Roger de Mandeville

[taf]

Roger de Mandeville, of Ireland, was one of the so-called 'competitors' for the Scottish crown, but the narrative-pedigree accompanying his claim is absurd (claiming that King WIlliam the Lion was succeeded by his brother, and placing Roger 5 generations down from the king, through a daughter who did not marry until after William's death; this 5-gen descent is in stark contrast to another apparently-fraudulent petition at the same time, from someone claiming to be William's own son). Is anyone aware of any serious scholarly attempt to identify people in the pedigree? Have any of them (even Roger himself) been found in contemporary documentation outside of this claim? I have seen some Scottish historians address the line dismissively, but only based on its superficial and overarching flaws, not based on any kind of direct examination of the individuals in the claimed descent.

For those unfamiliar, the claim is as follows:

William the Lion had an illegitimate daughter
Aufrica escaped her murderous uncle and fled to Ireland, m. William de Say
William de Say
Aufrica de Say m. Robert de Wardone
Agatha de Wardone m. Mandeville
Roger de Mandeville

I was just looking through some Irish calendars and found several instances of Say and Mandeville appearing one after the other in the 13th century, but not with Wardone, and not anyone with these given names.

taf

[taf]

And a followup warning in case anyone tries to pursue this via Google. They substituted "de Warzone" for "de Wardone" every time I tweaked the parameters.

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

This genealogical chart says "the descents are as claimed" -- I suppose that means they're right [?].

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kingship_of_the_Scots_842_1292/U6MxEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=wardone+mandeville&pg=PA348&printsec=frontcover

[Johnny Brananas]

Oh, also says "an illegitimate birth is presumed" for some, including Aufrica.

[Johnny Brananas]

This 1640 book claims Sir Roger de Mandevile was a descendant of a "younger daughter of Alan Lord of Galloway" ...

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_lyfe_and_acts_of_the_most_famous_and/uj5oAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=roger+mandevile+ireland&pg=PP11&printsec=frontcover

[Johnny Brananas]

"Roger de Mandeville appears to have made his claim as descended from Helen , daughter of Alan of Galloway , and Margaret the daughter of David , Earl of Huntingdon."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_ancestry_of_queen_Victoria_and_of_pr/1qVITeWVIOAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22alan+of+galloway%22+mandeville&pg=PA411&printsec=frontcover

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:08:51 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> This genealogical chart says "the descents are as claimed" -- I suppose that means they're right [?].

No it just means that they haven't been 'corrected', that they are shown exactly as was claimed. I don't see that as any indication of accuracy.

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:11:06 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> Oh, also says "an illegitimate birth is presumed" for some, including Aufrica.

Yes, that is inherent in the claims, as William had no surviving legitimate descendants, hence the crisis.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 9:37:31 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> This 1640 book claims Sir Roger de Mandevile was a descendant of a "younger daughter of Alan Lord of Galloway" ...
>

Too recent to be viewed as reliable direct knowledge; too old to represent reliable scholarship.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> "Roger de Mandeville appears to have made his claim as descended from Helen , daughter of Alan of Galloway , and Margaret the daughter of David , Earl of Huntingdon."
>

Same as other. Perhaps derived from other.

Again, I am less interested in such generalities summarizing the claim. I am looking for any attempt to address the specifics of the descent, looking for Roger de Mandeville, Robert de Wardone, William de Say and the the two Aufricas in contemporary documentation, not just generalities about the descent. I have seen a biography of William the Lion that concludes that, unlike the other illegitimate children of William who he took care of with lands and other grants, neither the supposed children Henry Galithly nor Aufrica appear at all in any known contemporary document, and hence either their connection to the king, adn perhaps even their very existence in Aufrica's case, must be viewed as apocryphal. That is the type of analysis I am looking for for the other names in the claimed descent.

Or to put it another way: at what point back of Roger does the authentic genealogy end and the fabrication begin? Is it an authentic descent from an Aufrica, mother of William de Say who was turned into a royal scion, or is the Say connection itself dubious? For that matter, is Roger de Mandeville an authentic Irish Mandeville, or just a Lambert Simnel type of charlatan (perhaps by proxy, as he was apparently a child put forward by someone wanting to exercise royal control through him)? I am wondering if anyoen made a serious attempt at finding anyone more recent that the supposed bastard daughter Aufrica in contemporary records.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

It isn't, quite the contrary - on pp. 263-264 of the book
(https://books.google.com.au/books?id=U6MxEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA263 &
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=U6MxEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA264) Archibald
Duncan wrote:

"Roger de Mandeville was a minor, claiming through his mother, and
telling the extraordinary story that King William had a son and two
daughters whom before his death he handed over to his brother, Malcolm
king of Scotland, who had the son killed. Mandeville claimed to be fifth
in descent from one of the daughters, Aufrica, who married an Ulsterman,
William de Say, and had a son of the same name, father of another
Aufrica. The generations would place King William in the early twelfth
century, so his name may be an error for David. There is no other
evidence of the existence of Henry Galightly or of Aufrica de Say ...
The memorandum of 21 June 1292 lists the competitors on 16 June, and a
pleading of Comyn of that period has the same names; neither makes
mention of Earl Patrick, Soules, Galightly and Pinkeny, nor does the
minute of 7 November 1292, listing the Claimants after the finding
against Bruce. Mandeville is mentioned, with the explanation on 7
November that he was under age, and next day he, with Comyn, was ruled
out because they had not prosecuted their petitions."

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[Peter Stewart]

Here is an outlying 19th-century claim, that also can't be viewed as
reliable, implying a connection to a Dumfries family named
Mundville/Mundell:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=D7QHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA36.

[Peter Stewart]

I'm afraid you will be out of luck, as Archibald Duncan's 2002 book
quoted earlier has been influential on this question - see for instance,
Alice Taylor in 'Robert de Londres, Illegitimate Son of William, King of
Scots, c.1170–1225', *Haskins Society Journal* 19 (2007), p. 102:

"Another Competitor in 1291, Roger de Mandeville, claimed that his
great-grandmother had been Africa, daughter of William I. Roger stated
that Africa had been one of three children, two of them daughters, all
of whom were William's. The son and one daughter were murdered by
Malcolm, brother of 'King' William, but Africa was spared and escaped to
Ulster where she married William de Say. The story makes no
chronological sense: Malcolm, the eldest brother, was king of the Scots
between 1153 and 1165 and thus dead before William became king.
Professor Archie Duncan has accordingly drawn attention to the fabulous
nature of this claim and demonstrated that Africa does not appear in any
deed of the de Says. The relative abundance of evidence about William's
other illegitimate children suggests that the silence of contemporary
sources indicates that the existence of Henry and Africa was fabricated
by claimants to the kingship of the Scots over a century later."

and Susan Marshall in *Illegitimacy in Medieval Scotland, 1100-1500*,
The Scottish Historical Review Monograph, second series 3 (Woodbridge,
2021), p. 85:

"Two of the claimants, Patrick Galightly, a burgess of Perth, and Roger
de Mandeville, of an Anglo-French family settled in Ulster, claimed
descent from two otherwise unknown children of William the Lion - a son,
Henry, and a daughter, Affrica, respectively. Affrica was said to have
married into the de Say family, but is not mentioned in any surviving
records concerned with them; the number of generations between her and
her alleged descendant Roger de Mandeville makes it implausible that she
was born of William; and the Mandeville claim is accompanied by a
fantastical tale alleging that Affrica had had two siblings, also the
offspring of William the Lion, a brother having been murdered by his
uncle (impossibly, William's brother Mael Coluim IV), and a sister
having died subsequently. While William the Lion's illegitimate
son Robert of London frequently witnessed his father's charters, and he
and his illegitimate half-sisters Isabella, Margaret and Ada are all
found in other contemporary sources, no Henry or Affrica who were
children of William the Lion appear in any charter or other record.
Duncan and Taylor both contend that Affrica and Henry were invented by
the 1291 claimants to provide grounds for their claims."

Once rejecting the alleged paternity of Affrica, Scottish historiography
has little interest in anyone between her (assuming she even existed)
and the uncompetitive claimant Roger.

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> Once rejecting the alleged paternity of Affrica, Scottish historiography
> has little interest in anyone between her (assuming she even existed)
> and the uncompetitive claimant Roger.

Assuming he even existed.

[taf]

I note that Wikipedia, it its tyical fill-in-the-blanks style, describes this completely obscure Irish boy as:

"a prominent 13th-century noble"

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Well, someone would have looked beyond stupid if he didn't exist and yet
won the Scottish throne - I can't see why anyone would have an interest
in making up a phony candidate.

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 4:52:22 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 25-Jan-23 10:39 AM, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >
> >> Once rejecting the alleged paternity of Affrica, Scottish historiography
> >> has little interest in anyone between her (assuming she even existed)
> >> and the uncompetitive claimant Roger.
> >
> > Assuming he even existed.
> Well, someone would have looked beyond stupid if he didn't exist and yet
> won the Scottish throne - I can't see why anyone would have an interest
> in making up a phony candidate.

Take that up with the people who supported Lambert Simnel - I am not suggesting that there was no human involved, only that 'long lost child-heirs discovered across the sea' don't have to actually be who they are claimed to be. It is in this sense that 'Roger de Mandeville' need not have existed - any boy might do. Take a foundling, gIve him an old Anglo-Norman name and invent for him a respectable pedigree, and if by chance he hits the jackpot for you, then the invention becomes historical reality. Not too different than what seems to have happened with a couple of Norwegian kings.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Lambert Simnel pretended to be someone _he_ wasn't, rather different
from pretending to be someone _who_ wasn't.

Roger failed to appear when summoned - but so did John Comyn of
Badenoch, who definitely did exist. This perhaps indicates that the
petitioner for Roger knew his case was a non-starter and didn't want to
risk being punished if the imposture was found out.