You did the right thing to clear up the record.
HE apparently doesn't give a damn.
His book was supposed to be published in MAY ---- so he said.
Piker!
He's had some folks' money for ---- what is it now --- two years or three?
And NO book....
Deus Vult.
"I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon
Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of
Wellington
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030820203111...@mb-m02.aol.com...
David Webb
file, I calculate 14 relationships between Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine. Has anyone got any more? Does anyone know if any of these
here have been disproved? DJW.
Fifth cousins once removed
William I Aquitaine
Adelaide
William II Aquitaine
Robert II France
William III Aquitaine
Adelaide
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Matilda
William VII Aquitaine
Henry I England
William VIII Aquitaine
Matilda
Eleanor
Henry II England
Sixth cousins
Berengar II of Italy
Rosala
Adalbert Italy
Baldwin IV Flanders
Otto William Burgundy
Baldwin V Flanders
Agnes
Matilda
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Henry I England
William VII Aquitaine
Matilda
William VIII Aquitaine
Henry II England
Eleanor
Sixth cousins once removed
Herbert II Vermandois
Robert Vermandois
Ledgard
Adela Meaux
Emma Blois
Fulk III Anjou
William III Aquitaine
Ermengarde
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Fulk IV Anjou
William VII Aquitaine
Fulk V Anjou
William VIII Aquitaine
Geoffrey V Anjou
Eleanor
Henry II England
Sixth cousins once removed
Rollo Normandy
William I Normandy
Gerloc
Richard I Normandy
William II Aquitaine
Richard II Normandy
William III Aquitaine
Robert I Normandy
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
William I England
William VII Aquitaine
Henry I England
William VIII Aquitaine
Matilda
Eleanor
Henry II England
Sixth cousins twice removed
Herbert II Vermandois
Robert Vermandois
Ledgard
Adela Meaux
Emma Blois
Ermengarde Anjou
William III Aquitaine
Judith Brittany
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Robert I Normandy
William VII Aquitaine
William I England
William VIII Aquitaine
Henry I England
Eleanor
Matilda
Henry II England
Sixth cousins twice removed
Herbert II Vermandois
Adela
Ledgard
Baldwin III Flanders
Emma Blois
Arnold II Flanders
William III Aquitaine
Baldwin IV Flanders
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Baldwin V Flanders
William VII Aquitaine
Matilda
William VIII Aquitaine
Henry I England
Eleanor
Matilda
Henry II England
Seventh cousins once removed
Herbert I Vermandois
Beatrix
Herbert II Vermandois
Hugh the Great France
Ledgard
Hugh Capet France
Emma Blois
Robert II France
William III Aquitaine
Adelaide
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Matilda
William VII Aquitaine
Henry I England
William VIII Aquitaine
Matilda
Eleanor
Henry II England
Seventh cousins twice removed
Herbert I Vermandois
Adela
Herbert II Vermandois
Conrad I Alsace
Ledgard
Herbert Kinziggau
Emma Blois
Ermentrude
William III Aquitaine
Ogive Luxemburg
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Baldwin V Flanders
William VII Aquitaine
Matilda
William VIII Aquitaine
Henry I England
Eleanor
Matilda
Henry II England
Ninth cousins once removed
Louis I France
Adelaide
Gisela
Robert I France
Berengar I Italy
Hugh the Great France
Gisela
Hugh Capet France
Berengar II Italy
Robert II France
Adalbert Italy
Adelaide
Otto William Burgundy
Matilda
Agnes
Henry I England
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Matilda
William VII Aquitaine
Henry II England
William VIII Aquitaine
Eleanor
Tenth cousins once removed
Louis I France
Charles II France
Gisela
Judith
Berengar I Italy
Baldwin II Flanders
Gisela
Arnold I Flanders
Berengar II Italy
Baldwin III Flanders
Adalbert Italy
Arnold II Flanders
Otto William Burgundy
Baldwin IV Flanders
Agnes
Baldwin V Flanders
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Matilda
William VII Aquitaine
Henry I England
William VIII Aquitaine
Matilda
Eleanor
Henry II England
Tenth cousins once removed
Louis I France
Charles II France
Gisela
Louis II France
Berengar I Italy
Ermentrud
Gisela
Kunegunde
Berengar II Italy
Siegfried Moselgau
Adalbert Italy
Frederick I Luxemburg
Otto William Burgundy
Ogive Luxemburg
Agnes
Baldwin V Flanders
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Matilda
William VII Aquitaine
Henry I England
William VIII Aquitaine
Matilda
Eleanor
Henry II England
Tenth cousins twice removed
Louis I France
Charles II France
Gisela
Louis II France
Berengar I Italy
Charles III France
Gisela
Ermentrude
Berengar II Italy
Gerberga
Adalbert Italy
Ermentrude
Otto William Burgundy
Ermentrude
Agnes
Ogive Luxemburg
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Baldwin V Flanders
William VII Aquitaine
Matilda
William VIII Aquitaine
Henry I England
Eleanor
Matilda
Henry II England
Eleventh cousins once removed
Guelph Bavaria
Conrad I Auxerre
Judith
Guelph I Argengau
Gisela
Adelaide
Berengar I Italy
Ermentrud
Gisela
Kunegunde
Berengar II Italy
Siegfried Moselgau
Adalbert Italy
Frederick I Luxemburg
Otto William Burgundy
Ogive Luxemburg
Agnes
Baldwin V Flanders
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Matilda
William VII Aquitaine
Henry I England
William VIII Aquitaine
Matilda
Eleanor
Henry II England
Eleventh cousins twice removed
Guelph Bavaria
Conrad I Auxerre
Judith
Guelph I Argengau
Gisela
Adelaide
Berengar I Italy
Charles III France
Gisela
Ermentrude
Berengar II Italy
Gerberga
Adalbert Italy
Ermentrude
Otto William Burgundy
Ermentrude
Agnes
Ogive Luxemburg
Guy Geoffrey William Aquitaine
Baldwin V Flanders
William VII Aquitaine
Matilda
William VIII Aquitaine
Henry I England
Eleanor
Matilda
Henry II England
Todd A. Farmerie
> I wonder if these table will come out correctly. They are in HTML.
They did not. USENET (soc.gen.medieval) and mailing lists
(GEN-MEDIEVAL) are, by there nature, plain text media, and as
such will not convey HTML correctly.
> Seventh cousins twice removed
>
>
> Herbert I Vermandois
>
>
> Adela Herbert II Vermandois
>
>
> Conrad I Alsace Ledgard
>
>
> Herbert Kinziggau Emma Blois
>
>
> Ermentrude William III Aquitaine
This descent is poorly documented. That Heribert of Kinzigau
descends from Heribert of Vermandois is speculation, and the
younger was named for the elder. That the daughter of Heribert
involved was named Adela is further speculation. The Conradins
have undergone significant revisions by recent authors, and there
is no consensus.
> Ninth cousins once removed
>
>
> Louis I France
>
>
> Adelaide Gisela
>
>
> Robert I France Berengar I Italy
>
>
> Hugh the Great France Gisela
Adele, mother of Robert I, is by ancient tradition daughter of
Louis, but this is based on late sources, and is poorly supported
(it seems likely to me that it is a 'legitimist' invention,
intended to justify Robert being king.
> Eleventh cousins once removed
>
>
> Guelph Bavaria
>
>
> Conrad I Auxerre Judith
>
>
> Guelph I Argengau Gisela
>
>
> Adelaide Berengar I Italy
>
>
> Ermentrud Gisela
>
>
> Kunegunde Berengar II Italy
>
>
> Siegfried Moselgau Adalbert Italy
>
The 'best' reconstruction of the parentage of Adelaide, wife of
Louis II (mother of Ermentrude and Charles) makes her daughter of
Count Palatine Adalhard.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
more.
Hans Vogels
Put your mouth where the money is and show us those 29 different relationships.
Hans Vogels
P.S. I don't care a twopenny for any excuse you might invent :-)
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<SjZ0b.110$FU4....@eagle.america.net>...
Leo van de Pas
Do you think 29 links is excessive? How many do you think there are? At the
moment, my guess is at least 154, and I haven't really tried very hard to
find them.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
David Webb
file on the relations between Eleanor and Henry at
http://www.korsholm.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/eleanor.htm so if anyone else
has any comments, please let me know. DJW
-----Original Message-----
From: ta...@dialup-208-157-46-91.mho.net
[mailto:ta...@dialup-208-157-46-91.mho.net] On Behalf Of Todd A. Farmerie
Sent: 21 August 2003 05:07
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II
D. Spencer Hines
seems to be 3rd Cousins ---- as both reportedly descend from Ermengarde
d'Anjou ---- but by different husbands.
Yes ---- I currently have 29 relationships between them, ranging from 3rd
cousins, to 12th cousins, once removed. I'll bet Leo has far more and perhaps
John Steele Gordon does too.
I have yet to fill in many of Henry's and Aliénor's ancestors since I've been
working on later periods. Perhaps I'll take it on as a winter project.
Leo's database is more complete.
David Webb
> The closest relationship between Henry II 'Curtmantle' and Aliénor
d'Aquitaine
> seems to be 3rd Cousins ---- as both reportedly descend from Ermengarde
> d'Anjou ---- but by different husbands.
What's the point of telling me that if you don't post the details? Do you
mean Eleanor got an annulment from her 4th cousin Louis VII on grounds of
consanguinity only to marry her 3rd cousin?
D. Spencer Hines
Some commercial concern?
I don't have any obligation to tell you anything....
Neither was I addressing you ---- so I sent a post to a newsgroup ---- not an
email to an individual.
Deus Vult.
"I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon
Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of
Wellington
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Webb" <djweb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yad1b.335$JY...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
[...]