Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury
paul bulkley
I wish to congratulate you on your compiling of
information regarding the Kendal Family - excellent.
I will need time to examine your data prior to
responding meaningfully.
Regarding your concern of the "Culwen" title, the
following information may resolve your enquiry:
1185 (about): Thomas (son) Gospatric held the estate
of Colvend. Later he acquired the title of "De Culwen"
(Lordship of Galloway p197, p202)
1189: Patric (Younger) (son) (heir) Thomas (son)
Gospatric of Workington received the lordship of
Culwen in Galloway (Barony of Kendal British History
Online)
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Alex Maxwell Findlater
There is a pedigree of the family on this page.
FDP...@aol.com
Thank your for the kind words. Compiled is the proper term. Everything
I have learned came from others' thoughtful work. I have carefully
sourced all my data and credited those responsible and attempted to
present it in their context. Thank goodness for Google Books, British
History on line and the learned contributors here on SGM.
You wrote<<< I will need time to examine your data prior to
responding meaningfully.>>>
Hope to hear from you if I can be of help.
You wrote <<< Regarding your concern of the "Culwen" title, the
following information may resolve your enquiry:
1185 (about): Thomas (son) Gospatric held the estate
of Colvend. Later he acquired the title of "De Culwen"
(Lordship of Galloway p197, p202)
1189: Patric (Younger) (son) (heir) Thomas (son)
Gospatric of Workington received the lordship of
Culwen in Galloway (Barony of Kendal British History
Online)>>>
These dates are consistent with what we know. Thomas son of Gospatric
was de Workington after Gospatric's death. Gospatric got Workington
through traded lands with William de Lancaster before William's death
in 1170. Colvend is just another spelling of Culwen which was changed
to Curwen in Thomas FitzPatric's brother his heir Gilbert's
timeframe.
You wrote <<<(1) Richard Oram "Lordship of Galloway" advises that
Fergus Galloway married an illegitimate daughter of
Henry Ist. Perhaps the Thomas Galloway that you speak
of was a son of Fergus, and a brother of Uhtred? >>>
Ragg below addressed this as Thomas de Culwen having married Fergus'
daughter with a son Thomas Jr. who had a daughter Grace who married
Thomas son of Gospatric.
You wrote<<<(2) Otherwise consider this significant information
also in Oram's "Lordship of Galloway" P202.
"------- 1180's to the south of Urr lay Colvend the
possession of Roland's second cousin Thomas Fitz
Patric Lord of Workington. His family later acquired
the designation of "de Culwen". To his brother Gilbert
came the lordship of neighboring "Southwick">>>
This is confusing. Thomas FitzPatric is Gospatric's ggs. While he had
a brother Gilbert who became his heir upon Thomas FitzPatric's death,
Gilbert de Southwic was brother of Thomas son of Gospatric. The only
way Thomas FitzPatric could be second cousin to Roland is if Thomas son
of Gospatric married a de Culwen heiress as suggested by Ragg below.
The other option, which is pure speculation, comes about if Roland was
in possession of Colvend in the 1180's he may have given his
daughter, unnamed, in marriage to Patric son of Thomas son of
Gospatric. Patric's wife has never been named. However, then Thomas
FitzPatric would be grandson of Roland. This speculation appears
unwarranted! It appears Thomas son of Gospatric married a Culwen
heiress who may have been Grace and Amabel/Amabilis was their daughter
according to Ragg below. This makes JF Curwen's 1725 pedigree re two
wives incorrect.
You wrote<<<Richard Oram's "Lordship of Galloway" page 99
introduces an interesting comment that might prove an
avenue to investigate:
"Soon after 1176 Richard de Morville arranged the
marriage of his daughter Helen to Roland Galloway ----
his connection provided Roland with a new circle of
dependants. Through it he strengthened the existing
kinship bond with family of Gospatric of Workington
who's elder son Thomas was a tenant of William de
Lancaster lord of Kendal, brother in law to Richard de
Morveille. Thomas's younger brother Gilbert was to
become one of Roland's intimates">>>
This must be Gilbert de Southwic. The existing kinship bond must be as
Ragg describes.
>From my last message Reference: "Rev. Frederick W. Ragg in his
published article "de Culwen", was of the mind that Thomas de
Wyrkington's wife Grace or Grecia, was the daughter of Thomas de
Culwen, not Amabilis. He states, "The charters of Thomas, son of
Gospatrik, mention and imply only one wife. We know her name but not
her descent. They had a daughter Amabilia, and hence perhaps the
confusion. This being understood, the connection apparently implied by
the said evidence could be this :- the daughter of Fergus of Galloway
married Thomas de Culwen, whose son Thomas was the father of Grecia
(Grace) who married Thomas de Wrykington. This would account for the
grant of Culwen which must by moral certainty have gone to a connection
or relation". Source, Rev. Frederick W. Ragg in his published article
"de Culwen", Transactions CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1914, pg. 425,
426."
Sincerely yours,
Dix Preston
paul bulkley
Regarding your information:
RE: Osulf (son) Orm (son) Ketel:
I could not find any evidence to support that there
was an Osulf in Flimby, that his title was lord of
Flimby, that he was a son of Orm, or that he was even
related to Orm.
This evidence is important because there are a number
of documentary records that establish that Orm
inherited the Seton and Flimby estates through
Waltheof Dunbar, and that Gospatric Orm's son, and
Thomas his grandson subsequently held the Flimby
estate.
RE: Osulf of Preston Richard:
I had no success finding any evidence that this Osulf
was a son of Orm, was related to Orm, or had any
connection with Flimby. It could be inferred a
possible relationship if this Osulf held family
property at Preston Richard, but it could in turn be
argued that this stranger simply acquired the
property.
The Harrington and Preston Family claim that Osulf
settled in Cumberland during the reign of Richard Ist
(1189/1199)could be correct. However Osulf (son) Orm
would have been 90 to 100 years of age!
RE: Adam (son) Orm (son) Ketel:
You quote as evidence the "Release by Roger son of
Adam son Osulf to the canons of ------------ the
territory of Caton???"
There is no way of identifying Adam brother of this
Osulf, no date is revealed, the priory or abbey not
mentioned, and the location a mystery. Regret I do
not understand how you can consider Adam to be a son
of Orm.
RE: Michael, Robert, Roger (sons) Orm (son) Ketel:
You quote Bob and Joy Salt for your source of
information. What evidence have they to support their
claims? The only success I have establishing their
possible existence is the Register St Bees Surtees
#126. Thereafter they just vanished.
Can you assist?
paul bulkley
Further thoughts regarding your excellent research:
RE: Osulf - Preston Richard:
I sense that the absense of public records of Osulf
and his son Uctred suggests that they were of a
different economic bracket to Gospatric (son) Orm line
who eventually held Preston Patric. Their paths never
appeared to cross?
Lancashire P/R records indicate that Gilbert Fitz
Reinfred held the Preston Richard properties, and
presumably Osulf, if established there, was a junior
tenant.
I found the following record in Lancashire P/R p442
which may represent your Osulf family:
1170/1184: Confirmation William Lancaster II to
William (son) Roger Kirby Irelith of land between
rivers of Licklet Duddon. Witness: Ughtred (son) Usult
The author questions the locality of the witness -
(Furness Men?)
RE: Thomas (son) Gospatric - Preston Patric:
1189 +: Manor of Preston Patric granted to Thomas
(son) Gospatric by Gilbert Fitz Reinfred (Barony
Kendal B.O.L.)
1191: Thomas (son) Gospatric founded house of
Premonstratensian St Mary Magdalene Canons of Preston.
Provided portion of his land for mansion -
subsequently relocated to Shap. (Barony Kendal B.O.L.)
1191/1200: Thomas (son) Gospatric gave to hospital of
Cockersand land in Preston (Kendale) (Cockersand
Charter 999)
1201 +: Roger de Bello Campo and wife Grecia (wdw of
Thomas (s) Gospatric) proffer 100M for custody of land
and heir of Thomas (s) Gospatric.(Barony Kendale)
Note: The heir was probably Patric (son) Patric, and
aged about 10 years (1203)
Note: It is interesting that so many authorities are
vague about Grace. I am certain that she brought the
Culwen title to Thomas (son) Gospatric when they
married 1180-1185. She would have been 20-25 years of
age. It is interesting to note that it is at this very
time that authorities claim that Thomas received the
title (about 1185), and that he and his younger
brother Gilbert had such close relationships with
Roland Galloway.
Assuming that she married soon after the death of
Thomas 1201, her age would have been 40 years plus.
Despite her age, apparantly she was a "fair" catch for
Roger de Bello Campo, and indicative that she was of
high station.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
was Roland of Galloway's second cousin and that it was for political
reasons that Galloway had to be planted with trustworthy men.
Therefore he chose a cousin. Of course that is not to suggest that his
wife Grace was not of high station, but it a jump too far to think that
she brought the lands of Colvend with her. The fact that his brother
Gilbert got Southwick which is the next parish (now united) would also
suggest planting rather than marriage as the reason for the acquisition
of these two holdings.
The relationship which I have taken to represent this second cousinhood
is as follows. Please would anyone with better information correct me:
Cospatric Earl of Northumberland (ie Dunbar)
Waltheof of Allerdale Gunilda
m Orm son of Ketel
Gunnilda Cospatric son of Orm
m Uchtred of Galloway
Roland of Galloway Thomas of Workington
FDP...@aol.com
Have had brief stay in hospital and will need a few days to comment on
your last two messages
Regards,
Dix Preston
FDP...@aol.com
I hope this helps in your last two messages.
You wrote <<<RE: Osulf (son) Orm (son) Ketel:
I could not find any evidence to support that there
was an Osulf in Flimby, that his title was lord of
Flimby, that he was a son of Orm, or that he was even
related to Orm.>>>
I'm not surprised, I been searching for a year or two for
documentation.
You wrote <<<This evidence is important because there are a number
of documentary records that establish that Orm
inherited the Seton and Flimby estates through
Waltheof Dunbar, and that Gospatric Orm's son, and
Thomas his grandson subsequently held the Flimby
estate.>>>
I agree. I have given you all my references in various messages in this
regard. They come from well respected members of SGM, and I have no
reason to doubt their inputs.
You wrote <<< RE: Osulf of Preston Richard:
I had no success finding any evidence that this Osulf
was a son of Orm, was related to Orm, or had any
connection with Flimby. It could be inferred a
possible relationship if this Osulf held family
property at Preston Richard, but it could in turn be
argued that this stranger simply acquired the
property.
The Harrington and Preston Family claim that Osulf
settled in Cumberland during the reign of Richard Ist
(1189/1199)could be correct. However Osulf (son) Orm
would have been 90 to 100 years of age!>>>
You can either accept the Flimby/Flemingby references I gave or not.
The documenters had problems with dates in those days. So many problems
exist when trying to take dates literally. As to evidence Osulf was the
son of Orm son of Ketel, without a birth certificate or charter
specifying this, I can only go with what I have presented. I will also
point out some interesting family naming information regarding
Osulf's descendants, one of whom is Robert, (son of Osulf) father of
Michael father of Thomas father of Robert was ancestor to Harrington
line. Orm appears to have had a son Robert, Michael, a grandson Thomas
etc.
1. Ketel son of Osulf was the Ketel in the area called Ketel-Strickland
he had sons Bernard, Uchtred, Adam, & William
2. Orm and Adam, father of an Uchtred, are sons of Brunolf son of
Osulf.
3. Uchtred son of Osulf had sons Richard de Preston, Ketel of Levens,
Orm who probably was Orm de Ninezergh an area of Levens, & Adam,
4. Richard de Preston m. Erneburgha le Fleming dau Anselm le Fleming
who married Agnes Dunbar and into the Dunbar family thru Edgar son of
Gospatric II. They had a son Adam, Richard II, Christina, Eda m.
William de Wedacre. FYI Erneburgha was sister to Helen who married
Ralph D'Aincourt a local biggie in Sedgwick area.
5. Richard II m. Amabel de Strickland dau of Walter FitzAdam de
Strickland
As a general observation, Preston men married into land holding women,
but to suggest they were of a lower social status than Gospatric I
won't agree.
You wrote<<< RE: Michael, Robert, Roger (sons) Orm (son) Ketel:
You quote Bob and Joy Salt for your source of
information. What evidence have they to support their
claims? The only success I have establishing their
possible existence is the Register St Bees Surtees
#126. Thereafter they just vanished.>>>
Did you examine Bob & Joy's 4 lines of descent which I believe comes
from JF Curwen's book on the family? You are not going to find a
charter etc. for everything you want.
You wrote<<< RE: Osulf - Preston Richard:
I sense that the absence of public records of Osulf
and his son Uctred suggests that they were of a
different economic bracket to Gospatric (son) Orm line
who eventually held Preston Patric. Their paths never
appeared to cross?
Lancashire P/R records indicate that Gilbert Fitz
Reinfred held the Preston Richard properties, and
presumably Osulf, if established there, was a junior
tenant.>>>
There are plenty of public records re the Preston Richard family in
Farrer Vol II which can, I believe, be read on British History on-line.
You might refresh your memory by reading the introduction to Farrer's
vol I found at.URL below. Osulf was as much a tenant as Gospatric,
neither was a junior tenant, they were heirs to much of Orm's and
Ketel's property. Incidentally, Orm and Ketel had overlords also.
http://edenlinks.rootsweb.com/1gp/RECORDS/FAR/INTRO.HTM
Records of Kendale Vol 1 by William Farrer Litt.
Edited by John F. Curwen, F.S.A.
He points out that:
"The interesting circumstance that the lords of Kentdale in the time
of Henry II (1154-1189) were only farmers under the lord of Appleby of
an important part of Kentdale, is disclosed by another charter of King
Richard, issued in November or December, 1189, wherein he granted to
Gilbert FITZ-REINFRID these crown estates in Kentdale:
In (Over) Levens 1 carucate with the fishery of the vill.
In Farleton and Beetham 4 carucates.
In Preston (Patrick) and Holme 4 carucates.
In Burton in Kentdale 2 carucates.
In Hincaster 1 carucate.
In Preston (Richard) 1 carucate.
In Lupton 3 carucates.
The fishery pertaining to the said lands.
This grant was made in return for a simple payment of £100; the lands
so granted were to be held by the service of one knight with baronial
franchises, and were to be quit of Noutgeld and other exactions.
(Abbreviat Placitorum, 400.) King John confirmed this grant on 25
April, 1200, in the same terms. (Rot. Charturum, 50.) The
identification of these estates is based on the following premises.
Over Levens, where the Hall stands, was granted by William de LANCASTER
to Norman de REDMAN with the reservation of the fishery in the Kent.
The "De Bethum" family held the major part of Farleton and Beetham, and
in John's reign were posessors of the fishery between Arnside and
Blawith. Gospatric son of Orm and his son, Thomas, held the major part
of Preston Patrick and Holme; Patrick de CULWEN or CURWEN, younger
brother and eventually heir of Thomas, gave his name to the former
place. Lands in Burton in Kentdale and Lupton were held early in the
13th century by the "De Burton" family."
FDP NOTE: Unfortunately, Farrer left the family of Preston out in this
description; however, this overlooking is corrected by the following
reference below. FYI: I believe I have sufficient evidence that Uchtred
son of Osulf married an unnamed daughter of Norman de Redman. Ketel son
of Uchtred and Henry son of Norman shared Levens as commom heritage.
"The Barony of Kendal in the thirteenth century extended over more
than half the modern county of Westmorland and into north Lancashire,
and at that time the de Lancastres, barons of Kendal, bore for arms:
Argent two bars gules, on a canton gules a leopard of England. The
silver shield and the two red bars were adopted by the following
families within the Barony of Kendal: Broughton, Bardsey, Preston,
Kirkby, Copeland, and Lowick. The first four differenced the canton of
their overlord. Copeland had a red canton, but over all the shield he
placed a sable garter. Lowick is credited with the two red bars and
three red mullets in chief, exactly the same as the Washington arms.
West in his Antiquities of Furness is responsible for this ascription
to Lowick, but I cannot find any early authority for it." "The
Washington Ancestry and Records of the McClain, Johnson and Forty Other
Colonial American Families," Volume 1, Page 19.
FDP Note: A reasonable conclusion therefore is that both the
Preston's and the de Lancaster's were descended from the same
stock. It is reasonable that for a Saxon family to have been accepted
so quickly into Norman aristocratic families with lucrative marriages,
this Saxon family would have to come from the same social standing. It
is interesting to note that "The sons of Bethoc and Crinan were King
Duncan I of Albany (killed in 1040), whose descendants bore arms of the
colors red on gold; and Maldred, Ruler of Cumbria, who married the
daughter of the Earl of Beornicia, and whose descendants bore arms of
the colors red on silver (white)."[ From "Clans and Families of
Ireland and Scotland, An Ethnography of the Gael A.D. 500 - 1750"
© C. Thomas Cairney, Ph.D]
While we are on the subject of heraldry, I found the following:
An Armorial for Westmorland and Lonsdale by Boumphrey, Hudleston and
Hughes, page 120 under Fleming. "What purport to be the arms of
Anselm le Fleming (died before 1217) as one of the original benefactors
of the priory are in a window of Conishead Priory. Argent two bars
Gules and in the chief three mullets Gules. These are the arms ascribed
by J.F. Curwen to the Washington Family."
"Ulf (Orsulf, or Aculf) de Haverington, spouse unknown, had son
Robert de Haverington. The first Lord Haryngton. Orsulf held lands in
Flimsby which Gospatric of High Ireby gave to the prior of Carlisle.
The town of Harrington is about four and a half miles from Whitehaven
in Cumberland. This place was the inheritance and gave the name to the
ancient and baronial family of Haryngton. At a later date the manor
came into the possession of the Curwen family. The arms of the family
of Haryngton bear the famous "Haryngton Knot": Sable, a Fret Argent.
Inasmuch as the Curwen arms are: Argent, Fretty, Gules, and those of
the Ireby family are: Argent, Fretty, and a Canton, Sable, it is
evident that these three families have a common ancestry, as, in fact,
we know to be the case. Culwen (Curwen or Curwin), Ireby, Workington,
Haryngton, and Radclifffe all go back to the Barons of Kendal."
http://www.sawyer-family.org/sawyer1/i3732.htm [
You wrote<<< 1170/1184: Confirmation William Lancaster II to
William (son) Roger Kirby Irelith of land between
rivers of Licklet Duddon. Witness: Ughtred (son) Usult
The author questions the locality of the witness -
(Furness Men?)>>>
Roger de Kirkeby/Kirkby/Kirby was of the Kendal area nearby Furness.
Uchtred son of Osulf attested many charters of William de Lancaster II
between 1170-1184 per Farrer citing Lancs. Pipe R. 443.
You wrote<<< Note: It is interesting that so many authorities are
vague about Grace. I am certain that she brought the
Culwen title to Thomas (son) Gospatric when they
married 1180-1185. She would have been 20-25 years of
age. It is interesting to note that it is at this very
time that authorities claim that Thomas received the
title (about 1185), and that he and his younger
brother Gilbert had such close relationships with
Roland Galloway.>>>
I'm confused. I thought we agreed that Thomas son of Gospatric
married in the 1150's and that Thomas, brother of Patric FitzThomas,
son of Thomas was a generation later. If Grace was Thomas son
Gospatric's only wife per Ragg then she would be 60 plus when m.
Beauchamp in 1201.
You wrote<<<1189 +: Manor of Preston Patric granted to Thomas
(son) Gospatric by Gilbert Fitz Reinfred (Barony
Kendal B.O.L.)>>>
This was merely a reaffirmation when Gilbert was made the FIRST Baron
Kendal. The area known as Preston had existed long before this time. It
is about 1189 when Thomas gave it to his grandson Patric de Culwen and
it became known as Preston Patrick. FYI the demesne lands and Hall of
Preston Patrick were acquired by the Prestons toward the end of the
14th century, (Farrer Vol II, p. 297.
Sincerely yours,
Dix Preston
FDP...@aol.com
Dear Alex:
You are correct Roland & Thomas son of Gospatric were 2nd cousins.
However, if you are refering to Oram's "Lordship of Galloway" P202. as
provided by Paul Bulkley, then we are dealing with Thomas FitzPatric
the grandson of Thomas son of Gospatric.
"------- 1180's to the south of Urr lay Colvend the
possession of Roland's second cousin Thomas Fitz
Patric Lord of Workington. His family later acquired
the designation of "de Culwen". To his brother Gilbert
came the lordship of neighboring "Southwick">>>
This is confusing. Thomas FitzPatric is Gospatric's ggs. While he had
a brother Gilbert who became his heir upon Thomas FitzPatric's death,
Gilbert de Southwic was brother of Thomas son of Gospatric. The only
way Thomas FitzPatric could be second cousin to Roland is if Thomas son
of Gospatric married a de Culwen heiress as suggested by Ragg below.
The other option, which is pure speculation, comes about if Roland was
in possession of Colvend in the 1180's he may have given his
daughter, unnamed, in marriage to Patric son of Thomas son of
Gospatric. Patric's wife has never been named. However, then Thomas
FitzPatric would be grandson of Roland. This speculation appears
unwarranted! It appears Thomas son of Gospatric married a Culwen
heiress who may have been Grace and Amabel/Amabilis was their daughter
according to Ragg below. This makes JF Curwen's 1725 pedigree re two
wives incorrect.
Regards,
Dix Preston
Alex Maxwell Findlater
the pedigree under Multon in CP. Might this be a suggestion re the
wife of Thomas of Workington (not suggesting it is she, just the common
name)?
paul bulkley
A subscriber of Gen-Med provided the following
information:
"Orm also had a son Osulf brother to Gospatric who was
known as lord of Flemby/Flemingby (part of the land
Orm got in marriage to Gunnilda from her brother
Waldeve/Waltheof). This part of the Preston land came
to Osulf's grandson Richard de Preston and was known
as Preston Richard"
In a later message the subscriber claimed:
"I don't believe he (Osulf) died that early although
Orm died about 1135/1140"
I have searched, and found not a single piece of
evidence to support these claims, other than Orm's
marriage and gift from Waltheof which is common
knowledge.
The subscriber's response to my request for evidence
to support his claims is:
" You can either accept the Flimby reference or not"
Quite remarkable.
FDP...@aol.com
You wrote quoting me<<<" You can either accept the Flimby reference or
not">>>
Quite remarkable.
Paul Bulkley>>>
What I actually wrote was: "You can either accept the
Flimby/Flemingby references I gave or not."
Also included were my words "I have given you all my references in
various messages in this regard. They come from well respected members
of SGM, and I have no
reason to doubt their inputs. See my message wed 4 Oct 06 143PM.
I will remind you of YOUR remarks in two different messages:
(1) Dear Dix Preston: I wish to congratulate you on your compiling of
information regarding the Kendal Family - excellent
(2) Dear Dix Preston: Further thoughts regarding your excellent
research:
I answered your call for help with 6 messages in the first thread and 4
in this thread. I regret all the wasted time I spent trying to help you
out and answering your questions.
Too late smart....
Dix Preston
WJho...@aol.com
*well-respected members of this list* and go to the primary documents
themselves. This family could stand a web-page laying out exactly what the primary
sources say, and what they don't say, similar to the way the Henry Project is
being done.
The persons on this list, are in general, in no particular superior
position, to any other author, editor, compiler, or layperson floating about with
contrary opinions.
I certainly accept the opinions of well-respected members of this list, in
situations where there is no conflict, but the family(ies) discussed in this
thread, are not in that camp. Rather the opinions of members of this list are
in diametric opposition on many details.
They are in the camp of requiring exact quotes from primary sources, with
full bibliographic citations. As, it seems, in my *opinion* that the majority
of all previous commentators have gotten the details wrong.
Will Johnson
Alex Maxwell Findlater
of Holm Cultram and I have given the address for the on-line copy
earlier in the thread. Might I suggest that people consult this. I
know the Cartulary isn't a transcript, but it has always commanded
respect for its scholarship.