Bastards of Henry I, part 4: probable, possible, etc.

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Nov 27, 2003, 11:18:16 PM11/27/03
to
See Part 1 for Introduction and Explanation.

Probable:

(1) NN, wife of Fergus of Galloway [T14].
This one has been discussed on the group so much that it seems likely
that some are tired of seeing it, but here is the basic outline
(again): Descendants of Fergus are mentioned on quite a few occasions
as relatives of various English monarchs (but never as relatives of
Scottish monarchs). Although the possibility that Fergus married a
member of the Scottish dynasty is consistent (barely) with the known
evidence, by far the best explanation of this evidence is the scenario
in which Fergus's wife was an illegitimate daughter of Henry I.
Although Fergus's wife is called "Elizabeth" in some secondary
sources, there is no known primary evidence to support that name.

Possible, but unlikely:

(2) Emma, m. Guy IV de Laval [T12].
[de Broussilon 79, Angot 292-4]
This case, which has been discussed in this group recently (to which
postings the reader is referred), depends on an epitaph calling her a
daughter of the king (of whom Henry I seems the only plausible choice
for chronological reasons): EMMA ANGLORUM REGIS FILIA DOMINAQUE
LAVALLENSIS. The case is complicated by the fact that Guy IV's son
Guy V was married to another Emma, daughter of earl Reginald of
Cornwall, and thus granddaughter of Henry I, suggesting that the
claimed parentage of Emma is a result of confusion.

Possible duplications:
While there seems to be no reason to doubt that the following two
notices involve well documented daughters of Henry, it does not seem
possible to determine, based on known evidence, whether or not they
were the same person(s) as daughters already appearing on the list,
or distinct from those already listed.

(3) NN, potential wife of William de Warenne [W12, T15]
[Letters of St. Anselm, iv, 84, in PL clix, 243]

(4) NN, potential wife of Hugh of Châteauheuf-en-Thymerais [T 15]
[Thompson, citing Ivo of Chartres, Epistola cclxi, RHF, XV, 167]

Possible duplication or other confusion:

(5.1) William, sister of Queen Sibyl of Scotland [W9, T9]
[White 111, citing charter evidence], AND:
(5.2) William de Marisco, brother of earl Reginald
[H. P. R. Finberg, "Some Early Tavistock Charters", EHR 62 (1948),
352-377, at p. 365].
White's account is based on the assumption that indiviuals described
as siblings of bastards of Henry I were probably children of Henry by
the same mother (rather than just being siblings with the same
mother), and also assumes that the William mentioned as a brother of
Reginald was the same as William, brother of Sibyl. As Thompson
points out, there are chronological problems with identifying the two,
and in addition to the possibility that the individual(s) in question
was/were sibling(s) only through the mother, there is the additional
possibility that the queens brother may have been William de Tracy,
already listed as a son of Henry (above, part 2, F.).

Improbable:

(6) Rohese, m. Henry de la Pomerai. [W11, T11].
She was mentioned as a sister of earl Reginald of Cornwall, and White
assumed that they had the same father, but I believe that Thompson is
correct in stating that it is more likley that Rohese was a daughter
of Reginald's mother by Herbert fitz Herbert, since no known record
calls her a daughter of the king.

Disproven:

(7) Gundred, sister of Reginald de Dunstanville, [W10, T10].
Gundred and her brother Reginald de Dunstanville are mentioned in a
Pipe Roll of 1130 [see White 108, 119]. She was included by White on
the assumptions that her brother was the same as the earl of Cornwall
and that they were siblings by the same father. However, Thompson
pointed out that the future earl was still described as a young man in
the lates 1130's [GND(RT) viii, 29 (v. 2, pp. 248-9)], and was
therefore not the same man as the Reginald on the 1130 Pipe Roll.
(Thompson's conjecture would place the Reginald and Gundred of 1130 as
siblings of earl Reginald's mother.)

(8) Sibyl of Falaise [T16].
Described only as a "neptis" (acc. "neptem") of Henry, Thompson is
correct in stating that she does not belong the list [Thompson 150].


Stewart Baldwin

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages