FitzNeel and St. Sauveur [long]
Reedpcgen
(1) He cites many documents which prove that Richard Fitz Nigel was brother of
William the COnstable. That is not in question.
(2) He cites no document which shows that Richard was mentioned as a St.
Sauveur, or in French records; only as brother of William in Chester. So his
connection into the family hinges on William's.
(3) Statham cites many documents which list the two WIlliam St. Sauveurs, sons
of Nigel. But that was never in doubt. Keats-Rohan verifies this, as does
Round.
(4) Statham cites many documents pertaining to William FitzNigel, the constable
of Chester, in Cheshire. This was never in doubt either, and is well attested.
(5) There is no Cheshire document that calls WIlliam FitzNigel, the constable,
a St. Saveur. There is no French document that calls William de St. Sauveur
constable of Chester.
(6) There is no factual document that shows that Nigel Vct. of St. Sauveur,
served as constable of Chester, leaving his Frnch lands to live in a wasted
area of England [!]. Remember that Cheshire was laid waste by the Conqueror.
If you read through Domesday, you quickly discover that few of the manors were
worth anything. It had been on the frontier, was the stronghold of Mercia and
on the Welsh frontier. The land was prety much worthless for the most part.
Chief tenants received far more revenues from manors they held in other
counties (such as the Massey holdings in Hampshire and Wiltshire), or those who
held of Earl Hugh in Lincoln or Yorkshire, than they did from comparable
Cheshire manors. And Earl Hugh himself was not a wealthy man, in comparison.
I posted some facts about revenues taken from Sydney Painter in a post about
the Lacy family last January (check dejanews). So why on earth would someone
like vct. Nigel leave his beautiful and comfortable region in France to live in
the baren waste that was much of Cheshire to serve under Hugh d'Avranches?
(7) Tait discusses the genealogical account to which you refer [Dugdale's
Monasticon Anglianum vi. 315 and Ormerod i, 689-90]. Perhaps you will feel
more comportable believing him, rather than me. He states that "Neel(Latinized
Nigellus" "seems to be entirely absent from contemporary record." The account
of the predecessors of those who made the donations for the foundations of the
abbeys, etc., is referred to as the priory _Progenies_. The account of the
father of Wililam FitzNigel was that Neel "is said to have come to England with
earl Hugh of Chester accompanied by five brothers: Hudardus, Edwardus,
Wolmerus, Horswinus and Wolftatus." The earl made Nigel constable and
established him at Halton. Then Tait emphasizes:
"The untrustworthiness of these monastic pedigrees in their early steps is
notrious and though Hudard, more correctly Odard, was a historical person, a
knight of the constable andncestor of the Dutton family, there is no evidence
that he was uncle of William FitzNigel and THE OTHER NAMES in themselves REFUTE
THE STORY for they are English not Norman and apparently imaginary [emphasis
mine]."
"It is noteworthy that no attempt is made in the _Progenies_ to identify the
Norman family of Nigel. It was not until the sixteenth century that
unscrupulous heralds linked him up with the vicomtes of the Cotentin whose seat
was at Sait-Sauveur near Valognes.... Nigel is there said to have been son of
Ivo, viscount of Cotentin, by a sister of a (misnamed) count of Brittany....
[T]here was no vicomte of the COtentin names Ivo in the eleventh century, there
were actually two Neels, the younger of whom held the office from 1042 to 1092.
He was, of course, hailed as the father of William fitzNigel and as the first
baron of Halton and constable of Chester. But as the great French scholar,
Leopold Delisle, pointed out in 1867, there is no evidence, other than Wace's
"Romman de Rou" and a list of the followers of the Conqueror drawn up to exalt
the Mohuns of Dunster Castle, that Nigel the vicomte took part in the Conquest
of England. Had he been the first baron of Halton and constable of Chester, as
the Cheshire historians have assumed, he would have held these positions in
1086 when DOmesday Book was drawn up, for he lived six years longer, but
WIlliam fitzNigel held both at that date."
(8) There were many Nigels in the Domesday book (in fact it is a fairly common
name in ENgland after the Norman Conquest), but there os no evidence any of
them was the father of WIlliam or Richard FitzNigel or Nigel de St. Sauveur. I
have not yet, however, analyzed the holdings of the various Nigels to see if
they were eventually held by William or Richard FitzNigel, but if so, it would
be further refutation of the story. If Nigel, father of the Constable, was
still alive in 1086, he should have been constable too. William FitzNigel is
the first Constable of Chester of whom there is any evidence and was one of the
two main landholders in Cheshire at Domesday (after Earl Hugh and Robert of
Rhudlan).
(9) So the only evidence that WIlliam FitzNigel was son of Nigel de St. Sauveur
was that there were WIlliams and Nigels in bother families, or, "the name's the
same game." This is very flimsy evidence indeed, considering the following:
(10) The document presented by Round shoudls that Nigel, vct. de St. Sauveur,
had two sons named William, three daughters, and two other sons, but no Richard
is mentioned. So this would actually be evidence that Richard did not belong
to this family. So since he was definitely William FitzNigel of Chester's
brother, this means he does not fit there either. One could decide that Richar
must be illegitimate to justify that he was not mentioned, but in many cases
illegitimate sons went into orders, and beside, one has to make this up to
FORCE the connection. There is no evidence or indication of it.
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong as soon as anything to the contrart surfaces,
but until then, it seems a pretty solid case. I await to see what Keats-Rohan
says. She may have solved the problem, but her article about the descendants
of Bilihildis is not out yet and COEL is not set for release until November or
later. Have I messed up anywhere?
pcr
StNeel
>(6) There is no factual document that shows that Nigel Vct. of St. Sauveur,
>served as constable of Chester, leaving his Frnch lands to live in a wasted
>area of England [!]. Remember that Cheshire was laid waste by the Conqueror.
>
>If you read through Domesday, you quickly discover that few of the manors
>were
>worth anything.
>If Nigel, father of the Constable, was
>still alive in 1086, he should have been constable too.
You point out Wace as stating the Nigel went to Hasting but then say no Nigel
shows up in the DB and there is no factual doc showing Nigel in England etc. I
submit Wace and also Monasticon in my prior reply which is about Nigel from
Rev Statham. So now we have Tait, Delise, Wace, Monasticon. I wish to point
also to the Falaise Roll by Crispin 1939.
There is another old chronicle (sorry - have to look it up) which states about
the five brothers (thanks for the names - the old chronicle didn't name them if
I remembr correctly) but they are not well defined and may be error etc. (Those
are a odd set of names for a family named Richard, Nigel, Roger, & Wm etc. -
but thats another topic) Yet to be defined but I feel probably a mix up in the
1100s etc. That point is debatable of course.
Yes Nigel stayed in Normandy (the older- died 1092 and Geoffrey de Mowbray,
Bish of Coutance attended his funeral 'as kin' and Nigel the older record
exists appearently at Mont St Micheal where he died as a monk) -this is Nigel
the VC at the battle of Val-de Dunes. His son, Nigel (the younger) went to
Hastings - he died c1072 at bat of Cardiff (with a Montgomery and others) so is
not in DB. His son Wm is in DB and is Constable etc. But Nigel the younger (d
1072) was Constable too (see my prior reply this thread).
There are at least 5 Nigels in this family. There are also lots of Nigels in
the DB. If I remember (please be kind) all are called this or that, that is
Nigel 'the XXX" except one. He is call just Nigel - owns considerable lands in
Norfolk and elsewhere. I 'think' he is Nigel the older. My study was interupted
so TBD but others can look this up also.
>(5) There is no Cheshire document that calls WIlliam FitzNigel, the
>constable,
>a St. Saveur. There is no French document that calls William de St. Sauveur
>William de St. Sauveur constable of Chester.
Of Course - surnames weren't invented yet. One has to follow the land, titles,
siblings etc. After Nigel the older died in 1092, Wm the constable was not his
heir but went to Nigel, Nigel's oldest son (of course- William was #3 Richard
FitzNigel was #10) I think thats Nigel V in my counting etc. That Nigel was
never in England either as far as I know (need to look up this up). It is
explained in Rev Statham with references.
I have printed your posting & will study it more closely-
Keep up the good work as this all is a tangle which links to many others (I
think of the LACY block much discussed here let alone MOWBRAY- I won't even
mention PERCY since that really is a tangle)
StNeel
Reedpcgen
external evidence (remember that it had the fictitious brothers who bore
Saxon/English names, rather than Norman names, yet were not named in Domesday).
The Monasticon was the only thing that connected the two. And anyway, so what
if Nigel, vct. of St. Sauveur fought at Hastings? That doesn't mean he or his
son settled in Chehsire and was constable, does it?
O. K. , let's approach it from the oposite reasoning. Even if we ASSUMED
William FitzNigel was son of a Nigel, who was constable of Cheshire, as the
Monasticon fable relates, WHAT EVIDENCE is there that he was Nigel vct. de St.
Sauveur? We know that William's brother was named Richard, but there was no
Richard among the children of vct. Nigel. [!]
So even if we assume Wace is correct, or the Monasticon is correct, they STILL
don't connect to each other.
Also, you should know that the Falaise Roll by Crispin has been discussed in
this group a number of times, and is pretty much without foundation. It does
have a pretty map, however, which has been copied by many others (often without
credit given).
You say the older Nigel, vct., stayed in Normandy and died in 1092. You state
it was his son, Nigel, who came to England, was constable of Chester, and died
about 1072, and was father of William FitzNigel. Statham (p. 7), says that the
Nigel who died in 1092 had been banished and his estates escheated (forfeited)
to the duke. Statham goes on to say that he entered the Abbey of Mount S,
Michael as a monk ,presumably dying in monastic orders.
Statham says (pp. 8-10) that Nigel who married Adela and was mother of the two
Williams, Girard, Roger, Emma, Bilelde and Mahildis, was lord of St. Saviour
[sic], constable of Chester, lord of Salford, and died 1072-3, fighting the
Welsh in England, where he spent his time[!]. Keats-Rohan calls him Nigel II
and implies that he was vct. de Saint-Sauveur [but says nothing about England].
So again, why would he leave France to be a minor lord in a wasted county like
Chester? What is the logic in that? And in the account Statham gives of the
Norman lords who went over, "Viscount Nigel" is given as fighting with his own
corpse [body of men], not under Richard d'Avranches, who became overlord of
Cheshire. And though Wace says vct. Nigel fought, he does NOT state that Nigel
settled in England.
Where Statham really trips up is when he says "in the survey [Domesday] of the
territory between Ribble and Mersey a Nigel is described as holding, under
Roger of Poitou, three hides and half a carucate in Salford.... Mons. Delisel
says that Nigel's name does not appear in Domesday (D. i. 21); but in this he
is clearly [?!] wrong." So Statham says Delisle is 'clearly' wrong, and that
Nigel, vct. de St. Sauveur, was the Domesday lord of Salford, even though he
died 1072-3. [!] Statham also states, "Although viscount of the Cotentin,
Nigel could very seldom have exercised his office in person after 1066, for he
seems to have been continuously engaged in military operations against the
Welsh [!]. Indeed there is no doubt [!] that he met his end fighting those
fierece opponents."
BUT STATHAM CITES NO EVIDENCE to show that vct. Nigel de St. Sauveur was ever
fighting the Welsh [ remember "Indeed there is no doubt...."?] !
So how des he determine vct. Nigel's death as about 1072-3? He says that the
document which named his wife, four sons and three daughers (Round, Calendar of
Documents Preserved in France, no. 1166), was dated about 1060 (so why is this
not the Nigel who became the monk and died in 1092, as Tait says?). Statham
then says that Nigel FitzNigel confirmed the donation mentioned in the charter
that names the children, and dates it to about 1073 (Round, no. 1174). Nothing
is said about fighting Welsh or dying in battle in England.
And so how does a son named Eudo get into the family? Statham cites that
Delisle, who states that "Eudo the viscount greatly affected his abbey of S.
Saviour and made it quit and free as Nigel his brother made it." Statham takes
this to mean that Eudo succeeded as vct. because his brother died without
issue. Is it possible that Eudo was actually brother of the elder Nigel, and
succeeded after the estate escheated to the Duke? [This is not vital to our
point, however. ]
The main point is, again, there is no evidence that Nigel de St. Sauveur died
in England (and certainly none that he did it fighting the Welsh on a regular
basis, and was SO busy doing so that he had no time to act as vicomte of St.
Sauveur in Normandy<G>, or that he was constable and marshall of Chester). And
Statham is wrong is saying that he was alive and named in Domesday as lord of
Salford [!]. Statham strings a lot of statements together and then goes on as
if they were facts [it's getting as bad as Zuckerman's thesis]. They are not.
Look at them individually and see if there is evidence that they are
inseperable. AGAIN, WHAT OF RICHARD FITZNIGEL, and his not being named in
French records?
Finally, [since you are relying on Statham as a credible source] he says (pp.
15-16) that Richard FitzNigel "married Leticia, the daughter of Robert fitz
Hugh, the Domesday owner of the barony of Malpas, who is sometimes spoken of as
a bastard son of the earl of Chester. As earl Hugh was little more than a
stripling at the Conquest, it does not seem possible that he should have had a
son old enough in 1086 to hold the position which Robert fitz Hugh undoubtedly
had as a mighty warrior (O. V.) It is much more likely that he was son of Hugh
de Vernon (C. F. D. [Round] 82, 424), whose other sons, as I believe, Richard
and Walter, had considerable holdings in Cheshire in 1086 (D. B.)." Statham
makes one good point, and one bad point here. As _The Complete Peerage_ states
(3:164-5), Hugh d'Avranches "would have been but 19 years old" "at the utmost"
in 1066. His son Richard was born about 1094, being aged seven at his father's
death. So IF HUGH was born about 1047 or later, it is really doubtful that
Robert FitzHugh was his illegitimate son. And why was Robert FitzHugh never
styled "FitzCount" as the husband of William FitzNigel's widow was
[illegitimate sons of the king were likewise styled FitzRoy]? The weakness in
Statham's statement is that if Robert were a son of Hugh de Vernon, why was he
not also styled "de Vernon" as Richard and Walter were, or why were they not
styled "FitzHugh" as Robert was? Simple, but profound points.
pcr
[sorry for the length of this, everyone, but how else do I make these points so
plain they cannot be overlooked?]
StNeel
-Statham never says Nigel' the Vct' fought or lived in England. He says Nigel
the Vct had a son Nigel who fought at Hastings but this son died before his
daddy hence never was the Vct. Wace says so. (yes I know some don't believe him
either)
- Hugh at 19 is not too young to fight at Hastings - Wm the Conquer fought
Val-de-Dunes at age 19 as did Nigel who was 19 also in 1047. I agree tho that
Hugh the Earl was not at Hastings from my data etc.
- Robert FHugh could of been almost 30 by 1086. Hugh b say c 1047 and
(assumption true, but not unbelievable) has illegit son at say 15 (sowing oats
etc) then Robert FHugh could be b c 1062-67 then by 1086 Robert could have been
of prime 'warrior' age. Even today armies draft at 18 or so. But to speculate
is fun for all. How did Wm the Constable become the constable etc.
Its a grand tangle - enjoyed your posting
StNeel
Reedpcgen
Nigel
the Vct had a son Nigel who fought at Hastings but this son died before his
daddy hence never was the Vct. Wace says so. (yes I know some don't believe him
either)
>>
Statham says (p. 7) that "Nigel III" forfeited his honours and entered a
monastery ("the price he paid was the relinquishment of his honours and his
entry as a monk in the Abbey of Mount S. Michael."). One cannot still be a
vicomte after relinquishing the title unless it is freshly granted again or
restored.
On p. 8, Statham gives a list of men of the Cotentin who fought with William in
1066. It included "The corpse of Nigel, viscount of Saint-Sauveur" and "(2)
Viscount Nigel, lord of half Guernsey." This Statham places under the account
of Nigel IV, who is supposed to have died ca. 1072-3. Statham also places the
relation of Wace's description of the battle of Senlac under the account of
Nigel IV. Statham ALSO STATES: "Although VISCOUNT of the Cotentin, Nigel
could very seldom have exercised his office in person after 1066, for he seems
to have been continuously engaged in military operations against the Welsh."
So Statham states that the Nigel who fought at Hastings and was rewarded by
being made constable of Chester and granted lands for his services was
"viscount of the Cotentin." So if Statham was confused on this point.... (and
the point where he makes this Nigel Domesday lord of Salford....) [and the
point where Richard FitzNigel is left out of the list of the children of the
vicomte....] {and the point where Nigel's five brothers are given fictitious
Saxon names that do not appear in Domesday....} ....
pcr
P. S. Aren't you also stating that Statham was in error in denying the
illegitimacy of Robert FitzHugh in your latest post?
It is a grand tangle. And Statham's completely tangled in it. :-)
StNeel
wrote
>Statham ALSO STATES: "Although VISCOUNT of the Cotentin, Nigel
>could very seldom have exercised his office in person after 1066, for he
>seems
>to have been continuously engaged in military operations against the Welsh."
You are quite right - Statham states Nigel at Hasting is the Vct. I believe
that Statham is wrong here and his idea that the Nigel at Val-de-Dunes was
banished permantly in 1047 seems exceesive according to others. Wm the C
commonly restored a family's patrimonty after a 'rebellion' and others say that
Nigel d1092 was restored in 5 yrs. The idea that a 19 year old would go into
Mont St Micheals is not resonable but the idea late in life he would was
common. This is a point to be defined clearer. I have read Nigel was restored
but need to look it up. He appearently went to his relatives in Brittany. There
is a liile place on the border in Brittany called 'Le Vicomte'. Hmmm!
>It is a grand tangle. And Statham's completely tangled in it. :-)
Yes I agree. But I will say the Rev Statham is the most complete analysis of
the St Sauveurs I have seen with doc and ref etc. I don't feel 'the defender'
of his work but do feel its the best so far in one place. I await with
interest your promised postings on the Burgos and Robert FitzHugh. Also the
Keats- Rohans somewhat mysterious 'definitive' St. Sauveur availability. I
think it is going to take a fair while to get the 'definitive' St Sauveur
whatever that is (a consensus? of who? etc). Thats the fun of it :-)
StNeel