William FitzNorman

[Frank Baynham]

Many thanks to Chris Phillips.

I have found William FitzWilliam De La Mare who seems to be Katharine
Keats-Rohan's Willelm
Filius Normanni, Domesday tenant in chief in Herefordshire and
Gloucestershire, and forester in the Forest of Dean.

I also found The de la Mare family website which has information re: his
ancestry and quotes an impressive number or references.

A RootsWeb discussion on the PRATHER-L Archives "Where angels fear to
tread..." Tues, 3 Feb 2004 also has some discussion on this topic.

From these sources it seems that:

William FitzNorman de la Mare born c.1048 married an unnamed daughter of
Hugh Lupus.

William's father was Norman FitzWilliam de la Mare born c.1025 married
unnamed daughter of Roger de Pitres, Viscount of Gloucester.

Norman's father Guillaume FitzWalter de la Mare born c.990 married Louisa de
Gozborn c. 995

Guillaume's father Walter FitzHerbert de la Mare born c.950 married Arabelle
de Belleme

Walter's father Thorbard av More born c 900 married his cousin Giselle born
c.925 who was the daughter of Rollo "The Viking" Rongvaldson.

Thorbard's father was Rollo's brother Thorir Rongvalsdosn c 862 - 939 and
their father was Rongvald Eisteinsson born c830.

This get's us into the well documented ancestry of Rollo The Viking.

I'm fairly confident that this is correct but would welcome comments from
the group.

Best regards,

Frank Baynham
Forest of Dean
Gloucestershire

----- Original Message -----
From: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 2:14 AM
Subject: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #241

[Chris Phillips]

Frank Baynham wrote:
> I have found William FitzWilliam De La Mare who seems to be Katharine
> Keats-Rohan's Willelm
> Filius Normanni, Domesday tenant in chief in Herefordshire and
> Gloucestershire, and forester in the Forest of Dean.
>
> I also found The de la Mare family website which has information re: his
> ancestry and quotes an impressive number or references.
>
> A RootsWeb discussion on the PRATHER-L Archives "Where angels fear to
> tread..." Tues, 3 Feb 2004 also has some discussion on this topic.

I'm afraid I'd be very sceptical of this descent unless it's borne out by
good contemporary evidence.

Unfortunately a lot of unreliable pedigrees are found in older published
works. Of the references given on the de la Mare website, Keats-Rohan's
books should be reliable, but "Domesday People" appears to mention only
William fitz Norman, and to give no details of parents or brothers.

Maitland, "Domesday Book and Beyond", is available online:
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/maitland/domesday
I can't see any relevant references there by searching for obvious keywords,
but you may be able to find something.

A couple of the references given on the website should be treated with a lot
of caution - "The Battle Abbey Roll" (the website says Burke, but is this
the Duchess of Cleveland's work of 1889?), and "The Falaise Rolls".

I'm sorry to be sceptical, but in this earlier period for which
documentation is so sparse, detailed pedigrees like this one ring alarm
bells, especially if they contain claims such as:
"The name Thorbard av Møre was changed to Herbert de la Mare, and he became
the first Lord of St. Opportune-la-Mare"

Chris Phillips

[Frank Baynham]

Many thanks for your comments Chris.
I've checked Maitland with no more luck than you. I'll just have to keep
digging.
Regards, Frank Baynham

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

> ______________________________

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Your confidence is misplaced, unfortunately. I would be very much
surprised if there is a shred of evidence for anything that appears in
this account, other than that William filius Norman was born about 1048.
Simply put, it looks to be invented, top to bottom, the intent being
to make a pseudo-names-the-same connection between de la Mare and the
Jarls of More and to link the family to the most prominent families in
England (Pitres/Gloucester, Montgomery, Goz/Chester and, of course, the
royal family).

taf

[johnhowe...@gmail.com]

Hi my paternal ancestry is in West Herefordshire, Ewyas Lacy area back to around 1700. DNA testing shows I share paternal ancestry with the Cecils ( Lord Burghley etc). Recent DNA test results appears to suggest the paternal line goes back to the West Coast of Norway. The exact dates need to be examined by experts but it looks like approximately 1,000 years before present give or take a few hundred years.
Cecil ancestral origins and my own and other testers are geographically close to Kilpeck. One possibility could be descent from the followers of De La Mare/ Kilpeck?
John Howells

[HWinnSadler]

The proposed descent bears all the signs of an internet fabrication.

[supe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 7:39:12 AM UTC-4, HWinnSadler wrote:
> The proposed descent bears all the signs of an internet fabrication.

I believe in the descent, it is not internet fabrication. Somehow, it was too difficult for the Genealogists of the day, to figure it out, and the fact that only one de la Mare became a Baron, making them less important that other lines, and the many spellings of the name, henceforth the de la Mare's are missing from their records. However one needs to search very old records in Latin and French to be able to prove it, of which I know neither. Some day, DNA will prove it.

I did see in a book, that I can't reference at this moment, of a William de la Mare going back to the St. Opportune area and being able to raise a lot of money, while his counterpart with a similar task did not raise as much money.

Pam

[HWinnSadler]

What do you mean by "it was too difficult for genealogists of the day to figure out"? Do you mean they couldn't track down the evidence? I'm also skeptical of DNA being able to prove this line, especially one from so far back. I think Chris and Todd have raised some excellent concerns regarding this lineage. There are very many false lineages that circulate on the internet, one must attempt to source every lineage. Unless backed up by good evidence, I would ignore everything on geni, wikitree, or any other internet family trees. I've seen blatant errors on rootsweb as well.

As a side note, the ancestry of Rollo is unknown. There are several problems with identifying him as Hrolfr, son of Ragnvald Eysteinsson.

[supe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-4, HWinnSadler wrote:
> What do you mean by "it was too difficult for genealogists of the day to figure out"?

The Battle Abbey Roll by the Duchess of Cleveland of 1889 mentions de la Mare’s and the Falaise Rolls has William de la Mare, Hugh de Mara on it (brothers); and Ralph ancestor to the Montalt’s, and Roger de la Mare. http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/library/Battle%20Roll/battle_abbey_roll2/battle_abbey_roll2.html#subchap125

This references “The unravelling of their respective pedigrees would be a task over which a conscientious genealogist might grow grey” and that is why I said "it was too difficult for genealogists of the day to figure out".

I am ignoring everything on geni, wikitree and other internet family trees, rootsweb included.

I’ve been told that Y-DNA testing goes back to medieval times, on another post on this website. And I am well aware of the problems of identifying Rolo as Hrolfr s/o Ragnvald Eysteinsson.


Why does Doomsday People only mention William fitz Norman, and not his brother Hugh de Mara, or any other brothers. Obviously he had a father called Norman.
This Domesday Book & Beyond referenced in this thread does not reference any “Mare”s or “Norman” but discusses in great detail the feudal system, so it does not apply.

Why is More/Mara/Mare so different at a time when they are just starting to use surnames? And it would be different in Norse, the language of the Normans, French, and Latin. Mara is the Latin version and Mare is the French version. It is pronounced Marr. Also Montalt, Monte Alto, Mohaut is spelled many different ways as well. How do you know for sure that it does not refer to More, Norway.
From what I understand the doomsday tenant of Norman Venator – it is not known who this refers to.

I believe it was Round that thought that the de la Mare’s came from Italy??? Nonsense.

I tried to find books that reference a time before The Battle of Hastings, but they must be in French & Latin because I couldn’t find anything I could understand. Although all the other lines seem to have genealogical information going that far back, not sure where they got it, although Hugh le Goz “Lupus” line seem to be in contention, yes, because that’s where de la Mare fits in.

So where is the information of the genealogy of Norman de la Mare?

Pam
researching de la Mare and still trying

[taf]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-7, supe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-4, HWinnSadler wrote:
> > What do you mean by "it was too difficult for genealogists of the day
> > to figure out"?
>
> The Battle Abbey Roll by the Duchess of Cleveland of 1889 mentions de
> la Mare’s and the Falaise Rolls has William de la Mare, Hugh de Mara
> on it (brothers); and Ralph ancestor to the Montalt’s, and Roger de la
> Mare. http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/library/Battle%20Roll/battle_abbey_roll2/battle_abbey_roll2.html#subchap125
>
> This references “The unravelling of their respective pedigrees would be
> a task over which a conscientious genealogist might grow grey” and that
> is why I said "it was too difficult for genealogists of the day to figure
> out".

There is a right way and a wrong way to use the Duchess of Cleveland's Battle Abbey Roll. The right way is to douse it with gasoline, light it on fire, then when it has burned, stomp the ashes into a powder and allow the wind to blow them away. The wrong way is to actually read it. The Duchess of Cleveland lacked any skills of the critical genealogist, and so what she could or could not figure out really is no reflection of the abilities of the broader field. Part of the reason for this was an inability/unwillingness to recognize the large amount of fabrication in the earliest supposed generations of pedigree of Anglo-Norman families - she assumed there was a truth there that she just couldn't fathom, rather than a quagmire of contradictory inventions.

> I’ve been told that Y-DNA testing goes back to medieval times, on another
> post on this website.

It can, but only in very specific circumstances, and even then it is usually being over-interpreted. It is unlikely these circumstances will ever apply to these claimed descents from Rollo.

> Why does Doomsday People only mention William fitz Norman, and not his
> brother Hugh de Mara, or any other brothers. Obviously he had a father
> called Norman.

There are three possible answers to this that I can think of, not mutually exclusive: 1) the book only details those who appear in Domesday Book - do you know Hugh appears there?; 2) perhaps she didn't consider the linkage between William Fitz Norman and Hugh de Mara to be historically sound; 3) maybe he is in the book, just under a different name form that makes him hard to identify.

> Why is More/Mara/Mare so different at a time when they are just starting

> to use surnames? . . . . How do you know for sure that it does not refer
> to More, Norway.

Which time is that? The connection to the jarls of More was long before surnames were used - there is no continuity there. Asking why it couldn't be the same word is really looking at it backwards - why should it be, given all of the similar sounding words in Indo-European languages, from moor to mire to mare, . . . . Surnames among the Anglo-Normans were largely an innovation of the 11th century. There isn't a single one that reflects continuity with the Scandinavia of Rollo (if he even came from Scandinavia).

> I believe it was Round that thought that the de la Mare’s came from Italy???
> Nonsense.

I agree with you about it being nonsense, but are you sure it was Round? He usually sniffed that king of thing out.

> I tried to find books that reference a time before The Battle of Hastings,
> but they must be in French & Latin because I couldn’t find anything I could
> understand.

Well, there's 'Predatory Kinship', for example, but it is not going to cover the family that interests you. I don't think there has been any attempt at prosopography in pre-Conquest Normandy, in any language, unless you want to count Loyd's 'The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families'.

> Although all the other lines seem to have genealogical information going
> that far back, not sure where they got it, although Hugh le Goz “Lupus”
> line seem to be in contention, yes, because that’s where de la Mare fits
> in.

Don't think we are singling out your line - the other lines that trace to Rollo's supposed nephews are likewise of dubious authenticity. Much of what you find is based on genealogical compilations from a less critical era, when accuracy took a back seat to 'telling a good story' as the criteria for a genealogical lineage.

> So where is the information of the genealogy of Norman de la Mare?

I wouldn't assume there is any. He may just appear in charters as a guy named Norman filius __(whatever his father's name was)__, and thus be unrecognizable as the specific Norman that interests you.

taf