FitzRichards
Wanda Thacker
I have been looking for sources on the various FitzRichards, De Vernon
and De Clare, over the last few days. I found a website for the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy and they had a lot of information on
the 2 separate families.
I discovered that it really doesn't
matter if the De Vernon line can be traced all the way back to the
Norman Dukes. Because on the female side, it DOES go back to that line.
Another good resource for reference is GOOGLE Books.
Between the two, I have sorta straightened out the mess in my head.
1. Hughes De Vernon
2. Guillaume De Vernon-----------------Emma FitzOsbern (this line has ties to the Dukes)
3. Richard De Redvers De Vernon--------Adelise De Peverel
4. Baldwin De Vernon-------------------------Lucy De Clare
If you go backwards from Lucy De Clare you end up there anyway.
7. Lucy De Clare-------Baldwin De Vernon
6. Richard FitzGilbert De Clare---Agnes
5. Gilbert FitzRichard De Clare-----Adeliza De Clermont
4. Richard De Brionne ---------Rohese Gifford
3. Gilbert De Brionne
2. Geoffrey De Brionne
1. RICHARD I DUKE OF NORMANDY
I'm
open to civil disagreements, since I asked for help in the first
place. But I have been looking for sources instead of just copying
genealogies off of Ancestry.com
The bad thing is that I have a file of over 7500 people of Noble or Royal lineage to verify, now.
I suspect that one of my Grandchildren will have to finish the job. LOL
Wanda Thacker
Use what talents you possess; the woods would be verysilent if no birds sang except those that sang best.
- Henry Van Dyke, 1852 - 1933
Birds sing after a storm; why shouldn't people feel asfree to delight in whatever sunlight remains to them?
- Rose FitzgeraldKennedy, 1890 - 1995
Be as a bird perched on a frail branch that she feelsbending beneath her, still she sings away all the same,knowing she has wings.
- Victor Hugo, 1802 - 1885
My Scrap Journaling Blog: http://lascorpia64.wordpress.com/ Check it out for journaling prompts RECENTLY UPDATED, A LOT OF QUOTES
MY LAYOUT BLOG http://introspectivescrapping.blogspot.com/
http://wandasscrappingfreebies.blogspot.com/
POLITICAL OPINIONShttp://www.myspace.com/politicallyincorrectrants
Peter Stewart
> I have been looking for sources on the various FitzRichards, De Vernon
> and De Clare, over the last few days. I found a website for the
> Foundation for Medieval Genealogy and they had a lot of information on
> the 2 separate families.
>
> I discovered that it really doesn't
> matter if the De Vernon line can be traced all the way back to the
> Norman Dukes. Because on the female side, it DOES go back to that line.
>
> Another good resource for reference is GOOGLE Books.
>
> Between the two, I have sorta straightened out the mess in my head.
>
> 1. Hughes De Vernon
>
> 2. Guillaume De Vernon-----------------Emma FitzOsbern (this line has ties to the Dukes)
>
> 3. Richard De Redvers De Vernon--------Adelise De Peverel
>
> 4. Baldwin De Vernon-------------------------Lucy De Clare
>
> If you go backwards from Lucy De Clare you end up there anyway.
>
> 7. Lucy De Clare-------Baldwin De Vernon
>
> 6. Richard FitzGilbert De Clare---Agnes
This parentage for Lucy is conjectural, however attractive & plausible
the connection seems, so that the statement "on the female side, it
DOES go back to that line" cannot be so definite.
Peter Stewart
taf
> Between the two, I have sorta straightened out the mess in my head.
>
> 1. Hughes De Vernon
>
> 2. Guillaume De Vernon-----------------Emma FitzOsbern (this line has ties to the Dukes)
>
> 3. Richard De Redvers De Vernon--------Adelise De Peverel
The early generations of these Vernons are often confused and always
confusing. This reconstruction derives from the following string of
argument:
Richard was called 'nepos' of William Fitz Osbern.
The term 'nepos' could mean nephew.
Richard had a brother Hugh.
There was (thought to be) a Hugh whose father was William.
There was a William who married Emma.
Thus Richard was brother of Hugh, son of William and Emma, sister of
William fitz Osbern, and hence Emma filia Osbern.
William de Vernon was son of Hugh.
There was several problems, however. For starters, that Hugh was
father of William, and that he was son of William, are alternative
interpretations of the same document yet this reconstruction combines
both. There are further problems. Nepos could also mean grandson
(known not to be the case) or simply a generic younger male kinsman.
Given that it is known that William Fitz Osbern was grandnephew of
Gunnora, Duchess of Normandy, and two de Redvers brothers are
specifically named as (generic) nephews of Gunnora, there need not
have been a more immediate relationship between the two. Further, (as
I alluded to above) the William who married Emma was son of a Hugh
(distinct from Richard's brother of the same name), not father of
Hugh. Thus there is no reason to make Richard the son of William and
Emma, and no reason to make Emma sister if William Fitz Osbern.
It has been hypothesized that Richard was son of a Baldwin, nepos of
William Fitz Osbern, but even that is an educated guess.
taf
Wanda Thacker
----- Original Message ----
From: "WJho...@aol.com" <WJho...@aol.com>
To: wand...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:30:03 AM
Subject: Re: FitzRichards
In a message dated 3/27/07 9:14:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wand...@yahoo.com writes:
<< file of over 7500 people of Noble or Royal lineage >>
Beginner.
I have about 50 thousand ;)
Cool!!! Maybe, you will be able to help me some, while I go back through my files.
I have no idea how many people I would have if I hadn't separated out the royal and noble ones
from everybody else. Plus, I have a tangled up yarn ball situation where either me or my husband
descend from the same person two or three times. We were married for about 18 years
before I found out we were 5th cousins. Not quite Jerry Springer material, but still
surprising, considering we grew up 300 miles apart.
Wanda Thacker
Wanda Thacker
but, conjecture is part of genealogy anyway, in the absence of DNA. The best you can do is find sources and state what they were and why you trust them and then someone will come along and refute them later anyway. I'm o.k. with, "not definite".
Wanda Thacker
"Baldwin earl of Exeter" confirmed the donations to the abbey of Sainte-Marie, Montebourg by "his father Richard de Reveriis" by charter dated to [1142/55][1239]. Earl of Devon 1141.
SOURCE: FOUNDATION FOR MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY
MEDIEVAL LANDS PROJECT
CHARLES CAWLEY
BALDWIN de Reviers, son of RICHARD Seigneur de Reviers & his wife Adelise Peverel (-4 Jun 1155, bur Quarr Abbey). He revolted against King Stephen in 1136, was expelled from the Isle of Wight and driven into exile with his wife and children, taking refuge at the court of the Comte d'Anjou. He was created Earl of Devon by Empress Matilda in [1141]. Robert of Torigny records the death in 1155 of "Balduinus de Redviers"[99].
m firstly ADELISA --- (-bur Quarr Abbey). As "Adelicia", she is named as Earl Baldwin's wife in the Chronicle of Ford[100].
m secondly LUCY de Clare, daughter of [RICHARD FitzGilbert de Clare & his wife Agnes of Chester] (-after 1155). She made a grant to Stoke-by-Clare priory for the souls of her husband Earl Baldwin and of Earl Gilbert [de Clare Earl of Hertford], assumed to be her brother
Peter Stewart
"Wanda Thacker" <wand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.83.11751326...@rootsweb.com...
> Here is what I found at the FMG site, and it seems
> that their sources were at least plausible.
"Seems" on what basis?
> but, conjecture is part of genealogy anyway, in the
> absence of DNA. The best you can do is find sources
> and state what they were and why you trust them and
> then someone will come along and refute them later
> anyway. I'm o.k. with, "not definite".
But you haven't stated "why you trust them", so far you have only overstated
what may be speculated from them.
Do you have an idea of how many women like Lucy paid "pro anima" respects to
great magnates who were neither their husbands not their brothers? How do
you assess the likelihood of a relationship for Lucy as high, rather than
merely notable or possible, given what you read on the FMG website?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:PuFOh.3310$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
It appears that Wanda doesn't intend to respond further, and I can't find
that the matter has been discussed before on SGM apart from a brief exchange
between Paul Reed and Douglas Richardson in August 2003 (subject "C. P.
Addition: Lucy, wife of Gilbert de Clare, 1st Earl of Hertford, and Baldwin
de Redvers, 1st Earl of Devon").
The connection that Wanda found in the Medieval Lands database on the FMG
website, making Countess Lucy of Devon a sister of Gilbert de Clare, was
taken from Katherine Keats-Rohan, _Domesday Descendants_ (2002) p. 246,
stating:
"On the basis of an endorsement of her only known charter, a grant to
Stoke-by-Clare priory for the souls of Earl Baldwin (her husband) and Earl
Gilbert, she has been identified as the wife of Gilbert, earl of Hertford,
though there is no other evidence that he ever married (Comp. Peer. vi,
499). The endorsement reads: 'Carta de comitissa de Clara'. It is obvious
from the beneficiary and from the charter text that Lucy was a countess -
the widow of Earl Baldwin - and that she was a member of the de Clare
family, a fact noted acceptably and comprehensibly by a scribe of a Clare
foundation when he endorsed the charter. Her name strongly suggests as
affiliation with Ranulf I of Chester and his wife the Coutness Lucy. She
should be identified as a daughter of Richard fitz Gilbert and Adelisa of
Chester, daughter of Ranulf and Lucy, and hence sister, NOT wife, of Earl
Gilbert of Hertford, who died 1152/3. Lucy's charter was doubtless given
shortly after the death of her husband in 1155, two or three years after the
death of her brother who was buried at Stoke-by-Clare priory. She must have
died soon afterwards as there is no further record of her."
I don't agree with this at all, and in my view Douglas Richardson's subject
line above, following Robert Bearman in his edition of the Redvers family
charters, is a more plausible reading of the meagre evidence than Dr
Keats-Rohan's assertions.
First, it is of little consequence if there is no other evidence, apart from
the possible indication of one charter, that Earl Gilbert ever married - we
have no more than this for many marriages of his rank and time, and in his
case there is no direct evidence or statement that he was never married. The
fact that CP reports this as said for lack of evidence to the contrary,
while not even mentioning the Stoke priory charter, only suggests that this
document was unknown to the writer who ought to have considered it if known.
Secondly, the peripheral conclusions in DD are not supportable: to say that
Lucy "must" have died soon after this record because there isn't another is
scarcely more logical than to say she "must" have been a girl bride in the
early 1150s because there is no other record of her beforehad (and for that
matter, since Earl Gilbert's parents were most probably both born before
1100 this obverse pointless speculation would make it less likely that Lucy
was his sister). Some countesses of the 12th century didn't leave much of a
mark as widows, and she could have survived for years after Baldwin's death
for all we know. Also, her name _might_ suggest an affiliation with the more
famous Countess Lucy, but not particularly with that lady's third husband
Earl Ranulf of Chester - she had offspring by two other men as well as by
him. It seems to me that the name Lucy could be misleading, and just a
co-incidence as far as we can tell: Earl Baldwin's brother William de Vernon
was also married to a woman named Lucy, daughter of William de Tancarville,
so that this name alone is hardly compelling evidence for a specific
relationship.
Thirdly, the beneficiary and the charter text do not make it "obvious" that
Countess Lucy of Devon belonged to the Clare family, as claimed, while the
endorsement clearly enough suggests that the scribe at Stoke - who should
have known - thought she did not. The gift being to Stoke priory makes it
obvious only that Lucy had a connection to this house, but whether by birth
or marriage into the founding family cannot be discerned. Earl Gilbert's
married sister or remarried widow might equally have made a donation
remembering him a few years after his death. The text doesn't help much: it
is written in the third person, so is only a paraphrase of Lucy's actual
charter, and the relevant passage is as follows: "pro anima comitis
Baldewini et comitis Gilberti et omnium antecessorum suorum et pro seipsa et
omnibus amicis suis" (for the soul of Earl Baldwin and of Earl Gilbert and
of all their predecessors and for herself and all her loved ones) [see
_Stoke by Clare Cartulary, BL Cotton Appx. xxi_, edited by Christopher
Harper-Bill & Richard Mortimer (1982-84) part 1 p. 49 no. 69]. There is
nothing here to imply a different relationship to Gilbert from that to
Baldwin, whom we know to have been Lucy's husband.
It would be much less usual, I think, for a woman to refer to her brother in
this way than to a former husband. Gilbert's predecessors would have been
his sister's blood relatives, and in this event some language to distinguish
between them and her in-laws who were Baldwin's predecessors might be
expected. We don't know, of course, if the original charter contained more
detail, perhaps with more specific possessive pronouns making the meaning
plainer.
However, the endorsement in itself could not be plainer: Lucy if a sister of
Earl Gilbert would not have used "de Clara" as a surname, either before or
after marriage, and no scribe at Stoke would have called a daugher of the
family who was not an heiress "countess of Clare" anyway. Several other
Stoke priory charters of countesses of Clare with similar endorsments make
it perfectly clear that Lucy was supposed to have been the wife of an earl
of Clare, presumably Gilbert. Compare, for instance, op. cit. p. 47 no. 65,
charter of Countess Amice, wife of Gilbert's nephew Richard de Clare, earl
of Hertford, on folio 31r of the cartulary endorsed "Carta comitisse de
Clara"; this is identical to the endorsement of Lucy's charter on folio 32r
(that by the way correctly reads "Carta comitisse de Clara...", not "de
comitissa de Clara" as misquoted in DD). If the scribe oddly thought that a
sister of Gilbert could be meaningfully called "comitissa de Clara" he might
just as well have called Amice "comitissa de Gloucestria" after her own
family's earldom.
Peter Stewart