MARMIONS in the ancestry of Thomas Bradbury
Alan B. Wilson
The descent of William Bradbury from the Marmions of
Checkenden in Oxon is adequately documented and apparently
noncontroversial. It appears in Weis, Ancestral Roots, line
246A:27-42. The Checkenden Marmion line can be traced in the
text of Rev. H. E. Salter's "The Boarstall Cartulary" Oxford:
Oxford Historical Society, 1930, pp. 2-3. The pedigree of the
Checkenden Marmions appears in pedigree chart form in T. R.
Gambier-Parry, "A Collection of Charters Relating to Goring,"
Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society, 1931, p. lx. A scant
listing by John B. Threlfall of this Marmion descent appears in
TAG lvii (April, 1981), p. 98-99, "Thomas Bradbury Ancestry
Table Additions." The line is greatly extended and amplified in
two privately printed editions of Threlfall's book, "The
Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury and his Wife Mary Perkins," 1988 and
1995.
MARMIONS OF CHECKENDEN:
1. Sir William Marmion, held Checkenden 1218, d. before 1221.
2. Geoffrey Marmion, b. circa 1198, d. before 1255.
3. William Marmion, b. circa 1229, d. 1266.
4. John Marmion, b. 1260, d. 1330/1331, m. circa 1273 Margery,
dau. of Henry de Nottingham.
5. Thomas Marmion b. circa 1285/1290.
6. Alice Marmion b. ca 1320, d. before 1367, m. before 1353
William Harlyngrugge of Checkenden.
The main line of the Marmion family, who held Scrivelsby in
Lincolnshire and Tamworth on the border of Warwickshire and
Staffordshire, has been more difficult to sort out. This is
primarily because there were four consecutive holders of the
barony named "Robert" (as shown by Round, "Feudal England," pp.
156-157). This has made it difficult to firmly associate
documents naming "Robert Marmion" with a particular generation.
(Indeed, at least one of these Roberts named two of his sons
Robert.)
Also some authors have ignored and others have diverged on
the placement of a daughter of Gervase, Count of Rethel, who was
married to one of the Robert Marmions.
Below is what I now have for the main Marmion line, with
some attention paid to the reasons for the identification of the
daughter of Gervase of Rethel (which comes from Moriarty). The
rest of the line is consistent with an early work by C. F.
Palmer, "The History of the Town and Castle of Tamworth,"
Tamworth: J. Thompson, 1845, and, so far as they go, with Salter
and Gambier-Parry, mentioned above. My question about the
connection between the Checkenden Marmions and the main line of
Marmions, which I shall present below, however, does not hinge
upon the correctness in detail of the latter half of the main
line of Marmions.
MARMIONS OF SCRIVELSBY AND TAMWORTH:
1. Roger Marmion, alive during Lindsey Survey , 1115-1118, d. say 1130.
2. Robert I Marmion, b. circa 1109, slain 1143/1144, m. circa
1130/1133 Milicent, dau. of Gervase, Count of Rethel & Elizabeth
de Namur. Milicent m. secondly Richard de Camville. Robert
evicted the monks of Coventry and profaned their church.
C. T. Clay in an article, "Marmion," in The Complete
Peerage, viii, 505-522,indicates that Milicent's parentage is
unknown. He lists (?)Elizabeth, dau. of Gervase, Count of
Rethel, as the wife of Robert II, son of Milicent (who appears
below). Schwennicke (ed.) Europaische Stammtafeln, iii, 625
also lists Elisabeth de Rethel as wife of Robert de Marmion who
d. 1181. ES cites Cockayne viii, 509, in connection with this
table so this cannot be taken as an independent confirmation.
Moriarty in TAG xx (Jan, 1944), 255-256, points out that
Alberic, Canon of Huyon-sur-Meuse states that Clarembald de
Rosoy, who m. Elizabeth de Namur after the death of Gervase in
1124, in order to disinherit her, married the only daughter of
Gervase out of the country to a certain noble of Normandy named
Robert Marmion. But Alberic does not give the name of the
daughter or specify which Robert Marmion was her husband. The
daughter of Count Gervase was married about 1132/3, so
chronologically it would more likely be to Robert I than to
Robert II. The mother of Count Gervase of Rethel was Milicent
of Montlhery. Thus Milicent, the wife of Robert I could have
been named for her paternal grandmother.
Queen Adeliza of Louvain, wife of Henry I, gave part of
Stanton, Co. Oxon, to Milicent, wife of Robert Marmion, "cognata
mea." Stanton passed with Isabel, dau. of Milicent and Richard
de Camville to her husband, Robert de Harcourt as her
maritagium, and Stanton Harcourt has subsequently remained in
that family. Queen Adeliza was a second cousin of the daughter
of Gervase, both being descended from Albert III de Namur, d.
1102, & Ida of Saxony.
Moriarty concludes, in view of these arguments, that it was
Robert I who married the daughter of the Count of Rethel, and
that her name was Milicent. This corrects Palmer, "History of
the Baronial Family of Marmion," 1875, Watson (The Genealogist,
n.s., xiv, 70), Clay in "Complete Peerage" (vii, 509), and, of
course, although not then published, ES, iii, 625.
3. Robert II Marmion, b. before 1133, d. circa 1181, m. Maud de
Beauchamp, dau. of William de Beauchamp and Maud de Braose.
About 1170/1175 Robert grants the church of Checkenden to the
Priory of Coventry (Boarstall Cartulary No. 1). This Robert,
son of Milicent and Robert, about 1175 to 1180 also grants a
third of Checkenden to a William Marmion, and confirms to this
William the gift of another third of Checkenden which he had
earlier granted to William's brother, Geoffrey (Boarstall
Cartularies 20 through 23).
4. Robert III Marmion, b. circa 1155/1156, d. 1218, m. firstly
unknown, (mother of Robert IV, below), m. secondly Philippa.
This Robert became presiding Justiciary of the barons-errant.
He was Sheriff for Worcestershire in 1185, 1187 and 1190. Near
the end of his life, circa 1210-1218, with his wife, Philippa,
he gives land in Stoke and Checkenden to the monastery of
Barbery (Boarstall Cartulary No. 25.).
5. Robert IV Marmion, d. circa 1241/1243, m. Juliane, dau. of Philip de Vassy.
6. Philip Marmion, d.s.p.m. circa 1291/1292, m. firstly Joan,
dau. of Hugh de Killpeck, m. secondly Mary.
John Threlfall in his 1981 TAG article and in his book on
the ancestry of Thomas Bradbury reports William Marmion who held
Checkenden in 1218 to be the son of Robert II Marmion, son of
Milicent, who granted the church at Checkenden to the Priory of
Coventry. Since the daughter of Gervase de Rethel and Elisabeth
de Namur is of undisputed Carolingian descent, if this linkage
were correct Thomas Bradbury would be of Carolingian descent
(whether Milicent were the "de Rethel" daughter as Moriarty
argued and as I presented above, or an "Elizabeth de Rethel" m.
Robert II as in CP and ES).
Neil Thompson in a critical review, "An Alleged Descent from
Charlemagne for Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts: A Flawed
Attempt," The Genealogist ix (Spring, 1988), 80-84, questions
the link between William Marmion of Checkenden and Robert
Marmion, son of Milicent de Rethel. In April 1994 in a review
of Gary Boyd Roberts's book "The Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants," TAG lxix, 125-126 Thompson criticizes Roberts for
including several false descents one of which was the descent of
Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts (which appears on p. 461 of
Roberts). In April of 1996 Stuart Baldwin approvingly cited
Thompson's critical remarks about Roberts's book, including the
example of Bradbury, in a post to soc.genealogy.medieval. In
April of 1997 Baldwin posted an almost identical comment, again
including Thompson's critical remarks and the example of the
false Bradbury descent. (Of course, by the same token, Weis's
"Ancestral Roots" which includes this descent, and the
questioned linkage, in line 246A, should be comparably
discredited. Indeed Weis (Sheppard?) adds a note at the end of
the line indicating that he had read Thompson's critique and
considered it adequately answered by Threlfall.)
There are two documents which Threlfall points to which, he
argues, warrant the inference that William of Checkenden is a
son of Robert II, son of Milicent. Both of these (unfortunately
for the likes of me) are in medieval Latin.
The first of these is Boarstall Cartulary No. 8, written
Jan. 25, 1339, in which the monks of Coventry, who had been
given the church at Checkenden by Robert II, quitclaim the
advowson of Checkenden to John Marmion (#4 on the list of
Marmions of Checkenden).
"Notum sit omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod nos
frater Henricus, prior ecclesie cathedralis Coventrie, et
eiusdem loci conventus unanimo nostro concensu remisimus et
penitus quietum clamauimus de nobis et successoribus nostris
Iohanni Marmyon, domino de Chakendene, heredibus et assignatis
suis imperpetuum totum ius et clameum quod habuimus vel aliquo
modo habere potuerimus in advocacione ecclesie de Chakendene,
quam habuimus ex donacione et concessione Roberti Marmyon
cuiusdam antecessoris predicti Iohannis pro satisfaccione et
salute anime patris dicti Roberti pro irrecuperabilibus dampnis
et enormiis [sic] iniuriis, que idem pater dicti Roberti quondam
multipliciter et maliciose intulit ecclesie nostre et
predecessoribus nostris, habendam et tenendam predictam
advocacionem [&c.] in perpetuum. Et ne anime antecessorum dicti
Iohannis vel sua penam vel periculum molestiarum et iniuriarum
occasione quacunque predecessoribus nostris et ecclesie nostre
ac eciam nobis, ut premittitur, hactenus illatarum, quod absit,
incurrant, nos mera et unanimi voluntate perfecte compuncti
intuitu caritatis animas antecessorum predicti Iohannis ac eciam
suam in pleno nostro capitulo ab omni reatus vinculo, quo
verisimiliter credi potest ipsas occasione premissa merito
constringi, in quantum in nobis est absolvimus per presentes.
In cuius [&c. sealing], data in capitulo nostro Coventrie die
Lune in festo conversionis sancti Pauli apostoli anno domini
MCCC tricesimo octavo."
My dear high school Latin teacher in the 1930s, Mrs.
Sickman, gave up on me after Julius Caesar. Here is the
translation of deed from the monks to John Marmion as presented
by Threlfall (p. 298).
"Be it known to all so now as in the future that we, brother
Henry prior of the Cathedral church of Coventry, and the convent
of the same place, by our unanimous consent, remit and quit
claim for ourselves and our successors, to John Marmion, lord of
Checkenden, his heirs and assigns, forever, all right and claim
that we had or in any way will have had in the advowson of the
church of Checkenden, which we had by the gift and conveyance of
Robert Marmion a certain ancestor [antecessoris] of the
aforesaid John, for atonement and good of the soul of the father
of the said Robert, for irreparable damage and enormous
injuries, which the same father of the said Robert so
extensively and maliciously inflicted on our church and on our
predecessors [predecessoribus], to have and to hold the
aforesaid advowson, etc. forever. And so that the souls of the
ancestors [antecessorum] of the said John should not, God
forbid, incur either penalty or peril of annoyance and injury by
whatever cause by our predecessors [predecessoribus] and our
church and also us, as mentioned before, because of those
matters hitherto mentioned, we, completely motivated by a pure
and unanimous desire in consideration of charity, insofar as we
are able, absolve for the present the souls of the ancestors
[antecessorum] of the foresaid John, as well as his own, by our
full chapter, from every constraint of guilt by which it can be
reasonably believed that they were constrained on the foresaid
occasion. In whose . . . etc. sealing, done in our chapter
house at Coventry on the feast of the conversion of Saint Paul
the Apostle the year of the lord 1300 thirty eight (i.e., 25
January 1338/9)."
The crux of Neil Thompson's doubts on the ancestry presented
by Threlfall is, Thompson says, that the word, "antecessor,"
"has the double meaning, depending on context, of 'ancestor' or
'predecessor' [in title] and does not carry with it any specific
blood relationship at all."
Threlfall responds that the monks twice in this deed use the
word "predecessoribus" to refer to their own predecessors--the
monks who were so abused by Robert I. They three time use the
word "antecessorum" to refer to Robert II and/or Robert I's
relation to John, and that it clearly means ancestor.
I would appreciate the opinions of those participants in
this forum who have expertise and experience in the
interpretation of these medieval Latin documents as to what
seems to be the more appropriate interpretation.
I also notice (assuming that the translation presented by
Threlfall is reasonably accurate in other respects) that these
good monks have not only absolved the souls of John's
"antecessorum" from every constraint of guilt due to the
transgressions of Robert I, but they have also absolved John's
own soul from guilt for that act. If John's only relation to
Robert I was as a successor lord of Checkenden due to earlier
property transfers, would his soul require absolution for the
sins of Robert I?
The other document relevant to the purported linkage between
William and Robert II is a record of a lawsuit which occurred
about 1270. It is reported in the Great Britain Record
Commission,"Placitorum in domo capitulari Westmonasteriensi
asservatorum abbreviato," London: George Eyre and Andrew
Strahan, 1811, p. 182. The text is considerably longer than
that in the quitclaim considered above. Moreover it is in a
form of Latin script with squiggles which couldn't possibly be
transcribed in ASCII character code.
In this dispute about the advowson of Checkenden church
Robert II who had made the grant to the Priory of Coventry is
described as "antecessoris" of the underage heir, John Marmion.
This raises the same question whether the term denotes an
ancestor or may simply describe a succession in position as lord
of Checkenden.
I should be very pleased to snail-mail a photocopy of this
squiggly Latin text of the legal dispute to anyone who may be
able to judge its relevance in determining the linkage between
the Marmion lines (or to anyone who is simply curious) who will
send me a mailing address.
While I am not sanguine that a definitive
judgement--"proven" or "disproven"--will necessarily result from
consideration of these texts in this forum, I was not happy with
the discrediting of the Bradbury line by dint of repetition of
the claim that it had been disproven without any consideration
of the evidence.
--
Alan B. Wilson
abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
G . EDWARD ALLEN
This evidence also applies to Bulkeley-Chetwode descendants of the
Talbot-Cotton marriage. There is also a case in Wrottesley's Pedigrees
from the Plea Rolls(which I have) which helps in this matter. I will
copy it later. As for your latin goody, Make an appointment with Thomas
Barnes PhD
History and Law Departments. Office in Boalt Hall. His Dwinelle Hall
Office is closed. I'll bet he would help. You may mention my name.
Good Luck
K Allen all...@pacbell.net
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Gen'l. Wrottesley's *Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls* p. 501
"Curia Regis Roll. No. 167. 56 Hen. 3. m. 19.
Oxon.---Adam de Stratton, the custos of the heir of William Marmion,
sued Richard, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Prior of Coventry, for the
next presentation to the church of Chakenden[Checkendon].
Robert Marmion, presented
temp. K.John.
1
1
Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir,
living 6 H. 3.
1
1
William
1
1
The heir of William, under age.
The defendants pleaded that Robert Marmion, the ancestor pf the
heir, had granted the advowson to the Priory of Coventry, and Geoffrey,
the grandfather of the heir, had acknowledged the right of the Prior by
a Fine levied in 6 H. 3. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE HEIR WAS SON OF
WILLIAM.[My emphasis added.]"
K Allen all...@pacbell.net.
Alan B. Wilson
In article <335378...@pacbell.net>, Medieval Genealogy Discussion List
<GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> K Allen wrote:
> Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> >
snip
>
> Gen'l. Wrottesley's *Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls* p. 501
>
> "Curia Regis Roll. No. 167. 56 Hen. 3. m. 19.
>
> Oxon.---Adam de Stratton, the custos of the heir of William Marmion,
> sued Richard, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Prior of Coventry, for the
> next presentation to the church of Chakenden[Checkendon].
>
> Robert Marmion, presented
> temp. K.John.
> 1
> 1
> Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir,
> living 6 H. 3.
> 1
> 1
> William
> 1
> 1
> The heir of William, under age.
>
> The defendants pleaded that Robert Marmion, the ancestor pf the
> heir, had granted the advowson to the Priory of Coventry, and Geoffrey,
> the grandfather of the heir, had acknowledged the right of the Prior by
> a Fine levied in 6 H. 3. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE HEIR WAS SON OF
> WILLIAM.[My emphasis added.]"
>
> K Allen all...@pacbell.net.
The line of the Marmions of Checkenden is well determined without
reference to this lawsuit as I said in my post:
>> MARMIONS OF CHECKENDEN:
>> 1. Sir William Marmion, held Checkenden 1218, d. before 1221.
>> 2. Geoffrey Marmion, b. circa 1198, d. before 1255.
>> 3. William Marmion, b. circa 1229, d. 1266.
>> 4. John Marmion, b. 1260, d. 1330/1331, m. circa 1273 Margery,
>> dau. of Henry de Nottingham.
>> 5. Thomas Marmion b. circa 1285/1290.
>> 6. Alice Marmion b. ca 1320, d. before 1367, m. before 1353
>> William Harlyngrugge of Checkenden.
Geoffrey Marmion is father of William Marmion. If Geoffrey Marmion
is a grandfather (as is stated) of the heir of William, the heir of
William must either be a son or nephew of William. Then if Robert II
Marmion is an ancestor of the heir of William (as is stated), he is almost
certainly an ancestor of Geoffrey Marmion. (One would have to imagine an
entirely unknown maternal line of the heir leading back to Robert for this
not to be true.) Therefore the entire Checkenden line most probably
descends from Robert II--as Threlfall postulated--including John, even if
he is not the heir referred to in the trial.
I do not quite understand what the vertical lines between individuals
are supposed to represent. Is that clear in Wrottesley? Is this an
inferred pedigree as the title suggests?
Any chance I could have a photocopy of the relevant page(s)? (The
NRLF copy is checked out until 6/13/97. Is that you?)
I will pursue the quest for a competent translation of the summary of
the trial--my squiggly Latin script. :-)
Many thanks..
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Alan B. Wilson wrote:
>
> In article <335378...@pacbell.net>, Medieval Genealogy Discussion List
> <GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> K Allen wrote:
>
> > Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > >
> snip
>
> >
> >
> > "Curia Regis Roll. No. 167. 56 Hen. 3. m. 19.
> >
> > Oxon.---Adam de Stratton, the custos of the heir of William Marmion,
> > sued Richard, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Prior of Coventry, for the
> > next presentation to the church of Chakenden[Checkendon].
> >
> > Robert Marmion, presented
> > temp. K.John.
> > 1
> > 1
> > Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir,
> > living 6 H. 3.
> > 1
> > 1
> > William
> > 1
> > 1
> > The heir of William, under age.
> >
> > The defendants pleaded that Robert Marmion, the ancestor pf the
> > heir, had granted the advowson to the Priory of Coventry, and Geoffrey,
> > the grandfather of the heir, had acknowledged the right of the Prior by
> > a Fine levied in 6 H. 3. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE HEIR WAS SON OF
> > WILLIAM.[My emphasis added.]"
> >
> > K Allen all...@pacbell.net.
>
> reference to this lawsuit as I said in my post:
>
> >> 1. Sir William Marmion, held Checkenden 1218, d. before 1221.This William
is, I believe brother to#2 Geoffrey.
> >> 2. Geoffrey Marmion, b. circa 1198, d. before 1255.
> >> 3. William Marmion, b. circa 1229, d. 1266.
> >> 4. John Marmion, b. 1260, d. 1330/1331, m. circa 1273 Margery,
> >> 5. Thomas Marmion b. circa 1285/1290.
> >> 6. Alice Marmion b. ca 1320, d. before 1367, m. before 1353
> >> William Harlyngrugge of Checkenden.
>
> is a grandfather (as is stated) of the heir of William, the heir of
> William must either be a son or nephew of William. Then if Robert II
> Marmion is an ancestor of the heir of William (as is stated), he is almost
> certainly an ancestor of Geoffrey Marmion. (One would have to imagine an
> entirely unknown maternal line of the heir leading back to Robert for this
> not to be true.) Therefore the entire Checkenden line most probably
> descends from Robert II--as Threlfall postulated--including John, even if
> he is not the heir referred to in the trial.
>
> I do not quite understand what the vertical lines between individuals
> are supposed to represent. Is that clear in Wrottesley? Is this an
> inferred pedigree as the title suggests?
This is my rendition of the pedigree. The vertical lines indicate the
descent. This is exactly as Wrottesley rendered it. I don't know if
Wrottesley inferred it or it is explicit. The squiggly Latin would
probably tell as I am sure this is the same case.
>
> Any chance I could have a photocopy of the relevant page(s)? (The
> NRLF copy is checked out until 6/13/97. Is that you?)
Yes and yes.
>
> I will pursue the quest for a competent translation of the summary of
> the trial--my squiggly Latin script. :-)
>
> Many thanks..
>
> --
> Alan B. Wilson
> abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
I left home before 5 am, so am reading and answering both now.
Marsha Hallett
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote:
>
> Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> >
> > In article <335378...@pacbell.net>, Medieval Genealogy Discussion List
> > <GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> K Allen wrote:
> >
> > > Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > Gen'l. Wrottesley's *Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls* p. 501
> > >
> > > "Curia Regis Roll. No. 167. 56 Hen. 3. m. 19.
> > >
> > > Oxon.---Adam de Stratton, the custos of the heir of William Marmion,
> > > sued Richard, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Prior of Coventry, for the
> > > next presentation to the church of Chakenden[Checkendon].
> > >
> > > Robert Marmion, presented
> > > temp. K.John.
> > > 1
> > > 1
> > > Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir,
> > > living 6 H. 3.
> > > 1
> > > 1
> > > William
> > > 1
> > > 1
> > > The heir of William, under age.
> > >
> > > The defendants pleaded that Robert Marmion, the ancestor pf the
> > > heir, had granted the advowson to the Priory of Coventry, and Geoffrey,
> > > the grandfather of the heir, had acknowledged the right of the Prior by
> > > a Fine levied in 6 H. 3. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE HEIR WAS SON OF
> > > WILLIAM.[My emphasis added.]"
> > >
> > > K Allen all...@pacbell.net.
> >
> > The line of the Marmions of Checkenden is well determined without
> > reference to this lawsuit as I said in my post:
> >
> > >> MARMIONS OF CHECKENDEN:
> > >> 1. Sir William Marmion, held Checkenden 1218, d. before 1221.This
William
> is, I believe brother to#2 Geoffrey.
> > >> 2. Geoffrey Marmion, b. circa 1198, d. before 1255.
> > >> 3. William Marmion, b. circa 1229, d. 1266.
> > >> 4. John Marmion, b. 1260, d. 1330/1331, m. circa 1273 Margery,
> > >> dau. of Henry de Nottingham.The heir.
> > >> 5. Thomas Marmion b. circa 1285/1290.
> > >> 6. Alice Marmion b. ca 1320, d. before 1367, m. before 1353
> > >> William Harlyngrugge of Checkenden.
> >
> > Geoffrey Marmion is father of William Marmion. If Geoffrey Marmion
> > is a grandfather (as is stated) of the heir of William, the heir of
> > William must either be a son or nephew of William. Then if Robert II
> > Marmion is an ancestor of the heir of William (as is stated), he is almost
> > certainly an ancestor of Geoffrey Marmion. (One would have to imagine an
> > entirely unknown maternal line of the heir leading back to Robert for this
> > not to be true.) Therefore the entire Checkenden line most probably
> > descends from Robert II--as Threlfall postulated--including John, even if
> > he is not the heir referred to in the trial.
> >
> > I do not quite understand what the vertical lines between individuals
> > are supposed to represent. Is that clear in Wrottesley? Is this an
> > inferred pedigree as the title suggests?
>
> This is my rendition of the pedigree. The vertical lines indicate the
> descent. This is exactly as Wrottesley rendered it. I don't know if
> Wrottesley inferred it or it is explicit. The squiggly Latin would
> probably tell as I am sure this is the same case.
> >
> > Any chance I could have a photocopy of the relevant page(s)? (The
> > NRLF copy is checked out until 6/13/97. Is that you?)
>
> Yes and yes.
> >
> > I will pursue the quest for a competent translation of the summary of
> > the trial--my squiggly Latin script. :-)
> >
> > Many thanks..
> >
> > --
> > Alan B. Wilson
> > abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
>
> I left home before 5 am, so am reading and answering both now.
Hi! I have a John Marmon, Baron Marmion, who married Maud de Furnival.
They had Avice or Hawise Marmion, who married Baron John de Grey.
Could this be the same John? If not, do you know where he fits in?
Thanks, Marsha
Alan B. Wilson
Marsha Hallet <lia...@execpc.com> wroye:
snip
An ancestry for Avice is as follows:
1 Avice de MARMION.
2 John MARMION. Born circa 1292. Died 30 Apr 1335.
3 Maud de FURNIVAL. Died after 1348.
4 John MARMION Sir. Died before 7 May 1322.
5 Isabel.
6 Thomas de FURNIVAL. Born circa 1270. Of (Notts)
& (Yorks) England. Died 1332.
7 Joan le DESPENCER. Died circa 1322.
8 William MARMION. Died before 1276.
9 Lorette de Dover.
12 Thomas de FURNIVAL. Of (Notts) & (Yorks) England. Died 1291.
14 Hugh le DESPENCER. Born circa 1210 in (Gloucs)
England. Died 4 Aug 1265. Slain at Evesham (Worcestershire)
England.
15 Aliva BASSET. Born circa 1208 in (Gloucs) England.
16 Robert MARMION. Died circa 1241/1242.
(Half-brother of Robert IV MARMION who m. Juliane de Vassy.))
17 Avice de TANFIELD. Died after 1284.
18 Richard FitzRoy.
19 Rohese of Dover. Died 1264/1265.
24 Thomas de FURNIVAL. Of Sheffield (Yorks)
England. Died Circa 1238.
25 Bertha. Died after 1267.
28 Thomas le DESPENCER. Born circa 1180. Of Ryhale
(Rutlandshire) England.
30 Philip BASSET Sir. Born circa 1180. Of Wycomb
(Bucks) England. Died 1271. Justicar of England.
31 Hawise (de Lovaine) DESSEX. Born 1188.
This is followed by:
32 Robert III MARMION. Born circa 1150/1160.
33 Phillippa.
64 Robert II MARMION, b. before 1133, d. circa
1181. (This is the Robert listed first in K Allen's post,
above.)
65 Maud de BEAUCHAMP
128 Robert I MARMION, b. circa 1109, slain 1143/1144.
129 Milicent de RETHEL.
Most of this can be found in Weis, Ancestral Roots, line
218. The remainder can be found in C. T. Clay's essay on the
Marmions in the Cpmplete Peerage, viii, 505-522, except for the
revisions to the placements of the wives of the four Robert
Marmions which was described in my first post in this thread.
Alan B. Wilson
> G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote:
> >
> > Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <335378...@pacbell.net>, Medieval Genealogy Discussion List
> > > <GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> K Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Gen'l. Wrottesley's *Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls* p. 501
> > > >
> > > > "Curia Regis Roll. No. 167. 56 Hen. 3. m. 19.
> > > >
> > > > Oxon.---Adam de Stratton, the custos of the heir of William Marmion,
> > > > sued Richard, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Prior of Coventry, for the
> > > > next presentation to the church of Chakenden[Checkendon].
> > > >
> > > > Robert Marmion, presented
> > > > temp. K.John.
> > > > 1
> > > > 1
> > > > Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir,
> > > > living 6 H. 3.
> > > > 1
> > > > 1
> > > > William
> > > > 1
> > > > 1
> > > > The heir of William, under age.
> > > >
> > > > The defendants pleaded that Robert Marmion, the ancestor pf the
> > > > heir, had granted the advowson to the Priory of Coventry, and Geoffrey,
> > > > the grandfather of the heir, had acknowledged the right of the Prior by
> > > > a Fine levied in 6 H. 3. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE HEIR WAS SON OF
> > > > WILLIAM.[My emphasis added.]"
> > > >
> > > > K Allen all...@pacbell.net.
> > >
snip
>
> Hi! I have a John Marmon, Baron Marmion, who married Maud de Furnival.
> They had Avice or Hawise Marmion, who married Baron John de Grey.
> Could this be the same John? If not, do you know where he fits in?
> Thanks, Marsha
My apologies for the redundant post. On looking through what I had
submitted earlier today I saw that I had inadvertantly snipped out the
question which this post is intended to answer.
This is followed by:
64 Robert II MARMION, b. before 1133, d. circa 1181. (This
is the Robert listed first in K Allen's post, above.)
65 Maud de BEAUCHAMP
128 Robert I MARMION, b. circa 1109, slain 1143/1144.
129 Milicent de RETHEL.
Most of this can be found in Weis, Ancestral Roots, line 218. The
remainder of the Marmion line can be found in C. T. Clay's essay on the
Marmions in the Complete Peerage, viii, 505-522, except for the revisions
to the placements of the wives of the four Robert Marmions which was
described in my first post in this thread.
--
Alan B. Wilson
abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
In article <335651...@execpc.com>, Marsha Hallett
<lia...@EXECPC.COM> writes
[snip]
>Hi! I have a John Marmon, Baron Marmion, who married Maud de Furnival.
>They had Avice or Hawise Marmion, who married Baron John de Grey.
>Could this be the same John? If not, do you know where he fits in?
>Thanks, Marsha
This would be John, 2nd Lord Marmion of Tanfield, etc.; he married Maud,
dau. of Thomas, 1st Lord Furnival, and had three children by her:
1. Robert, 3rd Lord Marmion of Tanfield
2. Joan, mar. Sir John Bernack
3. Avice, mar. Sir John Grey, 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield
The 2nd Lord Marmion was son of John, 1st Lord Marmion of Tanfield
(mother unknown), grandson of William de Marmion, lord of Tanfield, etc.
and Lora de Dovor, great-grandson of Robert de Marmion, lord of
Wintringham and Coningsby, and Avice Fitzhugh, and great-great-grandson
of Robert de Marmion, lord of Tamworth and his second wife.
(cf "The Extinct and Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties of
England", J W Clay, London 1913)
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Tel & Fax: +44 171 794 3833
E-mail: p...@londwill.demon.co.uk
Alan B. Wilson
In article <335596...@pacbell.net>, Medieval Genealogy Discussion List
<GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> wrote:
> Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> >
> > In article <335378...@pacbell.net>, Medieval Genealogy Discussion List
> > <GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> K Allen wrote:
> >
> > > Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > Gen'l. Wrottesley's *Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls* p. 501
> > >
> > > "Curia Regis Roll. No. 167. 56 Hen. 3. m. 19.
> > >
> > > Oxon.---Adam de Stratton, the custos of the heir of William Marmion,
> > > sued Richard, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Prior of Coventry, for the
> > > next presentation to the church of Chakenden[Checkendon].
> > >
> > > Robert Marmion, presented
> > > temp. K.John.
> > > 1
> > > 1
> > > Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir,
> > > living 6 H. 3.
> > > 1
> > > 1
> > > William
> > > 1
> > > 1
> > > The heir of William, under age.
> > >
> > > The defendants pleaded that Robert Marmion, the ancestor pf the
> > > heir, had granted the advowson to the Priory of Coventry, and Geoffrey,
> > > the grandfather of the heir, had acknowledged the right of the Prior by
> > > a Fine levied in 6 H. 3. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE HEIR WAS SON OF
> > > WILLIAM.[My emphasis added.]"
> > >
> > > K Allen all...@pacbell.net.
> >
[snip]
> > I will pursue the quest for a competent translation of the summary of
> > the trial--my squiggly Latin script. :-)
> >
> > Many thanks..
> >
> > --
> > Alan B. Wilson
> > abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
I have been fortunate to get Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, Professor of Law
and of History at the University of California at Berkeley, to read the
record of the 1270 lawsuit as printed in "Abbreviato Placitorum", p. 182.
He agreed that the inference of descent made by Wrottesley was reasonable
given the facts, the chronology, and the names. But he also agreed, as
Neil Thompson had said in his critical review of Threlfall's book, that
the word "antecessoris" could mean either predecessor or ancestor. This
document would not absolutely prove that Robert II was not a collateral
relative of the Checkenden Marmions.
However Professor Barnes thought the line of descent was proven by
the monks' language in 1339 when they quitclaimed the advowson of
Checkenden to John Marmion. (Boarstall Carticulary No. 8.)
". . . Et ne anime antecessorum dicti Iohannis vel sua penam vel
periculum molestiarum et iniuriarum occasione quacunque predecessoribus
nostris et ecclesie nostre ac eciam nobis, ut premittitur, hactenus
illatarum, quod absit, incurrant, nos mera et unanimi voluntate perfecte
compuncti intuitu caritatis animas antecessorum predicti Iohannis ac eciam
suam in pleno nostro capitulo ab omni reatus vinculo, quo verisimiliter
credi potest ipsas occasione premissa merito constringi, in quantum in
nobis est absolvimus per presentes. In cuius [&c. sealing], data in
capitulo nostro Coventrie die Lune in festo conversionis sancti Pauli
apostoli anno domini MCCC tricesimo octavo."
". . . And so that the souls of the ancestors of the said John should
not, God forbid, incur either penalty or peril of annoyance and injury by
whatever cause by our predecessors and our church and also us, as
mentioned before, because of those matters hitherto mentioned, we,
completely motivated by a pure and unanimous desire in consideration of
charity, insofar as we are able, absolve for the present the souls of the
ancestors of the foresaid John, as well as his own, by our full chapter,
from every constraint of guilt by which it can be reasonably believed that
they were constrained on the foresaid occasion."
The absolution of the soul of John, as well of as his ancestors, for
the sin committed by Robert I proves a blood line; not just a succession
in the position of lord of Checkenden.
This firm opinion expressed by Professor Barnes persuades me that the
Marmion line presented by Threlfall (and appearing in Weis, Ancestral
Roots, line 246A, and Roberts, Royal Descents, p. 461) is correct.
People have often been accused of clinging to unproven lines as a
possibly subconscious desire to cling to royal ancestors. I should point
out that I neither gain an ancestor by deciding that the Checkenden
Marmions descend from Robert II, nor would I lose an ancestor if they were
not. I have lines of descent from both the Marmions of Scrivelsby and
Tamworth as well as the Marmions of Checkenden (through Thomas Bradbury).
1. Robert I MARMION Sir (Circa 1090/1095 - 1143)
& Millicent de RETHEL (Circa 1105/1115 - )
2. Robert II MARMION (Before 1133 - Circa 1185)
& Maud de BEAUCHAMP
3. Robert III MARMION (Circa 1150/1160 - )
& Phillippa
4. Robert MARMION ( - Circa 1241/1242)
& Avice de TANFIELD ( - After 1284)
5. William MARMION ( - Before 1276)
& Lorette de Dover
6. John MARMION Sir ( - Before 7 May 1322)
& Isabel
7. John MARMION (Circa 1292 - 30 Apr 1335)
& Maud de FURNIVAL ( - After 1348)
8. Avice de MARMION
& John de GREY lord ( - 1 Sep 1359)
9. Robert de GREY Sir ( - Before 30 Nov 1367)
& Lora de ST. QUINTIN
10. Elizabeth de GREY ( - Dec 1427)
& Henry FitzHUGH Lord (Circa 1358 - 11 Jan 1424/1425)
11. William FitzHUGH (Circa 1399 - 22 Oct 1452)
& Margary de WILLOUGHBY ( - Before 1452)
William FitzHugh and Margery de Willoughby had three daughter, Lora,
Elizabeth, and Eleanor. Both Ellen Newton and Edward Carlson are
descended from William FitzHugh and Margery de Willoughby, and hence from
Robert I Marmion and Millicent de Rethel, through these daughter. I count
Edward Carleton and Ellen Newton among my "gateway ancestors" as well as
Thomas Bradbury and Mary Perkins.
LORA FITZ HUGH TO ELLEN NEWTON
12. Lora FitzHUGH
& John CONSTABLE ( - 1477/1478)
13. Isabel CONSTABLE ( - 1505)
& Stephen de THORPE
14. Margaret THORPE ( - 9 Jun 1515)
& John NEWTON
15. John NEWTON (Circa 7 Nov 1515 - 1562/1563)
& Margaret GRIMSTON ( - 1587)
16. John NEWTON
& Marie ? [Mrs. Newton] ( - After 1587)
17. Lancelot NEWTON (Circa 1580 - 30 Aug 1622)
& Mary LEE
18. Ellen NEWTON (Circa 1614 - After 1656)
& Edward CARLETON (Circa 1610 - Circa 1661)
ELIZABETH FITZ HUGH TO EDWARD CARLETON
12. Elizabeth fitz Hugh
& Ralph de GREYSTOKE Lord Greystoke
13. Elizabeth de GREYSTOKE ( - After 20 Dec 1485)
& Thomas le SCROPE (Circa 1428 - 1475)
14. Alice le SCROPE
& James STRANGEWAYS Sir ( - After Nov 1521)
15. Joan STRANGEWAYS ( - 15 Nov 1546)
& John de BIGOD ( - 9 Sep 1513)
16. Elizabeth BIGOD ( - After 3 May 1538)
& Stephen HAMERTON Sir (Before 1495 - 25 May 1537)
17. Agnes HAMERTON ( - 1588)
& Walter Charles STRICKLAND (5 Apr 1516 - 8 Apr 1569)
18. Ellen STRICKLAND (Circa 1550 - After 1623)
& John CARLETON (1550/1555 - Jan 1622)
19. Walter CARLETON (Dec 1582 - 4 Oct 1623)
& Jane GIBBON (Circa 1595 - After 1639)
20. Edward CARLETON (Circa 1610 - Circa 1661)
& Ellen NEWTON (Circa 1614 - After 1656)
ELEANOR FITZ HUGH TO EDWARD CARLETON
12. Eleanor fitz Hugh
& Thomas TUNSTALL Sir (1393 - 1471)
13. Joan TUNSTALL ( - 1473)
& Roger WARD Sir ( - 1472)
14. Christopher WARD Sir (Circa 1453 - 31 Dec 1521)
& Margaret GASCOIGNE (Circa 1455 - )
15. Ann WARD (Circa 1480 - Before 1521)
& Ralph NEVILLE Sir (Circa 1465 - 24 Jul 1522)
16. Katherine NEVILLE (Circa 1501 - Before 1557)
& Walter STRICKLAND Sir (1497 - 9 Jan 1527/1528)
17. Walter Charles STRICKLAND (5 Apr 1516 - 8 Apr 1569)
& Agnes HAMERTON ( - 1588)
18. Ellen STRICKLAND (Circa 1550 - After 1623)
& John CARLETON (1550/1555 - Jan 1622)
19. Walter CARLETON (Dec 1582 - 4 Oct 1623)
& Jane GIBBON (Circa 1595 - After 1639)
20. Edward CARLETON (Circa 1610 - Circa 1661)
& Ellen NEWTON (Circa 1614 - After 1656)
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Thank you, Alan. Descendants of Grace Chetwode also have this descent
through the Talbot-Cotton marriage.
K Allen all...@pacbell.net
mar...@yahoo.com
the Invasion of Ireland 1172 with Strongbow (Richard De Clare) and this
started the Marmion Clan in Ireland- I believe he was in Dublin. Is
there anything written anywhere, any documentation, that indicates who
he had these children with, how long he was there?
Any assistance would be appreciated.
Brigitte Marmion