C.P. Addition: Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex, and his 2nd wife, Aveline de Clare

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 122-125 (sub Essex) includes an account of
the well known medieval figure, Sir Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex
(died 1213). The following information is given regarding Earl
Geoffrey's second marriage and death:

"He married (2ndly, before 29 May 1205, Aveline, widow of William de
Munchanesy, of Swanscombe, Kent, Winfarthing and Gooderstone, Norfolk,
etc. (who died shortly before 7 May 1204), and daughter of Roger (de
Clare), Earl of Clare, or of Hertford, by Maud, daughter and heiress
of James de Saint Hilaire, of Dalling, Great and Little Carbrooke,
Norfolk, etc. He died 14 Oct. 1213, and was buried in Shouldham
Priory, which he had founded before 15 June 1198." END OF QUOTE.

Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 437 (sub Fitzjohn) includes a chart which
shows that Sir Geoffrey Fitz Peter and his wife, Aveline de Clare, had
three children in all, namely a son, John Fitz Geoffrey, and two
daughters, Cecily (wife of Savary de Bohun) and Hawise (wife of
Reynold de Mohun).

However, there were actually five children in all. Besides the three
children named by Complete Peerage in the FitzJohn account, Earl
Geoffrey and his wife, Aveline, had two additional daughters, namely
Maud Fitz Geoffrey (wife successively of Henry d'Oilly [died 1232], of
Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, King’s Constable, and William de Cantelowe,
Knt. [died 1251], of Eaton Bray, Bedfordshire, Steward of the Royal
Household) and _____ (wife of William de la Rochelle [died 1227]).

What is strangely hidden from our view by Complete Peerage is the fact
that Geoffrey Fitz Peter was rather advanced in years at the time of
his 2nd marriage to Aveline de Clare and at his death eight years
later in 1213. Complete Peerage commences Geoffrey Fitz Peter's
career in 1185. However, I find that Geoffrey first surfaces decades
earlier in the period, 1157–66, when he witnessed an exchange of land
between Roger de Tichborne and the Bishop of Winchester [see Franklin,
English Episcopal Acta 8 (1993): 78–79]. In the subsequent survey of
1166, Geoffrey Fitz Peter held various lands of mesne lords: of Girard
Giffard a knight's fee at Cherhill in Wiltshire, and, together with
Hugh de Diva, another knight's fee of the countess of Clare, and a
third of a knight's fee with the wife of Adam son of John son of Guy,
held of Walter of Beck.

These facts make it obvious that Earl Geoffrey was at least at least
68 years of age at his death, and probably even older. As such, I
find it questionable whether or not a man so advanced in years could
have produced five children in his marriage to Aveline de Clare which
last approximately eight years.

I've suspected for some time that two of the daughters that Earl
Geoffrey had by Aveline de Clare were the same person. If so, that
would cut down the number of children he had by Aveline from five to
four children. That would make sense. But which daughter is
duplicated?

I find that Earl Geoffrey had one unnamed daughter who was the wife of
William de la Rochelle (or de la Rokele), of South Ockenham, Essex,
Market Lavington, Wiltshire, etc. In 1221 William de la Rochelle sued
Peter de la Mare regarding the manor of Lavington, Essex, together
with the advowson of the church. The dispute was settled in 1225 when
a partition was made between them. William de la Rochelle died
shortly before 7 April 1227 [References: C.P.R. 1225–1232 (1903): 116–
117. C.P.R. 1232–1247 (1906): 84. C.R.R. 10 (1949): 108. VCH
Wiltshire 10 (1975): 82–106. VCH Essex 7 (1978): 118]. The
subsequent history of William de la Rochelle's wife is unknown.

Evidence for the marriage of William de la Rochelle and a daughter of
Earl Geoffrey is found in an obscure Irish record of their son,
Richard de la Rochelle, published in Orpen, Ireland under the Normans
1216–1333, 3 (1920): 232. In this record, Richard de la Rochelle
refers to John Fitz Geoffrey as his uncle [avunculus]:

“In a quit-claim to the advowson of the church of Kenles in Fothered,
Richard de la Rochelle calls John Fitz Geoffrey his avunculus: MS.
Kilkenny Castle, dated 1264.” END OF QUOTE.

The John Fitz Geoffrey named in this record is obviously the Justiciar
of Ireland, which man was the son of Earl Geoffrey Fitz Peter and his
wife, Aveline de Clare. The careers of John Fitz Geoffrey and his
nephew, Richard de la Rochelle, himself later Justiciar of Ireland,
cross paths several times in contemporary records, both in England and
Ireland.

If Earl Geoffrey's daughter who married William de la Rochelle
survived to marry again, the question arises which of his other known
daughters would fit to be the same person as this daughter. That's a
difficult question. For reasons which I won't go into now, I believe
we can rule out Cecily and Maud. That leaves us Hawise Fitz Geoffrey
who was the wife of Sir Reynold de Mohun.

We know for certain that William de la Rochelle died shortly before 7
April 1227. In the very same year I find that Hawise daughter of
Geoffrey Fitz Peter was pardoned 8 Nov. 1227 for a debt of 20s. for
which she was amerced [see Cal. Close Rolls, 1227–1231 (1902): 3].
Hawise was presumably a widow in Nov. 1227, for she would hardly have
occured in records if she was a young unmarried woman, and she
wouldn't have occurred without a husband unless she was a widow. This
suggests that Hawise Fitz Geoffrey had a hitherto unknown first
marriage before her known marriage to Sir Reynold de Mohun.

However, beyond this one solitary record, I've found no other
indication that the wife of William de la Rochelle is the same person
as Hawise Fitz Geoffrey, wife of Sir Reynold de Mohun.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic. Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who was justiciar in Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire. However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for example from the Gascon Rolls, that this Richard did take over in Market Lavington, but when and on what basis? Could he be a cousin for example?

The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not give a source.

[Peter Stewart]

I'm not sure how the paternity of Richard de Rokele is a "prior step in
the logic" for the post from Douglas Richardson about descendants of
Geoffrey FitzPeter rather than a new topic about ancestry in a different
family - but in any case I don't think the parentage of Edward I's
friend Richard the justiciar in Ireland is known from a medieval source
rather than just guessed or deduced, including by Morant.

You may find some information about Rokele connections in a biography of
William Langland, author of Piers Plowman, whose father is believed to
have been Eustace de Rokele.

Peter Stewart


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

[Peter Stewart]

A useful starting point might be Robert Adams, 'Langland and the Rokele
Family: The Gentry Background to Piers Plowman' (Four Courts Press,
Dublin, 2013). I haven't seen this, but it seems likely that Adams has
attempted to trace Richard de Rokele's 12th/13th century connections.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks Peter. "Prior step" was indeed the wrong term. It is just a point being taken as proven within the original summary. I could not yet find a good rationale for. It does indeed look like this is a case where Morant might be the basis for a lot of later authors, but that is not to say it can't be worked out. If you come at it from the history of Market Lavington it looks different though, as if Richard might be the heir of William there. I did find a record in the Gascon rolls which makes it clear that Richard was the same person in South Okendon and Market Lavington.

[Peter Stewart]

Have you followed up the citations given in VCH Essex vol. 7 p. 118?
(here: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp117-126):

"By 1187 William Doo (D'Ou) possessed the manor. The witnessing clauses
of certain grants to Brook Street hospital, South Weald, in 1163 × 1187
and 1275, with other evidence, suggest that in the 12th century there
existed a family, holding the manors of South Ockendon and Willingdale
Doe (Essex) and (Market) Lavington (Wilts.), for whom the names of Ou
and Rochelle were interchangeable. (fn. 33: Reg. Sudbury (Cant. & York
Soc.), i. 210–11; Cart. Mon. Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria
(Roxburghe Club) i. 4; E.A.T. N.S. viii. 375; Feet of F. Essex, i.
272–3; Reg. Regum Anglo-Norm. iii, p. 102; Cur. Reg. R. x. 108; E.R.O.,
T/P 195/2, p. 6; V.C.H. Wilts, x. 87.) Godfrey de la Rochelle, who lived
under Henry I, was apparently succeeded by his daughter Agnes, she by
her son Richard de la Rochelle, who died before 1195, and he by his son
William de la Rochelle. (fn. 34: Cur. Reg. R. x. 108. William was
already paying scutage for the Lavington manor in 1194–5: Red Bk. Exch.
(Rolls Ser.), i. 89.) William had died by 1198. (fn. 35: Pipe R. 1198
(P.R.S. N.S. ix), 138.) His heir, also named William de la Rochelle,
succeeded as a minor and died c. 1226. (fn. 36: Cur. Reg. R. xi. 469;
Bk. of Fees, ii. 1347, 1349.) (Sir) Richard de la Rochelle, heir of the
last-named William, was still a minor in 1234, but was married a decade
later, and by 1255 had entered on an Irish career, first as deputy to
the Justiciar of Ireland, and from 1261 as Justiciar himself. (fn. 37:
Close R. 1231–4, 373; 1242–7, 207; 1254–6, 158–9; 1261–4, 11.)"

If William (died ca 1226) was a minor when he succeeded by 1198 and his
heir Richard was still a minor in 1234 it is apparent that these two
belonged to different, and probably successive, generations. Collateral
inheritance does not usually work out that way, as inheritance by a
cousin is more common than by a cousin once (or more than once) removed.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks again Peter. Yes I've followed up some of the leads in that entry and also other such summaries. From what I had seen so far the heir to William in Lavington is never named during his minority. I looked at Close Rolls, e.g. 1234 https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig02grea/page/373 and https://archive.org/details/closerollsofrei03grea/page/22

I just looked at another Close Roll, for 1343 and I am presuming this does confirm that the heir's name was Richard and that by this time he was no longer a minor. Am I right to read it that way? https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig05grea/page/15/

Was William ever associated with South Okendon in any primary record? I've just looked at one record I had not checked and found evidence that William was in Essex. Book of Fees II, p. 1347 shows his wife in Chafford hundred, which I think contains South Okendon. Johanna que fuit uxor Willelmi de la Rokel' est de donacione domini regis. Et est maritanda, et terra sua de dote valet xxx.l. On p. 1349 under Dunemawe, there he is again: Heres Willelmi de la Rokeles est in custodia domini regis, et Philippus de Albaniaco habet custodiam per dominum regem, et terra do Wllinghal' valet x.l. I understand those entries to be from 1227. So that is promising.

Morant seemed quite confident in giving an exact death in 1222 for a Richard, supposedly the father of the justiciary of Ireland with the same name who held both manors. So Occam's razor gives a clear answer, but it would mean Morant's exact death date was a fantasy. I think it would be best if we could exclude the possibility that Richard did not become heir to a cousin, for example after the young heir died. If we take Morant seriously there may have been two branches of Rokeles around 1222. FWIW Morant's information is reproduced in some later publications: http://esah160.blogspot.com/2015/01/esah-archives-slib920.html
https://books.google.be/books?id=s1THDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA215

Can anyone help me identify "Cur. Reg. R. xi. 469"? Even better, does anyone happen to have access to it?

[Peter Stewart]

This is volume 11 (1955) of *Curia regis rolls preserved in the Public
Record Office*, covering 7-9 Henry III. I don't have a copy.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks Peter that makes sense. Because of my habit of looking for these things on the internet I suppose I was not thinking of Curia Regis Rolls after John! BTW, if anyone is interested, Morant gives no clear citation for his account but in the sentence before it he mentions the registry of the priory of Hatfield Peverel. This is also something I don't have quick access to. For now I am thinking he somehow mixed up the name of Richard's father. If anyone can add anything to the story that would be great.

Obviously, going back to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting to identify the connection with Geoffrey fitz Peter. I think over the years this list has gotten more sensitive about the original method in this thread whereby avunculus just becomes "uncle". Concerning that point I suppose it is interesting that one of the Close Roll references seems to name William widow.

[Peter Stewart]

On 20-Aug-22 3:06 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Obviously, going back to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting to identify the connection with Geoffrey fitz Peter. I think over the years this list has gotten more sensitive about the original method in this thread whereby avunculus just becomes "uncle". Concerning that point I suppose it is interesting that one of the Close Roll references seems to name William widow.

I don't understand exactly what you are getting at regarding the 'method
.. whereby avunculus just becomes "uncle"'. The word in classical Latin
meant a mother's brother, but in medieval usage this was extended to a
father's brother (more correctly "patruus"), that can hardly be the
understanding in this case.

Apart from the idiomatic "oncle à la mode de Bretagne", where avunculus
could also be used for a first cousin of either parent, that is not at
all indicated here as far as I can see, what else do you have in mind?

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Well, trying to exclude that it meant patruus is one aspect, but you might be right that other facts of the case make it unlikely. I basically just wanted to say that we have to be careful to exclude the possibility of the word being used in a more flexible way. By the way, could it never mean "great uncle"?

[Peter Stewart]

There is surely no word that could _never_ be misused, and no
relationship term that could not be inaccurately applied.

The proper usuage for great-uncle was, not surprisingly, 'avunculus
magnus', for great-grand-uncle 'proavunculus', and for
great-great-grand-uncle abavunculus'.

These were set out in a matrix by St Ivo of Chartres in his *Decreta*,
and in other common reference works, derived from Isidore of Seville's
etymologies.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Yes but some "wrong" usages were more common than others? (For example avunculus for patruus is relatively common.)

[Peter Stewart]

Using avunculus for a paternal uncle was very common and not wrong - the
word is a diminutive of avus, grandfather, so that it is not inherently
applicable only to a maternal uncle although as noted before that is how
it was used in classical Latin - obviating the need for a more direct
analogue to patruus, such as the non-existent "matruus".

There is no indication that Geoffrey fitzPeter could have been a
paternal rather than maternal uncle to Richard de la Rokele.

As for extended usages that were less common, the main one of concern in
this forum is nepos for a relative who was not either a grandson or a
nephew. But this is hardly frequent enough to be a necessary
consideration in all cases, and some discussions here in the past have
been unduly anxious about it.

[Peter Stewart]

On 21-Aug-22 9:22 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> As for extended usages that were less common, the main one of concern in
> this forum is nepos for a relative who was not either a grandson or a
> nephew. But this is hardly frequent enough to be a necessary
> consideration in all cases, and some discussions here in the past have
> been unduly anxious about it.

An odder extension of meaning that could possibly lead to error is the
occasional use of 'mater' (mother) for a wet-nurse - for instance, we
know from his own charter dated September 1205 that the parents of
Guillaume II Talvas, count of Ponthieu, were his predecessor Jean I and
the latter's third wife Beatrix ("ego Willelmus, comes Pontivi et
Moustreoli ... Johannes, pater meus, et Beatrix, mater mea"). However,
in a charter dated 2 June 1194 Guillaume had described a woman named
Oda, last in a list of family retainers, as 'my mother' ("Et sciendum
est quod extra communiam pono liberum et quietum Johannem hostiarium, et
Petrum falconarium, et Dodelinum cimentarium, et Robertum ballulium ...
et Odam, matrem meam"). Of course the context here makes it obvious that
Oda was a servant, but that may not always happen.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks once more. For anyone following this, at least one of the most relevant legal cases is summarised in Wrottesley: https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/260/mode/2up Unfortunately this does not get us to the Irish jusiticiar Richard.

However, I suppose there is no objection to my interpretation of the 1343 Close Roll https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig05grea/page/15/ as a missing link which seems to make it clear that Richard was the heir of William who had been under the wardship of Philip de Albiniaco for example in 1234 https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig02grea/page/373 and https://archive.org/details/closerollsofrei03grea/page/22

There also seems to be no objection to my proposal that the widow of William d. 1227 was named Joanna, which means she can not have been Hawise as proposed at the beginning of this old thread. Unfortunately I don't think this means we can say that Joanna was the mother of Richard and the daughter of Geoffrey fitz Peter, it only means we can say that if Richard's mother was a daughter of Geoffrey fitz Peter then she was not one of the two named in CP, who both lived past 1227.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

That should of course be 1243 not 1343

[Peter Stewart]

For the purposes of the issue raised in this thread you are
under-interpreting the second of these, which clearly states that
Philip's ward Richard was the SON and heir of William ("manerium de
Lavinton' fuerit in manu sua cum filio et herede Willelmi").

[lancast...@gmail.com]

But that record does not name the heir? I was trying to exclude the possibility that the heir died as a minor and ended up being replaced by a cousin. That is why the interpretation of the 1243 record seemed important. If I understand it correctly Philip de Albiniaco was allowed to grant the Soca Britonis to William de Cheney, but it does not say why. It just mentions that he will hold it as Richard once did? The Testa de Nevill just says Philip had the right to do this from the king: https://archive.org/details/liberfeodorumboo01grea/page/618/ I have just noticed that a patent roll entry also says Richard restored this land to William de Cheney in 1242. https://archive.org/details/patentrollsreig01lytegoog/page/812/ It all seems clear that this land had been de la Rokele land, but I'm not sure this allows us to say that Richard can't be the heir of the heir.

On the other hand it does seem so far that the un-named minor is referred to until 1234 and then in 1235/6 references seem to begin to Richard including one which is clearly in Market Lavington, which the de la Rokeke family shared with the de la Mare family https://archive.org/details/liberfeodorumboo01grea/page/422/mode/2up So there is no big gap which we would expect if the minor (and his siblings) died. Perhaps that is good enough evidence to work with.

The Patent Rolls say that Philip's wardship was expected to end in the summer of 1236. https://archive.org/details/patentrollsreig01lytegoog/page/106/mode/2up

By the way, this might be the widow of William, still unmarried in 1233. Fine Rolls. 17/109 (04 February 1233)
[No date]. For Joan de la Rokele . Joan de la Rokele gives the king two palfreys so that she may marry herself to all but an enemy of the king, or to live without a husband if she will wish. [in the Roll, S’]
Also in Patent Rolls: https://archive.org/details/patentrollsreig01lytegoog/page/10/mode/2up

FWIW the king did address Richard the son of William de Rokelle in 1230 https://archive.org/details/patentrollsreig03lytegoog/page/828/mode/2up . The heir of William who died 1227 would have been a minor, but some of the people addressed were also clearly minors, so this reference seems to support the narrative as well.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Here is another question for the list going back to the original proposal Douglas Richardson made...

Presuming it is more or less certain that Richard de la Rokele was the son of a sister of John fitz Geoffrey, doesn't this still mean that he could be a son of a half sister of John. So he could be grandson of William de Munchensy (the other husband of his mother) or Beatrice de Say (the other wife of his father)? As he had a lot of half-siblings, this is not just a theoretical question.

It is late in the day, so it is quite possible I've missed something obvious. Can anyone help me see it?

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that we must have more proof, just wanting to register what level of proof we have.

Best Regards
Andrew

[Peter Stewart]

Whichever way you cut it, the daughter of a higher-status family
evidently married the father of Richard de la Rokele. It is far more
likely that this was the most substantial landholder in the Rokele
family and not a junior collateral of his. William was apparently the
most substantial Rokele in the generation before Richard the Irish
justiciar.

Furthermore, Occam's razor may be useful here: by any scenario other
than that Richard was the son and heir of William (named after the
latter's father) under the wardship of Philip d'Aubigny, you would need
to introduce an unrecorded cousin of that unnamed son and heir who was
also fortuitously under the wardship of Philip at the same time or of
someone else who never occurs in that capacity during his minority. And
the sole basis for this complicated inheritance is not that Richard is
ever called the heir of William's heir in a medieval document but simply
that a local antiquarian of the 18th century implied as much - without
citing any authority - in saying he was the son of Richard rather than
of William. I would not give Morant anywhere near that much credit, or
VCH Essex that much comparative discredit, without a firmer basis than a
possible misnaming or misidentification.

Apart from the Irish justiciar, the other men named Richard de la Rokele
in the late-12th and early- to mid- 13th century found by Robert Adams
in his study of the family mentioned upthread were tenants in Norfolk at
Appleton, Watton, Trowse, Colkirk and Gateley. Did Morant try to link
any of these to the family of William de la Rokele in Wiltshire and
Essex, or did he find yet another Richard who has since disappeared?

[lancast...@gmail.com]

I agree.

No Morant gave no citation, but he did give an exact death date. Perhaps he just wrote the wrong name, using the son's name, just to give an example of how having an exact document could still easily lead to a basic problem.

Unfortunately I have not found a way to read the Adams book yet, but I can see there were certainly several Rokele familys around.

Just to register a point about my previous reasoning: I did not find any direct reference to Richard de Rokele ever having been a ward to Philip. The indirect reference was something I only spotted when writing the previous post. It think that makes a difference, together with the Patent Roll of 1230 which seems to name the heir of William while he was a minor, and indeed the argument you now add concerning the apparent status of Richard's mother. (There might have been other important Rokele families around in areas like Kent but Richard seems to really only be heir to William's family. So there is no sign he would have been important if he was not heir to William.)

[Peter Stewart]

Robert Adams published a summary of his research in the year after his
book appeared, listing all the Rokeles he had found from the 11th
century to the 15th, which you may find easier to get hold of: 'The
Rokeles: an index for a "Langland" family history' in *The Cambridge
Companion to Piers Plowman* (2014). As posted before, he found no other
Richards who were equal in status to William de la Rokele and his son
and heir, as the others were sub-tenants in Norfolk.

However, William's grandfather (not father as I mistakenly posted
before) was also named Richard and it may be that Morant confused the
names of individuals across generations and ascribed the name of the
justiciar's great-grandfather as that of his father, perhaps assuming
that Richards and Williams alternated in succession. A precise date of
death is not very convincing when evidently no-one else has found a
record of this since Morant.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks Peter. I was able to access that.

Concerning Morant, I'm making a working assumption that the same death date being used in this ESAH list is simply because was taken from Morant when someone made the list up http://esah160.blogspot.com/2015/01/esah-archives-slib920.html

[lancast...@gmail.com]

For anyone further interested in the Rokele / Piers Plowman connection, I found a 2018 article by Andrew Galloway. It attempts to build further upon the work by Roberts. https://www.academia.edu/39775611/

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 7:05:01 PM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> For anyone further interested in the Rokele / Piers Plowman connection, I found a 2018 article by Andrew Galloway. It attempts to build further upon the work by Roberts. https://www.academia.edu/39775611/

Dear list

I don't think I've seen anyone mention this before but apparently the wife of Richard de Rokele, justiciar of Ireland, was Mathilde de Columbers. She was also mother of Richard's brother William. Mathilde is also the name of Richard's widow, and so probably there was only one wife.

See Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/cartulariummonasteriisanctijohannisb1/page/n1012 p.384ff

As far as I can see, the grantor Philip must be the last (5th) in that line of Philips and the grant must have been made in the short period between the death of Richard de Rokele (in 1276) and Philip (in 1277). He refers to the grant of his father made at the marriage of Mathilde de Columbers and I presume this means Philip the grandfather (number 3 in the line) was father of Mathilde. If anyone sees any error, please say so,

[Peter Stewart]

Obviously a man's wife cannot be the mother of his own brother - from
this evidence of these charters Richard de la Rokele's wife Matilda de
Columbers was the mother of his sons William and (the latter's brother)
Philip.

[Peter Stewart]

On 23-Aug-22 2:28 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

> Concerning Morant, I'm making a working assumption that the same death date being used in this ESAH list is simply because was taken from Morant when someone made the list up http://esah160.blogspot.com/2015/01/esah-archives-slib920.html

Very probably - it is highly unusual enough to have a precise date of
death for anyone at this socio-economic level in the early 13th century,
much less to be told it by an 18th-century antiquarian without citing a
source or showing that a Richard de la Rokele held South Ockendon until
December 1222. Have you tried to verify this purported tenancy period
for a Richard at or before Michaelmas 1222 in the pipe rolls (as
presumably was done for VCH Essex without producing the same result as
Morant had represented)?

[lancast...@gmail.com]

My apologies for the typo. Yes Mathilde was mother to Philip and William de Rokele. William happens to be discussed more by Adams and was apparently also involved in Irish administration. I still feel a little uncertain about which Philip de Columbers is the father, because despite my reasoning concerning the timing, a few charters later there is one by a Philip specifically being referred to as the "third", with the "fourth" one as a witness. Could these grants have been made while Richard and Mathilde were still alive?

[lancast...@gmail.com]

I have not checked Pipe Rolls from this period as these are not so easy to access, but yes they will surely have played a role in the various interpretations. If anyone has access to those it might be interesting to check. In any case records in the Fine Rolls, Close Rolls and Patent Rolls confirm pretty well that there was a William who died in 1222 and that his heir was to be under the wardship of Philip de Albiniaco. In several entries over the years various lands which are associated with this wardship are also confirmed (although I am not sure Okendon is one of them, which would be the one Morant is focussed on). I see nothing about Richard anywhere outside of Morant and sources probably derived from him.

[Peter Stewart]

Philip III de Columbers was the father of Richard de la Rokele's wife
Matilda - Philip III inherited by 1215 and died in 1262, while Richard
de la Rokele was married to Matilda by 1245 (their elder son Philip was
aged 30 or more in December 1276). The man calling himself "ego
Philippus de Columbariis tertius" was evidently the grandson of Philip
III, whom the monks of Colchester counted for some reason on a different
basis from the numbering V otherwise ascribed to him.

[Peter Stewart]

This documents on pp 389 and 390 were probably paraphrased by the
Colchester cartularist from originals that did not attribute ordinal
numbering to Philip de Columbers and his namesake son - the first of
these has "ego Philippus de Columbariis tertius ... Philippo filio meo"
while the second has "ego Philippus de Columbariis tertius ... Philippo
de Columbariis quarto". It would be extremely unusual for such
qualifications to be given in private charters.

The frame of reference is evidently not across the whole history of
Philips in the Columbers family: from a genealogical perspective Philip
I lived in the 12th century, Philip II died by 1215. But from a
transactional frame of reference the first Philip involved in the
Beningham and Akolt business was the latter's son Philip III, who leased
his lands in those towns to Colchester abbey for fifteen years from 18
October 1252 after having given the subtenancy as maritagium of his
daughter Matilda to Richard de la Rokele the Irish justiciar by 1244.

The series of charters beginning on p 384 refers to the last as the act
of Philip (V)'s grandfather, Philip (III), so that for the cartularist's
purpose of transactional clarity the latter became simply Philip
"primus". Then on p. 385 Philip III/I's son Philip IV/II (the
cartularist's implicit "secundus") repeated the grant to his nephew
Philip de la Rokele as subtenant of the latter's nephew William de la
Rokele, son of the Irish justiciar's younger son William (and witnessed
by the younger William's brother Richard, whose holding is released in
the charter of Philip de la Rokele on p. 387). The handwritten marginal
notation on p. 387 is wrong in dating this charter of Philip de la
Rokele to ca 1252 - the reference is instead to the lease of Beningham
and Akolt by Philip (III/I) de Columbars, which was confirmed by Henry
III on 11 October 1252.