Bastards of Henry I

479 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 14, 2003, 6:06:19 PM11/14/03
to
Perhaps it would be useful to post the lists of Henry I's illegitimate
children given by the Complete Peerage and by Given-Wilson and Curteis,
"Royal Bastards of Medieval England" (1984). (Unfortunately I haven't yet
seen Kathleen Thompson's article, referred to by Stewart Baldwin as
discounting daughter (10) and expressing doubts about sons (7) and (9) and
daughter (11) below.)

Complete Peerage, in Appendix D of volume 11 (1949), by Geoffrey H. White,
gives the following (notes in [...] are mine):

Sons:
(1) Robert "de Caen", Earl of Gloucester
(2) Richard, son of Ansfride
(3) Rainald "de Dunstanville", Earl of Cornwall
(4) Robert, son of Ede/Edith
(5) Gilbert
(6) William de Tracy
(7) Henry, son of Nest
(8) Fulk
(9) William, brother of Sibyl, Queen of Scotland

Daughters:
(1) Maud, married Rotrou, Count of Perche
(2) Maud, married Conan III, Duke of Brittany
(3) Juliane, married Eustace de Pacy
(4) ... [?Mabel], married William Gouet
(5) Constance, married Roscelin de Beaumont
(6) Alice, married Matthew de Montmorenci
(7) Isabel, daughter of Isabel "de Beaumont"
(8) Sibyl, married Alexander I, King of Scotland
(9) Maud, abbess of Montivilliers
(10) Gundred, sister of Rainald de Dunstanville [very doubtful]
(11) Rohese, married Henry de la Pomerai
(12) A daughter, intended to have married William de Warenne (unknown
whether one of the previous 11)

Given-Wilson and Curteis essentially accept all these, except that number 12
is put into the "possible" column. I presume this is because of the
possibility that she is identical with one of the others.

Also in the "possible" column, G.-W. and C. add 4 more:

(1) A daughter, to be betrothed to Hugh Fitz Gervais [seigneur of
Chateauneuf-en-Thimerais, but the marriage was dropped because the bishop of
Chartres proved that they were related in the 6th degree (p. 70)]
(2) A daughter married to Fergus of Galloway [assumed on the evidence of
Fergus's son Uhtred being described as a relation of Henry II (p. 71); as
discussed here previously (a lot)]
(3) Sybil of Falaise [on the basis of being described as Henry's "niece",
sometimes a euphemism for an illegitimate daughter (p. 71). But Keats-Rohan
identifies her as the daughter of the Domesday tenant William de Falaise,
and repeats a suggestion that William's grandfather was a brother of William
the Conqueror's mother, so that "niece" could be explained in the looser
sense of a younger female cousin.]
(4) Emma, wife of Guy de Laval [can't see this discussed in the text, but
Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants", p. 543, gives the same. However, there
is evidence that an Emma, daughter of Reynald, Earl of Cornwall, married a
Guy de Laval in the next generation - could Emma, wife of Guy de Laval,
really be a granddaughter of Henry?]

Chris Phillips


Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Nov 14, 2003, 7:33:23 PM11/14/03
to
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:06:19 -0000, "Chris Phillips"
<c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

>Perhaps it would be useful to post the lists of Henry I's illegitimate
>children given by the Complete Peerage and by Given-Wilson and Curteis,
>"Royal Bastards of Medieval England" (1984). (Unfortunately I haven't yet
>seen Kathleen Thompson's article, referred to by Stewart Baldwin as
>discounting daughter (10) and expressing doubts about sons (7) and (9) and
>daughter (11) below.)

Here is an outline of some of the major differences discussed in the
Thompson article (but I have not included remarks she makes on the
possible mothers of some of the children)

>(7) Henry, son of Nest

Thompson's reason for offering some doubt about him are the entry of
his death under the year 1158 in the "B" manuscript of Annales
Cambriae: "... Henricus filius Geraldi ocissus est, velut alii
volunt, filius fuit Henrici regis ..." (Henry son of Gerald fell, as
others would wish, the son of King Henry I). She does not go so far
as to say that he should be removed from the list, and I would also be
inclined to leave him there, but with perhaps less certainty than
before.

>(9) William, brother of Sibyl, Queen of Scotland

Thompson states that "The possibilities that Queen Sibyl's brother was
not the son of her father, King Henry, or that the attestation is that
of her half-brother, William de Tracy, should not be overlooked."
(William de Tracy is number 6 on the list.)

>(11) Rohese, married Henry de la Pomerai

She was described as a sister of earl Reginald of Cornwall, but never
as a daughter of Henry, so it cannot be ruled out that she was a
sister of Reginald only through their mother.

>(12) A daughter, intended to have married William de Warenne (unknown
>whether one of the previous 11)

I think that it might be useful to confine such children to a separate
list unless there is significant evidence that they are distinct from
the already known children.

>Also in the "possible" column, G.-W. and C. add 4 more:
>
>(1) A daughter, to be betrothed to Hugh Fitz Gervais [seigneur of
>Chateauneuf-en-Thimerais, but the marriage was dropped because the bishop of
>Chartres proved that they were related in the 6th degree (p. 70)]

Thompson would place her in the same category as William de Warenne's
intended, with no data as to whether she was a distinct daughter or
the same as one of the known daughters.

>(2) A daughter married to Fergus of Galloway [assumed on the evidence of
>Fergus's son Uhtred being described as a relation of Henry II (p. 71); as
>discussed here previously (a lot)]

As someone who has argued that Fergus's wife was probably a daughter
of Henry I, I would still agree that she does not belong on the list
of solidly proven children.

>(3) Sybil of Falaise [on the basis of being described as Henry's "niece",
>sometimes a euphemism for an illegitimate daughter (p. 71). But Keats-Rohan
>identifies her as the daughter of the Domesday tenant William de Falaise,
>and repeats a suggestion that William's grandfather was a brother of William
>the Conqueror's mother, so that "niece" could be explained in the looser
>sense of a younger female cousin.]

Not accepted by Thompson, who suggests the alternate possibility that
she may have been an illegitimate daughter of Henry's brother Duke
Robert of Normandy.

>(4) Emma, wife of Guy de Laval [can't see this discussed in the text, but
>Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants", p. 543, gives the same. However, there
>is evidence that an Emma, daughter of Reynald, Earl of Cornwall, married a
>Guy de Laval in the next generation - could Emma, wife of Guy de Laval,
>really be a granddaughter of Henry?]

Has anybody checked Keats-Rohan's citation of "Pipe Roll 31 Henry I,
29-ynb" to see if it offers confirmation?

Stewart Baldwin

Todd A. Farmerie

unread,
Nov 14, 2003, 8:53:57 PM11/14/03
to
Stewart Baldwin wrote:

>>(11) Rohese, married Henry de la Pomerai
>
>
> She was described as a sister of earl Reginald of Cornwall, but never
> as a daughter of Henry, so it cannot be ruled out that she was a
> sister of Reginald only through their mother.

Sheppard, in AR7, argued that William de Tracy (II), son of Henry's
bastard William, married the daughter of Henry de Pomerai and Rohese,
sister of Earl Reginald, and hence Rohese would not have been Henry's
daughter.

taf

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 3:09:33 AM11/15/03
to

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> Here is an outline of some of the major differences discussed in the
> Thompson article (but I have not included remarks she makes on the
> possible mothers of some of the children)


Many thanks for providing those details.

Would I be right in assuming that Thompson doesn't make any further
additions to the list on her own account?

Chris Phillips


Douglas Richardson

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 4:47:57 AM11/15/03
to
Dear Chris ~

Thank you for posting the list of King Henry I's bastards from
Complete Peerage and the expanded list from Given-Wilson and Curteis.
It's very much apreciated.

Without delving into my files, I would immediately remove Sibyl de
Falaise as a bastard daughter of King Henry I. She was styled
"neptis" of King Henry I in a Curia Regis Roll. As we have seen in
other recent posts here on the newsgroup, "neptis" in this period can
mean niece, granddaughter, or near kinswoman. I believe the latter
meaning applies in this case. For what it is worth, I've never seen
the word "neptis" used as a euphemism for a bastard daughter as
claimed by Given-Wilson and Curteis. All bastard children I've
encountered in medieval records are called "filius" (son) or "filia"
(daughter).

I would immediately remove Emme, wife of Guy de Laval. Emme de Laval
is specifically identified in a charter to Evron Abbey as "daughter of
Reynold, Earl of Cornwall" which Reynold was an illegitimate son of
Henry I, King of England [see Abbé A. Angot, Généalogies Féodales
Mayennaises du XI au XIII Siècle (1942), pp. 292-295; NEHGR 119
(1965): 94-102; 120 (1966): 230].

I likewise would remove the unknown wife of Fergus, lord of Galloway,
as a bastard daughter. While it is possible that Fergus' wife was a
bastard daughter of King Henry I, I think it is more likely that she
was a granddaughter of Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. Whatever
the case, Fergus' wife's name was not Elizabeth, as often claimed in
print. Her given name is not known.

Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Reynold, Earl of Cornwall, are well
documented bastard sons of King Henry I. Both were known as "filius
Regis" in their lifetimes, that is, son of the King. To the best of
my knowledge, Earl Robert never used "de Caen" as part of his name,
nor was Earl Reynold ever known as "de Dunstanville." Reynold was,
however, known infrequently as Reynold de Mortain.

Little is known of William de Tracy. He is stated to have died soon
after his father, King Henry I. Historians have assumed that he is
the same individual who held a barony in Devonshire, but there is no
evidence that I know of which links the Devonshire man to William de
Tracy who was the bastard son of King Henry I. I have seen no
contemporary record, by the way, in which William de Tracy is styled
"king's son." He is probably a bastard son, but I know of no direct
contemporary evidence to prove it.

I believe Richard son of Ansfrid is a well documented bastard son. I
believe Robert son of Ede/Edith is a well documented bastard son.

Henry son of Nest is alleged to have been a bastard son of King Henry
I. However, I have never found any evidence to prove or disprove it.
He evidently was not known as "filius Regis." As such, I believe he
should be considered in the "possible" category.

Queen Sibyl of Scotland is a well documented bastard daughter.
However, her brother, William, was almost certainly a uterine
half-brother and not a bastard son of King Henry I.

I believe Constance de Beaumont is a well documented bastard daughter,
as is Maud, wife of Conan III, Duke of Brittany. I believe Maud, wife
of Rotrou, Count of Perche, is a documented daughter but I haven't
reviewed the evidence for her parentage in recent time.

Gundred, sister of Reynold de Dunstanville, has been discussed
elsewhere. She clearly was not a bastard daughter of King Henry I.

Rohese de Pomeroy was almost certainly a uterine half-sister of
Reynold, Earl of Cornwall, and not a bastard daughter of King Henry I.

In review, we have four documented and one probable sons, four
documented daughters, and one possible son (Henry son of Nest). I
have removed Sibyl de Falaise, Emme de Laval, the unknown wife of
Fergus of Galloway, William (brother of Queen Sibyl), Gundred de
Dunstanville, and Rohese de Pomeroy. I'll reserve my comments on the
other bastards until later when I have more time to study the matter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com


"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<bp3n61$ut2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...

Cristopher Nash

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 6:46:22 AM11/15/03
to
Chris wrote --

>Perhaps it would be useful to post the lists of Henry I's illegitimate
>children given by the Complete Peerage and by Given-Wilson and Curteis,
>"Royal Bastards of Medieval England" (1984).

[SNIP]

>(3) Rainald "de Dunstanville", Earl of Cornwall

[SNIP]

>(10) Gundred, sister of Rainald de Dunstanville [very doubtful]

[SNIP]

>Given-Wilson and Curteis essentially accept all these, except that number 12
>is put into the "possible" column. I presume this is because of the
>possibility that she is identical with one of the others.

Just for clarification, can we confirm the likelihood that the
frequent 'acceptance' of 10 (such as Given-Wilson's, which I read in
this way) may often if not in fact usually be owing to an inattentive
confusion between 3 (who d. 1175) and Rainald (cited in e.g. DP 275,
DD 441-2 & 525, etc.) who d. 1129/30, m. Adelisa da. of Humphrey de
Lisle, and had sister Gundreda? Or at least that the terms of every
'acceptance' be scrutinized with this possibility in mind?

Cris


--

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 6:53:29 AM11/15/03
to

Cristopher Nash wrote:
> Just for clarification, can we confirm the likelihood that the
> frequent 'acceptance' of 10 (such as Given-Wilson's, which I read in
> this way) may often if not in fact usually be owing to an inattentive
> confusion between 3 (who d. 1175) and Rainald (cited in e.g. DP 275,
> DD 441-2 & 525, etc.) who d. 1129/30, m. Adelisa da. of Humphrey de
> Lisle, and had sister Gundreda? Or at least that the terms of every
> 'acceptance' be scrutinized with this possibility in mind?


I think that - or something like it - is the explanation.

I say "something like it" because I'm still doubtful about quite how to
reconstruct these early Dunstanvilles, and I'm doubtful whether Gundred's
brother is the same who married Adelisa de Lisle. But I think there's little
doubt that they are of the same family.

Chris Phillips

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 10:03:48 AM11/15/03
to
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:09:33 -0000, "Chris Phillips"
<c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

>Would I be right in assuming that Thompson doesn't make any further
>additions to the list on her own account?

Oops. That was the intent in my posting, but I hit the "send" without
realizing that I had forgotten to include one claimed daughter that
Thompson adds to the list (number 13 on her list):

Adeliza, the king's daughter, appearing as "Adeliza filia Reg'" in the
Eynsham Cartulary, I, no. 64. Thompson remarks that "Although this is
translated by the editor as Adeliza daughter of Reginald, no Reginald
appears in the act."

Since the existence of this daughter depends on an ambiguous expansion
of an abbreviated form in a document, it seems that she ought to be
placed in the uncertain category.

Stewart Baldwin

The...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 10:13:37 AM11/15/03
to
Saturday, 15 November, 2003


Dear Chris, Cris, et al.,

I recall that substantial work was done on SGM (and doubtless
elsewhere) that has shown Reynold, Earl of Cornwall [styled 'de
Dunstanville', correctly or no] was (A) an illegitimate son of Henry
I of England, and (B) not the same individual as Reynold/Reginald de
Dunstanville.

Anyone looking for more detailed discussion of the subject
should definitely refer to the SGM archives (via Google or
otherwise) for the following threads at least (there are more):

1. <Reginald Fitz Roy but not Reginald de Dunstanville>, Jan 30,
1999 by Douglas Richardson et al.
2. <Re: Reynold de Dunstanville>, Dec 17, 2000 by Chris
Phillips et al.
3. <Reynold de Dunstanville: Part 1>, Dec 17, 2000 by
Chris Phillips
4. <Reynold de Dunstanville: Part 2>, Dec 17, 2000 by
Chris Phillips and Douglas Richardson

The names Reginald/Rainald and Gundreda do seem to strongly
imply a connection to the family of the Earls of Surrey. Chris'
concerns re: the placement of Gundreda, ca. 1130 as sister of a
Reynold de Dunstanville who d. before 1115 are certainly well
founded: perhaps a valid reconstruction would look like this:

[ NOTE: the following chart is conjectural, esp. with
regard to the filiation of the 'first' Reginald de
Dunstanville shown ]


William de Warenne = Gundreda de Gand
E of Surrey; d. 1088 I d. 1085
_______________________I__________
I I I
William Edith Reynold/Rainald ? = Adeliza de
2nd Earl = 1) Gerard supporter of Duke ? Insula
d. 1138 de Gournay Robert at Tinchebrai, ?
= Ada de I 1106 (? d bef 1115? ) ?
I I ?
_____I_________ I__________ ????????????????????
I I I I I ? ?
William I I Hugh Gundreda Reginald Gundreda
____I I IV de Gournay de Dunstanville fl. 1130
I I = Nigel de of Winterburn
Gundreda Reginald Aubigny and Poulton, Wilts.
d.aft 1165 de Warenne I
of Wormegay I
_________I_______________
I I
Robert de Dunstanville Alan de Dunstanville
of Castle Combe, Winterburne of Nyetimber, Sussex
and Heytesbury, co. Wilts. and Colyton, Devon.
d. bef Sept 1168 d. bef 1157


~ I previously had shown Adeliza de Insula as likely the wife
of the first Reynold de Dunstanville (shown as son of Reynold/
Rainald de Warenne of Tinchebrai), but perhaps the above is
'more correct' - ?

Cheers,

John


The...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 10:52:19 AM11/15/03
to
Saturday, 15 November, 2003


Dear Stewart,

Thanks for bringing up the issue of Adeliza 'filia reg.' from
Thompson's article, esp. the cite from Salter.

Here is the text of that charter, and interestingly, of the
following one (No. 65), as given in the Eynsham Cartulary (1907
- Vol. I, pp. 72-73):


" 64. Carta Roberti de Oili de terra in Oxenefordia.

Notum sit omnibus fidelibus tam presentibus quam futuris, quod
Robertus de Oileio & uxor eius & filii dederunt deo & ecclesie sancte
Marie de Egnesham illam terram de feodo suo que est in Mullesford, &
totam illam terram quam tenuit de eo Rualdus in Oxenefordia, pro
anima reg[is] & pro animabus suis & pro animabus patrum suorum &
matrum solidam & quietam sicut elemosinam. Et ad hoc confirmandum
dote ecclesiastica super altare miserunt. Huius donationis testes
sunt, Robertus filius Widonis, Radulfus filius Rogerii, & Hugo
frater eius, & Nigellus frater ipsius Roberti, & Adelizia filia
Reg[inaldi], Ketel & Lefwinus Canc, Nicholaus filius Sawoldi, &
Robertus filius Osberti, Rannulfus.


" 65. De Terra Oxenefordie.

Robertus de Oilio omnibus baronibus suis & burgensibus de
Oxenefordia salutem. Sciatis quod ego concedo Rualdo clerioc terram
que fuit Lefsi & illam terram quam emit de Saboda & terram Rogerii
Scuelarii quietam & liberam de omni seruicio & de omni redditu,
eo dante per unumquemque annum vi denarios ad Natiuitatem domini
ad oblationem meam & uxoris mee. Et concedo ut has predictas det
post obitum suum cui placuerit ita quietas & liberas sicut predixi.
Teste Roberto filio Reg[is], & Edida uxore mea, & Fulcone fratre
meo, & Roberto filio Widonis, Roberto filio Petri, Ricardo de
Alnod, Ricardo de Brai, Willelmo filio Isward, Rogero de Tiwia. "


Salter notes re: No. 64 (p. 72, note 2) that he dates the charter
as "? 1130-35", and says of this dating, "Apparently before the
reign of Stephen; but after no. 65."

Re: No. 65, he notes concerning the date with regard to the
attestation by 'Roberto filio Reg[is]', "Robert 'filius Regis',
who seems to have been a good deal younger than Robert Earl of
Gloucester, would not attest much earlier than 1130." Now, who
Salter had in mind as Robert filius Regis besides Robert [filius
regis, aka Fitz Roy, aka de Caen], Earl of Gloucester [b. ca. 1090,
d. 1147] I have no idea.

At any rate, to have Adeliza 'daughter of the King' attesting a
charter of Robert de Oilly in Oxfordshire ca. 1130-35 should not be
too problematic; Robert's wife Edith, daughter of Forne fitz Sigulf
of Greystoke, co. Cumbs., was after all a former mistress of King
Henry I. One wonders what the precise relationship might in fact be
between Edith, former mistress of the King, and Adeliza 'filia
regis' [assuming regis, not Reginaldi, is correct] ?

Cheers,

John *


* John P. Ravilious

Terry Mair

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 2:07:55 PM11/15/03
to

----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: Bastards of Henry I


> Saturday, 15 November, 2003
>
>
> Dear Chris, Cris, et al.,
>

snip


>
>
> William de Warenne = Gundreda de Gand
> E of Surrey; d. 1088 I d. 1085
> _______________________I__________

snip
>
> John

So was the wife of William realy a Gand, most of the information I have
found on the net (of course) says she is the daughter of William I of
England, who where her perants.
Thanks
Terry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 3:39:46 PM11/15/03
to
In message of 15 Nov, te...@mairsphotography.com ("Terry Mair") wrote:

>
> So was the wife of William realy a Gand, most of the information I have
> found on the net (of course) says she is the daughter of William I of
> England, who where her perants.

CP XII/1, p. 494 says she was sister to Gerbod the Fleming earl of
Chester and possibly dau. of Gerbod. In a note on that page CP refers
to C T Clay's disabuse of the Conqueror theory in his Early Yorks
Charters, Vol VIII, pp. 45-6.

The CP account was published in 1949 so your internet source must have
been of before that time, not to mention also before the publication of
EYC vol VIII.

(I do wish the EYC could be republished - I saw a full set recently for
£800 ukp! I have even written to the Yorks Arch Soc to suggest they
might consider putting them on CDROM.)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Terry Mair

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 4:14:14 PM11/15/03
to
Thank you for the information and the links.
Terry

----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <c...@windsong.u-net.com>; <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <te...@mairsphotography.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Bastards of Henry I


> Saturday, 15 November, 2003
>
>
>
> Dear Cris, Terry, et al.,
>
> In the event Chris (Phillips) or another does not get
> to this first, I'll prob. have an opportunity to revisit
> the 'Reynold vs. 2 Reynolds' de Dunstanville question early
> this next week.
>
> As to Gundreda's identification, it is clear from the
> evidence examined to date that she was Gerbod's (or 'Gerbod
> the younger's ') sister, and NOT a daughter of King
> William/Matilda of Flanders. See the evidence compiled
> by Chris Phillips on his site,
>
> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk
>
> Cris, as to calling Gundreda 'de Gand', I have this in
> my records as deriving from a record at Chris' site (note
> indicated "www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk"); the extract
> from the text reading, ca. 1067, referring to a document
> concerning (or attested by)
>
> " Balduinum de Ganda et Arnulfum et Gerbodum,
> nepotes eius "
>
> I have not attempted further exploration of the
> ancestry of Gundreda at this point; it is possible that
> the mother of Gerbod, Arnulf and Gundreda [assuming they
> all shared the same mother] was a Gand, and not their
> father.
>
> Anyone seeking to explore this further in short order,
> I guess it's 1st comes, 1st served * .
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
> * What's good for the Goz, is good for the Ganders.
>
>
>
>
>

Terry Mair

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 4:47:52 PM11/15/03
to
Just a few minutes ago I went to the site: www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk and
the only information I could find there was still confusing as to weather
William I was her father or this Gerbod, they also sounded quite sure her
mother was Matilda, and that she could have been married before but then
went on to say she was a unmarried maden when William married her, so
according to this group who is the accepted father and mother of Gundreda?
Thanks
Terry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Bastards of Henry I

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 4:54:14 PM11/15/03
to
I should also remark that years before this discussion, there was an article
published in The Genealogist, 9(1988):226-7,

"Medieval Miscellany I: Mabel, Wife of Reginald, Earl of Cornwall," by Douglas
Richardson (but with much addition, even at two pages, by the then editor of
TG, Neil D. Thompson, FASG).

That should be kept in mind during this discussion.

Paul

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 4:58:25 PM11/15/03
to
> Huius donationis testes
> sunt, Robertus filius Widonis, Radulfus filius Rogerii, & Hugo
> frater eius, & Nigellus frater ipsius Roberti, & Adelizia filia
> Reg[inaldi], Ketel & Lefwinus Canc, Nicholaus filius Sawoldi, &
> Robertus filius Osberti, Rannulfus.

Does it not seem worthy of remark that a woman appears in the middle of this
list of witnesses? Unless she had some direct claim to the land through a
father named Reginald, wouldn't this strengthen the presumption that "Regis"
was actually meant in the unabbreviated form?

Paul

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 5:47:44 PM11/15/03
to
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:53:29 -0000, "Chris Phillips"
<c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

>I say "something like it" because I'm still doubtful about quite how to
>reconstruct these early Dunstanvilles, and I'm doubtful whether Gundred's
>brother is the same who married Adelisa de Lisle. But I think there's little
>doubt that they are of the same family.

The Thompson article on Henry I's bastards already mentioned contains
a discussion of earl Reginald's mother Sibyl and the Dunstanvilles.
The main point would be her suggestion that Sibyl was only a
stepdaughter of Robert fitz Corbet, and a daughter of the earlier
Reginald of Dunstanville. The table giving her (clearly speculative)
reconstruction is as follows:
[usual warning about using constant-width font]

Reginald of-(1)-Adeliza of-(2)-Robert fitz
Dunstanville | Dunstanville | Corbet
____________________| ___________|____________
| | | | | |
Reginald Gundrada | Alice m. Walter Robert, perhaps
| William son of his
| Boterel father's first
| marriage
|
Henry I-(partner 1)-Sibyl-(partner 2)-Herbert fitz Herbert
| |________________________
| | | |
Reginald, earl Herbert m. William Rohese m.
of Cornwall Lucy, dau. Henry de la
of Miles of Pomerai
Gloucester
|
Peter fitz Herbert


Stewart Baldwin

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 5:48:14 PM11/15/03
to
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:07:55 +0000 (UTC), te...@mairsphotography.com

("Terry Mair") wrote:

>> William de Warenne = Gundreda de Gand
>> E of Surrey; d. 1088 I d. 1085
>> _______________________I__________
>snip
>>
>> John
>
>So was the wife of William realy a Gand, most of the information I have
>found on the net (of course) says she is the daughter of William I of
>England, who where her perants.

The wife of William de Warenne, Gundreda, was quite definitely NOT a
daughter of either William the Conqueror or his wife Matilda of
Flanders. However, the blunder has been around for so long and has
been repeated so often that you can expect to see it in many places
(including, for example, ES).

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 5:50:50 PM11/15/03
to
te...@mairsphotography.com ("Terry Mair") wrote in message news:<000d01c3abab$c9bba0e0$525c0243@TERRY>...

No, she wasn't a member of the Gand family, and she wasn't a daughter
of William the Conqueror or of his wife Matilda by a non-existent
previous marriage.

John can explain the name he gave her, but I suppose he was taking
this description from a source which identified that she came _from_
Ghent, rather than belonged to a family called after this toponym.

Her parentage is not certain, and has been discussed at length on SGM
in various threads with "Gundrada" and "Warenne" in the subject line.
An archive search will turn up somewhat more than you can wish.

As she was called a sister of Gerbod the Fleming, briefly earl of
Chester, it is believed that her father was most likely another
Gerbod, lord of Oosterzele & advocate of St Bertin's abbey, whose wife
is unknown.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 8:02:06 PM11/15/03
to
On 15 Nov 2003 01:47:57 -0800, royala...@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:

[snip]

>I would immediately remove Emme, wife of Guy de Laval. Emme de Laval
>is specifically identified in a charter to Evron Abbey as "daughter of
>Reynold, Earl of Cornwall" which Reynold was an illegitimate son of
>Henry I, King of England [see Abbé A. Angot, Généalogies Féodales
>Mayennaises du XI au XIII Siècle (1942), pp. 292-295; NEHGR 119
>(1965): 94-102; 120 (1966): 230].

I believe that the Guy de Laval who married Emma, daughter of Reginald
of Cornwall was a different Guy de Laval from the one said to have
married an Emma, illegitimate daughter of Henry I. (Those Guy de
Laval/Emma pairs are a bit confusing during this period.) Thus, even
though there may be other reasons for rejecting this daughter (I have
not had a chance to examine the proper sources on this one), the above
would not be a reason for doing so.

>I likewise would remove the unknown wife of Fergus, lord of Galloway,
>as a bastard daughter. While it is possible that Fergus' wife was a
>bastard daughter of King Henry I, I think it is more likely that she
>was a granddaughter of Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. Whatever
>the case, Fergus' wife's name was not Elizabeth, as often claimed in
>print. Her given name is not known.

Do you have any plans to ever supply some actual evidence why you
think it is "more likely" that Fergus's wife was a member of the
Scottish dynasty, or are we just supposed to take your word for it
because you have declared it to be likely?

>Little is known of William de Tracy. He is stated to have died soon
>after his father, King Henry I. Historians have assumed that he is
>the same individual who held a barony in Devonshire, but there is no
>evidence that I know of which links the Devonshire man to William de
>Tracy who was the bastard son of King Henry I. I have seen no
>contemporary record, by the way, in which William de Tracy is styled
>"king's son." He is probably a bastard son, but I know of no direct
>contemporary evidence to prove it.

How about the edition of "Gesta Normannorum Ducum" by Robert de
Torigny, a contemporary writer, who explicitly stated that William de
Tracy ("Willelmus de Traceio") was an illegitimate son of Henry I? In
fact, Robert de Torigny is by far the most important primary source
for Henry I's illegitimate children, providing us with contemporary
documentation for 13 bastards of Henry I. If you had even bothered to
reread White's account of Henry's bastards in CP, he would have led
you immediately to Robert de Torigny.

Stewart Baldwin

Rosie Bevan

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 8:04:23 PM11/15/03
to
Yes, particularly as the four attestors before her can all be identified as
d'Oylys or their Chesney cousins. In the wording of the charter Robert
d'Oyly includes his wife and sons as party to the gift of land (two hides)
at Moulsford, Oxfordshire, which had been a personal gift to him from Henry
I, to Eynsham, so we would expect his extended family and tenants there to
be party to the act as witnesses. As it was not unusual for women to witness
as family members in the 12th century, Adelisa would not be out of place
attesting as daughter of one of the grantors, IF a full sister of Robert
fitz Ede. It's surprising that Thompson does not attempt to explore the idea
(or the charters) more fully in her article, having come up with the
observation.

The Moulsford grant was confirmed later by Robert d'Oyly's son, Henry,
around 1144-47 [Eynsham Cartulary, no.71]. Three of the six attestors were
illegitimate sons of Henry I - Robert earl of Gloucester, Reginald earl of
Cornwall and Robert filio Regis. The others were Patrick earl of Salisbury
(Henry's wife's cousin), Roger earl of Hereford and Humphrey de Bohun (Henry
d'Oyly's father in law).

Cheers

Rosie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Bastards of Henry I

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Nov 15, 2003, 8:45:29 PM11/15/03
to
"In fact, Robert de Torigny is by far the most important primary source
for Henry I's illegitimate children, providing us with contemporary
documentation for 13 bastards of Henry I. If you had even bothered to
reread White's account of Henry's bastards in CP, he would have led you
immediately to Robert de Torigny."

Stewart Baldwin [To Richardson]
--------------------------------

Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!

Why should Richardson take the trouble and effort actually to READ and
STUDY the standard paper accounts, including CP ---- and track back to
Robert de Torigny.?

It's far easier for him to rely on the naivete of fools such as Baldwin
to do his dog-work for him, cite those sources [including Thompson's
article], shred out and analyze the data for him, digitize it and post
it to SGM ---- where Richardson can simply copy and paste it to his
manuscript. Why it's virtually print-ready as is ---- saving Richardson
untold hours of onerous typing as well.

Fun & Games ---- Richardson wins ---- and turns Baldwin into his freebee
research assistant.

Deeeelightful!

Yes, Virginia, there's a silly-buggers, naive academic born somewhere
every minute ---- and you too can play them like fish on a line. All
you have to do is appeal to their pride and solipsism.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 1:26:46 AM11/16/03
to
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<3fb6c09d....@news.east.earthlink.net>...

Spencer:

You're just upset because I took the wife of Fergus of Galloway off
the list of King Henry I's bastards. If you had bothered to read your
own authority, Torigny, you would have seen that Fergus' wife wasn't
listed as a bastard child of King Henry I by Torigny. Or did you miss
that?

I can accept 13 bastards for King Henry I, by the way. How about you
give us your rundown of King Henry I's bastards.

Richard Smith

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 6:02:14 AM11/16/03
to

----- Original Message -----

From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>

To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 3:47 AM

Subject: Re: Bastards of Henry I

My Dear Douglas,

My comments are interspersed below. More general comments are to follow.


> Dear Chris ~
>
> Thank you for posting the list of King Henry I's bastards from
> Complete Peerage and the expanded list from Given-Wilson and Curteis.
> It's very much apreciated.

Remember, your post to Spencer, contrasted your views with the Complete
Peerage. It is not the number of Bastards; it is the CP list and how you
differ with it. We did not raise that qualification. You did in the post to
Spencer. I quote your statement again in order that we can maintain focus
and keep in mind how you started the "Alley Cat" thread and then answered
Spencer's response.

{Douglas Richardson post of 2003-11-12 19:13:52 PST , this is from the first
article of the "Alley Cat" thread:

"I believe the title of King Alley Cat belongs equally to King John and King
Henry I. I count ten definite illegitimate children for John, one likely,
and one possible, for a grand total of twelve. King Henry I had ten or
eleven illegitimate children the last I counted. In other words, it's almost
a statistical dead heat.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah " {End of quote}

{Douglas Richardson to Spencer 2003-11-12 23:22:05 PST

"Dear Spencer ~

"I haven't reviewed the list of King Henry I's bastards in recent time,
but I believe the number I stated for King Henry I's bastards is
correct. I don't accept several bastards listed for King Henry I in
the Complete Peerage account. I believe I've mentioned this in past
posts. Perhaps you missed my comments.

"I note that each and every time the issue of King Henry I's bastards
comes up, you immediate post the number of his bastards found in
Complete Peerage. Because you're so heavily dependant on someone
else's work for your information, I heartily recommend you start
spending time in the original records of the period. Endlessly
copying someone else's work makes you look like a monkey chained to
his keyboard, unable to think for himself, instead of being a real
scholar with something to say. A Yale graduate such as yourself can
and should do better than that I think. You have talent and ability,
Spencer, but lack the focus and drive to do anything productive with
it." {end of quote}

>
> Without delving into my files, I would immediately remove Sibyl de
> Falaise as a bastard daughter of King Henry I. She was styled
> "neptis" of King Henry I in a Curia Regis Roll. As we have seen in
> other recent posts here on the newsgroup, "neptis" in this period can
> mean niece, granddaughter, or near kinswoman. I believe the latter
> meaning applies in this case. For what it is worth, I've never seen
> the word "neptis" used as a euphemism for a bastard daughter as
> claimed by Given-Wilson and Curteis. All bastard children I've
> encountered in medieval records are called "filius" (son) or "filia"
> (daughter).

Sibyl of Falaise is not on the Complete Peerage list in Appendix D of Volume
XI. So, the above comment is irrelevant to the present discussion.


>
> I would immediately remove Emme, wife of Guy de Laval. Emme de Laval
> is specifically identified in a charter to Evron Abbey as "daughter of
> Reynold, Earl of Cornwall" which Reynold was an illegitimate son of
> Henry I, King of England [see Abbé A. Angot, Généalogies Féodales
> Mayennaises du XI au XIII Siècle (1942), pp. 292-295; NEHGR 119
> (1965): 94-102; 120 (1966): 230].
>

Emma is not on the Complete Peerage list in Appendix D of Volume XI. So, the
above comment is irrelevant to the present discussion.


> I likewise would remove the unknown wife of Fergus, lord of Galloway,
> as a bastard daughter. While it is possible that Fergus' wife was a
> bastard daughter of King Henry I, I think it is more likely that she
> was a granddaughter of Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. Whatever
> the case, Fergus' wife's name was not Elizabeth, as often claimed in
> print. Her given name is not known.

Thew wife of Fergus of Galloway is not on the Complete Peerage list in
Appendix D of Volume XI. So, the above comment is irrelevant to the present
discussion.


>
> Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Reynold, Earl of Cornwall, are well
> documented bastard sons of King Henry I. Both were known as "filius
> Regis" in their lifetimes, that is, son of the King. To the best of
> my knowledge, Earl Robert never used "de Caen" as part of his name,

Noted that you accept CP on Robert, earl of Gloucester. The question of
by-names or surnames is not raised in this question. Though they may be
relevant, I would suggest that the subject of by-names and surnames
bereversed for another discussion, for which I am prepared.


> nor was Earl Reynold ever known as "de Dunstanville." Reynold was,
> however, known infrequently as Reynold de Mortain.

Noted that you accept CP on Reynold , earl of Cornwall. Again the question
of by-names or surnames is not raised in this question.

>
> Little is known of William de Tracy. He is stated to have died soon
> after his father, King Henry I. Historians have assumed that he is
> the same individual who held a barony in Devonshire, but there is no
> evidence that I know of which links the Devonshire man to William de
> Tracy who was the bastard son of King Henry I. I have seen no
> contemporary record, by the way, in which William de Tracy is styled
> "king's son." He is probably a bastard son, but I know of no direct
> contemporary evidence to prove it.
>

Noted that you do not accept William Tracy, but make him a probable.

CP bases its placing Tracy on the list on Robert de Torigny. You appear to
disagree either with CP's interpretation of Torigny or with the text of
Torigny itself. Which is it? We assume that with time to delve into your
files you will document your difference with CP or with its source. The
comments above do not constitute reasoning based on evidence, as should be
expected from a 'scholar' or a "trained" historian.


> I believe Richard son of Ansfrid is a well documented bastard son.

Noted that you accept Richard son of Ansfrid.

I
> believe Robert son of Ede/Edith is a well documented bastard son.
>

Noted that you accept Robert son of Ede or Edith.


> Henry son of Nest is alleged to have been a bastard son of King Henry
> I. However, I have never found any evidence to prove or disprove it.
> He evidently was not known as "filius Regis." As such, I believe he
> should be considered in the "possible" category.

This should be checked against Gerald of Wales who wrote about the children
of Nest


>
> Queen Sibyl of Scotland is a well documented bastard daughter.

Noted that you accept Sibyl, wife of Alexander I of Scotland.


> However, her brother, William, was almost certainly a uterine
> half-brother and not a bastard son of King Henry I.

Noted that you do not accept William, bother of Sibyl, wife of Alexander I
of Scotland.

No evidence given for not accepting this William, awaiting evidence and
reasoning after your delving into your files.


>
> I believe Constance de Beaumont is a well documented bastard daughter,

Noted that you accept Constance, wife of Roscelin of Beamont-le-Vicomte.


> as is Maud, wife of Conan III, Duke of Brittany.

Noted that you accept Maud, wife of Conan III, duke of Brittany.

I believe Maud, wife of Rotrou, Count of Perche, is a documented daughter
but I haven't
> reviewed the evidence for her parentage in recent time.

Noted that you accept Maud, wife of Rotrou of Le Perche with reservation
subject to checking her parentage.


>
> Gundred, sister of Reynold de Dunstanville, has been discussed
> elsewhere. She clearly was not a bastard daughter of King Henry I.

Noted that you do not accept Gundred, based on earlier discussion.


>
> Rohese de Pomeroy was almost certainly a uterine half-sister of
> Reynold, Earl of Cornwall, and not a bastard daughter of King Henry I.

Noted that you do not accept Rohese, wife of Henry of La Pomerai. No
evidevce or reasoning given.. To be supplied at a later time. (Delving, we
must assume.)


>
> In review, we have four documented and one probable sons, four
> documented daughters, and one possible son (Henry son of Nest). I
> have removed Sibyl de Falaise, Emme de Laval, the unknown wife of
> Fergus of Galloway, William (brother of Queen Sibyl), Gundred de
> Dunstanville, and Rohese de Pomeroy. I'll reserve my comments on the
> other bastards until later when I have more time to study the matter.
>

This summary is irrelevant in that entries from lists other than CP. CP list
is the only list in question according to the posts quoted at the beginning
of the acticle.

Our dear friend, please be assured that we will view your acticles to come
with great interest. It is noted that your evidence for disagreeing with CP
so far is thin at best. Of course, after you review your files you may add
evidence to support your position in each case.

Even now you change you tune, announcing that: {quoting Richardson on
Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:26 AM}

> I can accept 13 bastards for King Henry I, by the way. How about you

> give us your rundown of King Henry I's bastards. {End quote}

What happened to your original 10 or eleven? What has happened to change
your number? Apparently you have had time to delve into your files. Come on
now complete your list. Tell us what you found in your files. If you are a
scholar and a "trained" historian, you are duty bound to lay out your
position and back it up with evidence, not mere opinion and certainly not
the slurs you have come to use.

You started this story of the Alley Cat; now finish it. That thread and this
will not be forgotten.


Best wishes,

and happy results in all your pursuits,

Richard Smith


> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
>
> "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:<bp3n61$ut2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > Perhaps it would be useful to post the lists of Henry I's illegitimate
> > children given by the Complete Peerage and by Given-Wilson and Curteis,
> > "Royal Bastards of Medieval England" (1984). (Unfortunately I haven't
yet
> > seen Kathleen Thompson's article, referred to by Stewart Baldwin as
> > discounting daughter (10) and expressing doubts about sons (7) and (9)
and
> > daughter (11) below.)
> >
> > Complete Peerage, in Appendix D of volume 11 (1949), by Geoffrey H.
White,
> > gives the following (notes in [...] are mine):
> >
> > Sons:

<big snip

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 6:11:21 AM11/16/03
to
>From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)

>sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message

[snip]
>> Stewart Baldwin
>
>Spencer:
[snip]

Hmmmm,

Accurate in every account. Doug calls Steward Spencer. I don't know how Freud
would have interpreted that.

At least now we are up to 13, instead of 11 or 12 (though no admission of error
was noted):

>I can accept 13 bastards for King Henry I, by the way. How about you
>give us your rundown of King Henry I's bastards.
>
>Best always,
>
>Douglas Richardson,

<sloprk>
Oohpp, that would be what *Spencer* was talking about - Doug trying to goad
intelligent people into feeding him information he 'already knew.'

Paul

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 6:35:34 AM11/16/03
to
To supplement Richard's post,

Doug wrote:
>In review, we have four documented and

>one probable sons, [sic]

Yet we have:
(1) Robert, Earl of Gloucester


(2) Richard, son of Ansfride

(3) Rainald [Reginold], Earl of Cornwall


(4) Robert, son of Ede/Edith

(6) William de Tracy

as documented by Doug's standards, and

Henry, son of Nest as probable.

But CP notes that

(5) Gilbert was 3rd son described as young and unmarried in 1142 by Robert de
Torigny, and

(8) Fulk the King's son witnessed a gift to Abingdon Abbey by (in part)
Ansfride, mother of Henry's son Richard ["Testibus ... et Fulcone filio regis
et Ricardo paedagogo...."].

Unless we have good reason to believe Robert de Torigny was is blatant error
concerning Gilbert, that would give us SEVEN (7) documented sons, and one very
probable.

Concerning Henry, son of Nest, we have, "Henricus scilicet regis Henrici primi
filius... ex nobili Nesta.... [Giraldus Cambrensis, _Itinerarium Kambriae
(Rolls Series), 130]. Thouh one might question this source, Henry was
certainly a factual individual, and was also mentioned by Round (_Ancestor,
no. 2, 94-8), _Annales Cambriae_, 47, the _Brut_ (Rolls, Series), 189, and had
at least one son, Meilier Fizt Henry, if not two. So where did the name Henry
come from as son of Nest, at this early period, if this claim of paternity is
in error?

At any rate, this would give us EIGHT (8) illegitimate sons of Henry I.

The above is something Doug's should have been well aware of, so no great
revelation. But good to know he did not realize this before, so he can
properly credit CP, if not this group.

Paul

Cristopher Nash

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 8:10:43 AM11/16/03
to
Dear John, thanks for this, & following it up will be worth a good
gander -- save of course for those who've had arnulf of gander-issues.

Cheers,

Cris

>Saturday, 15 November, 2003
>
>
>


--

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 12:15:40 PM11/16/03
to
Richard Smith Posted:

"Remember, your post to Spencer, contrasted your views with the Complete
Peerage. It is not the number of Bastards; it is the CP list and how you
differ with it. We did not raise that qualification. You did in the post
to Spencer. I quote your statement again in order that we can maintain
focus and keep in mind how you started the "Alley Cat" thread and then
answered Spencer's response.

{Douglas Richardson post of 2003-11-12 19:13:52 PST , this is from the
first article of the "Alley Cat" thread:

"I believe the title of King Alley Cat belongs equally to King John and
King Henry I. I count ten definite illegitimate children for John, one
likely, and one possible, for a grand total of twelve. King Henry I had
ten or eleven illegitimate children the last I counted. In other words,
it's almost a statistical dead heat.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah " {End of quote}"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly!

The initial post above by Richardson, in his "King Alley Cat" thread was
a transparent trick.

And it is NOT a "statistical dead heat" between Henry I and John. ----
That's a pure invention by Richardson, designed to whip up a false
controversy and feed him with lots of digitized, vetted data on the
bastards of BOTH Kings.

He wanted to stampede us into supplying him with all the verified
bastards of BOTH King Henry I and King John ---- because he doesn't know
who they are and he's too lazy to do the work himself. Then he could
come to some conclusions on his own stick ---- non-collegially, of
course.

Richardson wanted us to supply him with all the vetted data on the
bastards ---- digitized, formulated and posted ---- so he could cut and
paste it, put it in his manuscript and then sell it back to us.

Aye, there's the rub....

He does this sort of thing continually....

NOW he's trying to make folks FORGET that initial post ---- by throwing
out all sorts of red herrings ---- designed to make the gullible and
naive gush more data ---- becoming gratis research assistants on SGM for
Richardson.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""Richard Smith"" <ptr...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:001d01c3ac31$10d5fc20$8f2e6744@RSmyth...

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 1:25:50 PM11/16/03
to
Stewart Baldwin can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ----
particularly attempting to do so by remote control.

Fool's Errand....
---------------------------

_Publish And Be Damned_ ---- that's the ticket ---- and Richardson knows
it ---- which is why he's pleading with us to write the book for
him ---- as Group Work ["Collegiality"]. Then he can always claim we
were fully consulted and contributed to the final result....

Protective Cover In "Collegiality" ---- That's What He's Looking For....

He's deathly afraid of taking the point and being out there in front,
facing the critics all by himself.

So:

1. Let's DO keep track of the documented historical audit trails ----
WHO contributed what genealogical/historical data and WHEN.

2. Have VERY long memories...

3. Continue to hold Richardson's feet to the fire on these matters.

4. Remember that HE is to be held responsible for whatever [may]
eventually is published ---- and hold him accountable for same.

5. No, "EVERYONE" here will NOT be able to see fraud, persiflage,
evasion, disingenuousness, distortion, prevarication, revisionism and
deceit if it emerges. ---- Watchdogs on the ramparts of genealogical
and historical professionalism and integrity will need to lay out the
facts and evidence for them.

Deus Vult.

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 1:22:01 PM11/16/03
to
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> Cris, as to calling Gundreda 'de Gand', I have this in
> my records as deriving from a record at Chris' site (note
> indicated "www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk"); the extract
> from the text reading, ca. 1067, referring to a document
> concerning (or attested by)
>
> " Balduinum de Ganda et Arnulfum et Gerbodum,
> nepotes eius "


I think the implication of this document is not that Arnulf and Gerbod were
the nephews of Baldwin, but that one Arnoldus de Ostersele had acted by the
counsel of Baldwin of Ghent and of Arnulf and Gerbod, his [Arnold's]
nephews:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/gundred/gundocs.shtml#bavo

I'm sorry that Terry Mair got the impression from the web pages that it was
still considered possible that Gundred was a daughter of William the
Conqueror and/or Matilda of Flanders. The problem is that they consist
mainly of extracts from records that were put there primarily so that people
could refer to them during the previous discussions. And I do have links to
a couple of online versions of older contributions to the 19th-century
controversy over Gundred's parentage. These were contributions on the side
that lost the debate (to be fair I do say after givign the links, "The
genealogical position reflected by these works has long been discredited").

I think the long argument over Gundred's parentage was effectively ended by
Edward Freeman, who published a comprehensive discussion of the evidence in
the "English Historical Review" in 1888. But, as Stewart Baldwin said, the
false belief that she was a daughter of William I survived scholarly
debunking, and it is now enjoying a fresh lease of life on the Internet.

Chris Phillips


Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 1:58:18 PM11/16/03
to
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> Re: No. 65, he notes concerning the date with regard to the
> attestation by 'Roberto filio Reg[is]', "Robert 'filius Regis',
> who seems to have been a good deal younger than Robert Earl of
> Gloucester, would not attest much earlier than 1130." Now, who
> Salter had in mind as Robert filius Regis besides Robert [filius
> regis, aka Fitz Roy, aka de Caen], Earl of Gloucester [b. ca. 1090,
> d. 1147] I have no idea.
>
> At any rate, to have Adeliza 'daughter of the King' attesting a
> charter of Robert de Oilly in Oxfordshire ca. 1130-35 should not be
> too problematic; Robert's wife Edith, daughter of Forne fitz Sigulf
> of Greystoke, co. Cumbs., was after all a former mistress of King
> Henry I. One wonders what the precise relationship might in fact be
> between Edith, former mistress of the King, and Adeliza 'filia
> regis' [assuming regis, not Reginaldi, is correct] ?


CP identifies the witness of no 6 as Robert the king's son by Ede/Edith, who
later married Robert de Oilli.

So, as Rosie points out - and as you're hinting above - Adelisa "filia Reg"
occurring after a string of Oilli relations suggests she may have been
another child of the king by Ede/Edith.

Chris Phillips

GRHa...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 3:05:07 PM11/16/03
to
In a message dated 11/16/2003 12:14:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu writes:
He wanted to stampede us into supplying him with all the verified
bastards of BOTH King Henry I and King John ---- because he doesn't know
who they are and he's too lazy to do the work himself. Then he could
come to some conclusions on his own stick ---- non-collegially, of
course.


But, remember Spencer, the old adage, "F??? me once that's your fault; f???
me twice that's my fault."

If, as you say, and many agree, Richardson has been doing this for some time,
why do some folks keep on keeping on by doing just what he wants:

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 3:41:12 PM11/16/03
to
On 15 Nov 2003 22:26:46 -0800, royala...@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:

>You're just upset because I took the wife of Fergus of

>Galloway off the list of King Henry I's bastards. ...

No, but I am extremely annoyed that someone who constantly criticizes
others for not going to primary sources would put himself in the
forefront of such a discussion and show such utter ignorance of one of
the main primary sources, without even bothering to refresh his memory
by rereading the principal secondary source on the subject which
mentions the main primary evidence.

As I think you are quite well aware, I have already acknowledged in
one of my previous postings in this thread that the case for making
Fergus's wife a daughter of Henry is not conclusive, and that she
should be left off of the list of proven bastards of Henry. In fact,
when I was first looking at the problem of Fergus's wife, I once
suggested that the possibility that she may have been a daughter of
Duncan II of Scotland should be investigated. (I don't know whether
or not others had made the same suggestion before that.) I would
still consider that to be an attractive solution, if any reasonable
supporting evidence could be found, but once I examined the evidence,
I came to the reluctant conclusion that the Scottish scenario (while
not ruled out completely) was considerably less likely than the
English scenario. It is not enough for the Scottish scenario to be
(barely) consistent with the known evidence. Before it can be
considered likely, some sort of positive evidence that clearly favors
the Scottish scenario over the English one needs to be produced, yet
you (who are so quick to demand primary evidence from others) have
repeatedly sidestepped this issue (as for example, in the convenient
editing of your quoting of my posting to which the above was a
response), and by your silence have refused to offer evidence for a
scenario which you have aggressively asserted.

>... If you had bothered to read your


>own authority, Torigny, you would have seen that Fergus' wife wasn't
>listed as a bastard child of King Henry I by Torigny. Or did you miss
>that?

That is an obvious red herring (and apparently a deliberate one).
As you are quite well aware, I never claimed (or even suggested
indirectly) that Robert de Torigny mentioned Fergus's wife. While
Robert is a major primary source for Henry's bastards, there is no
reason to believe that his list of Henry's bastards would be complete.

>I can accept 13 bastards for King Henry I, by the way.

Where does the number of 13 come from? Does it mean you are declaring
that all candidates not mentioned by Robert de Torigny should be
removed from the list, or is there some other reason for that number?

>How about you give us your rundown of King Henry I's bastards.

Since you are the person who started this by suggesting that Henry had
only ten or eleven bastards, and you have conveniently ignored
requests that you justify your assertions by providing a clear list of
the ones you accept or reject, it seems rather hypocritical of you to
make such repeated demands of others without doing it yourself.

Nevertheless, I have long planned to do exactly that as part of the
Henry Project. Using the sources available to me at the time, I came
up with a preliminary account of Henry I's family (including the
bastards), with Geoffrey White's account in CP as the principle
starting point. Then, I became aware of the Thompson article, and I
have been too busy to revise the page to take into account the
comments in her article (plus, I still don't have access to the
necessary sources that would allow me to make an informed judgement on
the Guy de Laval/Emma issue). I have nearly complete pages ready for
the Norman dynasty (dukes of Normandy, kings of England, counts of
Évreux) and for Geoffrey Plantagenet and Henry II (of which the page
for Henry I is the one needing the most revision, for reasons stated
above). I think that Thanksgiving break will give me enough time to
put the finishing touches on at least some of these pages and upload
them, although I don't know if the Henry I page will be one of them.

[By the way, is there anybody who could supply me with a copy of an
article on the bastards of Henry II that appeared in the Genealogists
Magazine 14 (1964), 361-8, which is cited in Sheppard's "Royal
Bye-Blows" article. I have come to the tentative conclusion that DNB
is correct in assiging only three well documented bastards of Henry II
(Geoffrey, William, Morgan), but I still would like to see what the
above article has to say.]

Stewart Baldwin

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 4:46:23 PM11/16/03
to

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> The Thompson article on Henry I's bastards already mentioned contains
> a discussion of earl Reginald's mother Sibyl and the Dunstanvilles.
> The main point would be her suggestion that Sibyl was only a
> stepdaughter of Robert fitz Corbet, and a daughter of the earlier
> Reginald of Dunstanville.


That's certainly a new twist, and at least provides some basis for the
relationship between Reynald "de Dunstanville" the king's son and the
Dunstanvilles of Wiltshire. (I think the only suggestion I've seen
previously was Ivor West's, that the king's son could have been fostered by
the Dunstanvilles.)

(I should have said earlier that it was clear that the Reynald of 1130
couldn't be the husband of Adelisa de Lisle, as the latter was dead by 1114.
What still wasn't clear to me after the previous discussion was whether the
Reynold of 1130 was a son or a grandson of the earlier one - the earlier one
apparently having been succeeded by a Robert de Dunstanville, seemingly
either the elder brother or the father of the Reynald and the Gundred of the
1130 pipe roll.)

Chris Phillips


GRHa...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 5:41:49 PM11/16/03
to
Since there is so much contention concerning Henry I's sexual adventures and
the results of same I am pasting below the record of his bastards (19 of them)
as listed by Family History of LDS.

NOTE: I am not indicating there is any accuracy to the following, merely that
this is the manner in which one not so accepted source lists them.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Henry I "Beauclerc" King Of ENGLAND (b.1068;d.1 Dec 1135)

sp: UNKNOWN 1 (b.Abt 1072)
Maud, Princess Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1091)

sp: UNKNOWN 2 (b.Abt 1070)
Robert "The King's Son" De CAEN (b.Abt 1090;d.31 Oct 1147)

sp: UNKNOWN 3 (b.Abt 1076)
Miss, Princess Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1095)

sp: UNKNOWN 4 (b.Abt 1078)
Alice (Aline), Princess Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1099;d.1141)
Constance Maud Viscountess MAINE (b.Abt 1098)

sp: UNKNOWN 5 (b.Abt 1072)
Maud MONTVILLERS (b.Abt 1096)

sp: UNKNOWN 6 (b.1072?)
Emma Bastard Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1096;d.Aft 1157)

sp: Ansfride Mrs-Henry I, Concubine Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1069;m.Abt 1086)
Richard Prince Of ENGLAND (b.Bef 1101;d.26 Nov 1119)
Fulk Prince Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1102)
Juliane Princess Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1102)

sp: Edith FITZFORNE (b.Abt 1084;d.Abt 1152)
Robert Prince Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1093;d.31 May 1172)

sp: Gieva De TRACY (b.Abt 1068)
William De TRACY (b.Abt 1097;d.1136)

sp: Isabel (Elizabeth) De BEAUMONT (b.Abt 1086/1096;d.Abt 1147)
Isabel Hedwig Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1120)

sp: Nest Verch RHYS (b.Abt 1073;d.Abt 1163)
Henry Fitzroy Prince Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1105;d.1157)

sp: Sibyl (Adela) (Lucy) CORBET (b.Abt 1075;d.Aft 1157)
William Prince Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1103;d.25 Nov 1120)
Gundred (Rohesia) Princess Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1114;d.Aft 1130)
Rohese Princess Of ENGLAND (b.Abt 1114;d.Aft 1176)
Rainald De DUNSTANVILLE (b.Abt 1110/1115;d.1 Jul 1175)
Sibyl Elizabeth Queen Of SCOTLAND (b.Abt 1095/1100;d.12 Jul 1122)

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 6:07:30 PM11/16/03
to
[Stewart wrote:]

>In fact,
>when I was first looking at the problem of Fergus's wife, I once
>suggested that the possibility that she may have been a daughter of
>Duncan II of Scotland should be investigated. (I don't know whether
>or not others had made the same suggestion before that.)

Stewart certainly posted the possible SCottish origin before DOug did. In
briefly reviewing the archives, we find that on Date: 1999/03/23, Doug posted:

[quote:]
Yes, you are correct that Alan Fitz Roland's grandfather, Uchtred Fitz Fergus,
lord of Galloway, was related in some fashion to King Henry II of England. It
is commonly thought that Uchtred's mother, Elizabeth, was an illegitimate
daughter of King Henry I of England. After studying the matter, I believe
this is probably correct. However, such a connection betwen Alan Fitz Roland
to King Henry I would give him NO kinship to his wife, Margaret of Huntingdon.
If Alan's ancestress, Elizabeth, was Henry I's illegitmate daughter, Alan
would necessarily lose any connection to King Henry I's wife, Maud of Scotland,
which would otherwise provide him a connection to Margaret of Huntingdon.
Consequently, the only reasonable connection between Alan Fitz Roland and his
wife Margaret would presumably come through the common Warrenne ancestry.
[end quote]

So at that point he thought Elizabeth probably WAS a daughter of Henry I.

I do not see that he changed his position to the Scottish connection until
Date: 2000/02/26, when Doug posted:

[quote:]
Reviewing the matter, it seems more probable to me that the connection between
Fergus' descendants and the English royal family came by way of a common
descent from the Kings of Scotland, not the Kings of England. That makes FAR
more sense to me. In fact, I suspect if someone has a mind to do so, the
Sottish royal connection for Fergus' wife could probably be elucidated from the
records. Anyone want to tackle that approach?
[end quote]

At least this demonstrated that as of February 26, 2000, Doug attached himself
to the SCottish theory, but had not done any original research into the matter.
BUT this was AFTER Stewart (and others) had put forth the possibility of a
Scottish descent to this group. Two VERY DETAILED POSTS, cited many ORIGINAL
SOURCES, on 2000/02/04, and discussion ensued:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20000204081201.14653.00000461%40ng-bd
1.aol.com&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20000204081321.14653.00000462%40ng-bd
1.aol.com&output=gplain

Stewart had posted, on 2000/02/08:

[quote:]
I was looking into this some more yesterday, and noticed an interesting
possibility. Duncan II married Ethreda/Etheldreda, daughter of Gospatric of
Northumberland [Source: DNB], who was a descendant of Uhtred, the Anglo-Saxon
earl of Northumbria. Thus, if Fergus was married to a daughter of Duncan
(chronologically possible if the hypothesized daughter was born late in
Duncan's life), then that would explain where the name of Fergus's son
U(c)htred came from. (Also, Henry II and Gospatric were both descendants of
Aethelred II, which would give a second relationship.)
[end quote]

A numer of times in the past, we have seen Doug take someone's proposed theory
and act as if it were his own invention, not properly crediting the original
source. Lacking further documentation from original records, however, Stewart
remained appropriately skeptical, keeping the theory as a possibility, which is
proper, given what we have on hand.

Paul

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 7:32:19 PM11/16/03
to
Bingo!

Damned Good Question....

DSH

<GRHa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:171.267687...@aol.com...

Cristopher Nash

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 9:03:43 PM11/16/03
to
Sorry to be a pest about this, Chris, but it can be confusing. May I
take it that when you write of >the Reynald of 1130< you don't mean
Reynald who d. 1129/30 (acc. to DD 442 & 525), and that the latter
remains a likely husb. of Adelisa de Lisle (as per DD loc. cit.)?

Thanks,

Cris

>(I should have said earlier that it was clear that the Reynald of 1130
>couldn't be the husband of Adelisa de Lisle, as the latter was dead by 1114.
>What still wasn't clear to me after the previous discussion was whether the
>Reynold of 1130 was a son or a grandson of the earlier one - the earlier one
>apparently having been succeeded by a Robert de Dunstanville, seemingly
>either the elder brother or the father of the Reynald and the Gundred of the
>1130 pipe roll.)

--

Jon Meltzer

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 10:53:44 PM11/16/03
to
> Ansfride Mrs-Henry I, Concubine Of ENGLAND

Sigh ...

What my college history professors would have thought - and from this there
would have been no point trying to convince them otherwise.

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 11:34:22 PM11/16/03
to
Robert de Torigny listed seven (7) illegitimate daughters of Henry I. We've
already listed eight sons, so that alone would make AT LEAST 15 illegitimate
children for Henry I, not 13.

One further note about the illegitimate son Henry, whose identity was testified
to by Gerald of Wales. Gerald was son of Angharad, son of Nest, mother of
Henry. Though Gerald may be inaccurate in other accounts, is there not good
reason to believe he would have family knowledge as to who in his family was
son of the king? Meiler son of Henry became a great Anglo-Irish baron after
joining Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke, in the Norman conquest of Ireland,
which Gerald also relates. Is there any good reason to doubt this
identification?

I thought I would also post what Warren Hollister (_Monarchy, Magnates and
Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World_, p. 251) said, as it is referenced in
CP XIV, but I cannot see that it was posted before.

"No less important than this arc of castles was an encircling ring of friendly
princes bound to Henry I by Vassalage, or marriage alliances, or both. Henry,
so far as is known, holds the English record for royal bastards. William of
Malmesbury insists that he begat his twenty or more natural offspring for
reasons of policy rather than pleasure[16], and whatever the truth of this
remarkable observation, there remains the striking fact that Henry's natural
daughters were wed to princes all along the Anglo-Norman periphery - to Rotrou
count of Perche, to William Gouet lord of Montmirail (Perche), to Matthew of
Montmorency (with interests in the French Vexin), to Eustace lord of Breteuil,
to Roscelin of Beaumont-le-Vicomte (Maine), to Conan III duke of Brittany, to
Fergus earl of Galloway, and to Alexander king of Scots [17]."

"16. Malmesbury, _Gesta Regum_, II, 488."
"17. See _The Complete Peerage_ (new ed.), XI, App. pp. 112-20; and, on the
wife of Fergus earl of Galloway, G. W. S. Barrow, _Robert Bruce_ (Berkeley,
1965), p. 36, n. 2 (the evidence for this marriage is strong but not
conclusive). A proposed marriage between one of Henry's daughters and Hugh II
lord of Chāteauneuf-en-Thymerais, probably c. 1113, was blocked on grounds of
consanguinity: Ivo of Chartres, "Epistolae," _Recueil des historiens des
Gaules_, XV, 167-68. Many of these marriages occurred in connection with
specific political crises or accompanied the conclusion of peace settlements."


Given, especially after the disaster of the White Ship, that Henry I's
legitimate offspring were needed for succession, he could not readily marry
them off to lesser nobles for political reasons. However, by breeding a large
brood of children related to the king by blood, but who could not inherit, he
could freely satisfy political needs on various frontiers. That indeed
provided political motive to produce a large brood. This is what the
contemporary William of Malmesbury claimed, however remarkable that claim might
have been. The version of his _Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the
English Kings_ translated by R. A. B. Mynors (completed by R. M. Thomson and M.
Winterbottom), V. 412 (p. 745) reads,

"All his life he was completely free from fleshy lusts, indulging in the
embraces of the female sex (as I have heard from those who know) from love of
begetting children and not to gratify his passions; for he thought it beneath
his dignity to comply with extraneous gratification, unless the royal seed
could fulfil its natural purpose...."

Oderic (VI, 98-9) reads, "Possessing an abundance of wealth and luxuries, he
gave was too easily to the sin of lust; from boyhood until old age he was
sinfully enslaved by this vice, and ***had many sons and daughters by his
mistresses."***

There point here being, however, that Henry had many mistresses and many sons
and daughters, and Malmesbury at least testified that there was intent in
producing them. This argument would seem to add credence to the possibility
that he had a daughter who he married to Fergus of Galloway.

Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis, _The Royal Bastards of Medieval England_,
61, comment on Malmesbury,

"Malmesbury provides us here with a fascinating view of the royal bastard in
medieval society: not as the unfortunate by-product of a royal affair, the
regrettable misfit likely to do little more than make demands on the royal
purse, but as a child who could perform a useful role in the service of the
king, who could provide very positive benefits for his or her father. Even the
monk-historian William of Malmesbury [elsewhere, "contemporary historian
William of Malmesbury"] could see the advantages in that. And when one looks
at the way in which Henry I treated his bastards, it very rapidly becomes
obvious that he could see the advantages too."

Paul

Al Magary

unread,
Nov 16, 2003, 11:59:47 PM11/16/03
to
On behalf of the many folks on this list observing with
astonishment the perpetual, useless skirmishing among about five
members, let me thank Gordon Hale for posting the list of 19 of
Henry's kids born on the wrong side of the blanket. Maybe one
by one, experts on this list can expand, shorten, clarify, etc.
the catalogue for the benefit of humankind.

Here's my positive contribution to the otherwise discouraging
discourse of recent days. Chris Phillips, on his website, has a
link to a useful hodgepodge of med-gen info, including
selections from The Record Interpreter (Charles T. Martin,
1911). These nice lists amount to "materials toward the
medieval gazetteer" that someone was wishing for a couple of
weeks ago. The Martin items include:

Latin Names of Places in Great Britain and Ireland
Latin Names of Bishoprics in England
Latin Names of Bishoprics in Scotland
Latin Names of Bishoprics in Ireland

They may be found at
http://www.ipa.net/~magreyn/index.html#Record%20Interpreter

Pax,
Al Magary

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 12:42:26 AM11/17/03
to
>Gerald was son of Angharad, son of Nest, mother of
>Henry.

Whoops, lest it mislead anyone, Angharad is female, and was thus daughter of
Nest.

Paul

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 4:29:36 AM11/17/03
to

Cristopher Nash wrote:
> Sorry to be a pest about this, Chris, but it can be confusing. May I
> take it that when you write of >the Reynald of 1130< you don't mean
> Reynald who d. 1129/30 (acc. to DD 442 & 525), and that the latter
> remains a likely husb. of Adelisa de Lisle (as per DD loc. cit.)?


Thanks for pointing that out. I'd forgotten that Keats-Rohan made these two
Reynalds the same.

She says (p. 442):
"His widow outlived him by many years, but the accepted date of 1114 and/or
the significance of her grant of Pottern to Tewkesbury abbey for his soul
(Mon. Ang, ii. 66l RRAN ii, 1069) have to be rejected. The evidence does not
support a second Rainald and is clear that Rainald de Dunstanville was alive
in 1121 when he attended Bishop John of Bath on 30 June (Bath Cartularies,
49) and in 1129."

In he account of Adelicia de Insula (p. 525) this becomes:
"Rainald died c. 1130 and she outlived him for many years."

I don't understand the reasoning here. K-R seems almost to be saying on the
one hand that there's no evidence for a second Rainald, and on the other
that there is evidence but it must be rejected (because there's no
evidence?). It also seems to be a case where "living 1129/1130" has become
"died after 1129/30" in one place and "died c. 1130" in another. (Also I
don't know what the evidence is that Adelicia survived him by "many years".)

K-R also says that a Robert de Dunstanville who was active in the reign of
Henry I was probably Rainald's brother, and accuses Sanders of an error in
making Robert the son of (the first) Rainald.

My biggest problem with all this - apart from the evidence that Rainald he
died before 1114, which everyone previously has accepted - is the
chronology. The grandsons of the Rainald of 1130 seem to have been born
around 1150. But Adelicia - this Rainald's wife in the K-R scheme - was the
daughter of a Domesday tenant, and Robert de Dunstanville - their great
uncle in the K-R scheme - was active by 1110 at the latest, and perhaps as
early as the 1090s. I feel there's a danger of several generations being
compressed into one because of a lack of evidence in this early period.

(Incidentally, there's a confusing inconsistency in K-R's entries relating
to the sons of the Rainald of 1130. In the entry on the younger son Alan she
says that he succeeded his elder brother Robert. Similarly, the entry on
Rainald calls Alan his "eventual heir". But various other entries correctly
state that Robert died in 1167 and Alan was dead by 1156, so that Robert was
succeeded by Alan's son Walter.)

Chris Phillips


Peter Stewart

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 4:57:29 AM11/17/03
to
"Jon Meltzer" <jonNOSPA...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<cDXtb.5675$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

I suppose this was some computer program's cloddish way of recording
that Ansfride had been married - she was described as the widow of
Anskill, a knight tenant of Abingdon abbey.

This connection is presumably the (inadequate) reason for giving her
as mother of Fulk, who was a monk there. I don't know why she is also
credited as mother of Juliana: the only bastard of Henry I's who seems
to have been definitely her child was Richard of Lincoln, drowned
along with his legitimate half-brother & so many others in the White
Ship.

Rather more peculiar than the status of "Mrs" given to Ansfride is the
rank of prince/princess accorded to most of the illegitimate offsring
in the LDS list. Apparently a computer didn't generate _that_
nonsense, since it wasn't applied indiscriminately to all.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 5:16:20 AM11/17/03
to

Peter Stewart wrote:
> This connection is presumably the (inadequate) reason for giving her
[Ansfride]

> as mother of Fulk, who was a monk there. I don't know why she is also
> credited as mother of Juliana: the only bastard of Henry I's who seems
> to have been definitely her child was Richard of Lincoln, drowned
> along with his legitimate half-brother & so many others in the White
> Ship.

The connection with Fulk is a bit closer, as he (with Richard the tutor)
witnessed a gift to Abingdon by William, the son of Anskill and Ansfride, in
consideration of Ansfride having been buried there. Actually, it looks as
though this is Fulk's only apearance, and is the basis for the assumption
that he probably became a monk there or died young [CP xi App D 110].

CP [xi App D 114] says it is "not unlikely" that Juliane a daughter of
Ansfride, because it was Ansfride's son Richard who interceded for her with
the king following her husband's rebellion in 1119. CP qualifies this
"non-unlikelihood" with brackets and a "?" at the end of the appendix where
the children are grouped according to likely mothers.

Chris Phillips


Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 9:59:02 AM11/17/03
to
With reference to that suggestion that Adeliza could have remarried to
Robert Corbet, maybe I should point out a blunder I made previously, in case
anyone refers back to the discussion in the archives, and is confused by it.

Actually, I was following an error made by Eyton, who found a reference to
Adeliza as the "materna" of one Walter de Pencheni, interpreted this as
"mother", and suggested that he must have been Adeliza's son by another
marriage. But in fact as Keats-Rohan points out it means "godmother", so
this is a red herring.

Chris Phillips


Dolly Ziegler

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 12:12:46 PM11/17/03
to
Hello to the list. "What's the source?"

For the benefit of those who many not be familiar with the Family History
Library databases (www.familysearch.org>, also on microfiche, microfilm
and CD, a brief summary:

There are three major databases here: International Genealogical Index
(IGI), Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File. A fourth, the Vital
Records Index, currently has records only for Mexico and Scandinavia.
List is on left side of "search" screen.

IGI: Oldest of the databases, from late 1960s IIRC. Millions of entries,
_mainly_ from two sources: Patron submissions and controlled extractions.
It's important to know the difference. (There's a free leaflet describing
sources.)

Patron submissions are sent by individuals, mostly LDS church
members for church ordinances (christenings, sealings) to be
performed in LDS temples. (This is where the strange terminology,
"prince" etc., gets into the database.) Reliability for research
purposes: NONE.

Controlled extractions are taken from copies of original records, by
trained volunteers, and the information then re-checked. Many parish
records have been extracted for the IGI. Reliability for research
purposes: GOOD, but not perfect, and the original records may have
more information, so go to the originals.

Ancestral File: Entirely patron submissions. Now closed to new entries.
Wonderful for *clues* but awash in errors. One of my great disappointments
was finding gross errors in submissions by the Medieval Families Unit.
(Volunteers for MFU labored for years on those records, but some of their
sources were, well, wrong.) Reliability for research purposes: NONE, use
for clues only.

Pedigree Resource File: Entirely patron submissions, similar to Ancestral
File. The index is online at <www.familysearch.org>. Most Family History
Centers (branches of the Family History Library) have the CDs with full
information. Reliability for research purposes: NONE, use for clues only.

======================================

The Vital Records Indexes are another controlled-extraction effort. Only
Mexico and Scandinavia are online now (17 Nov 2003). Other VRIs are
available on CD for Australia, North America, British Isles & Western
Europe. Reliability for research purposes: GOOD, but go to the original
records.

Many Family History Centers will have these VRIs for anyone to use, free.
Or, they can be bought from the church distribution center, see the phone
number and addresses on the website. Anyone can order them -- you need not
be a member of the LDS Church -- I'm not.

The British Isles VRI, 2nd ed. (16 CDs for $20) has 12.3 million births,
christenings and marriages dating 1530 to 1906. Some of these have since
been added to the IGI. Reliability for research purposes: GOOD, but go to
the original records. (Note: that's correct, 16 CDs for $20)

I know some people on gen-med perked up when they saw "1530 to 1906" in
that paragraph. Please, click on title and READ the full-page description
of the VRI so you know what it contains -- it's partial, NOT a complete
list of christenings or marriages for those dates!

I see I failed at being brief.... Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 2:10:34 PM11/17/03
to
Richardson seems to have gone quiet and crawled back in his hole again.

Good Show....

He's beginning to realize that when he makes an abject fool of himself,
as he has here, the best thing he can do is shut up and run for the tall
grass with his tail between his legs. The alternatives are just too
painful for him.

Too Late Smart....

Deus Vult

Nathaniel Taylor

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 3:25:24 PM11/17/03
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0311171031530.4305@mail>,
d...@bcpl.net (Dolly Ziegler) wrote:

> For the benefit of those who many not be familiar with the Family History
> Library databases (www.familysearch.org>, also on microfiche, microfilm
> and CD, a brief summary:
>
> There are three major databases here: International Genealogical Index
> (IGI), Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File. A fourth, the Vital
> Records Index, currently has records only for Mexico and Scandinavia.
> List is on left side of "search" screen.
>
> IGI: Oldest of the databases, from late 1960s IIRC. Millions of entries,
> _mainly_ from two sources: Patron submissions and controlled extractions.
> It's important to know the difference. (There's a free leaflet describing
> sources.)
>
> Patron submissions are sent by individuals, mostly LDS church
> members for church ordinances (christenings, sealings) to be
> performed in LDS temples. (This is where the strange terminology,
> "prince" etc., gets into the database.) Reliability for research
> purposes: NONE.
>
> Controlled extractions are taken from copies of original records, by
> trained volunteers, and the information then re-checked. Many parish
> records have been extracted for the IGI. Reliability for research
> purposes: GOOD, but not perfect, and the original records may have
> more information, so go to the originals.
>

Re: the IGI: I have long been frustrated that there is no boolean or
two-position filter to distinguish record transcriptions from patron
submissions. I would think this would be a simple filter to
incorporate into an upgraded web-based search interface, which would
astronomically increase the utility and ease of use of the IGI as a
serious research tool. Does anyone have a pipeline to a suggestion box
with the technical supervisors of the IGIs web front end?

Of course, this is only relevant to post-Reformation vital records in
the database, so is OT for this NG ...

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 4:30:48 PM11/17/03
to
>Re: the IGI: I have long been frustrated that there is no boolean or
>two-position filter to distinguish record transcriptions from patron
>submissions.

The original computerized IGI was in DOS format, and apparently has not been
updated like the online version (so I am told).

The value of the DOS version (available, I believe, at local branch libraries,
and at the FHL, but not online), is that it allows one to search without a
given name, so that one can search by surname, or by parent without child's
name, limiting the search by country/counties/county or any range of years.

This allows one to search for the frequency of a surname in a given area or
period (i. e., Morgan in Bedfordshire 1500-1650, or even for all England and
Wales, etc., for whatever period).

One could wish the online version would have these search options as well.

A key consideration, however, is always the cost of implementation. I was told
by the director of the Genealogy Department that they are adding features as
soon as they are able, and in fact the keyword search is recently available for
the catalogue, so we can hope these other features will continue to be added at
some point.

Paul

Peter Stewart

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 4:50:18 PM11/17/03
to
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<bpa769$cfc$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

In both cases these are the sort of connections in personal affairs
that can be found between a king's (or other man's) bastards who are
known _not_ to have had the same mother. If this kind of cloudy
speculation is all that can be made out, it is be worth stating in a
work like CP & may even help with other evidence found later - but,
beyond noting, it doesn't deserve to be reflected in genealogical
databases.

Peter Stewart

Hal Bradley

unread,
Nov 17, 2003, 7:04:30 PM11/17/03
to
Weis' "Ancestral Roots" (7th ed.), 247-23 indicates that the wife of Dolfin
fitz Uchtred was Alice, daughter of Walcher, Bishop of Durham citing CP
IX:494 and NEHGR 106:190. NEHGR provides no info regarding the identity of
Alice, but does mention the grant of Staindrop to Dolfin.

I do not have CP at hand, but IIRC, it mentions the grant of Staindrop,
containing Raby, to Dolfin from the Prior of Durham. If the inference is
that Alice was the daughter of the Bishop of Durham, there seems to be a
problem with the chronology.

NEHGR indicates that Dolfin was born c. 1100-1110 and d. c. 1136. It would
seem reasonable that his wife was approximately the same age if not younger.
Yet Walcher, Bishop of Durham, was killed circa 1081 at Gateshead. If Alice
was the daughter of a Bishop of Durham, Ranulf Flambard or Geoffrey Rufus
would seem to be a better fit chronologically. It is known that Ranulf had
at least two sons, at least according to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulf_Flambard

Was there another Walcher? Thank you for any help on the identity of Alice.

Hal Bradley

Chris Phillips

unread,
Nov 18, 2003, 3:27:08 AM11/18/03
to
Hal Bradley wrote:
> Weis' "Ancestral Roots" (7th ed.), 247-23 indicates that the wife of
Dolfin
> fitz Uchtred was Alice, daughter of Walcher, Bishop of Durham citing CP
> IX:494 and NEHGR 106:190. NEHGR provides no info regarding the identity of
> Alice, but does mention the grant of Staindrop to Dolfin.
>
> I do not have CP at hand, but IIRC, it mentions the grant of Staindrop,
> containing Raby, to Dolfin from the Prior of Durham. If the inference is
> that Alice was the daughter of the Bishop of Durham, there seems to be a
> problem with the chronology.
>
> NEHGR indicates that Dolfin was born c. 1100-1110 and d. c. 1136. It would
> seem reasonable that his wife was approximately the same age if not
younger.
> Yet Walcher, Bishop of Durham, was killed circa 1081 at Gateshead. If
Alice
> was the daughter of a Bishop of Durham, Ranulf Flambard or Geoffrey Rufus
> would seem to be a better fit chronologically.
[snip]


As far as I can see, CP doesn't mention Alice on that page either.

Note a includes this:
"His [Robert Fitzmaldred's] father was s. of Dolfin, s. of Uchtred, which
Dolfin in 1131 had a grant
of Staindrop and Staindropshire, of which Raby is a township, from the Prior
of Durham, when he became the Prior's liege man, saving his faith to the
Kings of England and Scotland and the Bishop of Durham (Round, op. cit.
[?Feudal England], p. 489; Feodar. Priorat. Dunelm., Surtees Soc., passim)."

Chris Phillips

Alex Maxwell Findlater

unread,
Nov 18, 2003, 7:01:21 AM11/18/03
to
A side-light on this period is "de obsessione Dunelmi", which is
believed to be by Simeon of Durham. It is published in translation by
Univ of York, Borthwick Papers No 82, by Christopher J Morris.

Six vills were given by Bishop Ealdun to earl Uchtred, with his
daughter Ecgfrida, to be held of the Diocese of Durham. A complex
family tree of six generations is noted, including Dolfin fitzUchtred,
who is however not a major player.

Hal Bradley

unread,
Nov 18, 2003, 10:09:43 AM11/18/03
to

Thanks Chris for supplying the note from CP.

I wonder on what Weis based this identification? The citations do not
support the claim; nor does the chronology.

Hal Bradley

Tom Haws

unread,
Nov 18, 2003, 11:02:33 AM11/18/03
to
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote in message news:<20031117163048...@mb-m02.aol.com>...

> I was told
> by the director of the Genealogy Department that they are adding features as
> soon as they are able, and in fact the keyword search is recently available for
> the catalogue, so we can hope these other features will continue to be added at
> some point.

Take note of this direction Family History Department is taking.

I have a hunch the new system will have a method of linking duplicate
individuals without actually merging them. In this way, the 8
Gilbreth Haws records in the Ancestral File may be attached to one
another so that they all share the same ancestry and posterity. If
there are 8 Kato Haws records, all of them will be married to the 6
Maxine Cooper records. And all 8 Kato Haws records will be the son of
the 2 David Moses Haws records and the 6 Glenna Hatch records.

Modern search technology and computer power will probably be used to
correlate genealogies in the Pedigree resource file without actually
merging the information.

This development, if I hunch correctly, will preserve research purity
while at the same time advancing the concept of a world family tree.

Tom Haws
Gilbert, Arizona

Ivor West

unread,
Nov 18, 2003, 1:39:51 PM11/18/03
to

"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bp8r84$td7$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

Actually, I was merely retailing John Benson's view on the fostering
possibility of Earl Reginald. Since then, I have been more inclined
to another twist which would require two royal bastard Reginalds.

Assuming Chris Phillips' estimated date of 1114 for the death of
Reginald (I) deDunstanville, Adeliza (de l'Isle) de Dunstanville, as a
widow of a tenant in capite, would have become a King's Widow in the
gift of Henry I. Perhaps Henry kept his gift close enough and long
enough to enable him to father a son on Adeliza, another Reginald,
who would take his toponymic, de Dunstanville, from Adeliza's married
name. Such a supposed Reginald would conform with Robert de Torigny's
statement in c1140 that Reginald, the king's son, was "adhuc juvenes".
This can hardly relate to Reginald, the king's son, who became earl of
Cornwall, as he was coming into his comital status around that time
and was probably coeval with Robert the Consul (and probably with that
other Reginald, (II) de Dunstanville, of the direct line), i.e., born
c1100. A bastard Reginald fathered by Henry on the widow of Reginald
(I), on the other hand, might have been born c1120 and so "adhuc
juvenes" in c1140. If this Reginald died s.p. in the civil war, he
could perhaps have provided the Dunstanville link and also the conduit
for certain de l'Isle lands passing to Earl Reginald.

After the death of Reginald (I), Adeliza would presumably have been
assigned her de l'Isle dower lands of Combe, Colerne and Wylye but, as
a King's Widow, Henry could have instructed her to pass these lands on
to their supposed child, Reginald, as his casamento. Following their
son's possible early death, she might also have been further
instructed to pass the lands on to Reginald's half- brother, Reginald,
the shortly to become Earl of Cornwall. After Earl Reginald's own
death, these lands reverted to the heir of the legitimate Dunstanville
(de l'Isle) line, Walter de Dunstanville. Although the putative
Reginald would have been the half-brother of Earl Reginald and of
Reginald (II) de Dunstanville, the latter two would have been
unrelated but, by virtue of the earl holding the de l'Isle dower
lands, he became closely associated with the Dunstanvilles and
possibly conflated with the supposed other bastard Reginald. Earl
Reginald's own supposed daughter, Ursula, who has been said to have
married Walter de Dunstanville, would seem to have been an invention
to account for the passing of the de l'Isle lands back to
Dunstanville.

By this reckoning then, Henry I would have had two bastard Reginalds,
Earl Reginald and a half-brother with whom he was sometimes confused,
Reginald "de Dunstanville", who was also the half-brother of Reginald
(II) de Dunstanville proper. Gundred could then, as the full sister of
either Reginald "de Dunstanville", have been a royal bastard or, as a
full sister of Reginald (II), a legitimate Dunstanville, without Earl
Reginald entering into the equation.

The introduction of this other Reginald, of course, if true, would
obviate Benson's suggestion that the guardianship of Earl Reginald
might provide the Dunstanville link.


Ivor West


Gordon Johnson

unread,
Nov 19, 2003, 6:12:11 AM11/19/03
to

** For Scotland, there is a separate, single, CD called "Scottish
Church Records", which is entirely the controlled extractions from
Church of Scotland OPRs, complete.
While this is matched by the online index on the Scotlandspeople site,
the CD is like the IGI CDs, fully searchable, and a hell of a lot more
accurate than the IGI.
Unfortunately, the Registrar general has copyright, and would only
allow the LDS to produce CDs for use at their family history centres,
and NOT available for sale. Pity, as I don't think it would really
affect use of their online facility, and I am 104 miles from the
nearest LDS centre.
Gordon.

KinHelp - Scottish Historical & Genealogical Services
Website: <www.kinhelp.co.uk>
Pre-1700 is our speciality.

Cleland, Dale C LTC CGSC CAS3

unread,
Nov 19, 2003, 1:36:56 PM11/19/03
to
Has the MFU's work, sources, documentation, etc been discussed in the past?
If so, can someone direct me to the right month/year in the archive?

Thanks in advance. I'll go back to lurking.

Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: Dolly Ziegler [mailto:d...@bcpl.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:13 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Family History Library databases: sources, reliability

<lots snipped out>

Ancestral File: Entirely patron submissions. Now closed to new entries.
Wonderful for *clues* but awash in errors. One of my great disappointments
was finding gross errors in submissions by the Medieval Families Unit.
(Volunteers for MFU labored for years on those records, but some of their
sources were, well, wrong.) Reliability for research purposes: NONE, use
for clues only.

<lots more snipped out>

Reedpcgen

unread,
Nov 19, 2003, 4:47:09 PM11/19/03