Complete Peerage Correction: Saier de Quincy, Earl of Winchester
John P. Ravilious
Hello All,
Saier de Quincy, son of Robert de Quincy and Orablis (Orabella) of
Leuchars, is a well-known character in 13th century English history.
The first Earl of Winchester, he is noted as a witness and granter of
charters concerning English and Scottish lands, but is best known as
one of the rebellious barons who forced the Magna Carta on King John
at Runnymede in 1215.
Saier is stated in most sources to have been made Earl of
Winchester on 13 Mar 1206/07, following his acquisition (by way of his
wife) of a moiety of the extensive lands of his brother-in-law, Robert
de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester [1]. This date has been widely used as
a terminus for the dating of 13th century charters. Using this date,
for example, Geoffrey Barraclough identified a charter of Saier de
Quincy as a forgery: J. C. Holt subsequently determined this to have
been an error on Barraclough’s part, and determined that the charter
in question was a _renovatio_ in 1207 or later of a previous grant to
Saier de Quincy’s son Robert and his wife Hawise of Chester [2].
Evidence has been found which appears to contradict the claim of
13 Mar 1206/07 as the creation of the Earldom of Winchester for Saier
de Quincy. The Registrum for Newbottle abbey includes a charter from
Robert de Quincy granting lands in Tranent, Lothian to Newbottle,
followed by a confirmation by his Saier de Quincy, Earl of Winchester
[ “ Seyr de Q’ncy Comes Wyntonie “ ]. Neither charter is dated, but
the witnesses to the charter of Saier de Quincy are important as they
provide useful details in determining a range of dates for this
charter. The list of witnesses reads as follows:
“ Test’ . Rogero Electo s’c’I Andr’ . Jocelino Ep’o Glasg’ .
Ernaldo Abb’e
Ryeuall’ . Hugone Cancell’ d’ni Reg’ et aliis “ [4]
Roger de Beaumont was Saier de Quincy’s brother-in-law. A number
of details are known concerning his career, including his election as
Bishop of St. Andrews in April 1189. Importantly, he did not receive
consecration until 15 Feb 1197/8 as noted in the Melrose Chronicle
[5]. Roger de Beaumont witnessed the subject charter as "[Bishop]
Elect of St. Andrews". As Roger would only have been identified as
bishop-elect up to the date of his consecration, this charter was
clearly granted before that date.
Based on the foregoing, it appears certain that Saier de Quincy
was in fact Earl of Winchester by 15 Feb 1197/8. This impacts the
dates assigned to numerous charters of this period. In particular,
the charter of Saier de Quincy mentioned above was identified as a
forgery by Barraclough and a _renovatio_ by Holt [5]. This charter was
evidently what it initially appeared to be: a charter by Saier, when
Earl of Winchester, contemporaneous with the matching charter of
Ranulf, Earl of Chester, dated c. 1202 x 1204 .
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] CP VIII:168-9, sub Winchester.
[2] J. C. Holt, The Casus Regis Reconsidered, The Haskins
Society Journal 10 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2002), pp. 171-2.
Concerning Saier de Quincy’s elder son Robert (father of
Margaret, countess of Lincoln), and the succession of the
younger son Roger as Earl of Winchester, Holt wrote:
“ This was the generally accepted view until it was challenged, first
by Sidney Painter and then by Geoffrey Barraclough. Painter failed to
consider the casus regis pattern of succession and therefore dismissed
the marriage of Robert de Quency and Hawise of Chester as ‘absolutely
impossible’ on the ground that the child of that marriage (Margaret)
did not inherit; he then concocted a non-existent Robert, brother of
Saer, as husband of Hawise of Chester and buttressed all this with a
false pedigree chart - a good example of how one error leads to others
<36>. Then Barraclough, following and relying on Painter, had to
confront a charter, namely a grant by Saer de Quency, earl of
Winchester, to his newly married son, Robert and his wife Hawise, of
lands in England and Lothian amounting to one hundred librates <37>.
This was matched by a similar grant from Ranulf, earl of Chester.
Saer’s grant only survives in copies; Ranulf’s is an original charter.
The two are apparently inconsistent. Saer was created earl of
Winchester in 1207; his charter must therefore be dated 1207 or later.
Earl Ranulf’s charter must be placed c. 1200 and not later than 1202,
chiefly because of the attestations. Yet the attestations of Saer’s
and Ranulf’s are identical. Therefore, concluded Barraclough, the
charter of Saer must be dismissed as a forgery. Barraclough was
perhaps in a rush or engaged on other matters such as China and World
History; this may excuse him, but not his editor. At all events
Barraclough got Saer’s charter from the text printed in Ormerod’s
History of Cheshire <38> and did not pursue the manuscript evidence.
In fact there is not just one charter of Saer’s but two, both made in
favour of Robert, his son and heir. Both are accompanied by drawings
of Saer’s fourth seal with the arms of fitz Walter impaled (probably
as an indication of brotherhood in arms) and with the title of earl on
the counterseal: SECRETUM COMITIS WINTONIE <39>. Now the notion of one
forged charter is acceptable, but the notion of two, each with a
correct drawing of an authentic seal, each in a different hand,
beggars belief. Moreover there are differences between the two
charters which are highly significant; one concerns the English lands
granted and follows the diplomatic of English law; the other concerns
the lands in Lothian and has slight diplomatic variants probably to
meet the requirements of the Scottish courts. The two documents are
genuine enough, so how to reconcile them with Earl Ranulf of Chester’s
charter? The obvious explanation is that they are renovatio(s) (or
should I say renovationes) preserving the attestations of an earlier
grant of c. 1202, reissued in 1207 to assert Saer’s new dignity as
earl and to give the same enhanced dignity to the marriage portion.
The difficulty in understanding the Quency arrangements lies not in
the original arrangements but in the modern commentaries, which now
have to be rejected. It was a perfectly normal, an din the end
amicable, arrangement in favour of the cadet, made for obvious
reasons. No one objected or challenged the arrangement. “
[3] Cosmo Innes, ed., Registrum S. Marie de Neubotle (Edinburgh:
printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1849), pp. 51-52, no. 64
(charter of Robert de Quincy) and pp. 52-53, no. 65 (charter
of Saier de Quincy).
[4] Innes, ibid., p. 53, no. 65.
[5] Joseph Stevenson, ed., Chronica de Mailros (Edinburgh: printed
for
the Bannatyne Club, 1835), p. 103.
[6] See footnote [2] above.
* John P. Ravilious
Douglas Richardson
Great post. Thank you for sharing this information with the
newsgroup.
For reasons not known to me, it seems to be a bit murky exactly when
Saier de Quincy was acknowledged as Earl of Winchester. It has been
commonly accepted that Saier was recognized as Earl of Winchester
sometime before 10 Feb. 1206/7, either following the 1207 division of
his wife's Beaumont inheritance or shortly before. As the historian
Holt plainly states, "Saer was created earl of Winchester in 1207".
Possibly Holt's position may be due to Saier not having been directly
acknowledged as Earl of Winchester in the Pipe Rolls until 1207 (which
fact I have not verified). If true, though, this alone would normally
be an excellent indication that Saier was not an earl until 1207.
Regardless, the charter you cite suggests that Saier was Earl of
Winchester before 15 Feb 1197/8, because as you note, one of the
witnesses to Earl Saier's charter, Roger de Beaumont, is styled
"bishop elect" in the charter and we know that Roger was consecrated
as bishop on 15 Feb 1197/8.
I might add that it is equally clear that you are correct as to the
date of this charter (that is, before 15 Feb. 1197/8), as I see that a
second witness to Earl Saier's charter was Jocelin, Bishop of Glasgow,
who served in that position from 1174 to 1199. Similarly, a third
witness to the charter is Ernald, Abbot of Rievaulx, who occurs as
abbot in 1194 and resigned the post in 1199. The appearance of Bishop
Jocelin and Abbot Ernald alone as witnesses makes it certain that this
charter dates from 1199 or before. So you seem to be on very solid
ground dating the charter as being before 15 Feb 1197/8.
Regardless, there are many records in the period, 1198-1207, in which
Saier de Quincy occurs and I'm virtually certain that he was not
styled earl in any of them (with the noted exception of the document
dated c.1200 discussed by Holt and cited by you). Some of these
records were directly generated by King John. The king would not be
likely to make a lapse in failing to address Saier as earl, if he was
already so designated. If so, an explanation would need to be made
why Saier occurs as an earl in one charter dated 1198 or before, but
in no other major records until 1207. One conceivable explanation is
that Earl Saier's confirmation charter to Newbottle Abbey was signed
BEFORE he was earl, but enrolled some years later in the abbey's
cartulary AFTER he had became earl; the copied charter was altered to
reflect that Saier had become earl in the meantime. This is basically
the same approach Holt adopted concerning the other charter dated c.
1200. Failing this explanation, I can not explain how Saier could be
earl as early as 1198, yet fail to be styled as earl in so many other
records involving him for the nine years following.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
I spoke with Andrew MacEwen (the resident expert in all things
Scottish) this afternoon regarding the matter of Saier de Quincy being
styled Earl of Winchester in or before 1198. After discussing the
evidence of the two charters, the one you mentioned dated pre-1198 and
the other discussed by Holt dated c.1200, we believe that Saier de
Quincy likely held this title for a short time in the period, c.
1195-1200, but that for some reason, the title was withdrawn by the
king.
Andrew says that "renewed" charters are rare (at least in Scotland),
and he doesn't think Holt's explanation regarding the charter dated c.
1200 necessarily holds water. Andrew did not preclude that there
might have been a clerical error with the pre-1198 charter.
Nevertheless, neither of us feel that forgeries are involved in either
charter. For what it is worth, we're both aware of other men such as
Alan Durward who briefly held a title as earl, and then later are not
so styled. Unfortunately contemporary records for this period are
usually silent as to why such titles appear briefly and then
disappear. The usual explanation is that the right to a title was
challenged by another individual with a better claim, and the king saw
fit to grant the title to the other individual. And, in later periods
certainly, titles were withdrawn if the person holding them failed to
have sufficient income to support the title. In truth, we don't
always know the reason why a certain title might have been briefly
held and then withdrawn. In the case of Saier de Quincy, the title
would have been briefly held and then re-granted to him at a later
date. In the case of William de Mohun, he was granted the title of
Earl of Somerset during the time of civil war in King Stephen's reign,
and when the war ended, no further reference is made to him as earl
nor any of his descendants.
'
Douglas Richardson
it clear that there were two charters (not one) issued by Saier de
Quincy as earl of Winchester c.1200.
DR
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Newbottle Abbey, but there is no original. In his introduction to the
Cartulary, Innes mentions (page xxxij) that when comparing extant
originals with the scribal entries in the Register, it is clear that
there are differences, and he particularly notes that witnesses are
omitted and sometimes various other small alterations are made, viz:
‘It will be found that, though the registered copy generally gives the
operative words with great correctness, several omissions in it,
especially of the names of witnesses, are supplied by printing from
the charters themselves; and inaccuracies of spelling are corrected.’
He continues in a footnote to give examples:
‘Thus, in the charter of Henry de Graham, No. 8, five witnesses — all
those between Norman Fitz Bertulf and the last in the list – are
omitted in the copy engrossed in the register, and are printed here
from the finely preserved original.
‘The charter of David I, No. 17, with its interesting marches, has
been, in like manner, printed from the original, and thus the spelling
of places, as used in the twelfth century, has been recovered, instead
of the fashion of the fourteenth.
‘In the charter of William the Lion, No. 20, the ancient spelling has
been also restored, and five witnesses (all those between Robert de
Quinci and Simon Fraser), whose names had been omitted by the
chartulary scribe.
‘The charter of Thomas de Lostalrich terminates in the register — '
Testibus H. de Sigillo clerico regis et aliis innumeris;' but the fine
original at Newbattle gives the 'innumerable' witnesses as printed,
No. 49.
‘In the general confirmation of Alexander II, No. 122, the ancient
spelling has been restored, and all the witnesses after the
chancellor, who were omitted by the chartulary scribe.
‘Thus, also, all the witnesses have been recovered in No. 144, of whom
only three are given in the register, and in No. 157, of whom only
one.
‘A few peculiarities of the scribe must not be imputed to the printer
or editor. Thus he consistently chooses to spell sicut, sicud, and the
word abbreviated stands sic’.’
If the scribe was prepared to omit names which were unimportant, how
much more likely was he to include names which were important, such of
that of “Comes Wyntonie”, added after the name ‘Sey’r de Q’ency’.
This we might see as the careful glossing of a scribe who knew his
history.
Finally there is no evidence that Saier de Quincy was elevated to
comital rank before the death of his brother-in-law; indeed he had no
lands to support an earldom. Furthermore his earldom was evidently
initially known as that of Southampton, but its title was changed on
13 March 1206/07 to that of Winchester (CP XII/2, p 749).
Given all these persuasive evidences, it is surely easier to blame the
cartulary scribe for an excess of zeal, than to rewrite history.
Douglas Richardson
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
< Finally there is no evidence that Saier de Quincy was elevated to
< comital rank before the death of his brother-in-law; indeed he had
no
< lands to support an earldom.
You have the evidence of three charters which attest that Earl Saier
was Earl of Winchester before 1207. This would be the one cited by
John Ravilious, and the two mentioned by Holt. That should be
sufficient I think.
As far as Saier's lands go, you're probably overlooking any lands he
held in France, or any lands he inherited about this date from his
father in Scotland and England, or the lands granted to him personally
by King Richard I. Moreover, if Saier was so land poor, you would not
normally expect him to be married to the sister of an English earl.
As such, I think both of your points are weak.
Regardless, I'm glad you shared your opinion. Please continue to post
if you find anything else relevant to this matter.
taf
> On Jun 14, 10:49 am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
>
> <maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> < Finally there is no evidence that Saier de Quincy was elevated to
> < comital rank before the death of his brother-in-law; indeed he had
> no
> < lands to support an earldom.
>
> You have the evidence of three charters which attest that Earl Saier
> was Earl of Winchester before 1207. This would be the one cited by
> John Ravilious, and the two mentioned by Holt. That should be
> sufficient I think.
. . . IF they are authentic. However, the Holt charters have been
viewed skeptically, and John accepts them based on his newly
discovered Newbottle charter. Since Alex explained that the
information in the Newbottle charter is itself of questionable
authenticity, this may be propping up one flawed charter with
another. You can't just ignore these criticisms and assume
authenticity. (Well, you can, but you shouldn't. I can just see it -
"I know the first $20 bill I gave you looks counterfeit, but here is a
second one that looks just like it, so neither can be fake.") Yes,
dubious charters sometimes reveal something about the historical
reality. Yes, charters of debatable authenticity can support each
other, but this takes more analysis than just counting them.
> As far as Saier's lands go, you're probably overlooking any lands he
> held in France,
And since you say 'any' you are probably assuming that these holdings
existed.
or any lands he inherited about this date from his
> father in Scotland and England, or the lands granted to him personally
> by King Richard I.
Such as . . . ?
> Moreover, if Saier was so land poor, you would not
> normally expect him to be married to the sister of an English earl.
Assuming an income befitting an earl based on his marriage to an
earl's sister?
> As such, I think both of your points are weak.
Right back at you.
taf
Alex Maxwell Findlater
sister, it was expected that Robert would have issue. As a younger
sister, it was slightly less important whom she married; evenso Saier
needed quite some status, but not enough land to be an earl. That of
course was a private Leicester decision.
If you read G G Simpson's 1965 thesis on Roger de Quincy, you will
find that the gradual build-up of the family's fortunes is well-
charted.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Close. He was granted £10 'from the issue of the earldom of
Southampton at Winchester in the name of Earl': 'de exitibus
comitatus Suthamt' ... apud Wintoniam nomine comitis'. In this
context I think that 'exitus' (here ablative plural) = issue, so
revenue; 'comitatus' (here genitive singular) = earldom, here county.
Must be more careful in future: very sorry.
Douglas Richardson
> Right back at you.
>
> taf
I suggest you do some actual research before you engage in another
rant.
DR
Douglas Richardson
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If the scribe was prepared to omit names which were unimportant, how
> much more likely was he to include names which were important, such of
> that of “Comes Wyntonie”, added after the name ‘Sey’r de Q’ency’.
> This we might see as the careful glossing of a scribe who knew his
> history.
Question: While irregularities exist in all forms of medieval records,
did the editor of the Newbottle cartulary express any specific
concerns about the charter of Saier de Quincy? Certainly the witness
list of the charter is consistent with a date of c. 1195-1198.
Agreed?
DR
Alex Maxwell Findlater
My view is that the charter is perfectly respectable as a charter of
ca 1195x98, but that the scribe of the C14 inserted 'Comes Wyntonie'
as a gloss, much as we today might gloss something using square
brackets - things were not se well-defined in those days! In all
these things we have to arrive at the balance of probabilities, and my
take is that this is the most likely possibility.
taf
Thanks for the suggestion, given in your typical spirit of
collegiality (which apparently includes browbeating anyone who
disagrees with you).
Why do we have to keep repeating this pattern of behavior? You ignore
inconvenient critiques raised by other posters. I defend those
criticisms. You try to run me out of the thread for not falling on my
knees and worshiping at the altar of your self-adulation. It really
is getting old.
Here is a suggestion for you. I suggest you accept that this is not a
classroom in which you as teacher get to be the arbiter of who is
allowed to answer what question, participate in which discussion, and
in which you can suppress any dissent just by claiming authority. It
is a discussion group in which anyone who wishes to can participate.
That includes people who do so-called "actual research", as well as
posers who make comments like "any lands he held in France", clearly
indicating they have not done actual research on that subject, (hmm,
who might that be - the double standard you live by can really be
humorous at times).
This pursuit involves both collecting evidence and interpreting it.
Not everyone has the skills or resources or time to do the first, but
that does not prevent them from being able to make valuable
contributions via the second. Likewise, there are people who do
research, have training and live near large research collections, who
are little more than abstractors. They can collect information, but
anything beyond the most mundane connect-the-dots interpretations
escape their comprehension. They too are welcome to participate here,
nor is their contribution inherently more valuable just because they
do 'actual research'. It was not that long ago when a poster
abstracted a list of names related to a certain Archbishop and then
suggested that it was the responsibility of everyone else to research
them. Is there no role in this group for such a person, not willing to
do the 'actual research' on these relationships themself?
I have a second suggestion, but you can ask Dick Cheney about that.
taf
wjho...@aol.com
I like the below solution, in light of pushing his title back to an untenable timeframe which I claim in light of the fact that he supposedly *got* this title because he was the husband of a co-heiress or whatever. I don't like that he's not attested in other firmly dateable primary documents this early. To me that's not an easily disposed issue.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message