Re: Mabel 'filia Willielmi Patrio', wife of Nigel de Mowbray
John P. Ravilious
Hello All,
In a prior thread, there was discussion concerning the identity
of Mabel, wife of Nigel de Mowbray (d. 1191) and her parentage [1].
Of particular interest, Doug Richardson provided an extract from
Archaeologia Cantiana, which states in part,
"Domesday Book records that Richard, son of William, held
Patrixbourne from Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and half-brother of
William the Conqueror. After that, as Sanders records, the
manor was held by the Patrick family who came from La Lande-
Patry, near Flers in the Calvados region of Normandy. William
Patrick's name appears on deeds in Normandy in the period
1066-83, and Richard was almost certainly his son." [2]
This would appear to provide at least a weak link with the
tenure of Banstead, Surrey, which Mabel (wife of Nigel de
Mowbray) had as her maritagium. The VCH history for Surrey which
covers Banstead states that ' In 1086 Banstead, in Wallington
Hundred, was held by Richard of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux ' [3]. The
account in VCH goes on to state concerning Mabel, "She seems to
have been the daughter of Roger, Earl of Clare", but there seems no
justification for this statement except the theory given therein
(see below) that the 1086 tenant was Richard fitz Gilbert de Clare.
It seems more than probable that the Richard who held
Banstead in 1086 of Bishop Odo of Bayeux was the same Richard,
son of William who held Patrixbourne at the same time. It seems
unlikely that the illustrious Richard fitz Gilbert would have
been identified only as "Richard" in the record concerning
Banstead. Further, there is an interesting (if not marriage-
ending) consanguinity issue with the 'Richard fitz Gilbert'
theory put forward in the VCH account: if Mabel, wife of Nigel
de Mowbray, was a daughter of Roger de Clare, the marriage of
their great-grandson Roger de Mowbray to Roese de Clare (a]
known great-great granddaughter of Roger de Clare) ca. 1270
would have required a dispensation for consanguinity in the
4th and 4th degrees. I am not aware of any dispensation for
this marriage, although this of course does not bar the
possible existence of same.
It now appears more likely that Mabel was in fact the
daughter of William Patrick, who would then have been the
namesake of Mabel's son William de Mowbray. Additional
relevant documentation, comment or criticism on the subject
is of course welcome.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] J. Ravilious, <Mabel 'filia Willielmi Patrio', wife of Nigel de
Mowbray>, SGM, 9 Nov 2006.
[2] Doug Richardson, <Patrick family of Patrixbourne, Kent>, SGM,
10 Nov 2006, cites "Patrixbourne Church: Medieval Patronage,
Fabric and History" by Mary Berg (Archaeologia Cantiana,
122 (2002): 113-142).
[3] 'Parishes: Banstead', A History of the County of Surrey:
Volume 3 (1911), pp. 252-62. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=42963
This account states in part, but more fully,
' In 1086 Banstead, in Wallington Hundred, was held by
Richard of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux. (fn. 26) Among the
appurtenances of the manor was a house in Southwark worth
40d. (fn. 27) Alnod, when he had held the manor, had had a
demesne house in London, which Adam son of Hubert held of
Odo. (fn. 28) In the time of Henry I Tirel del Maniers gave
the church to the monastery of St. Mary Overy, (fn. 29) but
there is no other proof that he was lord of the manor. It
was held in 1169-70 by Nigel de Mowbray, whose wife Mabel
had received it from her father as her marriage
portion. (fn. 30) She seems to have been the daughter of
Roger, Earl of Clare; it is therefore possible that the
Richard of 1086 was the great Richard of Tonbridge
himself. (fn. 30a) '
Footnotes:
' 27 Ibid. 285-6.
28 Ibid. 302b.
29 Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 582. Rolls in the
King's Court (Pipe R. Soc.), xiv, 42. This roll is, in
places, very illegible, but in view of Manning's deeds
and those concerning Southmerfeld and the Prior of
Southwark (see rectory), there seems no doubt that the
places referred to in the roll (. . . feld
and . . . stud) are Southmerfield and Banstead,
particularly as they are stated to have belonged to
Tirel del Maniers and after to Nigel de Mowbray.
30 Manning and Bray, ut supra; Pipe R. 16 Hen. II (Pipe
R. Soc.), xv, 164.
30a Cott. MS. Cleo. Col. iii, fol. 302. '
* John P. Ravilious
taf
> It now appears more likely that Mabel was in fact the
> daughter of William Patrick, who would then have been the
> namesake of Mabel's son William de Mowbray. Additional
> relevant documentation, comment or criticism on the subject
> is of course welcome.
I am not sure I follow your argument. Are you saying that because _a_
Richard held Banstead of Odo, and elsewhere Richard (Patrick) son of
William held of Odo, then the Richard of Banstead is probably Richard
Patrick? I would think that Richard is not a rare enough name to make
this argument, but perhaps I have mistaken you.
taf