William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
Cristopher Nash
>[SNIP]
>
>The best discussion I have seen of William Fitz Alan (c1105-1160) can
>be found in Rev. Robert Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire vol. VII p.
>202-241.
>Basically, neither he nor his sons ever married a Helen Peverel.
>IIRC, this marriage was an invention by early 19th century
>genealogists to explain how vast Shropshire lands and the powerful
>position of Sheriff of Shropshire came to be held by the Fitz Alan
>family, a family not present at the time of the Doomsday survey.
>
>This William Fitz Alan had 2 wives. According to Ordericus, he
>married first Christiana "niece of Robert Earl of Gloucester" (and so
>possibly an unidentified granddaughter of Henry I?). This marriage is
>a likely reason for William Fitz Alan's staunch support for the Earl
>of Gloucester and the Empress Maud in their rebellion against King
>Stephen. Ordericus mentions children, however, it is likely he had no
>surviving male issue by this marriage as his heirs would be his sons
>by his second marriage. He did have one daughter who was likely born
>of this marriage - Christiana Fitz Alan who married Hugh Pantulf, 4th
>Baron of Wem.
>William Fitz Alan lost his lands during the rebellion and was forced
>to seek asylum, probably in the court of the Earl of Chester. He
>regained his lands and the title of Sheriff of Shropshire when Henry
>II succeeded to the throne in December 1154, and as a reward for his
>support was granted marriage to the rich heiress Isabel de Say,
>Baroness of Clun. They were married in the spring of 1155. He died
>about Easter 1160 and was buried in Shrewsbury Abbey.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>The ancestry of William Fitz Alan was discovered and printed in
>Studies in Peerage and Family History. by J. Horace Round, 1907.
>"The Origin of the Stewarts", pages 115-146. It basically gives:
>
>1. Alan Dapifer of Dol
> 2. Flaad Dapifer of Dol
> 3. Alan Fitz Flaald d: Aft. 1114
> +Avelina de Hesdig
> 4. [1] William I Fitz Alan b: Abt. 1105 in of Oswestry,
>Shropshire, England
>d: 1160 Burial: Shrewsbury Abbey (probably)
> +Christiana of Gloucester d: Bef. 1155 m:1155
> *2nd Wife of [1] William I Fitz Alan:
>Isabel de Sayd: 1199 m: 1155
>
>
>[SNIP]
>
> >
> > To further muddy the waters, Alan Wilson in SGM loosely citing
> > Complete Peerage, vol i, article on "arundel" for entire line's post
> > shows the son to William Fitz Alan and Helen Peverel named William
> > FitzALAN, Born Circa 1137 in Oswestry(Shrops) England. Died 1210 and
> > married to Isabel de Say Lady of Clune [From: Alan B. Wilson Subject:
> > Re: William Fitz Alan ca. 1060 Date: 1997/03/20 ]
>
>The CP article on Arundel does not give the parents of John Fitz Alan
>who married Isabel d'Aubigny. The Fitz Alan article confusingly
>implies Isabel de Say married the second William Fitz Alan. This is
>an error in CP. I do not know if it is corrected in vol. 14.
No alteration is proposed. I wonder if we might take a consensus on
this. Joe Cochoit's suggestion (from Eyton, a text that has time to
mature, shall we say), is that William ('I', so to speak) FitzAlan is
the father with Isabel de Say of William ('II'). No wife of William
('II') is identified; i.e. John FitzAlan who m. Isabel d'Aubigny is
the son of William ('II') but by an unknown mother. Is there general
agreement here?
Thanks.
Cris
--
Stewart, Peter
> From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c...@windsong.u-net.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2002 0:32
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife
> in sources.
>
> <snip>
> >
> >The CP article on Arundel does not give the parents of John Fitz Alan
> >who married Isabel d'Aubigny. The Fitz Alan article confusingly
> >implies Isabel de Say married the second William Fitz Alan. This is
> >an error in CP. I do not know if it is corrected in vol. 14.
>
>
> No alteration is proposed. I wonder if we might take a consensus on
> this. Joe Cochoit's suggestion (from Eyton, a text that has time to
> mature, shall we say), is that William ('I', so to speak) FitzAlan is
> the father with Isabel de Say of William ('II'). No wife of William
> ('II') is identified; i.e. John FitzAlan who m. Isabel d'Aubigny is
> the son of William ('II') but by an unknown mother. Is there general
> agreement here?
Isn't there a William III missing here? My limited understanding of this
lineage, based on CP and Sanders, is as follows:
William I, lord of Oswestry, died 1160, married (as her first husband)
Isabel de Say, lady of Clun (died _perhaps_ as late as 1199, later wife of
Geoffrey de Vere, lord of Haughley & William Boterell), daughter of Elias de
Say, lord of Clun & an unknown mother; their second son was
William II, lord of Oswestry & Clun, born ca 1154, died 1212/3, married an
unknown woman, his son & heir was:
William III, lord of Oswestry & Clun, died 1213, whose eldest son (by an
unknown wife) was:
William IV, lord of Oswestry & Clun, died 1215/7, who was succeeded by his
brother:
John, died 1240, who married Isabel d'Aubigny (died before 1240), daughter
of William d'Aubigny, earl of Arundel.
Perhaps I have missed some discussion correcting the above.
Peter Stewart
Cristopher Nash
Thanks for this, Peter. You've got us yet another puzzle and to be
honest, I don't know the answer. I think Joe Cochoit's point about
CP's possible ambiguity is well-taken and may expose a source of the
new uncertainty you've raised. I think it'd be good to look at the
CP passage, which isn't quite the series' most elegantly lucid.
The castle of Oswaldestre (Oswestry), co. Salop, was obtained, with
an extensive fief in Shropshire, early in the reign of Hen. I by
(1) Alan FitzFleald, a Breton, whose s. and h. (2) William FitzAlan,
of Oswestry, d. 1160, and was suc. by his s. and h. (3) William
FitzAlan, of the same, who in right of his wife (Isabel, da. and h.
of Ingram de Say) acquired the Lordship of Clun, also in co. Salop,
and d. about 1210. Their s. and h. (4) William FitzAlan, of Clun
and Oswestry, d. s.p., 1216, and was suc. by his br. and h. (5)
John FitzAlan, of the same, who m. Isabel, sister (whose issue
became coheirs) of Hugh (d'Aubigny), Earl of Arundel. He d. 1240.
[etc].
CP V, 391-2 (orig. character formatting,
notes & superscripts omitted)
Obviously it's CP's marriage of Isabel de Say to "(3) William" rather
than to "(2) William" that Joe Cochoit contests (and my query is
whether, if he's right, "(3) William" is thus left without a known
wife).
I gather (from e.g. your giving a different name for Isabel de Say's
father) that Sanders (which I haven't compared) is in play in your
view of the sequence and may also be the source of your 3d William.
(I scarcely know this line at all, but do know that Isabel's fa. is
often given both 'Ingram/Ingelram' and 'Elias', for what reason I
don't presently know.) It wouldn't be hard, though, for a quick
reading of CP's rather odd though well-intended ad hoc numbering
system to produce the impression that there are four Williams prior
to John FitzAlan.
Viz. "(2) William...(3) William...(4) William..."
But since you actually have (marginally) distinct _dates_ for four, I
reckon there's more to it than that, presumably in Sanders. Don't
mean to drag you off your track, but would you be able to say what he
gives, a bit more exactly? (Anybody able to chip in here would be
welcome!)
Cris
Just as a matter of curiosity: I notice that the old birds have
equally provocatively differing opinions -- Burke (BXP) giving
William (d. 1160) & Isabel de Say --> William (ca. 1172) --> William
(d. 1214) & Mary da. of Thomas de Erington (n.d.) --> William d. s.p.
(n.d.) & John who m. Isabel de Albini, and Turton giving three
Williams (one m. Helen Peverel --> one m. Isabel de Say--> one m.
Isabel d'Albini) -- but I'd personally rather not backslide into
their sumps. It's worth mentioning, I suppose, that Burke's picture
is quite close to yours.
--
Chris Phillips
> I gather (from e.g. your giving a different name for Isabel de Say's
> father) that Sanders (which I haven't compared) is in play in your
> view of the sequence and may also be the source of your 3d William.
> (I scarcely know this line at all, but do know that Isabel's fa. is
> often given both 'Ingram/Ingelram' and 'Elias', for what reason I
> don't presently know.) It wouldn't be hard, though, for a quick
> reading of CP's rather odd though well-intended ad hoc numbering
> system to produce the impression that there are four Williams prior
> to John FitzAlan.
> Obviously it's CP's marriage of Isabel de Say to "(3) William" rather
> than to "(2) William" that Joe Cochoit contests (and my query is
> whether, if he's right, "(3) William" is thus left without a known
> wife).
Apart from minor differences over dates, it looks as though there are three
discrepancies between the different accounts quoted so far in this thread
(Complete Peerage, Round, Sanders, Burke). Although it's on my list, I
haven't yet looked at any of these except CP (and haven't checked vol.14 for
a correction), so I'm going on what people have stated here.
(1) All the accounts except CP show William (d.1160) as the son of the
husband of Isabel de Say; CP shows Willia, the son of this William, as her
husband.
(2) CP names Isabel's father as Ingram; other sources give Elias.
(3) There is a difference between Round and CP on the one hand, which show
that William (d.1160) was the grandfather of John, the husband of Isabel
d'Aubigny, and the others, which show him as the great grandfather.
Incidentally, Joe Cochoit did mention that William II fitzAlan married "a
daughter of Hugh de Lacy" (probably from Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire).
Just to add another opinion to the brew, Keats-Rohan, in "Domesday
Descendants", (1) says that it was William (d.1160) who married Isabel
(pp.860,861), and (2) identifies Isabel's father as Helias de Sai, "brother
and successor c.1140 of Henry de Sai of Clun, hence son of Robert Picot of
Clun, a Domesday follower of Roger de Montgomery" (pp.679,680). The 1166
cut-off for Keats-Rohan's work means she doesn't give the descent far enough
to express an opinion on (3).
The references given for the de Sais are (Helias) Rees, Shrewsbury Cartulary
(1975), no 350b and (Isabel) Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, IV, p.76,
no.IV.
For the fitzAlans, she refers in the text to Rees, Haughmond Cartulary,
App.C and Sanders, 70, 113, and many more in the lists of references.
Chris Phillips
Joe Cochoit
> honest, I don't know the answer. I think Joe Cochoit's point about
> CP's possible ambiguity is well-taken and may expose a source of the
> new uncertainty you've raised. I think it'd be good to look at the
> CP passage, which isn't quite the series' most elegantly lucid.
>
> The castle of Oswaldestre (Oswestry), co. Salop, was obtained, with
> an extensive fief in Shropshire, early in the reign of Hen. I by
> (1) Alan FitzFleald, a Breton, whose s. and h. (2) William FitzAlan,
> of Oswestry, d. 1160, and was suc. by his s. and h. (3) William
> FitzAlan, of the same, who in right of his wife (Isabel, da. and h.
> of Ingram de Say) acquired the Lordship of Clun, also in co. Salop,
> and d. about 1210. Their s. and h. (4) William FitzAlan, of Clun
> and Oswestry, d. s.p., 1216, and was suc. by his br. and h. (5)
> John FitzAlan, of the same, who m. Isabel, sister (whose issue
> became coheirs) of Hugh (d'Aubigny), Earl of Arundel. He d. 1240.
> [etc].
>
> CP V, 391-2 (orig. character formatting,
> notes & superscripts omitted)
>
> Obviously it's CP's marriage of Isabel de Say to "(3) William" rather
> than to "(2) William" that Joe Cochoit contests (and my query is
> whether, if he's right, "(3) William" is thus left without a known
> wife).
>
Hi Cris,
Thanks for posting the CP passage. I find the wording a little bit
ambiguous but would certainly read it as saying Isabel de Say married
William II Fitz Alan (d. 1210). CP gives him the number 3 but is only
the second William with 1 being his grandfather Alan fitz Flaad.
This is certainly incorrect. Eyton may be a "maturing" source but at
least he sites and quotes his sources, works almost exclusively from
original documents, and when in doubt explains his reasoning. Eyton
describes in great detail the finances of the Fitz Alan estates
following the death of William I Fitz Alan in 1160. Basically from
1160-1165 Guy le Strange was made Sheriff of Shropshire and also
appointed "Custos of the Fitz Alan Estates." During this time the
Eyton describes numerous transations made by the Sheriff with regard
to the Fitz Alan estates. In 1165 Isabel de Say married her second
husband, Geoffrey de Vere, who recieved with her, as dower, nearly 1/3
of the income Fitz Alan estates. He also became, in the right of his
wife, Lord of Clun. Guy le Stange remained custodian of the Fitz Alan
estates until about mid-1175 when William II Fitz Alan was allowed
livery of his inheritance. Certainly the dates of Isabel de Say's
second marriage and the handling of the Fitz Alan estates show she was
married to William I Fitz Alan (d. 1160).
With regard to a wife for William II Fitz Alan, Eyton states: "About
the time of his succession he married a daughter of Hugh de Lacy of
Ludlow and Ewyas, and thus increased his Shropshire Seigneuries to the
extent of three Manors, viz. Higford, Middleton Higford and Upper
Ledwich. Lacy's daughter was probably a mere infant at the time of
this contract, for I cannot suppose that the eldest of her children
was born before 1190."
Joe Cochoit
Cristopher Nash
with having seen CP XIV, as I mentioned previously, I can add details
to the bunch, from the Eyton, which I've reviewed today, with a few
thoughts of my own -- see interleaved below.
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
>Cris Nash wrote:
>> I gather (from e.g. your giving a different name for Isabel de Say's
>> father) that Sanders (which I haven't compared) is in play in your
>> view of the sequence and may also be the source of your 3d William.
>> (I scarcely know this line at all, but do know that Isabel's fa. is
>> often given both 'Ingram/Ingelram' and 'Elias', for what reason I
>> don't presently know.) It wouldn't be hard, though, for a quick
>> reading of CP's rather odd though well-intended ad hoc numbering
>> system to produce the impression that there are four Williams prior
>> to John FitzAlan.
>...
>> Obviously it's CP's marriage of Isabel de Say to "(3) William" rather
>> than to "(2) William" that Joe Cochoit contests (and my query is
>> whether, if he's right, "(3) William" is thus left without a known
>> wife).
>
>Apart from minor differences over dates, it looks as though there are three
>discrepancies between the different accounts quoted so far in this thread
>(Complete Peerage, Round, Sanders, Burke). Although it's on my list, I
>haven't yet looked at any of these except CP (and haven't checked vol.14 for
>a correction), so I'm going on what people have stated here.
CP XIV gives no changes.
>(1) All the accounts except CP show William (d.1160) as the son of the
>husband of Isabel de Say; CP shows Willia, the son of this William, as her
>husband.
Irritated as I've sometimes been with Eyton (I note for example that
he calls Alan fitz Flaald a grandson of Shakepeare's Banquo), I have
to say that on this line he's worth attending to. To paraphrase very
briefly, Eyton gives
* Alan fitz Flaald (m. Aveline da. of a bro. [sic] of Ernulf de
Hesding), dead by 1114
* William (I) fitz Alan b. ca. 1105, d. 1160 (m. Isabel de Say,
who m. [2] Geoffrey de Vere) and [3] William
Boterell, and d. 1199)
* William (II) b. ca. 1155 (had livery 1175), d. 1210
(directly stated in Register of Dunstable
Priory & conforming with his other dates)
(m. (--) de Lacy, da. of Hugh of Ludlow &
Ewias)
* William (III) fitz Alan, d. Easter 1215
(m. Mary de Erdington, da. of Thomas
Erdington), d. s.p., & (among
other siblings) -
* John (I) fitz Alan, d. ca. 1240 (m. [1]
Isabel d'Albini & [2] Hawise de Blanc-
minster, who survived him)
R W Eyton, _Antiquities of
Shropshire_, vol. VII, 211-53
(1858)
A reason I say Eyton's worth watching is the apparent strength of his
data in the later generations. While it's certainly possible to fit
a generation between Alan fitz Flaald and William (I) or between
William (I) and William (II) -- with the chronol. he gives I wouldn't
like to be asked to lever in a William III as fa of John who m.
Isabel d'Albini. By 28 Aug 1212 "John son of William fiz Alan" is
entrusted by K. John with 25 "merks" due to the E of Salisbury; on 2
Aug 1215 he's in occupation of the castle of Stretton/Stratton; by 3
Oct 1216 an attainder has been placed on John as [K. John's] "enemy".
On 14 Nov 1217 a writ orders the Sheriff of Salop to give John fitz
Alan such seizin of his estates as Thomas de Erdington had...for the
marriage of William fitz Alan, John's brother". (Eyton indicates a
number of further documents dealing with the Erdington/fitz Alan
case.)
>(2) CP names Isabel's father as Ingram; other sources give Elias.
Eyton gives Helias.
>(3) There is a difference between Round and CP on the one hand, which show
>that William (d.1160) was the grandfather of John, the husband of Isabel
>d'Aubigny, and the others, which show him as the great grandfather.
>
>
>Incidentally, Joe Cochoit did mention that William II fitzAlan married "a
>daughter of Hugh de Lacy" (probably from Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire).
You're right -- it's what Eyton has.
>Just to add another opinion to the brew, Keats-Rohan, in "Domesday
>Descendants", (1) says that it was William (d.1160) who married Isabel
>(pp.860,861), and (2) identifies Isabel's father as Helias de Sai, "brother
>and successor c.1140 of Henry de Sai of Clun, hence son of Robert Picot of
>Clun, a Domesday follower of Roger de Montgomery" (pp.679,680). The 1166
>cut-off for Keats-Rohan's work means she doesn't give the descent far enough
>to express an opinion on (3).
Here Eyton diverges, giving Picot --> Henry (found until 1129 or
1130) --> Helias --> Isabel. I frankly have doubts about
Keats-Rohan's sums/dates here, particularly if Picot is indeed the
Picot figuring in a memorial of St. Martin de Sées of ca. 1060 as
Eyton says (XI [1860], 225ff). It just doesn't work chronologically.
That she's not watching her step becomes apparent when we see that
Domesday Descendants as you report it contradicts Domesday People,
where (effectively supporting Eyton's version) she gives Robert Picot
(only) 2 sons, Robert and Henry. (Another case for K-R Corrections?)
>The references given for the de Sais are (Helias) Rees, Shrewsbury Cartulary
>(1975), no 350b and (Isabel) Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, IV, p.76,
>no.IV.
>
>For the fitzAlans, she refers in the text to Rees, Haughmond Cartulary,
>App.C and Sanders, 70, 113, and many more in the lists of references.
Yes, I'd particularly like to see the Haughmond Cartulary, where
(Eyton's) William (II) is thought to be buried.
Now -- I have to correct what I know was a quick and think was a
mistaken reading of the Burke, which is as ambiguous as the CP. I
said:
>Burke (BXP) giving William (d. 1160) & Isabel de Say --> William
>(ca. 1172) --> William (d. 1214) & Mary da. of Thomas de Erington
>(n.d.) --> William d. s.p. (n.d.) & John who m. Isabel de Albini
Looking again: Burke says "he was s. by his brother" John who m.
Isabel d'Albini, with "he" appearing to refer to the 4th William who
d. s.p., since the sentence immediately follows that William. I now
believe Burke means that John is brother of his 3d William, who he
says m. Mary de Erdington. I.e. read this way, Burke's account gives
only 3 Williams prior to John, and thus agrees with Eyton, except
that it gives no wife -- whether a de Lacy or other -- for the 2d
William.
On balance, I think the Sanders -- if that's where Peter got it from
-- will have to yield a pretty heavy case for there being a 4th
William fitz Alan prior to John who m. Isabel d'Albini. (I'm
particularly interested to know where Peter found the death dates of
1212/13 and 1213 for the middle two of these Williams, since they
don't match anything I've seen elsewhere for any of the Williams, the
years 1160, 1210 and 1215 seeming relatively well-established for the
three we have.)
To be honest, unless a 4th William is proved, I don't feel that this
is an unusally tangled/difficult family line in the way it may have
seemed. The two central problems are:
(a) Why did CP assign Isabel de Say to the 2d rather than the 1st
William? Given the obvious difference of opinions -- which we
didn't invent just for our own current fun -- CP's total lack
of sources for these FitzAlan generations is striking. (The
editors will have to have known by 1926 that merely referring/
deferring to the Round wouldn't serve.)
(b) who is the wife of the 2d William?
As to the latter, the (--) de Lacy case, Eyton claims that from her
the fitz Alans gained 3 manors, viz: Higford, Middelton Higford, and
Upper Ledwich. If there's anything to this, the Lacy story can be
checked.
Thanks Joe Cochoit, wherever you are, for hauling us into this.
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
and glad to have you back in time for us to watch as you watch what
stirrings you've stirred. I agree re your general support for Eyton
(I think the FitzAlans whipped up his blood in any case), and had
noted the passages you cite. Just more to do, now, if we're to get
the filling-in you may've been looking for, and if you've any ideas
(as I hope), gi'uz a shout. Seems to me -- as you may have noticed
-- a pursuit of the Higford, Middleton Higford and Upper
Ledwich bkgd should be straightforward and a good place to start.
Cris
coc...@aol.com (Joe Cochoit) wrote --
--
Joe Cochoit
I am glad to see you checked Eyton. He presents his fairly large
amount of evidence to support the line he gives. Though I suppose
possible, there is very little room and no evidence of a fourth
William Fitz Alan. I posted the three manors (Higford, Middleton
Higford and Upper Ledwich) which apparently came to William II FA by
marriage to a daughter of Hugh de Lacy in the hope that others in this
group with more skill and resources might be able to ID her. Any
thoughts anyone?
Joe Cochoit
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote in message news:<a05100303b90b7570d59f@[10.0.1.3]>...
Rick Eaton
Joe Cochoit is an Eyton/Eaton descendant, the vice president
of the newly resurrected Eaton Families Association and --
among all of our members and officers -- the most precise
researcher. He has a most thorough knowledge of relevant
secondary sources and insists, in his own personal work, on
solid source references. His personal tree, therefore, is as
immaculate as any extant and, alas, filled with holes that
can be plugged only through further research. In an area in
which leading authorities are often wrong, or ambiguous, Joe
is a person who is most likely to be right and reliable.
Without writing an unauthorized biography, I shall merely
state that Joe has been a nearly singular, contemporary
disavower within family cirecles of the 19th and early 20th
century postulate, much repeated since, that William I
FitzAlan ( Sheriff of Shropshire and the baron of Oswestry)
was a progenitor of the Eytons/Eatons as was suggested by
the Rev. R. W. Eyton and others.
Rick Eaton
Voice: 203.453.6261 Fax:203.453.0076
----------
>From: Cristopher Nash <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: RE: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in
sources.
>Date: Fri, May 17, 2002, 10:37 PM
Ian Fettes
The marriage of a daughter of Hugh de Lacy to a William FitzAlan is referred
to in footnote (g) on p 168 in CP XII (2) Ulster. No updates exist in Vol
XIV for this. This note indicates that she was the 3rd da. of seven
children born to Rose of Monmouth between the years 1172 and 1180. Let's
say about 1177.
The reference Joe makes below from Eyton is consistent with respect to the
age of the daughter as unlikely to have had children before 1190, but it
casts into doubt the William she married. If the William II referred to by
Eyton succeeded on the death of his father in 1160, then it is unlikely that
he married the de Lacy girl about "the time of his succession".
This suggests she may have married a third William, father of John and the
William who d.s.p. in 1215.
Ian Fettes
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Replyto:fet...@st.net.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Cochoit" <coc...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2002 9:56
Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
<snip>
Rick Eaton
Unfortunately, I have not retained all of the FitzAlan
records that I have looked at (having "disowned" that family
as Eaton progenitors), so I cannot cite specifics. However,
William FitzAlan II, I am quite sure, married the daughter
of Hugh de Lacy, Isabel. This second William, as I recall,
was thought to have been born c. 1136.
Rick Eaton
Voice: 203.453.6261 Fax:203.453.0076
----------
>From: "Ian Fettes" <fet...@st.net.au>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in
sources.
>Date: Sat, May 18, 2002, 10:13 PM
Ian Fettes
I missed the point quoted by Joe on the mid-1175 date of succession and
thought it was the 1160 date.
Sorry to confuse.
Ian Fettes
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Replyto:fet...@st.net.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Fettes" <fet...@st.net.au>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, 19 May 2002 12:13
Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
leo van de pas
Volume III, page 335, has an entry for Clun and Oswestry :
The Lordship of Clun in shgropshire belonged, temp Stephen, to Ingram de
Say, whose daughter and heir, Isabel, brought it to her husband, William
FitzAlan, feudal lord of Oswaldestre (i.e.Oswestry), in that county, who
died about 1210. Their son and heir, William FitzAlan, Lord of Clun and
Oswestry died s.p. 1216 and was succeeded by his brother and heir, John
FitzAlan, Lord of Clun and Oswestry, who married Isabel, sister (whose issue
became coheirs) of Hugh (d'Aubigny) Earl of Arundel.
Volume XIV has no corrections for Clun. If this is correct,
were there two Isabel de Say, one who married William FitzAlan, who died in
1210, and another who, in 1165, married Geoffrey de Vere, Lord of Haughley,
and William de Botterell?
Sadly, CP does not have a Haughley entry.
By the look of it, more needs to be done to these FitzAlans.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Fettes" <fet...@st.net.au>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
> Hi All,
>
> The marriage of a daughter of Hugh de Lacy to a William FitzAlan is
referred
> to in footnote (g) on p 168 in CP XII (2) Ulster. No updates exist in Vol
> XIV for this. This note indicates that she was the 3rd da. of seven
> children born to Rose of Monmouth between the years 1172 and 1180. Let's
> say about 1177.
>
> The reference Joe makes below from Eyton is consistent with respect to the
> age of the daughter as unlikely to have had children before 1190, but it
> casts into doubt the William she married. If the William II referred to
by
> Eyton succeeded on the death of his father in 1160, then it is unlikely
that
> he married the de Lacy girl about "the time of his succession".
>
> This suggests she may have married a third William, father of John and the
> William who d.s.p. in 1215.
>
> Ian Fettes
> Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
> Replyto:fet...@st.net.au
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Cochoit" <coc...@aol.com>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 18 May 2002 9:56
> Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
>
> <snip>
Cristopher Nash
>May I throw in another CP entry, apparently overlooked?
>
>Volume III, page 335, has an entry for Clun and Oswestry :
>
>The Lordship of Clun in shgropshire belonged, temp Stephen, to Ingram de
>Say, whose daughter and heir, Isabel, brought it to her husband, William
>FitzAlan, feudal lord of Oswaldestre (i.e.Oswestry), in that county, who
>died about 1210. Their son and heir, William FitzAlan, Lord of Clun and
>Oswestry died s.p. 1216 and was succeeded by his brother and heir, John
>FitzAlan, Lord of Clun and Oswestry, who married Isabel, sister (whose issue
>became coheirs) of Hugh (d'Aubigny) Earl of Arundel.
>
>Volume XIV has no corrections for Clun.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out, Leo. We'll have a quick look to
see what source is given in evidence of "Their son and heir".
>If this is correct,
>were there two Isabel de Say, one who married William FitzAlan, who died in
>1210, and another who, in 1165, married Geoffrey de Vere, Lord of Haughley,
>and William de Botterell?
I follow your thinking (an Isabel da of Helias, an Isabel da of
Ingram), but the documentation cited by Eyton (and VCH as I recall)
showing activity of Geoffrey de Vere during the minority and on
behalf of Eyton's 'William (II)' (given livery in 1175, said to be
the William who d. 1210, and treated as s. of Isabel de Say) makes it
seem - as far as I can see offhand - uneconomical to posit 2 Isabels.
But the sequence, over-all, obviously needs more work.
Word from anyone happening to have more accurate/precise details on
the early generations of Say of Clun (Eyton and others I've seen are
extremely woolly) would be much valued!
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
and worth following-up. Yes, as your subseq. postscript suggests,
the date of livery to Eyton's 'William (II)' would forestall what
you'd at first-glance thought a problem.
Rick Eaton" <eaton...@cshore.com> wrote --
>William FitzAlan II, I am quite sure, married the daughter
>of Hugh de Lacy, Isabel. This second William, as I recall,
>was thought to have been born c. 1136.
>Unfortunately, I have not retained all of the FitzAlan
>records that I have looked at (having "disowned" that family
>as Eaton progenitors), so I cannot cite specifics.
Bummer!
Cheers.
Cris
"Ian Fettes" <fet...@st.net.au> wrote --
--
Joe Cochoit
This certainly shows that the Fitz Alan/ Arundel meant to say that
Isabel de Say married the William Fitz Alan d. 1210. I would argue
that both entries are in error rather than try and create 2 Isabel's.
As I have noted, after 1160, Guy le Strange, Sheriff of Shropshire was
appointed to administer the Fitz Alan estates and Eyton gives many
examples of entries by him with regard to these estates. In 1165,
Geoffrey de Vere married Isabel de say and became lord of Clun in her
right. This is recorded in the Liber Niger and numerous financial
entries. Her third husband,William Boterell, would also become Baron
of Clun in her right. William II Fitz Alan (her son) is not recorded
with regard to Clun until 1203, after her death. She actually died in
1199 so presumably William FA was baron of Clun from 1199-1210.
Beginning in 1166, Geoffrey de Vere began receiving income from the
Fitz Alan estates. This continues until 1170 when Eyton notes
"Geoffrey de Vere died; but credit is taken for his full annuity out
of the Fitz Alan estates up to Michaelmas. The word habuit is however
used instead of the word habet in respect of the lands which had
furnished the said annuity and which he had ceased to hold."
All this clearly shows that Isabel de Say, Lady of Clun married
Geoffrey de Vere and that she is the same as the Isabel de Say who
married William Fitz Alan (d. 1160).
Joe Cochoit
leov...@bigpond.com (leo van de pas) wrote in message news:<019f01c1fef4$dffc1700$86f08a90@leo>...
Chris Phillips
Cris Nash, Joe Cochoit, Ian Fettes, Rick Eaton and Leo van de Pas (there
have been so many I feel I must have forgotten someobody).
My only contribution has been to look at the account in Sanders' "English
Baronies", which was referred to by Peter Stewart previously. Thankfully,
that's as fully referenced as usual, which I hope will allow the statements
to be verified at source.
Sanders shows - like, I think, everyone except the Complete Peerage - that
William fitzAlan (d.1160) married Isabel, the daughter of Elias de Say. I
think it's fairly safe to assume that CP made a slip by placing that
marriage in the following generation, and in calling Isabel's father Ingram.
In terms of further details of the de Says, Sanders is more cautious than
Keats-Rohan ("Domesday Descendants"), who identified Elias as the brother of
Henry de Say, and thus son of Robert "Picot". Sanders says that "there is no
evidence of the relationship between Henry and Elias", which perhaps is
symptomatic of the difference between his conservative approach, and
Keats-Rohan's often more speculative stance (in which, as she says, nuances
of probability in the original database, have sometimes been lost in the
transition to the printed page). And Cris has pointed out the difference
from Eyton's version, and from her own statement in "Domesday People".
Sanders goes on to marry Isabel, before 1166, to Geoffrey de Ver, and
finally, before 1188, to William Boterel, and has her dying probably in
1199.
He then has William II, the son of the first William, coming of age in 1175
and dying 1212-13 [citing Pipe Roll, 6 Hen II, p.27; idem 21 Hen II, p.39;
PR 1201-16, p.100], and William III, his son and heir, dying 1213, leaving a
son William [IV], who died without issue 1215-17. William [IV]'s brother and
heir John died 1240, leaving a son and heir John II, who came of age 1244
and died 1267 [citing Ex. F.R. i pp.360,417; idem ii pp.464,575; CIPM i nos
684, 812; PR 1201-16, p.129; idem 1216-25, p.59; Rot de
Obl et Fin p.531].
Sanders, like Keats-Rohan, doesn't say anything about the mariage of William
II, III or IV to a Lacy (although he does mention that Elias de Say was a
tenant of Hugh de Lacy in 1166, and connects this with William II being
fined in 1202 for arrears of scutage due from the lands of Walter, son of
Hugh de Lacy, a minor whose lands were in the king's hands [citing Red Book,
p.282; Pipe Roll, 4 John, p.46]).
This chronology doesn't look too unreasonable, with 3 generations between
William II who came in age 1175 and John II, who came of age in 1244 - a
span of 69 years. Cris' data about John I look consistent with his having
been born in the early 1190s, and that in turn would tie in with his mother
being the de Lacy, from what Ian Fettes posted.
Obviously the sources need chasing up to check they imply what's claimed,
but Sanders' scheme looks plausible, with Ms de Lacy perhaps fitting in as
the wife of William fitzAlan III.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
before we get too carried away in either dismissing or adopting his
purported marriage to a (--) de Lacy, da. of Hugh de Lacy of Ludlow
and Ewias:
As I've mentioned, acc. to Eyton William (II) fitz Alan is prob.
buried at Haughmond Abbey. I'd like to point out that Wightman finds
a Hugh de Lacy witnessing a charter of a William fitz Alan to
Haughmond abbey, granting to the canons the advocacy of the church of
Wroxeter [Cart. Haughmond, fo. 236]. This Hugh is called Hugh de
Lacy of Coolmere (near Ellesmere).
The charter is earlier than Hugh II de Lacy's accession to the Lacy
honour, and Wightman's view is that "there is no reason to doubt
Eyton's theory [based on two Haughmond charters] that this was Hugh
II de Lacy himself, provided as a younger member of the family with a
small estate, perhaps as a tenant of William fitz Alan" [to which
Wightman subscribes a footnote to Eyton, VI, 74, which I have not
seen]. The Hugh II to whom he refers is Hugh who d. 1186, m. Roese de
Monmouth. Wightman offers further evidence for this identification
grounded on Hugh II's relationship to a bro. Robert "whose existence
was not known to Eyton".
W.E Wightman, _The Lacy Family in England and Normandy
1066-1194_ (1966), 257-8.
I mention this not as proof for Eyton's identification of Hugh de
Lacy (though Wightman supports it) but simply as evidence of a
connection between some Hugh de Lacy and a William fitz Alan in the
period -- as Wightman shows -- 1155-1159, making the latter probably
William (I) who d. 1160. The charter would consequently probably
represent the father of William (II) fitz Alan and may represent the
father of a (--) de Lacy whom the latter is claimed to have married.
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
say, Sanders' sources (which I'll get) need chasing up to check they
imply what's claimed, but his scheme looks plausible, with Ms de Lacy
If only to help to consolidate Sanders' leads, as well as of course
in the hope of rounding out / testing specifically the Lacy/Fitz Alan
connection, I do feel that a productive way to behave also would be
to chase up what may be found on the history of the 3 manors that
Eyton says link the two lines, and I'll see what headway I can make
on that front, over the next few days/weeks. (Though of course
anybody feeling able to add anything here would be warmly welcome!)
I know these people weren't on your front burners (the phalanx of
these spreading far and wide), but at least it may be we're on the
way toward adding more than one barb to your growing quiver of
valuable CP corrections!
Thanks loads, again.
Cris
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote --
--
Joe Cochoit
Thanks for posting the line as it appears in Sanders. I have not seen
it. Does he give any data to support what he says or just site the
references he used?
Basically I don't think the Sander's lineage can be reconciled with
the data given by Eyton. Sander's has three generations all dying
within a three-year period. Sander's has his William II Fitz Alan
dying 1212-1213. For his death Eyton states – "We have only one
authority (a Register of Dunstable Priory) which directly states the
year of William Fitz Alan's death. It gives it as in 1210, and all
secondary evidence corroborates the date." So this is where the 1210
date comes from.
Importantly, following the death of William II Fitz Alan, his son did
not immediately succeed to his estates as he was still in his
minority. In August 1212 Robert de Vipont was holding Owestry Castle
and "it is probable that all of Fitz Alan's estates were entrusted to
this same person." In the Fine Rolls of 1213, "William, son of
William Fitz Alan proffered to the King the enormous sum of 10,000
merks that he might have the lands of his said father. … On June 10,
1213, the King orders Robert de Vipont to deliver to John Mareschall
custody of the Castles of Owestry and Shrawardine, and of the lands
which had been William Fitz Alan's, "saving however to William, son
and heir of William, the Fine which he had made with the King for the
same land.' … On November 10, 1213, King John presented to
Shrawardine Church, ‘because Fitz Alan's lands were in manu Regis,' a
proof that no livery had yet been accorded to the heir."
So, going back to Sander's scheme, if William II died in 1210, and he
was succeeded by his son William III who did not come of age until
c1213, then assuming William III died c1213 (as stated by Sanders),
then William IV who died in April 1215 would have to have been an
infant. This is not correct. William Fitz Alan who died 1215 and his
brother John were both adults in 1215.
There is no way to reconcile all the data with Sanders. During the
time period in question (1210-1215) there were only 2 William Fitz
Alan's, one died in 1210 and then his son and heir who died April
1215.
This does still leave the problem, pointed out by Ian, of the de Lacy
marriage. Certainly the suggestion by Eyton is that an extremely
powerful feudal baron in his early twenties contracted to marry an
infant girl with the benefit gained being only three manors. It seems
very unlikely. Perhaps others out there who know more about such
early marriage contracts can comment on the likelihood of such an
arrangement. The arrangement may have been made before he came of age
in 1175 and may have been the work of his mother and stepfather.
A solution to this might be to insert another William not after the
one who died in 1210 (as Sanders did) but instead before. The line
then would have to be:
William I FA d. 1160 m. Isabel de Say
William II FA b. c1155 d. UNK m. Unknown
William III FA b. say 1175 d. 1210 m. Daughter de Lacy
William IV FA b. say 1193 d.s.p. 1215 succ. by brother John Fitz Alan
As you can see the chronology starts becoming very tight and you
almost have to assume that each generation became married and had
children before the age of 20. It is my understanding that would not
be the usual case for noblemen in this time. It seems to me that
without further direct evidence we are back to the three William
theory originally proposed by Eyton.
Joe Cochoit
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<002901c1ff57$94225480$121b86d9@oemcomputer>...
Chris Phillips
> Thanks for posting the line as it appears in Sanders. I have not seen
> it. Does he give any data to support what he says or just site the
> references he used?
As far as the points we've been discussing go, Sanders doesn't give any
details of what his source material says beyond the citations I've copied.
I think we shall have to follow up the references given by Sanders and Eyton
(and Keats-Rohan) before we can be sure which account is right. I see what
you mean about the evidence given by Eyton. On the other hand, though, for
William III to have been still a minor in 1213, he would apparently have
been born in his father's late 30s - obviously quite possible, but I should
think fairly uncommon.
It's always possible Sanders made a slip, but on the other hand he does
refer to Eyton's account, and of course many more records are available in
print than in Eyton's day.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
>Basically I don't think the Sander's lineage can be reconciled with
>the data given by Eyton. Sander's has three generations all dying
>within a three-year period. Sander's has his William II Fitz Alan
>dying 1212-1213. For his death Eyton states ñ "We have only one
>authority (a Register of Dunstable Priory) which directly states the
>year of William Fitz Alan's death. It gives it as in 1210, and all
>secondary evidence corroborates the date." So this is where the 1210
>date comes from.
As you know, I'm with you on these points, and on the evidence you
offer in the next para -- such as Eyton gives it -- for the age of
Eyton's William II....
>Importantly, following the death of William II Fitz Alan, his son did
>not immediately succeed to his estates as he was still in his
>minority. In August 1212 Robert de Vipont was holding Owestry Castle
>and "it is probable that all of Fitz Alan's estates were entrusted to
>this same person." In the Fine Rolls of 1213, "William, son of
>William Fitz Alan proffered to the King the enormous sum of 10,000
>merks that he might have the lands of his said father. Ö On June 10,
>1213, the King orders Robert de Vipont to deliver to John Mareschall
>custody of the Castles of Owestry and Shrawardine, and of the lands
>which had been William Fitz Alan's, "saving however to William, son
>and heir of William, the Fine which he had made with the King for the
>same land.' Ö On November 10, 1213, King John presented to
>Shrawardine Church, ëbecause Fitz Alan's lands were in manu Regis,' a
>proof that no livery had yet been accorded to the heir."
>
>So, going back to Sander's scheme, if William II died in 1210, and he
>was succeeded by his son William III who did not come of age until
>c1213, then assuming William III died c1213 (as stated by Sanders),
>then William IV who died in April 1215 would have to have been an
>infant. This is not correct. William Fitz Alan who died 1215 and his
>brother John were both adults in 1215.
This is clear and presents a very real problem for the Sanders version.
>There is no way to reconcile all the data with Sanders. During the
>time period in question (1210-1215) there were only 2 William Fitz
>Alan's, one died in 1210 and then his son and heir who died April
>1215.
>
>This does still leave the problem, pointed out by Ian, of the de Lacy
>marriage. Certainly the suggestion by Eyton is that an extremely
>powerful feudal baron in his early twenties contracted to marry an
>infant girl with the benefit gained being only three manors. It seems
>very unlikely. Perhaps others out there who know more about such
>early marriage contracts can comment on the likelihood of such an
>arrangement.
Wightman's point here would I think be that Hugh de Lacy of Coolmere
(seen as the future Hugh II) is of one of the most powerful families
of the Welsh March (DNB, rededicating 4+ pp to him, will call him
"one of the conquerors of Ireland"), and may be a tenant of William I
Fitz Alan and has 'only three manors' to give because at the time he
is the younger bro of its heir (Robert de Lacy [o. s. p. ante 1162]).
This doesn't of course deal with the chronology question.
>The arrangement may have been made before he came of age
>in 1175 and may have been the work of his mother and stepfather.
Possibly. Reading Eyton, I was struck by the unusual extent of the
caution - if not proactive fuss, even for the time - devoted to
safeguarding the Fitz Alan holdings against the possibility of
William II's death, as though he were as frail as his ultimate short
lifespan suggests. (Whether Geoffrey de Vere, one of the busiest in
this respect following William I's death, aims to safeguard these for
the Fitz Alans is another matter.)
>A solution to this might be to insert another William not after the
>one who died in 1210 (as Sanders did) but instead before. The line
>then would have to be:
>William I FA d. 1160 m. Isabel de Say
>William II FA b. c1155 d. UNK m. Unknown
>William III FA b. say 1175 d. 1210 m. Daughter de Lacy
>William IV FA b. say 1193 d.s.p. 1215 succ. by brother John Fitz Alan
Yes, as I suggested as a 'compromise'; but we appear to have a blank
by way of documentation (so far).
>As you can see the chronology starts becoming very tight and you
>almost have to assume that each generation became married and had
>children before the age of 20. It is my understanding that would not
>be the usual case for noblemen in this time. It seems to me that
>without further direct evidence we are back to the three William
>theory originally proposed by Eyton.
So far I remain inclined to do that.
Chris Phillips wrote -
>I think we shall have to follow up the references given by Sanders and Eyton
>(and Keats-Rohan) before we can be sure which account is right. I see what
>you mean about the evidence given by Eyton. On the other hand, though, for
>William III to have been still a minor in 1213, he would apparently have
>been born in his father's late 30s - obviously quite possible, but I should
>think fairly uncommon.
Eyton's version, as opposed to Sanders', would leave no such
question. He has William III marry Mary Erdington -- the evidence of
the Thomas de Erdington court action to regain her dower massively
attests to the marriage -- in ca. 1214, the year before he dies
(Easter 1215) having rendered homage to K John in London on 3 Mar
1215.
>It's always possible Sanders made a slip, but on the other hand he does
>refer to Eyton's account, and of course many more records are available in
>print than in Eyton's day.
Certainly. As a test of the effect of this it would be interesting
to see whether he also finds the data that Wightman (1966) provides
re Robert de Lacy, whose bro. and heir Hugh II may be Hugh of
Coolmere, William I Fitz Alan's witness, and whose existence Eyton --
as well as DNB in its 4+pp article on Hugh II -- missed.
> He then has William II, the son of the first William, coming of age in 1175
>> and dying 1212-13 [citing Pipe Roll, 6 Hen II, p.27; idem 21 Hen II, p.39;
> > PR 1201-16, p.100], and William III, his son and heir, dying
>1213, leaving a
> > son William [IV], who died without issue 1215-17.
and
>Sanders doesn't give any details of what his source material says
>beyond the citations I've copied.
I take it this means that Sanders offers no sources for >William III,
his son and heir, dying 1213<. Joe, feel like pursuing that?
Cris
--
Joe Cochoit
If you accept that William Fitz Alan was a minor in c1212-1213, and I
do not think it can be argued otherwise, then it would be impossible
for him to have been the father of the William who died 1215 and his
brother John. There cannot have been two generations in this short
time.
I think Sanders was attempting to explain why if William FA paid a
10000 merk early in 1213 to obtain livery of his inheritance, the Fitz
Alan estates were back in the hands of King in November 1213. The
Fitz Alan wardship was then sold to Thomas de Erdington whereby Thomas
de Erdington was to obtain the Fitz Alan lands and the marriage of his
daughter to Willliam Fitz Alan. The scheme proposed by Sanders would
explain all of the entries in the various Fine/Pipe Rolls, but works
only if the William FA who died in 1215 was the infant son of William
III. As this was clearly not the case, the Eyton scheme must be
correct.
If William Fitz Alan came of age c1213/4 then I would suppose him to
be born c1193. His father would be then approximately 37 years old.
If the William born in c1193 was the grandson rather than the son of
William II FA born c1155, then you would be squeezing 2 generations
into this same 37 year period. The only probable solution to me is to
follow Eyton with William II b. c1155, having a son relatively late at
age 37 in c1193 and this William III dying without issue in 1215.
It is easy imagine many senarios where William II had an heir born in
1193. Perhaps, he had no surviving by an earlier wife and so
contracted to marry the much younger daughter of Hugh de Lacy. And by
this marriage had William III FA.
Joe Cochoit
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<002101c20000$66621860$5e0886d9@oemcomputer>...
Chris Phillips
> >Importantly, following the death of William II Fitz Alan, his son did
> >not immediately succeed to his estates as he was still in his
> >minority. In August 1212 Robert de Vipont was holding Owestry Castle
> >and "it is probable that all of Fitz Alan's estates were entrusted to
> >this same person." In the Fine Rolls of 1213, "William, son of
> >William Fitz Alan proffered to the King the enormous sum of 10,000
> >merks that he might have the lands of his said father. Ö On June 10,
> >1213, the King orders Robert de Vipont to deliver to John Mareschall
> >custody of the Castles of Owestry and Shrawardine, and of the lands
> >which had been William Fitz Alan's, "saving however to William, son
> >and heir of William, the Fine which he had made with the King for the
> >same land.' Ö On November 10, 1213, King John presented to
> >proof that no livery had yet been accorded to the heir."
> >
> >So, going back to Sander's scheme, if William II died in 1210, and he
> >was succeeded by his son William III who did not come of age until
> >c1213, then assuming William III died c1213 (as stated by Sanders),
> >then William IV who died in April 1215 would have to have been an
> >infant. This is not correct. William Fitz Alan who died 1215 and his
> >brother John were both adults in 1215.
Cris Nash replied:
> This is clear and presents a very real problem for the Sanders version.
Joe Cocjoit wrote (later):
> If you accept that William Fitz Alan was a minor in c1212-1213, and I
> do not think it can be argued otherwise, then it would be impossible
> for him to have been the father of the William who died 1215 and his
> brother John. There cannot have been two generations in this short
> time.
>
> I think Sanders was attempting to explain why if William FA paid a
> 10000 merk early in 1213 to obtain livery of his inheritance, the Fitz
> Alan estates were back in the hands of King in November 1213. The
> Fitz Alan wardship was then sold to Thomas de Erdington whereby Thomas
> de Erdington was to obtain the Fitz Alan lands and the marriage of his
> daughter to Willliam Fitz Alan. The scheme proposed by Sanders would
> explain all of the entries in the various Fine/Pipe Rolls, but works
> only if the William FA who died in 1215 was the infant son of William
> III. As this was clearly not the case, the Eyton scheme must be
> correct.
Thanks to Joe and Cris for those further comments.
It may be as you say. I agree that if William III was a minor anywhere near
this time, Sanders' scheme breaks down, given the evidence that John was of
age soon after this. My problem is I don't find it very clear which William
each record is relating to. It's not a problem, is it, if William IV is a
minor at this time?
One useful thing might be to try to work out whether Eyton's account
includes all the evidence cited by Sanders.
Sanders' authority for the statement that William II died in 1212-3 seems to
be P.R. 1201-16, p.100 [i.e. Patent Roll, not Pipe Roll]
Then the references for the statements about William III to John III are all
grouped together. The ones that seem possibly relevant to the matter at hand
are:
Ex. F.R. i pp.360,417; idem ii pp.464,575;
CIPM i nos 684, 812 [these would be later, but I suppose just might refer
back to something relevant]
PR 1201-16, p.129; idem 1216-25, p.59;
Rot de Obl et Fin p.531
I should be able to check these at the weekend, if no one else can see them
easily.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
>Thanks to Joe and Cris for those further comments.
>
>It may be as you say. I agree that if William III was a minor anywhere near
>this time, Sanders' scheme breaks down, given the evidence that John was of
>age soon after this. My problem is I don't find it very clear which William
>each record is relating to. It's not a problem, is it, if William IV is a
>minor at this time?
In terms of the geneal. sequence I feel it's not (tho I gather that
Joe feels it's right to establish whose account is generally most
reliable).
>One useful thing might be to try to work out whether Eyton's account
>includes all the evidence cited by Sanders.
I agree.
>Sanders' authority for the statement that William II died in 1212-3 seems to
>be P.R. 1201-16, p.100 [i.e. Patent Roll, not Pipe Roll]
>
>Then the references for the statements about William III to John III are all
>grouped together. The ones that seem possibly relevant to the matter at hand
>are:
>Ex. F.R. i pp.360,417; idem ii pp.464,575;
>CIPM i nos 684, 812 [these would be later, but I suppose just might refer
>back to something relevant]
>PR 1201-16, p.129; idem 1216-25, p.59;
>Rot de Obl et Fin p.531
>
>I should be able to check these at the weekend, if no one else can see them
>easily.
Chris, I refuse to ask you to add this to your load! At the Bod last
Friday I failed to pursue the Sanders, but I expect to be there again
in the next couple of weeks (my uni's lib. shamefully lacks a copy of
it), or maybe Joe can add it to his good Eyton work sooner. Thanks
heaps for the offer though!
Cris
--
ADRIANC...@cs.com
what the Duchess of Cleveland has to say (The Battle Abbey Roll, 1889) pp
41-42:
Adrian
Fitz-Aleyn. The first bearers of this great historical name were the sons of
Alan Fitz-Flaald, Baron of Oswaldestre in Shropshire and of Mileham in
Norfolk, who received from Henry I. the shrievalty of Shropshire, and died
about 1114. No one exactly knows who he was. Eyton, after a close and
laborious investigation of the question, has adopted the legend found in the
fanciful Booke of Hector Boece, who believed he had discovered in him the
grandson of Banquo, the murdered Thane of Lochaber.* The names of Fleanchus
and Flaaldus are, as he argues, easily convertible; and he states that when
Fleance fled from Scotland about 1050, he took refuge at the court of
Gruffyth-ap-Llewellyn, and fell in love with Gruffyth's daughter Guenta, who
became his wife, and the mother of Alan. The author of The Norman People
brings evidence to show that Flaald, his father, lived in Brittany, and was a
brother of Alan, Seneschal of Dol, descended from the old Armorican Counts of
Dol and Dinan. At all events, whatever may have been the origin of Alan Fitz
Flaald, he was
" The mighty Father of our
Kings to be,"
for, from his second son, Walter Fitz Alan, appointed Steward or Seneschal to
David I. of Scotland, sprung the royal House of Stuart. The elder son,
William Fitz Alan, was the progenitor of the Earls of Arundel, and received
from Henry II. in second marriage Isabel de Say, Baroness of Clun, the
greatest heiress in Shropshire. His name must have been a later addition to
the Roll; for Alan Fitz Flaald, who survived the Conquest for nearly sixty
years, must have been far too young a man when he fought at Hastings to have
had a grown-up son by his side. Nor do either William or Walter occur in
Domesday , where we find only Ricardus filius Alann entered as a sub-tenant
in Norfolk.
* Shakespere alludes to this story in Macbeth, when the witches foretell the
future greatness of his race to Banquo :
" Thou shall get kings, though thou be none."
Joe Cochoit
> Thanks to Joe and Cris for those further comments.
>
> It may be as you say. I agree that if William III was a minor anywhere near
> this time, Sanders' scheme breaks down, given the evidence that John was of
> age soon after this. My problem is I don't find it very clear which William
> each record is relating to.
Those old scribes should have numbered the Williams for us. Clearly
"William son of William" was an inadequate system on their part. :)
>It's not a problem, is it, if William IV is a
> minor at this time?
Ok, I am beginning to see a glimmer of hope for saving the Sanders
scheme. Clearly,from multiple records William (IV) and brother John
were of age in 1215. This William IV has to be the one in his
minority in the multiple records from sited by Eyton in the time
period of 1213-1214. Then none of the records referred to by Eyton
could have related to Sander's William III. So William II died 1210,
William III d c1212, William IV a minor 1213-1214 and died 1215. I
agree that we must check Sander's sources as Eyton gives absolutely no
evidence of the existance of the this William III.
The only arguement I have against the above scheme is once again the
dates are getting very tight. William II FA was born c1156, his
grandson William IV was born c1194, leaving only 38 years 2
generations to be born. It certainly implies these Fitz Alan's were
having heirs born at a very early age.
>
> One useful thing might be to try to work out whether Eyton's account
> includes all the evidence cited by Sanders.
>
> Sanders' authority for the statement that William II died in 1212-3 seems to
> be P.R. 1201-16, p.100 [i.e. Patent Roll, not Pipe Roll]
>
> Then the references for the statements about William III to John III are all
> grouped together. The ones that seem possibly relevant to the matter at hand
> are:
> Ex. F.R. i pp.360,417; idem ii pp.464,575;
> CIPM i nos 684, 812 [these would be later, but I suppose just might refer
> back to something relevant]
> PR 1201-16, p.129; idem 1216-25, p.59;
> Rot de Obl et Fin p.531
>
> I should be able to check these at the weekend, if no one else can see them
> easily.
I certainly do not have quick and easy access to these records. I
look forward to seeing what you learn.
Joe Cochoit
Joe Cochoit
> I have not been following this thread, but if it is of any interest, this is
> what the Duchess of Cleveland has to say (The Battle Abbey Roll, 1889) pp
> 41-42:
>
> Adrian
>
> Fitz-Aleyn. The first bearers of this great historical name were the sons of
> Alan Fitz-Flaald, Baron of Oswaldestre in Shropshire and of Mileham in
> Norfolk, who received from Henry I. the shrievalty of Shropshire, and died
> about 1114. No one exactly knows who he was. Eyton, after a close and
> laborious investigation of the question, has adopted the legend found in the
> fanciful Booke of Hector Boece, who believed he had discovered in him the
> grandson of Banquo, the murdered Thane of Lochaber.* The names of Fleanchus
> and Flaaldus are, as he argues, easily convertible; and he states that when
> Fleance fled from Scotland about 1050, he took refuge at the court of
> Gruffyth-ap-Llewellyn, and fell in love with Gruffyth's daughter Guenta, who
> became his wife, and the mother of Alan. The author of The Norman People
> brings evidence to show that Flaald, his father, lived in Brittany, and was a
> brother of Alan, Seneschal of Dol, descended from the old Armorican Counts of
> Dol and Dinan. At all events, whatever may have been the origin of Alan Fitz
> Flaald, he was
>
> " The mighty Father of our
> Kings to be,"
Yep, Eyton messed up this part of the line. Basically, it comes down
to, in Eyton's time, the traditional account was Alan Fitz Flaad was
the grandson of Banquo. In an exhaustive manner, Eyton concludes
there is no evidence to support or deny the traditional account, but
that there is some circumstantial evidence to support the grandson of
Banquo theory. However, J. Horace Round in his Studies in Peerage and
Family History - Origin of the Stewarts p. 115-146, showed that this
is incorrect. Alan Fitz Flaad came from Brittany, the son of Flaad,
Dapifer of Dol. The connection to Banquo is completely false.
Joe Cochoit
Cristopher Nash
>Given the obvious difference of opinions -- which we didn't invent
>just for our own current fun -- CP's total lack of sources for these
>FitzAlan generations is striking. (The editors will have to have
>known by 1926 that merely referring/deferring to the Round wouldn't
>serve.)
To make clear what I meant and set the scene, CP says merely, in a
footnote, that Alan FitzFlaald's "origin and descendants are dealt
with fully in Round's Peerage and Family History, pp. 120-131" [V,
391, footnote h].
Concerned (and frankly irritated) with CP's nonchalance -- in not
only leaving so persistently controversial a matter to Round after 25
years (2 years after the CP volume, Turton was still saying that
William I's wife was Helen Peverel), but in leaving it to be assumed
(wrongly, I suspected) that CP's account was an accurate recitation
of it -- I've had a look at Round's piece (1901).
Round's was certainly an important article at the time, establishing
as it did the ancestral line of Alan FitzFlaald and - important for
us, proving that Eyton was incorrect in putting his death at 1114
(see below). But as might have been guessed from its title 'The
Origins of the Stewarts', with the exception of an extremely
abbreviated chart (p. 129), it has practically nothing to say about
the FitzAlans. William (I) is given as Founder of Haughmond Priory
(which may be wrong - see below), ob. 1160, with possibly a 2d
brother Simon, and as the FitzAlan who acquired Clun by marriage
(though Round does not name by what wife). William (II) is assigned
an older brother, Alan, ob. infans, and called anacestor of the
FitzAlans, Earls of Arundel. That is all.
What is worse is that this is quite the opposite of what CP
_leaves_the_ impression_ it has taken from Round. That is, as we've
seen, whereas CP - contrary to all other reports - claims that Clun
comes via the marriage of William _(II)_ Fitz Alan to Isabel de Say,
Round implies effectively (and unproblematically) that William (I) is
her husband (p.125).
There remains no doubt in my mind that CP's article on the early
generations of Fitz Alan is not simply ambiguous and in this place
wrong but that it is downright irresponsible in the presentation and
attribution of its data. What lapse in its normal care brought this
about I wouldn't venture to say, but we have Joe Cochoit's energy to
thank for bringing it to light.
Something I think I'm obliged to add - in support of Joe's sustained
argument for Eyton against my own initial reservations, specifically
- is that Round's attitude to Eyton's work in this area is striking.
His ferocity in not suffering fools is famous in geneal. history, and
his irony scorches writers right and left here. Yet in spite of the
fact that his article's essential purpose is to set straight elements
of the record missed by Eyton and to build on Eyton's work, his
admiration for him - calling him 'the learned historian', speaking of
his 'great authority', of his work as 'so skillful', 'learned',
saying (elsewhere in the book) that 'no one could know so much as Mr
Eyton on the subject', etc - is unusual in the extreme.
I can't find any sign of justification now for not calling William
(I)'s wife Isabel de Say, and need to suggest that here is one more
case for Chris' CP Corrections.
There's another element to this, though. I've had a look at VCH
(Shropshire)'s history of Haughmond Abbey (vol. II, 62-70). Fitting
with Round's view, VCH says - contrary to Eyton, since Eyton had
lacked certain documents - that Alan Fitz Flaald d. before 1121 (but
after 1114). (For further help toward a death date it might pay to
look at Sanders, p. 70, cited by VCH, for a terminal date for Rainald
de Bailleul's son Hugh, since Alan held property in Shropshire by
1114 and received Rainald's whole fee after Hugh's death.)
Contrary to Round, VCH cites charters proving that a community
existed at Haughmond "by at least about 1130" - from charters of
William Fitz Alan (I). This helps to suggest a latest likely date
for his birth, viz. ca. 1110. William (I) is in "exile from
Shropshire for some years after 1138"; he regains possession of his
Salop lands in 1155, and dies 1160. He -- William (I) -- is given as
m. Isabel de Say, da. of Elias de Say, and while a footnote in VCH
(63, note 23) cites Eyton in saying that William's second wife Isabel
is Elias' daughter, it _appears_ that a papal confirmation of 1172
endorses this (cited but not quoted, p. 63). (I've failed to note
whether in fact it's one of Eyton's sources for it. Joe...?)
As seen above, Isabel is given as William (I)'s second wife. I think
the relevant passage bears quoting for its details:
Eyton's argument in favour of c. 1135 [for the earliest charter in
the Haughmond cartulary, in which William (I) grants a fishery in
the Severn] depends partly on the date at which William Fitz Alan
appeared in Shropshire and partly on the presumed date of his marriage.
He was certainly holding estates in Shropshire by 1135 but it is
possible that some of his charters, with extreme dating limits of
1121 and 1138, may be earlier; e.g. his confirmation of Alan fitz
Flaald's grant to Shrewsbury Abbey confirmed in Stephen's charter:
N.L.W,, Shrews. Cart. no. 276. His first wife Christine, who
witnessed the charter, was described by Orderic as neptis of Robert,
Earl of Gloucester (Hist. Eccl. v. 113); but, even if this term means
'niece' and is not a looser expression of kinship, the identity of
Robert's mother is uncertain and it is impossible to estimate by what
date he might have had a marriageable niece. The charter could have
been issued in 1130 or even earlier.
Eyton not only doesn't miss this first wife of William (II) and the
Gloucester lore -- he calls her by two names, Christiana and
Constantia (VII, 239 & 237; my feeling is that 'Constantia' is a
slip).
With the fact in mind that William (I) may thus have m.
Christine/Christina/ Constantia by as early as 1130, I do have to say
that our speculation as to the possibility of there having been
another early William, before the individual we've been calling
William II, can't of itself be entirely ruled out. That is, a
William (for the sake of speculation say 'I.a') -- by William (I) and
Christine -- who could have been the father of the William (II) who
is argued by Eyton to have been born ca. 1155. I simply don't know
yet of any evidence for it, or any particularly interesting reason
for contemplating it. On chronological grounds William (I), b. ca.
1110, is perfectly capable of having had William (II) b. ca. 1155 --
whether by Christine (--) or by Isabel de Say. Whatever the case,
William (II) is the heir of Clun, brought by Isabel de Say. There
seems no justification for wondering why William (I) should have had
William (II) when he was in his 40s, given that he had been
previously married - and I've seen no suggestion that his first wife
didn't die childless, unless indeed Alan the brother Round found for
William (II), and who died as 'infans', was hers.
My apologies for the length of this posting - I've simply been hoping
to set out some of the parameters of what has been misleadingly
represented, what is known, and what now needs work. As to the
latter, I think a lot remains to be gleaned, for example, from the
cartulary of Haughmond (which , per VCH, "was their [the Fitz Alans']
family monastery"), where e.g. --
(1) its evidently full account of its numerous acquisitions during
the 12th and 13th centuries may - inasmuch as at least approximate
dates are to be seen -- help to determine matters such as the time
of William (I)'s marriage to Isabel de Say (since any identifiable
Clun holdings are likely to appear afterward);
(2) the relationships of Fitz Alan donors may be specifed; and
(3) one or more of the famous Shropshire manors of Higford, Middleton
Higford, and Upper Ledwich may appear, to give some relevant Lacy
information affecting the next FitzAlan generation.
Any takers? For starters I note, BTW, that Eyton published an
article, "Haughmond Abbey" in Arch. Jnl. XIII.
Cris
Chris Phillips
Cris Nash wrote:
> My apologies for the length of this posting - I've simply been hoping
> to set out some of the parameters of what has been misleadingly
> represented, what is known, and what now needs work. As to the
Many thanks for that long contribution, which certainly provides much food
for thought, and opens yet another interesting question - whether we're sure
that William the husband of Christiana is the same man who married Isabel de
Say. Thanks also to Joe Cochoit for the additional thoughts about the early
13th-century Williams.
A few fairly random thoughts -
I agree it's frustrating when the Complete Peerage doesn't give references
for its statements (or gives brief and misleading references, as in this
case). Apart from its general reliability, the other appealing thing about
CP is that when there is some doubt, there is usually a reference given that
can be checked. But when chasing up these corrections, I have found that the
early volumes (roughly letters A-C) often have minimal references to source
material. If CP is revised in the future, it would be nice to bring these
early parts - and other stray bits that aren't adequately referenced - up to
the standard of the later volumes. Whether that would be economically viable
I don't know.
(Re the comments about J.H. Round's treatment of his adversaries, I can't
help wondering how he would get on as a participant of this group. I suspect
the resulting "flame-wars" would make our difficulties look very mild by
comparison. Certainly the intellectual artillery that could be mustered by a
controversialist like Round would make the weaponry we're accustomed to look
like pea-shooters!)
Keats-Rohan [Domesday People p.860] says that by his first wife William had
a daughter Christiana, the wife of Hugh Pantulf of Wem, d.1224 [Cart
Shrewsbury, 297]. Hugh is mentioned on p.1059 as the son and successor of
Ivo Pantulf, who succeeded his father c.1137/38 and died in 1175. Nothing
very definite, and perhaps more information could be gleaned from an account
of the Pantulfs (Eyton again?), but if Christiana were of an age with her
husband, it suggests she might have been born closer to 1150 than to 1130.
The Victoria County History article on Haughmond sounds interesting, as may
be Eyton's article on the abbey. Keats-Rohan also refers to "The Cartulary
of Haughmond Abbey", ed. by Una Rees (Trans. Shropshire Arch. Soc., 1985).
Appendix C of this work is one of the references given in the text of her
article on the first William FitzAlan - the fact that it's referred to in
the text, and is an appendix, raises the hope that it may even be a
discussion of the early FitzAlan genealogy...
Maybe it would be useful to list the sources cited by Keats-Rohan, as a
complement to the list cited by Sanders.
For William I FitzAlan:
Barraclough, Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, nos 62, 84-85;
H.A. Cronne & R.H.C. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum III, nos 130,
377-79, 461, 703, 820-21;
Pipe Rolls:
1 Henry II (RBE, ii), 653-sp;
2 Henry II, 43-sp, 44-sp;
3 Henry II, 88-sp, 89-sp;
4 Henry II, 117-wl, 169-sp, 170-sp
5 Henry II, 61-63-sp;
6 Henry II, 26-sp, 27-sp;
7 Henry II, 10-wl, 39-sp;
8 Henry II, 14-wl;
Walker, Charters of the Earldom of Hereford (1964), no 68
For William II (which article also mentions William III):
Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, IV, p.76, no IV;
Pipe Rolls:
8 Henry II, 2-lcwk, 15-sp, 16-sp, 65-nfsf;
9 Henry II, 3-sp;
10 Henry II, 9-sp;
11 Henry II, 90-sp;
Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall (1897), pp.236-38, 271-74
I'm afraid I don't know what is meant by all those letters after the Pipe
Rolls references - I assume they're differentiating the different sections
of the rolls (couldn't find an explanation in "Domesday Descendants", but
perhaps I missed it).
I certainly don't want to take advantage of Cris's generous offer to follow
up some of Sanders' references, but at any rate these are available to be
used by whoever wants them. (There are quite a few references in total, so
perhaps we should divide them up somehow...)
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan
It seems to me that Sanders bases the date of death, of William II in 1212/3
on the Testa de Nevill return by the sheriff of Shropshire in 1212. In this
return the first entry is of William Fitzalan who is described as holding
"in capite de domino Rege per baroniam". This indicates that the attributed
date of death of 1210 is incorrect.
That being so, the assumption that because the barony of Oswestry was in
manum regis, the heir was a minor, does not follow for William III was
offering relief of 10,000 marks in August 1212 immediately after his
father's death. What seems to have happened was that the barony was being
held by the king until relief (or guarantee of one) had been paid. It
appears that William III may have been seised of part of the lands and died
after June 1213 when he is mentioned as having contracted the fine. The
extraordinary amount of the relief indicates that King John did not trust
FitzAlan and was ensuring his continual indebtedness as a guarantee of
compliance, so that he could keep most of the barony under his own control.
William III must have died between June and November of 1213 which was when
the estates ended up in the king's hands again.
Thomas Erdington, (former sheriff of Shropshire in 1208) paid a colossal
5000 marks for the custody of the FitzAlan estate on the death of William
III. He may have been intent on safeguarding the interests of his
grandchildren who appear to have been teenagers, for John II came of age in
1244 meaning that he was fathered in 1223 by John I, six years after the
death of his brother William IV in 1217. Looking at the economics of the
situation, it seems to me that there was not a long period of minority and
that payment of such a high amount for the custody, did not appear to be a
particularly good bargain. This would indicate that personal interest was at
stake not financial reward.
As Chris Philips has commented, Sanders' chrononology is entirely feasible,
and going by the above version, I would suggest something along these lines.
William I died in 1160
William II b c 1155- 1212 aged about 57
William III b.c.1175-1213 aged about 38
William IV b. c 1200 - 1215 s.p. -17 aged about 15-17
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cristopher Nash" <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
> "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote --
>
> >Thanks to Joe and Cris for those further comments.
> >
> >It may be as you say. I agree that if William III was a minor anywhere
near
> >this time, Sanders' scheme breaks down, given the evidence that John was
of
> >age soon after this. My problem is I don't find it very clear which
William
> >each record is relating to. It's not a problem, is it, if William IV is a
> >minor at this time?
>
> In terms of the geneal. sequence I feel it's not (tho I gather that
> Joe feels it's right to establish whose account is generally most
> reliable).
>
> >One useful thing might be to try to work out whether Eyton's account
> >includes all the evidence cited by Sanders.
>
> I agree.
>
> >Sanders' authority for the statement that William II died in 1212-3 seems
to
> >be P.R. 1201-16, p.100 [i.e. Patent Roll, not Pipe Roll]
> >
> >Then the references for the statements about William III to John III are
all
> >grouped together. The ones that seem possibly relevant to the matter at
hand
> >are:
> >Ex. F.R. i pp.360,417; idem ii pp.464,575;
> >CIPM i nos 684, 812 [these would be later, but I suppose just might refer
> >back to something relevant]
> >PR 1201-16, p.129; idem 1216-25, p.59;
> >Rot de Obl et Fin p.531
> >
> >I should be able to check these at the weekend, if no one else can see
them
> >easily.
>
Cristopher Nash
>Many thanks for that long contribution,
[SNIP]
>I agree it's frustrating when the Complete Peerage doesn't give references
>for its statements (or gives brief and misleading references, as in this
>case). Apart from its general reliability, the other appealing thing about
>CP is that when there is some doubt, there is usually a reference given that
>can be checked. But when chasing up these corrections, I have found that the
>early volumes (roughly letters A-C) often have minimal references to source
>material.
That's been my sense of it too.
>If CP is revised in the future, it would be nice to bring these
>early parts - and other stray bits that aren't adequately referenced - up to
>the standard of the later volumes. Whether that would be economically viable
>I don't know.
We're (you're) cutting down immensely on somebody's editorial bill, anyhow.
>(Re the comments about J.H. Round's treatment of his adversaries, I can't
>help wondering how he would get on as a participant of this group. I suspect
>the resulting "flame-wars" would make our difficulties look very mild by
>comparison. Certainly the intellectual artillery that could be mustered by a
>controversialist like Round would make the weaponry we're accustomed to look
>like pea-shooters!)
If Round had even a pea-shooter I wouldn't stand around.
>Keats-Rohan [Domesday People p.860] says that by his first wife William had
>a daughter Christiana, the wife of Hugh Pantulf of Wem, d.1224 [Cart
>Shrewsbury, 297]. Hugh is mentioned on p.1059 as the son and successor of
>Ivo Pantulf, who succeeded his father c.1137/38 and died in 1175. Nothing
>very definite, and perhaps more information could be gleaned from an account
>of the Pantulfs (Eyton again?), but if Christiana were of an age with her
>husband, it suggests she might have been born closer to 1150 than to 1130.
Interesting thinking.
>The Victoria County History article on Haughmond sounds interesting, as may
>be Eyton's article on the abbey. Keats-Rohan also refers to "The Cartulary
>of Haughmond Abbey", ed. by Una Rees (Trans. Shropshire Arch. Soc., 1985).
That's very helpful, thanks - I was going start looking tomorrow for
an edition and it's encouraging to see this one's date.
>Appendix C of this work is one of the references given in the text of her
>article on the first William FitzAlan - the fact that it's referred to in
>the text, and is an appendix, raises the hope that it may even be a
>discussion of the early FitzAlan genealogy...
Amen.
Since my copy of DD probably won't arrive till Monday now, this is
great -- and yes, some Pipe Roll sections are sometimes (tho not
always) marked out by letter-headings (e.g. the one I posted last
week from Hen III re Cantilupe), though the repetition of 'sp'
suggests to me there's something else going on here, which escapes me
at the moment.
>I certainly don't want to take advantage of Cris's generous offer to follow
>up some of Sanders' references, but at any rate these are available to be
>used by whoever wants them. (There are quite a few references in total, so
>perhaps we should divide them up somehow...)
Sounds cool to me (espec. since I'm getting into a heavy area of the
new book and may have to back off for a while) but I'm durned if I
know how.
Cheers & thanks!
Cris
--
Stewart, Peter
> From: Chris Phillips [mailto:c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2002 6:15
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife
> in sources.
>
>
> (Re the comments about J.H. Round's treatment of his
> adversaries, I can't help wondering how he would get on
> as a participant of this group. I suspect the resulting
> "flame-wars" would make our difficulties look very mild
> by comparison. Certainly the intellectual artillery that could
> be mustered by a controversialist like Round would make
> the weaponry we're accustomed to look like pea-shooters!)
This is comparing an apple to pears. Don't forget that Round had months to
prepare his printed work - I don't know that his impromtu skills were so
marvellous. And he wouldn't, perhaps, be very helpful or forthcoming with
his knowledge: remember the rather creepy story about him told by Oswald
Barron to Sir Anthony Wagner, that he withheld corrections to a colleague's
manuscript and then pounced on these in a published review, only to find
that the author had already amended the final version of his own work, which
Round hadn't bothered to read.....nasty, low and distinctly uncollegial. As
Barron remarked, he didn't know how Round could hold up his head afterwards.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
news:BE9CF8DEAB7ED311B05E...@v003138e.crsrehab.gov.au
<snip>
> This is comparing an apple to pears. Don't forget that Round had months to
> prepare his printed work - I don't know that his impromtu skills were so
> marvellous.
This leads me to wonder about Round's likely keyboard skills - impromtu
[sic], impromptu or otherwise. This underlines that we are writing &
responding in haste, and without editors, unlike the leisurely
horn-locking of Victorian gentlemen scholars.
Peter Stewart
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Reedpcgen
>help wondering how he would get on as a participant of this group. I suspect
>the resulting "flame-wars" would make our difficulties look very mild by
>comparison. Certainly the intellectual artillery that could be mustered by a
>controversialist like Round would
>make the weaponry we're accustomed to look
>like pea-shooters!)
Yes, when I first visited the Round Room at the old Chancery Lane PRO in 1985,
the Deputy Keeper told me stories of Round and how he would sit down and scan
through Pipe Rolls, etc., as easily as one might read the Sunday paper. He
intimidated Maitland into not challenging his interpretation of Domesday.
(Stubbs would have been another interesting historian to have around.)
Paul
Joe Cochoit
Thanks for jumping in. I have several questions below. I am
certainly not stuck on Eyton's scheme and in fact I see some evidence
in what Eyton wrote that Sander's may be right.
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<028401c201d2$0554d200$de00...@mshome.net>...
> If could make an observation or three.
>
> It seems to me that Sanders bases the date of death, of William II in 1212/3
> on the Testa de Nevill return by the sheriff of Shropshire in 1212. In this
> return the first entry is of William Fitzalan who is described as holding
> "in capite de domino Rege per baroniam". This indicates that the attributed
> date of death of 1210 is incorrect.
Why wouldn't you think this entry referred to sander's William III
rather than William II? Eyton does say he has only a single reference
for this date, which he states comes from a register of Dunstable
Priory, sites Cotton MS Tiber A. x. fo. 9 (if any one knows how to
track this down).
> That being so, the assumption that because the barony of Oswestry was in
> manum regis, the heir was a minor, does not follow for William III was
> offering relief of 10,000 marks in August 1212 immediately after his
> father's death.
Where did this date come from? Eyton could not date this more
acurately than between Michaelmas 1212 and Michaelmas 1214.
What seems to have happened was that the barony was being
> held by the king until relief (or guarantee of one) had been paid. It
> appears that William III may have been seised of part of the lands and died
> after June 1213 when he is mentioned as having contracted the fine. The
> extraordinary amount of the relief indicates that King John did not trust
> FitzAlan and was ensuring his continual indebtedness as a guarantee of
> compliance, so that he could keep most of the barony under his own control.
> William III must have died between June and November of 1213 which was when
> the estates ended up in the king's hands again.
Does this fine absolutely imply that William the heir was of age in
June 1213? Eyton was certainly aware of the chronology of these
events but intrepreted their implication differently.
Could you explain how this worked in c1210, if a great feudal baron
died with an adult heir, did the lands still pass to the King and the
heir had to then pay a fine to the King to receive his lands and
titles?
If William the heir was of age in June 1213 when the fine was charged,
but the fine was never paid (as Eyton shows), would the lands remain
in the King's hands?
Would King John then still have the right sell the Fitz Alan lands to
Thomas Erdington along with the right to marry the daughter Thomas
Erdington to William Fitz Alan in July 1214? Could the King
arrange/force by contract the marriage of one of his barons to a woman
against the baron's will? Does this have any implication as to the
age of William Fitz Alan in July 1214?
> Thomas Erdington, (former sheriff of Shropshire in 1208) paid a colossal
> 5000 marks for the custody of the FitzAlan estate on the death of William
> III. He may have been intent on safeguarding the interests of his
> grandchildren who appear to have been teenagers, for John II came of age in
> 1244 meaning that he was fathered in 1223 by John I, six years after the
> death of his brother William IV in 1217. Do you mean April 1215?
> Looking at the economics of the
> situation, it seems to me that there was not a long period of minority and
> that payment of such a high amount for the custody, did not appear to be a
> particularly good bargain. This would indicate that personal interest was at
> stake not financial reward.
>
> As Chris Philips has commented, Sanders' chrononology is entirely feasible,
> and going by the above version, I would suggest something along these lines.
>
> William I died in 1160
> William II b c 1155- 1212 aged about 57
> William III b.c.1175-1213 aged about 38
> William IV b. c 1200 - 1215 s.p. -17 aged about 15-17
I think you have to assume William IV and his brother John were older
than this. On March 3, 1215 King John received the homage of William
Fitz Alan and ordered all Knights and Tenants to do homage to their
Lord. John I FA, on the death of his brother, instantly rebelled
against King John. This rebellion continued until October 1217 when
they apparently reconciled. I have taken all this to mean that
William and John were of age in 1215. Correct?
Joe cochoit
Rosie Bevan
Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
> Hi Rosie,
> Thanks for jumping in. I have several questions below. I am
> certainly not stuck on Eyton's scheme and in fact I see some evidence
> in what Eyton wrote that Sander's may be right.
>
> rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message
news:<028401c201d2$0554d200$de00...@mshome.net>...
> > If could make an observation or three.
> >
> > It seems to me that Sanders bases the date of death, of William II in
1212/3
> > on the Testa de Nevill return by the sheriff of Shropshire in 1212. In
this
> > return the first entry is of William Fitzalan who is described as
holding
> > "in capite de domino Rege per baroniam". This indicates that the
attributed
> > date of death of 1210 is incorrect.
> Why wouldn't you think this entry referred to sander's William III
> rather than William II? Eyton does say he has only a single reference
> for this date, which he states comes from a register of Dunstable
> Priory, sites Cotton MS Tiber A. x. fo. 9 (if any one knows how to
> track this down).
Because you would expect to a record of relief being paid.
> > That being so, the assumption that because the barony of Oswestry was in
> > manum regis, the heir was a minor, does not follow for William III was
> > offering relief of 10,000 marks in August 1212 immediately after his
> > father's death.
> Where did this date come from? Eyton could not date this more
> acurately than between Michaelmas 1212 and Michaelmas 1214.
In August 1212 Oswestry was in the king's hand therefore it is reasonable to
assume the tenant had died. In the 1213 there is record in the Fine Rolls
that William offered relief of 10,000. He obviously could not pay it but
the debt would be recorded and tracked in the Pipe Rolls and there would be
some agreement made on how much his instalments would be. He would have had
seisin of all or part of his lands as a result of the agreement.
> What seems to have happened was that the barony was being
> > held by the king until relief (or guarantee of one) had been paid. It
> > appears that William III may have been seised of part of the lands and
died
> > after June 1213 when he is mentioned as having contracted the fine. The
> > extraordinary amount of the relief indicates that King John did not
trust
> > FitzAlan and was ensuring his continual indebtedness as a guarantee of
> > compliance, so that he could keep most of the barony under his own
control.
> > William III must have died between June and November of 1213 which was
when
> > the estates ended up in the king's hands again.
> Does this fine absolutely imply that William the heir was of age in
> June 1213?
Yes. He had to be of age to make the fine.
Eyton was certainly aware of the chronology of these
> events but intrepreted their implication differently.
I haven't read Eyton's account, so couldn't comment.
>
> Could you explain how this worked in c1210, if a great feudal baron
> died with an adult heir, did the lands still pass to the King and the
> heir had to then pay a fine to the King to receive his lands and
> titles?
My understanding is that is so. As soon as the baron died, the property was
taken into the king's hands to ensure that it went to the rightful heir - at
this time by the sheriff, later by the escheator. The heir had to pay relief
which was a sum to take possession of the property, then pay homage before
he had seisin of his lands.
> If William the heir was of age in June 1213 when the fine was charged,
> but the fine was never paid (as Eyton shows), would the lands remain
> in the King's hands?
The fine was not paid but it was contracted. i.e. the parties would have
made an agreement. I don't know what happened about the debt. If there were
defaults in payment, then the sheriff would repossess the lands on behalf of
the king.
> Would King John then still have the right sell the Fitz Alan lands to
> Thomas Erdington along with the right to marry the daughter Thomas
> Erdington to William Fitz Alan in July 1214?
This would be have been an abuse of customary law and practise. Thomas
Erdington bought the custody of the lands until the heir was of full age. Is
there a record of him buying the marriage as well? If William was of age the
following year, it appears Thomas de Erdington did not get a very good
bargain.
Could the King
> arrange/force by contract the marriage of one of his barons to a woman
> against the baron's will? Does this have any implication as to the
> age of William Fitz Alan in July 1214?
Undoubtedly the king could be very pursuasive about his wishes. King John
took hostages to ensure compliance. William had to be over 14 for the
marriage to be binding. Usually marriages were contracted as soon as
possible - (betrothed at 7 and married at 14) to avoid the sale of the
marriage to an unsympathetic outsider. Even if he were over 21, his marriage
could still be owned by someone else. The custodian was obliged to find a
marriage partner of the same status as the heir, though this didn't always
happen.
> > Thomas Erdington, (former sheriff of Shropshire in 1208) paid a colossal
> > 5000 marks for the custody of the FitzAlan estate on the death of
William
> > III. He may have been intent on safeguarding the interests of his
> > grandchildren who appear to have been teenagers, for John II came of age
in
> > 1244 meaning that he was fathered in 1223 by John I, six years after the
> > death of his brother William IV in 1217. Do you mean April 1215?
I was going by Sanders who seems to be some doubt as to the exact date of
death of William IV
> > Looking at the economics of the
> > situation, it seems to me that there was not a long period of minority
and
> > that payment of such a high amount for the custody, did not appear to be
a
> > particularly good bargain. This would indicate that personal interest
was at
> > stake not financial reward.
> >
> > As Chris Philips has commented, Sanders' chrononology is entirely
feasible,
> > and going by the above version, I would suggest something along these
lines.
> >
> > William I died in 1160
> > William II b c 1155- 1212 aged about 57
> > William III b.c.1175-1213 aged about 38
> > William IV b. c 1200 - 1215 s.p. -17 aged about 15-17
> I think you have to assume William IV and his brother John were older
> than this. On March 3, 1215 King John received the homage of William
> Fitz Alan and ordered all Knights and Tenants to do homage to their
> Lord. John I FA, on the death of his brother, instantly rebelled
> against King John. This rebellion continued until October 1217 when
> they apparently reconciled. I have taken all this to mean that
> William and John were of age in 1215. Correct?
If this is so, then yes.
Corrections welcomed.
Cheers
Rosie
Cristopher Nash
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Cochoit" <coc...@aol.com>
>To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 6:25 AM
>Subject: Re: William Fitz Alan [1105-1160]. Conflicting wife in sources.
[SNIP]
>In August 1212 Oswestry was in the king's hand therefore it is reasonable to
>assume the tenant had died. In the 1213 there is record in the Fine Rolls
>that William offered relief of 10,000. He obviously could not pay it but
>the debt would be recorded and tracked in the Pipe Rolls and there would be
>some agreement made on how much his instalments would be. He would have had
>seisin of all or part of his lands as a result of the agreement.
>
>
>> What seems to have happened was that the barony was being
>> > held by the king until relief (or guarantee of one) had been paid. It
> > > appears that William III may have been seised of part of the lands and
> > > died after June 1213 when he is mentioned as having contracted the fine.
> > > The extraordinary amount of the relief indicates that King John did not
> > > trust FitzAlan and was ensuring his continual indebtedness as a guarantee
> > > of compliance, so that he could keep most of the barony under his own
> > > control. William III must have died between June and November
>of 1213 > > > > which was when the estates ended up in the king's
>hands again.
> > >
>> Does this fine absolutely imply that William the heir was of age in
> > June 1213?
[SNIP]
> > Could you explain how this worked in c1210, if a great feudal baron
>> died with an adult heir, did the lands still pass to the King and the
>> heir had to then pay a fine to the King to receive his lands and
>> titles?
>
>My understanding is that is so. As soon as the baron died, the property was
>taken into the king's hands to ensure that it went to the rightful heir - at
>this time by the sheriff, later by the escheator. The heir had to pay relief
>which was a sum to take possession of the property, then pay homage before
>he had seisin of his lands.
>
>> If William the heir was of age in June 1213 when the fine was charged,
>> but the fine was never paid (as Eyton shows), would the lands remain
>> in the King's hands?
>
>The fine was not paid but it was contracted. i.e. the parties would have
>made an agreement. I don't know what happened about the debt. If there were
>defaults in payment, then the sheriff would repossess the lands on behalf of
>the king.
I'd just like to add that unfulfilled searches for evidence of
payment of documented debts to the Crown - or of subsequent
repossession - may not always be taken as evidence of loss of
significant records, or of the debtor's failure to comply and his/her
likely loss of royal favour. There are marked signs that from at
least ca. 1156 on, the deliberate noncollection of debts may have
developed as a major form of royal patronage. Cf. the extended
argument of Hollister, _Henry I_ (2001), esp. 343-4, 353.
Hollister's evidence focuses on the evolution of this practice under
Henry I, and shouldn't be taken as a contradiction of Rosie's shrewd
point about the possibility that K John may have used heavy debt as a
means of keeping players (such as the FitzAlans) onside. (The Braose
story is a notorious case in point, though Matilda de Braose's death
by starvation - ostensibly for nonpayment - may have brought a unique
kind of reassurance only the likes of K John would enjoy.) But the
strategem of rewarding favourites by delaying and even altogether
'forgetting' debts persists down to the pipe rolls of Henry II (often
without record of their having been formally pardoned), and Hollister
argues persuasively that serious historical errors have arisen from
the failure to consider the full potential significance not only of
records of debt but of records of payment _and_ of their absence.
It's right to point out that Hollister's immediate interest is in
adjusting the historical understanding of Henry I, but this seems to
me not to vitiate the general force of his point where genealogical
research is concerned. Here, sometimes (though not always)
documentary absence can show the heart growing fonder.
Cris
--