Maud de Beauchamp, wife of Robert Marmion
Barbara Watkins
Beauchamp, wife of Robert Marmion?
CP, quoting J. H. Round in _Feudal England_, states "This alliance
presumably took place before King Henry II's charter of 1155 to Robert
Marmion the second when his son Robert, afterwards the justice, could
not have been more than a boy."
Although CP does not state Maud's parentage, it again quotes Round's
_Geoffrey de Mandeville_ to explain the motive behind the 1155
charter. "Tamworth had been granted to William, son of Walter de
Beauchamp, by the Empress Maud @ 1141." Presumably Maud de Beauchamp
was related to William de Beauchamp. (The Marmions had hereditary
rights and interests in Tamworth, but they had supported Stephen.)
William de Beauchamp, son of Walter de Beauchamp, had married Bertha,
daughter of William Briouze. (Beauchamp Cartulary) (George Baker,
_History of the County of Northampton_) Bertha Briouze was the
daughter of William Briouze and Bertha de Hereford. (Dudley G. Cary
Elwes, "De Braose Family," _The Genealogist_ vol 4)
William Briouze and Bertha "2nd sister and coh. of William of
Hereford" (CP) married "in or before 1150." (CP)
Bertha de Hereford's parents were Miles de Gloucester and Sybil de
Neufmarche who married in 1121. (CP)
Given that Bertha de Hereford is "second sister," she presumably
cannot have been born before 1123. Also, if she was married anywhere
close to the 1150 date, how could she have a granddaughter whose
marriage contract settled the Tamworth dispute in 1155?
Thanks for any help in either the math or corrections to the pedigree.
Barbara Watkins
Chris Phillips
Barbara Watkins wrote:
> Can someone please help me with a chronology problem on Maud de
> Beauchamp, wife of Robert Marmion?
> William de Beauchamp, son of Walter de Beauchamp, had married Bertha,
> daughter of William Briouze. (Beauchamp Cartulary) (George Baker,
> _History of the County of Northampton_) Bertha Briouze was the
> daughter of William Briouze and Bertha de Hereford. (Dudley G. Cary
> Elwes, "De Braose Family," _The Genealogist_ vol 4)
I'm not sure whether this helps, but I think a look at the chronology and
other factors shows that the William de Beauchamp who married Bertha must
have been the grandson of Walter, not his son, and that Bertha must have
been a granddaughter, not a daughter of William Briouze and Bertha de
Hereford (i.e. she must have been a daughter of the William who d. 1211.
See my post entitled "Consanguinity of Walter de Beauchamp and Alice de
Tony", on 2 February 2002.
Chris Phillips
The...@aol.com
Hello Barbara, Chris, et al.,
Again, it seems studying the Beauchamps does not make for les bon temps...
As Chris noted, there is a chronological problem as this Marmion - de Beauchamp connection is made; however, it appears from my notes that the lady de Beauchamps who married Robert Marmion was not Bertha, but Maud [or Elizabeth acc. to CP] de Beauchamps; further, that she was the daughter of William de Beauchamp (d. 1170) and his wife Agnes, and thereby aunt of the Walter de Beauchamp who married Bertha de Braose.
The chart below lays out the collateral Beauchamp and Marmion lines for a few generations. I would refer you to both CP, and to Alan Wilson's SGM post on the subject, referenced in the chart.
Hope this helps.
John *
_______________________
1 Walter de Beauchamp
----------------------------------------
Father: Hugh de Beauchamp
Spouse: Emmeline d'Abbetot
Children: William (-1170)
1.1 William de Beauchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 1170
Spouse: Maud de Braose
Father: William de Braose
Mother: Agnes
Children: William (-ca1211)
Maud
1.1.1 William de Beauchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1211
Spouse: Joan de St. Valery
Children: Walter (-1235)
1.1.1.1 Walter de Beauchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 1235
Spouse: Bertha de Braose
Father: William de Braose (-ca1192)
Mother: Bertha of Hereford
Children: Walcherin (-1236)
1.1.1.1.1 Walcherin de Beauchamp
----------------------------------------
Death: 14 Apr 1236
Spouse: Joan de Mortimer
Father: Roger de Mortimer (-<1214)
Mother: Isabel de Ferrieres (-<1252)
Children: William (->1268)
1.1.2 Maud de Beauchamp[1]
----------------------------------------
CP shows wife as Elizabeth, parentage unknown[2]
Spouse: Robert Marmion
Birth: bef 1133[1]
Death: bef Nov 1181[2]
Father: Robert Marmion (ca1095-ca1144)
Mother: Millicent of Rethel (ca1110-)
Children: Robert (-<1218)
1.1.2.1 Robert Marmion
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 15 May 1218[2]
of Winteringham and Scrivelsby, co. Lincoln, and Tamworth
and Middleton, co. Warwick;
justice of assize at Caen, 1177; Sheriff of Worcester,
1185-1189[2]
Spouse: Philippe[2]
Children: Robert (-<1242)
1.1.2.1.1 Robert Marmion
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 23 Oct 1242[2]
of Winteringham and Coningsby, co. Lincoln, Quinton, co. Gloucester, and Berwick, Sussex
eldest son by 2nd wife[2]
Spouse: Avice de Tanfield
Death: aft 1283[2]
Father: Gernegan de Tanfield
Children: Sir William (-<1277)
1. Alan B. Wilson, "Marmions in the Ancestry of Thomas
Bradbury," Apr 14, 1997, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com,
reposted as "Re: Marmion Question", Aug 28, 1999, Alan
B. Wilson {abwi...@uclink4.berkeley.edu}.
2. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
[microprint, 1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage
of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United
Kingdom.
* John P. Ravilious
Chris Phillips
> As Chris noted, there is a chronological problem as this Marmion - de
Beauchamp connection is made; however, it appears from my notes that the
lady de Beauchamps who married Robert Marmion was not Bertha, but Maud [or
Elizabeth acc. to CP] de Beauchamps; further, that she was the daughter of
William de Beauchamp (d. 1170) and his wife Agnes, and thereby aunt of the
Walter de Beauchamp who married Bertha de Braose.
>
> The chart below lays out the collateral Beauchamp and Marmion lines
for a few generations. I would refer you to both CP, and to Alan Wilson's
SGM post on the subject, referenced in the chart.
Many thanks for pointing out Alan Wilson's interesting post, which obviously
involves fairly wholesale revisions of the account of Marmion in the
Complete Peerage (I don't know whether these were addressed in vol.14).
One thing I must be missing is your mention of CP calling the Beauchamp wife
of Robert Marmion, Elizabeth. It seems to be Maud in the places I'm looking.
But maybe I'm missing a discrepancy elsewhere?
Chris Phillips
Doug Thompson
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk wrote on 25/9/02 9:26 am:
> I think a look at the chronology and
> other factors shows that the William de Beauchamp who married Bertha must
> have been the grandson of Walter, not his son, and that Bertha must have
> been a granddaughter, not a daughter of William Briouze and Bertha de
> Hereford (i.e. she must have been a daughter of the William who d. 1211.
Yes. This marriage would be the only evidence for the existence of Bertha,
daughter of William de B and Bertha H. Whereas there is independent
corroboration at least of the existence of a daughter Bertha for the next
William.
Doug Thompson
ALSO....
in article 41122562.626F...@aol.com, The...@aol.com at
The...@aol.com wrote on 25/9/02 2:16 pm:
> 1.1 William de Beauchamp
> ----------------------------------------
> Death: 1170
>
> Spouse: Maud de Braose
> Father: William de Braose
> Mother: Agnes
>
> Children: William (-ca1211)
> Maud
I don't understand what you are thinking here. No William de Braose of this
time had a wife Agnes and I see no evidence for a Maud de Braose who married
a Beauchamp.
Doug Thompson
The...@aol.com
Hello Doug,
I will look later into the question you've raised concern the Agnes noted in my post.
As to the Maud de Braose - William de Beauchamp issue, I direct your attention to the SGM post noted below. Should you find a error to have been committed, please advise Alan Wilson and myself, as well as the list.
Best regards,
John *
SGM subject post:
Author: Alan B. Wilson (abwi...@uclink4.berkeley.edu)
Subject: Re: Beauchamps of Salwarpe
Date: 1999/01/18
* John P. Ravilious
Cristopher Nash
> As to the Maud de Braose - William de Beauchamp issue, I direct
>your attention to the SGM post noted below. Should you find a error
>to have been committed, please advise Alan Wilson and myself, as
>well as the list.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John *
>
>
>SGM subject post:
>
>Author: Alan B. Wilson (abwi...@uclink4.berkeley.edu)
>Subject: Re: Beauchamps of Salwarpe
>
>Date: 1999/01/18
Amigo, in your thinking through Alan's position, might you be able to
say how you disposed of e.g. DD's (seemingly) heavily-sourced
insistence (which Alan hadn't seen) on the wife of Beauchamp (d.1170)
being Bertha da of William II de Braose? Or are we in for the Bertha
of another Brewsing Battle?
Cris
--
The...@aol.com
Dear Cris,
Actually, I have received only snippets of DD to date, and had no plans
of being stuck on Brambers or Brecon any limbs as a result.
The chart below lays out the relationships as I now have them; if you
review same and compare to your notes from DD or otherwise, you might spot
areas of divergence where either I, Dr. K-R or both might be wrong or in need
of a few Breuse.
William de Braose = Agnes
_____________________I___________________
I I
Philip de = NN de Totnes William de = Maud
Braose I <heiress> Beauchamp I
of Bramber I d. 1170 I
________I ________________I_
I I I
William de = Bertha William de = Joan Maud = Robert
Braose I of Beauchamp I de St. I Marmion
d.ca.1192 I Hereford d.ca.1211 I Valery I d.ca.
_________I_______________ I I 1181
I I I I I
William de Sibyl Bertha = Walter de Robert
Braose =1) William I Beauchamp Marmion
d.1211 de Ferrers I d. 1235 d. bef 15
= Maud de E of Derby I 1218
St. Valery d.ca. 1190 I I
I I [1] I I
I I I I
I I I I
from whom, from whom, from whom, from whom,
BRAOSE/BREUSE FERRERS BEAUCHAMP MARMION
of Bramber, Earls of Earls of Lords Marmion
Brecknock, Derby Warwick
Stinton and
Stradbroke
Good luck, and good hunting, muchacho....;)
John *
NOTES
[1] Sibyl de Braose m. 2ndly, Adam de Port (as his
second wife); he d. bef 29 July 1213. By his
first wife, ancestor of St. John of Basing.
* John P. Ravilious
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash wrote:
> Amigo, in your thinking through Alan's position, might you be able to
> say how you disposed of e.g. DD's (seemingly) heavily-sourced
> insistence (which Alan hadn't seen) on the wife of Beauchamp (d.1170)
> being Bertha da of William II de Braose? Or are we in for the Bertha
> of another Brewsing Battle?
This does seem to be a funny one. I had assumed that it was Emma Mason,
editor of the Beauchamp Cartulary, who had made Bertha the wife of William
Beauchamp (d. 1170), but this version - of variants where she is called
Maud - seems to be quite widespread, appearing also in "Domesday
Descendants".
I don't really understand it, because as far as I've seen, the only evidence
for the marriage (an early 14th century inquisition) does explicitly state
that Bertha's husband was William de Beauchamp [d. 1197], the son of this
William, and also that lands in Tetbury, Gloucestershire, were settled on
them (and the first Braose to hold lands in Tetbury was William, the son of
William II Braose). So that would place the marriage a generation later in
both families than in DD (and other sources).
The problem is that the inquisition places the settlement 160 years earlier,
which is presumably why it has been shifted a generation back. (Mason also
refers to unpublished cartulary evidence that identifies Amice, the wife of
William (d. 1197), as the mother of his children.) But unless there's
something I'm missing, the point about Tutbury makes this impossible. So we
have to conclude that the jurors just exaggerated the length of time since
the settlement, which seems plausible if they didn't have a dated document
to refer to.
(Some additional confirmation that the inquisition is correct comes from the
stated consanguinity in the 4th degree between Walter de Beauchamp (d.1303)
and his wife Alice Tony. Although there is some conflicting evidence about
Alice's parentage, the consanguinity can be made to work through this route
if Bertha is the wife of William (d. 1197) but not if she comes a generation
earlier.)
Incidentally, it's interesting to note that two of the secondary sources
quoted by Alan Wilson in 1999 identify the wife of William de Beauchamp (d.
1197) as Joan, daughter of Thomas de St. Valery (or variant). According to
Victoria County History, Gloucestershire,
[vol.11, p.264] Tetbury (where lands were granted to William and Bertha) had
previously been held by the St Valery family, and had possibly come to the
Braoses on the marriage of William de Braose (d. 1211) to Maud de St Valery
(evidently Bertha's true parents). Perhaps this mention of St Valery in the
secondary sources reflects some evidence that Bertha brought former St
Valery lands to her marriage.
Chris Phillips
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris,
Certainly interested in your thoughts on the matter, and your view of
the chart I posted to Cris.
By the bye, the 'Walter de Beauchamp - Alice de Tony' marriage you
mention is not in my records (probably as it is not ancestral to a subsequent
generation - ?). I presume it is not Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick you
meant [he married Alice de Tony, heiress of her brother Robert, Lord Tony] .
Cheers,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> Certainly interested in your thoughts on the matter, and your view
of
> the chart I posted to Cris.
I'm afraid I don't have any particular knowledge of the Braoses, but had
just looked into that particular question of Bertha.
> By the bye, the 'Walter de Beauchamp - Alice de Tony' marriage you
> mention is not in my records (probably as it is not ancestral to a
subsequent
> generation - ?). I presume it is not Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick
you
> meant [he married Alice de Tony, heiress of her brother Robert, Lord Tony]
.
This is Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester etc (d. 1303), who married an Alice
de Tony. She seems to have been the daughter of Roger de Tony (d. c. 1264)
and Alice de Bohun (although one record calls her father Ralph). This would
make her an aunt of the Alice who married Guy, earl of Warwick, I think.
Chris Phillips
Doug Thompson
c...@windsong.u-net.com wrote on 26/9/02 2:58 am:
> DD's (seemingly) heavily-sourced
> insistence (which Alan hadn't seen) on the wife of Beauchamp (d.1170)
> being Bertha da of William II de Braose?
I haven't been able to get to meet DD yet! Is there anything you could
summarise about this heavily sourced insistence?
Doug Thompson
Doug Thompson
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk wrote on 26/9/02 9:42 pm:
>> Certainly interested in your thoughts on the matter, and your view
> of
>> the chart I posted to Cris.
>
> I'm afraid I don't have any particular knowledge of the Braoses, but had
> just looked into that particular question of Bertha.
I have studied the Braoses in depth and have come to the conclusion that
there are many "facts" in your chart which do not stand examination.
1. Right at the top. William de Braose = Agnes ....unlikely.
This can be found in many genealogies but is always traced back to a single
reference in Collin's Peerage. There is no evidence for it. The Agnes de St
Claire who this is supposed to be was more likely married to a Bruce. More
confusion of Bruce/Braoses I'm afraid.
2. The daughter Maud married to William de Beauchamp appears in a few
sources. Despite looking, I have found none which give any evidence for it.
3. Sybil = William de Ferrers..... see CP Vol 14, p250. This is no longer
believed to be proven.
4. Bertha = Walter de Beauchamp ...... This is a big problem. What Bertha
and what Beauchamp? I (like Chris Phillips) lean towards Bertha having been
a daughter of the next William de Braose. But I have yet to see what
Keats-Rohan gives as evidence in DD.
Open to any evidence...
Doug Thompson
Cristopher Nash
> > DD's (seemingly) heavily-sourced insistence (which Alan hadn't seen)
> > on the wife of Beauchamp (d.1170) being Bertha da of William II de Braose?
>
>I haven't been able to get to meet DD yet! Is there anything you could
>summarise about this heavily sourced insistence?
DD's article on "de Bellocampo Vicecomes, Willelm", including the
statement that "By his wife Bertha, daughter of William II de
Braose, he had issue William (d. 1197)" etc, cites the sources shown
below. Having not examined these to determine it, as I suggested I
can only say that the bulk of the article's sourcing would _appear_
to include evidence in support of this claim. In any case I'm obliged
to say that no source is named with this in view in K-R's article
itself (which I'd prefer not to copy here in justice to copyright;
sorry, it's a writer's predisposition!).
Cronne/Davis, RRAN III, nos 68, 115-16, 795, 964; Darlington,
Cartulary of Worcester (Register I) (1962-63) nos 37, 71, 77, 212-14,
338; Dugdale. Monasticon Anglicanum, V, pp. 175-76, no II; Mason,
Beauchamp Cartulary Charters (1980), no. 8; Pipe Roll 2 Henry II,
29-st, 62-wo, 63-wo, 64-wo; Pipe Roll 3 Henry 11, 91-wo, 92-wo,
97-st; Pipe Roll 4 Henry II, 154-156wo, 167-169g1; Pipe Roll 5 Henry
II, 23-25-wo, 25-wk, 26-28-gl, 28-st; Pipe Roll 6 Henry II, 23-25wo,
27-29g1; Pipe Roll 7 Henry II, 19-2lhf, 54-wo, 55-wo; Pipe Roll 8
Henry II, 3-lcwk, 27-ox, 28-ox, 29-st, 55-57wo, 57e-59hf, 59-6lg;
Pipe Roll 9 Henry II, 4-wo, 5a, 6-hf, 7-hf, 8-gl, 9-gl; Pipe Roll 10
Henry II, 3-5wo, 5-hf, 6-h, 18-gl; Pipe Roll 11 Henry II, 12-gl,
13-gl, 68a-ox, 73-bk, 85-wklc, 89-sp, 98-wa, 99-wo, 100-hf, 101-hf,
Pipe Roll 12 Henry II, 78-g, 80-83wo; Red Book of the Exchequer, ed.
Hall (1897), pp. 188-98, 269-70, 278-79, 287-88, 299-300, 300-1,
301-2, 302, 335;; Round, Ancient Charters (1888), no. 27; Round,
Fragments from Worcester (1895 : 1946), pp. 146-47; Walker, Charters
of the Earldom of Hereford (1964), nos 11, 68 [END]
Cris
--
The...@aol.com
Dear Cris, Doug,et al.,
A close reading of K-R's sources will probably be the one way to solve
this mystery and brace the Braose family properly -
A major problem with the relationships as constructed in DD is
chronological. We do not have significant information as to the birth dates
of the individuals involved, but we do have their death dates (approximate in
some cases). If Bertha de Braose was the mother of William II de Beauchamp,
we would then show the following extended pedigree:
1. William de Braose = Bertha of Hereford
lord of Bramber and Brecon I heiress of Brecknock
d. ca. 1192 [1] I
_________________I
I
2. Bertha de Braose = William de Beauchamp
________________I
I
3. William II de Beauchamp = Joan de St. Valery
d. 1197 [2] I
____________________I
I
4. Walter de Beauchamp = ____________
__________________I
I
5. Walcherin de Beauchamp = Joan de Mortimer
___________________I
I
6. William de Beauchamp = Isabel Mauduit
of Elmley, co. Worcs. I heiress (in her
d. aft 7 Jan 1268/9 [3] I issue) of Warwick
____________________I
I
7. William de Beauchamp, 9th Earl of Warwick
d. ca. 9 June 1298 [3]
As illustrated above, this relationship presses 5 generations into say 75
years, or 6 generations into say 106:
this would yield an average age at parenthood of between 15 and 17 years.
This would be a stretch in a direct female line, but given there is only one
female link in the above pedigree this does not seem probable, and fails to
support the relationship as identified in DD.
The version I still reflect in my records (in dispute with DD) places
Bertha de Braose as the wife of Walter de Beauchamp (Gen. 4 above), and
removes 2 generations from the span of the pedigree: this places 3
generations in 75 years, or 4 in 106, yielding an average age at parenting of
say 25 to 27.
If anyone can find a sound basis for accepting the pedigree per DD as
outlined above, I would be glad to hear of it.
Best regards,
John *
NOTES
[1] Todd A. Farmerie, <De Braose> , SGM 10 March, 1997
[2] Katherine Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants as cited
by Cristopher Nash, <Re: Maud de Beauchamp, wife of
Robert Marmion>, SGM 29 September 2002
[3] CP: Warwick, Earls of
* John P. Ravilious
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash wrote:
> DD's article on "de Bellocampo Vicecomes, Willelm", including the
> statement that "By his wife Bertha, daughter of William II de
> Braose, he had issue William (d. 1197)" etc, cites the sources shown
> below. Having not examined these to determine it, as I suggested I
> can only say that the bulk of the article's sourcing would _appear_
> to include evidence in support of this claim. In any case I'm obliged
> to say that no source is named with this in view in K-R's article
> itself (which I'd prefer not to copy here in justice to copyright;
> sorry, it's a writer's predisposition!).
Of course, the trouble with a long list of sources at the end like that is
that unless you have an afternoon to spare, and access to a very well
equipped library, it's difficult to know if any of them actually says
anything about the marriage in question.
One labour-saving strategy might be to look at the list of references for
another of Keats-Rohan's articles where this marriage is mentioned, the one
on Willelm II de Braose (pp. 346, 347). The only overlap I can see is in a
couple of the pipe roll references, which would perhaps be expected anyway
if the families held lands in the same county.
I can only say the evidence about the lands clearly implies that the
marriage was a generation later, and that the (admittedly much later)
inquisition has stated William de Beauchamp's position in the family
correctly. This is the view of the VCH account of Tetbury (which does cite
some contemporary documents for related transactions).
I can't help suspecting that Keats-Rohan has actually taken this marriage
from a secondary source (Emma Mason's edition of the Beauchamp Cartulary -
one charter from which which is included in the list of references for the
Beauchamp article), as I suspect she did for some of the FitzAlan material
(which matched Sanders). Quite understandable, especially in a work of this
breadth - paricularly if the marriage in fact fell outside the 1066-1166
time-frame - but difficult to check without individual references per fact.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
>Now to search for those further dated docs.! Anyone for a dip in
>DD's cited Rolls?
Chris wrote --
>Of course, the trouble with a long list of sources at the end like that is
>that unless you have an afternoon to spare, and access to a very well
>equipped library, it's difficult to know if any of them actually says
>anything about the marriage in question.
Yup.
>One labour-saving strategy might be to look at the list of references for
>another of Keats-Rohan's articles where this marriage is mentioned, the one
>on Willelm II de Braose (pp. 346, 347).
Yes! just what I was going to do next. (Actually wanted to include
them but got fed-up with scanning).
>The only overlap I can see is in a couple of the pipe roll
>references, which would perhaps be expected anyway if the families
>held lands in the same county.
>
>I can only say the evidence about the lands clearly implies that the
>marriage was a generation later, and that the (admittedly much later)
>inquisition has stated William de Beauchamp's position in the family
>correctly. This is the view of the VCH account of Tetbury (which does cite
>some contemporary documents for related transactions).
>
>I can't help suspecting that Keats-Rohan has actually taken this marriage
>from a secondary source (Emma Mason's edition of the Beauchamp Cartulary -
>one charter from which which is included in the list of references for the
>Beauchamp article), as I suspect she did for some of the FitzAlan material
>(which matched Sanders).
I agree.
>Quite understandable, especially in a work of this breadth -
>paricularly if the marriage in fact fell outside the 1066-1166
>time-frame - but difficult to check without individual references
>per fact.
There's the (chronic in this game) rub. I think s/body's got to look
at least at K-R's overlapping Rolls. No cosmetic allusion intended.
Cris
--
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> A close reading of K-R's sources will probably be the one way to solve
> this mystery and brace the Braose family properly -
I really think this is a case where there needn't be any mystery, and the
evidence is as clear as we could wish for.
This inquisition, which must in fact be dated just over a century after the
marriage, identifies Bertha's husband and her father:
"no 1971. Writ to Walter de Gloucestre, escheator south of Trent. Fyndon. 19
June 33 Edward I. [1305.]
Gloucester.
Inquisition:- Ywelegh. 22 August.
A rent of 14£ in Upton, Dughton, and Tettebury, which John de Thorndon
acquired from William de Bello Campo, sometime earl of Warwick, is not held
of the king immediately but of Peter de Breouse as mesne lord; because
William de Breouse, long since deceased, who once held the manor of
Tettebury together with the said rent and other tenements belonging to the
said manor of the king in chief by service of a knight's fee, gave the said
rent a hundred and sixty years and more past to William de Bello Campo,
great grandfather of the said earl, and Berta, daughter of the said William
de Brewose, in free marriage.
Afterwards William de Breouse, kinsman and heir of the said William de
Breouse, enfeoffed the said Peter de Breouse of the manor of Tettebury with
the said earl's service of the said rent. Cf. Close Roll Calendar, p.289.
C. Inq. Misc. File 64. (29.)"
[Cal. Inq. Misc., vol.1, p.534]
Notes:
[1] William de Bello Campo, "sometime earl of Warwick" in 1305, can only be
the earl who d. 1298, the only man of that name to have held that earldom.
His great grandfather William is the one numbered William II (who died in
1197); according to my notes his son Walter was a minor when William died;
Walter married in 1212 and gained possession of his lands by 1214.
[I think the "Walcherin" in John's chart, down as marrying Joan Mortimer is
really the same person as Walter shown in the previous generation. Thus the
chart given by Emma Mason, anyway.]
[2] According to VCH Gloucestershire vol.11, p. 264, Tetbury was held in the
12th century by the St Valery family. Reynold held it c.1148 and at his
death he was succeeded by his son Bernard (d.c. 1191), whose son Thomas (d.
1219) was deprived of his estates before 1197. It then says that Tetbury was
granted to William de Breuse [Glos RO D566/T1/1; cf Rot. Cur. Reg. (Rec.
Com.) ii 177], possibly on his marriage* to Maud de St Valery, and was
confiscated in 1208 after his quarrel with King John. It then goes on to say
that Reynold, a son of William, had secured his title by 1221 when he
granted part of the manor to Walter Beauchamp; p. 265 describes this a a
confirmation to Walter of a large estate described as a moiety of Tetbury
manor [citing CP25(1)/73/4, no 20].
[*I can only think VCH should have said "in consequence of his marriage",
not "on his marriage", as that marriage must have taken place long before
c.1191]
The inquisition is consistent with the marriage in the early 1190s of
William de Beauchamp (d. 1197) to a daughter of William de Braose (d. 1211).
The period of 160 years in the inquisition must be incorrect, as no Braose
would have been in a position to grant land in Tetbury anywhere near this
early. But there would have to be far more serious errors in the inquisition
to allow Bertha to move a generation earlier or a generation later.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
Braose descent problem -- I've just realized I've not been following
properly. I've always had:
William II de Braose/Breuse/Brewose
d. aft 1179, prob 1192-3
& Bert(h)a of Gloucester
| |
| Bertha de Braose
| & William de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
| d. 1170
| | William de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
| | d. 1197
| | & ?Joane de St Valerie?
| | | Walter de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
| | | d. 14 Apr 1236
| | | & Joan (de) Mortimer
| | | d. 1225
| | | | William de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
| | | | d. 1269
| | | | & Isabel Mauduit
| | | | d. bef 1268
[Etc]
Sorry to be so dumb. Might s/o remind me why we're inserting John's
'generation 4'?
Cheers.
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
>Re the excessive no. of generations as a root of the William de
>Braose descent problem -- I've just realized I've not been following
>properly. I've always had:
>
>
>William II de Braose/Breuse/Brewose
> d. aft 1179, prob 1192-3
> & Bert(h)a of Gloucester
>| |
>| Bertha de Braose
>| & William de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
>| d. 1170
>| | William de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
>| | d. 1197
>| | & ?Joane de St Valerie?
>| | | Walter de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
>| | | d. 14 Apr 1236
>| | | & Joan (de) Mortimer
>| | | d. 1225
>| | | | William de Beauchamp of Elmley,Worcs
>| | | | d. 1269
>| | | | & Isabel Mauduit
>| | | | d. bef 1268
>
>[Etc]
>
>Sorry to be so dumb. Might s/o remind me why we're inserting John's
>'generation 4'?
I should have said that I didn't grasp why generation 4 (Walter de
Beachamp) appeared _and_ was given son Walchelin de Beauchamp as
husb. of Joan de Mortimer. My version depended I'm afraid only on
CP, which (IX, 273) had Walter de Beauchamp as husb. of Joan de
Mortimer, offering as sources Ann. Mon. (Rolls. Ser.), IV, 400, and
Rot. Lit. Claus., I, 168.
Cris
--
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash wrote:
> I should have said that I didn't grasp why generation 4 (Walter de
> Beachamp) appeared _and_ was given son Walchelin de Beauchamp as
> husb. of Joan de Mortimer. My version depended I'm afraid only on
> CP, which (IX, 273) had Walter de Beauchamp as husb. of Joan de
> Mortimer, offering as sources Ann. Mon. (Rolls. Ser.), IV, 400, and
> Rot. Lit. Claus., I, 168.
The marriage being bought in 1212, and the couple's grandson William de
Beauchamp, earl of Warwick apparently being born around 1240, so
realistically no room for Walchelin.
But that CP reference for Walter's marriage is slightly puzzling, as it says
that Roger de Mortimer proffered 3,000 marks for the marriage of "the heir
of Walter de Beauchamp". Shouldn't that be "Walter, the heir of William de
Beauchamp"?
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
seeded with my appreciative grunts) is tremendously helpful, Chris.
>John P. Ravilious wrote:
>> A close reading of K-R's sources will probably be the one way to solve
>> this mystery and brace the Braose family properly -
>
>
That suits me.
>[2] According to VCH Gloucestershire vol.11, p. 264, Tetbury was held in the
>12th century by the St Valery family. Reynold held it c.1148 and at his
>death he was succeeded by his son Bernard (d.c. 1191), whose son Thomas (d.
>1219) was deprived of his estates before 1197. It then says that Tetbury was
>granted to William de Breuse [Glos RO D566/T1/1; cf Rot. Cur. Reg. (Rec.
>Com.) ii 177], possibly on his marriage* to Maud de St Valery, and was
>confiscated in 1208 after his quarrel with King John. It then goes on to say
>that Reynold, a son of William, had secured his title by 1221 when he
>granted part of the manor to Walter Beauchamp; p. 265 describes this a a
>confirmation to Walter of a large estate described as a moiety of Tetbury
>manor [citing CP25(1)/73/4, no 20].
>
>[*I can only think VCH should have said "in consequence of his marriage",
>not "on his marriage", as that marriage must have taken place long before
>c.1191]
>
>The inquisition is consistent with the marriage in the early 1190s of
>William de Beauchamp (d. 1197) to a daughter of William de Braose (d. 1211).
>The period of 160 years in the inquisition must be incorrect, as no Braose
>would have been in a position to grant land in Tetbury anywhere near this
>early. But there would have to be far more serious errors in the inquisition
>to allow Bertha to move a generation earlier or a generation later.
By this reckoning I can at last dump my extremely old & provisional
'?Joane de St Valerie?' (you can see from Chris' sketch where - for
lack of suffic. facts - that kind of thinking came from) and think to
replace her provisionally with Bertha de Braose as da. possibly of
William de Braose III who d. say 9/10 Aug 1211 and w. of William de
Beauchamp who d. not 1170 but 1197, leaving Joan de Mortimer intact
(she would have wanted it that way). Is that a more workable hypoth.
setup for you, John, or am I rushing things?
Cris
--
Doug Thompson
It all helps with this long running problem. We seem to be nearing some sort
of agreement which is in variance with DD.
Unless someone comes up with new evidence I feel that the inquisition should
be taken as conclusive.
Time to change the files!
Doug Thompson
Barbara Watkins
thanks to all of you who have contributed and totally confused me.
Even as I was reading posts this morning, they kept coming up!
But it looks like there may be a resolution to the William
Beauchamp, Bertha Braose question which would totally knock them out
as candidates for ancestors to Maud de Beauchamp who married Robert
Marmion.
Thanks to John for posting a Braose pedigree. One the male line,
I have pretty much followed Elwes' article. He also cited Collins for
the Agnes St. Clair marriage which Doug has cast a dark shadow on. He
also names Philip's wife as Aenor (Eleanor) daughter of Juhel de
Totnes as does CP. However, Elwes does not give Maud, (daughter of
the first William) married to William de Beauchamp, nor does he marry
Bertha Braose to Walter Beauchamp.
The Beauchamp pedigree posted by John mostly follws one I've seen
published in "The Greville Family," but every reliable
historian/genealogist I've read contradicts that source. Also, the
Greville pedigree does not list the infamous Maud de Beauchamp who
marries Robert Marmion. So, I'm still on square one. Who are the
parents of Maud de Beauchamp, wife of Robert Marmion. Could she have
been a sister, rather than daughter, to William de Beauchamp who
received the Tamworth lands from the Empress Maud? Also, all my
sources say Walter de Beauchamp married Emmeline d'Abitot, not Hugh.
An extra generation would sure help my chronology there, too. What
are the sources for the Walter - Hugh filiation? I've pretty much
been following the _Beauchamp Cartulary_ as my Beauchamp source, but
am very open to corrections and additions.
Again, thanks to all who have been so helpful (and thorough.) I
think you have pretty much obliterated my original pedigree, but I
have this empty hole in my puzzle and I want to find the right piece
to fit! You guys are wonderful!
Barbara Watkins
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris, Cris, et al.,
Many thanks for your views and insights in seeking to solve the Beauchamp
dilemma, and settle the skirmishes de Bello Campo.
Chris, the IPM you cited goes far towards reaching this goal; there is,
however, a need to resolve certain issues in order to achieve a 'correct'
Beauchamp pedigree. I have reviewed both my own notes together with the
pedigree I posted earlier in this thread, and have also had recourse to Alan
Wilson's post of January 1999 that bears closely on this subject [1]. Alan
provided sites from Sanders, Turton and Burke's as to the earlier generations
of the Beauchamps, none of which agreed too closely with another: this is
another proof of Captain Queeg's Theorum of Genealogy [2]. That being said,
having modified my Beauchamp pedigree based on the IPM cited as well as your
posts together with Alan's, I think we can theorize what the Beauchamp
pedigree should look like:
1. Walter de Beauchamp, d. 1131 = Emmeline d'Abbetot
__________________________I
I
2. William de Beauchamp, d. 1170 = 1) NN
___________________________I 2) possibly, Maud de
I Braose
I
[by unknown wife, not Maud de Braose :]
3. William de Beauchamp, d. 1197 = 1) possible first
wife, Joan de
St. Valery
= 2) (second ?) wife,
___________________________I Bertha de Braose
I
4. Walter de Beauchamp, d. 1235/6 = NN (possibly Joan
I or Isabel de
I Mortimer)
_____________________________I
I
5. William de Beauchamp = Isabel Mauduit
of Elmley; d. 1268/9
This resolves the chronological problem I noted previously, and agrees
with the relationships set forth in the 1305 IPM. It also would resolve the
question of how Tetbury (or rather a moiety thereof) wound up in the hands of
Walter de Beauchamp: by placing Bertha de Braose as the daughter of William
de Braose (d. 1211) and his wife Maud de St. Valery, as proposed by Chris,
Walter de Beauchamp (d. 1236) was therefore nephew of Reynold de Braose [3],
who as Chris noted had granted a moiety to Walter de Beauchamp in or before
1221 [This may have been in addition to the rent in Tetbury stated in the IPM
of 1305 to have been part of Bertha's maritagium].
~ That this was the case is supported by CP, which
records of Bertha' sister Eleanor, wife of Hugh
de Mortimer of Wigmore (dsps 10 Nov 1227), that
she had as her maritagium 'the manors of Tetbury
[evidently a moiety thereof] and Hampnett'.
See CP under Mortimer, of Wigmore.
The matter of solving the puzzling identifications of several Beauchamp
spouses is certainly open for discussion. The existence and placement of
Maud de Braose merits more study, but is indicated above as being theoretical
at present. The St. Valery connection shown in my pedigree, and supported by
both Turton and Burke, also deserves closer attention, but may well be the
result of seeking to explain the Tetbury lands in Beauchamp hands which
Chris' find of the 1305 IPM appears to resolve. All three indicated sources
(Turton, Sanders and Burke) indicate a Mortimer marriage, but each shows a
different Beauchamp spouse - Walter, (d. 1235), William II (d. 1197) and
'Walchelene' (d. 1235), respectively; therefore, I do not show this as
certain at this point.
How does the foregoing stand in your view(s) ?
Best regards,
John *
NOTES
[1] Alan B. Wilson, <Beauchamps of Salwarpe>, SGM
11 January 1999
[2] Queeg's Theorum of Genealogical Research:
'There are four ways to do genealogy: the right
way [read CP], the wrong way [read Burke's],
the Navy way [read what you will] and my way.
Do it my way, and we'll get along just fine.' *
* Please note, this has applications in other
fields: business, law, animal husbandry,
human husbandry, ......
[3] Better known as Reginald de Braose, lord of
Abergavenny (d. 1228), ancestor of the future
Braose, de Cantelou and Hastings lords of
Abergavenny by his first wife, and also first
husband of the well-known Gwladys Ddu.
* John P. Ravilious
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> having modified my Beauchamp pedigree based on the IPM cited as well as
your
> posts together with Alan's, I think we can theorize what the Beauchamp
> pedigree should look like:
I've interspersed some comments below, though I'm far from expert on these
Beauchamps.
>
>
> 1. Walter de Beauchamp, d. 1131 = Emmeline d'Abbetot
Keats-Rohan (Domesday Descendants p. 314) has him dying 1130/1133 and calls
his wife "[Emeline], daughter of Urso d'Abitot". I don't know what the [...]
mean.
> __________________________I
> I
> 2. William de Beauchamp, d. 1170 = 1) NN
> ___________________________I 2) possibly, Maud de
> I Braose
> I
There seems to be a vacancy for the position of his wife, if Bertha is his
daughter-in-law. Perhaps Maud is a confused version of Bertha?
> [by unknown wife, not Maud de Braose :]
> 3. William de Beauchamp, d. 1197 = 1) possible first
> wife, Joan de
> St. Valery
> = 2) (second ?) wife,
> ___________________________I Bertha de Braose
> I
I'd guess that Joan is a confused version of Bertha.
One point that it would be nice to sort out is that Emma Mason, "The
Beauchamp Cartulary", gives him a wife Amice and says there is evidence from
an unpublished cartulary that makes Amice the daughter of his children
[sorry, I can't find my notes of this for the details]. That's partly why
she argues that Bertha should be shifted back a generation. I don't know
what the explanation of this is, but as already discussed, Bertha seems
impossible to shift.
> 4. Walter de Beauchamp, d. 1235/6 = NN (possibly Joan
> I or Isabel de
> I Mortimer)
> _____________________________I
> I
Cris Nash pointed out Complete Peerage vol.9, p.273, which says that "In
1212 he proffered 3,000 marks for the marriage of the heir of Walter de
Beauchamp, to whom he married his daughter Joan" [citing Ann. Mon. (Rolls
Ser.), vol. iv, p. 400; Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 168]. But I find this a
bit confusing - why the heir of "Walter"?
> 5. William de Beauchamp = Isabel Mauduit
> of Elmley; d. 1268/9
>
Chris Phillips
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris,
Whilst pondering your notes on the subject, a quick aside:
The recast Beauchamp pedigree now fits with the marriage of Walter de
Beauchamp and Alice de Tony, and the dispensation for their marriage. Walter
is now correctly (as I see it) shown as great-grandson of Bertha de Braose,
who is now also correctly placed as daughter of William de Braose and Maud de
St. Valery. Alice should be identified as daughter of Roger de Tony and
Alice de Bohun, as you theorized [1]. This places them in the 4th degree of
consanguinity, the reason for the 1289 dispensation.
This would appear to fit into your CP correction list (burgeoning though
it may be)...
Best regards,
John *
NOTES
[1] C. Phillips, <Consanguinity of Walter de Beauchamp
and Alice de Tony>, SGM, 2 February 2002
* John P. Ravilious
Cristopher Nash
Turton's finally stated source (though he commonly uses many more
he's not naming) for this section of the Beauchamp line is Cokayne
1910. My feeling is that whatever its merits/liabilities, one thing
to be said about CP 2d ed. is that it's composed with the express
intention of replacing Cokayne 1910 on the basis of fuller
information, and I wonder if we mayn't put Turton to rest as a
leading player in this particular arena.
Cris
John wrote --
> Chris, the IPM you cited goes far towards reaching this goal; there is,
>however, a need to resolve certain issues in order to achieve a 'correct'
>Beauchamp pedigree. I have reviewed both my own notes together with the
>pedigree I posted earlier in this thread, and have also had recourse to Alan
>Wilson's post of January 1999 that bears closely on this subject [1]. Alan
>provided sites from Sanders, Turton and Burke's as to the earlier generations
>of the Beauchamps, none of which agreed too closely with another:
--
Chris Phillips
> This would appear to fit into your CP correction list (burgeoning
though
> it may be)...
Possibly I'm missing it, but I don't think these early Beauchamps appear in
CP, do they? (Apart from the odd tangential note, such as the confusing one
in the Mortimer account.)
Chris Phillips
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris,
I would hope there is at least the typical footnote pedigree provided
under Warwick (probably in vol. XII/2). I don't have a copy to hand, but
will check as soon as I do.
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> I would hope there is at least the typical footnote pedigree
provided
> under Warwick (probably in vol. XII/2). I don't have a copy to hand, but
> will check as soon as I do.
No - unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately!) there's only a passing
reference to the father of the first Beauchamp earl, and a footnote "See
ped. of Beauchamp in Baker, Hist. of Northants, vol. ii, pp. 218-19."
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> I would hope there is at least the typical footnote pedigree
provided
> under Warwick (probably in vol. XII/2). I don't have a copy to hand, but
> will check as soon as I do.
No - unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately!) there's only a passing
Cristopher Nash
retirement of Turton on the Beauchamps. I view the silence of G H
White et al. on Cokayne's version of Beauchamp assertions as
significant. As to Burke, my feelings are well known; for my money
it's never too late to grow up (or take what steps we can in that
direction). I want to go with Chris's alert reading of the evidence
as it stands at present.
Cris
--