Possible William Malet (Magna Carta) descent via Bathonia and Bohun?

[lancast...@gmail.com]

I notice that Robert Muscegros d.1254 had a daughter who is not often discussed. She marred Geoffrey de Amberley. Wikitree cites Richardson for this spelling, who cites Paget, who cites the Close Rolls where his byname is Ambely without an "r".

I looked up the Close Rolls and sure enough we find that under October 1245 they mention a gift of deer for Geoffrey's feast when he brings his bride home. De damis datis.—Mandatum est Ricardo de Munfichet quod faciat habere Galfrido de Ambely iij. damas in foresta de Essex ad festum de filia Roberti de Mucegros uxore sua domum adducenda ce[le]brandum, de dono regis.

The spelling variations for Geoffrey (Galfridus) and his brother William make it difficult to track them but they appear for example in the Book of Fees. Their lands were in Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk. I eventually found that Moor's Knight's of Edward I has entries for the brothers under Aumblye. Which leads me to Geoffrey's daughter, Eleanor who is mentioned in the 1291 IPM of her husband John de Bathonia. Their heir is clearly named as Joan, the wife of John de Boun. This John is found for example in Royal Ancestry I. p. 413 where Geoffrey's surname is spelled Amblie. John de Bohun and Eleanor had several children.

Unfortunately I do not yet see any evidence that Geoffrey only had one wife, but maybe someone else will find something.

[Will Johnson]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Wiltshire_Inquisitions_Post/tvbZrWUkJPEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=john+de+bathonia&pg=PA185&printsec=frontcover

[Will Johnson]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/hdovAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=john+de+bathonia&pg=PA276&printsec=frontcover

[taf]

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 8:47:19 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

> I notice that Robert Muscegros d.1254 had a daughter who is not often discussed. She marred Geoffrey de Amberley. Wikitree cites Richardson for this spelling, who cites Paget, who cites the Close Rolls where his byname is Ambely without an "r".
>

There is an Amberleye, co. Heref., mentioned in the inquisition of Master Alexander le Seculare, 31 Hen. III.

taf

[lancast...@gmail.com]

That's one possibility. OTOH I am wondering if any of the primary records have a spelling with an "r". The Close Rolls record seems to be the closest one to Amberley (at least in transcription), but some of the other spellings I have seen give the impression that it might be quite a different placename. I am keeping an open mind about the origin of the byname.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

I could not open the Google Books link to the Wiltshire IPM but maybe this is the same work? https://archive.org/details/indexlibrary372brit/page/184/mode/2up

A more complete transcription of the IPM is on British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol2/pp486-498

I also found some more snippets.

I did not realize that The Knights of Edward can be seen on archive.org. Here are links for the de Aumblye brothers (who were both knights) https://archive.org/details/publicationsofha80harluoft/page/26/mode/2up

...And for the de Bathonia knights https://archive.org/details/publicationsofha80harluoft/page/58/mode/2up

There was a short note about John de Bathonia's earlier wife Phillipe in The Genealogist https://archive.org/details/genealogist1518selb/page/n159/mode/2up

I am not sure if anyone has done a comprehensive study of the de Bathonia name, but the surname or byname comes from Bath. It was used by many clerics connected to the diocese of Bath and Wells. https://ia800301.us.archive.org/19/items/calendarofmanus01grea/calendarofmanus01grea.pdf

I found that in old books about London history John de Bathonia's mother was supposedly named Alice, and she died in 1274, seized of a messuage in Stepney which John later held. Their name is supposedly the origin of the placename Bethnal Green https://ia801609.us.archive.org/28/items/municipalparksga00sexbrich/municipalparksga00sexbrich.pdf

The Fine Rolls have several entries about them, and apparently indicate that "Alice" was an Aline. https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero01lond/page/26/mode/2up?q=bathonia

Foss calls her "Aliva", and names John's father as Henry de Bathonia, a judge, but he has two generations of Johns between Aliva and Joan de Bohun. https://archive.org/details/judgesenglandwi00fossgoog/page/226/mode/2up

In fact the IPM of John in 1291 shows that there were several Johns. "Pincebeck. The manor (extent given), whereof John son of Henry de Bathonia enfeoffed John son of John de Bathonia, sometime rector of the church of Gerbodesham, who afterwards reenfeoffed the said John son of Henry, and Maud his wife jointly of the said manor, so that after the death of her husband the manor should remain to the said Maud for her life, and after her death revert to the heirs of the said John". John d. 1291 is apparently John son of Henry, as shown in a corresponding Close Rolls entry https://archive.org/details/calendarclosero01changoog/page/208/mode/2up?q=bathonia (So John's widow was another wife, named Maud, and not Eleanor the mother of his heiress.)

John son of John the rector may be an older relative?

What I am still not sure about is whether Eleanor's mother was a Muscegros.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

The "Amberley" family is more typically Aumbly or Ambly it seems. Using the typical endings of the time -y or -ye or -ie or -i gets more hits for Galfrid and his brother William. It seems from the chartulary of Saint John the baptist in Colchester that one Galfrid of this name had a son named William and a sister Roesia who married Alexander de Limesi. https://archive.org/details/cartulariummonasteriisanctijohannisb1

[lancast...@gmail.com]

By tracking some of the lands I see that in 1086 they were held by Roger de Oburville, or Auberville, but Keats-Rohan helpfully points to Farrer, HKF III, p.174 which is about the "Amblie" family who took over the Auberville lands already in the 12th century. Farrer tracks them down to the people and events I have mentioned, and can be used as a reference point for this family.

FWIW the Auberville lands eventually went from John de Bohun and his wife to a cousin, Willliam de Buhun, who became Earl of Northampton. Richardson says that the lands first went to a son of John and Joan named John. After William died the lands went to the Earls of Hereford.

Unfortunately I can't see any way to track Muscegros lands in this way, because these families were not Muscegros heirs.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Probably worth adding that there is an Amblie near Caen. Amblia or Amblida in Latin. I hypothesize they will be from there.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

And now that we can trace the name more easily I see that Chris Phillips posted something about this exact question in 2003. He apparently found another record which names the Muscegros wife of Geoffrey d'Amblie as Isabella and shows that she died around 1252. Here is Douglas Richardson's reply: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hxgH_kZWUlI/m/jzHfKWTVJBgJ

FWIW I understand that Norton in Essex was not land from her Muscegros family, but rather part of the Auberville/Amblie inheritance. So was Isabella the mother of Geoffrey's heiress Eleanor? Still not sure. Interesting that Geoffrey married his Muscegros wife in 1245 and she was dead in 1252. Geoffrey's daughter Eleanor was already married to a first husband John Luvel in 1257 according to Farrer. If Eleanor was born after 1245 could she be married and receiving a grant of free warren in 1257?

[taf]

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 1:58:47 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

> I could not open the Google Books link to the Wiltshire IPM but maybe this is the same work? https://archive.org/details/indexlibrary372brit/page/184/mode/2up
>

Yes. Same work.

> A more complete transcription of the IPM is on British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol2/pp486-498

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p002966732&view=1up&seq=544
https://books.google.com/books?id=rbYKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA490

> I found that in old books about London history John de Bathonia's mother was supposedly named Alice, and she died in 1274, seized of a messuage in Stepney which John later held. Their name is supposedly the origin of the placename Bethnal Green https://ia801609.us.archive.org/28/items/municipalparksga00sexbrich/municipalparksga00sexbrich.pdf
>
> The Fine Rolls have several entries about them, and apparently indicate that "Alice" was an Aline. https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero01lond/page/26/mode/2up?q=bathonia
>
> Foss calls her "Aliva", and names John's father as Henry de Bathonia, a judge, but he has two generations of Johns between Aliva and Joan de Bohun. https://archive.org/details/judgesenglandwi00fossgoog/page/226/mode/2up
>

See the ipm of Ladi Aline de Ba alias de Bathonia, which names her heir as John, (ages given range overtwo decades) son of Henry and Aline.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p002966732&view=1up&seq=88
(it'll also be on the Google Books edition if you can't see this one, and transcribed on EHO)

> In fact the IPM of John in 1291 shows that there were several Johns. "Pincebeck. The manor (extent given), whereof John son of Henry de Bathonia enfeoffed John son of John de Bathonia, sometime rector of the church of Gerbodesham, who afterwards reenfeoffed the said John son of Henry, and Maud his wife jointly of the said manor, so that after the death of her husband the manor should remain to the said Maud for her life, and after her death revert to the heirs of the said John". John d. 1291 is apparently John son of Henry, as shown in a corresponding Close Rolls entry https://archive.org/details/calendarclosero01changoog/page/208/mode/2up?q=bathonia (So John's widow was another wife, named Maud, and not Eleanor the mother of his heiress.)
>

Yes. This is implicit in the ipm itself. The description is one of a fine, but I don't know if the feet of fines for Lincolnshire have been published for the reign of Edward I.

taf

[taf]

Another candidate, in Sussex:
https://archive.org/details/sussexarchaeolo21socigoog/page/n217/mode/1up
taf

[taf]

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:46:38 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> And now that we can trace the name more easily I see that Chris Phillips posted something about this exact question in 2003. He apparently found another record which names the Muscegros wife of Geoffrey d'Amblie as Isabella and shows that she died around 1252. Here is Douglas Richardson's reply: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hxgH_kZWUlI/m/jzHfKWTVJBgJ
>
> FWIW I understand that Norton in Essex was not land from her Muscegros family, but rather part of the Auberville/Amblie inheritance. So was Isabella the mother of Geoffrey's heiress Eleanor? Still not sure. Interesting that Geoffrey married his Muscegros wife in 1245 and she was dead in 1252. Geoffrey's daughter Eleanor was already married to a first husband John Luvel in 1257 according to Farrer. If Eleanor was born after 1245 could she be married and receiving a grant of free warren in 1257?

Seems unlikely.
taf

[taf]

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:46:38 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> And now that we can trace the name more easily I see that Chris Phillips posted something about this exact question in 2003. He apparently found another record which names the Muscegros wife of Geoffrey d'Amblie as Isabella and shows that she died around 1252. Here is Douglas Richardson's reply: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hxgH_kZWUlI/m/jzHfKWTVJBgJ
>
> FWIW I understand that Norton in Essex was not land from her Muscegros family, but rather part of the Auberville/Amblie inheritance. So was Isabella the mother of Geoffrey's heiress Eleanor? Still not sure. Interesting that Geoffrey married his Muscegros wife in 1245 and she was dead in 1252. Geoffrey's daughter Eleanor was already married to a first husband John Luvel in 1257 according to Farrer. If Eleanor was born after 1245 could she be married and receiving a grant of free warren in 1257?

. . . and yet . . . (from Close Rolls, Henry III, vol. 8, p. 237)
"1255. Pro Mabilla Daumbley - Rex , ad instanciam Mabille de Aumbely , filie Roberti de Muscegros , qui diu regi servivit , perdonavit Ade de Eswell ' . . . ,"
https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/586030/?offset=0#page=244&viewer=picture&o=&n=0&q=
(note that this entry concludes with "Per Henricum de Bathon" - perhaps Henry de Bathonia)

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Strange. The places Elmeset and Somersham are also clearly Ambley lands. Bathon is definitely a version of the other surname.

Mabel is supposed to be the daughter who married Robert de Lisle. I also notice this one in April 1242: Pro Mabilla filia Roberti de Mucegros.—Mandatum est vicecomiti Stafford' quod Mabille filie Roberti de Mucegros que fuit uxor Hervei de Stafford' plenam seisinam habere faciat de custodia terre que fuit Radulfi de Mutton' in Ingerstrent, Grettewich' et in Rowell' quam ipse Herveus eidem Mabille reliquid (sic) in ultima voluntate sua. Teste ut supra.

[taf]

Unless some sort of editorial or scribal error was made, there are two options here that come to mind. First, this Mabel is of a different generation of the Mucegros family (daughter of an earlier Robert). I note that Richardson posits such a two-Mabel scenario though he was trying to rationalize a different set of conflicts. For example, she could have, as a widow, become Geoffrey de Ambely's step-mother. Another possibility is that she was Isabella's sister, and married successively some other Ambely (for example, Geoffrey's brother William) and as a widow of him married Robert de Lisle, who seems to be enough younger that he could have married Mabel when she was an older widow. Too little data at this point.

taf

[lancast...@gmail.com]

The 1242 Mabel who was the widow of Harvey de Stafford, who was also mentioned in the post of Chris Phillips BTW, could indeed be another generation, or indeed someone who remarried. And she could have remarried more than once.

The proposal that she at least re-married to Robert de Lisle is taken up by CP (under Lisle), and Richardson (RA, Vol.3, 581). Richardson says Mabel and Harvey had no issue. I presume this is based on the fact that Harvey's heir was his brother Robert. However, in the 2003 discussion on this newsgroup Jim Weber raised the question of whether we really should assume that this was one Mabel. "It doesn't make sense for a woman to marry as a 2nd husband, a man who might not have quite been born when her 1st husband died."

Let's play devil's advocate. Could she have married three times? Could she also be the wife of Geoffrey d'Amblie? In that case she married him around 1245 which is after 1242 (when we know Harvey was dead) and before 1252 (when we know Mabel was married to Robert de Lisle).

Concerning the 1252 Isabella de Aumbley, as far as I can tell it is not specified that she is the wife of Geoffrey, although I think she has to be part of his family because Geoffrey had been holding Norton. (Cold Norton in Essex was one of the manors John de Bathonia later held by right of his wife, the daughter of Geoffrey.) But could Isabella have been a widow from another generation, for example Geoffrey's mother, or step mother, or grandmother? Could it be that Mabel the wife of Robert de Lisle in 1252 was actually also the widow of Geoffrey? We do not have an exact death date for Geoffrey, but it may well be before 1252 as far as I can see so far.

In 2003 Chris Phillips proposed that Isabella was Mabel's sister. He also suggested that alternative explanations might exist for why the wife of Robert de Lisle would be specially favoured in the will of a d'Aumblie widow. Is one such possibility that Isabella was Mabel's mother-in-law? There is one obvious problem, and this concerns the byname given to Mabel in 1255. Bynames were not necessarily fixed, especially when women were being mentioned in relation to specific lands connected to a specific family. Nevertheless it is a problem for this proposal that the 1252 Close Roll entry tells us of a Mabel who was already married to Robert de Lisle in 1252, while the 1255 entry mentions a Mabel de Aumbley.

Still, something is going on: The 1252 already connects Mabel the wife of Robert de Lisle to the family of Geoffrey de Aumbly who married a daughter of Robert de Muscegros in 1245. The 1255 entry specifies that Mabel DE AUMBLEY living at that time was a daughter of Robert de Muscegros. Another 1271 record cited by Phillips and CP states that Mabel the wife of Robert de Lisle was a daughter of Robert de Muscegros. (Is it necessary to propose multiple marriages between the same families, and multiple people with the same name?)

Irrespective of all this, it still seems unlikely that Eleanor the wife of John de Bathonia was a granddaughter of Robert de Muscegros. The problem is still that we know that the Amblie-Muscegros marriage happened in 1245. Geoffrey de Amblie's daughter Eleanor was married and granted free warren in 1257. Her own daughter Joan was 25-30 in 1291 when John de Bathonia died indicating that Eleanor was of child-bearing age in the period 1260-1265. These rough dates seem to make it unlikely that she was born after 1245. So Eleanor may have been the daughter of an earlier wife? I hope others will check my thinking.

I am also still wondering about lands. In the case of Mabel she can also be connected to the Muscegros family because of her involvement in Kemarton (Glo.) and Finsborough (Suf), which she swapped with her brother. Did the Amblie-Bathonia-Bohun inheritance include any Malet or Muscegros lands? I don't see any. Here are the IPMs of Robert de Muscegros https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol1/pp80-86 and John de Bathonia https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol2/pp486-498 . If Eleanor was the daughter of Mabel then we can understand that Mabel had a male heir who received her inheritance. If she had another Muscegros mother then we know of no other heirs and so it seems her mother did not get a fair share. Perhaps simpler to suggest that Eleanor was not a descendent of the Muscegros family.

[taf]

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:04:23 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> (Is it necessary to propose multiple marriages between the same families, and multiple people with the same name?)

No. I somehow got it into my head that we had Isabella documented as Geoffrey's Muscegros wife. That would all but mandate a multiple-intermarriage scenario due to the implications of affinity, but without it I think we have to follow the dictate of the monk from Oakham:

Mabel, daughter of Robert de Muscegros married an Amblye; her contemporary Geoffrey d'Amblye married a daughter of Robert de Muscegros. No reason to see these as distinct couples.

taf

[lancast...@gmail.com]

What do you think about the surname switching back to Daumbley in 1255 after Mabel married a Lisle? It is hard to feel completely comfortable with any proposal I can see so far, but I have a feeling there is some way to fit this together. Possibly other types of records such as Fines might help.

[taf]

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:50:14 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:51:29 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:04:23 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > (Is it necessary to propose multiple marriages between the same families, and multiple people with the same name?)
> > No. I somehow got it into my head that we had Isabella documented as Geoffrey's Muscegros wife. That would all but mandate a multiple-intermarriage scenario due to the implications of affinity, but without it I think we have to follow the dictate of the monk from Oakham:
> >
> > Mabel, daughter of Robert de Muscegros married an Amblye; her contemporary Geoffrey d'Amblye married a daughter of Robert de Muscegros. No reason to see these as distinct couples.
> >

> What do you think about the surname switching back to Daumbley in 1255 after Mabel married a Lisle?

Doesn't really concern me. While somewhat uncommon, I have seen other cases of a married woman using the surname of an earlier husband, and in this case, since we think the transaction involved Aumbley connections, there may have been a greater motivation for her to associate herself with that family rather than her new one. It is more odd, in my opinion, for her to be expressing her paternity throughout her life - most married women of the era redirected their frame of reference toward their husband(s).

taf